I often say that when it comes to politics the only person I agree with 100 percent is… me.
I think Ronald Reagan was the greatest president this country’s had in at least my lifetime – I’ll be 70 in a few months – and even he did things I didn’t agree with.
The same can be said for Steve Knight, our incumbent congressman for the 25th District, who is facing off against Katie Hill, a local Democrat/socialist, in this mid-term election cycle.
To give you an example, I think Knight’s off base on his approach to dealing with our illegal alien issue; he’s a bit mushy. He’s not pro-illegal alien, but he’s also not firm in advocating an approach he endorses to address the broader aspects of the issue.
However, on many other issues, notably Second Amendment rights (an issue near and dear to my heart), he’s a hard charger, a true stalwart. He opposes Common Core in our schools; is a strong “law and order” guy (no surprise given his background as a cop); believes in election integrity and promotes it by supporting voter ID laws and opposing “all-mail-in” ballots; he supported President Trump’s tax plan, which has led to the economic boom we’re enjoying; has voted to repeal Obamacare; supports our alliance with Israel; and in general has proven himself to be a representative who actually represents the values that I believe are held by a majority of the residents of this district and the SCV.
On top of that, Knight brings experience to the table. He’s an Army vet, former cop, and served in both the state Assembly and Senate. He’s completing his second term as our congressional representative, and currently serves on three committees in the House: Small Business; Science, Space and Technology; and Armed Services.
Hill is a whole different ball of wax. She has no voting record to which I could refer, never having served in elective office at any level, so I had to refer to her website (https://www.katiehillforcongress.com/home) to get any useful information about her. In other words, she’s an utter tyro.
Here’s what I found there: “Katie resides in Agua Dulcé with her husband and animals on a small farm… She openly identifies as bisexual… a new kind of candidate, who will work on behalf of all members of this community… is a proven leader… running for Congress to give a voice to the people of California’s 25th district… a proven track record as an advocate for progressive policies… She will continue to be an energetic progressive leader… healthcare that puts patients before profits and the 21st century infrastructure for a sustainable equal-opportunity economy. Katie is running to be part of a new generation of leaders in a new House majority…”
A “proven leader” how? A “new kind of candidate” in what way? Why do I need to know she “openly identifies as bisexual”? In what way will she “work on behalf of all members of this community” that’s any different from any other partisan political candidate? How would that even be possible, when the chasm between the Republican and the Dem/socialist is wider than the Grand Canyon?
Whichever one wins will be representing the interests of the people who voted for him or her. It’s called “winning” and “losing.” I can’t imagine any “progressive” representing any interest with which I agree. “Progressive” is Orwellian Newspeak for “socialist.”
This is borne out by her positions on certain key issues. She’s for “Medicare for all,” which means government-run health care. If you like your doctor, too bad. An absolutely budget-busting idea that promises to destroy our economy and medical system.
She’s anti-gun, touting her support of useless gun bans. She spouts the usual “income inequality” rhetoric of socialism and class warfare. She opposes school “privatization,” AKA vouchers. On a wide range of important topics, such as foreign policy, defense, and the military, she’s silent.
But the most important part of her message is that of being “part of a new generation of leaders in a new House majority.”
Ah, yes… that hoped-for “new House majority.” That’s the “new majority” that wants to impeach Trump, and that has as members Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison, among a host of other radical socialists. That’s poised to welcome the latest self-proclaimed socialist crackpot in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – a woman whose sheer and unabashed ignorance is worthy of a column of its own, complete with laugh track – into its ranks. That wants to roll back the recent tax reform, and return to socialist wealth redistribution.
That’s the “majority” to which Hill wants to contribute and be a part of. Even if she objected to some of their policies – and there’s absolutely nothing on her site that suggests to me that she would – can a young first-term neophyte, with no previous elective experience, be expected to stand up to the likes of Pelosi, Waters or Sanders?
Are you kidding me? Are you ready to hear the words “Speaker Pelosi” again?
And in what way do any of those policies conform to the values of the majority of people in this district and valley?
When I started this column I wrote that I’ve never agreed 100 percent with any candidate. But I’m here to tell you that the inverse isn’t true. In Hill I believe there’s a candidate with whom I disagree 100 percent.
How about you? How will you vote this November? I know that I’m going for Steve Knight.
Please join me.
Brian Baker is a Saugus resident.
