“[The debates] offer that window into what that candidate
stands for. That’s very important. It helps the media. It helps us as
voters be able to vet a candidate so that we’re not stuck with someone
like we’re stuck with now in the White House – someone who hasn’t been
vetted – Barack Obama….But, these debates with the 10-second soundbites
that we’re supposed to be able to describe what our foreign policy is or
perhaps what the Palin Doctrine would be in a 10-second soundbite –
that doesn’t do a whole lot of people a whole lot of good.”

-Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
September 29, 2011, Freedom Watch

“The cream of the crop has not risen yet in this very fluid primary process…”

-Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
November 15, 2011, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren

“I think today, my personal endorsement probably doesn’t
amount to a hill of beans – today at this point in the race. Maybe, as
the weeks progress, it would become a little more significant…”

-Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin,
December 1, 2011, Hannity

“I am not ready to make an endorsement. This is a long process. Iowa is not the end. It is the beginning.”

-Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin,
December 7, 2011, Hannity

The Clock

One of the best vetting tools in any contested primary is simple
passage of time. With this method, you use your eyes, ears, and the
clock to observe how a candidate performs in debates, fund-raisers,
rallies, and unscripted interviews. When Gov. Palin says it is too early
for her endorsement and the “cream has not risen to the top,” she is
using the clock. You can use the clock to determine if you even want to
bother vetting a candidate’s voting and financial records, or you can
vet records and use the clock simultaneously.

Many aspects of a candidate’s suitability for the office being sought
are simply not going to be found by vetting records. A person’s
character, temperament, leadership methodology, impressions of
colleagues who have worked with a candidate, and statements that
indicate readiness or lack thereof reveal themselves only over an
extended period of time.

Voters expect candidates for any office to give a straight answer to a
question without hemming, hawing, “stopping to think,” double-talking,
telling different versions of the same story, rationalizing,
back-pedaling, or lying. While gaffes can be distracting trivialities,
they can be fatal to a campaign. History is replete with examples of
fatal gaffes from failed campaigns of both parties. In this primary
cycle, two candidates destroyed their own respective commanding leads,
because their gaffes telegraphed both an inability to give a straight
answer and rank lack of knowledge of various issues. One of the two
candidates has already left the race. His numbers were already in the
single digits when he was accused of having an affair, which allegedly
ended within the past year. The other candidate is polling in the single
digits.

Though character matters, most voters are more concerned with a
candidate’s ability to discharge the duties of office. In a scientific Fox News Poll
which sampled 911 likely voters on Gingrich, Romney and Obama, 64% of
the sample responded that they do not consider prior adultery a
disqualifying factor. See question 41 on the 14th and final page of the poll.
In my observation, when “personal pursuits” affect the job, reveal
blatant hypocrisy, result in egregiously bad decisions or outrageous
behaviors, voters tend to be far less forgiving. In my opinion, voters
tend to be far less forgiving if the behavior is more recent.

If an elected representative or candidate’s non-official pursuits involve or reveal illegal activity, it’s generally game over.

A Time and a Place…

Voters who live in an early state such as Iowa with its caucuses less
than a month away should now be very far along in their vetting process
and close to choosing a candidate. With later states, half or more of
the candidates will already have been winnowed out and long forgotten.
Voters in these states are better served using the clock, then switching
to web-based vetting tools around a month before the primary to focus
on candidates who are relevant.

Using the clock too late precludes proper vetting of voting and
financial records. But, vetting a candidate’s records too early can lead
to prematurely supporting someone, resulting in time, money, and
emotional energy squandered. Why? The candidate may look suitable on
paper, but you’re not giving the clock a chance to do its work and
reveal those things that won’t be found in the voting and financial
records.

First Time Running for Office?

If your chosen candidate is running for office for the first time,
there is no voting record to vet against stated issues and financial
data may be sparse. With first-time candidates, their conduct in the
private sector and how they perform during the campaign will be about as
much as the average citizen has to work with. This is an instance where
the clock is the only viable option. Where possible, you want to refer
to official public records, not just media reports (witness how many got
it wrong with Gov. Palin), but there simply is little the average voter
can vet with first-time candidates.

Many public records are either not free to access or require a steep
learning curve to learn how to access them. Is it reasonable to expect
John or Mary Q. Public to search criminal records, civil court filings –
that is conduct a complete background check – on a first-time candidate
for any office? Probably not. Is it reasonable to expect professionals
to perform such a check, as with a SarahPAC endorsement? Yes.

In the case of the NY-13 Congressional election last year, the GOP
ticket during the primary consisted of Michael Grimm and Michael
Allegretti. Both men had never held office before, so there was really
very little to go on. Grimm had the better message and numerous key
endorsements, Gov. Palin’s among them. He easily won the primary and I
had been campaigning for him since Gov. Palin’s endorsement some six
weeks before the primary. In NY-13, our 2010 GOP primary vetting was
done using the clock. Allegretti made several critical mistakes and
gaffes, leading him to a crushing defeat. Grimm went on to win the
general, defeating the well-financed and Obama-backed incumbent Michael
McMachon (yes, there were three Michaels in this race).

Intellectual Honesty

The point of vetting is to use the mind to make a reasoned decision.
When we vet, we must be intellectually honest. For instance, if we have
been saying that Obama is a lousy President because he lacks prior
executive experience, it is intellectually dishonest to extol candidates
on our side who also lack executive experience. Similarly, it is
intellectually dishonest to berate one candidate’s flip-flopping
behavior while ignoring, excusing, apologizing for, or soft-pedaling
another candidate’s flip-flops simply because we don’t like the first
candidate.

With Vetting, the Mind Should Lead

Likability is emotion-based; it’s a “heart thing.” It’s also the kind
of “heart thing” that easily leads to intellectual dishonesty. It
further leads to convoluted and indefensible positions when brought into
the vetting process. When we vet using the clock, we need to keep
checking ourselves. Are we thinking everything
through? If you’re talking in terms of “like/dislike,” “love/hate,”
even “support/non-support” – that’s your heart talking. When we vet, the
heart needs to take the back seat and the mind needs to take the
leading role. If you can say, “I’ve examined ‘candidate X’s performance
on the stump and found he/she does/does not really understand (insert
issue here)” that’s your mind talking. Most of us say we “feel” a certain way about something, when we should more properly say we “think.” Feeling is not synonymous with thinking. Anything to do with vetting should be guided by thought process, not emotion.

In Closing…

Vetting candidates is our responsibility as voters. Because Gov.
Palin has referenced vetting numerous times, as Palinistas, we have an
elevated responsibility to vet candidates for all offices and to do so
in a way that to the best of our knowledge aligns with her methodology.
This series gave you the general principles and some tools to vet voting
records, financial data and observe candidate performance on the stump
to make a reasoned and informed decision.

This year, we have the entire House up for election and 33 Senate
seats. That’s 488 people aside from the President and Vice President. We
also have state and city elections. See the big picture and not just
POTUS. Proper vetting is one of the underpinnings of sudden and
relentless reform. If we truly want better government, the onus is on us
to make it happen. We make sudden and relentless happen by our vetting
process and at the ballot scanner.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading …

About Ron Devito

Ron Devito is a LAN infrastructure
engineer/project manager for Con Edison of New York. He manages CAT-5e and
fiber optic cable installation projects; designs and builds LAN rooms; and
works with battery backups (UPS), automatic transfer switches, and environmental
monitoring equipment.He owns
and operates North Star Promotions, which sells a complete
line of Palin Power products he designed and test-marketed in
Rochester, NY at Governor Palin’s book signing event. He also owns and
operates The North Star Group Amazon
store selling Going Rogue, and numerous products that
Governor Palin has referenced or is known to use, as well as products related
to her.Mr. Devito is an instrument-rated
private pilot and uses Microsoft’s FSX and X-Plane 9.0 to stay
proficient. He is also a recreational saltwater fisherman. Mr. Devito is
married without children and lives in Staten Island, NY. He has an MBA from
University of Phoenix, and a Bachelor in Journalism from St. John’s
University.Mr. Devito analyzes Governor
Palin’s accomplishments from the perspectives of an MBA, Transformational
Leadership, Feminism, and through the lens of Reagan Conservatism.He edits
and publishes US for Palin, and is an author
on Modern Conservative and SarahNET.

• Mail

|

• Web

|

• More Posts (371)