Last week, I got the chance to interview Dan Crenshaw about his conservative values and philosophies. He is running for the 2nd district of Texas. iVoteTexas has endorsed Dan Crenshaw for congress. Here is the interview.
John: My first question; why are you running for Congress?
Crenshaw: In one word, Impact. I was making an impact in the SEAL teams, I was deployed in counter terrorism operations, I was working on high level intelligence operations and at a certain point, I had to be medically retired. It was a painful test for me, what do you do next? I figured I needed more tools to make more of an impact at the strategic level. I went to Harvard Kennedy school and got my master’s in public administration. I turned down a job at the Department of Defense doing counter weapons of mass destruction policy in order to run. It all happened at the same time, that was my next career move. I knew I wanted to stay in government no matter what. Ted Poe announced retirement in my district. It’s not the first time I had thought about elected office, I just hadn’t thought of it this soon. So, it’s where you can make an impact. It’s not just legislative impact, it’s also on the ground impact. On my website, at the bottom of my issues page you will see a section on, this is what we can do without legislation, this is what we can do without federal involvement. It’s just about being a leader and having influence. It’s gang violence, it’s childhood abuse, those are things I’m interested in, that I can prevent because of my background. I can reach out to kids because I’m a Navy SEAL, because I can bring other SEALs in and show them what kind of path they can get on if they just start of right, just start off early. That’s why it’s impact. The other big reason is the future of the conservative movement. Making sure your generation is paying attention to conservative values, not me. Not being convinced and persuaded by the left so quickly. We are truly losing an entire generation right now. That is extremely dangerous. We are on track to have one sided thought in our country. I know everything seems very red right now, but its not the future. We got to be very careful. We need credible leaders up there. I’ve talked about the American spirit, and what it means to be an American, what it means to be a conservative or we’ll never attract young people to our cause. That’s a big one.
John: What makes you qualified to run for office?
Crenshaw: This is a federal seat, so we need to talk about federal issues. I’m the only one with national security experience that is really at all levels; intelligence community, special operations, I’m the only one who really understands the largest organization in the world, the Department of Defense. What it needs, what it doesn’t need, what kind of forms it needs. I’m the only one who really has experiences with foreign affairs. I have lived abroad many years. I speak many different languages. I was working in all the hot spots throughout the world right now. Korea, Arabian Gulf, all around the Middle East. I’m the only one that has behind the scenes look, the only one that can hit the ground running as opposed to just relying on your basic talking points. National Security and Foreign Affairs is the only issue that you can not rely on the heritage foundation to really tell you what to think. It’s dynamic, it’s everchanging, you need to have experience in those things. Sure, they do a pretty good job in our vast array of think tanks and everything else. They find the right policy prescriptions for just about every issue, but that not the case with national security and foreign affairs. Also, border security is number one issue for Texans. Number one issue for me and it’s easy to just say “build a wall.” You need to think a little deeper than that. You need to have some operational experience, working with law enforcement, working with the DA, working with the FBI, working with the intelligence community. What exact solutions do you need to fix these things? And protect Texans, that’s going to be a big one for me. Essentially working with all these joint special operations, these join task forces that are out here, there’s a lot. They’re doing a decent job, but they need that political backing. The backing right now feels very superficial. We’re backing it, we’re backing the wall, but let’s get down there, lets do some things right now. Let’s show law enforcement we got their back right now, get them some resources they need. Also, I’m the only one with a master’s degree in actual policy. This is positioned to be a policy maker, that is lost on people sometimes. I’m a business man, but we’re talking about policy, not necessarily running an office. You’re not going to be CEO of the 2nd District. Make policy so other people can be CEOs in the 2nd District.
John: You talk about your experience in national security. I was wondering what ideas you have to combat North Korea because they are a growing threat in the world right now. As a congressman, how would you try to help the US in combating North Korea?
Crenshaw: The president needs people in congress who truly understands the behind the scenes and what it looks like and what a war would actually mean in the Korean Peninsula. It would be disastrous. There are no good options for Korea, just putting that out there right now. The game has changed a little bit because you have a North Korean regime that can reach the United States with their ICBMs. Now the moment they can attach a nuclear warhead to those ICBMs, that’s where the real danger occurs and that’s what will make them hold the entire world hostage. Right now, they basically have the Korean Peninsula in a hostage crisis. The way we combat that is actually the strategy is sound. It doesn’t seem that way from the outside looking in. It seems like a lot of crazy tweeting, it seems like some crazy rhetoric. I think there is a little bit of method to that madness. You need to have the Chinese think we have a credible military threat, we gotta show them were going to do something about it. Otherwise the Chinese will never step in. They are the key. We need to have them use their leverage over the North Koreans, bring them back from the brink. Assure the North Korean regime they can survive if they can just integrate into our values. Their only concern is survivability. That’s what Kim Jong Un cares about. That’s when they will use nuclear weapons when they feel the regime is under threat. So it’s a combination of slowly but surely. Getting the North Korean people outside information. Get them access to the internet. We need to do that with a combination of the Chinese putting leverage over the regime. Allow their society to slowly open more and more, normalize them to an extent to the rest of the world. War is not a good option. Though unfortunately, it is a necessary option if they continue down this path and I think we can force them into doing that.
John: What do you think is the most important issue in congress? What is your biggest issue?
Crenshaw: Border security.
John: Border security?
Crenshaw: Yes. That’s Texas’ number one issue. It’s going to be my number one issue in congress. The other big one is spending, entitlement reform. That’s a big one, I’m glad to see Paul Ryan at least gave it lip service. Hopefully we tackle that after the election. I would be happy to do it. I was trained by a Reagan economist at Harvard. He told me really, detailed out the plan for saving social security. Lets just do it, it’s not a new plan. It’s been around for decades. You just have to do it. That’s a big one. I think that’s what we have to work on. We have to put our country on the path to solvency. Reduce the dept, federal over reach is a big part of that as well. Another thing that I can work on from the inside too, if I get on the armed forces committee, is I want to streamline our defense department, make the acquisition process better, encourage commanders not to spend all the money they have at the end of the year. Give them a better solution to budgeting besides continuing resolutions, then make them see your budget, just things we have to work on, while simultaneously making sure we save the tax payer money. We can get the Defense Department what they need while saving tax payer money, we can acutally do both.
John: Now I’m going to try to get into more philosophical questions about conservatism. My first question is; what is the role of government to you?
Crenshaw: The role of government is to create a structure so that society can thrive without being overly intrusive. I think we should specify, what is the role of federal government right? I think that’s really what your question is?
John: Yes sir
Crenshaw: Federal government is, there are just some certain things we all just agree on that are not red or blue. Defense of the nations, foreign affairs policy. Really, it turns out it is outline in this document that we created like, a long time ago and it has still lasted all this time. That’s as far as we need to look to find out what the role of the federal government is. From the philosophical perspective, if I didn’t have the constitution to tell me exactly what the role is. The role is to create a structure so that society can thrive and be great and that is it.
John: How much power do you think the government should have? Your ideal government whether it is federal or state. How much power should government have? How much control over citizen’s lives do you think it should have?
Crenshaw: That’s a broad question, so your going to get a broad answer. Here’s the difference between the left and the right. The left will see a problem, they will assume it’s a problem, no matter what, no matter what kind of evidence they have, it’s a problem. Because they love problems. Then they will want that problem to be solved by the federal government, every single time. That’s the default. Conservatives first, will ask, is this a problem? Is it anecdotal, is someone angry, does that mean it’s justified anger? We have to prove it’s a problem. Is it systemic, is there data backing this up? Okay, maybe there is. Where should it be solved? Should it be solved by society? Maybe. The women’s pay gap, it’s kind of essentially solved by society over time. The left is still maybe yelling about it, but they don’t have the right data, there’s something wrong. In fact, if you are your age or my age, there is a pay gap, and men are losing. So society solved it and that’s great. That’s the wonders in living in a moral free society. People speak up and think about it. Oh, what wasn’t fair, lets fix it as a society, not as a government. But maybe society can’t fix it, maybe there’s truly a market failure and there’s certainly examples of that. Let’s look to the local government, not even local, lets look to the churches, like I said society. Local government, then state government, the federal. That’s essentially the pecking order that a conservative see where problems can be solved. We’re not against thing being solved at the federal level, we just want proof that’s the right place to do it. We do it carefully and cautiously, and maybe everything is a little slower moving. But I think that’s the way we ought to do it. Does that answer your question, what was your question?
John: What do you think the size of the government should be?
Crenshaw: Right, so based on that philosophy, the size of the government should be limited and small, and based on the constitutional limits set upon it, and if we’re going to increase it for whatever limit, it has to follow those steps. It has to be truly a market failure.
John: As a conservative, one of the things we are most concern about is the growth of federal government, we believe government is not going to fix itself. I was wondering if you support a convention of states?
Crenshaw: A conventions of states for a constitutional amendment to do what exactly? I always get asked that question, and I’m like sure, what is the amendment? What’s interesting is you see this movement, it’s very hard to find what actual detailed amendment they want….
John: That was actually going to go into my next question, which amendments would you like to see which would you like to have removed?
Crenshaw: That’s a more detailed question, Amendments I would support, I can’t think off the top of my head, I would want removed right away. Added? If we are going to do a real convention of states and just start messing with the constitution and see what sticks, you could make a good argument for term limits for sure. I’ve already signed that pledge. Not self-term limits. I’m not going to do it if nobody else is going to do it. But I would support it for sure. Maybe we need to strengthen the 10th amendment somehow. What working we use, what legal jargon we use, not sure, but maybe we need to strengthen that. Do we need a balanced budget amendment? Perhaps, or at least a reasonable midway balanced budget amendment and go that direction. So the federal government cannot spend the way it does, or at least cap that deficit with something. You could come up with a formula too. It doesn’t have to be as simple as, the budget has to be balanced. That can actually be detrimental to the economy. We got to be careful how we attack that. It’s easy to be ideological about it. With out thinking about the math. It is a math problem in the end. It’s a technocratic problem in the end. Maybe that balanced budget amendment would look something like deficits as a percentage of GDP has to be less than growth as the percentage of GDP. And if you do the math problem behind that will eventually lead to 0% dept as percentage of GDP. Which is a healthy economy. Even if the dept is 50 trillion dollars. If it’s closer to zero or at least on track closer to zero than GDP, that’s a healthy economy. It just is. So it’s a math problem. We’re not just conservatives, we’re smart conservatives. And we know the policies, that’s why we get master’s degrees in the policy. And that’s why I’m more qualified than the rest because you got to think through these things. Those are just some ideas I would look at.
John: Here in Texas, a state income tax is actually illegal by our constitution and if a convention of states were to happen, would you consider repealing the 16th amendment, the federal income tax?
Crenshaw: It’s too much. It’s a math problem. Because as good as that sounds, it’s a math problem, we can’t simultaneously care so much about the dept and try to fight for things like that. It’s unrealistic thinking to shrink the government that much. So I’m a realistic conservative on that. I’m not going to say I’m going to repeal the federal income tax. We can reduce it, we can flatten it, we can make it more fair, but I don’t think that’s realistic. Here’s why, I kind of already explained it, but you don’t want the people of the 2nd district to immediately have a congressman in office who’s lost complete credibility. When we go up there an we say things like lets get rid of the department of the education, lets get rid of the department of energy, stop it. Just stop. It’s just not realistic and we want people with credibility so they can focus on our priorities that Texans actually care about. There’s not a lot of Texans that are like “God I really hate that Department of Energy.” There’s just not. That comes from the fringe and frankly I don’t think they’re thinking about it very much. And if your going to make a statement like that, iv gotten off topic a little bit, because some of my competitors will say that; we are going to get rid of the IRS, we are going to get rid of the Department of Energy, and then what? Do you even know what they do? You got to do the research.
John: My next question is a more philosophical question. What do you think is more important to American society and to having a healthy society as a whole? Individualism or collectivism? Or do you think there could be a combination of both?
Crenshaw: Yeah, I think it’s a healthy combination of both. I firmly believe in a society rooted in Judeo-Christian values that really uses the church first pillar of strength. It comes from the family, it comes from the church. We’re losing that. Not in my district, were not losing it, but in other places you see it. In a sense that is a little bit a form of collectivism. It’s a community, you rely on each other. So were not completely rugged individualist. It’s like a progression. Let me put it this way. In a SEAL team, you’re taught, when you get hurt, self-aid, buddy-aid, corpsman-aid, that’s the progression. So first, lose your arm? Put a turning kit on it. Deal with it. Maybe you lost both arms. Now I will help you out. I will put two turning kits on you for you since you don’t have any arms. Maybe your wounds are more catastrophic and you need an actual corpsman. There’s a progression of help, and it’s sort of how society used to function. You need to take care of yourself first. But if you can’t, you should be able to rely on your neighbor, and all that collectivism I guess. You need to find those very broad philosophical terms. But if you can’t rely on just your neighbors, you should be able to rely on your community. Your church. You have to go through that progression. We talked about just general philosophy so it is a mixture of both. Though if it doesn’t start at the individualism level, society will fail. If you’re being taught ahead of time that somebody else will solve all your problems, which is what the left basically wants to teach you. Then your society will have no strength to it. So in that sense, if you have to start somewhere, yes, it’s individualism. Strength in the individual with the knowledge that you can rely on your neighbors.
John: Conservatism is a philosophy and an ideology. A lot of people on the left consider it a reactionary cause, but a lot of them don’t understand it is an actual ideology. Can you tell me, your three basic tenets of conservatism and what conservatism mean to you?
Crenshaw: I definitely don’t think it’s reactionary. That doesn’t even make sense. It’s conserving.
John: That’s what I’ve gotten from a lot of people on the left, if I ask them what conservatism means, sometimes they say it’s reactionary, which goes to show they don’t realize it’s an actual ideology. I was wondering if you could explain your tenets of conservatism and what it means to you.
Crenshaw: It’s freedom, it’s love of country and patriotism, and it’s guardians of the American identity. So freedom, everything we do is based on freedom. Reduce regulation, lower taxes, less federal overreach, it’s all of these things, it’s freedom. It’s love of country an patriotism, and I would add morality to that. They like to think they got us when were like, “we want ultimate freedom” and their like, “well what about women’s rights to abortion?” That would bring morality into it, well you just can’t be an immoral society either. That’s how we counter that kind of discussion. They think their so smart. They’re not. So we’re a moral society, we’re a free society, we’re guarding the American identity, we care about our history, we care about our values, we care about the red, white, and blue. That did not use to be just conservatism, then again, Democrats used to be all conservatives too. I guess in that sense, that’s why it’s no longer agreed upon. We are those guarding the American identity, we are those who remember the American spirit. We look back to the spirit of 1776, we care about those things, we care about those values. We recognize that our values are built on Judeo-Christian values, which doesn’t mean it’s a Judeo-Christian society, we’re not bigots, we do welcome all religions, we just recognize where it came from. We’re okay with that. We recognize our bad history and our good history. We’re comfortable with it. We guard it, we guard it closely, we’re not afraid to stand and salute and chant “USA” no matter how cheesy it is, we don’t care. I think the left truly thinks the American identity is flawed and is trying to change it. It’s hard to see which way they are going because I don’t know what their vision really is. But that what’s we’re fighting against, that’s what we’re conserving. We’re conservatives.
John: What is it in the US you want to conserve, what have we strayed from in the past century?
Crenshaw: I think it’s issued based, I will go back to those three tenets. Freedom, we’ve strayed from freedom. It’s generally in the form of economic freedom. Any time you give a regulatory agency a job, they’re probably going to do it. We don’t restrain them enough. You poke it, and it’s like kind of a good intention philosophy. And you don’t think about second and third order effects that slowly erode that sense of freedom. Those are the big things that concern me. Economic freedom, I think we could do away with a lot of regulations that we have. Morality, I think we’re way far, we are on a very shaky moral footing with respect to abortion. Not even Europe is on our level. They’re at a hard twelve weeks. We’re fighting about 20 weeks. Our morality is down the crapper. We have families under attack, fatherless homes are the norm, divorce rates are the norm, nobody believes in those traditional values. Not only do they not believe in them, but their almost under attack. They’re ridiculed which is so strange. Conservatives need to do a better job understanding who their talking to when we try to convince the left why that’s important. You need to understand data, you need to read books like “The Righteous Mind.” The Leadership Institute will push that book on you. You really get historical data, statistical data, if you don’t have that kind of religious authority in a society, and you purposefully ridicule the church, ridicule Christians, ridicule any programs that might use faith-based tactics, to get the poor out of poverty or to help minorities, then you’re just setting yourself up for failure. So that’s an erosion of morality. There certainly an erosion of, when I talked about patriotism, about love of country, there is certainly an erosion of that. There’s an attack on it for no real reason. They just don’t like it. It’s hard to see where they’re coming from. Like you don’t have a right to this, You’re no better just because you’re red, white and blue. Yes we are, it’s our country. And when I go to your country or whatever other country, I’m happy to stand up for your values, to respect your country there. The left encourages others to come here and not be American. Then they cloak our desire for integration in this framework of bigotry. We’re bigots because we want you to be American now instead of what you we’re. I don’t think that bigotry, I think that’s integration. It makes a stronger society. Like come join our club, we’re happy to have you, but actually join it. And then, what’s under attack as far as the American identity, you see that in the news, they’re tearing down statues. You can have a logical conversation about tearing down statues, but then it becomes quickly illogical. The left loves slippery slopes. So you get a confederate statue torn down. Okay, you can make an argument for that. But now we don’t like Washington, now we don’t like Wilson, now we don’t like anybody. There’s a true movement on the left to completely erase any kind of American history or values, that it’s all bad, that it’s all flawed, and I think that’s extremely dangerous. That’s what we’re defending, it’s a lot of those things.
John: Earlier you talked about federalism and the 10th amendment. Do you believe federalism is still playing an active role in the country or do you think it has been diminishing in the past couple of centuries?
Crenshaw: It feels like it’s diminished. It’s still there, don’t get me wrong, all is not lost, states still have considerable rights. When they don’t, you know who’s fault it is really? We like to blame politicians, we like to blame whoever else we blame, but we need to blame ourselves. How many voters do you think know who their state rep is? How many do you think know who their own mayor is? Do you know what I mean? They just don’t.
John: I would say most don’t even know there is an election going on right now.
Crenshaw: Probably not.
John: At least the people I have talked to at the University.
Crenshaw: Right, they really don’t. They don’t care about their state government, everyone is focused on the president 100% of the time. If we have a complaint about the federal government doing to much and the executive branch having to much power, there is no one to blame but the American voter because all they care about is the presidential elections. How are we suppose to get more power to people the voters don’t even know about? That’s the whole goal is giving more about to the state, local government. My ideal of the best office is just being mayor. It just projects, and not really worrying about the left and the right. It’s just getting stuff done. Big government is okay in my opinion at the local level because if people don’t like it, they just walk down the street to the mayor’s office and say this is unacceptable. It doesn’t become a left or right issue. But it has to be at the local level if you’re ever going to have government intervention. It’s that American voter’s fault, so we just have to pay attention more, and if we’re going to say that we are conservative, then you better know who your local officials are.
John: Personally, one thing I rail against a lot and write about is judicial activism and the judicial supremacy of courts in this country such as the supreme court. I have written a long article about judicial review. I believe it is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers. I was wondering if I could get your take on it?
Crenshaw: I’m not as well informed on judicial review as you clearly are, what do you mean that it’s unconstitutional?
John: In I believe 1801, Chief Justice John Marshal declared that that Supreme Court can review any type of law and declare it unconstitutional. He gave the power to himself, for himself, to be used by himself with no check ad balance on it. That is not expressly given in the constitution and we have seen times in history when the supreme court can make a bad decision such as Plessy v. Ferguson or District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court reviewed if a private citizen can own a firearm and it was voted in favor by one vote. My take on it is that it’s a violation of separation of powers because it’s not granted by the constitution, there is no check on it. As a federalist myself, I feel we should be faithfully executing the constitution in its entirety, and I was wondering if I could get your take on judicial review and judicial activism?
Crenshaw: On one hand I agree with you, on the other, not as much. It seems to me that it is the Supreme Court’s job to decide whether if something is unconstitutional. Do they overreach sometimes, do they make decisions on things that really have no place on the judiciary side? Yes, they do. I agree with you, but maybe not completely. There are certainly decisions that you can point to when you look at it and say “well how on Earth is this being decided by judges and not just a law put in place by congress?” I agree with you, but probably not as extreme as your take on it. I do want them to play an active role in deciding what’s constitutional and what is not. But they certainly over reach and it’s a problem.
John: I want to talk about your foreign policy. Like you said, you’re very active in foreign policy, you know a lot about it, you have a background in foreign policy and national security. What role do you think the US should have in the Middle East? An active role, or more passive role?
Crenshaw: An active role, I am not an isolationist. The world is too small. We cannot stick our heads in the sand. That kind of talk was popular with Trump and pretty much every Presidential Candidate and then they change completely when they get in office because they get all the briefings and they’re like “Crap, we need to be out there.” So an active role. Does it necessarily mean a George Bush style invasion of Iraq every five minutes? No, but the second we leave vacuums of power is when you get another 9/11, it’s how you get ISIS, that’s just history. It’s not opinion at all, it’s just history and facts. It’s not about oil, it’s about a couple of things. It’s about counter-terrorism, it’s about containing the Iranian threat. They are a clever bunch. The Iranians pride themselves on being clever, there’s a word for it in Persian, I can’t remember. They are very patient, smart, they think they have outsmarted us, and they’re right. I don’t think they are building a nuclear bomb right now, but they know that they can in seven years. They’ve started that process and there’s nothing we can do about it. We need to start rebuilding that leverage right now and maintaining a very strong alliance network and pushing back on the Iranians when we need to.
John: I have a follow up question on that, one thing we have seen lately is a crisis growing in the Middle East. We had an Iranian drone fly into Israel and get shot down, and an Israeli jet get shot down. It looks like tensions are rising, what do you think might come of that?
Crenshaw: That particular issue, nothing. That kind of stuff just happens. There’s solid backdoor channels and you can see actually, you didn’t see any rhetoric, did you? The Syrians were like, “nothing happened.” So they know. Remember when Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007? Nothing happened. They just said “nothing happened.” They don’t want to start something, they’re actually pretty rational. For that particular issue, that 50 minutes of fame is already gone. The tension is always going to be there. It’s not going anywhere, we need to support our only Israeli allies though. That’s for sure.
John: My last question is, what should the US do to combat Iran and to support Israel? What should be our goal in the Middle East and how should we be executing that?
Crenshaw: I kind of spoke about this before, the reason we need to be active there and have a presence there is because of the Iranian threat. Two things, and it’s almost country specific. Stay in Iraq, we’re not leaving Iraq ever. It doesn’t mean we need 100,000 troops there, but we need a presence at all times to counter that Shia militia growing influence. Same with Lebanon, we need to work closer with the Lebanese government and do our best to influence them as opposed to Hezbollah. They are basically a respected political party there, that’s lost on a lot of people. It’s a terrorist organization but they are very heavily into politics. They are very sophisticated. Supporting Israel and all they do, that’s our policy and that’s not going anywhere. That’s kind of bipartisan at this point. Kind of, depends on how old you are unfortunately. So I worry about our future policy makers and their thoughts on Palestinian rights. Not that I don’t love Palestine, I would love to see them have their own country and be a free people, but you can’t get there without guaranteeing Israel’s security. So it’s also our Arab allies, maintaining close relations with them. Doing what we’re already doing. There’s not a lot a of new solutions there. We have been training with them for years and years and years. I would say work with the Saudis a little bit and the Emiratis a little bit closer. Yemen, make sure there’s not overstep there. They have actually created a backlash with sloppy tactics. A stronger presence in the Persian gulf and the Arabian Gulf as opposed to the Obama administration which was to scarred to do anything. “what if they see us? What if they don’t like what we’re doing?” Who cares? We’re America, show the Iranians whose boss and who owns them, but don’t let our boats get taken over by some rusty marine navy boats. Just acting like America would be a start and investing in the region. Two more things, putting economic sanctions where they make sense. We’re not going to tear up the Iran nuclear deal, I’ll say that on the record. It was a bad deal, but if you tear it up now, it’s a worst deal. We lost our leverage. So that needs to be clear for policy makers. Most policy makers don’t even know what’s in the Iran nuclear deal, let alone what it’s actually called; “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” so nobody even knows that. None of my competitors know it. We need to make a really strong push, and I’ve already made the connections all over Houston by the way, to protect the Iranian opposition, the leaders of that. Let’s push those buttons, let’s get those guys what they need, and let’s do some good for the Iranian people. The Iranian People are pretty closely aligned with western values. We don’t realize that, more so than Arabs.
John: Well sir, it’s been a pleasure to get to interview you and thank you for your service for this country. Do you have anything you want to say to any potential voters?
Crenshaw: Get out and vote. You just got to get to the polls and if you forget my name, it’s number 1 on the ballet. It’s so important, it’s so important if your young and your conservative to get out and vote and have your voice heard and speak with your fellow students and understand your philosophies very well so you can defend them. I think there are too many conservatives out there that don’t defend ourselves well enough and you look silly and that’s not what we want. We need more attraction to young people. Young people really care about the issues and we got to do good by them. Do right by them.
John: And if anyone wants to know more about you, where can they go to find you?
John: Thank you very much.
Crenshaw: Thank you.
This was a very good interview with many intelligent, thought out questions. The interviewer seems like a thoughtful enlightened person. Crenshaw was very straightforward about his answers and didn’t dodge questions as most politicians do.