Romney's Iraq dance

Mitt is the only one of the two GOPers whom it seems has a chance of winning the nomination, is slowly trying to back away from their support of the Iraq war. But let's put the emphasis on slowly:

In April, Romney said Bush's plan to send about 30,000 additional troops to Iraq had a "real chance" of succeeding. On July 26, he was more equivocal, saying in an interview: "I don't give that a high probability, I give it a reasonable probability."
[...]
Romney, who isn't noted for jabs at Bush, is simply preparing for a call for a post-surge strategy, said Tom Rath, a senior adviser.
"That cannot be viewed as a sign of disloyalty or disrespect, but rather an inevitability in the political process," he said.
The issue, Rath said, "is how far any candidate should go in separating from the president."

Yes, how far should a candidate for the job of commander-in-chief go to show he should hold that position when discussing one of, if not THE, biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history? If you agree with 62% of Americans, the answer would be get out of Iraq...and the details of how and when would be between now and by next spring. In other words, you would either be a Democratic candidate, or Ron Paul.

But if you a Republican trying to win the Republican nomination for president, the answer is really much more complex because reality and sanity doesn't exist for the issue of Iraq for the GOP base.

Now Romney is [shocking I know] trying to have it both ways, first by giving a extremely weak critique of the escalation of the war, and then by saying they still support the war itself.

"There is no guarantee that the new strategy pursued by General Petraeus will ultimately succeed," Romney wrote in an Aug. 1 letter to supporters, adding that the stakes are too high to undermine the troops charged with the mission before it has an opportunity to succeed.

No guarantee? I will bet Romney all of his millions that Gen. Petraeus will claim that "success" is at hand or "progress" is being made, despite the fact that there is absolutely nothing resembling a functioning government at any level. I can also guarantee that it will remain a dog-eat-dog world out there for Kurds, Shi'a and Sunnis in Iraq.

But don't tell that to those serious men in Washington and on the GOP campaign trail. We wouldn't want to hurt their feelings and make them look bad. Poor Mitt is already upset, look:

SLC mayoral money race

All in all, Ralph Becker looks to be in pretty good shape...but still has significant ground to cover if he wants to make that second slot in 6 weeks.

The most recent reports show the candidates have maintained their financial rankings in the past two months, with former Salt Lake City Councilman Keith Christensen still the top fund-raiser. He has raised a total of $556,996.
While he is the only candidate to have passed the half-million-dollar mark, he has slowed his fund raising more than any of the other four front-runners since June, bringing in only $47,497 in the past two months.
"The important thing is the total money raised and the amount of money left on hand," said Christensen...
[...]
"Our campaign is fairly balanced in what we do," Wilson said. "I understand the role that money plays in a mayor's race. I wish it were different — I'm actually a big proponent of campaign finance reform and will work to reform it in the city — but I understand the role it plays."
She said that after the first round of financial reporting in February, she was shocked into action by the emerging reality: This is going to be an expensive race.
"Keith's fund raising has really surprised me," she said. "I've been in politics a long time, and the amount he raised really did wake us up."
[...]
The money race is just one part of the highly competitive campaign. Recent polls show the candidates stacking up differently when it comes to voter support rather than dollars raised and spent.

The Deseret News only tells half of the money race story. I bolded Christensen's quote for a reason. Check out the Salt Lake Tribune's graphic:

As you can see, although Ralph is 4th place in the money raising race, he is second in the cash-on-hand race. This frugal spending bodes well for the final days of the race when those undecideds (a quarter of the electorate) will chose their candidate or soft supporters will shift.

But as my future boss Kirk Jowers notes, you can't horde cash for too long

"They can't wait now," he said. "They have to start spending. If they wait until the first week of September, it will probably be too late."

Nevertheless Ralph didn't waste his money on billboards, like Buhler and Christensen have. Instead, he has done more innovate means of flashing his sigange around town

Good for the Gander

When Rep. Rob Bishop introduced the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Act, he did so babbling about "local stakeholders." The environmental community praised him for getting the bill passed last year, which in turn reduced SUWA's wilderness proposal by about 100,000 acres.

In fact, that same local vs. east coast liberals talking point was the reason his Chief of Staff Scott Parker gave me when I stopped by the office this spring to ask him to support SUWA's proposal to make over 10 million acres in Utah wilderness areas. That is, such wilderness bills should only pass if Utah's delegation approves of it.

But then I saw this:

Bishop took the lead this week in trying to kill a measure to designate the Eightmile River in Connecticut as part of the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers system ...
...supporters of the measure - which passed the House Tuesday by a 253-172 vote - say Bishop is out to embarrass freshmen Democrat Rep. Joe Courtney. Bishop, a Republican, tried to send the bill back to committee Tuesday with instructions to amend the bill - a move used often by Republicans this year to kill measures. Bishop says he wanted to make sure there is language to protect homeowners and landowners.
[...]
The Day of New London, Conn., however, said Bishop and the Republicans' opposition to the river designation was to foil Courtney's attempt to pass legislation, a move the newspaper said was payback for Courtney's razor-thin win in November.
"After 10 years of hard, bipartisan work by local citizens, elected officials and environmental organizations to protect Connecticut's Eightmile River and its rural watershed, GOP clowns made political hay of the effort last week, following the lead of a Utah Republican and defeating the wild and scenic designation for the river," the newspaper's editorial said last week referring to a procedural block Bishop helped initiate. "It was just their way of getting back at Rep. Courtney."
[...]
Bishop says his effort was solely focused on protecting private landowners and he otherwise supports the state's effort to protect the waterway. Connecticut [Republican] Gov. Jodi Rell and the state's federal delegation all supported the measure.

So this private land owner protection routine is a new one. Bishop is trying to say that this would be like Kelo v. New London, which is crap. This is for wilderness, not a public-private development project like in Kelo.

Bishop, if you don't want Connecticut politicians interfering with Utah wilderness on behalf of the environment, how can you honestly interfere with Connecticut wilderness on behalf of private land holders? That's right, you can't

In case you missed it

A story in today's Salt Lake Tribune caught my eye:

Provo police cited actor Gary Coleman for disorderly conduct after witnesses said they saw him having a heated discussion with a woman last Friday evening.
Passers-by told police Coleman's temper was rising and he was hitting the steering wheel of his vehicle. The witnesses were concerned and called police.
[...]
Coleman moved to Santaquin in 2005, around the time he starred in "Church Ball" an LDS-genre movie filmed in Utah County.

Now Utah County has two black people in it. I guess I am a bit Gary Coleman obsessed because I just listened to the soundtrack of one of my favorite Broadway plays Avenue Q while driving 1,070+ miles this weekend:

I'm Gary Coleman from TV's Diff'rent Strokes
I made a lot of money that got stolen by my folks
Now I'm broke, and I'm the butt of everyone's jokes
But I'm here, the superintendent of Avenue Q!

It's bad enough that Gary Coleman was exploited by his parents and TV producers, but now he has to live in Santaquin? Talk about adding insult to injury.

I'm voting for Ralph in September, you should too

In the interest of full disclosure, I wanted to let my readers know that I will be voting for Minority Leader Becker in September (by absentee probably). I guess this would constitute an endorsement. But before the Becker people get overly excited, I want stress that I still haven't decided whom I will vote for in the general election, but he is certainly in my top two.



Here's why we all need to vote for Ralph Becker on September 11, 2007:

Ralph is still in third place, maybe fourth...although "I don't know" is beating everyone but Jenny Wilson.

Unless she screws up royally (and she won't), Jenny will make it past the first round in September, but probably won't win outright. This leaves a race for second place. If Buhler or Christensen win that spot, they will be crushed by Jenny Wilson for one simple reason:

That's right, only 28% of SLC voters would vote for a Republican and the others than claim it doesn't matter can probably be swayed Jenny's way once positions are fully reveled via voting records.

But if Ralph makes into the second slot, it will be one heck of race. And Ralph has no where to go but up:

Buhler was viewed the most unfavorably: 19 percent gave him negative reviews. Christensen's portion of unfavorable impressions was 16 percent, Wilson's 11 percent and Becker's 9 percent.
Of the top tier of candidates, Becker faces the biggest name-recognition hurdle, as 35 percent said they had not heard of him.

The big question is, how is he going to get himself known? I am assuming Becker is squirreling away cash to spend on door-to-door-campaigning, and inevitably on radio or TV or newspapers ads or mailers or billboards. I personally think that billboards are worthless in a mayoral race. I would do radio and newspapers if it were me. The people that are going to vote in a runoff off-year election are partisans and activists. Mailers might be good to target the Democratic mailing list but that still won't get people who are interested in politics enough to vote but not enough to let the Party get their phone number, mailing address etc. Radio and newspaper will do that. And you can target audiences on radio. Plus newspaper has shown to be more cost effective in reaching out to likely voters than other mediums.

Anyway, I would like a real choice in November because there is no way I would vote for a guy who is afraid of his own party but still conservative, or the other guy who wants to pretend he wasn't a conservative Republican in the state legislature. I would like to struggle with deciding who is better than just not voting for the bad one.

I'm done

After two days of waking up at 6 AM to take a two-day test that lasted 17 hours and two months of solid studying...I am finished!

I feel remarkably OK about the whole thing, even when the power went out the last ten minutes of yesterday's portion of the test. It was so dark in the South Towne Expo Center that I could not see my hand in front of my face. And my first reaction was to laugh. It was just too ridiculous. Good thing that didn't happen the day before, when I was typing my essays on this laptop. Of course, on that day, the program claimed I hadn't registered. One must go online to register and of course, there was no wireless access at the expo center. Luckily the tech support people had a magical USB flash drive that magically registered me and gave me my question files.

Anyway, I don't even want to think about all the questions I got wrong or how well other people did. I am going to try to forget that ever happened until September, when I will start to freak out about whether or not I passed. Meanwhile, I have all kinds of important things to do that I have put off until after the test.

Fist up, read the last Harry Potter. [Don't ruin it for me, I have been looking forward to this for a while.] After that, I want to set up my start date at the Campaign Legal Center, where I will be interning this fall. Next, get everything ready for our trip to Montana. If I have time, I will see if there are any job openings to apply for in UT or DC.

Of course, I can't get these all done today, but I will try to do most. I might even just take a nap. If you feel like commenting, write what thing you would most like to do if you got a sudden day of freedom from work, school, kids, etc.

And thanks for sticking with me.

Will a Utahn be the next Vitter?

[This will be my last post until Thursday, and that one might be my last post for the week, I am going on vacation after the bar.]

One holier than thou "down," how many more to go?

An interesting Utah phone number showed up on the newly released phone logs of the so-called DC Madam, who is alleged to have run a high-end prostitute ring in the Washington, D.C., area.
No, it wasn't to or from the personal cell phone of any of Utah's congressmen or senators. The mysterious number was that of a Salt Lake City-based customer-support line of the Marriott hotel chain "rewards" program. There were five separate calls from December 1999 through June 2000, including one 12-minute call, according to logs of the calls, which were discovered thanks to the help of the Web site, Dcphonelist.com.
[...]
So far, the deputy secretary of state has resigned after reporters started scouring the phone records, and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., is under fire for admitting a past "sin."

Funny how reporters will bother to do research using the internet and calling/talking to people when it involves a sex scandal--David Vitter liked to wear diapers when having sex with prostitutes, news at a 11-- but not when it comes to hawkish claims about Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq (which is different than "Al Qaeda in Iraq" by the way) or Iran or WMD's or pretty much anything Chris Cannon is told to say on the TeeVee.

It's easier for the media to do a gotcha than to do a real fact-check. And reporters, fact checking means verifying what an interviewee/story subject is saying, not asking "both sides" to comment on what they said. He said she said is not news, it is gossip collection. A real piece of news says, "Bush claims Saddam has obtained significant quantities of uranium from Niger, but that isn't true because..." and then keep hounding the powers that be who lied to answer to the public why they lied and apologize, rather than letting them lie again (fact-checking their response would help).

Anyway, enjoy the heat and Pioneer Day, because I won't. See you on the other side.

my accidental dinner with Lohra Miller

Somehow last night, I ended up eating dinner with my boss SLCo. DA Lohra Miller and her husband. I didn't win an office contest or anything. I just happened to go to that new Japanese restaurant near Costco.

The do the hot table show chef that slices and dices in front of you, and they seat you with as many people as necessary to fill up a table, so my wife and I ended up at the Miller's double date.

Good thing she didn't recognize me from the time she shook my hand or walked past my cube. I avoided her gaze or talking to her since I was wearing a t-shirt, shorts, tevas, and had a bad hair day and hadn't shaved in 3 days. Plus, I haven't been into work for a month because Tuesday and Wednesday is the Bar exam.

I am off to church to pray that I manage to pass. Have a great Sunday.

as if you needed another reason

(Photo Credit: AP/Mary Ann Chastain)

But in case you thought about voting for Romney because of his "values," this should dispel it.

DENISON, Iowa
[...]
"I support tough interrogation techniques, enhanced interrogation techniques, in circumstances where there is a ticking time bomb, a ticking bomb," Romney said.
[...]
"Our president, for all the criticism he receives, has kept America safe these last six years, and he has done it by: One pursuing the Patriot Act, which has given us the intelligence information we needed to find out who the bad guys were and get them out before they got us, and No. 2, when al-Qaida was calling America, he made sure someone here was listening," Romney said. "And No. 3 ... when terrorists were detained, were captured, he made sure we interrogated them."

So let's see, Romney supports torture, in violation of the Geneva Convention (and uses the same term the Nazis did to support torture); he supports repeated civil rights violations by the FBI; illegal warrantless wiretaps on American citizens and political enemies; and above all, Romney supports every illegal thing that George W. Bush does, just to seem tough.

But that's not tough, that's cowardice. He is afraid that people will notice that is a privileged son who doesn't really know how to use guns. He is frightened that evangelicals would notice that he prefers to take money from people buying porn and booze than ban either while he was on the board of directors for Marriot. Romney doesn't want you to know that he is a vain man who spends hundreds on makeup and hair.

And don't bother asking Mitt about how and when he changed his positions on Abortion, Gay Rights, Gun Control, Stem Cells, etc. you won't get the real answer.

Mitt, Al Qaeda doesn't call into or out of the US on a phone, they aren't as stupid as you are. The fact is, Bush's own intelligence people have admitted that we are less safe now than we were prior to 9/11. And it is because of all those things that Romney listed, and because of Iraq, which Romney also supports the president wholly heartedly on.

We all have witnessed the worst series of foreign policy mistakes in US history since 1812. On North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Israel/Palestine, western Europe, etc. the Bush team has consistently made terrible decisions that have endangered our national security. We are darned lucky we haven't been struck again in US soil. And Mitt Romney wants to not only continue those mistakes, he wants to make them worse by doubling gitmo.

He'll even thrown in a free dog torturing, just to prove how manly he really is. If you want a bully and a coward, or want to continue living in fear, then vote for Romney.

But if you have hope for America and believe in its greatness and goodness, please vote for someone who won't follow George W. Bush in lockstep off the abyss.

who's it going to be

The children, or your party, Sen. Hatch?

The Senate Finance Committee approved a 61¢ increase in the federal tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products to help fund the expansion, which would add 3.2 million children to CHIP rolls over the next five years and continue services to 6.6 million currently being served.
Leavitt told Senate leaders Tuesday that the Bush administration strongly opposes the legislation.
Hatch, R-Utah, said facing a veto threat from the White House and opposition from Leavitt did not make him comfortable but he was confident the final bill was an appropriate compromise that focused on needed child health care.

For decades Sens. Hatch and Kennedy have agreed to fund CHIP via taxing tabacco. I am not suggesting that Hatch will vote against his own signature bill, rather, that we won't go the the mattresses for it. Oh and why on God's green earth would you rather have lower taxes on cigarettes than give poor children heath care? Especially when raising the price of cigarettes encourages people not to start and to stop smoking? That seems like a very free market thing that Republicans would favor. But not Mr. 26%, he wants to keep tobacco execs rich. And even though their parents might have voted for him, Bush doesn't care about poor people. Just dictatorial powers (see you can't prosecute my White House for contempt, "Justice" department, unless I say so). But then again, Chris Cannon doesn't care about poor children in his district either.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday that President Bush should "drop his irresponsible veto threat" and that senators who oppose the bill should not block a vote on it.
Meanwhile, the Partnership for Quality Care, which strongly supports the bill, is hoping Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, follows Hatch's lead and can take a leadership role in the House when it takes up its version of the bill.
The organization, made up of labor unions and hospitals, started an $80,000 ad campaign in Cannon's district urging residents to call their representative to support the bill.
[...]
But Cannon does not like the idea of tying insurance to the tobacco tax, nor does he like the government getting deeper into the health care business by expanding the program, said spokesman Fred Piccolo.
Piccolo pointed to facts from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that the cigarette tax "disproportionately burdens low-income Americans, lacks long-term stability, and ultimately results in significant shifting of health care costs onto others."
A tax on tobacco could deter people from buying cigarettes, reducing tax revenues designed to fund the program. The government then would need to get the money from elsewhere to fund CHIP, he said.

We shouldn't tax tabacco because it would reduce people smoking? Isn't that a good thing in terms of costs for people who pay for health care? Remember, this is the same guy that doesn't see the need for raising the minimum wage because "no one" is paid $5.15 an hour.

Leavitt too is paying the dishonest "I care about regressive taxation" card as well. All the Republicans that don't want this tax are the same ones that voted for or supported tax cuts for the wealthy while raising taxes and fees that impact the poor, like sales tax on food and clothing, using public pools, etc.

They call Democrats spineless for holding a 30 hour whine session about the fact that Republicans are holding up majority votes for withdrawing troops from Iraq, yet Republicans can't stand up to their heartless, drunk with power president. I think who the real whimps are has shown themselves by falling all over themselves to parrot talking points and voting in lockstep.

Good thing he has immunity

I wouldn't bet money on this AG's legal opinions to be worth anything when the subject is remotely politically heated. So it is a good thing he has immunity and shelters state officials that follow his advice, because his track record is lacking. But you will find suckers just about anywhere.

The Utah Attorney General's Office released an opinion today stating that there is a "substantial likelihood" that the school district division law, which allows only some residents of a district to vote, would hold up in court.
The opinion, requested by [Speaker] Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, may influence the final votes needed as politicians decide whether to put the division of the state's two largest school districts on the ballot this fall.
"It's really based on this idea that cities, as political subdivisions of the state, have a duty to their citizens," said Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.

I haven't read the opinion, but I wonder why Shurtleff is doing his best impression of Gonzales these days. That is, he tells the Republican powers that they want to hear, regardless of whether it is good/sound legal advice.

Riverton Mayor Bill Applegarth is not so sure [about Shurtleff's opinion].
"I think there's enough doubt here that it needs to go to court," Applegarth said.
Alta, Cottonwood Heights, Draper, Midvale and Sandy all have voted to let their residents decide whether to break away from the Jordan School District. In a separate movement in Granite district, elected leaders are poised to vote on putting the question to Holladay, South Salt Lake and Millcreek township voters in the coming weeks.
Several west-side officials contend that SB30, passed during the 2007 legislative session, is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of one man, one vote. As the law is written, only voters in cities proposing to split from a school district would vote on the issue.
[...]
The Taylorsville City Council told the mayor Wednesday night that he had its unanimous support in allocating funds for a lawsuit to challenge the law. Other west-side cities are preparing to take similar action to pool their resources for the legal fight.

I agree with Shurtleff that the standard of review is the whole ball game, but I don't think necessarily that he will get the "rational review" standard. There are minority populations in some of these areas, which might trigger strict scrutiny.

Anyway, today is ethics and evidence for me. Can you believe that they test ethics every year on the Utah bar exam? And really you will get tripped up if you try to be too ethical, you have to be sorta ethical, sorta ruthless for your client.

Ban fireworks, says Huntsman

(Photo Credit: © 2006 Bobby Haven/The Brunswick News)

And I agree with him. It's lunacy to let people light combustible things that are designed to send sparks all over when it is this dry.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed an emergency declaration Tuesday calling for local officials to ban personal use of fireworks in their areas because of wildfire dangers.
"With our state already coping with unprecedented loss of life and property due to record wildfires, extraordinary measures are called for," the governor said in a news release. "We must work together to protect life and property in these unusual circumstances."
The Utah Division of Air Quality immediately seconded Huntsman's call. The division noted in a news release that fireworks are a hazard "not only because of wild land fire dangers but also because fireworks pump fine-particulate pollution in the air, prompting an unhealthy spike in air pollution that makes it difficult for people to breathe."
Because of the severe fire danger, such a ban is already in effect for most federal and state lands, including national parks, the governor said. "I am asking local leaders to join me in taking a step beyond those guidelines already put in place at the federal and state levels."
The possibility of extending the ban has local fireworks vendors worried.
"Will it affect our business?" wondered Anthony Abdullah, sales manager of Phantom Fireworks, a fireworks distributor in Evanston, Wyo. "It very well could."

Let's see what is more important, firework distributors making money in Wyoming (where people go to buy illegal fireworks) OR peoples lives, property, and air quality?

Provo, "banned" the fireworks before the ink from Huntsman's pen was dry on the page.

The council met Tuesday night but by law couldn't pass a resolution banning fireworks because it hadn't given prior notice that it would consider a formal action.
Instead, the council unanimously called for Provo residents to voluntarily abstain from using fireworks from July 21-27, when the law allows them

Yeah that will work.

Utahns support nuclear energy

Who knew? The Natural Resources Defense Council certainly hopes you don't put two and two together.

Voters in Utah's 2nd Congressional District say climate change is the nation's most pressing environmental problem and that immediate action is needed to address it, according to a new poll by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
[...]
Half of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s 24-member Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change voted last week to endorse nuclear energy. Utah currently has no nuclear power plants, given the sensitivity of the issue in a state that has fought high-level nuclear waste storage, received nearly $1 billion in compensation payments for victims of nuclear-testing fallout and endured about $1 billion in cleanups from previous nuclear-energy activities in the state.
David Tuft, director of NRDC's climate change project, said the group included nuclear power as part of its survey but was not releasing that data at this time. He noted that nuclear energy is not part of the climate-change legislation Congress is currently considering.
[...]
A Salt Lake Tribune poll last summer showed that Utahns were roughly split in their belief that global warming is occurring. Baldwin said as more businesses tackle climate change and as Huntsman gets more active on the issue, it has become more visible to the public.

Nice try Mr. Tuft. Good work on getting the lede you wanted in there though. The whole point of this poll was to pressure Jim Matheson to vote with other Democrats on binding climate change provisions. Now that Rep. Matheson is on the Commerce Committee, he has a say on whether our cars and trucks will have increased full efficiency, whether the US will further subsidize ethanol [please say no], or how much will go into solar and battery research, if the US will have more nuclear plants etc. Since Rep. Matheson used to be an energy consultant and is from the west, his colleagues will listen to him more than other new committee members.

Rep. John Dingell, the octogenarian chairman who is from Detroit and for decades has been an SUV maker's best friend, is considering offering a bill that calls the environmentalist's bluff--a carbon tax and major gasoline tax hike. Sen. Chris Dodd supports a carbon tax but none of the other candidates for president do. Most Democratic candidates support raising the CAFE standards (average fuel efficiency) and other more moderate efforts to address global warming.

Climate change is a real issue and it needs serious solutions, not just statement bills like Dingell's (that say environmentalists lack support) or Dodd's (that says I am liberal so vote for me Iowans). Recently nuclear energy has been given a second look by environmental politicians and policymakers in Europe as well as the US because it is carbon-neutral (and radiation-not-neutral).

Nuclear's fundamental problem is the end waste has a more immediate, localized, and long-term danger. Where do you put it? NIMBY How do you transport it out of your backyard? Who will accept it? (Nevadans don't want it, but impoverished Native American tribes do)

This is a serious problem with no easy answers. But pretending you didn't get informaiton supportive of nuclear energy really is dishonest, even if I might be inclined to agree with NDRC. I just hope Jim will vote for solutions that seek to make a real impact on climate change and not just a feel good measure like hydrogen fuel cells or ethanol.

Why McCain isn't going to be this cycle's Kerry

All of Senator McCain's media whores routinely reference John Kerry as an reason why we shouldn't count out John McCain, who now as less than $700,000 in his presidential campaign account (compared to Giulliani's $12.7M, let alone Obama's $34M). John Kerry was at 9 percent in the polls two weeks before Iowa and in third place in New Hampshire, yet ended up winning both and nearly sweeping all the primary states after that (Clark won Oklahoma, and Edwards won South Carolina) and of course ended up getting his party's nomination in 2004.

However, those "journalists" who have been in love with St. John McCain have seemingly forgotten that Kerry put a mortgage on "his" Beacon hill home late in 2003 so that he would have $9M to spend in Iowa (and later New Hampshire). Kerry flew a helicopter barnstorming around Iowa, which isn't cheap and was a good stunt.

After having an adulterous affair with her, John McCain married his current wife, who like Kerry's is an multimillion dollar heiress, "who inherited a lucrative Budweiser beer distributorship from her father, the late Jim Hensley. Her assets are value in excess of $24 million." Unlike Kerry however, he isn't going to tap their "joint assets"

McCain flatly ruled out such a move: "I value my marriage too much. I have never thought about it. I would never do such a thing, so I wouldn't know what the legalities are."

Can we please stop talking about how McCain will magically ressurrect his DOA campaign now?

SPED vouchers don't necessarily work either

Isn't the definition of fiscal conservatism and small government not spending money on new government programs without at least being able to know if the money is being put to good use? Utah has one of the highest rate of overall taxes and fees of any state, yet our public education is not making as much progress as we would like. Maybe it is because we are wasting some education money on ideologically appealing funding rather than reality-based funding.

As Utahns prepare to vote on whether private school tuition vouchers should be made available to all students, the state's special-needs voucher program has quietly expanded. The two-year-old program has grown threefold since its inception, but demand has yet to outpace available funds.
A legislative audit of the program, which could spend as much as $2.4 million on more than 400 students this year, should begin this fall. But because Utah doesn't track the achievement of voucher recipients, the report likely will focus largely on participation.
[...]
Utah['s SPED voucher schools] do not have to provide any special services to students. They simply must explain their services to parents.
[...]
Voucher supporters say parents are most qualified to choose the best schools for their children.
But a lack of data can undermine their ability to make informed choices. A 2005 survey revealed many parents of Florida's [program, which is similar to Utah's] felt they didn't have enough accurate, comparable information to choose a school.
Plus, "parents sometimes insist on choosing poor-quality schools," noted the Education Sector report, citing several examples of schools that remained popular despite poor academic performance. "This suggests that accountability to parents alone is insufficient to protect the public interest or ensure taxpayer money is used well."

Your tax dollars at work. I guess they would rather go to a Jazz game on a lobbyist dime than draft a bill to collect the necessary data and do the necessary oversight.

Sunday morning dog assisted blogging

Poe helps me read the new TPM so I can study for the bar (he's not so good on trusts and wills). (Yes, that's me with Rep. Jim Matheson in the background.)

Who is spinning whom?

The Tribune reports, "The Office of Legislative Research has until Aug. 20 to submit an impartial analysis of the voucher program for the pamphlets The Office of Legislative Research has until Aug. 20 to submit an impartial analysis of the voucher program for the pamphlets that will be mailed and placed in newspapers around the state."

But meanwhile, both sides of the voucher debate offered 250-rebuttals to each other's arguments. First up, fellow blogger State Rep. Steve Urquhart, Republican:

It's simple. A vote for vouchers is a vote to improve education.
If you vote "Yes,"
* school funding will improve
* children's options and opportunities will increase
* academic achievement will go up
* parents will gain a stronger voice within the system

Why is there such a fuss over 0.0025% of the education budget?
Because some people think the status quo is good enough.

Let's do better. Vote FOR Vouchers to improve education.

Now, the teachers unions:

* Reasonable Choices Are Available
Utah already offers many good choices through "open enrollment" and charter schools. Taxpayers can't fund every choice.
* Proposed Voucher Laws are Inadequate
Even with last-minute legislative "patch work," voucher laws authorize schools with too little oversight, no real coursework or attendance requirements, lax standards for teachers and minimal accountability to taxpayers. Risk of inadequate and unstable schools is high.
* Whom Would Vouchers Help?
Probably not the disadvantaged. Even with vouchers, parents with a modest income couldn't afford to send their children to good private schools.
* Is There "Additional Money" For Public Schools?
No. For five years, transferring students would be double funded by taxpayers - in the private schools and the public schools they left behind. Thereafter, public school funding would be cut to reflect lost enrollment.
* Would Vouchers Prevent Tax Increases?
Unlikely. Subsidizing students now privately funded creates a projected deficit of almost a half billion dollars. These dollars would come from other worthy projects like health care, public safety and roads. If we have extra taxpayer money, it would be better spent reducing class sizes and improving Utah's public schools.
* "Bureaucrats and Liberals"?
Who are they? Not the 29,000 dedicated, caring and underpaid teachers in our neighborhood schools; also not Utah's commonsense conservative citizens who oppose another entitlement program. The real "bureaucrats and liberals" are the subsidy advocates and out-of-state voucher pushers looking for Utah to save their faltering national movement.
VOTE NO ON VOUCHERS

One at least alludes to facts, the other just makes blanket statements without facts. If you want Rep. Urquhart, I would be happy to get into a "study war" where we each show a study of the vouchers working and failing. No points for you if you use a conservative think tank, no point for me if I use a liberal/moderate one. Since I have a Bush Administration Department of Education study showing they don't work, I think I win already, but I look forwards to battling you.

Romney used you, Utah GOP

In 2002, Romney swooped in and claimed credit for "saving" the olympic games, even though he did really nothing other than give SLOOC a clean face. Now in 2007, he had treated the Beehive State like his personal piggy bank, raising $4M already.

Here's what Mitt really thinks of Utah Republicans, and Republicans in general:

If you can't watch the video, here are his words:

• "I'm not convinced that a state would be better off with all Republicans. As a matter of fact, I've been in a state like that for the past three years. Not a good thing."


• "It is a very clear thing for the people across the commonwealth (of Massachusetts) that my R doesn't stand so much for Republican as it does for Reform."


• "I'm not running for the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values. That's not what brings me to the (governor's) race."


• "I lived in a place that was a one-party state that was primarily Republicans and I thought, 'Oh, won't that be nice?' The answer is no."


• "it is always a burden for someone to run with R for Republican after their name. Surely I have many friends who are Republicans and Republican voters."

"It was in the context of a gubernatorial race" in Massachusetts, not in Utah, said Romney Spokesman Kevin Madden. Right the context for what Romney says always changes, and by context you mean audience. When he is running in Massachusetts, he is a liberal. When he is running for the GOP nomination he is a conservative.

Let's find some more Romney flip flops caught on tape, shall we?

In 1994 he said this:



Tucker Carlson points out Multiple-Choice Mitt:

growing by leaps and bounds

(graphic credit: © 2005 Deseret News)

When I was still a toddler, Utah had only 2 congressional districts. A few years ago, a new ago, Utah got a second area code, and imposed it on all non-SLC/burbs people (except for Park City and their suburbs). Now we are getting another area code next year.

[T]he Utah Public Service Commission opted Thursday to bring on the new 385 telephone area code through an "overlay" rather than through a geographic split of the existing 801 area. The new code takes effect next year.
With an overlay, the 385 area code will be assigned to new phone numbers throughout the five-county Wasatch Front region after the 801 code is depleted. One result is that existing customers will keep their phone numbers. Another will be that callers will need to dial 10 digits for local calls.

I am sure someone would complain either way (10 digits versus changing your number).

(graphic credit: © 2007 Deseret News)

Of course, another question to be asked is why we have region-based phone numbers now anyway? With the increasing ubiquity and range of cell phones, the area code system seems very anachronistic. Most people my age that I know don't even have a land line. This is partially due to the fact that they are more likely to be in an apartment than a home, and partly due to the local telephone monopoly's outrageous fees. I chose getting cable over DirectTV because I didn't want to get a land line.

Nowadays, one needs a land line for alarms, Direct TV, and it helps with 911. Even with 911 though, new cell phones have GPS built in that will give 911 operators your exact locale without having to triangulate your location from nearby cell towers.

If you don't want to ever miss a call or tell people about your new phone number ever again, check out GrandCentral. Since Google just bought them, I am sure the free service will stick around as long as Google does and could develop lots of new features beyond what the offer now. Another great feature is one voice mailbox for ALL your numbers, which you can access in any order online. No more remembering all those changing codes and missing a message because someone called your work instead of your cell. Check it out.

What a difference 4 years makes

In 2004, you couldn't pay a Democratic candidate for president to come out here, and that race was much closer than the 2008 one. But already, we will have had Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Obama come out.

On the Republican side, I don't think Bush came out for a fundraiser here either. But Utah has already hosted McCain Romney and will soon Giulliani.

Why is this happening? Perhaps the need for money is so high that Boston, NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Austin, Dallas, etc. have already been maxed out this early (a frightening thought) and big money places like Park City are the natural next pit stop. Or maybe the race really is more competitive and on going than we thought. In 2003 at this time, Lieberman was on top still, but Dean was having concerts in Central Park.

This time Obama is having Dean like rallies all over the country, but is also turning them into fundraisers and list gathering tools. For Obama's sake, I just hope he doesn't give all of his Iowa volunteers special hats to wear as they annoy caucus-goers.

Candidates: spend your money on holding rallies, making pamphlets, signs/buttons/stickers, lists, vans, gas, and food/lodging. Don't spend it on polls, pollsters, consultants, broadcast TV ads in prime time (try niche cable channel ads, radio ads, and flyers), or white papers.