"I have great respect for the wisdom of the people....the American voter doing their own homework, knowing who these candidates are, what they represent, what their experience provides them - they will be making up their own mind."

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

An incumbent seeking re-election or a candidate having served in a prior office has a voting record. The purpose of examining voter records is to assess:

• Congruency of stated position in campaign materials and actual voting record.
• Integrity or lack thereof.
• Consistency of position on issues vs. "flip-flopping."
• If a change in position on an issue is heart-felt or motivated by political expediency.
• Possible evidence of crony capitalism or other forms of corruption when assessed along with financial data. A key indicator is the legislation benefits a business or industry and there are major campaign or PAC contributions from interests associated with the business or industry. You likely need to cross-reference voting records and financial data to see this.

Note that legislators have a penchant for attaching amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself. A legislator might vote against a bill that seemingly aligns with your values because of these amendments. So, you may need to look up public statements about the decision to see if this factor was operative. Similarly, many bills are deceptively named. Just because the name sounds like something you agree with does not mean that it is. If something about a candidate's vote on a bill causes alarm bells to ring, investigate further.

Remember that no one in the House or Senate can truthfully claim to have cut a budget. Gov. Palin noted this in her December 1, 2011 TV interview with Sean Hannity and Eric Felten's The Ruling Class: Inside the Imperial Congress detailed how "services baseline" budgeting works back in 1993. Nothing has changed since then.

At the federal level, both the House and Senate provide complete official roll call voting records, so if your candidate has served in the House or Senate, you will find the voting record here. These records are organized by the legislation or resolution voted on. You cannot go to one of these sites and search a particular person's complete record, so using these sites fast becomes a real chore. Some Representatives and Senators do list their complete voting records, but it is not common practice.

We should push our elected representatives to post their complete voting records, not just at the federal level but at the state and municipal levels as well. We should also be able to see complete voting records, not just sponsored or introduced pieces of legislation.

US House of Representatives

US House of Representatives Roll Call Votes

US Senate

US Senate Roll Call Votes

Project VoteSmart

Project VoteSmart is a non-partisan organization consisting of an equal number of liberals and conservatives. A search on a person's name will pull up the voting record, and in some cases financial disclosures. VoteSmart has a Political Courage Test which virtually no major candidate of either party has taken. Thus, nearly every candidate will have "Lacks Courage" under his or her name. Is this an indictment of all candidates of both parties, or is it more an indictment of VoteSmart? We'll leave that question for our readers to decide.

For the 2012 POTUS election, VoteSmart offers a tool known as VoteEasy which asks you to answer 20 questions about various issues and rank their level of importance to you. Based on your answers, the algorithm will pick one or more candidates who supposedly most closely align with your position on the issues. How reliable is it? All I will say is run it and judge for yourself. I certainly would not stake my voting position on VoteEasy, but it can be valuable as a starting point.

The VoteSmart site does a very good job with highlighting voting records of those candidates who have House or Senate experience. It also goes to the state and municipal levels, though not as comprehensively.

Project VoteSmart

VoteEasy

Cross-Referencing VoteSmart, Senate and House Sites

The easiest way to vet a candidate with House or Senate experience running for re-election or for POTUS is to first use Project VoteSmart. This is because VoteSmart will pull up the voting record associated with a candidate. If a candidate voted a certain way on a piece of legislation that you determine warrants further investigation, you can go to the appropriate site and search on the legislation to read its text. By doing this, you can see if the candidate in fact "flip-flopped" or found an amendment to a bill or act objectionable.

State and Municipal Offices

State and municipal records are much harder to track down than House and Senate records. Each state and city site has its own quirks and there will be a learning curve in accessing them. As the offices get smaller in scale, the records get more scarce. Some states and cities may not have this information online, making vetting a real chore.

Still, the procedure is similar to the federal offices. In New York State, all legislation sponsored by a state Senator or a State Assembly member is available online. The same is true for the New York City Council. But, finding how these elected officials voted on legislation they did not sponsor is very difficult. Sponsored legislation should give you enough information to make a reasonable assessment.

Here are some examples using New York State and New York City:

New York State Senate: Diane Savino

New York State Assembly: Matthew Titone

New York City Council: use the advanced search. You can find sponsored legislation, by picking the council member's name off the drop-down menu and it's organized by first name first.

Executives: Governors and Mayors

Executives sign and veto legislation, thus they have a "voting record." Visit the state gubernatorial website and the city's mayoral site where the official served. Executives do more than sign and veto legislation, however. The governor is the president of a state and the mayor is the president of a city. Executives fill appointed positions, administer budgets, and manage crises. A governor has ultimate command over the state's National Guard units and the state police. A mayor has ultimate command over a city's police and fire departments. Executives sign ceremonial proclamations. Don't pooh pooh these. Just ask any sitting or prior executive how riled up a voting bloc gets if a pertinent proclamation is forgotten or omitted one year. These proclamations reflect somewhat on issues that may be important to the executive. Everything matters when vetting, even those items that on the surface appear petty.

When you vet someone who has executive experience, you need to look beyond "voting record" - legislation signed and vetoed - to consider all facets of the executive's job and how well he or she performed in these areas. Gov. Palin's accomplishments throughout her life, for instance have been thoroughly compiled and continue to be updated. The point in using Gov. Palin's accomplishments for this exercise is not to compare others to her, but to see the various aspects of what an executive does.

Using New York State as the example again, here is the list of Governor Andrew Cuomo's signed legislation, and Gov. Cuomo's initiatives, including budgets. Here is Project VoteSmart's Key Issues Summary on Gov. Cuomo. There are a fair number of bills vetoed, and you can see he used the line item veto on a budget vote. I learned something new writing this. I had no idea my home state has the line item veto.

New York City's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg does not list legislation signed or vetoed, but he does list his accomplishments, issues that matter to him, and his executive orders.

While state and city sites are excellent resources for sitting executives, finding the accomplishments of a prior governor or mayor will require some real digging, because much of that information is archived.

Google (or Bing, or whatever) is Your Friend

For instance, just on a Google search, I saw that my councilwoman, Deborah ("Debi") Rose received the endorsements of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW and is favorably predisposed to the Working Families Party. She is a hard leftist and her sponsored legislation (mainly resolutions) confirms that. All this came up without my even having to open the links, but I could see the links themselves were authoritative. Using a search engine is a good supplementary tool for vetting voting records.

The Next Installment

The next installment will show you how to vet financial data and why you should cross-reference it with voting records.

So, people - the voters - [have] a lot of responsibility on their shoulders. They need to do their homework. They need to study a candidate's record - see what they have done in the past to give you a glimpse into the window of where they intend to bring this country in the future.

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

It is incumbent upon us to properly vet candidates running for all elective offices so that we can make informed decisions based on facts. In less than 60 days, Gov. Palin taught us - her supporters - some hard but valuable lessons in politics and life. Gov. Palin has often said that our support of her was not so much about her per sé but about her common-sense Constitutional Conservative message. With her decision to not seek the 2012 GOP nomination, Gov. Palin taught us that no person alive is indispensable - not even the best the person for the job - and not even once-in-a-lifetime leaders. She taught us that we cannot always get what we want and we need to adapt to changing circumstances. As much as she asked us to trust her vis-á-vis her decision, Gov. Palin asked of us something even more difficult: to think for ourselves, to make informed decisions, and to trust in ourselves. If Gov. Palin is the Mamma Grizzly and we are her cubs, consider this as the Mamma Grizzly teaching her cubs how to hunt and survive.

Purpose

This series is not about strictly about the 2012 POTUS race. As a reminder, US for Palin will not endorse a 2012 POTUS candidate unless Gov. Palin does. Despite what unnamed "insiders" claim, no one except Gov. Palin knows if she will endorse anyone during the primary season, and there are equally strong arguments against her doing so as there are for it. While our oft-stated reason is deferring to Gov. Palin's leadership and following her example, we also believe it is your vote and your obligation to do your own vetting and make your own decision. We respect our friends and colleagues who have chosen to support one candidate or another publicly or privately. We also respect our friends and colleagues who are actively seeking Gov. Palin to mount a reconsidered run, though we don't ourselves feel comfortable with continuing to push the matter in light of her public and written statements on her 2012 POTUS decision. Finally, this site's mandate is to support Gov. Palin, her family, staff, organizations, products and activities. It does not matter to us how she unlocks her highest potential and self-actualizes as long as she does it. Gov. Palin is and has been our Shadow President irrespective of what office she seeks or doesn't seek. This is yet another reason why publicly endorsing candidates absent a Palin endorsement is outside the scope of US for Palin's mission.

The purpose of this series is to provide you as a voter with the tools to make a more informed decision on all elections moving forward and for all offices from city council all the way to POTUS.

Due Diligence

In the business world, investors go through a procedure known as "due diligence" to determine if a corporation or a project is worthy of investment and worth putting their money to risk. The principals in a venture or the officers of company seeking financing are also personally vetted to give investors some assurance that nothing untoward will happen with their money.

Vetting candidates is our conduct of due diligence, and even in this era of heightened political awareness, involvement and activism, few voters actually do it. Ignorance of how to vet, and voter apathy are the two most likely reasons. When voters believe that there is no fundamental difference between any set of candidates in a race, many will simply not bother voting, much less vetting. Voter apathy leads to the election of precisely the kind of people we don't want in office and it becomes a vicious cycle.

"People get the kind of government they deserve." If we don't vet candidates and a flawed candidate gets the job, we have no one else to blame but ourselves. If we sit on the sidelines out of disgust and the candidate we don't want gets elected, whose fault is it? Our actions in elections at all levels of government have consequences.

Voter Vetting vs. Professional Vetting

Voter vetting is nowhere near as exhaustive as the professional vetting that candidates seeking endorsements or campaign support undergo. The vetting of Gov. Palin by the McCain campaign cost over $50,000. Candidates seeking Gov. Palin's endorsement also undergo professional vetting, which costs thousands of dollars. Gov. Palin's careful and disciplined approach to endorsements was responsible at least in part for the 68% success rate in her 81 endorsements of 2010 with an astounding 90% for the Take Back the 20 subset.

The average voter will probably never vet any candidate to this level, but several free tools are available to help voters make a more informed decision and we'll discuss them in the next installment.

Beefs and Endorsements

Speaking of endorsements, be aware that personal beefs may influence a politician's endorsement decisions. For instance, a co-worker told me that my former Borough President Guy Molinari has a running feud with Newt Gingrich that is over two decades old. Molinari recently referred to Gingrich as being "evil" and likely will not be at Staten Island Gingrich event December 3 so as to avoid a confrontation that could reflect on the Romney campaign. Molinari endorsed Mitt Romney and will have a leadership role in Romney's New York primary campaign. My Congressman, Michael Grimm is a long-time friend of Molinari's and looks to him as his mentor. Grimm endorsed Romney, much to the consternation and dismay of his conservative base.

Voters outside Staten Island may be unaware of the animosity between Molinari and Gingrich, but it may be a factor in local voters' decisions, and it could ripple down to other well-known local politicians' endorsements of a 2012 POTUS candidate.

Poor Vetting Practices

Having campaigned for two Congressional candidates and the McCain-Palin campaign, I have come face-to-face with some of the most shallow and ridiculous reasons why people choose a candidate, with the top three being: physical attractiveness, the sound of the candidate's voice, and the candidate living in the same neighborhood/city as the voter. Some people pick candidates just on hunches. Some people are completely ignorant as to which candidate has which platform and vote based on what they don't know. Shock jock Howard Stern went into a Manhattan neighborhood and recited the McCain-Palin campaign platform to people on the street. To a one, the interviewees thought the platform was Obama's! Other people pick candidates based on sound-bites they hear on radio and TV, YouTube videos, or juicy one-liners in the paper or on the web. Some will take the time to read campaign materials, but go no further.

If we are to improve our government at all levels, we as voters need to do much better than this!

Campaign Materials Are the Starting Point - Not the End

Many voters go to a campaign website or brochure and if they like what they see, vote on that basis. Campaign materials are always self-serving for the candidate - any candidate - for any office. Reading campaign materials exclusively to form a decision is a poor voting practice.

As a voter, what you want to get from campaign materials is the candidate's stated position on various issues. Knowing the stated position, if the candidate has served in office prior, you will want to examine the candidate's voting record and we'll examine how to do that in the next installment.

Be Careful with Special Interest Groups

When vetting candidates, you want to rely on non-partisan, official, unbiased, and authoritative sources. Be careful with special interest groups or political organizations including Tea Party Groups. Remember, there is no political party on any ballot called "Tea Party." The Tea Party is a grassroots effort and many organizations use the name "Tea Party." Some Tea Party organizations have aligned themselves with one candidate and will smear all others in an effort to help their chosen candidate win. Other Tea Party organizations may prefer a different candidate. Special interest groups who have chosen to back a candidate will also do what they need to do to benefit their chosen candidate. It's human nature.

Do your own vetting and draw your own conclusion!

WikiPedia

WikiPedia is not authoritative, because anyone with a computer can change any entry. WikiPedia is generally not acceptable for academic papers; and it's not acceptable in US for Palin stories. That said, the reference lists on WikiPedia's entries may point to more authoritative sources. In other words, use WikiPedia as a springboard to reach authoritative sources, but don't use it as the source of your information.

The Next Installment...

In the next installment, we will discuss how to review voting records and research financial data on candidates for various offices.

H/T Michael Monahan for lead to information on feud between Molinari and Gingrich.

"Today, my personal endorsement doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I have great respect for the wisdom of the American people," former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin tonight said during a two-segment interview on Sean Hannity's TV show from her home in Wasilla, Alaska. Gov. Palin also said she has the fire in her belly, but no regrets about her 2012 POTUS decision and said, "we have a good slate of candidates. We have to back a Constitutional Conservative." No mention was made of the Conservatives4Palin Reconsider advertisement.

Hannity repeated his question about endorsing a candidate prior to the Iowa Caucus, which is now 32 days away. "I honestly don't think a pundit's endorsement and their personal opinion amount to a hill of beans," Gov. Palin said. When asked if she was leaning toward endorsing a particular candidate, she said, "I am leaning toward endorsing a candidate who is the antithesis of Obama." She added that no person who has served in Congress can legitimately make the claim that he or she cut budgets.

Hannity asked Gov. Palin if she thought the race was now down to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. She said no and added that other candidates such as Rick Santorum also have messages that should be heard. Gov. Palin noted that Santorum has been consistent on the sanctity of life, Israel and other issues. She lauded Rick Perry's defense of the Second Amendment and Ron Paul's domestic policies, though she disagrees strongly with his foreign policy. "All are infinitely better than Barack Obama because they know we cannot survive the status quo.

Gov. Palin said it was good that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were "going back and forth," but said it was important that they not "lose focus which is to make sure Obama is not re-elected." She said the candidates should provide sudden and relentless reform to clean up the crony capitalism that now infests Washington, D.C.

The first segment of the interview focused on the allegations of sexual harassment and affairs swirling around the Cain campaign. "If Herman did not screw around on his wife and give money to some broad on the side...if she made false allegations, it is despicable. If he did it, boys will be boys, but there is no room for a boy in the White House," Gov. Palin said.

"I have had people swear on Bibles that they had affairs with Todd or me that never happened....Whether he likes it or not, he is guilty until proven innocent. He should have her show the proof," she said. During his interview with Gov. Palin and with Herman Cain before her, Hannity said that hotels, airline tickets, and tickets to venues would be easy to prove and many of these places have video surveillance. Gov. Palin said that these allegations are a distraction that causes money to dry up and the candidate to make no further progress. Though Gov. Palin is resolute in her 2012 decision, Cain is reconsidering his campaign, and he promised to announce one of three possible dispositions of his campaign by next Monday: continue, suspend, or terminate it.

Gov. Palin and Hannity discussed the double standard whereby taking gratuitous swipes at conservative blacks and conservative women is considered fine, but calling Obama out on his past associations is "racist."

Like the prior interview, Gov. Palin was seated before her operating fireplace, giving the feeling of a Fireside Chat. Hannity quipped that her Christmas tree needed more decorations and Gov. Palin said she have her daughter Piper get on it.

Video retrieved from SarahNET.