Last week, I mentioned that Chris Angle had declared his candidacy for Congress. I mentioned that he said his website should be up in about a week, and that he said he would send me a copy of his key points of his platform. I noted that I am no longer in the Fourth Congressional district, and that I generally vote Democratic, but I felt it was important to have a lively debate about the issues. When I lasted checked, his website wasn’t up and there wasn’t any coverage of his candidacy that I could find, so let me at least get a little of his positions out there.

I will also note, that following the wonderful example of the CT Youth Forum, I will try to present his positions respectfully, even in places where I disagree.

Chris starts off by describing himself as a Libertarian and Jeffersonian Republican. I find this interesting, since I have identified myself as a Jeffersonian Democrat. I suspect we may have different views about the core messages of Jefferson.

He goes on to speak of his political heritage in terms of Jefferson, Madison, and Reagan, and describes himself as a “Fiscal Conservative, Anti-terrorist, Strict Constitutionalist, Promoter of Freedom who will fight to Reduce Your Taxes, Protect Your Property from the Government, Reduce Entitlements, Protect Your Country and Increase Opportunity for All”

In terms of terrorism, and defending our borders, he is committed to “whatever it takes”. He would pay for these efforts through a national sales tax, instead of the current system of taxation. In particular, he would “Eliminate the double taxation for the corporate tax, Eliminate the triple taxation of the stock dividend and Eliminate the capital gains tax.”

In terms of immigration, he would “Return to rational, legal immigration; Raise the Quota for Intellectual Visas”

In a section about property rights, he says he would fight to “Prevent local government's illegal use of land for commercial purposes.” I assume this is in regards to issues of eminent domain. I do not see any statements about intellectual property issues, however.

He talks about fighting against Government waste. This includes compelling the government to publish all expenditures of funds in detail on the internet. I would be curious to find out his opinion of projects like Read The Bill which would require all legislation to be posted online at least 72 hours before it is voted upon, or the Punch Clock Campaign which asks members of congress to post their daily schedules online. He also is in favor of banning Congressional earmarks and would reduce or eliminate the “Extravagant Farm Subsidies, especially the devastatingly misconceived Ethanol program.”

His position on gay marriage is interesting. He describes himself as being anti-gay marriage, but goes on to say “The government does not belong in the arena of regulating personal relationships and conferring special legal benefits on specific groups.” Yet marriage provides special benefits, particularly in terms of pensions, the ability to visit people in hospitals.

While I personally find plenty to disagree with in his positions, I know others will agree with much that he has to say, and I feel it is important to have a dialog about the issues which he cares so much about. Hopefully, we will see better coverage of the candidates and the issues during this election cycle.