I couldn't believe it

Since Bob and Jeni have rated their blogs, I decided to take a stab at it.

100% Free Personals from JustSayHi

I have been trying not to use swear words and the like because I don't want to offend those who are sensitive to such things so they can ignore my arguments and because using such words is usually short hand for anger we can be more articulately expressed. I just didn't know how family friendly my blog had become. Maybe I should go into lurid detail about Larry Craig to get a bad boy image.

Anyway, being in DC for the fall means that I get to enjoy federal holidays that no one in Utah cares about, so happy Columbus Day weekend. Monday's a vacation day for me.

What's the truth, SLC politico?

Since everyone is dumping on Jason Bourne/Mark Trowner these days, I wonder if we have another astroturfer in our midst. I hate to call out someone, but after poking around SLCpoliticstruth somethings caught my eye, and they raise a few red flags.

1. Of the three total posts on the entire blog, all of them since Buhler went on the attack against Becker.


2. All three of these posts are not only pro-Buhler/anti-Becker, but also fit tightly into Buhler's messaging. (By contrast, Jenni's or Rob's or Marshall's or my blog write nice things about Ralph and mean things about Dave, but we don't coordinate between ourselves or the Becker camp)


3. SLC Politico seems to have sprung up out of nowhere in response to my post on Buhler's first negative attack (I added him, as I do all non-spam commenters with a blog to my link list)

Now these suspicious signs could mean nothing. SLC politico could just be a Buhler fan and not like Becker. That's perfectly fine and he is entitled to his opinion. But if he is being paid by money or resume line to blog for a candidate, that to me is problematic.

I will take whatever response SLC politico offers at face value and assume it is true. If however, other facts come to light, I will not hesitate to bring them to the fore. So please feel free to comment here folks, I only seek to rid the blog of spam keep commenters emails etc. private. And to SLC politico, inquiring minds want to know.

Buhler goes negative without facts

Previously, I had labeled as a negative attack Buhler's press conference where he touted his record of "accomplishment" in the state legislature and compared it to the lack of bills that Becker has passed, claiming he would get something done and Becker was a dreamer. Some commenters claimed that this wasn't negative or an attack, just a contrast. But those of us who can look at context knew that it was an implied attack and the beginning of more to come. Today, Buhler's latest attack builds on the first.

With former police chief Rick Dinse by his side, the mayoral hopeful on Thursday laid out his second "to-do" list, which includes the installation of "crime cameras" at Pioneer Park, if he is elected in November.
[...]
Buhler also used the stage to blitz mayoral opponent Ralph Becker, whom he criticized for not passing any crime legislation during his 11 years as a legislator.
"He makes a few very vague promises," Buhler said, "but does not explain how he'll deliver."
Buhler tagged Becker's so-called blueprint on the topic, saying the only specific part is to curb graffiti.
"When it comes to public safety, he's been absent without leave."

The whole thing is ridiculous for a number of reasons. One, as I stated before, because he was the Democratic Leader in the House, Republicans in the legislature wouldn't let him pass anything. Two, Buhler was in the Republican leadership so of course his bills were able to pass. Third, a plan to violate the Fourth Amendment but do nothing for actual violent crime doesn't strike me as something that really will "fight crime." Sure those "crime cameras" might catch people dealing drugs, soliciting sex, etc. But when was the last time a person was killed, raped, shot or stabbed in Pioneer Park? The cameras idea is a gimmick. Adding 5 cops a year will barely put a dent in the problem.

Here's Ralph Becker's response.

"I'm glad to see that Dave is coming along with some proposals on what to do with the future of the city," he said. "Unlike Dave, I have been a law-enforcement officer, I have been a firefighter, and I have been an emergency medical technician."
Becker says he consistently supported legislation focused on drug enforcement, prevention and penalties for DUIs. He also pointed to a comprehensive list of city initiatives dubbed "blueprints," which he began releasing in June.

I will say it again, Buhler is attacking so often (and grasping at straws to do it) because he is down by nearly 20 points in the polls.

Yet more voucher shananigans

Or should I say unDemocratic "town hall" meetings?

[T]he target audiences of the intimate gatherings - active Republican and unaffiliated voters - suggest the meetings are more about marshaling ground troops for the Nov. 6 referendum than about fostering a genuine discussion of the pros and cons of vouchers.

The whole thing is a sham

The public meetings have not been widely publicized. The Salt Lake Tribune, for instance, had to ask for a schedule of gatherings, and was given an incomplete list. The explanation? Organizers are able to lock down the schedules of busy lawmakers only about a week in advance of any given session.
"If their goal is to really try to inform all potential voters on this referendum - it seems like it's not the most effective strategy," says University of Utah political scientist Matthew Burbank. "They are talking to a very narrow slice of those voters.
"But if they are trying to put some pressure on people they think should be supporting this, but apparently are not - then it may be somewhat effective," says Burbank.

And filled with trickery and astroturf

Orem resident Ada Wilson said this week she received an e-mail because she was actively involved in "politics and policy here in Utah," from an organization calling itself Utahns for Public School — not to be confused with the anti-voucher coalition Utahns for Public Schools.

But some people did.

And after a closer look, the fact that the e-mail sender clearly wasn't anti-voucher at all had some recipients scratching their heads.

The e-mail said, "If you support our cause to defeat this pro-voucher movement we would ask you to reply to this e-mail so we can build an action list of anti-voucher supporters."

It asked recipients to provide a personal e-mail address, name and contact number and then visit another Web site, www.vouchernews.blogspot.com.

That site is an anti-union blog clearly not aimed at defeating vouchers.

Here's the real reason Republicans have for supporting school vouchers: "Children in private schools will be protected from the liberal brainwashing currently occurring in our public schools." Really? I thought private schools were liberal, isn't that why the right keeps railing against people who go to good private schools, claiming liberal professors brainwash them? They have got to keep their arguments straight.

If you have to resort to lies, deception, self-contradictory arguments, and desperate pleas for help from conservative bloggers, you know you are in trouble in November. [Oh and the research shows, vouchers make things worse, not better.] [Oh and Utahns don't want them:]

Oyez I barely got in

Today's post is about my first (and hopefully not last) trip the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

This morning, I woke up for good at 5:45 AM (I never really got much rest last night, but that is another saga). This way, I could ride into downtown with my host, who leaves the house at 6:30 AM and gets into the office at 7:00 AM. His office is at Metro Center (G and 13th Streets), so I decided to walk from there to SCOTUS...with a pit stop for breakfast at Starbucks.

By the time I got to the Court, it was 7:55 AM and there was already a pretty serious line; I was number 72. And this was for a case that I thought was pretty obscure and uninteresting to normal folks. New York Bd. of Elections v. Lopez-Torres is a case involving New York State's crazy election system for judges.

My Aunt Lucy is a Supreme Court Judge in Bronx County (remember New York's Supreme Court is their trial court; confusing, I know) and she knows Judge Lopez-Torres personally and told me the facts of the case. Here's what happened: The Democratic Party bosses wanted her to make some moron her clerk, even though he was totally unqualified, he was a party hack/relative of a party boss. She said no. Accordingly, the party bosses used the state's cockamamie judicial election system to keep her off the ballot, although she did get on the Working Family's Party ballot. Since New York City is indigo blue, she lost her reelection in 2002. Judge Lopez-Torres is now a King County [aka Brooklyn] Probate Judge and has a much better job in terms of money, hours, etc.

Anyway, back to the oral arguments before the court. I barely got in, and Lopez-Torres' attorney's grandson was the last person allowed into the court. Another attorney from my non-profit sat along the side with me and we could only see about half of the justices around the large marble pillar. The place is pretty intimidating. Huge ceilings with marble relief, brilliant judges and attorneys, the deafening acoustics, and a very tall bench. Before arguments started, Chief Justice Roberts admitted attorneys into the Supreme Court Bar. This is the one bar membership that is worth it. Two other attorneys in our office left 10 minutes to 9AM and got in before we did. Plus, you get nice seats, you guessed it, behind the bar with the attorneys arguing the cases. ex.-Solicitor General and Bush v. Gore arguer Ted Olson sponsored someone and did the arguments for the Democratic and Republican Parties.

OK let's get back on point.

Unfortunately for Judge Lopez-Torres, all of the attorneys I talked to (and I) think this could be a 9-0 loss for her and the reformers. Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Alito, Scalia and CJ Roberts all seemed skeptical at best of Lopez-Torres' argument. Thomas of course will do whatever the other three members of the four horsemen of the apocalypse decide, and did not ask a single question or even clear his throat. Silly cases were interrupting time he could be going on a book tour or RVing around the country.

Justice Kennedy worried about the burden of getting a slate of delegates versus the burden of getting a delegate (NY's system has delegates that pick the party's nominees, the delegates ALWAYS do whatever the party bosses want and are drawn from their own crazy districts with their no real constituency) but that was about it in favor of Lopez-Torres. Justice Stevens put up the hypothetical of a law that let the party pick its nominee however it wanted and the party let the bosses choose. Lopez-Torres' attorney conceded that that was constitutional, and in practice that is what the delegate system does. Justice Souter called Lopez-Torres' argument amounted to a right to win, Lopez-Torres reframed it as a right to compete. [Transcript of oral arguments is here]

In short, the whole thing was a disaster for those who want an independent judiciary in New York. [FYI My title is a pun off of the word Oyez. The clerk of the court always says "Oyez Oyez..." at the beginning of each oral argument to announce the Justices arrival] The AP agrees with me that the Second Circuit will likely be reversed.

Cannon's fodder

Way back at the beginning of the year (January to be exact), I said that U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Provo) would be primaried, and a serious challange at that. No more "the devil made me lose" oposition.

(Photo Credit: Ravell Call, Deseret Morning News)

No comes word that fmr. BYU placekicker and Huntsman campaign manager Jason Chaffetz is going to lay out the rational case about why Cannon needs to go.

"As I looked at the federal delegation," Chaffetz said, "I recognized how poorly the Cannon office was operating, how poorly they were representing their constituents. I've seen it up close and personal. ... I was the one who got to go with Gov. Huntsman and sit down with (U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret) Spellings and tell her why No Child Left Behind was wrong for Utah, because Chris Cannon wasn't. He was supporting it."
[...]
While Chaffetz said Cannon is "fundamentally and principally wrong on immigration, top to bottom," and promised a policy speech with a seven-point plan on the issue before the convention, he said past campaigns against Cannon have struggled to avoid single-topic challenges and promised to better negotiate that mire.
[...]
Chaffetz also attacked Cannon for being the only member of the Utah delegation to support a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain and a June 15 vote for a $34 billion Homeland Security appropriation that was opposed by 148 House Republicans who sided with President Bush. Bush had asked for $2 billion less.

Lest you think I am pro Chaffetz lets remember that being a kicker for BYU is about the only association he has with the 3rd district. While he lives in Alpine, no one bothered to tell him that Chaffetz lives in Jim Matheson's district. [Thanks Redistricting!] But then again, maybe they did...because Chaffetz thought about running against Jim in 2006, but realized he would lose big. So much for prinicple.


That's not the only one who will be going for Cannon's job.

Cannon will have to fend off...at least one other challenger, former Juab County prosecutor David Leavitt. The three will face off May 10 at the state Republican Party Convention at Utah Valley State College, though others could still join the race.

Leavitt, who filed to run last spring, announced Monday that his campaign has raised more than $100,000 since starting its fund-raising efforts in August. Chaffetz said he has raised "tens of thousands of dollars."

(Photo Credit: Sam Chapman)
David Leavitt is HHS Sec./ex-Gov. Mike Leavitt's brother, who previously lost his job as Juab DA after prosecuting polygamist Tom Green.

Either of these two men though, would be light years better than Cannon, even if they are conservative. Because they have a brain.

Yet another Romney flip-flop

("I once caught a fish this big." Photo Credit: Itchmo.com)

Romney changed his mind about something, number...who can keep track anymore? This time, its on his campaign fundraising.

Willard "Mitt" Romney January 8, 2007:

Ron Kaufman, a top Romney adviser who attended the event, said it [raising over $6.5 Million in a single day] sent a powerful message to potential supporters who might have wondered whether Romney would simply run on his personal fortune.

"As self-funding, big-spending candidates have proven, it doesn't get you anything," Kaufman said. "The bottom line is: The way to be a candidate for president is prove you can put the organization together, prove to the voters that you've earned the right to be a serious candidate for president. You've got to earn it; you can't buy it."

After that event, Romney punctuated that message, telling reporters that it would be "akin to a nightmare" if he were forced to contribute much of his own money to his presidential effort.

Now here's Romney again, September 27, 2007:

To date, the venture capitalist has contributed $9 million to his campaign, nearly a quarter of his overall contributions.
[...]
"I'm not beholden to any particular group for getting me into this race or for getting me elected. My family, that's the only one I'm really beholden to, they're the ones who let their inheritance slip away, dollar by dollar."
In noting that he had "contributed significantly to the campaign," Romney added: "I presume I will again."

Oh and remember that nightmare quote? "While saying he reserved the right to do so, and in fact having already done so by the time he made the comment, he explained he wanted to build a broad apparatus of donors."

Why the lying, why the change? Well, we will see shortly that his fundraising has continued to drop off considerably compared to Giulliani's, let alone Obama's or Clinton's. Moreover, his massive lead in New Hampshire, where I thought he was least succeptable to losing, has evaporated.

It used to be he could stick to a position for a couple years, but now it is only a matter of months.

Becker is crushing Buhler

Today the Deseret News came out with a poll with unsurprising but happy results:

The Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll conducted by Dan Jones & Associates shows that if the Nov. 6 final election were held today, Becker would be favored by 51 percent of Salt Lake City registered voters; Buhler has 33 percent support. Eleven percent didn't know, while 5 percent mentioned someone else.
[...]
The survey of 403 registered voters in the city has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.0 percent. So, even within the ranges of the margin of error, Becker still holds a healthy lead.

So if even all 11 percent who are undecided go for Buhler, and we chip in 5 percent for the margin of error, Becker still beats Buhler by 3%. And that doomsday scenario isn't going to happen.

To be over fifty percent already is pretty devastating news in a open seat race for a challenger. If you take Becker's 38.48 and add it to Wilson's 23.46, you get a bit over 62 percent. If you take that number and minus it by the 51 Dan Jones found support Becker, you get a difference of 11.94%...about 1 percent more than the undecided number. So those undecideds could be Wilson supporters who aren't sold on Ralph and/or Christensen supporters, or more likely people who aren't going to vote.

I guess people prefer Dreamers who have big plans for this city rather than Doers who help pass legislation that harms cities and are against Salt Lake City values. So much for that attack line.

Romney's latest Tribune aided lie

Another day, another dishonest Thomas Burr article from the Salt Lake Tribune. Yesterday, he was part of two hit pieces on Ralph Becker [he only wrote one of them -Ed.], today, he lies for Mitt Romney. This can't be explained away merely by lazy journalism. Here's the offending paragraph burried deep in Burr's puff piece on some kid from Provo who supplicated himself for Willard Mitt Romney.

The Romney campaign did not choose another video for its finalists list even though at one point it was the most watched on its site. That video, by the editors of Slate, poked fun at a comment Romney made earlier this year in response to whether his sons had served in the military or would join.
Romney responded that his five sons are serving their country by helping him get elected.
In the Slate ad, called "Five Brothers" - in a takeoff on the military series "Band of Brothers" - shows the sacrifices the sons are making on the campaign trail, including hitting golf balls, seeing the world's largest catfish and pulling over to see a field buzzing with lightning bugs.

Burr forgot to metion the key fact that the ad that Idaho Rhodes Scholar and former White House Advisor Bruce Reed made beat the pants off of the ad Romney selected (and it wasn't the ad Burr mentioned in his piece. In fact Burr claimed the opposite

Ryan Whitaker, 23, of Provo, received the most views for his "Ready for Action" video and received nearly half the votes cast among the nine finalists. Whitaker, a junior at Brigham Young University, was stoked to learn he won the contest out of 129 entries.

Reed fired back on his Slate column

"Ready for Action" is a disappointing choice, and not just because it collected a paltry 20,000 votes to the 80,000+ votes for "Way!". A more apt title for it would be "Above the Fruited Plain." Stock video clips of flags, mountains, and the Golden Gate Bridge rush to keep up with Romney's favorite political clichés. The words "Strength," "Innovation," and "Experience" appear in subliminal blips, then give way to the tagline, "Strong. New. Leadership."

Team Mitt no doubt liked the ad because it so closely resembles the ads from Romney's consultants. "Ready for Action" says nothing about what Romney would do as President. One viewer complained that it doesn't even mention that Romney's running for President:

"Remember that the average person seeing the add on network television will have no clue who he is or that there is even an election going on. Network television is targeted to the lowest common denominator which when you look at what they show on network tv these days doesn't say much for the aptitude of our country."

We already have one Mitt propagana paper, it is the LDS church owned Deseret Morning News, we don't need another.

Buhler goes negative

(Photo Credit: Michael Brandy, Deseret Morning News)
Remember when Republican Dave Buhler claimed he was "nice guy?" Well, now that it has been a little over two weeks since he made it into the runoff with Democrat Ralph Becker, it seems Buhler's attacks have started.

Calling himself a doer, not a dreamer, Buhler stood in the shadow of the Utah Capitol to outline a "to-do list" of reforms he needs state help to tackle, if elected.
[...]
Buhler also assailed the legislative record of his opponent Ralph Becker, whom he questioned for passing just 15 bills during 11 years in the Utah House.
"Some years he didn't seem to make much of an effort," the Republican Buhler said about his Democratic opponent. "The race is between two nice guys," but "one's focus is on results. The other is focused on planning and blueprints."
Becker could not immediately be reached for reaction.
Buhler, a two-term city councilman who finished 11 percentage points behind Becker in the Sept. 11 primary, says he relishes the role of the underdog.
Suggesting Becker has been ineffective on Capitol Hill, Buhler pointed to his four-year Utah Senate term (when he passed 36 bills) and eight years at City Hall as tenures more full of results.

I guess that argument would make sense if you forgot that Buhler was in the Republican leadership in the Utah state legislure and Becker was in the Democratic leadership in the state legislature. Since the Republicans have a super majority in the state legislature, why would they let someone like Becker pass any bills and look good? In fact, it wasn't until Becker was practically gone on the campaign trail that they passed an ethics bill, something Becker has introduced year and after year.

In fact, one of the main reasons Becker probably decided to run for mayor was that he was tired of being stymied by the Republicans in the legislature. With the blue tilt of Salt Lake, he knew he would finally be able to get stuff done as mayor rather than as minority leader.

While we are comparing records of what each candidate has done in the state legislature, many of the things Buhler did weren't good for cities.

As a state senator, he repeatedly tried to limit the power of cities to govern themselves. In the Senate, Buhler tacked a rider onto a bill governing city incorporation. It allowed businesses that owned land in newly formed cities Kearns and Magna to opt out, escaping from new taxes. One company benefiting from Buhler’s changes was Kennecott Copper. Also, as state senator, he limited the power of cities in Utah to regulate rental units.

Maybe Buhler should more careful about throwing rocks out of his glass house.

UPDATE: Becker responds.

"My role is to help formulate and present the Democratic position on state policy and on the state budget, to work to make sure I represent my constituents well, to help our caucus be successful with its legislation," he said.

Becker also touted his perfect attendance record in legislative sessions for the past 11 years — "I've never missed a day," he said.

As for being labeled a dreamer by the Buhler campaign, Becker said he doesn't have a problem with that.

"I don't apologize for thinking about the future or working toward the future, engaging the community and achieving the community that we want," he said. "I think it's important that the mayor not only be someone who's managing city government well but develops and leads this city toward the future we want as a community."

butt biters for election stealing

(Photo Credit: Chilly Willy Fan.com)

The lede of the day:

Until this week, Missouri attorney Charles "Chep" Hurth III was best known for a headline-grabbing incident a decade ago in which he bit a young female law student on the butt in a bar.

Now Hurth, the city attorney for New Haven, Mo. (population 1,800), is the agent for a deep-pocketed group that donated $175,000 to fund a Republican-backed effort that would reshape the landscape of presidential politics in California.

Hurth has emerged as an unlikely lead player in connection with the ballot measure that seeks to change the way California allocates its Electoral College votes in the presidential election. His actions on behalf of the group Take Initiative America are being examined by the state's Fair Political Practices Commission after accusations from Democrats that the group is hiding the source of its money.

It's not the first time Hurth has been part of an effort that Democrats say has been aimed at changing the outcome of a presidential election. In 2004, he was the legal agent behind a GOP-funded group called Choices for America, which solicited donations from Republicans for another controversial signature drive - to help independent candidate Ralph Nader get on the presidential election ballot in key states, documents show.

It follows all the rules of sham front groups, have a vaugue name, make sure that name has words that every American loves like "America" "Choice" "Freedom" "United" "Future" "Senior" "[a state or citizens of a state]", and couple that with the exact opposite of its actual purpose. And you thought election law was boring.

(H/T Prof. Hansen)

Tribune creating a close race out of thin air

The Salt Lake Tribune after being embarressed by supporting distant fourth-place finisher Keith Christensen, is going after Ralph Becker by claiming Buhler can win the westside.

From Rose Park to Glendale, primary voters on Salt Lake City's west flank sidestepped the Ralph Becker cascade on Sept. 11. Instead, the area broke convincingly for Dave Buhler - and Jenny Wilson.
Becker, who swept a vast swath of neighborhoods across the rest of Utah's capital, did not carry a single precinct west of Interstate 15.
[...]
Even so, the west-end shutout - Buhler and Wilson dominated Fairpark, Rose Park, Poplar Grove and Glendale, leaving Becker in third - dropped some jaws.
"It's surprising," said Archie Archuleta, a Glendale resident and the city's former administrator of minority affairs. "The City Council members on the west side are Republican, and their constituencies came out very heavy."
Indeed, Buhler was endorsed by those council colleagues, Van Turner and Carlton Christensen. But the self-professed "underdog" argues his support runs deeper.
"I'm very encouraged by it," Buhler said, noting he pushed for the Pioneer police precinct and still has ties to fellow South High School alums. "This shows how this is a not a partisan race."
[...]
In one case, between 600 North and 1000 North just east of Redwood Road, Buhler bested Becker 111 votes to 38. Buhler is counting on that trend to continue to make up the overall margin.
[...]
In the four precincts that comprise the heart of Glendale, for example, Buhler outpolled Becker by roughly 100 votes combined. By comparison, Becker beat Buhler by 100 votes - and sometimes 200 - in each of six Avenues precincts and in two Harvard-Yale precincts.
Buhler topped Becker by more than 100 votes in a single precinct - Buhler's east-bench neighborhood.

So let me get this straight, Becker cleaned everyone's clock on September 11, getting nearly 39% in a 6-way race and thousands of more votes than Buhler, and the Trib is focuing on random low turnout precincts where Buhler got a couple dozen more votes than Becker did? There is also a hint of racist subtext here: that Becker purportedly ignored the west side, where more minorities live, to placate his white liberal base. Thankfully Wayne Holland sets the record straight.

"Their general strategy was to take Ralph to areas where he could get to know people that had a history of good turnout," said Wayne Holland, chairman of the Utah Democratic Party. "Primary voting being a low-turnout game, it was a very, very good strategy."
[...]
Holland notes the Becker camp researched voting hot spots from the 1999 and 2003 mayoral primaries and determined the west sector simply was not worth it.
"It just doesn't produce in a primary," Holland said. "He was spending his time and resources on higher-turnout precincts."
Becker says he initially tried to hit every west-side doorstep. Later, after realizing the dearth of registered voters there, he scaled back.
"It's really unfortunate," Becker said. "There is a really large percentage who don't vote regularly."
That said, Archuleta expects to see a bigger Becker brigade west of the freeway over the next month.
"Becker did not do as well on the west side in terms of his volunteer force," he said. "But without Wilson in the race, that will change."
[...]
Becker, who bristles at being labeled the favorite, says he is recruiting still more volunteers to work every part of the city.
"I can tell from walking door to door on the west side, a lot of people didn't know me," he said. "I'm hoping to spend more time getting to know voters over there, but also letting them get to know me."

If you know you are running in a low turn out race and you know certain areas haven't voted in the last two elections for your office you seek, why would you dedicate resources and time there? Oh that's right, you would if you were Jenny Wilson.

Make no mistake about it, Ralph is going to barn storm the entire city with volunteers knocking on doors. He is going to raise money from people looking to make a safe bet without much effort. He is going to be organized and disciplined. And he is going to win the race by 15-20 points. Becker 2, Tribune 0. Thanks for playing.

More dishonest pro-voucher claims

Supports of subsidizing private (and potentially religious) schools with taxpayer dollars make up numbers on the cost of said private schools.

Bobby Porter, a minister and director of student development at Layton Christian Academy who chairs Minorities for Vouchers.
Porter's group estimates the average tuition for Utah private schools is about $4,500, a figure far lower than the roughly $8,000 quoted by the anti-voucher group Utahns for Public Schools. He said his number excludes Utah's most expensive private schools because they skewed the number much higher. Voucher opponents say an average should include all schools.
He said a few thousand dollars would go a long way toward helping make private education affordable to minority students, who as groups often lag behind their white peers in terms of academic performance.
The voucher law, if it passes in a November referendum, would give most interested Utah students $500 to $3,000 toward private school tuition, depending on income.

What a concept, that number claiming to be the average cost of tutition should include al of the tutions in the state. of course, people like Porter were the same ones who used the "average" trick the other way to make Bush's tax cuts seem pro-middle class (when in fac thte vast majority of the benefits skewed to the wealthiest few). There is no secret that he chery picked data to get closer to the top end of the voucher. Paying $1,500 out of pocket for school sounds reasonable, $5,000 sounds as unattainable for working class folks as it is.

Oh and Porter fails to address the fact that NCAAP says vouchers will lead to seggregation, or at least did in the past. I just hope he isn't teaching those kids math.

novel concept for Shurtleff

If you read or watch the news in Utah, I think you have heard of two things, Warren Jeffs was convicted accomplise to rape by forcing a 14 year old to marry her cousin, and that Utah's AG Mark Shurtleff was in a motorcycle accident that requires multiple surgeries on his leg.

Shurtleff is a partisan hack. He goes around making dishonest claims and attacks on Rep. Jim Matheson in Southern Utah, were he knows Jim is most vulnerable politically.

While Shurtleff gets waves of free sympathy publicity about his injuries, something which he could use to run for Governor if Huntsman joins a Republican cabinet in 2009, doctors have the timerity to ask him to do something for the people of Utah.

Shurtleff says his motorcycle helmet may have saved his life. He says doctors are giving him a hard time about it.
Shurtleff says every doctor says: "You're a politician, right? You were wearing a helmet, now help us pass a helmet law."

He's not just a politican, he's the chief law enforcement officer in the state. He knows or should know how many people die in Utah annually because they are not wearing a motorcycle or bicycle helmet. [Warning the last three links are PDFs]

Helping Utahns comes second to Shurtleff, first is his political career. He wouldn't want to offend those libertarian types in rural Utah. Maybe this is part IV of Utah Republicans against health care.

Utah Republicans against Health Care, part III

I never dreamt (or "nightmared") that there would be enough material on Utah Republicans who opposed health care for their citizens, especially poor children, to write about. Alas, there is at least three posts' worth.

Part I dealt with fmr.-Gov. Leavitt's crusade to keep more poor children from getting health care, and our Senators Hatch and Bennett's halfhearted attempt to do anything about it(getting quoted in the paper and co-sponsoring a bill you know will never see the light of day doesn't count gentlemen). Part II was our Republican state legislature's lust for subsidizing private schools with taxpayer dollars overwhelming a public-private effort to give the poorest of the poor health care in Utah. And now part III, wherein our Republican US House members vote with Bush rather than the children of their district.

The compromised SCHIP bill passed the US House 265-159 yesterday, with 220 Democrats and 45 Republicans voting for it. Among the 151 Republicans who voted with Bush and against expanding health care coverage for poor children were Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop.

An overwhelming majority of Americans (and Utahns), conservatives, moderates and liberals alike, support this bill. Here's Cannon's excuse for voting against it:

Congress would raise the cigarette tax by 61 cents a pack to pay for the program.
Cannon criticizes the tax increase and CHIP, while at the same time pushing health reform that includes tax credits and health savings accounts.
"Forcing Congress to tackle real reform and market solutions will be a far better gift to posterity than a broken system run from Washington," he said in a statement.

He is against cigarette tax increases? Increasing such taxes discourages people from starting to smoke, not only saving lives and money, but also preventing what Rep. Cannon's religion believes to be a sin. So why is he against it again? And not a peep out of Rep. Bishop, the school teacher that seems to hate poor children.

Utah GOP legislators hold Utahn's lives hostage for vouchers

I am not going to sugarcoat it, nor am I exaggerating. People die while insurance companies deny treatments that would save lives if done in time.

A high-powered group of Utah businessmen and health experts put forward Monday a plan providing affordable health insurance to an estimated 360,000 Utahns...
[...]
According to [Rep. Phil] Riesen [(D-Milcreek) and former local news anchor], [House Majority Leader Dave] Clark, [(R-Santa Clara)] when asked about the political chances in the Legislature of the broad health-insurance plan, told the health subcommittee that if local businesses don't support the voucher plan, there would be little chance of the health-insurance plan passing the GOP-dominated Legislature.
[...]
"I don't recall exactly" what he said at the subcommittee, but no connection was meant, Clark added.

GOP leaders admit that they met with local business lobbyists this summer to ask for financial contributions to the pro-voucher PIC [political issue committee].

Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, who helped form the PIC, said GOP leaders brought together lobbyists and government liaison officials from businesses and/or trade associations that had previously backed a public education reform plan, which included vouchers. Because the businesses had backed vouchers previously, GOP leaders figure they should now put their money where their mouths are.

I think Rep. Hughes means that businesses should put their money where GOP state legislature's mouths are. This PICs goal is to raise at least $300,000 to push for vouchers. According to the LG's website, "There are no laws that restrict the amount of money political issues committees can spend or receive in Utah." This means that one rich ideologue like the Overstock.com guy can buy himself a bunch of misleading nasty ads about vouchers. Oh and while PICs must file disclosure reports, LG Gary Herbert (R-Provo), ex-Utah County Commission Chairman, doesn't bother to make these reports easy to get or find. You will notice that they are not available even to print off of the internet. Rather, one must make a GRAMA request and then go to the LG's office and get more runaround. And I am sure you can't get copies, but only look at them and take notes. So much for accountability for his GOP buddies.

I hope that voters wake up to the fact that the Republicans they have voted for are supporting things they don't want (vouchers, ethics loopholes) and killing things they want (money for education, health care, banning puppy torture). Utahns, these guys are scared of you, but think they can con you into supporting them again because some Democrats are gay. What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

On Judge Paul G. Cassell's retirement

This weekend I saw that the Professor who taught me Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure is leaving from the bench already, after only five years in the federal judiciary. No one will disagree with me that he is a brilliant, ethical, and fair man. Moreover, even though he was only a district court judge in Utah (and the youngest federal judge ever from that state at 42), he was highly influential.

In his 2004 decision in the United States v. Croxford, he became the first judge in the country to hold that the federal sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional based on prior Supreme Court decisions. In 2005, Cassell became the first judge to interpret the meaning of the Supreme Court Booker decision on the new advisory nature of the guidelines, and in 2004, defense attorneys applauded Cassell for authoring a lengthy opinion decrying a 55-year mandatory minimum sentence he was required to impose on young marijuana dealer Weldon Angelos. Also in 2005, Chief Justice William Rehnquist appointed Judge Cassell to be the chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law.

He would miss classes to teach the rule of law to judges and attorneys in central Asia. I know his wife from the Salt Lake County DA's office and she is smart tough and funny too.

However, the thing that now Professor Cassell is most famous for is something I disagree with him highly on. In Dickerson v. U.S., he argued before the Supreme Court that Congress had overturned Miranda in the 1960s and that forcing police officers to read the famous "you have the right to remain silent..." statement was "handcuffing the cops". Thankfully, the court disagreed with him 7-2, including even the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, who authored the opinion.

Most scholars, police officers, prosecutors, judges, and criminal defense attorneys recognize that Miranda has become a largely pro forma statement that fails to deter the stupid criminals from waiving their rights and confessing to their crimes. It has become the equivalent of asking airline passengers if some one else packed their luggage.

In addition to his return to teaching students, which he does an excellent job, he will return to advocacy of Victim's Rights. He believes they should have a bigger role in the court proceedings and that a constitutional amendment is necessary to do so. I wish him and his family all the best in their future endeavours, so long as that doesn't involve overturning Miranda or getting his amendment passed.

Republicans against Health Care

Bush just announced that he would veto an expansion of an overwhelmingly successful (not to mention popular) plan that provide health care for impoverished children, calling it "a step toward federalization of health care." That's the point!

In calling for Congress to pass a “clean, temporary extension” of the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Mr. Bush argued that the Democratic bill would raise taxes and allow children whose families earn up to $83,000 a year to enroll. The Democrats propose paying for the measure by raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes.

But the chief Republican sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said Mr. Bush “is getting bad information.” He said Mr. Bush’s reference to the $83,000 limit was drawn from a proposal put forth by New York State to receive an exemption from the program’s restrictions, which the administration recently denied.

It shouldn't matter whether a child is born in Massachusetts or Texas, they should all get the same quality of health care. We are the the richest country in the world. We pay more than three times the next closest country on health care, yet the end result is worse than any industrialized nation. Rather than taking this incremental, consensus approach to solving the biggest domestic crisis of our time, Bush wants to veto it. And national Republicans are supporting him all the way.

[fmr. Utah Gov. Republican Mike] Leavitt recommended that Congress temporarily extend the program so children receiving coverage do not lose it, while lawmakers and the White House continue to work out differences.

"The president would like to see SCHIP reauthorized, and we'd like to get on to the larger question of how do we provide insurance for all Americans," Leavitt said.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, introduced a bill Wednesday that would provide a basic extension of the program for 18 months without the increase in funding or policy changes that have been approved. House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asking for a vote on Barton's bill Wednesday.

I am glad that Hatch is leading the fight on the expansion of SCHIP and that Bennett co-sponsored a universal health care bill. But the man they support for President is offering just the opposite.

Mitt Romney chose the sidewalk in front of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Manhattan, home of the Rudolph W. Giuliani Trauma Center, for a news conference this morning blasting Senator Hillary Clinton’s health care plan.
Mr. Romney has released his own health care plan, which relies on federal incentives for market reforms, tax deductions and other changes to encourage people to buy health insurance and drive down costs. A central principle is its “federalist” approach, encouraging states to take their own steps to lower the cost of health insurance.
“In her plan, we have government insurance, instead of private insurance,” Mr. Romney said. “In her plan, it’s crafted by Washington. It should be crafted by the states.”
“I think she takes her inspiration from European bureaucracies and instead we should take our inspiration from the American people,” Mr. Romney added.

Actually, Hillary's plan takes its inspiration from the Massachusetts plan that Gov. Romney recently gave himself credit for and signed into law (now he is of course, against it). Not that any of his primary opponents are any better. All the Republicans running for president want to do are bash Hillary, because it makes their primary voters happy, and keep the status quo, which makes HMOs and drug companies (their donors) happy.

Erza Klein sums it up nicely:

The Republican vision is for a world in which the sick and dying get to deduct some of the cost of health insurance that they don't have -- and can't get -- on their taxes. The Democratic vision is for every American to have health insurance.

Clinton-Clark ticket looking more likely

Wes Clark has a new book out, a memoir done Washington style (with someone else doing most of the work and getting a "with" byline). He is going on a small book tour, which I am going to miss. But I will have to buy it to complete my Clark Anthology and see how the voice has changed by this other writer.

He finally got his name domain, but has to get Wesley K Clark.com because there is some crappy song writer with Wesley Clark.com. He was on Meet the Timmeh on Sunday, too. But the most telling part that he is on Hillary Clinton's short list is this:

"Vice President [Dick] Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday. You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said just now at a $100-a-head fundraiser at town hall near New York's Times Square, referring to Cheney's efforts shore up Republican congressional support for the Iraq war.

"I’m not invited to their meetings and I don’t know what he says or does," she said, in an informal conversation on stage with former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and retired General Wesley Clark. "But all the brave talk about bringing our troops home, and setting deadlines, and getting out by a certain date just dissipated." [emphasis added]

Vilsack ran a terrible presidential campaign, and Hillary helped retire his debts and has his wife Christie Vilsack endorsed Sen. Clinton (Christie Vilsack was a key Kerry endorsement in 2004). Of course, the former Iowa governor later also endorsed Hillary. So the Vilsacks are a strategic Iowa endorsement and possibly national ticket material. But that fact that Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton was toated to Bloggers $100 fundraiser in New York City (and Clinton's people probably are helping with this sudden publicity push of Clark) tells me they are floating the Clark balloon.

If he stumbles now in the spotlight, the Hillary camp can cut their losses. But if Clark passes his audition, he could be her ersatz Mark Warner. Moverover, anytime Hillary is critiqued about her foreign policy credentials or murmurs of people worried about a woman in charge of the military, she can point not just to her few years on the Armed Services Comittee, but also a four star retired General on her ticket who won the last war the US fought (that's right Iraq and Afghanistan aren't over yet)...one that involves ethnic conflict similar to the problems the Iraqis face.

Of course, I am biased and think the General should be our next president (and should have won the nomination in 2004), but as VP he could do a lot of good for this country and Hillary Clinton's campaign. I see him as being like Al Gore in 1992, someone who is similar and emphasizes the message the Clinton's wanted: then it was Southern moderation and youth, now it is Southern moderation and security.

Do Hatch and Bennett support our troops?

So far, the answer is no. Veterans for America are pissed at Bennett and Hatch for voting against the Webb amendment (which would give our troops one year back home for every one year they are in Iraq) this summer. Other Utah veterans have pointed out that our Senators are willing to cheer lead President Bush's anti-troop agenda.

But luckily for Bennett and Hatch, the Webb Amendment is up for a vote again. Listen to what Sen. Webb says about the amendment, a man who served with honor in Vietnam and more importantly, whose son is currently in harm's way in Iraq. In fact, his son's convoy was attacked once and people died just as his Dad was being sworn into the U.S. Senate.

So call Sen. Hatch (202) 224-5251 and Sen. Bennett (202) 224-5444 [Remember to be short & polite, but firm]
Or call them toll free:
1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

And if you hear some crap about "micromanaging" remind them of two things. That Bush is refusing to listen to his Generals (and replacing them with Generals like Petraeus, who tell him what he wants to hear...let alone what the American people have to say) and has managed the war so poorly that for the sake of the Republic, the Congress must take over.

The other of course, is the Constitution: Art I, Sec. 8:

The Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

It is the Congress' solemn and sacred duty to exercise its war powers to defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.