polifrog
Bill Randall has mounted a campaign based on principles stemming from religion, the Constitution, and morality.
Frequently the preacher within Bill Randall emerges on the campaign trail when referencing The Ten Commandments. Just as often his respect for the words within the Constitution
as they are written, as well as the ideals enshrined within those words, become vivid talking points for Randall. The Randall Campaign has embraced these two and produced an appealing morality all too often absent in modern politics. As important as the morality though, is the fact that they are principles, a yard stick, by which one can measure Bill Randall's actions against and if elected, his political leadership.
The positive results of this were on display during the primaries between Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall. Although, Reeves and Randall agreed on much, there were a handful of points on which they parted.
One of these was the sudden and unfortunate BP disaster in the Gulf. Prior to the BP gusher Randall and Reeves were indistinguishable from one another on the topic of oil drilling. Drill here, drill now. That ended with the threat of oil inundating the NC coast. Bernie Reeves' position conveniently shifted from pro drilling to no drilling. Bill Randall, on the other hand, stuck to principle; continued his pro drilling stance and despite his muddled government/BP collusion press conference won the primaries.
That is not to say Bill Randall's pro drilling stance won the primaries for him, but it is to say that the episode helped to define Randall as a man of principle who, when confronted with a politically expedient choice, chose principle. Many conservative voters battered with the disappointment that was the listless conservative congress under the first 6 years of Bush found Bill Randall's reliance on principle refreshing. Conversely, Bernie Reeves seemed imbued with the odor of the stale unprincipled conservatism of the Bush years.
In truth, Bernie Reeves got caught on the wrong side of Conservative Party history. The Conservative Party is being rewritten before all our eyes with something more powerful than Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, but Reeves missed it. The party is being reformulated through an injection of Tea Party morality based on fundamental principals that candidates are expected to govern by. Where the Contract With America had a half-life (it came to an end when its to-do list was completed), Tea Party morality is as permanent as the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party is in its essence a repudiation of moral relativism seeping into the Conservative Party and gives voters that essential yardstick by which to judge a politician's performance. This will prove more effective than Newt's Contract With America.
And this is one of Brad Miller's primary difficulties come this November 2. This election comes at a time when Americans are coming to the conclusion that they elected an illusion to the presidency and in return they received disillusion. Currently many Americans question their president's religion. They question... who is this man? National politics is normally just background when electing representatives. Not this year.
When North Carolinians go to the polls this November, will they be comfortable with a moral relativist like Brad Miller? He is a man who believes, on the one hand, that a woman's right to choose supersedes her child's right to live and her right to choose extends to the moments before her child's birth, while, on the other hand, he supports removing all our health-care choices through ObamaCare. The conflict does not stop there; Brad Miller claims to be guided by lessons learned from his church. Clearly Brad Miller must separate the act of governance from his biblical guidance, and if that is so he is not guided by Christian belief.
Not only is Brad Miller not guided by biblical teachings, but he does not seem to rely on Constitutional text either. Where does he find the Constitutional right to force anyone to purchase anything through ObamaCare? Does he not see that ObamaCare conflicts with the tenth amendment? How does he divine a right of privacy that allows a woman to choose to kill her own child, while at the very same time he ignores the obvious wording of the second amendment? Where does he find a limitation on free political speech through incorporation? None of these interpretations are in our Constitution.
Yet these interpretations of our Constitution are no different than the those that allowed the atrocity of slavery to exist within America. Politicians like Brad Miller who are willing to interpret Constitutional "rights" such as infanticide in and out of existence are worse than their slave rationalizing brethren. At least slaves got life.
Brad Miller can point to neither The Ten Commandments nor can he point to The Constitution as a moral anchors. Brad Miller has no principles; he has no morality by which he can be judged. And when the North Carolina electorate visits the polls, will they be keen to reelect a politician (Brad Miller) who has no moral yardstick by which to gauge his performance?
No. North Carolina is ready for a political cleansing.
out
