Lawson for Congress

It’s late, we’re just getting in, and neither JoLynn nor I have slept much in the past 48 hours. So this will be short.

Thank you to all of the donors, volunteers, and supporters who have built our campaign over the past four months. Our resounding victory tonight is not about me — it’s about a message that will transform American government, and the future for our nation. Our victory is also a powerful statement that we Americans are ready for change. We’re tired of negative soundbite politics that divides us against each other, and we’re tired of agendas being forced upon us by party elites who are increasingly disconnected from reality, and the challenges we face.

We are ready to embrace a federal government that focuses on its Constitutional responsibilities, and stops being a suffocating burden that will haunt our children and grandchildren.

During our victory celebration this evening, I had a number of people ask me the same question, “So how are you going to take the message to beat David Price?” While we have much planning and work ahead, one part of the answer is easy: “Order more Constitutions!”

We distributed ten thousand copies for this primary. Here’s to distributing 100,000 for the general election!

Unfortunately, we didn’t get any video at the event tonight. But I found this video amazingly impressive:

If you haven’t voted yet, this is the day!

An informal survey of mostly-Republican polling places suggests that turnout is light - one precinct in Raleigh that’s about equally matched between Democrats and Republicans had 600 voters by lunchtime, as opposed to a more typical 1,200. How much of that is low turnout versus early voting? We will see. Just make sure your vote is counted!

Also, I was informed that a supporter has created a grassroots Web site, with a fantastic introductory video:

… see you tonight at the Chop House Grille!

Why is fundraising so important? So we can take our message to the voters, win the primary election, and prepare for a great campaign and victory in November.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve discovered that taking the message to the voters via radio and television gets pretty expensive. But I think you’ll be pleased with the results.

First, here is the radio advertisement (lo-fi version for download) featuring Col. Steve Acuff’s endorsement that we’ll be running into the primary.

Next, here are three 30-second clips that we produced — we’re going to air the final one, entitled “Local Control”:

Following Its Own Rules

Means and Mandate

Local Control

What do you think? It was a challenge to film the second and third videos, as it was in the thirties that morning in D.C. and my face was just about frozen. Should have brought a coat!

We’re going with the third commercial since it actually has the “ask” for election day. Also, please help us leverage this media investment as much as possible — forward these links to your friends and family in the Fourth District, and remind them to vote on or before May 6th!

Finally, we really do need your financial support. Please make a donation today so we can air this message to as many voters as possible, and be well positioned for the next step in this battle to reclaim our government.

I joined Bill LuMaye yesterday afternoon at 5:30, and despite my best efforts to get from northern Durham to north Raleigh in time, traffic just didn’t cooperate. So I did the first half of the show via cell phone (yes, wearing a headset), and found some kind souls in the parking lot who let me into the building and showed me to the studio during the break.

All in all, it was an enjoyable experience with a great host. A friend captured the audio file here. Enjoy!

As we head into the home stretch towards the primary, my opponent’s attacks have become more direct, more personal, and more frequent. Clearly, negative campaigning is an useful tactic among those who lack a clear vision for the future or foundation for leadership. The ultimate question, however, is simple: How will the voters respond?

For me, that’s the question that matters. If voters buy into distortions and ignorant personal attacks, then they are not ready for the critical thinking and individual responsibility that is required for a limited, Constitutional federal government. I can’t help those voters, other than to continue educating about the problems staring us in the face.

I won’t pretend that turning the other cheek is pleasant and easy. It’s not. It’s tempting to hit back, and amplify the tough questions that others have been asking about my opponent’s transparency and truthfulness. But this race is not about him, or about me. It’s about what happens to a country when we fail to realize that the very foundation of our economy, our United States dollar, is being driven off a cliff by a government that does not know when to stop growing.

Folks, gas will not stop at $3.50. It will not stop at $4.00. Your grocery bill is not done going up. It’s not that the gas and food are that much more valuable, it’s that your dollars buy a lot less gas and food. Our government is borrowing and printing so much money that the green stuff in your pocket doesn’t buy as much on global markets. Maybe your standard of living isn’t affected yet — great, that’s fantastic for you. But get your concealed carry permit, and prepare to absorb the cost of increased police protection when increasingly desperate members of society turn to crime to satisfy basic needs.

That’s a tough message, and one most candidates are not ready to address. But we must begin discussing the consequences of big government — because once we understand that a big federal government is causing the problem, we’ll realize that even bigger federal government is not the solution. We cannot create wealth by printing more paper or electronic money. Such a path leads only to dependency, depravity and tyranny.

So back to negative campaigning. Here I am, a lifelong Republican, trying to unseat a 22-year Democratic incumbent who personifies big government and the status quo. I’m being hit by negative attacks from my primary opponent and leaders within the Republican party who apparently don’t appreciate federalism and the unique value of our United States Constitution. I’m fine absorbing those attacks, because this contest is about a vision for leadership and philosophy of government within the party. May the best ideas win, right?

But then attention turns to the North Carolina GOP itself. Someone decided it would be a good idea to produce an advertisement, ostensibly to help the Republican gubernatorial candidates, that attempts to link the Democratic gubernatorial candidates to the controversial Reverend Wright via their endorsements of Barack Obama. The advertisement takes a soundbite from Rev. Wright, overlays pictures of the parties involved, and paints the Democratic gubernatorial candidates as extremists by association:

When you’re trying to build a coalition of voters across parties who know we need change, does this advertisement help?

I finally saw the ad this evening after receiving a number of comments and complaints from people I respect, both inside and outside the Republican party. When I watched it, I just had to groan. This is how the NC GOP spends its money? Does the party really think a shallow “guilt by association” attack ad rehashing (very) old news will help its candidates?

Folks, we have tough issues in this state. Our roads are bad, our schools are worse, and the corruption and corporate welfare in Raleigh are draining our wallets and filling our prisons (yes, with our elected officials). If the party wants to help its gubernatorial candidates, who truly are the agents of change in North Carolina, why doesn’t the GOP show how we can solve the problems resulting from decades of single-party rule?

From a practical perspective, we have zero chance of electing a Republican governor without building a broad coalition of voters who want real change. Tonight, the State Board of Elections shows that North Carolina has 2,617,610 Democrat, 1,934,131 Republican, and 1,240,599 Unaffiliated voters. So what is to be gained with a negative attack ad that causes people to roll their eyes, shrug their shoulders, and dismiss Republicans for engaging in “politics as usual”?

Here’s to elevating the dialog this year, and engaging on the issues.

Now with video, and pictures from the Freedom Rally. The High Definition video provided by Vimeo is truly amazing.

Finally, we thought this sign at the Potbelly Sandwich Works was oddly appropriate, given the current problems with food inflation:

Today I had the pleasure of meeting with most of our North Carolina Republican Congressional delegation, and additionally was welcomed to give a speech on the West lawn of the Capitol during a tax day Constitution and freedom rally.

The agenda included Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Rep. Robin Hayes, and Rep. Ron Paul (all fellow Duke alumni), Rep. Virginia Foxx, Rep. Walter Jones, Rep. Howard Coble, and Rep. Sue Myrick. My meeting with Rep. Myrick was interrupted by a House vote and a subsequent Minority Whip meeting, but we had an excellent time discussing healthcare with her assistant Sarah Hale. I also had a great discussion on taxation and monetary policy with Brandon Renz, Legislative Director for Rep. Foxx. He’s a strong FairTax supporter, and we both look forward to the day when April 15th is just another beautiful spring day across the country!

Tomorrow I’ll try to reconnect with Reps. Myrick and McHenry, and also look forward to meeting another physician legislator, Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia. Rep. Broun is another conservative Republican committed to upholding the ideals of our Constitution, and I had a great time meeting his staff this afternoon.

It was a packed day, with lots of great conversations. I’ve included a few pictures below. They are indeed worth a thousand words:

So what did I think of Washington? Honestly, it’s a big, crowded place. While it was enjoyable to meet so many people, I was blown away by the sheer number of folks waiting in line to lobby our elected representatives. As shown by the picture below, we must change this dynamic. We simply can’t afford Washington as a place where people go to request funds and influence in areas where the Constitution never intended the federal government to operate:

Ever seen those nifty electronic signs on Chapel Hill bus stops that show you when the next bus will arrive? Ever wonder how much they cost, and who paid for them?

The answer is they cost about $1 million for 14 bus stops, of which the federal government paid $750,000 via a Congressional earmark from our own Rep. David Price. Indeed, Rep. Price earned Citizens Against Government Waste’s Porker of the Month award for this particular earmark.

Now I know what you’re thinking: “That’s small potatoes. Compared with over $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities in our social insurance programs, don’t the good folks in Chapel Hill deserve to know when the next bus will be arriving?”

Well, it’s the principle of the thing. While earmarks are a relatively small percentage of federal spending, there’s no excuse for using the federal budget as a trough where folks go to swap favors and buy votes. I’m reminded of a classic story from earlier in our Republic:

In 1827, the famous Colonel Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his first term of office, a $10,000 relief bill for the widow of a naval officer was proposed. Colonel Crockett rose in stern opposition and gave the following eloquent rebuttal to the bill:

“We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not attempt to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

After he sat down and a vote was taken, instead of unanimous approval as had been assumed, the measure failed with only a few votes in support of it. (Legend has it that Crockett, one of the poorest members of the House at that time, was the only one to contribute substantially to a private charitable fund for the widow.)

In pursuit of a Constitutional federal government, I have signed the FreedomWorks Earmark Pledge. It’s simply a statement that I will refuse to seek, support, or enact earmarks during the appropriations process for fiscal year 2009. However well-intentioned, earmarks are unconstitutional spending. We must also guard against halfway measures that allow funds to be appropriated, and then disbursed by unelected bureaucrats. Legislated earmarks are bad enough, and that’s even worse.

Perhaps Grover Cleveland said it best:

Grover Cleveland, the king of the veto, rejected hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as President in the late 1800s, because, as he often wrote: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.”

Thanks to an introduction by fellow Congressional candidate Dean Santoro, I had the opportunity to be interviewed by Kurt Wallace on his show Wake Up America this morning. Kurt and I had an excellent discussion about our Congressional campaign, running for office against the “establishment”, our American healthcare system, the challenges of taking on an entrenched incumbent, and the value of freedom in advancing true social progress. I invite you to check it out: here

It appears there are some people who think a Constitutional federal government is a threat to Christian conservatives. I disagree, and published the following comment in response to Chuck Campbell’s post:

Chuck - As you know, I am personally quite conservative. My wife and I have been married for eleven years, have three children, and are Christians who seek to live by example and service to others. Furthermore, Christianity has been a lifelong journey as we seek and follow God’s plan for our lives.

I have been blessed to experience much on my journey, starting with my medical training in the late nineties. One of my favorite books is Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, by Phillip Yancey and Paul Brand, a Christian physician. This book looks at the miraculous creation that is humanity, and also acknowledges the challenges of working in medicine, which is literally God’s “complaint department”.

As a physician, I saw and treated the ravages caused by poor lifestyle choices. The devastation caused by smoking and alcohol abuse cannot be overstated, nor the devastation caused by abusing one’s body through excess refined carbohydrates and insufficient exercise leading to obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes, and a slow, painful decline as one’s body can no longer circulate life-giving nutrients to critical organs. Infections, amputations, blindness, heart attacks… in many cases caused by diet and lifestyle choices.

For many people, adult onset diabetes, lung cancer, and liver failure due to alcohol abuse are consequences of abusing our bodies and not honoring them as God’s magnificent creation. But what about the child with leukemia? How about the 41 year old father of three with a newly-diagnosed glioblastoma (brain cancer) with one year to live?

Medicine really gave me a sense of perspective. Should I not treat patients whose behavior clearly brought on their illness? Of course not. That’s not how God calls us to serve. How about acknowledging Romans 3:23-24, “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came through Christ Jesus.”

I am also quite cognizant of Matthew 7:5: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” I offer my candidacy humbly, with the knowledge that I am an imperfect person who seeks God’s guidance in trying to do His will. I believe I am called to live my faith through example, and remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 9:11-13:

“When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ’sinners’?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

So how do I threaten Christian conservatives? As you know from the state fair, I am strongly pro-life, and view protection of life as the primary role of government. Outside of abortion, I am strongly “pro-choice” — especially with regards to education. What better way to prevent government from sanctioning destructive lifestyles then breaking the government’s monopoly on education?

I do not encourage or embrace destructive lifestyle choices, but I question how government can “punish” them. Should we punish those who eat too much, and exercise too little? Or should we use our limited prison capacity to permanently incarcerate violent criminals who are a threat to others?

With regard to the federal government’s involvement in social issues, I think the Constitution is a great start to defining how our government in Washington should behave. You’re right, I do not support the federal government “defining” marriage in any sense. Why should Washington care? That’s clearly something that can, and should, be left to the states. Likewise for the federal “war on drugs”. The states should retain the right to determine how drug use is controlled. At least when we enacted prohibition, we had the intellectual honesty to amend the Constitution.

When I answer questions about supporting social legislation, please understand that I’m not running for office in Raleigh, but in Washington. I think Washington needs to respect the rule of law, and remember the 10th Amendment. These are good discussions to be having at the state and local level, but we need to return the focus in Washington to things it should be doing: secure borders, eliminating the income tax, inflation and rising grocery bills, and national security. (No, not steroids in baseball either.)

Finally, your perspective on my foreign policy beliefs is incorrect. I am not at all isolationist, but simply believe we must be more judicious in our use of deadly force and seek to follow the Augustinian principle of Just War. As a nation, we cannot unilaterally force our will on the rest of the world indefinitely. Right now, we police the world at China’s pleasure with our massive debt and current account deficit. Instead, we must get back into the business of inspiring multinational cooperation to deal with criminals and terrorists that threaten civilized society.

Please visit www.lawsonforcongress.com to learn more about our campaign to restore a Constitutional federal government. A Constitutional federal government is not a threat to Christian conservatives. It will protect life, restore free speech, provide free choice and local control in education, secure our borders, rebuild a strong military defense, encourage peace and understanding through diplomatic and economic engagement, and enable Christians to lead by example.

What do you think?