Friday, June 23, 2006

Josh Ewing for UT St. Rep. (25)

Maybe I am hopping on the establishment bandwagon, considering all the big names that have endorsed Josh, but after noticing his signs (quite nice, aren't they), reading his bio and positions on his website, I think he would make an excellent Representative.

Better still, he has a blog in which he tells the story of an attempted bribe by Summit Co. (Park City and its environs) Democratic Party Chair Rob Weyher, whose neice was in my high school graduating class (and her brother was a 3L when I was a 1L at the U).

This guy is an idiot. First, he gets caught driving drunk, then he leaves a message on the phone of Josh's boss at Love Communications? FYI Rob, if you want to bribe someone, you don't leave a record of it.
I’ve been asked several times if I thought my opponent had been involved with Mr. Weyher’s acts. I’ve always said that I have no reason to think that Chris would have been involved. I know that Rob is a strong supporter of Chris, because he thinks she would be the more “liberal” candidate, but I don’t think Chris knew what Rob was doing. Unfortunately, like what is happening in the Cannon-Jacobs race, outside forces are trying to intervene and influence the outcome. I just hope voters look beyond this issue, learn about the candidates, and pick the best person for the job.

Josh is a classy guy. My only beef is that he didn't know this was against the law, but at least his instincts were sound.

Jacob is beating Cannon

Or at least, Jacob is within striking distance, and Cannon is scared of losing his seat. How do I know? Because all of a sudden, Jacob has to tackle rumor about being a gambling adict.

Now in most places, that wouldn't be much of a scandal. But in Utah, and especially in Orem/Provo, it's a big issue. Here's why:
President Gordon B. Hinckley of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forcefully repeated the church's long-standing opposition to all forms of gambling at General Conference in April 2005.
President Hinckley gave a similar speech in 1985, when he said, "President Brigham Young spoke out against gambling. President Lorenzo Snow spoke against it. President Joseph F. Smith spoke very strongly against it; and, in 1925, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors said, 'The Church has been and now is unalterably opposed to gambling in any form.' "

Jacob has gambled before, he's admitted it, but he claims he quit in 2005 and spoke out against during debates with Cannon. But on the Doug Wright show, a conservative radio talk show host that toyed with running against Jim Matheson [but who was blocked by Eagle Forum-types], let callers chime in with the rumor that had been swirling via email.

Jacob also admitted he vastly exaggerated the number of illegal aliens in the Gunnison prison. He said 40%, the Dept of Corrections told the Deseret News the number is 8.4%...even if the state's entire immigrant inmate population were at Gunnison, they would account for 30 percent of Gunnison's prisoners. And remember these are all immigrants (both legal and illegal), who knows how many of these prisoners are naturalized citizens, or have become citizens, or had visas etc.

Jacob is talking to blogs like Right Wing News and Michelle Malkin has attracted the attention of Xenophobe Lou Dobbs, who will be filming in Utah today. This is going to be a tight race.

UPDATE: Jacob is even crazier than I thought! Courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune:
"There's another force that wants to keep us from going to Washington, D.C.," Jacob said. "It's the devil is what it is. I don't want you to print that, but it feels like that's what it is."
Jacob said Thursday that since he decided to run for Congress against Rep. Chris Cannon, Satan has bollixed his business deals, preventing him from putting as much money into the race as he had hoped.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Why NYC Dems always lose

Two words: Al Sharpton. Now he wants to have all 3 black candidates unite against David Yassky for NY's 11th Congressional District. Why, not because David was prominently featured in DLC literature. [Heck, I even wrote two articles about him, this one and a this piece.] Nope, it is because Yassky is white (and Jewish)

Sharpton claims this isn't about Yassky's race, but rather about how African-Americans in New York are underrepresented at all levels from NYC.

But what does that have to do with it? Sharpton himself points out that "The district, which includes Brownsville, Crown Heights, East Flatbush, Flatbush and Park Slope, is roughly 60% black." Yassky got lucky that there are 3 black candidates in the primary, thereby presumably splitting the black vote.

Sharpton has a history of ruining the party's chances by playing the race card, in his run for Senate and Mayor and in whom he supported for Mayor, Senate, Governor, and Congress.

If Al really wanted what's best for black representation in the NY delegation, he would have met privately with the three black candidates and talked off record with local news. Instead, he does an NY Daily News Op-Ed. Another Crown Heights riot indeed.

Brooklyn is gentrifying as a result of skyrocketing property values, and Yassky represents Brooklyn in the city council. It seems perfectly reasonable that Yassky could represent the area in Congress. Plus, it is not like he is going to vote against 60% of his voter's interests in Congress and expect to be re-elected.

You can't understand why NYC has something like 80% of the voters Democrats and still has a GOP mayor, GOP governor, a GOP state Senate, and until 1998 a GOP U.S. Senator until you look Al Sharpton's race-baiting strategies straight in the eye and denounce them.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Joe Klein: brown noser in chief

I used to think that Joe Klein was a New Dem. After all, he spoke quite approvingly of Bill Clinton's policies, even if he expressed dismay about President Clinton's moral behavior. Now after the latest in a series of fawning pieces about the manliness of George W. Bush, we know that Klein is just a suck-up to Presidents.

Klein's lust for being around the powerful is typical of the DC pundits/"reporters," but Klein seems to have a bad case of cocktail weenie fever. Digby [via FDL] sums it up this way:
Bush is stuck in the mid-30s, his brain narrowly escaped indictment and he had to mount the most top secret trip since Kissinger went to China (someone left the cakewalk in the rain) yet Klein is drooling and panting over the president's pants again, getting all hot and bothered when the frat-boy in chief calls the Iraq defense Minister an "interesting cat" and al-Zarqawi a 'dangerous dude.'

It doesn't matter what the idea is (Immigration Reform in 2006 or Welfare Reform in 1996), if it is held by the President of the United States, Joe sure thinks is a good idea and people on both sides of the aisle in Congress should agree.

Klein thinks he is a liberal, he has the media convinced he is too. Some liberal bloggers think he is a Joe Lieberman Democrat. I think he is just a kiss-a$$.

Monday, June 19, 2006

why bloggers suddenly are noticed

Remember when bloggers were referred to in the media as this intreguing side note? Oh those rabble rousing youngins, with their computers and internets, what will they think of next?

Well it turns out, you hold a convention, you get coverage. YearlyKos might have been the smartest move the blogosphere's made in a while. The MSM really could wrap their heads around what the blogosphere is and what its demographics are. No matter how much we complained or paid for surveys. Because the media was able to attend the event and speak to bloggers face to face and see the thousands of them who paid their way there, they could finally cover the blogs properly.

Reporters could see with their own eyes that bloggers were not all college students, in fact that the average age is in the 40s and 30s, not the 20s and teens. They could see that they bloggers don't wear pajamas and are actually real people, just like those Iowan caucus goers political reporters like to cover.

I think comparing the left and right bloggers to Iowan straw pollers/caucus goers is actually quite apt. Both are relatively small portion of the Democratic Party, and not necessarily representative of the entire party. They tend to be more educated, whiter, etc.

They are called activists. Now some are activist (online and off) of the kind that deserve the term used in its pejorative context: the single issue Nazis who demand ideological or racial loyalty, reality be damned.

The kind I prefer and read are mostly the best kind of activists: concerned, organized and vocal citizens. Folks like John Aravosis, who fights for gay rights as he sees them, urging boycotts, calls to Congress, exposing hypocrites etc. While he may be focused mostly on gay rights, he also delves into other privacy rights, like cell phone records, NSA wiretapping, credit history, etc.

The blogosphere will continue to be influential because we are using an incredibly effective medium of spreading our ideas, message, efforts, and money to the candidates and causes we believe in. Its power will only grow as more people go online and more people read blogs, especially decision makers and reporters.