Change is coming to Utah Politics

You can feel it in the air, and see it in the LG's filings: change...even in Happy Valley.

Democrats aren't the only ones in Utah County disenchanted with the Republican incumbents in the Legislature.
Candidate filing ended Monday, and several Utah County legislative districts have multiple candidates, especially multiple Republican candidates.

Of the 13 district races for the House of Representatives, eight races have more than one Republican, and in the Senate, three of the four races have multiple Republicans.

All of the candidates running think there needs to be change, but several Republican candidates said neighbors and other members of the community asked them to run because they want a positive change in the Legislature and not just the same actions by the same people.

"It was a little over a year ago there was a lot of outcry for a change. ... Everybody has a different complaint," said Jennifer Baptista, a candidate in District 57 who is running against Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove. "They feel they're not being heard, that he's not representing them and they're not happy about his lack of support for the public schools. There's been a lot of discontentment in the area, and it just proves the fact that a lot of people want somebody different."

Lots of people are running against incumbents all over the state. Even a veteran Republican leglislator is fed up with his colleagues. After 10-years in the Utah House (1996-2006), David Hogue is running this time as a Democrat:

"The purpose of the Legislature is to represent the people," Hogue said. "I've been disappointed in the way the Republican leadership has steered and guided legislation that is going away from citizens' rights."
Among his biggest gripes: the school voucher law that was soundly defeated by voters in last November's referendum.

Yet those out-of-touch legislators still haven't gotten the message. "I don't see [anti-voucher] as being all that compelling of a message. Maybe time will tell," said Speaker Greg "20 votes"
Curtis. "Vouchers will not be an issue in anyone's political future," said Sen. Mike Waddops. The voucher issue is "not going to have much impact except for the zealots," predicts Rep. Greg Hughes. Those zealots like 62% of Utahns, who constituted a majority in every county in the state.

But one change to come is the most surprising, no real serious challenger to SL County Mayor Peter Carroon.

The 47-year-old is a field supervisor for Adult Probation and Parole at the Utah Department of Corrections. He lives in Sandy with his wife, Nicia, and five children.

[Michael] Renckert faces a daunting task in taking on Corroon, as the county mayor's poll numbers have remained consistently high throughout his four-year term.

Corroon is the county party's No. 1 target for the 2008 election, Evans said.

"He's not running against Peter Corroon. He's running for Salt Lake County mayor," [Salt Lake County Republican Party Chairman James] Evans said.

That's a telling quote from a guy who declined not to run for the job.

But really, why give away the County Mayor race? He is the third most known and powerful political figure at the local level (behind Sandy's Mayor Tom Dolan and SLC's Mayor Ralph Becker) yet represents more people than any member of Utah's U.S. House Delegation. Every time you go to a public pool in the summer, go to a park, go to Millcreek Canyon, go to a rec center, go to the planetarium, etc. you are using a County service. He could plaster his name and face over all of these services, like Nancy Workman did. If Jim Matheson doesn't run for Governor in 2012, Carroon could and would have a decent shot at winning.

your world in charts

(H/T Erza Klein)

Or, why Hillary Clinton's prospects for winning the nomination are slipping daily.

(graphic by the New York Times)

I am not sure if this chart includes another superdelegate that announced for Obama today, but I am sure it doesn't include the pledged delegate count. This dramatic shift is partly due to Obama's February winning streak, and partly due to the shattering of the "inevitable" talking point, which in turn was shattered by Obama's wins. At this rate, Obama will close the superdelegate gap between him and Clinton, which once stood at over 100, in a matter of weeks.

And with each superdelegate committing, it makes for one less that could go for Clinton. Of course, these people can and do change their minds. Unfortunately for Sen. Clinton, they having been changing their minds from supporting her to supporting Sen. Obama.

The Clinton camp acknowledges that due to the party's pledged delegate allocation rules, she will never be able to make up Obama's lead. And unless Florida and Michigan are somehow counted, she also has no hope of leading in the popular vote. Those two states seem unable to get their act together and decide on what to do.

Some of this, no doubt, is due to Obama supporters (and perhaps even the Obama camp itself) "sabotaging" the decision process in Michigan and Florida. But the legal questions raised by Obama/his supporters are reasonable ones--the Voting Rights Act cannot be taken lightly--and much of the inabilty of these two states is due to the internal conflicts between state party officials, state legislators/legislatures, and state Congressional delegations. Both Obama and Clinton teams seem content in having it both ways. Clinton decries the disenfranchisement of voters while continuing to claim that Michigan's results were fair because Obama chose to take his name off the ballot. Obama says it is up for the states/the DNC to decide how to go forward when both agreed that no plan will happen without the written approval of such a plan by both Obama and Clinton.

If this continues, I doubt a re-do will actually occur in either state and some sort of a compromise regarding delegates will be reached and rubber-stamped by the Rules and Credentials Committees later this summer. If so, advantage Obama, whose people will be in the majority on said committees.

All of this means that Sen. Clinton's path to the nomination requires that Sen. Obama becomes so damages that the party won't want to choose him. And she will have to do the damaging (at best indirectly). How do you think Rev. Wright's months old comments suddenly resurfaced?


And I would like to make one more point about delegates. Of course they are undemocratic, as are caucuses, as is the fact that certain states get to go first. If you go back in the archives, you can see me wailing about the unrepresentiveness of the Iowa Caucuses in 2003 and 2004. But everyone who opted to seek the Democratic nomination for president implicitly agreed to these rules. While it may be politically untenable or really unfair for Michigan and/or Florida voter's choices not to count, the DNC made its ruling and neither Clinton nor Obama's team (nor any other campaign) objected to the DNC's ruling at the time it was made. Nor did anyone at the time protest the way delegates were allocated between and within states, especially the rules in states like Nevada and Texas. It was only the Clinton campaign that complained about these things after-the-fact. And can any Clinton supporter look me in the eyes and honestly tell me that if the roles were reversed she would have made these criticisms? Of course not. Not that Obama wouldn't have tried to make these complaints. But I doubt any of them would have had as much traction coming from him as they have from her.

The rule was, and still is, the first candidate to get 50.1% of the delegates gets the nomination. I welcome any changes to the nomination system that reexamines delegate allocation systems, eleminates caucuses, puts more emphasis on the popular vote, etc. But all of those changes will have to take effect for the 2012 nomination, no matter how terrible the current system is.

Obama's team based their strategy--including getting his name, as well as Edwards' and Biden's, off the Michigan ballot--on those rules. And, let's face it, so did the Clinton's team. And right now, Obama is the odds-on favorite to win the nomination. [This, by the way, is the number one reason why the superdelegates are rapidly trending in Obama's favor]

While I hope that the Democratic Party change its nomination rules for the better as a result of this epic Obama-Clinton race, I don't support changing the basis of choosing a nominee at this point in "the game." Not unless someone invents a time machine.

crafting a narrative

One of the things that impressed me most about Rob Miller's recruiting efforts for Utah Democrats this cycle was his get for the Attorney General race.

Echoes of last year's school voucher debate continued to reverberate Thursday as Jean Welch Hill filed to run against Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Last June, Shurtleff stripped Hill of her title of special assistant to the attorney general as she advised the Utah State Office of Education on school vouchers.
In the letter removing her status, Shurtleff wrote "You have fostered an adversarial and hostile relationship between the State Board of Education and this office by giving advice contrary and inconsistent with advice given by me and others in the Attorney General's Office."

It is not that I think Ms. Hill is any stronger of a candidate against Shurtleff than any of the other challengers Rob and his collegues have recruited, it is this pick reinforces the Utah Democrats main message this fall: "They've gone too far" or "They're out of touch" or "Listening to the people, for a change."

This fall, Democrats will be talking a lot about vouchers. But the education policy choice the legislature made is almost besides the point. The real point the Democrats will be trying to make is that Republicans in power have been corrupted by it and don't represent "your values." It is the same message that Republicans used nationally against Democrats in 1994, and vice versa in 2006. There have been many books writen about "framing," and narratives, and the voucher issue is a classic example of this.

By getting the attorney that stood up to the legislature and Shurtleff's bullying on the voucher issue, when she was right on the law (the Utah Supreme Court unanimously agreed with her) and right with the public does two things. First, it ties Shurtleff to the legislature, and casts him as their stooge. Second, it reminds voters that she exhibited superior judgment than him, and suggests his judgment was clouded by lust for power. And Hill is alreadying tapping into those themes.

"What the top lawyer needs to do is listen to both sides," she said. "They need to make decisions based on the legalities, not what a political party wants."
[...]
"Utahns are frustrated with what happened last year and what continues," she said. "Obviously we need to have other voices being heard in our state government."

Shurtleff knows he is in trouble, and is trying to pull a Joe Lieberman: "I didn't take a position on vouchers," said Shurtleff.

Let's turn the way back machine to 2007, to get the real chronology on vouchers, shall we?

March 27: In response to an official request from Gov. Huntsman, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff issues an informal opinion stating that House Bill 174 can be implemented and funded regardless of the outcome of a referendum vote, if any, on House Bill 148.
[...]
May 3: In light of the successful petition drive and with no election date chosen, the Utah State Board of Education declines to pass on third and final reading a draft rule regulating vouchers in Utah. Instead, it seeks legal clarification from the Utah Attorney General.
[...]
May 11: Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff sends a letter to Utah State Board of Education Chairman Kim R. Burningham that concludes, "it is incumbent upon the Board to implement the voucher program through H.B. 174 immediately!"
[...]
May 23: Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff responds with answers to the Board’s questions of May 11.
[...]
June 6: Kim Burningham, Janet Cannon, Teresa Theurer, Greg Haws, Richard Sadler, Michael Jensen, Denis Morrill, Laurel Brown, Dixie Allen, Debra Roberts, Sheryl Allen, Steven Mascaro, Kory Holdaway, Carol Moss, Jim Bird, Fred Hunsaker, LaWanna Shurtliff, and Utahns for Public Schools file an amicus brief in the Snow and Bramble case before the Utah Supreme Court.
June 7: Utah House Minority Leader Ralph Becker and Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich send a letter to Gov. Huntsman asking for a special session of the Legislature "to address the confusion associated with the ballot referendum on vouchers."
June 7: Attorney General Shurtleff sends letters to Utah State Office of Education attorneys Carol Lear and Jean Hill terminating their status as Special Assistant Attorney General, a title he gave them just weeks before. The Utah State Board of Education keeps Lear and Hill in their current positions on staff at the Utah State Office of Education.

Not only did he do everything in his power to support vouchers and prevent the matter from going before the voters, but he also used his power to intimidate and punish anyone who crosses him on a politically sensitive issue.

Well played Rob, well played.

big little states

With all of this discussion about Florida and Michigan, as well as Clinton spin about their ability to win "big states," I think it is appropriate to take a step back and look at the bigger picture on why Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination is now predicated on so many difficult obsticles (winning overwhelming majority of superdelegates, getting MI and FL to some how count, and winning PA and lots of other remaining states big).

Using the same logic that Bob Shrum used in 2000 and 2004 general elections, Mark Penn decided that there were only a few states that "mattered" in the 2008 primary elections. If Clinton could win Iowa and New Hamshire, she would win the nomination. If she won New Hamsphire and Nevada, she would still be viable. If she won South Carolina, she would have the upper hand on the nomination (after winning NH and NV). If she crushed Obama on Super Tuesday, she would have the nomination.

To crush Obama, Clinton's team thought they should just rack up big wins in big states like NY, CA, NJ, etc. The rest of the states, she assumed would fall into line with the national polling average (which had her ahead) and all she needed to do was a few radio/TV ads in those states.

By contrast, Obama's strategy all along was to keep the big states close enough that he could snag a significant number delegates from them without having win, and cleaning up all of the small states that the Clinton's ignored. Immediately after winning Iowa, he sent his Iowa staff to ALL of the Super Tuesday states (and some to SC and NV). As a result of the Clinton's camp ignoring those states, some predisposition to Obama (or dislike of Hillary Clinton), and Obama dedicating some serious staff and cash to these states, he won disproportionate shares of the vote. For example, he got 75% of the vote in Idaho and Alaska.

Obama's people realized that they might ever have time to make up Clinton's huge leads in many expensive media states, and that there were overall more states with more delegates that could more than offset their losses. That's same reason why Obama's wins Wyoming and Mississippi negated Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas (Primaries).

By the time the Clinton camp figured this out, it was too late to do much about it...other than spin these big wins as "latte-sipping" states or "boutique" contests.

From their rhetroric, it seems that Clinton's general election stategy would be the same 15-20 "swing states" formula that hasn't worked two cycles in a row. Obama's campaign has hinted that it plans to campaign strongly in not just those states, but also places like North Carolina and Demcratic-leaning congressional districts in Nebraska--places that are demographically becoming for favorable to Democrats.

In the end, it doesn't matter if add up a few big numbers or lots of small numbers, the goal of any presidential candidate is to win 270 electoral college votes. And there are potentially more electoral votes in "swing-able" smaller states (AR, IA, NM, CO, NH, parts of NE, NC, GA, KS) than there are potentially "swing-able" larger states (PA, MI, FL, MO, OR, WI, WA). Personally, I think it would be better to win without having to depend on the incompetent elections administration of Florida and/or Ohio to capture the White House.

HRC's bad week

Remember Barack Obama's bad week last week? Where he was accused of sending an advisor to tell the Canadians that he really didn't mean what he was saying on renegosiating NAFTA? [Turns out, this is a big scandal in Canada where it seems Conservative Party government officials are the sources to stories--including a similar one about Clinton's team was out there but quashed--and there is little to either campaign going back channel to praise NAFTA] Where she ran the 3 a.m. phone ad and pushed the theme that she--and John McCain--had "passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold," but Obama hadn't? Oh, and she won the popular vote in three of the four contests on March 4th--and maybe a handful of net delegates (which was erased by supers and the Texas caucuses almost immediately).

Now, it seems that it is Sen. Clinton's turn for a bad week. First, and most obvious, two large (60-40 range) losses in Wyoming and Mississippi on Saturday and Tuesday.

Those were largely expected. It seems Obama does really well in either a) lilly white states (Iowa, Vermont, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Connecticut, etc.) or b) states with a very large African-American population (Maryland, Alabama, Georgia, D.C., Mississippi, Louisana, etc.) but not so good in states with say 20-30 percent African-Americans (Ohio, Texas, Tennesee, New York, New Jersey, etc.) Of course, there are exceptions to this pattern (Virginia, Illinios, etc.)

But there were two other big negatives for Clinton that she couldn't have expected: Gov. Spitzer's high-priced hookers and 1984 VP nominee Garaldine Farraro's racist comments. Althought perhaps the comments could have been anticipated.

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race," [Geraldine A. Ferraro] said [April 15, 1988, Washington Post]
And then on February 27, 2008, on FOX News' John Gibson's radio show:

FERRARO: If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary?

If he were a woman...

GIBSON: You mean if he were John Edwards?

FERRARO: If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he's in, absolutely not.

GIBSON: Geraldine, are you playing the race card?

FERRARO: No, and that's the problem. Every time you say the truth - I'm the first person, John, and you know how honest I am, I am the first person who will say in 1984 if my name were Gerard instead of Geraldine, I would never have been picked as the vice presidential candidate.

There is an argument to be made that pictures of Mrs. Spitzer next to repeated philandering moralist Gov. Spitzer will remind voters of when Bill embarressed Hillary (and Chelsea, his supports, America, etc.) with his affair with Monica...in a good way. People like Chris Mathews have claimed that the only reason HRC won in 2000 was people felt sorry for her about WJC's cheating. But I don't think that is why she won. And I don't think it will help her among women, since she is already getting 55-60% of women in these primaries anyway. I don't see the Spitzer story helping her with any other demographic.

At the very least, this means Sen. Cliton lost a superdelegate. New York's LG Paterson is already a super for her, and the party will not give New York another super to replace Spitzer.

That news, combined with the campaign's inability to shut Fararro up and properly denounce and/or reject the former Congresswoman, who said that if she wasn't a woman, she wouldn't have been on the ticket in 1984, means this story will last at least another day. And the Obama people will flog this story to death until Clinton does something much more dramatic than saying she disapproves of the comments or disagrees with them. Look for the Obama camp to demand Hillary return money that one of her HILLraisers (aka Ferraro raised at least $100,000 for HRC) bundled for the campaign.

This if nothing else serves as a distraction from Hillary's preferred messaging in PA: that she is "Ready on Day One" and offers "Solutions not Speeches" etc. If a Republican had said what Ferraro said, it would be treated with the same scorn as Rep. Steve King (R-IA)'s "dancing in the streets" comment. If a similarly prominant Obama supporter--like Govs. Tim Kane or Deval Patrick--had paid around $10K for hookers for years, there would be similar outrage and distraction.

I think everyone can agree--whether they love her or hate her--that Hillary is a tough fighter and can rally. No one should ever count her out. But these pieces of news, and more importantly, how the campaign handles them, will certainly not help her in PA.

straight on 'til morning

(Photo Credit, BluBet)

Commander Pavel Chekov: Course heading, Captain?
Captain James T. Kirk: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning.

Trust me, I have never been much a fan of either Star Trek or Peter Pan. This is all an artistic lead-in (well I hope so at least) to a discussion of how this crazy Democratic presidential primary ends.

And Peter's (and Capt. Kirk's) incredibly vague directions are about as precise as both candidates' end games. How does Barack Obama finish off Hillary Clinton? He was right in saying the other day that she will "not lose it on points, [he's] got to...knock[] [her] out." Yet, Obama and his campaign staff keep arguing about the point score to say that Clinton cannot possibly catch up with him in pledged delegates.

At the same time, Clinton's strategy seems to be to attempt marginalize Obama's wins and the delegate (and popular vote) lead, then complain about poor Michigan and Florida. Even if both states hold a re-vote and she wins Pennsylvania convincingly (it's possible, she currently is up 19 points)...she still won't capture a pledged delegate lead, let alone enough to win on the first ballot without the Super Delegates.

And for that matter, neither will Barack. For him to deliver that knock out blow, he could have won New Hampshire and Nevada, or Texas and/or Ohio. Now, his latest chance is Pennsylvania, which doesn't look good for him right now. If the patterns hold, he will get a lot closer, but probably won't be able to overtake her...I would guess 52-48. And that's not good enough by far, even if he still maintains a 100-150 delegate lead.

Then again, Clinton could have knocked Obama out in Iowa, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday...but also failed.

What we are looking at is two essentially equally matched opponents with tons of money, excellent field teams, and crappy surrogates. This is why the nomination seems poised to go right through every state and straight on 'til Denver. As long as they keep it civil, the whole process will help build the Democratic party in states blue, purple, and red (as well as protectorates like Guam and Peuto Rico), which can only help the party, and highlight the craziness of the nomination process (which also might lead to a good outcome--reform based off the popular vote or something far more "fair"). The worry for Democrats is that, with all the time between tomorrow and April 22, Clinton's and/or Obama's camps will get increasingly nasty and hurt the eventual nominee. And that if this does in fact go to Denver, there is little time for Democrats to get organized for the general. Remember Bush had his field team in place for 2 years prior to his reelection campaign.

Since people like sports metaphors, let's try this one out. This 2008 election cycle has the feeling of the NBA/NFL playoffs of recent years, where the Western Conference/AFC finals felt like the real Finals/Superbowl and the other conference's battle seemed to be about who had won the right to lose to the West/AFC. Now of course, the sports pundits, like political pundits, haven't always been right...just look at the Giants' victory this February. But you have to agree, the Republicans' nomination battle always played second fiddle to the Democrats'.

And I don't that was because Democrats had two "firsts"...I think it was because the political environment favors Democrats. As a result, Democrats had a very strong field, whereas the Republicans had a terrible one. If George W. Bush was still as popular as he was in 2002, the field for both parties would be very different.

marginal candidates

Who is having the last laugh now? (Vice Chair Todd Weiler (R) [Left] and Vice Chair Rob Miller (D)[Right] © 2008 Ben McAdams)


Sigh, and I was about to write snide remark about Rob's recruting abilities.

The first person to file for election against popular Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman is a registered Republican who was charged with marijuana possession in January and is seeking the Democratic nomination.
Monty Nafoosi, 53, is a Bountiful real estate developer.
He was charged by Bountiful police Jan. 2 with possession of less than 16 ounces of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Nafoosi, who lists his nickname as "Millionaire" on the lieutenant governor's Web site, could not immediately be reached for comment Monday. A pretrial conference on the charges was scheduled for Thursday.
Nafoosi's Web site indicates that a cleaner environment is one of his goals.
"By the end of my first term as governor of Utah, my goal is to have an electric car in every garage," his site says.
Utah Democratic Party spokesman Bill Keshlear said Nafoosi isn't someone party officials are backing in their bid to unseat Huntsman, who has said he will seek a second term.
"He's a marginal kind of candidate," Keshlear said of Nafoosi. "This is not the guy we've recruited."
Keshlear said the Democratic Party has recruited a candidate to run against Huntsman, although that person won't be announced for several more days.

Could Nafoosi be any more cartoonishly Mike Gravel/Ralph Nader? What posesses such clowns to run? All of the attention?

As a whole though, Rob has really been stellar at recruitment. He has gotten so many seats filled where it is rough going, like Utah County. Over in Happy Valley, one is afraid to tell the neighbors they're a Democrat. (But Rob's changing that) He has gotten some great candidates in highly symbolic key races like Curtis's and Buttars's seats. I am muy impressed.

Rob's biggest advantages are the legislature's overstepping on vouchers, as well as the neverending stream of conflicts of interest that the legislators exhibit in large numbers. But if Rob can topple Speaker Curtis, it will be about as big as Bill Foster (D-IL) winning ex-Speaker Hastert's seat 52-47.

"By itself, this would not be that big of a deal, but coupled with everything else it will just deflate the [House Republican] Conference," said an aide to one top GOP lawmaker. "And symbolically, losing Hastert's seat is like the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad for Republicans."

Now that's mental image that will stick in your head.

registry contest

So this is Paul Rolly's idea, but I think SLC Mayor Ralph Becker should totally get on board with it and have a naming contest for the erstwhile named domestic partner registry.

My entrant is "Chris Buttars's enemy list" ... what's yours?

time management

Yesterday, I railed on the "saved by the bell" excuse that the legislature uses every session to justify its actions. But as I have said many a time, those bills that do make it through the gauntlet of the last few days show us where the legislature's true priorities lie. Let's review what bills suffered what Sen. Pres. John Valentine calls "the tyranny of the clock" and which blessed bills managed to "magically" get through.

Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield, tenaciously fought to clarify weapons law, pushing a bill that would allow open carry in all areas but college campuses.
[...]
The same can be said for several other bills, ranging from exempting university housing from eviction laws to the prohibition of gang activity.
But others slipped in during the waning hours of the session.
A bill that would increase the minimum auto insurance liability coverage amounts passed late Wednesday night, much to opponents' chagrin.
"Anytime you raise the coverage amount on a person's motor vehicle policy you impact the premium because you are buying more coverage," said Chris Purcell, a claims attorney for State Farm who lobbied against the bill. "People at the current minimum required level won't have a choice."
[...]
Also, the Senate allowed a bill that had drawn the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters to die on the calendar. The legislation would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote, and many worried it would deter eligible voters from registering and hamper registration drives.
In another late-night move, the seventh version of a bill to regulate licensed midwives passed just under the deadline.

Another article had the audacity to compare what the voters said they wanted and what the legislature actually did:

The Legislature again failed to act on any legislation aimed at strengthening ethics regulations in the body. Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, introduced legislation this year to limit gifts lawmakers may take and restrict how they can use their campaign funds.
And Rep. Roz McGee, D-Salt Lake City, proposed legislation to create an independent ethics commission to investigate complaints against lawmakers. The House and Senate now police themselves.
Seventy-two percent of those surveyed supported the creation of such an ethics commission.
This session, Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, was replaced by Bell as chairman of the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee after Buttars wrote a scathing letter to a judge who ruled against his friend - a case McGee suggested could have been brought before an independent commission.
"There is a denial that there is any problem. Even bringing it up people seem to be insulted," said McGee, who is retiring at the end of the year, but hopes someone else takes up the cause of ethics reform.
Bramble, who is chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, said he favors the current structure.

Why would Bramble want to keep the system as it is?

Sen. Curt Bramble, the majority leader, and Rep. Becky Lockhart, the vice chairwoman of the Executive Appropriations Committee asking the president of [Mountainland Applied Technology College (MATC)] whether his students would build a float for the Utah County Republican Party.

It is hard to believe that the president of MATC would not interpret a request from two legislators with enormous power over his appropriations as more than just a casual favor, no matter what they said it was. And why did this request come from these two people and not the chairman of the Utah County Republican Party or the head of a float committee? What are they doing getting involved with a float anyway?

The answer is clear: They knew exactly what they were doing and how they could use their power to gain an advantage for their party. How could [campus President Clay] Christensen say no? How could he not arrange some sort of deal for them?

Remember, Christensen made "a time sheet outlining 29 hours of work that a welding instructor spent on the party's float totaling $580.09, which included parts for the project as well. Another time sheet logged six hours during which Utah College of Applied Technology President Robert O. Brems' son, Chris, a full-time employee at the college, transported the float between Lehi and Spanish Fork. Additional supplies for the float were billed at $416.14." And authorities had the audacity to accuse Christensen of "disregard for the law and use of his position to override internal controls to detect and prevent improper disbursements." I guess it never occured to Bramble that a state-funded college is a separate entity from the Utah County Republican Party. And the irony of this is that the last group that needs help from the state is the Utah County Republican Party. So Bramble was thugish merely for the sake of thugishness.

Will someone in the press please call legislators on the "oops we ran out of time" excuse next time something the people want--especially ethics reform--dies without a vote? The Republican leadership in the legislature has the power to call up any bill for a vote at any time, and can do so at the last minute so that no one can read the darned thing before they have to vote on it. So please, next I hear about the tryanny of the clock, I am going to ask these legislators if they have a day planner, because clearly their time management is poorly utilized towards things the voters elected them to do.

spin

Sen. President. John Valentine versus his Utah Bar President:

"The leadership of the Utah State Bar is deeply concerned that communications such as Senator Buttars' letter represent more than simple expressions of disappointment and are more appropriately characterized as attempts to improperly influence a judge's decisions based on politics," wrote V. Lowry Snow in on opinion piece in today's Salt Lake Tribune.
[...]
"They do see it differently," said Valentine, an attorney. "Really what they have done is restated the facts and put their own spin on it."

Mr. Kettle, stop calling Mr. Pot "black. . . . It's a dark, ugly thing." Oh wait, that was Sen. Buttars. But the point stands. Anyone who didn't fall off the turip truck last night knows what Buttars's intent behind the letter was. I scanned in the letter for you to read it yourself and see if you draw different conclusions that I, or Mr. Snow does.

Chris Buttars Letter

Here's more of what Sen. Valentine and I's bar president says:

We believe that this type of intrusion into judicial decision making is not only inappropriate but also evidences a lack of understanding in the system of checks and balances framed by our forefathers under our state and federal constitutions, and threatens the fairness and impartiality of our courts.
When our founders wrote the Constitution, they purposely shielded courts from political influence so judges could protect the rights of each individual. This was a revolutionary idea. Before then, courts too often were manipulated by the rich and powerful seeking to protect their interests and deny justice to those who had been wronged.
We created a system where judges are able to decide cases free from political pressures; where they consider only the facts and the law in making their decisions, which gives us all our "day in court." We must not turn the clock back to the days of justice only for the few and privileged because of a handful of decisions the few and privileged dislike.
Attempts to intimidate judges are attempts to influence their decisions. If we let external pressure tip the scales of justice, we will lose the only place where we each can be heard on an equal footing.

There's lots more and I highly recommend you read the whole thing, especially elected officials who seem to need a primer on the constitution.

Mr. Snow isn't a partisan and he isn't "spinning." He, like the lawyers in Pakistan who were jailed for protesting, cares about the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. If the judiciary becomes just another political branch, we lose not only our constitutional principles, but what has made this country such an economic powerhouse.

People do business in America because they know they can sign a reasonable contract and it will be enforcible. They don't need to worry about bribing officials or selective prosecution (well, at least until Rove got ahold of the U.S. Attorneys' office). Have a regular set of rules that are evenly enforced and fair makes for a good place to do business. You can't say the same about China or Russia or African or South American countries, where who you know matters more than how good your product/service/price is.

priorities

Even though there was a very exciting set of primaries in the presidential race last night, I feel compelled to discuss this St. George Airport land deal that benefited Speaker Curtis's key client and friend. Curtis claims he went out of his way to not be involved in the matter, but this part of the story makes me doubt his claims of detachment:

The solution, contained in SB298, sponsored by Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George, emerged 11 days ago and breezed through the Senate late last week without even receiving the customary fiscal impact analysis and less than five minutes of debate in committee and on the floor. It was brought up in House Republican Caucus on Tuesday with just one day left in the 45-day session.

The MO of this legislature for years now has been to bring up controversal matters at the last minute--so that there is no time to examine the bill and think about it--and demand party loyalty from their caucus. The inverse of this tactic is to claim to "run out of time" on popular bills that the leadership doesn't like, like Henry's law. If Speaker Curtis really had no influence in this land sale, it wouldn't have come up in the Senate last week without debate and brought up before the House with a day left in the session.

Our legislature needs to be officially full time. I say "officially" because they have hearings and taskforce meetings throughout the year on a routine basis. If for no other reason, a full-time legislature could not use the clock as an excuse for a lack of deliberation or an inability to address legislation.

why we need ethics reform

Reason number...oh I can't keep track.

Utah House Speaker Greg Curtis said Tuesday that he could not disclose or discuss in public his association with the land developer who is buying the St. George airport before the bids were opened, even though his private law firm is associated with that developer and St. George sought state aid in the deal.
On Monday, St. George officials announced that Anderson Development was the top bidder at $44 million to buy the old airport, which sits atop a bluff between St. George, Santa Clara and Bloomington in Washington County. Because of its beautiful location, the old airport is some of the most prime residential development land in southern Utah.
[...]
Curtis' written conflict of interest form filed with the Utah House lists his law firm and Anderson Development as one of its major clients. So the connection with Curtis and Anderson is well-known. What was not known at the time that legislative GOP leaders were considering whether the state would buy the old airport or not was that Anderson Development was one of the private bidders on the airport.

How many fingers does Speaker Curtis have in how many pies? Let's assume for a minute that this was all on the up-and-up...it still has the appearance of impropriety. It is nice that we have laws requiring some conflict of interest disclosure, but it doesn't force legislators not to be able to act when they have a conflict (like say a nuclear plant owner/legislator pushing for the state to use more nuclear power).

Moreover, if any scandal were to convince Speaker Curtis not to run for reelection this year, he could pocket the $333,000 in donations he collected in 2007 (who knows how much he will get after the legislature is out of session) and buy himself a new house, or a new boat, or some land. And I am not the only one that says there needs to be a clean up on Utah's Capitol Hill.

From Friday's Tribune editorial:

If anyone in Utah still believes that there's nothing rotten in the state of Utah's legislative branch, then they haven't been paying attention for a long, long time. Perhaps they'd rather hold to the belief that their lawmakers are as ethical and honorable as they keep claiming they are.
Well, many of them aren't, folks, and we take no pleasure in saying so.
But the stench of corruption around the Capitol from all the self-dealing, bullying, power-grabbing, hate-mongering, lavish lobbying and slavish payback, is strong enough to make the eyes smart and the nostrils burn.

How many more cozy deals do people like Curtis's friends "happen" to make before something is done?

The U.S. Congress now waits for federal prosecutors to indict their members before their "Ethics Committee" starts to investigate. Does the Attorney General need to start the same here? Oh wait, this is the same guy that defends payday lenders after going on a free golf trip to the Bahamas in the dead of winter paid for by payday lenders' lobbying association. Nevermind.

thanks but no thanks

I saw this article in the newspaper this weekend and it sent a chill through my spine:

The Ute Indian Tribe will soon move more than a dozen Federal Emergency Management Administration trailers from Texas and Arkansas to the Fort Duchesne area to help ease the housing crunch on the Uintah-Ouray Reservation.
[...]
Late last year the federal government announced that 1,000 FEMA trailers would be available to Indian tribes throughout the United States. The trailers were originally made available to families displaced two years ago when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Not all of the trailers were used for that purpose.

Remember the blankets given to Native Americans that someone who died of smallpox was once wrapped in?

le the Federal Emergency Management Agency rushes to move thousands of Gulf Coast storm victims out of government-issued trailers, scientists are tearing the units apart to learn why many have exposed occupants to dangerous levels of formaldehyde fumes.
[...]
Test results reported this week by the CDC showed formaldehyde levels in hundreds of FEMA trailers and mobile homes were, on average, about five times higher than what people are exposed to in most modern homes. Formaldehyde, a preservative commonly used in construction materials, can cause breathing problems and is believed to cause cancer.

That's why I am worried this is going to be a 21-century smallpox blanket, even if I see this:

The trailers must still be tested before they will be officially released to the tribe, [Tribal Business Committee Chairman Curtis Cesspooch] said.
[...]
Cesspooch said the trailers given to Indian tribes are not part of a group of FEMA trailers that were reportedly contaminated with high levels of formaldehyde.

Remember, FEMA bought these suspect trailers from a GOP donor at way above cost, and refused to test them until Congress persisted. Are the Utes going to get the trailers that all have the same key too?

I know the Utes need affordable housing and Congressman Matheson is trying to help, but if I were a member of the Utes, I would say "Thanks but no thanks." I just don't trust the government to not screw this one up anymore.

Josh Romney comes to his senses

Maybe Josh looked at all the money that Jim Matheson has in the bank, or maybe Jim's 59% victory in 2006, or the fact that Jim is the most popular politician in Utah, but I doubt the reason Josh Romney demurred running against Jim Matheson was the reason he gave to the press.

Josh Romney said Saturday he has decided not to run for Congress so he can spend more time with his young family after being away for much of the past year campaigning for his father, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"It's been a lot of excitement for the family, but it's been a tough year for us as well," Josh Romney told the Deseret Morning News. "We're just not quite ready to hop into another tough race."

Or maybe he is telling the truth, but he puts his family over service to his country.

At an "Ask Mitt Anything" forum this morning [August 08, 2007] in Bettendorf, Iowa, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney was quizzed about whether any of his five sons are serving in the U.S. military.
[...]
"My sons are adults. [Gov. Romney said] They’ve chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. … And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president."

Now that Josh has served one "tour of duty," I guess he gets to spend the rest of his life in America with his wife and children, unlike actual members of our Armed Forces, the vast majority of whom have already served multiple tours of duty.

I wonder who the Utah Republican party will come up to be the sacrificial lamb against Jim this year? I vote ex. Sen. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chris Buttars or House Speaker Greg "20 votes" Curtis. Not that the Utah Democrats don't have their sacrificial lamb duties as well for the guy that gets to lose to Gov. Jon Huntsman.

quote of the day

I don't usually quote LDS scripture, but a Mormon co-worker pointed out this line to me with regards to Sen. Buttars and his colleagues who like to throw around their power to intimidate others.

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." --D&C 121:39

Pretty apt isn't it? Now for a more secular source:

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
--Lord Acton

Speaking of which, I have in my hot little hands a copy of the Buttars letter in its entirity. I am currently debating the ethics of posting a scan of it on the internet.

State Senators realize they're embarrassing

Sadly, I am not referring to those involved in the Buttars letter scandal, but rather the I.B.-schools-are-anti-American-scandal.

Although HB266 passed the House unanimously earlier this month, it ran into trouble when Dayton said she was "opposed to the anti-American philosophy that's somehow woven into all the classes as they promote the U.N. agenda," then voted with Peterson and Stepheson to kill the bill.
Since then, current and former I.B. students and their parents have deluged [Republican Sen. Margaret] Dayton and other lawmakers with e-mails asking them to reconsider. I.B. students from Syracuse Junior High School also visited the Capitol and [Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay] has worked behind the scenes to resuscitate her proposal.
"I talked to wiser, more reasonable people . . . who realized it would be an embarrassment to our state if that story went national," she said. "The public outcry was so big."

The one positive thing out of this was that these kids learned how to lobby their state legislature and they as members of the public need to keep a watchful eye on the Legislature.

Sen. Dayton apologized "for not being more appropriate" when she characterized International Baccalaureate programs as "anti-American," and blocked $300,000 for I.B. programs. Rep. Moss was able only to get a third of that money back.

My question is where did Sen. Dayton get her information that I.B. programs were "anti-American"? Was it the word "international" that scared her off? Or that fancy word "Baccalaureate," you know, the "B" in "B.A."?

"It's an extraordinary program," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said Thursday of I.B., in which his own son is enrolled. "We need more of them, not fewer." Dayton acknowledged Thursday that the program "does a lot of good things in Utah." She said she was concerned about "what happened in other states that had trouble with it" and worried about making sure entities outside Utah weren't controlling education.

What exactly has happened in other states that she is concerned about? Does she really think that some international organization is indoctrinating Utah children? The whole point of I.B. programs is that you take a test at the end that makes your students directly comparable to students at schools in the U.K. and other english-language based schools in other countries. I had a German friend in college who went to a college prep school with lots of kids from the U.S. embassy and American businessmen's children and he took I.B. courses so he could go to an American University.

Sen. Dayton blames her performance on her constituents.

"I apologize for not being more appropriate in my comments in committee," Dayton wrote. "It was my understanding that members of the public were planning to express concerns about the I.B. program. When they did not present in committee, I felt a need to reflect their concerns."

Does she and othose who wrote/called her really the same people who think the U.N. is trying to take away our guns and the government is trying to poison us by putting floride in our drinking water? If so, Sen. Dayton, you don't have to be their mouth piece. US Rep. Jim Matheson gets lots of letters every day asking him to hold hearings on Area 51 and how the moon landing was faked (I read some of these letters), but he doesn't give voice to those conspiracy theorists. He actually tries help Utahns by blocking Italian nuclear waste from coming into the state. Sen. Dayton could learn a thing or two from him it seems.

mum's the word

Sen. President John Valentine just told his caucus of Utah Senate Republicans to shut the heck up and stop talking to the media. Because he knows the press is hunting for more Sen. Buttars stories.

"Be careful with your communications" is the message that Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, gave Wednesday. He has brought up the issue repeatedly during the GOP's closed-door caucuses. "We live in a fishbowl and everybody is constantly looking through the fishbowl. Remember what your communications mean."

What does that mean, 'Your communications mean pissing me off?'

"Just look at the statement," Valentine said, referring to a posting to the Senate majority's blog that stated while Buttars was exercising his "right to communicate his opinion privately with another public official" in his letter to Pullan, once the letter became public, Senate leaders were concerned it "may now have a negative effect on the confirmation process of new judges."

Valentine said Wednesday he is defending Buttars' right to express himself. "I don't have control over what any individuals do in any body. But what we do have is we do have a process that says, 'Be reasonable, be responsible with your communications."'

The Senate president said Buttars "really, truly believed that there had been an injustice. He felt like he should communicate that belief. He didn't call for action, he didn't say, 'I'm going to get you.' He said, 'I'm really disappointed."'

Or is he telling his colleagues to not be so stupid as to write a letter on Senate stationary when they are pissed? Instead, use the phone. That way, you can "have a different recollection" when confronted with your intimidation tactics. Folks this scandal isn't going away just because Buttars is not the chairman anymore (he still is on the committee).

"Any ex-parte communication attempting to influence a decision in an ongoing case is inappropriate," said State Bar executive director John Baldwin.

Bar president V. Lowry Snow has indicated that Buttars' removal from the chairmanship does address part of the bar's concerns.

Baldwin said the bar feels there is a need for "broader education" among lawmakers of the importance of a fair and impartial judicial system. He said the bar was not about to take specific issue with Buttars' letter but that any appearance of inappropriate influence on a judge should be dealt with.

Balwin is right, these Senators still haven't learned the real lesson.

There are indications that Senate leadership knew about Buttars' letter as early as last June. The Senate majority blog posting states that Valentine and others saw an early draft and that the Senate president "offered some suggested edits."

Inquiring taxpayers want to know, what kind of edits were they? "I think you should put a comma there" or "you forgot to call him a 'liberal activist judge' for ruling against your friend" or "make sure you hint at his confirmation process so he understands how much power you have over him?" Even it those "suggested edits" were in the nature of 'tone it down,' they all should have known better than to allow Buttars to mail that letter after he had shown it to them.

This wasn't one rouge Senate chairman on one of the most important and powerful committees on Utah's Capitol Hill, this was the collective 'wisdom' of a number of Utah Republican State Senators, apparently including the Sen. President himself--a member of the state bar.

More importantly, Buttars letter puts his terrible legislative proposals in a more sinister light:

As co-chairman of the Judicial Retention Election Task Force, Buttars spent last summer calling for change in the way judges are evaluated and retained.

He sponsored a bill, SB105, that would take the job of evaluating judicial performance away from fellow judges and place the task in the hands of a new bipartisan commission whose members would be appointed by the three branches of government.

Many judges, including [Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine] Durham, have said there is nothing wrong with the current evaluation system and do not believe the bill is necessary.

The whole point of the bill, it is now clear despite others' previous demurring, is for the Utah legislature to make the state Judiciary their wholly controlled subsidiary. If legislators get to set up the evaluation methods and be on committees that evaluate judges, and their evaluation depends whether a judge rules in favor of a friend of theirs, then we have no justice system. It really is that simple. Thankfully, Sen. Buttars also said stupid racist stuff, so hopefully his bills will become untouchable. Gov. Huntsman already has effectively shot down the anti-domestic registry bill by vowing to veto it. Now he needs to take a stand on behalf of an independant judiciary.

Buttars' s slow-moving ethics violation

Remember that highly inappropriate letter Sen. Buttars sent out to a judge on Senate stationary? Well, it turns out my praise for Sen. Pres. Valentine's stripping of Buttars's chairmanship should have been more qualified:

In it, Buttars reminded Pullan that, as chairman of the confirmation committee, he had advocated on Pullan's behalf and was embarrassed by a decision he rendered against Gibby. He accused the judge of "bias" and questioned his integrity.
Pullan entered the letter into the court record. It also came to the attention of the Judicial Council, the panel chaired by Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham that oversees Utah's courts, which sent the letter to Senate leaders in June.
"We gave the letter to President Valentine for the Senate to deal with internally," said Richard Schwermer, assistant administrator of the Administrative Office of the Utah Courts. The council did not provide any recommendation with the letter, he said. "If we have issues, we let him know. . . . It was an issue. We let him know about it."
A spokesman for Valentine said in a statement late Tuesday that Buttars' letter was a "private expression of disappointment to a judge he helped confirm."
It was an exercise of the senator's First Amendment rights, and made no threats and demanded no action, said Ric Cantrell.
"The scope and impact of that letter changed dramatically when it was published statewide. Senate leadership was concerned the letter may have an impact in the judicial application and confirmation process," the statement said.

I am sorry, but that doesn't pass the laugh test in spin doctoring. Here's why:

Wendell Gibby [the "longtime acquaintance of Buttars" on whose behalf the erstwhile Chairman wrote the infamous letter] would be surprised if Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, punished Sen. Chris Buttars over a letter the latter sent a judge last May, chiding him for a ruling over a land dispute involving the Mapleton developer and city officials.
After all, Gibby said, Valentine gave the letter his nod of approval before Buttars, R-West Jordan, sent it.

"It would seem odd to me that Valentine would sack him for something he approved," Gibby said.

Moreover, the letter wasn't a "private expression of disappointment," it was a veiled threat laced with accusations of ideological bias. Since time and time again it is clear that Sen. Buttars doesn't know the first thing about the law, and more importantly, because it is unconstitutional (separation of powers anyone?), Buttars is the last person who should be telling a judge how to rule in a case.

The political scope and impact of the letter changed dramatically when it got released to the public, I think it is pretty clear that they didn't care about intimidating judges when they tried to sweep the letter under the rug when it was first brought to their attention.

Senate leaders had known for months about Sen. Chris Buttars' letter scolding a state judge who ruled against his friend, but let him continue to head the committee that screens judicial appointments until the letter hit the news media.
[...]
[Utah State] Bar President Lowry Snow said there was enough concern about the letter that the bar's board of commissioners scheduled a conference call Monday to discuss what to do about the issue. Shortly before the call took place, however, Valentine announced Buttars had been replaced as chairman by Sen. Greg Bell, R.-Fruit Heights.
Asked whether Buttars' removal as chairman satisfied the Bar's concerns, Snow said, "We believe it's a step in the right direction."

I am sure that was just a "coincidence." And getting the State Bar upset is worlds away from having the local chapter of the NCAAP or ACLU on your case, it is a big deal. Afterall, Sen. President Valentine is an attorney.

Sen. Buttars is becoming a burden and embarrassment on the majority in the Senate and Utah Republicans in general daily. This story has morphed from "is it racism?" to "is he unethical?" Anytime the story stays alive and changes angles, you know you can't shake this bad coverage. If I was Sen. President Valentine, I would demand Sen. Buttars not run for reelection or threaten to strip him of his committee assignments and possibly primary him. With the possibility that Utah Democrats might get enough seats to filibuster in the Senate next time thanks to vouchers, the last thing Senate Republicans need is questions about their ethics and overbearing nature.

Buttars late than never

It seems saying racist crap and threatening a judge who ruled against your friend while chairing the Judiciary Committee does have consequences.

Sen. Chris Buttars has been stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee, which screens the governor's nominees for the bench, and replaced by Sen. Greg Bell.
Senate President John Valentine announced the change today, but would not say why the decision was made, beyond noting that it is the prerogative of the president to select committee leaders.

And this is what he spent yesterday doing:

Sen. Chris Buttars stood at a microphone at Calvary Baptist Church on Sunday and apologized to the congregation for racially insensitive comments he made on the floor of the Utah Senate.
"All I can do," Buttars said, "is say I'll beg your forgiveness. It was wrong. It was stupid. And I ask, if it's possible, forgive me."

Sen. Pres. Valentine seems to have stripped Buttars of his chairmanship more for the letter and less for the offensive comments. And that letter to the judge is really what makes him unfit to chair a committee overseeing the judiciary.

Reports of the letter, which the judge filed in the case as "ex parte communication," reportedly caused a stir in the legal community.
Retired University of Utah law professor John Flynn called Buttars contact with the judge "far beyond the pale."
"No elected representative should engage in that kind of conduct, particularly if they have a position of power in the Legislature dealing with the judiciary," Flynn said. "It's just not an appropriate thing to do."

As much as Sen. Buttars would like, this story has lots of legs. He should really compare notes with ex-Sen. George Allen, who could have been the presumptive Republican nominee for president right now if he hadn't called a college kid Macaca.

targeting the Mathesons

In 2004, Scott Matheson Jr. ran for Governor and had the misfortune of running against an as famous name--Jon Huntsman Jr. Now in 2008, it seems the Romneys are thinking of doing the same thing Scott's little brother Jim.

Josh Romney, son of former presidential contender Mitt Romney, says he's been approached about running for Congress against incumbent Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah. He says he hasn't ruled out the possibility.

Josh is one of the few Romneys that still lives in Utah and would pit Utahn's professed love of Mitt against their professed love of Jim.

"I haven't ruled it out," Josh Romney, 32, of Millcreek, said of becoming a candidate himself. "I'm pretty young, but I've had good experience on the campaign trail." Plus, he said, he likely could count on his father's supporters here in Utah.

He also has to consider whether he's ready to take on the rigors of another race and spend more time away from his wife, Jen, and their three children, Owen, 1; Wyatt, 3; and Gracie, 5; as well as his career in real estate development.

Josh Romney is the only one of the family's five sons who lives in Utah. His father, who served as the head of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, was considered a "favorite son" presidential candidate in Utah.

Mitt Romney collected more contributions in Utah than in any other state except California and won Utah's Feb. 5 GOP primary with 90 percent of the vote. He and his family are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as are the majority of Utahns.

As of the end of 2007, Jim Matheson has $859,823 cash-on-hand and won 59% of the vote two years ago. Plus, he is now in the majority and could get more dough if he is a target given that he is on a big committee and the Democrats are going to hold onto the House and Senate next year (and seem likely to gain seats). So that is the downside for Josh. The upside is that he will have plenty of free press and easy ability to raise money.

This is probably the most serious challenge Jim has ever faced, but now he is in his 4th race for Congress has built up a reserve of good will from people all over the district. And the standard attacks that have been trotted out against him have failed spectacularly in years past. Nevertheless, Utah was pretty immune to the big Democratic wave last year so another wave this year might not make any difference here. I would be really worried for Jim if Mitt was still in the race, but then again, Josh would be working for his dad if Mitt could still win the nomination.

The irony is that if Republicans had the Democrats' rules for delegate selection, Romney would have been in Obama's boat after Super Tuesday--essentially tied--and if Democrats had used the Republican rules Clinton would be in McCain's position. But since things aren't reversed, Obama is now in the lead for the Democrats and McCain is going to be the GOP nominee.

Jim Matheson hasn't decided whom to support this time as a superdelegate. Last cycle, he supported Gen. Wesley Clark, who is hoping to be Hillary Clinton's VP pick. Sadly for Clark however, that prospect looks unlikely, but he didn't say anything bad about Obama so he still could have a good position in an Obama Administration.

As for Jim, I think he would survive against Josh Romney, but it would be a lot uglier than his races in the past four years.

what?

I was just skimming the headlines and noticed that our legislature cut funds for IB programs in high schools because they are afraid of "promoting the UN agenda." What?

IB program are college prep programs that allow students to get a great education at a public school, which is sadly a rarity in Utah. In my class at Brown, there were three kids from Utah. Two were from my private high school (including myself), the other was from West's IB program.

And beyond the fact that these are excellent programs that help students get into excellent colleges, the idea that these programs promote anti-American ideologies...

Skyline High School IB coordinator Ruth Dallas and Rebecca Odoardi, director of Davis School District gifted programs, said IB is definitely not anti-American.
"I have seen nothing in any of these courses to indicate there would be any anti-American sentiment," Odoardi said. "In fact, quite the opposite is true."

And beyond that, the UN isn't anti-American, nor does it have such an agenda. Member countries might have an anti-American agenda but they don't have any power within the UN. And for that matter, the UN doesn't have any power to begin with.

Bush gives Buttars advice

Sen. Buttars, you should listen to Mr. 19% on this one, we all should:

The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest. As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive. They are wrong. And they have no place in America today.

--President George W. Bush, February 12, 2008
Appearantly, Buttars doesn't know how to quit when he is behind. From SL Tribune Opinion Columnist Rebecca Walsh's column today:

"Lynch mob is a Western term," Buttars said Tuesday night, after he ditched a meeting with the NAACP on his mea culpa tour. "That's not a racial term in my opinion. How do I know what words I'm supposed to use in front of those people?"

Really, why are all these people still defending him when he continues to make matters worse? It is like Trent Lott going on BET, really painful to watch.

the gift that keeps on giving

Sen. Buttars is now pushing back after trying to lay low last week. After his "black baby" comment, he gave the standard non-appology appology (I am sorry that you were offended, you oversensitive liberals) then hid out. Now even though his Republican collegues have asked him to announce he would not seek reelection, Buttars refused. West Jordan's state senator went so far as to compare the calls for his resignation by NCAAP and others to a lynch mob. That's right, a mob that used to severely beat, then hang black men and boys for merely whistling at a white woman or less.

I know Rob is in charge of candidate recruitment and some offices are more high profile, but I would tell him that Buttars' seat should be one of, if not the top target this fall. Every Republican in the legislature can be put on record about what they think of Buttars, every one of Buttars' donors can be asked if they approve of such statement. Sure, African-Americans make up .9% of the state population, and that number is probably less in Buttars' district, but I doubt that those who took offense was limited to Blacks. And really, the comment is just part of a series of actions by Buttars that are offensive and demeaning.

People don't like to be respresented by embarressing politicans, which is why they usually resign or pledge to not run again. Some times, like Rick Santorum, they get kicked to the curb by their constituents hard.

deja vu all over again

We all love to quote Yogi Berra but this one really is odd.

As you have probably heard already, George H.W. Bush officially endorsed John McCain today (the news leaked last week, but they wanted a big "President's Day" story). But the weird part is John McCain is sounding like a combo of both President Bushes. Of course, you know that McCain and Dubya are kindred spirits on the Iraq war, but did you know that John McCain made a "read my lips" pledge? That's right, he said "no new taxes."

And we might have a Clinton running against him. It is like 1992 all over again.

standing up to fear

Yesterday, House Democrats finally did something to defend the consitution by not doing anything. The Orewellianly titled "Protect America Act" was signed into law in August, when Congress was trying to head back to their districts/states to campaign and "suddenly" a terrorist warning for the Capitol came out. NSA head Mike McConnell threatened an attack if Congress didn't pass the law...so they did. Of course, no plot was uncovered, no suspects were arrested and nothing happened. Except that telecom companies, who are facing lawsuits from their customers because they alledgedly violated their privacy, were temporarily shielded from liability.

That liability was set to run out the beginning of 2008. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid promised civil liberarians that they wouldn't be a rubber stamp next time around. Yet Reid chose a Bush-blessed bill over a rhetroactive-immunity-free version for debate, and it passed the senate with 58 votes. Rather than rushing to pass an identical version of the bill in the House, the leadership there finally showed some leadership...and allowed the PAA to expire yesterday before Congress once again went home for a long weekend.

Bush and his allies claimed that the House had "let the terrorist win" by depriving them of effective tools to catch suspects. This is however, patently false. Now that the PAA is no longer in effect, those seeking to wiretap must get a warrrant from a secret court located inside the Justice Department's DC office building that has only denied warrants a handful of times in 30 years. Oh, and these warrants may be acquired 72 hours AFTER the suspect had been wiretapped.

Besides immunity to AT&T and other companies that allowed NSA to install devices to listen into all of our calls without a warrant, the PAA also allowed the Attorney General's word to trump any need for judicial review, since Bush's Attorney Generals are known for their "honesty" and "independence." FISA is a product of both the Watergate scandal and the Church Committee, which discovered that the Government is happy to spy on American citizens and political enemies of the Oval Office if no one notices.

Now we don't know what the Administration's been listening to or why. We do that the warrantless wiretapping program began BEFORE 9/11. We also know that due to the volume of calls, that no government agency could employ a sufficient number of people to listen to them all. Therefore, the devices installed in places like AT&T San Franscico office are designed for data mining. In fact, we have a former AT&T employee who gives us all the details of how it was done at his company. We don't know who the targets were or are, but we do know the potential for abuse of such absolute power (see Nixon, Richard Millhouse and Lord Acton) is there and we know that data mining has at best questionable utility in finding/stopping terrorist activities.

Some are willing to pull out all the stops (like laws and the constitution) to reduce any potential threat to the United States, even if it ironically makes the potential for threats worse by wasting time, effort and money on something useless and/or incites more people to join the Jihad against America. VP Cheney calls it the one-percent-doctrine, that is, if there is even a one percent chance that something might threaten US security, it is the responsibilty of the government to treat it as a certainty and do everything to stop it from occuring. I seem to recall that in 1945, we set up international tribunals to prosecute crimes against humanity, including those who tortured (using waterboarding) their enemies to gain intelligence to save their country. We lead the world to establish international laws against torture and for human rights shortly thereafter.

We beat the Soviets, the Nazis, and the Japanese without the use of torture or the need to spy on our own people without warrants. While the threat to American saftey from religious extremists remains very real, it is no where near as big a threat as those three were to the United States. No government, no matter how well meaning, should be above the law that created it.

debating debates

Many pixels have been spilled over the Democratic presidential race recently on side issues--like how Super Delegates should vote, what to do about Michigan and Florida--which probably will all fall into place if either Obama keeps on winning or HRC takes off again. (more on where the race is going below) But the silliest discussion line of them all is about debates.

Hillary Clinton is much better at debating than Barack Obama and she is also at this point behind him in the race. Therefore, she is calling for debates like Sam I Am called for the eating of Green Eggs and Ham ("...would you would you in box, would you would you on Fox [News]?"). It is as simple as that. And to waste hundreds of thousands on an ad that mentions that seems to be a waste, even if she was able to sneak her in advantage on health care. Why not spend that money on spending a day in Wisconsin, which shows her within the margin of error? Instead, she is camping out in Texas and Ohio. I just don't get it.

Obama's response is pretty lame too. But is the public really clammoring for more debates? And who really makes their minds based on a debate? In 2004, Kerry cleaned Bush's clock in the debates, but he still lost. In 2000, Bush won due to the expectations game (and sighing by Gore)...yet Gore won the popular vote. My favorite "TV show" these days is CNN's ballot bowl, because it shows alll of the candidates at their events (rallies or town halls) without commentary. I know CSPAN does this too, but it doesn't have the crawl going in case an event gets mega-boring. Such event-watching to me is better than a debate. Presidents don't debate Congress or the American people, they give speeches and hold press conferences/town hall meetings. You can see a potential president's ability to react and human side much better with citizen/press questions than barbs by their oposition.

This afternoon, I bumped into two prominant local Democrats and asked them what they thought of the state of the Democratic race. One thought Obama had the clear edge and was going to win, "you can't attack a movement" was a comment that stuck with this person. The other came to the oposite conclusion. "Every time Obama gets momentum, she comes right back and wins." This result was presumed to be due to women rallying to her campaign when it gets too picked on. What do you think? Is Hillary poised for a comeback or is the wave of momentum too high for her to stop?

Personally, I think she could come back too, and Obama now has to win Wisconsin convincingly in order to make a game of it in Texas and Ohio. I wonder if Lincoln Chafee's endorsement of Obama will help Barack at all in Rhode Island. Afterall, even though voters tossed him out in 2006, they still like him on a personal level.

in defense of a long, drawn out primary

So unless you don't own a TV or newspaper, you know that Obama destroyed Clinton last night in three more contests. Obama's campaign manager is saying that Clinton will have to win Texas and Ohio by large margins (20-30 points) in order for her to recapture the lead amoung pledged delegates, assuming he wins Hawaii and Wisconsin next week. Even if he does, it would be a big mistake of his to go through the motions in Texas and Ohio (maybe he is trying to lower expectations).

But the real point of this post is not talk strategy for once, but explain why Democrats are blessed with a surprisingly lengthy and hard-fought primary calendar ... and why the GOP should be increasingly nervous.

With each state contested, Obama and Clinton must find supporters and train staffers, draft field teams, walk neighborhoods, hold rallies, sign up supporters, hand out lawn signs, conduct visability, etc. It may sound like a collosal waste of money, but one concrete example of how this is helpful is Carol Shea-Porter. In 2004, she worked for Wesley Clark's primary campaign in New Hampshire. Clark narrowly got third place in that contest, but two years later, Carol fared much better. She beat the Democratic leader of the State House 54%-34% in the primaries without any money, and then beat the incumbent Republican Jeb Bradley 52-48 without any help from the outside and being outspent 5 to 1. Why, because she knew the issues and the district.

Now I am not saying that every supporter of Obama or Clinton will become Members of Congress, but what I am saying is that training staff and volunteers now leads to winning other elections in the future. Staffers who worked for Clark, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards in 2004 all became reliable hands for Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in 2008. These folks also helped Democrats win the House and Senate in 2006.

A battle between two smart, tough, well-funded, yet relatively friendly campaigns is a great way to train the next generation of political leaders and a great way to get people excited about your party. You get months and months of relatively positive coverage, and both end up looking like winners since they both won lots of states and votes.

The proof is in the pudding. Obama got much more than all of the Republican candidates combined yesterday in all three races, and Hillary Clinton bested McCain in terms of raw numbers of votes by about 100,000. And while Maryland and DC are safe Democratic territory, the last time Virginia went Blue was when Utah did--LBJ's landslide in 1964. Indeed, Democrats getting more votes in each state (except Utah, Arizona, and Florida and Michigan where they didn't campaign) than Republicans. Most of this is due to Democrats excitement about their chances in getting back the White House, but some of it has to be due to the fact that Clinton and Obama and spending serious sums to get people to the polls, money that will be well spent when we see returns in November. I am not saying it will be 1964 or 1984, but right now it looks to be a pretty good year...thanks in part to the primaries.

Patomac Primary Prognosication

Say that three times fast. Anyway, having lived in this region for a year (and last fall) I feel somewhat more qualified to quess at what will happen than I have in most other primaries (save Utah, Rhode Island, and Massacusetts, where I feel I have a sense).

For the Democrats, I predict Obama will get about 55 percent in Maryland and Virginia, and something like 70 percent in the District. Hillary briefly tried to contest Virginia, but then quickly saw some polls or something and gave up. She is already in Texas, trying to build up a lead in the Lone Star state (as well as Ohio and Rhode Island) so that she can withstand a probable last minute surge by Obama...in three weeks. Meanwhile, she is essentially skipping next week's contest Wisconsin, a big state that on paper would seems favorable to her (and Hawaii, but everyone knows Obama will get Virgin Island-like numbers out in the Aloha State).

I know part of this strategy is by necessity, but I still believe it to be a mistake. She can't keep writing off states claiming that she can't win caucuses, or states with large black populations, or states where Obama used to live, or Red States... Eventually, she starts to look like a loser by losing so many; the fact that she never seriously contested them doesn't make the loss any better. While the punditry always saw this month as the most favorable to him...assuming he survived Super Tuesday, it wasn't a forgone conclusion that he would sweep February's contests.

Both Obama's and Clinton's camps had initial strategies that never panned out, and are on plan B or C or D by now. Obama's was to win the first 4 early states and then sweep Kerry style...if that didn't work, it was to win South Carolina big (along with Nevada) and then survive Super Tuesday. Clinton's was to try to win Iowa, and if that didn't work, she had New Hampshire as a firewall...and Nevada...and then she was supposed to knock out Obama on Super Tuesday. Still, I think pinning your hopes on Super Delegates and Texas and Ohio is pretty scary.

Obama's path to the nomination is much simpler to understand. He keeps on winning. Assuming he wins today big and then also Hawaii, he goes 9-1 at worst in February. He could also gets Wisconsin, which seems to be more and more likely given that a) southern Wisconsin is drivable from Chicago, b) Madison and Milwaukee proper are prime Obama territory, c) unlike other states, Obama has more state elected by his side here. If that were to happen, it would 10-0 in February and he could hope that a last minute surge will take him over the top in either Ohio or Texas. Texas' system is more like a caucus than a primary, so maybe he can do well. Winning that state would once and for all put to rest the "Black-Brown divide" questions and winning Ohio would put to rest the working class questions. If he won both of those states, Clinton would drop out. If she won one of them, they fight on, if she wins both, we are back to even Steven. Then Pennslyvania gets very interesting. There will be a long period between March 4th and the April contest, meaning Obama and Clinton will treat the Keystone state like New Hampshire or Iowa (and camp out there).

On the Republican side, I am going to pick my upset special--Virginia goes for Huckabee. McCain is sleepwalking through this set of primaries and as far as I can tell lost every contest last week (WA's results look very fishy). Southern VA is one of the centers of the theocons--home to the late Jerry Fallwell and still kicking Pat Robertson--and that region is swinging rapidly towards the Huckster, who went to Jerry's son's (they inherited their Dad's megachurch) service on Sunday and got standing O's.

What an amazing year. It seems that nearly every state and protectorate will get a voice in deciding who the nominees will be. Democratic voters, of course, will have more say because of the parity between Obama and Clinton, but Republican voters also get to tell us what they think about McCain. It is facinating to watch and I can tell you for sure that the world is watching very closely.

Jesus, attorney at law

(image courtesy of the Subversive Intellectual Society)

This Sunday's reading was from Mathew's version of the Tempation of Christ. And what struck me was not the fantastical nature of the story itself (which makes it very unlike almost all of the other New Testiment stories) but how much Jesus and Satan sounded like lawyers.

The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
...
"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
....
the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Satan, like all bad lawyers, quotes stuff out of context to misconstrue the meanings of the passages. Jesus, like any good attorney worth his salt, is ready to perry with not just a quibble over his oposition's quote, but a more powerful one that counters even the misquote.

To me, the phrase "for it is written" has special meaning...written words were rare in Jesus' day, reserved only for the most important things (like holy books or the history of kings). Writing something down took rare expertise and/or money, and cannoted the desire for preeminance and perminance of the words.

While nowadays writing is commonplace and a sigificant number of the world's population is literate, we still hold the written word in high regard. There is a reason the Founders spent weeks tweaking the language of the Constitution, which unlike its British counterpart, was explicitly written down. Those of us who study the law and literature know that writen words still have special power over us.

Remember that next time you are wandering in the proverbial Desert for a proverbial 40 days and 40 nights.