fun with frontrunner

(Photo Credit: KUTV

On Saturday, my wife and I rode Utah's newest commuter rail up to Clearfield and back. It was a fantastic experience and I highly recommend those of you who have to commute from the northern suburbs to SLC to take it or Rapid Bus Transit. We started out our trip by eating brunch at Hong Kong Tea House, which had a high-quality Dim Sum. We prefer Dim Sum via carts, because we know lots of dishes by sight rather than by name (either English translation or Chinese), and because it makes it more fun. But has you might have guessed, the place has pretty good tea. And it is a stone's thrown away from one of the new TRAX stops and about half way between the Gateway and the Intermodal hub.

The hub building is very nice and clean and much larger than a similar building in Providence that I am all too familiar with. I particularly enjoyed the (LEED certified) architecture, and tablets explaining Salt Lake's former ethnic neighborhoods. You get the feeling that the neighborhood between the Gateway and the Hub are going to explode with development, but those "towns" (Greek, Japan, etc.) are not coming back.

The commuter trains themselves are clean and quiet, both inside and out. The ceilings inside are about 6'5" as it felt a bit tight to me and I am 6'3" 1/2. There are two levels on the cars, the top deck features small card tables perfect for laptops and, of course, card games. We saw lots of young families and groups of friends young and old and actual ethnic diversity (for Utah). At $5, it is about as much or less than the amount of gas you would spend driving and takes about the same time on a Saturday (on a weekday at rush hour, I bet it is much faster). Plus, you get to enjoy the scenery, play with your children, talk to your friend/spouse.

The onboard WiFi was acting up for us--we were "connected" but not able to send or receive--but assuming those kinks get worked out, then you can even get some work/play done on your way to and from work. If I was a parent traveling with young children (which I will be in a few months), I would much prefer the train to driving. It is safer than having to look back to see why the baby is crying, what your kids are fighting about, etc. And troubles are likely to be quelled much sooner if you sitting right next to them without having to worry about driving. Everyone on the train was remarking about how this will "save gas," but I also think it will reduce stress, which will only help quality of life, marriages etc.

Soon, TRAX will go to the airport, to Draper, and to "the Jordans." A trolley line will go up east along 21st South from 3rd West up to Sugarhouse. Frontrunner itself will go all the way North to Brigham City and about the same time South to Provo. By about 2025, Utah will have more commuter rail lines than anywhere but places like New York City. How cool is that?

How did this all come to pass? First, our local Congressmen (Jim Matheson and Republicans before him, as well as our GOP Senators) secured 80-20 federal funding for mass transit using the Olympics as a hook. Next, once taxpayers saw how great TRAX was, they voted repeatedly to increase their own taxes to pay for expansions. Now communities like Bringham City and South Jordan are voting to raise tax revenues to pay for TRAX/FrontRunner to come to their neighborhoods. Third, environmentalists sued to block the Legacy Highway. I know that sounds counter intuitive, but here's how it went:

The suit first stalled the highway from being build for years. Then, instead of settling for a moved highway, the attorneys representing the environmentalist worked into the settlement "funding the environmental review of light rail and bus plans." The studies showed what the environmentalists had been claiming for years--that we can't build enough roads to fix our traffic troubles, and that our air quality will only get worse if we take that route. As a result, Bus Rapid Transit lines and FrontRunner were built. The U and LDS Church helped a lot by getting their employees to use mass transit and to promote mass transit in commercials. Everyone who rides the trains to Jazz games and the like also deserve credit and praise.

Is the case against the FLDS unraveling?

Texas authorities have canceled the arrest warrant for the Arizona man who had been suspected of physically and sexually abusing a teenage girl -- allegations that launched last month's raid on an FLDS ranch in Eldorado.
Law enforcement did not find the teenage girl or Barlow at the YFZ Ranch, owned by the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The man named in the warrant, Dale E. Barlow, was never arrested and denied knowing the girl.

That's right, the entire legal justification for the raid has been yanked, and the poligamist they were supposedly seeking has never been arrested in connection with the raid. Now the next question you are asking yourself is "does that mean the whole case against the FLDS will get thrown out?" Not necessarily.

The U.S. Supreme Court created a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in U.S. v. Leon. That is, if the prosecutor can prove that the Texas law enforcement officials had no reason to believe at the time of the raid that "Sarah" was some repeated prank caller in Colorado and not a 16 year old child bride in Texas, then they can still use the evidence gathered during the seizure at trial. I am sure the FLDS defense attorneys are going to file a motion and ask for a hearing (with witnesses etc.) to determine what Texas knew and when it knew it regarding "Sarah."

But even if the evidence stays in, the fact that the warrant was withdrawn and they never really went after Barlow will be used like a bludgen by defense attorneys to argue to the jury that the FLDS are being persecuted by Texas because of their religious beliefs.

bipartisan universal health care?

Amidst all of the protests all over the world yesterday over US immigration policy, the war in Iraq, remembering the Holocaust, food prices, and worker's rights, there was some good news in Washington, DC.

The [Congressional] Budget Office report, drafted with the help of the Joint Committee on Taxation, said if the [Healthy Americans Act] was passed this year, the insurance system could be set up by 2012 and fully running by 2014. And while it would cost an unspecified amount in those two transition years, it would be "roughly budget neutral" by 2014. After that, it would actually raise a little money for the government, according to the analysis, which the senators will undoubtedly use in their sales pitches to the next president and their fellow senators.

The even better news is that the sponsors include Sens. Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Bob Corker (R-TN). In fact, there are seven Democrats and seven Republicans sponsoring this bill. This bill sounds like as good a starting point on reforming our health care system--by allowing employees to keep their health care plan even if they leave their job that provided their coverage, and more importantly, the coverage would remain at the same rate they paid before. I hope the next President--Obama, McCain, or Clinton--will not be overly wedded to their campaign plan and give this one a serious chance. Of course, this hope is dependant upon these 14 senators sticking with this plan (and getting his/her colleagues to support it) even if their preferred presidential candidate doesn't win.

round 4

It seems Republican SL County Councilman David Wilde think they have found a work around to Mayor Carroon insistance not to throw County tax dollars away.

[N]o money will actually go straight to the stadium.

Instead, the county might extend a deal that gives Sandy $300,000 a year for the Sandy Amphitheater. The county has provided that funding for several years now, but the deal was supposed to end this year.

By extending the deal, Sandy won't have to come up with that $300,000, leaving Sandy free to "shift its funds" to other projects, like the $110 million stadium for Real Salt Lake, Salt Lake County Councilman David Wilde [R] said.

"It's not money that we are giving toward the stadium," Wilde said. "We're giving money toward an amphitheater. Again, I guess there is sort of a wink and a nod saying if you guys in Sandy want to somehow rearrange your funds and somehow give it to the stadium, that's OK."

So why do this? Wilde claims it is a quid pro quo for Sandy's helping the County get more money for roads, Democratic Councilman Joe Hatch claims that the Oxbow Jail, the restaurant tax, road funding and the soccer stadium were all discussed in one big meeting but that none of these items were bartered for another. Carroon says he is trying to play nice with Sandy, to show there's no hard feelings.

Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon said his decision to extend the amphitheater funding has nothing to do with the stadium.
[...]
"We're trying to extend an olive branch out to Sandy to say maybe we don't support some of the projects you're doing, but we do overall support Sandy city," Corroon said.
And the amphitheater, which hosts multiple concerts and musicals throughout the year, fits into the county's overall vision for arts scattered across the county.

Oh and Carroon's initial assessment--that the stadium was not worth taxpayer's support--has been borne out.

A new study by the University of Utah Center of Public Policy and Administration says sports stadiums have not shown significant positive impact on local economies.

"In fact, a sports franchise has about the same scale of economic effect as a large grocery store," according to the study, which was released Wednesday.

However, quality-of-life issues may justify continued public financing, according to the study.

That is, if Larry Miller were to hold SLC hostage and says he will move the Jazz to say Oklahoma City unless the city ponies up millions for a new stadium, well then Utahns will not like their life as much if the team leaves, so a city should try to keep a team in town. But if a team is marginal, and doesn't even fill its current stadium except when someone like David Beckham or the national team comes to town, then there is no need to spend $110 million when you could spend just a few million for a Super Target in Sandy (and get more economic bang for your buck).

round 3

It seems SL County Mayor Peter Carroon has found another opening to stop or stall the RSL stadium.

On Monday, Mayor Peter Corroon sent Sandy's economic development director a letter saying he "would not support Salt Lake County contributing its tax increment" to the community development agency. And even if Corroon supported the CDA, he doesn't have the votes on the County Council to approve the plan.

Sandy wanted to raise $10 million through a community development agency, but that takes the cooperation of all the taxing entities in the area. And cooperation is hard to come by.

Jordan School District officials have already made it clear that they will not forgo their cut of property tax dollars for the multimillion-dollar stadium.

And the county is reluctant to open its wallet again, after the state forced Salt Lake County leaders to use hotel-room tax dollars to pay for the public infrastructure of the $110 million stadium under construction in Sandy.

"Given that the state has already used $35 million of Salt Lake County's transient room tax revenue for contribution to the soccer stadium project, I don't feel that it is in the best interest of the citizens for the county to contribute more revenue to the project," Corroon wrote in a letter Monday to Randy Sant, Sandy's economic development director.

Color me unsurprised that public entites would not want to part with tax revenue during an economic downturn for a soccer stadium for a team that might not even exist (or move) in a few years.

But don't worry, County Councilman Randy Horiuchi, friend of Delevopers and Sandy politicans, is on the case.

Horiuchi said leaders are "scrambling" and "noodling" several ideas to come up with more public funding to help the city build the stadium for Real Salt Lake.

"We will never stop discussion in trying to help this thing and make it more amenable to everyone," Horiuchi said. "We're a jurisdiction that, we want to be one that is willing to just keep our mind open. If we can help in a way that is beneficial and not hurtful to the county, I'm sure we'll look at it."

Horiuchi may find out the hard way that the public hates the stadium deal. We all know Carroon will easily be reelected this fall, but I can't say the same for Randy. "He's got game," says his campaign slogan, but whose game is he playing?

Buttars watch your back

The political story of the day is about why Sen. Majority Leader John Valentine stripped Sen. Chris Buttars of his Judiciary Committee chairmanship but not his seat on the committee. (Sorry Brian and super obvious story)

According to Scott Sabey of the Utah Bar,

Valentine [told Sabey that he] had "taken a political hit'' for stripping Buttars of his chairmanship in February, after the senator wrote a letter chastising a judge for a ruling against [his] friend and political ally [Chris Buttars]
The Senate president feared he could lose his leadership spot if he kicked Buttars off the committee, Sabey told the [Utah Judicial Council, a] panel chaired by Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham and responsible for making policy for the judiciary.
Sabey told the council that Valentine feared that Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, could beat him in a leadership election later this year if Valentine suffered any more political damage.
The bar association preferred to keep Valentine as Senate president, and was willing to give Valentine a pass on his prior commitment [to Buttars, Sabey told the council.]

In response, Valentine sounded like a drunken sailor: "My gosh," Valentine said. "There are parts of that that are accurate and parts of that that are like, 'Wow, I've never heard some of those things before.'"

Which parts are accurate, Sen. Valentine, the fear of Waddoups? Your prior commitment to Buttars? (Because Valentine just signed, along with other Senate leaders, a letter endorsing Buttars in the primary) Your sharing of Buttars's ideology? Your taking a political hit? That last one is most certainly true.

But Valentine said Monday he left Buttars on the confirmation committee because he spoke with the committee's new chairman, Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, and Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, a committee member, and they agreed he should stay on.
"If I lose the presidency to anybody it's because I lose the votes and I've got more than enough votes now and I'm not worried about anything in this issue that is going to affect the run for president," Valentine said. "This is really strange."

So I guess he is suggesting that the part about Waddoups is not true. But not that he never directly says Sabey's statements were false (either in that Valentine didn't say them, or in that Valentine was not afraid of losing his leadership position). Moreover, Waddoups has run for the job the past two times, and I am sure he would like it. So I don't think we can just assume that Sabey was making stuff up to impress the Judicial Council.

The fact remains that Valentine not only knew about the inappropriate letter to a judge who ruled against Buttars's friend, but also helped Buttars write it. Why won't any reporter ask both Valentine and Buttars what changes Valentine suggested Buttars make to the letter while it was being drafted? We all know Valentine should have suggested that Buttars not write the letter at all, and given Buttars a lecture about judicial independence and the rule of law. But the question remains what was he thinking, and why did Valentine do it? Sabey's account of what Valentine told him seems at least plausible and is the only explanation I have seen about why this all happened.

legislating or litigating partisan outcomes

While Barack Obama announced his plan last week to win the general election by registering millions of people to vote, the U.S. Supreme Court one upped him today by making it harder for those he registers to be able to cast their vote.

During the Warren Court, the court built up the right to vote as a fundamental right, one that the government could not impinge upon via a law/policy without undergoing strict scrutiny. The strict scrutiny standard is the highest one the Court uses, and as a practicle matter used to mean that if there was any infringement on a right under the strict scrutiny test, the law was deemed unconstitutional.

I say used to, because the Radical Roberts Court seems to have things in reverse. Despite Indiana presenting ZERO evidence of in-person voting fraud in their state, the court in a fractured plurality opinion fashion (reminincent of the Rehnquist Court) said that the minorities, homeless, elderly, and poor that challeneged the Hoosier State's law did not meet their burden. Justices Stevens, Roberts, and Kennedy claim that a state needs to come forward with merely plausible non-discriminatory interests to justify a law effective the fundamental right to vote. The evidence they site of these non-discriminatory interests are 1) an ancedote from NYC's Tamney Hall corrupt (Democratic) machine of the post-civil war era and 2) a single case of impersonation voter fraud in 2004 Washington state governor's race (where Democrat narrowly won by a few hundred votes after a contested recount).

Notice a pattern? The two examples were of a different time and place, one of which wasn't actually evidence, but a story that might or might not be true. More importantly, both examples were those of Democrats winning under suspicious circumstances. In Indiana, ONLY Republicans voted for this law and a Republican Governor signed it into law. Those who it will disproportionately effect--the elderly, the poor, minorities, homeless, students, etc.--are all groups that vote overwhelming for Democrats. On appeal, only Republican appointed judges voted to uphold the law, and Democratic appoint judges voted to strike the law. At the Supreme Court, only one Justice appointed by a Republican president voted against the law (Souter) and the rest voted along party lines like Bush v. Gore.


Stevens, Roberts and Kennedy threw a fake bone to those challenging these photo-ID laws, claiming to leave open the possibility for as-applied challenges (meaning, this law is generally constitutional, but it is unconstitutional as applied to me because...) But they made such challenges incredibly difficult to succeeed. That is, the burden has been flipped from those proposing election laws to those opposing election laws.

Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas go ever further, finding it irrelevant that the challengers might be more burdened than the average voter, suggesting that the Court should ignore the poor, minority, elderly, and students and look instead only to "average" voters. Apparantly, the Court should not look at the parties before them because they are too sympathetic and might actually have been harmed by the law.

I find it very disturbing that the U.S. Supreme Court seems fine with laws and legal decisions that effectively put one political party in power over another, and the empowered party "just so happens" to be that of the person that appointed the majority of the Justices. Prof. Rick Hasen of Loyola University [LA] Law School is also disturbed. "I fear that, despite the Stevens-Kennedy-Roberts' opinion's best intentions, this opinion will be read as a green light for the enactment of more partisan election laws in an attempt to skew outcomes in close elections. It is a real disappointment from that perspective."

I called it (again)

Yesterday I said: "I will be shocked if incumbents don't fall both at the primary and at the general election stages of this year's legislative elections." And commenter Brian doubted that this would happen, at least among Utah County Republicans. And yet...

Utah County Republicans today rejected one incumbent seeking re-election: state Rep. Aaron Tilton.
The two-term Springville lawmaker was bounced in favor of challenger Francis Gibson.
Tilton had come under fire with allegations of conflict of interest involving his business, which is seeking to build the first nuclear power plant in Utah. He also is a member of the Public Utilities and Technology Committee in the Legislature.
[...]
Gibson, of Mapleton, knocked Tilton out of the running by getting more than 60 percent of the delegate vote.
All other incumbents up for election secured their nominations at the Utah County Republican Convention this morning at Orem High School.

OK so only one in Utah County lost in the convention, and the other challengers don't even get a primary. But, my prediction was about all incumbents both Democrats and Republicans, and in every county in the state. While I focused on the Utah County Republicans the last few days, it was only because they had the most fireworks, and an incumbent not even getting 40% at convention does indicate that the activist base is upset in Happy Valley. While there may not be in primaries in Utah County, there will be primaries in other counties in Utah and I still stand by my prediction. Maybe this latest news doesn't wholly vindicate me, but I think it certainly doesn't contradict my thesis.

Anyway, have a good weekend. If I feel up to it tonight (aka the Jazz go back to their winning ways) I may post a special treat for my readers.

I feel it in my fingers...

I feel it in my toes, anti-incumbent fever, and the feeling grows. The top two stories (A-1 above the fold right below the paper's banner) were on the public's dissatisfaction with Utah politics.

One was on the Utah County Republican Party and a re-hash of the daughter delegate story, now with the new news that the challenging party caved. But there are more delegate accusations now.

The most inflammatory new allegation is that an unnamed party official tried to block someone from becoming a delegate because the person would oppose Bramble at the convention.

The accusation was made by a respected former state GOP officeholder who requested anonymity. He said a party official called him before last month's neighborhood caucus meetings in which delegates are chosen and asked him to help keep a woman opposed to Bramble from being elected as a delegate from his precinct.

Republican Party bylaws require party officials to remain neutral during a convention race between two Republicans.

There are more listed in the article, which you can read about if you are interested. Suffice it to say, the local party activists are clearly VERY unhappy with their current leadership. Otherwise, all of these complaints would not be getting in the newspaper.

Next up, a "How corrupt is your state rep/senator?" article. They make this great graphic.

A computer-aided search of those candidates by the Deseret News shows GOP Utah County incumbents on average got $4,984 so far this year from special interests, while the GOP candidates challenging those incumbents got, on average, only $267 from special interests.

"Special interests always want to give to a winner," says Kirk Jowers, head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. "And incumbents are proven winners. In Utah, particularly, where corporate giving is allowed, that is the lowest-hanging fruit for incumbents. So they take that easy money instead of working harder to raise money from individuals and constituents. Challengers can't get the special-interest money, so they have to go to individuals."

As usual, Kirk Jowers does my work for me, explaining a critical point. But his comment doesn't explain this:

Earlier this month, House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, told his GOP caucus that the House Republican PAC would give money to incumbents who are being challenged within the party — a new policy for House GOP leaders, who used to give money only after the Republican nominees were picked.

So what does the Deseret News consider a "special interest?" anyway?

Some special interests gave to virtually all of the incumbents seeking re-election in Utah County. EnergySolutions donated to 13 of the 14 GOP incumbents (all but Rep. John Dougall, R-American Fork). Injury law firm Robert J. Debry & Associates gave to eight; the Utah House Republican Election Committee (a legislative leaders' PAC raising money mostly from special interests) gave to seven; Siegfried & Jensen gave to six, for example.

The pro-voucher Parents for Choice in Education was offering significant help to four pro-voucher incumbents facing challenges — and was the single-largest donor overall to Utah County incumbents among special interests at $5,044 total.

Now there is nothing wrong with advocacy groups contributing to people who they support because the politician agrees with them on their issue. The strategy of "buying access"--giving money to who you think will be the winner in hopes that you can later talking him into voting your way--is troubling. But this next practice really ought to be illegal in Utah (it is illegal in many other states and at the federal level):

Sometimes special interest donations allowed lawmakers to put money directly into their own pockets. For example, Dougall gave himself $10,314 to repay an old campaign loan he had made. (He faces no opposition Saturday.) [Rep. Christopher] Herrod [(R-Provo)], who does have opposition, similarly took $5,000 to repay himself for old loans.

Paying back loans they once made to their campaign is just a step or two away from using that money to buy themselves a boat or a house. I will be shocked if incumbents don't fall both at the primary and at the general election stages of this year's legislative elections.

waste of column space

Could someone explain to me why this article was in the paper today?

The field is getting smaller on "American Idol," but it still includes Utah's David Archuleta.
The teenager from Murray advances after singing "Think of Me" from Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Phantom of the Opera."
Carly Smithson, the 24-year-old Irish bartender from San Diego, was eliminated Wednesday, despite good reviews for performing "Superstar" from "Jesus Christ Superstar."

Congrats to Mr. Archuleta, but does anyone who watches this show need this in the paper? And conversely, do people who don't watch the show need to know this, besides classmates, teachers, friends, and family, who I am sure overwhelming watch the show and even sit in the audience?

I know people love "local boy/girl does well" stories, but when that doing well involves going on a reality TV show, I really don't see that as something that needs to be rewarded any more than being on TV already is. If they win a debate tournament, a sports tournament, a music competition, a spelling bee, etc. that isn't televised, then by all means let me know.

But stories about a contestant's progress through "American Idol" is just like a story about someone making it through "Survivor" or any other "reality" show. People go on such shows to become famous, and maybe win money or a get career in their field of choice. I have no trouble with news stories about the person on the show, like how they became such a good singer or whatever, but if I cared about whether they were still on the show or not, I would watch the show. And since I haven't watched "Idol" since the third season, I therefore don't care about how Mr. Archuletta does on the show nor do I want my precious time wasted reading/hearing about said show. But good luck nonetheless kid.

Here we go again?

It seems someone has placed a call alleging that abuse is occurring in Hildale, UT, an FLDS-run town. Utah's AG Mark Shurtleff is making sure she isn't the one who placed the call:
(Rozita Swinton, the alleged Texas FLDS caller)

The Utah Attorney General's Office is now in contact with other law enforcement authorities investigating similar calls made to anti-polygamy activists, Arizona child welfare workers and a Texas family crisis shelter.

"We're working with other authorities to see if it deserves further scrutiny," Utah attorney general spokesman Paul Murphy told the Deseret News Tuesday night.

A Colorado Springs woman has been declared a "person of interest" in the Texas Department of Public Safety's investigation into the calls that sparked the raid on the Fundamentalist LDS Church's community near Eldorado.

A 16-year-old girl named "Sarah" called a family crisis center hotline, claiming that she had been beaten, was pregnant and married to a 50-year-old Colorado City, Ariz., man named Dale Barlow. Authorities have been unable to find her, and questioned Barlow in St. George but did not arrest him.

Anti-polygamy activists received similar calls, and when the girl's story became suspicious, they forwarded them on to the Texas Rangers.

Last week, Colorado Springs police arrested 33-year-old Rozita Swinton on charges of making a false report stemming from an incident in February where she's accused of claiming to be a child in distress to a local shelter.

Texas Rangers were there for the arrest and have said they seized items from her apartment that indicated a possible connection between Swinton and calls regarding the FLDS compounds in Colorado City and Eldorado. The Texas Department of Public Safety has declined to comment further on the case. Swinton has a prior conviction for making a false report to police.

Rod Parker, an attorney acting as spokesman for the FLDS Church said Tuesday that "Sarah Barlow doesn't exist and Dale Barlow lives in Arizona."

Parker, like any defense attorney worth their salt, is going to argue that the case against his client should be tossed because of Swinton's phony calls.

Shurtleff's approach of prosecuting the crimes surrounding the FLDS--child rape, abuse, police misconduct, kidnapping, embezzlement, welfare fraud--and not polygamy in-and-of itself, is a smart one. (And the exact opposite of the Texas approach) The idea is to bring these communities "above ground" and have the women and children in these societies begin to trust the police and prosecutors, and not to think they are going after the polygamists because of their plural marriage practices. This is a tactic, not a policy based on the AG's view of the morality of polygamy.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the investigation into these calls uncovers.

re: are primaries good?

Originally, I was going attempt to tie in the PA primary with what happens in Utah primaries, but I guess I forgot that thread after I got hung up on the way the D-News got its "scoop."

So enough meta, my point is this. Primaries aren't always good or bad things for parties. It depends on the situation. Let's take the biggest primary race ever: Clinton vs. Obama (I say ever in terms of real dollars raised and spent, as well as votes cast, etc.) This race has been good for the party, but the lull between Missippi and Pennslyvannia caused things to get snippy and not helpful for the party. Swing counties in the 'burbs of Philly, like Bucks County, became blue as a result of this hard-fought race. That has to be good news for the party's chances of winning the Keystone State in November, even if Obama loses it big today and becomes the nominee. Voter registration and participation for Democrats has gone through the roof this cycle. My favorite statistic has to be that more people voted in the Texas prima-caucus for Obama and Clinton than voted for John Kerry in November 2004. Turnout appears to be high today, repeating a pattern from the other 40-something states.

Other times, a primary is destructive. The U.S. Senate race in Oregon seems to be an example of that on the Dem side, while the 2006 Senate primary in RI on GOP is another example. When primaries get personal and nasty, both candidates look worse. Another way this can happen is if it is ideological and the incumbent is hanging onto a district based on his or her personal connection to voters alone. This is the danger in MD-1, where moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest was outsted by a Club for Growth candidate.

So would it hurt the GOP's chances in Salt Lake County to have primaries or go to the convention? Conventions to me seem relatively painless for the candidates if nothing embarassing like stalking charges or insane statements come out of it. Because if the attacks are just between activists, regular voters won't even know about it. For my sanity, I wish Obama and Clinton would just conduct their daily phone conferences with the remaining 300-or-so superdelegates and leave the rest of us alone.

Primaries are a chance to test out GOTV operations, messaging, train campaign workers/get experience as a campaign worker, and get to know your base voters. So as long as the potential pitfalls of primaries can be avoided, I think they are a good idea.

are primaries good?

While millions vote in the pivitol Pennslyvannia Democratic primary today, a local political story caught my eye.

A Utah House GOP candidate says he was encouraged by a county party officeholder to get out of his race but declined to do so.
Rob Alexander is one of two Republicans who filed against Democratic incumbent Rep. Mark Wheatley, D-Murray. Rick Taylor also filed for the House District 35 seat.

In a comment post to a Deseret News article on Monday, Alexander says that after he filed at the request of Salt Lake County Chairman James Evans, he got a telephone call from Carrie Towner, a Senate District chairwoman. Even though Towner was from a different Senate district than is Alexander, she asked him to get out of the race, since Taylor, a candidate she supports and asked to run, was already in the race, Alexander said.

That's right, the Deseret News is writing about a comment posted to one of its stories on its website. What a brave new world indeed. They didn't even need think up the contextual link either because, by Alexander's commenting on stories about Utah County Republican Party shenanigans, he gave them the context.

Now Carrie was a classmate of mine at law school, and I like both her and her husband. Bob Bernick that "intrepid reporter," must have called her up for her reaction to Alexander's comment. Or maybe he just waited for Carrie to reply to the comment thread. And people like me call journalist's lazy...he had to pick up the phone and call people, THEN type. Oh the horrors.

But Towner says Alexander misinterpreted her telephone call. While she did recruit Taylor, she said she called both candidates after the filing deadline to suggest that they get together and decide if one or the other "really didn't want to run" — and thus a party convention, and perhaps a primary, could be avoided.

"I didn't pressure (Alexander) to get out any more than I did (Taylor)," she said.

But Alexander said he found Towner's call odd — especially since she was not from his Senate district. "She was passing herself off as my district chair, a person who supposedly had some kind of authority over me. She is not from my district. She made it clear that (Taylor) was not going to get out (of the race) and asked if I wanted to. It was all kind of fishy. Both she and (Taylor) were at the same meeting where James [Evans SL County GOP chair] announced that I would run for this seat and they didn't say anything," Alexander said in an interview.

While it is against party rules for a party officer to take sides in an intra-party challenge, Evans said that rule only applies to the current chairman, vice chairman, treasurer and secretary of individual county parties and the state party, not to other party officeholders, like a Senate district chair, as is Towner.

"So no rule was violated" by the telephone call, said Evans.

Note to the Towners, don't let Evans come to your defense. The "they didn't break the rules!" line really makes you look worse. Tell him you will handle this one. The man can't help but sink candidates (did Sheriff Winder ever send you a bouquet?). Anyway, if either Towner wishes to comment further on the episode or the article, feel free to do it here. You don't want to put it in the D-News' comment board, they will surely need to fill in more space and write an article on that next.

This line by Evans is slightly better:

"Carrie was on a candidate recruitment committee the last two years, since the 2006 elections. And so she and others have been looking for candidates" countywide. When the 2006 GOP candidate, who was expected to run again, decided not to run at the last minute, Evans said he and other county GOP activists started beating the bushes — and no doubt that is when Towner found Taylor and asked him to run.

"We don't do what the Democrats do all the time. They pick one person and run them" with few intra-party fights, said Evans. Republicans have multiple candidates in many races, said Evans. "And we only said: 'If this is something you really don't want to do, and if we have a good candidate in the race already, then feel free"' to get out, said Evans.

He has a (sort of) good point, Utah Dems rarely have primaries. But the real question is why, and if you know that, then you know that this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

First off, there aren't that many places were there are enough Dems to have primaries I can name the neighborhoods off the top of my head and I am sure you can think of the same. Heck, there are some races were Democrats struggle to find candidates even to run. The GOP in Utah rarely has that problem. Second, when you are in the minority to the extent that Democrats in Utah are, you get vary pragmatic, and tend to coalesse around the most "electable" candidate. While there are Dems and liberals I know in Utah that are dissatisfied with moderates like Jim Matheson, you don't see any of them wasting their time and money trying to primary him.

And speaking of Jim, he can thank his lucky stars he didn't have run against Carrie in 2002, when he got only 1600 votes more than the detestable John Swallow. Did the same convention goers that nixed Gov. Walker's bid do in Carrie?

Buttars clean out your desk

It appears we won't have Chris Buttars to kick around anymore.

A Deseret News/KSL-TV poll conducted by Dan Jones & Associates in late March found that among Senate District 10 registered voters, 67 percent said it is time to let someone new serve, and among only GOP voters in District 10, 54 percent said it was time to elect a new senator....
[...]
Buttars said he's well aware of the "three or four" delegate meetings that have, and will, exclude him. "It is very tacky — to have a meet-the-candidate night and not invite all the candidates," Buttars said. But he's still working hard, holding breakfasts, lunches and dinners with delegates, and finding nearly all of them willing to listen to him.

He didn't want to talk about how delegates are receiving him, especially what he is hearing or not about his black baby comments. "Yes, I believe I'll come out of the convention," said Buttars, 66.
[...]
Challenger Armstrong pointed to a Deseret News analysis that showed Buttars was second to last in the Senate when it comes to effectiveness in passing bills this past session. He said the delegates he talks to are sending the message: "We definitely need someone new in there." But it's not solely because of the controversy surrounding him. "It's more content-based than the black baby comment," he said. "They just don't feel like the image he portrays is what they want portraying them."

Hilton said that when Buttars went into "hiding" after his stumble during the end of the 2008 session, there were a number of important votes he missed, including a vote on a school district split bill. The Jordan School District and Buttars' District 10 went through a controversial district split in 2007. And Hilton said while she didn't oppose the original school district law passed recently by the Legislature, she does oppose how the Jordan District split vote was done. She also opposed private school vouchers, while Buttars supports them. Vouchers were voted down by citizens last November.

"You can't miss votes like that," said Hilton, who is in her third term on the council. "No matter what happens, you can't run away and hide."

Another candidate, Smith-DeRusha, said the district is looking for someone "who will get something done, as opposed to standing on a pulpit." She pointed to Buttars' so-called message bills, such as his attempt at barring Salt Lake City from initiating a domestic partner registry. That effort failed and lawmakers instead approved guidelines for such registries.

"I don't need another message bill, I want someone to do something for the west side," Smith-DeRusha said. "It's time to elect a true conservative."

Don't look for the new state senator to vote very differently from Buttars, but there should be less in-your-face anti-gay/evolution/etc. bills from that seat. A quiet conservative.

PS Happy Passover!

selective prosecution?

The raid and impending prosecution of the polygamists of the FLDS sect in Texas is growing messier by the day.

We learned that the warrant was based on a phone call to a battered women's center by a woman calling herself "Sarah" and claiming that she and her children were being abused by her "husband" (physically and sexually). A Texas judge approved a warrant that sought not only "Sarah's" family, but all families in the compound, and seems to have given the authorities permission to also enter and seize evidence from the FLDS temple as well. So far, they haven't found their affiant "Sarah." Defense attorneys for the women and the children are seeking to toss out all of the evidence seized based on this inability to find the affiant and arguing that the warrant itself was overly broad on Fourth and First Amendment grounds.

Now we learn that Texas prosecutors are contemplating filing charges of bigamy against the women who admitted in the press that they practiced "plural marriage." My question on both matters is, what about the FLDS men? Were they arrested? Are they charged with anything yet? So far, I haven't seen any reporting to suggest they have (but if so, please let me know).

Prosecuting the "wives" for bigamy without going after the "husbands" is like prosecuting the prostitutes for prostitution without doing the same for the Johns. Both the institution of "plural marriage" as practiced by the FLDS and the institution of prostitution are based on sexual exploitation of women and girls for the benefit of men.

Some argue that polygamy is OK when the women consent to entering such relationships, just as some argue that sex-for-hire between two consenting adults should be legal. The trouble is that even if it was somehow possible to eliminate all the child marriages or child prostitutes, you still have consent problems with women that are under financial or sociological/cultural pressure to join such institutions.

I suspect that it will take years to resolve the FLDS raid, a problem that will be compounded by the fact that judges in Texas are popularly elected. If a judge tosses out the warrant or evidence or convictions of polygamists, they probably won't get re-elected, even if the U.S. Supreme Court ends up agreeing with such a judge.

There are no easy legal or sociological answers to either polygamy or prostitution, which is why officials have for decades taken a mostly hands-off approach to dealing with them. This post is intended as an invocation of discussion of the problems, not saying what is or isn't legal, proper, right, etc. But it is a discussion worth having.

Some Mormons, especially those with polygamist ancestors, feel conflicted as they watch Texas authorities separate FLDS families on the basis of alleged abuse.
They don't support the practice of polygamy today, yet these Latter-day Saints see the faces of their great-grandparents in the FLDS women and children.
[...]
A Dan Jones & Associates poll of 314 people reported in the LDS Church-owned Deseret Morning News revealed that 31 percent of Utahns believe Texas authorities were definitely justified in removing the children and another 31 percent believed the actions were probably justified; 13 percent of those polled believed the actions were probably not justified and 6 percent said they were definitely not justified. The poll has a margin of error of 5.7 percentage points.

my new favorite punching bag

(Taken from the blog of the late great Steve Gilliard)

Given that Sen. Chris Buttars might lose in the primary, let alone the general election this fall, I have been on the lookout of another local politician who can be counted on to say stupid things that I can make fun of on a regular basis. And sure enough Buttars's colleague and heir apparent to his title of Eagle-Forum-Mouthpiece fits the bill: Sen. Margaret Dayton (R-Orem).

Due to the large number of cars to people ratio, the traffic bottleneck on I-15 between Logan and Salt Lake, Kennecott Copper, Geneva Steel, and high pressure fronts in the winter, the Wasatch Front has dangerously bad air quality.

Concerned mothers and doctors have banded together to bring attention to the health impacts of such polluted air: children developing asthma and dying, elderly dying, heart disease, etc.

So at a hearing on whether to reauthorize the Utah Air Conservation Act, Dayton

said she is "agitated" by too many regulators and regulations costing too much taxpayer money to monitor and control emissions in Utah.

"It's frustrating to me," she said. Dayton criticized state and federal regulators for placing too little confidence in letting people solve air quality "issues" on their own.

Where to begin? Let's compare the cost of inaction with the cost of action. For FY 2008, Utah spent a mere $10.8 Million (page 87 on the print out, page 97 of 300 on the PDF) on improving air quality and doing its part to enforce the Utah Clean Air Act, which also includes provision for banning smoking indoors (spend any significant length of time at the SLC airport and you too will have this fact beaten into you). More critically, only $3.92 Million of that came out of the General Fund (table 19, page 90). The Californian government took a look at the cost of air pollution in 2004 and found these disturbing findings:
Of course, California's air quality, despite the toughest rules in the country, is still worse than ours, but it gives you a sense of what will happen in a few decades if we listen to Dayton's advice.

To be charitable, I assume Dayton is attempting to express the conservative ideological idea that individuals can always solve problems better than the government can by regulation. Of course, air pollution is the classic example of what economists call a negative externality. When you buy car, or gas, or anything made of copper or steel, you aren't paying for the pollution emitted in making/using the product. At most you are paying for the cost of cleaning up the prior emissions (but since Kennecott and Geneva are SuperFund sites, you are mostly paying for those out of your federal tax dollars) So where is the incentive to make cleaner gas, cars, cooper, and steel? Other than customer's moral complaints, there is actually a reverse incentive, because technologies to reduce or prevent emissions costs more money.

This is a classic example of the failure of markets to include the full costs of a product and to address a public harm. So how does one fix that and still appeal to their beliefs that markets solve everything: pollution-trading-credit-markets. All three presidential candidates believe in some form of a cap on emissions and then distributing credits to pollute X amount, which companies can then sell among themselves and thereby incentivize companies to invent cheaper and more efficient ways of reducing emissions. But governments have to be sure to set the cap low, and not give out too many credits, otherwise the whole purpose of the cap and trade system will flop, as it has in Europe.

But where was I? .... Ah yes, Ms. Dayton, congratulations! You are going to provide many a day of fodder.

money talks

Now occationally, underfunded challengers (and incumbents) win (re)election, but study after study of Congressional races shows, the candidate that raises the most money usually wins.

Is it because money buys TV ads, and people listen to TV ads? Partly, but mostly because donors usually "bet on" winners/favorites, which is why candidates like Pete Ashdown had trouble scaring up money. Money from individuals also tells you to some extent who has grassroots support, especially if the individual donors come from within the candidate's voting district. Of course, the longer incumbents are around, the easier it is for them to raise money outside their district (and thus the percentages alter).

Political junkies know that looking at quarterly fundraising reports are a good way to get a read on whether a race will be close--or a blowout--and which one insiders think it will be. Case in point, Utah's Second Congressional District.

Dew, who has previously said he was willing to spend his own money on the race, proved Tuesday that he really will fund his campaign — so far, almost entirely. Based on Federal Election Commission reports filed Tuesday, he raised only $40 for his campaign but still is awash in money when compared to his GOP rivals.

A millionaire former homebuilder who has been a GOP state delegate and precinct chairman, Dew has $203,535 cash on hand, according to his report. He loaned his campaign $250,000 and spent $46,504 on "operating expenditures," according to his statement.

He said that he has not decided on a cap for his personal campaign spending but that he started with $250,000 so that "people would know we are serious about beating Jim Matheson."

Matheson's other Republican challenger, former congressman and perennial candidate Merrill Cook, raised $21,069 since the beginning of 2008 and has $10,131.08 cash on hand, according to the filings.

None of the challengers, however, are close — yet — to touching Matheson's war chest. The four-term Democrat raised $218,476 for the first quarter and has more than $1 million cash on hand.

Incumbents also build up a big warchest to scare away challengers--like Sen. Clinton did in 2006. But sometimes, incumbents are so vulnerable, no amount of money raised is going to scare challengers away. Othertimes, their vulnerability is indicated by their low cash-on-hand numbers (that's amount raised minus amount spent). For example, Alaska's lone House seat:

In the first three months of 2008, [Rep. Don] Young raised $131,575 -- a sum that wasn't nearly enough to meet his net expenditures of $443,238. His once-burgeoning cash-on-hand is now sitting at $604,268. Will Young have the resources he needs to fend off very competitive primary and general election challenges?

Young's tab included a long list of legal fees, including $212,752 paid to Akin Gump, $1100 to Holmes Weddle, $24,520 to Tobin O'Connor, and $15,020 to John W. Wolfe. That's a lot of scrilla, especially when you consider that Young began 2007 with $1.86 million cash-on-hand, a number that has dwindled in large part due to legal fees such as these.

Why is he spending millions on lawyers? He altered a spending bill after it passed both chambers of Congress, but before it reached the President's desk--to include a $10 Million earmark for a road in Florida. Why would an Alaskan Congressman violate the consitutition about a road in Florida?

Daniel J. Aronoff, a real estate developer who [owns as much as 4,000 acres along Coconut Road] helped raise $40,000 for Mr. Young at the nearby Hyatt Coconut Point hotel days before he introduced the measure.

It's a pretty obvious case of quid pro quo, one that Conservative Republican Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Senator Barack Obama want to investigate.

But let's get back to Utah, where we have an incumbent who is at risk of losing in the primary based on issues, not on massive corruption.

Cannon, R-Utah, raised $180,760 in the first quarter of 2008, according to financial disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission Tuesday, bringing his total contributions to $528,732. Cannon spent $105,358 this quarter and has $127,580 cash on hand.

Cannon has about $199,000 in campaign debt obligations at the end of the fourth quarter. Of the money he raised the past four months, about $152,000 has come from political action committees.

Leavitt, the former Juab County attorney and younger brother of former Utah governor and current Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, estimates that his total raised this quarter is $185,438. He is still calculating the expenses but said his estimated cash on hand was $85,000.

Being down only about $27,000 to a long-time incumbent is pretty dang good. Best of luck to all those running for Congress, and please try to keep it clean. Nobody wants to see ads about "Utah values" and they don't work. Just ask not-Congressmen LaVar Christensen and John Swallow.

it just keeps getting better and better

The more I learn about the Utah County GOP organization, the more fun it is to write about it. Previously, I have noted Rep. Morley's troubles with his own constituents and activist (the ones that he needs on his side to win the primary) in that he a) has a primary and b) is in serious legal hot water, is accused of doing something that said activists don't seem to thrilled about. I haven't focused on the use of delegates emails, nor the listing of incumbents and omission of challengers in party mailings.

One Utah County Republican who has been following the "Fabulous Five" controversy closely, Kip Meacham, commented on my blog saying:

Thanks for this post. Clearly we as the Republican Party have issues to address. Shining light on the issues is how people will affect change.

In the aftermath of the event, I find the Party Leadership disallowing questions from the delegates to the candidates in the venue unconscionable.
[...]
How are the delegates to make an informed vote without dialogue?

How can there be dialogue without questions?

This "thinking for the delegates" mentality is unbelieveable and unacceptable. Either the Party must open up the debate and the inquiry, or it should cease engaging in sham events.

But now I will highlight another one the delegates' complaints because it is essentially about gaming the convention:

Among all the other complaints about insider dealing in the Utah County candidate nomination system this year, add one about state Republican Chairman Stan Lockhart's daughter being elected as a delegate in a neighborhood caucus where she didn't live at the time.
It appears to violate the plain language of the rules, though party leaders insist it doesn't.
[...]
According to state and Utah County bylaws, caucus participants must turn 18 by November's general election and reside in the precinct where they caucus.
Hannah Lockhart, who turns 18 in July, lives with her parents in Provo, said her dad. But she moves to her new precinct before the county's April 26 convention to attend Brigham Young University for spring term.
[...]
"Our rules say you must live within the precinct you represent when the convention takes place - that's the key." [said Mariann Monnahan, who chairs the Utah County Republican Party]
Other GOP faithful disagree, countering that residency refers to where someone lives at the time of the caucuses, which were held in neighborhoods around the state on March 25.
"If not, I could show up anywhere and say, 'I'm moving into the precinct' and get to vote without ever having lived there," said Dave Irvine, an attorney who has been active in the Republican Party for years.
"Regrettably, the rules that apply to everyone else ought to apply to the party chairman."

First off, it is dumb to give your teenaged college daughter a delegate seat when there are many other wanting to spend an afternoon at a convention. Why? Because now you have just pissed off a person who would have knocked doors, manned phone banks, driven people to the polls etc. for you. Second, she obviously supports her dad (she isn't a Giulliani after all) and can be there as a non-voting supporter and still gin up votes for him without voting herself. Third, is Rep. Lockhart really so worried about the delegate count that he has to stick in his daughter? Are all state legislators from Utah County this out of touch with even the activists within their own party, let alone their regular constituents?

To be clear, this has nothing to do with the nature of the Republican Party itself, only with the nature of any group that has been in power for so long that it neglects why it is in power, and abuses such power. This year promises to bring new blood into the Utah legislature, which will hopefully serve as a wakeup call to the moribund political leadership in places like Utah County.

experience, part deux

Commenter Brian makes a good point, what about domestic experience. Usually when the punditry talk about "experience," the words foreign policy are usually either prefixed or implied. Rarely when people talked about Obama's "inexperience" did they mean he doesn't know (for example) the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Still, there are far more experiences that would prepare one for the domestic responsibilities of being president than ones for the role of Commander-in-Chief and other foreign policy roles.

Governors and Mayors who have to work with their legislative bodies to get stuff done have a great deal of experience in a large part of being president--trying to pass your (mostly domestic) legislative agenda. Notice I didn't offset part of the sentence with commas. And for good reason. Governors and Mayors that have either rubber-stamp or screw-you legislative bodies are going to be in for a real shock when they get to D.C. This is why Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney don't really have relevant domestic experience either, but Mike Huckabee does.

The NY City Counsel has for years been a debating society where most of the real decision making power lies with the office of mayor. Giuliani, or Bloomberg for that matter, have a real test when they sought something from Albany, not from the Counsel.

The opposite is true in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney could posture and hand the General Court any old budget he wanted, because he knew darn well that the bosses in the House or Senate could muster veto-proof majorities (or veto-overrides) at will on any line item or bill they felt like. That is, although Massachusetts gives its governor line-item veto power, veto-overrides were a routine matter. During budget season (right about now) while I was working for Rep. Blumer in 2003-04, there would be several veto-override votes about once a week.

For those who have never been in the executive branch, there is still a legitimate claim to domestic experience: Shepperd through an important piece of legislation through a recalcitrant Congress and over a recalcitrant President. Senator Chris Dodd was a great example, having worked for years and years to get the Family Medical Leave Act passed through Congress and signed into law in 1992. Ditto for John McCain, who was finally able to get campaign finance reform through in 2002. And Bob Dole and the Americans with Disability Act. And Hillary Clinton for the bill to give National Guardsmen (and women) access to the same veteran's benefits as those who serve(d) in [in no particular order vets] the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. Or Obama for the lobbyist reform bill.

Which brings me to a semi-related point. Democrats have for decades--since Nixon's election in 1968--been confounded as to why working class folks in the Rust Belt, the Mountain West, the Plains, and the South seemingly vote against their economic interests by "pulling the lever" for Republicans. Groups like the DLC were founded to offer their theories as to why this was happening and what to do about it. Books like "What's the Matter with Kansas?" were written to come up with an alternate theory and approach.

One camp believed that these folks were snookered into voting the way they did because Republicans scared/distracted them with wedge issues that have been described as the four Gs: God, Guns, Gays, and the Gas Chamber (aka Death Penalty). Of course, on top of this some liberal academics postulated about the racial implications as well. If Democrats could just say the magic words, the theory went, these folks would wake up from their spell and rejoin the New Deal Coalition.

The other camp believed that you had to appease these folks views on the four Gs by either making statements like "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare," or by nominating candidates in those regions who were, for instance, pro-life. If these folks would see that we take their cultural views seriously, the theory went, they would listen to us on ecnomic issues and they would vote our way.

Both Obama and Clinton use tactics from both schools of thought to get votes in the middle of Pennslyvania, which is demographically similar to these regions that "don't vote right." Obama's "bitter" comment was part of the trickery school, but his "no one is pro-abortion" statement is of the other school. Hillary and her husband have stated less caustic versions of the bitter line, and Bill coined the safe legal and rare line.

To me, both tactics seem as patronizing as the Republican "elitist" attack--which ironically is always made by people making millions of dollars with homes and jobs in one of the capitols of "elitism"--New York City. People believe what they believe because it is their religion and culture, it is part of who they are and what it means to be someone from that place. The New Deal coalition isn't coming back together because two parties have dramatically changed as a result of the events of 1964-68.

And I don't know about you, but I would like to get beyond the 60s and 70s, and to stop viewing every modern event though the lens of the 20s and 30s of Baby Boomers. Each party seems to have fundamental weaknesses that makes a lasting majority for either a fantasy. Neither party seems to be addressing people who are in economic times in the region due to fundamental forces that no candidate for president--no matter what their experiences--can slow down, let alone stop.

That is, to address the fundamental problems of our times, we can't count on pitting on group against another or "framing" to gather up enough support to ram-through stuff we wanted to do for decades, or to scare voters by saying someone isn't experienced enough to be president, when all three of them are qualified to be president. That is, we need to work together in a real way that gets out the real reasons why one person doesn't like some provision--and not some trumped up political excuse.

Utah Co. GOP shoots itself in the foot

This post is a follow up to yesterday's on Rep. Morley's legal troubles with his Cottonwood Heights-based hedge fund and the Utah County Republican Party's role in trying to sweep it under the rug. Sure enough, the delegate meeting happened (despite rumors that it would be canceled due to press coverage) and the off-limits topics remained taboo.

Then Rep. Morley had the gumption to claim that "I think it would have been better if I could have got this out and explained how complicated it really is. The fact is, I put five million in, got two (million out) and lost three million." If you had said you wanted to talk about it, Rep. Morley, I am sure they would have accomodated that. Or you could have brought it up yourself during the meeting. But for "some reason" you didn't.

"This was almost canceled because a small group in the party wants to protect their own," said John Webb, a delegate.

"I'm so frustrated with this party right now and what they're doing."

Other delegates also heard rumors the event might be canceled due to rumbling about a showdown of personal attacks. The committee, however, denied talk of any termination.

"We just want to keep the meeting all about the issues," said Maryanne Davis, Utah County Republican Committee member. "In order to get the issues out, they're not allowed to attack personal character."

Davis defended Morley, saying 98 percent of businessmen end up in litigation. The complaint "doesn't mean a thing," she said. "It doesn't need to be brought up when it doesn't matter that much."

[Morley's challenger Chance] Williams disagrees: "We're talking about millions and millions of dollars in bids for charter schools and large lawsuits of misappropriating millions," he said. "How is that not an open issue?"

Davis has got to be kidding, right? Ninty-eight percent of all businessmen end up in litigation? As I lawyer, I guess I should wish it were true. According to small business.com, "[t]here were an estimated 203,468 small businesses in Utah in 2004." Yet there were only 87,191 civil cases [PDF, see page 16 of 20] filed in Utah state courts in FY 2007, and three years later, I am sure there were more businesses in Utahby then, small, medium or large ones. Even this is being generous, since civil cases include interpersonal disputes (like where a bountry line is between two neighbors, who gets the house under Uncle Bernie's will, etc.) and not just business litigation. Even just business litigation is more often than not against the business itself as in entity, and not the individual owners or managers (which is the whole reason why people incorporate their business in the first place). Rarer still are prosecutions of invididuals by the SEC for ones business practices. So the idea that "98 percent" of businessmen end up in litigation like this is laughable on so many levels.

"These shouldn't be seen as personal issues," Chance Williams told reporters after the meeting, "they represent who [Rep. Morley] is and what he stands for." The meeting by contrast, showed what the Utah County Republican Party appearantly stands for: incumbent protection.

experience to be president

(Photo Credit: All Posters.com, the Jimi Hendrix "estate")

This whole "experience" debate has annoyed me more than usual this year, even though the same debate happens every four years. Perhaps it is because the media has decided that 2 out of the remaining three candidates have the necessary "experience," and have agreed that Obama does not. What experience, exactly, is good training for being President of the United States? Obama has a point that "years in Washington" does not necessarily translate into good decision making while in office. But then again, it does matter how (but not necessarily where) you spend those years between running for president and being born.

Obama's case for having the necessary "experience" is two fold: (1) experience doesn't matter, judgment matters, and he was the only remaining candidate who had the requisite judgment to be against the Iraq War from the beginning; and (2) living and traveling abroad with "real people" and not just meeting with foreign dignitaries, means he has a real sense of countries that one doesn't get by meeting with ministers and presidents.

Having lived abroad myself for a year and a summer, I am sympathetic to his second point. Then again, I wouldn't say I know what the Italians or Swiss or Norwegians, or Dutch, or Danes, or French are like just because I briefly visited their countries (like Obama did with Pakistan in the early 1980s).

I definitely think that sitting on some congressional committee is the exactly wrong kind of experience to prepare oneself for the presidency. All one does as a committee member is listen to testimony (and try to sound clever with questions), get red carpet tours of foreign countries, and vote on bills that (other than military spending bills and the rare treaty) have little impact on the world. So the fact that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain are members of the Foreign Relations or Armed Services Committee is wholly unimpressive in my view.

But McCain and Clinton aren't pointing to their time in the Senate in actuality. McCain is really trying to say that being a Navy pilot and POW in Vietnam makes him wise, and Hillary is saying living in the White House for 8 years as the closest aide/advisor to the President makes her wise.

However, despite being tortured for years, McCain still caved on the torture issue in Congress. Having experienced the horrors of war firsthand, he seems eager not only to continue the current one for 100 years, but start another in Iran. He doesn't get the difference between Sunni and Shia, nor why it is critical to understanding the dynamics of the middle east (why, for instance, the terrorist group named "Al Qaeda in Iraq" would never have anything to do with Iran). Just as the war in Vietnam was not about Communism for the Vietnamese, but about nationalism. So either he is ignoring his experience, or didn't learn the valuable lessons from it.

Hillary likewise saw her husband work hard to build coalitions in military actions in Haiti and Bosnia/Kosovo and him commit errors in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia/Croatia, and Rwanda. Yet she voted for the Iraq war and against amendments that would have watered down the AUMF. The truth is, like John Kerry, she listened to people who said "If you want to run for president, you have to look tough, and voting for the Iraq War is how do it."

Really, the only jobs that give a person any sense of what it will be like to be President is a 3- through 5-star general (who have to deal with not only waging war but with diplomacy, politics, and peacekeeping), anyone who got to be in the Situation Room on a routine basis (not the Beard's show), or a high-level diplomat with either a key ally (NATO itself, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, South Korea, etc.) or a key "adversary" (Russia/USSR, China, North Korea, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc.). Only these few people know how hard it is to make snap decisions that have lasting impact, and know which ones ended up being wrong, and hopefully thought about (and correctly diagnosed) why those wrong choices were made.

So by that standard, only Bill Richardson--who was a Congressman, Energy Secretary, UN Ambassador, Governor of NM, and unofficial liason between North Korea and the US--was adequately "experienced" to be president of the people that ran this cycle (for last cycle, it was Wes Clark, who reccomended going into Rwanda while working for the Joint Chiefs; helped negotiate the Dayton Accords; and lead NATO to a zero casualty victory in Bosnia/Kosovo).

Given with the choices that we are left with, who then is the most "experienced?" Since I have formulated experience as learning from bad decisions and/or making the right call the first time, I would say Obama. But I am interested to see what my readers think of my overall proportion.

incumbent protection program

When is a primary not really a primary? When party bosses neuter the challenger's main line of attack.

State Rep. Mike Morley is facing lawsuits in Utah and New York, seeking to recoup $3 million "loaned" to him by a hedge fund that allegedly defrauded millions of dollars from investors.
But the topic is off-limits for Chance Williams, who is challenging Morley for the Republican nomination in House District 66. Williams is making ethics the centerpiece of his campaign, but says he was told not to raise the issue at a Meet The Candidates event tonight in Spanish Fork.

The whole reason most folks are challenging incumbents for seats in Utah's legisture is their concerns that certain legislators have grown out of touch, especially on issues of ethics. While Utah Democrats have been capitalizing on this to recruit candidates, many Republicans have bravely sought to primary their local legislator.

The Utah County GOP chairwoman claims it is all about "civility" and being innocent before being proven guilty. But the point isn't whether or not Rep. Morley is guilty of any wrongdoing, the point is that it looks bad and incumbents seem to be blind to such appearances of impropriety. Here are the particulars:

Morley had $5 million invested through Thompson Consulting Inc., a Cottonwood Heights-based firm headed by Kyle J. Thompson, in a pair of hedge funds.
Thompson and others solicited millions of dollars from 90 other investors, including a number of seniors, promising healthy returns with almost no risk.
But Thompson and business partner David Condie took considerable risks, the SEC alleges, sinking millions into a subprime lender whose stock tanked in March 2007. Between July 31 and Aug. 17, the funds' assets plummeted from $54 million to $200,000.
However, before the funds collapsed, Condie moved $3 million out of the fund to Morley to make up for losses Morley suffered, the SEC said. The agency described Condie as a distant relative of and "purportedly one of Michael Morley's attorneys." A total of $2 million ended up in Willowbend, a 109-acre development in Vernal where Morley has an interest.
The company called the transfers to Morley a "loan," but there were no loan documents and the SEC said Morley has been "unjustly enriched" and should repay the money.

Oh and there is a civil lawsuit as well.

The question Williams is trying to ask county delegates is if they want their party to be presented by a guy who is allegedly took millions of dollars from little old ladies for himself when his investment scheme went south. Of course, the irony is that, thanks to press coverage, the delegates will be taking about it more than they would had Williams brought it up himself and had Chairwoman Marian Monnahan not forbade any reference to the matter.

Utah papers' foreign correspondents

(Photo Credit: [British] Royal Geographic Society)

I love reading locally-written articles in Utah newspapers about coffee. The articles read like a journal entry of some 19th century British colonialist explaining some "lost tribe" in Africa or the Pacific Islands. To be clear, I am not mocking Utahns (or anyone else) who have never tried coffee. I am mocking the tone of these articles.

Here's one from the Deseret Morning News last October:

Barlow and Gerber, a legal secretary and receptionist for Eisenberg Gilchrist & Morton, are not alone. It's a morning ritual for millions of Americans, who can choose from the more than 24,000 coffeehouses across the country.

Whether grabbing a quick cup and a bite to eat on the way into the office or taking a morning break with colleagues, downtown Salt Lake City has plenty to offer when the time comes for a caffeinated pick-me-up.

In its unscientific survey of area coffeehouses, the Deseret Morning News found 13 locations between First Avenue and 600 South and 500 East and West Temple. The shops vary in size and style, and their prices and selection vary. Of the coffee shops visited by the Morning News, the price for a 20-ounce cup of drip coffee ranged from $1.75 to $2.50.
[...]
The locations appeal to different types of customers, usually based on where they work and live and how they want to receive their morning brew. Folks looking to grab it and go often visit drive-through locations such as Raw Bean Coffee House on the southwestern edge of downtown or Java Jo's in the Avenues.

The article fills up space by explaining statistically speaking, coffee is a very common and popular beverage nationally.

Today's article in the Salt Lake Tribune piggie backs on an AP wire story about Starbuck's Coffee's struggles--and ideas--to maintain its growth and profit margins due to increased competition. This article doesn't sound as ethnographic as the previous one, but still has its gems.

As industry king Starbucks teeters ever so slightly on its throne, other retailers, big and small, are moving in to offer coffee options of their own, even in brew-eschewing Utah.
[...]
...competition in the coffee business splashes over a state where more than half the population does not drink the beverage, mostly on religious grounds.
"Utah wasn't a natural market for iced coffee," said McDonald's public-relations spokeswoman Barbara Schmiett, of Salt Lake City. "That's why we tested it here in a handful of restaurants first, and we found that people loved it."
[...]
"[The new Pike's Place Roast is] fresh, but so is coffee at 7-Eleven," said Kyle Power, who had to wait for his freebie Tuesday as Starbucks baristas served paying customers first at The Gateway Mall in Salt Lake City.

For whatever reason, I have never read articles like this about alcohol or tea. Maybe coffee is just somehow more intriguing. If you do feel like having a cup, it seems Beans & Brews offers the cheapest one mentioned in the article--$1. And you get a nice little biscutt with it too. Cheerio!

China's worst nighmare

The People's Republic of China (PRC) decided to bid for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games to show the world that they were a modern powerful country that should be respected. Yet due to the events of the last two years--and especially the last few months--China's giant PR festival is turning into massive damage control.

First, there were the stories of the polluted air, rivers, lakes, and land, so bad that the Chinese themselves were willing to take on the companies and their government cronies. Next, there was the numerous recalls of unsafe PRC-made products, especially children's toys dripping with lead paint--just in time for Christmas.

But the most important development was the crackdown after protests in Tibet. The world has always had a soft spot for Tibet, thanks to the brilliant Dali Lama's tours around the world and the various Tibetan monks that represent Tibet as a peaceful Buddhist kingdom.

PRC government officials don't get what all the hubbub is about. They see Tibet as their Vermont--a wayward boarder province that is a bit different from the rest of the country, but still part of the nation. But now every city the Olympic flame visits will be a chance for protesters to remind the world of all the human rights violations PRC commits on a daily basis.

But you know this is a real movement--and not just the usual liberal cranks--when you see this happening:

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman says he supports the protests in San Diego that are threatening the Olympic torch run.
["Of course, I do. This is who we are," Huntsman, who has represented the U.S. government in China, told the Deseret Morning News. "I think we ought to be totally American about it, in terms of our expressions of outrage and concern and speaking up front and openly as we always do as Americans."
[...]
Huntsman said such protests can help pressure the Chinese government to "undertake a healthy dialog" with Tibet, considered an autonomous region. Last month, protests by Buddhist monks in Lhasa turned deadly as Chinese security forces poured into the Tibetan capital.

"I don't think it's bad," the governor said of the pressure being put on China to confront concerns over human rights. "In trade issues, we always exert pressure. That's how we made progress. But it has to be pressure combined with appropriate timing."]

Huntsman says he took part in protests himself in 1989 in opposition of China's treatment of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. He says he protested outside of the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C., despite running the Commerce Department's Asian affairs bureau at the time.

Huntsman was also Bush's Ambassador to Singapore before he became Governor, and he was in the running to be Chinese Ambassador (he also speaks Mandarin fluently) so he is fairly prominent American government official in East Asia. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Hillary Clinton want--who both have a lot of support from Chinese Americans---want to boycott the opening ceremonies. But it isn't just "liberals" that want to do that.

"If you think the opening ceremony is about recognizing China, then you probably would boycott it," [Mitt] Romney recently told CNN News. "If you think it's about recognizing the world and humankind, then you're there to pay respect to the athlete."

Well wait, which way do you think about it Romney? The Deseret News says your are against protests, but it could be construed either way...which I guess was the reason you said it that way.

While Bush might not lift a finger to remove the U.S. team from the opening ceremonies,you can be assured that some American Olympian will sport some sort of protest to PRC's regime. Some one's warm up jersey will have a Tibetan flag on it. Or someone will turn their back to Chairman Mao's flag. Maybe a person in the city will point out that their 400-year old family home was bulldozed in the name of "progress" (and of course, they don't have a Takings Clause in PRC). Maybe foreign protesters will flood Tianamen Square a build another lady democracy, and this time, the officials can't roll out the tanks or turn off the cameras.

PRC invited the world in to show off. "This is unprecedented for the Chinese to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny and spotlight, and they knew in 2001 that would be part and parcel of hosting the Games," Hunstman said. "The reformers won out years ago by saying this is a good thing. There will be change." By the end of August, they may want to wish they could go hide. Tibet, Huntsman predicted, is "just the beginning of a litany of issues that will be brought up." The Chinese, he said, appear to be "willing to embrace greater change moving forward."

Penn-ing the next chapter in Democratic consultants

So as I am sure all you political junkies heard this weekend, Mark Penn the chief strategist/pollster of the Hillary Clinton campaign resigned/fired/stepped down sorta. Joe Trippi, who was John Edwards 2008 (and Dean's 2004) campaign strategist hit the nail on the head: "The only real question was, why did it not happen sooner? The conflicts have been a problem for the campaign from the start."

Trippi is referring to the many clients had interests that were at odds with Sen. Clinton's positions, including the Colombian government, which hilariously fired Penn for sure.

Democrats nationally have a lot to hear from Republicans nationally in terms of how to handle consultants. George W. Bush told all of his consultants that they had to quit all of their other clients and focus solely on his campaign. He also demanded a flat fee rather than a commission based ad design/placement/airing. And his previous counterparts wouldn't rehire consultants that lost multiple races.

You would think these are all obvious conditions for any serious candidate for president. Sure if you are a Mike Gravel, you can't be too picky on the terms, but if you are an Obama or Clinton or Edwards or Kerry, you should be able to hold all the cards. They should be fighting to work for you, not the other way around.

Yet in the world of big-time Democratic politics, it has been bizzaro world. All of the consultants get paid a percentage of the ads they put on TV, so obviously they have an interest in suggesting that TV advertising is the way to go. Folks like Penn continue to hock their books and lobby for their other clients while still running a $150M+ campaign. And most bone-headedly, senators running for president fight for the right to have perennial losers like Penn, Shrum, and even Trippi advise them.

Bloggers give just as good advice (if not better) as these clowns do, and we cost nothing, compared to Penn's $6M bill for January alone. Penn's key contributions to Clinton's campaign was to focus on big states on Super Tuesday with the theme of experience/readiness. Meanwhile, Obama focused on the neglected states with the theme of change. Oh and Obama's people spent a significant portion of money on the ground game rather than just TV. Guess who has more delegates, won more states, has a lead in the popular vote, and has tens of millions more to spend for the next ten contests?

Like Bob Shrum, I predict that Mark Penn will become blacklisted from presidential campaigns (maybe even Senate campaigns too). Even the most pro-Clinton supporters--including her own campaign staff--was overjoyed to see Penn go away. If Democrats want to be successful, they need to learn the broader lesson from the Shrum and Penn fiascoes, and not just about the individual consultants.

First, I would suggest canning the very idea of the consultant and focus grouper. The more a candidate listens to these people, the more they sound like a politician that will say or do anything for a vote, rather than a principled person who runs for high office. But if that isn't in the cards, then second, I would give these folks a flat commission with perhaps a bonus for winning by X percent. Third, exclusivity is mandatory. Fourth, broadcast TV has lost its prominence (given cable/satellite/Internet/TiVo) and ad dollars should be spread out and tailored to popular cable channels and programs, as well as the Internet, radio, etc. Fifth, spend the money on GOTV tools and efforts. Obama's campaign took advantage of the pioneering Internet organizing tools developed in 2004 by Dean and Kerry's teams to build crowds, activists, raise money, and contact voters on a personal level. Sixth, don't rehire losers, try to get local consultants/pollsters when running for House/Senate or outsider when running for President. Obama hired Chicago marketing people to design his signs and logos, and it has been a rousing success. Even his consultant technically hails from the windy city. Seventh, based your HQ outside of greater-DC. Location matters not just because of the message it sends, but because you get trapped into conventional thinking in DC, and detached from the rest of the country. Moreover, the rent is usually cheaper and those willing to move out to your HQ are far more committed than those who just commute in to a place in DC.

Ultimately the candidates are responsible for the decisions they make, even if boneheads like Penn and Shrum suggest them. So while Penn had dumb ideas, they were ones that the Clintons agreed with and Penn tweaked his advice and polls to conform with what the Clintons wanted to do anyway. The same goes for John Kerry in 2004 with Shrum.

To me, one of the few ways we can evaluate a presidential candidate's potential as a president is looking at their judgment in running their campaign. The Clintons made some bad choices, and one could argue that other than Obama winning Iowa, his status as the almost-presumptive nominee is more of a product of their screw ups than Obama's brilliant strategy/campaigning. But it still says a lot about the Clintons that they still want to keep Penn in some capacity, and it still says a lot about Obama that he noticed key gaps in the Penn/Clinton strategy and exploited them successfully.