There goes the Senate?

Mere hours after Democrats padded their margin in the House, it seems the narrow hold of the Senate might slip away. NBC's Brian Williams is blogging that South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, who up until now was the only member of Congress with children serving in Iraq, had a stroke.

The Hotline, as usual, explains the political connotations:

If Sen. Johnson decides he is too ill to continue as Senator, Gov. Mike Rounds (R) would have ten days from the day of Johnson's resignation to appoint a replacement.

Because Johnson's in cycle, his replacement would stay on through the '08 elections.

Rounds was the guy who wanted to outlaw abortions even if the mother had been raped, by the way, and the people of his state voted him down. Don't think that he is feeling particular democratic (or Democratic) these days and would appoint ex-Sen. Daschle or US Rep. Hereseth to replace Johnson. I would pick South Dakotan Tom Brokaw.

The Third Avenue prays for Johnson's speedy recovery. "Bill Press is making a very important point: GWU Hospital has a world-class stroke unit and is full of top-flite professionals," and that we have no idea how bad a stroke this really is. Let's hope it is extremely minor or just a rumor.

UPDATE: The Washington Post version of the story makes it seem like it was a relatively minor stroke.

Johnson had become disoriented during a call with reporters, stuttering in response to a question. He appeared to recover, asking if there were any additional questions and then signing off.

LATE UPDATE: CBS News: Julianne Fisher,a spokeswoman for Senator Johnson, "said the senator did not suffer a stroke or heart attack." Thank goodness. It seems like he started stuttering during the press event, and felt weird, so out of abundance of caution, his staff rushed him to the best stroke place in the area. Hat tip-- Think Progress

Newton's First Law

An object in motion tends to stay in motion. In this case the object or object is my wife and I. Even though I have thoroughly enjoyed being back in Utah after a six-year hiatus, I find myself itching for a change. My wife is eager to move back to DC (where we lived 2002-03) since her parents now live in Richmond.

With the most wide open presidential election cycle in some 150 years, I am excited to get back to our nation's capital too. Only how do I get a job and what do I do? My rules for employment are fairly simple: a law-related job (one where my JD would actually be necessary) that pays more than I earned before law school ($28,500). In theory, that shouldn't be very hard to find.

But in practice, you either have to know someone, or have amazing grades, or know some one AND have amazing grades. I don't know that many people in powerful legal position in D.C., and I don't know if or how they could help. If you think you could, dear readers, I am all ears.

Debby Blumer: 1941-2006

(Boston Herald File photo)
I was shocked and deeply saddened today to learn (two months after the fact) that my boss from my days as a legislative aide in Boston died suddenly while driving home. State Representative Blumer was a tough boss, but rightly so. She demanded that I do the best for her constituents. She sought to listen to every constituent and hear them out, even if they disagreed with her.

During the 2004 Constitutional Convention regarding Gay Marriage, she came out strongly for equal marriage rights for her homosexual constituents. She got lots of hate mail and lots of fan mail too. The letters and emails and faxes and visits were deeply personal, people sharing their lives with her. Debby also fought hard to get as much road projects for her district as possible. And unlike most of her colleagues, Framingham's roads really did need it. She fought with the power and telephone companies to remove unsightly and dangerous polls and wires that were no longer necessary. She fought to increase funding for the poor and disabled's housing, health insurance, and more.

I might have disagreed with her vehement opposition to charter schools, but I respected her conviction and work ethic. She worked tirelessly, both in the district, on the campaign trail and at the State House in Boston.

Although she was not a tall woman, whomever replaces her in the State House will have big shoes to fill.

idiots with power

Ah the brothers Cannon. One continues to carry water for emasculated president and smear Democrats without cause or truth. The other just got himself on the Deseret News editorial board. When the Church gets all defensive about its ties to the Republican party, I think they need to look this one in the face. Why is a Church-owned publication hiring a state party chairman, whose brother is a partisan member of Congress, as an editor?

Anyway, lets go to the idiot quotations.

"As I read the report, it says the president is right," he [Rep. Chris Cannon] said. "Basically, it says the president is a smart guy."
He said the commission rejected a quick withdrawal from Iraq, aiming for 2008, but allowing for changes in conditions on the ground. [Source: Tribune

Utah Democrats claims to have found the first intrusion of Joe on behalf of Chris:

It looks like a pretty little graphic, but what stands out, for anyone with an IQ above room temperature, are Bernick's obviously false and deliberately misleading numbers in the UT-CD3 race. Take a look:

[Bob] Bernick states in the article:

"Burridge spent only $7,000. For his whole race, Cannon spent $1.16 million, a record re-election total for him."

Now, while I recognize that Bernick indicated in the graphic that the dollar figures used in the graphic for Burridge (and Pete Ashdown) features an asterisk noting that the totals are taken from the amount of money the candidates had at State Convention (May 2006) in 3 point font.

For more than a month now, before Bernick gifted this goofy, ill-considered gem to his new boss, anyone could have easily found public FEC information that as of October 18th Burridge had raised $55,000 and had spent approximately $47,000

I don't think this is as sinister. I think Bernick just asked Joe how much his brother spent and how much Burridge spent, never bothering to look it up online himself in 5 seconds. Plus, I think Burridge looks better to have done so well with so little ($7,000) than the slightly more he raised.

"I think what you can expect is, you're not going to get a shill for the Republican Party". said Joe. Sure, that is what a public expects from its editors...but that's not what it is going to get from the bunch that say the ISG report said the president was right.

Anyone who can read besides liars like Tony Snow say that the report is a repudiation of the President's policy. But then again, Chris can't do either apparently.

"You are probably going to have an impeachment proceeding with [Rep. John] Conyers leading Judiciary and you are going to have a raft of . . . legislative inquiries by [Rep.] Henry Waxman," Rep. Chris Cannon predicted on election night.
Cannon said he would be the administration's "go-to guy" to defend President Bush against the mob.
In just a month, he has turned 180 degrees.
The moderate Democrats who gave their party control will force the new majority to govern from the middle, Cannon now says, abandoning his slash-and-burn scenario.

Speaking of the Iraq Study Group, I am tired of these blue ribbon commissions dictating US policy on big issues. If these old folks really know what to do, why not have them actually in a President's administration or in Congress? Why do we even bother to have either if all they are supposed to do, according to the Washington Establishment, is to follow whatever they say.

Have our actual leaders become so incompetent that they can't think for themselves and need people to tell them what to do who aren't staffers? Not to mention the fact that the ISG report is not at all useful or informative. Where were these people in 2002 or 2003 when the war started, or in 2004 when we could have salvaged more?

I may be young and unexperienced in the ways of the world, but with my undergraduate degree in International Relations, somehow I knew before all the wise men of the think tanks and writers of serious books that a) Saddam wasn't a threat, b) he didn't have any serious WMD's, c) Bush would screw up the country post-invasion, d) all of his "experts" were idiotic ideologes.

Maybe you feel differently, but I am tired of giving morons all this power. Why do we allow people like Chris and Joe Cannon to give us the news and write our laws? Why do we allow establishment types without constitutional authority, to write legislation that "has to" be passed? Why is "bipartisanship" so sacred if one side is so dedicated to covering the butt of their partisans? Does this really have to be the way things are in Washington? A Clark would change this. Hillary has become part of the establishment. McCain is the epitome of this wrong-headed thinking (the ISG heads even basically endorsed McCain '08 by perpetuating his imaginary 30K more troops will solve everything "alternative"). Romney is a Janis-faced politician who will say anything to get people to vote for him. [Right wingers, don't worry, he was never serious when he was kissing up to the Log Cabin Republicans.] Obama says he is about change, but he might really be a consensus behind the scenes guy after all. Edwards wants to be president and loved so much, he may get follow High Broderism as well.

I say, let's dethrown these idiots with power and prevent future idiots from power and those who may listen to idiots from having power as well.

2008--who's out before they know it

1. Evan Bayn. Dan of Kentucky Democrat and other Bayh fans will notice that I did not include him my ranking of Democratic presidential hopefuls. That is because is an afterthought, not just to me but to primary voters as well. Here is a telling example:
   

   "Both Senators Evan Bayh and Barack Obama will be in New Hampshire this weekend. While staff members for Bayh may have to scramble to find 50 people to show up for his three events, Obama has a guaranteed audience of 2,225," according to the Boston Globe.
   
   "Both Obama events are sold out, the organizers say. All 750 free tickets to attend a book signing in Portsmouth were grabbed up in just one day. In addition 1,500 people have bought tickets to see him at a rally celebrating Democratic victories in the state. People from 13 states have bought tickets to attend the rally."

   
   A book signing--of a number 1 best seller--versus a all but in name only presidential campaign event, and it is not even close. Sure Bayh was governor of Indiana, but that was because of his Dad Birch, who was beloved. He obviously wasn't a bad governor, otherwise he wouldn't have been such a landslide Senate winner each time. But still, have you read his presidential book? DLCers told me it was a terrible 'read,' and that they bought the book out of pity. Not too intellectual or charismatic a person either. Oh and being on some committee in the Senate does not count as "national security experience." Otherwise, Joe Biden would have a chance.



2. Al Gore. I saw him on Oprah the other day...and he was the Al Gore of February 2001. Fat, tired looking, boring and uncharismatic/unfunny. I think people forget how great a job the filmmakers of 'An inconvenient truth' were. They made a long slide show by Al Gore interesting. And not just the slide show. The movie was about the man who nearly was president...about what it is like to find your purpose after suffering the most public loss in the history of mankind. Al, it seems to me, never wanted to be a politician. He loved learning about stuff, and really cared about the environment first and for most. There were other wonky things he loved, but clearly running for President wasn't one of those. Al Gore, Sr. wanted to be president and I believe that Al Jr. ran to fulfill his father's dying wish. After Al ran one of the worst campaigns ever, he was relieved of his duty to run.
   
   He still wants to be relevant and listened to, and he has some good things to say, but he is not going to run. Al would have made a great president. I volunteered for him the weekend before the elections in NH. I loved the movie. But I cannot and don't have to support him in 2008. Al Gore for EPA chair 2009!

The Biden's, the Gravel's, the Vilsack's, the Brownback's, the Kucinich's, they are too obvious and too fun to watch fall flat on their faces.

Wes Clark 2008

That's right, I know it is a bit early, but I am fully behind the General. All signs point to Clark entering into the 2008 race soon. "I think it was clear that I got in too late last time," Clark told the Associated Press.

I do too, but what also hurt Clark was that a Senator for Massachusetts somehow claimed he was electable with foreign policy experience. Great work Iowa Caucus goers. He needed more money (although he did pretty well on that score), better staff (just say no to Gore 2000 staffers like Chris Lehane), and more experience with being in the public limelight of presidential politics.

Clark learned how the game is played: Iowa is the key normally in a front loaded calendar like this. But if Vilsack hangs on until January of 2008, he will moot Iowa. Some have said that he is just doing this for Hillary. That's gotta hurt. Anyway, if Vilsack doesn't do an 11th hour endorsement, the key will be 2nd and 3rd place in Iowa.

Those folks will have a leg up in NH. Since no New Englanders are running this time (it seems Kerry finally got the hint), NH should go to that 2nd or 3rd placer. Meanwhile, Nevada will happen. Look for the media to down play the Silver State because they know the best B&B's in the Granite State by now and have their reservations already set. Next, the calendar swings to SC. If it is still neck and neck, I would bet on Edwards winning this with Hillary/Obama (it is either one or the other in my book) and Clark on his heals.

I think Clark has a strong chance. Here is what I recommend: hire the veteran campaign staffers of Virginia, Montana, and Missouri, get on a plane to Las Vegas right now to protest along side those striking Nurses, do an interview with MyDD mid-2007 (not Josh Marshall), hire as many veteran IA and NH staffers as you can right now, speak out against the fetal pain bill in the lame duck, make a statement to the press that you don't like Democrats talking bad about straw men 'liberals,' have your son go on talk radio again and tell it like it is, poo-poo McCain's mythical 20k-more-troops-will-solve-everything plan.

If he does those things, he will shore up his weaknesses from 2004 (lack of support on Domestic Issues) and burnish his key strength (4 star general who WON a ethnic/religious based civil war involving Muslims with allies). Good luck, General.

Utah's 4th dead

No lame duck 4th seat for Utah. So says outgoing Majority Leader John Boehner (unfortunately pronounced "BAY-nor"). But California Republican Dana Rohrbacker has an idea that I would support:

Rohrbacker has introduced legislation, and will reintroduce it next year, [his spokesman] said, that would allow residents of the district to vote in Maryland federal elections and also give Utah a fourth House seat to balance another Maryland seat essentially for the district.
Some scholars have said the measure could violate the Constitution's directive that members of the House come "from the several states." Other Constitutional experts disagreed, saying that Congress has broad discretion over the district.

I like it...Retrosecession, but only for voting, since Maryland clearly doesn't want Washington in there state to deal with, but Maryland Democrats would love to have their statewide office seats secured. Of course, there would be that little problem of the Electoral College, and that constitutional amendment that gives DC three EC votes.

I guess D.C.'s representative would not count towards Marylands EC votes, D.C. voters vote for US Senator from Maryland would not subtract their EC votes either. Still a bit awkward. But better than nothing.

Maybe Pelosi will allow this as an Amendment to the Davis bill if it is revived in the 110th Congress.

making their moves on Utah's 4th

And the first politician out of the gate is surprisingly a Democrat: Sen. Ed Mayne, D-West Valley, head of the Utah AFL-CIO:

Mayne [], for example, had tried to get his hometown completely into the new 4th District, so he could run for an open congressional seat in the future. But his house stayed several blocks within the 2nd District.
Mayne [] said he is still seriously thinking about a run for Congress. That could mean a move, into the 4th District, or running in the 4th District while living just outside the boundary (which is legal) or challenging the lone Utah Democrat in Congress, Rep. Jim Matheson, in the 2nd District.
"I really wanted to be in the new district. I think I could win that," Mayne said, noting he would be able to raise a lot money for the race through his union ties. "I'm going to be a threat in any district if I choose to run."

Mayne previously called the Mathesons and my Dad part of the "white wine Mercedes set" But that doesn't necessarily mean he would challenge Jim in the primary. He probably wants Jim to clear the field for him. On the GOP side, I think Mayne's colleague Mike Waddoups (R-Taylorsville) wants in too, having tried and failed to get all of Taylorsville into one district or another. Meanwhile, another Republican played Constitutional Scholar:

On the House floor, Rep. Julie Fisher, R-Fruit Heights, offered an amendment that would have adopted Plan L, but not place it into law until after Congress either gave Washington, D.C., back to Maryland (where its residents could vote as a citizen of that state), created a D.C. state or changed the U.S. Constitution to specially allow D.C. to have a voting member.

I shouldn't mock, I am glad someone is engaging constitutional analysis, but I doubt that is the real reason they voted no.

Utah's 4th, Iraq, and 2008

This will be a random collection of thoughts, as always. Sorry for not posting yesterday. I was writing an appellate brief and wanted to get a draft out.

• Utah and DC's seat deal remains valid in theory. The New York Times picked up the story, which makes it seem more likely this is going to happen after all. But the local papers are the ones with the actual news. Buried in the first couple paragraphs of the Deseret News' article yesterday was this gem on the "bipartisan" bill:
  

  The map passed the 23-4 in the Senate without any amendments, even though several changes were discussed during a nearly three-hour, closed- door GOP caucus.
  Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Pete Knudson, R-Brigham City, said there was interest in the proposed changes, but no one wanted to jeopardize the bill's passage by tinkering.

  
  Did you catch that part about GOP only amendments in a closed door three hour caucus? Somehow, I have a feeling that Sen. Waddoups got what he wished for during that meeting [final passed map in PDF]. Meanwhile, Democrats and the rest of the public had no input on this process, let alone a record of what traded what for what, or how much support there was for various changes. This is why Jim Matheson and Roz McGee is right redistricting, especially of state legislative seats, needs to be done by an independent commission, not self-interested politicians who are salivating at the chance at running in the new 4th and fancy themselves a member of Congress. I sure hope Jim rains on their little parade.


• Can you honestly tell me that you thoroughly read all the articles and books coming out daily about how messed up Iraq is? I wrote two papers in college about the Kurds and yet I can't stomach more than "X people died today in ___ when a ___ exploded" or "___ found ___ bodies ___ killed execution style" I can imagine that most Americans can't manage to read those articles or listen to the news in much detail about it either. Every day we are reminded how horrible life must be over there. Knowing the details just makes it all the more overwhelming and impossible to deal with in my book.
  That is not to say that we should whitewash the reporting. But don't expect everyone to read through all the extremely gory and depressing details.


• We are mere weeks away from candidates announcing their candidacy for the 2008 presidential race. What's that you say, Gravel, Biden, and Vilsack have already announced? Don't worry, they will reannounce in D.C. events (Sunday talk shows, the National Press Club, etc.) over and over again before they drop out in a few months. Here's how it looks to me for the GOP side in order: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Brownback, Huckabee. On the Democratic side, it is very fluid. I expect that if Obama is one of the first out of the box announcing (and has some serious staff/implied endorsements on his side) Hillary will NOT RUN. I still think everyone in Hillaryland but Hillary wants to run for president. Maybe she would like to be President, but she knows better than anyone of the candidates what it takes to win and how tough it is to run. She has lots of money (13.5 M) but money only buys you name recognition and maybe improves your image. Everyone who votes already knows who she is and already has a strong opinion about her. I see the race like this: Obama/Hillary, Gore?, Edwards, Clark, Richardson, Vilsack, Dodd, Biden, Gravel. On the Veepstakes, I see Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee for the GOP and Warner, Obama, Clark, Vilsack, and Richardson for the Democrats. As always, my dream ticket is Clark-Warner, with Obama as AG and maybe as a Supreme Court Justice for the next opening.

as the 4th district turns

In this episode, we will go more into the chances of U.S. Rep. Tom Davis' (R-NoVA) DC-Utah House seat bill. ex-Sen. ex-VP candidate Jack Kemp and Mr. Davis believe the bill still has a chance:

"No one in our leadership has indicated to me that this is not possible," [] Davis [] said [] Friday. "The stars are aligned. The time is now."
...
"There remains a strong possibility of enacting the DC Voting Rights Act during the lame duck session of Congress," Kemp said. "Conversations I have had with House and Senate leadership about the bill have been positive and encouraging."

"No one [told] me [it's] not possible" and "strong possibility" are not exactly ringing endorsements of the bill's chances. That sounds like much less than the 50% that some pundits (like UVA's Larry Sabbato) have given the bill. When the media asked the Democrat most interested in the bill, this is what D.C.'s delegate told the Tribune:

Eleanor Holmes Norton[] says incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised her continuing support of the bill if the GOP doesn't take up the measure next week. Pelosi is a co-sponsor of the legislation.
It's unclear, however, whether Utah will still be part of the legislation under a Democratic-controlled Congress.

So it sounds like D.C. could get its vote early in January and Utah might get nothing until 2012. But that's OK with the Tribune, whose headline reads "Utah voters' case pales in comparison with D.C.'s:"

While Utah has three U.S. House members and two senators, the district's nearly 600,000 residents have no vote in Congress, which, in addition to its other powers, controls the district's budget and laws.
...
"The people of Utah have expressed outrage over the loss of one congressional seat for the last six years," Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. testified before a congressional committee in September. "I share their outrage. I can't imagine what it must be like for American citizens to have no representation at all for over 200 years."

There is some interesting history about DC's attempts to get a vote that I didn't know about either

In 1978, Congress sent the states another constitutional amendment that would allow the district to have a House member, but only 16 of the required 38 states ratified the change, and it expired in 1985.
The district also called a Constitutional Convention in 1980, a state constitution was drafted for "New Columbia," and it was submitted to be part of the union. But it was all for naught. The amendment didn't pass.

And of course, almost all of us know why nothing has happened in terms of D.C. getting Congressional voting rights:

Mark David Richards is a political sociologist who did his doctoral dissertation on the history of the District of Columbia. He says for much of the time the district has been seeking full voting rights, the opposition derived, at least in part, from racial undertones. Blacks make up 62 percent of the district's population, according to the 2000 census.
But now, Richards says, some of the opposition to granting the district voting rights is pure politics - if the city gained a House member or senators, there's little doubt the Democrat-filled city would elect only those with donkeys on their campaign signs.

With Democrats in control of Congress, I don't know why they don't try the Davis bill or something else that gives DC a vote. Retrocession the District (save the National Mall and other Federal buildings) back to Maryland would work, but Maryland doesn't want to deal with the mess that Congress has made of DC. Why not just pass a bill to allow D.C. voters to vote in MD's senate race and give DC a vote in the House. Under the constitution, Congress can do whatever the hell it wants within the 10 miles square of the District (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 17).

I will keep on this story dear reader until the Davis bill fails or another DC bill is brought up in the 110th Congress.

much politisan manuvering about nothing

Thomas Burr of the Trib starts his lede with this non-shocker: "Even as Utah state lawmakers prepare to head into special session to pass a four-seat congressional map in hopes of getting another House member, it's doubtful legislation dealing with the issue in Congress will make it to a vote next week."

Rep. Ben Ferry, R-Corinne, the one committee member who voted against Plan L, has proposed his own Plan M [PDF] because Plan L created a urban 2nd District. "Having a rural component in every district is very important," said Ferry, a Box Elder County stockman. "You try to have comprehensive seats . . . so representatives are aware of rural concerns."

Rep. Ferry, being aware of, caring about, and doing something about are three different things. If you jam in some rural voters into the 2nd on principle, it doesn't mean that Congressman or -woman will do anything for rural Utahns. So Plan M is dead on arrival right?

Sen. Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, has said he also will propose another map at the special session because Plan L divides Taylorsville.
"We are open to any proposals," said Sen. Curt Bramble, a chairman of the 11-person Redistricting Committee. "But when you have a 10-1 vote coming out of committee - that is sending a pretty strong message."

That is saying no more than yes. Speaker Greg Curtis agrees most lawmakers are going to look to the committee, which labored over computer-generated maps, for guidance. "[Ferry] is going to have an uphill battle," Curtis said. "He's going to have to convince members of the committee why his map is better than the one they adopted." So OK that means this Plan M is for naught. But Waddups wants some changes But then again, so is the whole process:

A senior GOP aide told The Salt Lake Tribune on Thursday that it's "unlikely" the House would take up a bill that would give Utah a fourth congressional seat that likely would go to a Republican in order to balance a proposed seat for the District of Columbia, which doesn't now have a full-voting representative.
"There's simply too many Republicans who have problems with the bill to bring it up at this late of an hour in the session," the aide said.
Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, signaled similar concerns on Thursday. Asked if the bill had a chance at passing, Cannon said, "It is very dicey, I would say."

So I guess I have to applaud the legislature's committee for listening to that woman in Park City and including Park City with Salt Lake and its 'burbs. At the same time, the whole thing was sham partisan map. They are using 6 year old data, creating 3-safe GOP seats and one safe Democratic district. Except Jim could bust their whole scheme.

It will be interesting to see if Huntsman cannot only keep the legislature in line to pass Plan L but also convince the House and Senate in the US Congress to pass this in the Lame Duck. Personally, i think the chances are less than 50%.

More on plan L

So this bill is "bipartisan" according to the Tribune because the committee listened to people in Park City who complained about being lumped into rural Utah when they are a cosmopolitan city linked to Salt Lake City and Vale, CO than Mexican Hat, UT..."including a Park City woman who complained about being in the 'hellhole' of the 1st Congressional District. "

But this article does include a new tidbit of information from the past that might link to the future:

After the 2001 redistricting, Matheson contemplated suing the state after Republican lawmakers gerrymandered him into a district stretching from Salt Lake City to St. George. Wednesday, Matheson spokeswoman Alyson Heyrend declined to comment on the new map, calling it "extremely hypothetical."

The Deseret News points out the Utah Republican hypocrisy:

For a decade, GOP lawmakers have argued that there should not be a single U.S. House district in Salt Lake County — that all Utah congressmen should represent both urban and rural areas of the state. But under Plan L, Matheson's 2nd District would take in northern Salt Lake County, Park City and surrounding suburbs in Summit County and North Salt Lake and part of Woods Cross in Davis County.

Oh and by the way, you, Utah Taxpayers, paid for a likely charade

Finally, all the work and cost of paying for the committee's work and a special session may be for naught.
State officials are rushing to get a four-seat plan before Congress so that a lame-duck session next week can consider a special bill that would give Washington, D.C., a full-voting House seat (the current delegate can't vote on final passage of legislation) and give Utah a fourth seat.

The new map

In the end, the Legislature's special committee decided on a plan whose map was never released to the public...Plan L(PDF).

L looks somewhat similar to previous plans. The new 4th district will be Southwestern Utah (Tooele, Juab [save the Eastern jug end where everyone lives], Millard, Beaver, Iron, Washington Counties). However, the 4th also would include Southern Salt Lake County-- South Jordan, West Jordan, Cottonwood Heights, Talyorsville, Sandy, and parts of West Valley. The new 2nd will be like the 1990's 2nd (Northern Salt Lake County, with the Park City part of Summitt County, and a tiny sliver of Davis and Utah Counties [Woods Cross and Alta respectively]). The new 3rd will include Eastern Utah "centered" around Provo (Morgan, rest of Summitt, Daggett, Wasatch, Utah, Duchesne, Uintah, Carbon, rest of Juab, Sanpete, Emory, Grant, Piute, Wayne, Garfield, San Juan, and Kane Counties). The new 1st will be centered around Ogden (Box Elder, Cash, Weber, 99% of Davis, and Rich Counties).

"We've had a significant amount of public input," Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, committee co-chairman told the Tribune. "There's been a great deal of discussion about the public perception that this is a majority party whitewash. That we are simply trying to gerrymander Republican Party seats. Nothing could be further from the case."

Um I say that is complete Bull. No member of the public asked for protecting Matheson, not even Matheson. The number of people wanting a mix of urban and rural districts were solely Republican partisans. Why don't you ask the people living out in the rural areas if they want to fight for attention with Provo, Salt Lake County, or Davis/Weber Counties? Of course they never had a hearing in rural areas, the closest they got was in St. George, our fastest growing city.

clueless in washington

two idiot senators that think they will be president in two year squwalked today:

"When it comes to the field of Democratic Presidential hopefuls," Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) "has clearly decided that there is still a niche to be filled by someone like him," the New York Observer reports.

"While he thinks that Hillary Clinton can be President, he also notes that she is still in the midst of forming her Iraq policy. And as for John Edwards, John Kerry or Al Gore, well, they’ve already run."

Says Dodd: "I sort of have a unique position because I have experience, but I’m sort of a fresh face. I know that’s kind of silly. I’ve been in the Senate 25 years."

"Twenty years ago, I made a mistake. Twenty years ago, I learned a whole hell of a lot getting up off my knees."
-- Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), quoted by the Providence Journal, about the plagarism of a speech during his 1988 presidential campaign.

Morons.

Bush's other other foreign policy failure

That is, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, but Russia. Bush hired a "Russian expert" for his National Security Adviser (Stanford Provost Condi Rice). He met President Putin and looked into his soul and discovered that he was a "good man," his adjective that means "someone who agrees with me" essentially.

Prior to 9/11, Bush was pushing for missile defense, and demanding that Russia join them in withdrawing the conflicting portion of the ABM treaty. Condi was scheduled to give a speech on September 11, 2001 about Rouge states (aka Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) and the need to protect ourselves from such threats (via missile defense). Obviously, she never got her chance.

While the US and its friends were having their adventure in Iraq, and ignoring Afghanistan, Russia was falling deeper and deeper into a thuggish dictatorship. Those who have the most connections to the Kremlin via bribes or whatever get to have the key businesses and all political and business transactions take place with force always in the background. Corruption is unstoppable. Those who try are beaten or killed, or threatened or acid is poured on their faces.

Those who try to buck the will of the Russian government/mob are killed or attempted to be killed. There is no freedom of press, no rule of law, no real democracy.

Clearly, Mr. Bush, Vladimir Putin is not a "good man" unless he really is someone whose methods and policies you agree with and aspire to.

Romney's failure as governor

The Washington Post's Sunday paper reviews Romney's 4-year stint as governor of Massachusetts and generously calls it a "mixed" record. It reality, it was an utter failure. As a legislative aide from 2003-04 in the Massachusetts State House, I speak from experience.

Here are a list of his duds:

• raising taxes-- by "closing what he called 'loopholes' in the corporate tax code...along with higher local property taxes..." and hiked fees for essential state services.


• "Romney failed to develop the warm personal relationships with Democratic leaders that Weld had enjoyed with some of their predecessors. The Democrats had no compunction about rejecting Romney's initiatives, including his push to reduce the state's top income tax rate." He had no clout on Beacon Hill, the Democratic legislature overrode daily and did whatever they wanted.


• "Romney mounted a major effort...in his midterm election in 2004. He campaigned and financed races in dozens of districts, spending $3 million, and when the returns came in, Republicans had two fewer seats than before." And don't forget his handpicked successor was creamed by Deval Patrick who campaigned against the Romney legacy


• "left the state politically polarized" on key issues of Abortion, Death Penalty, Gay Marriage, Stem Cell Research, etc. He governed like he was governor of a Southern Red State rather that a Northeastern Blue State.


• "His plan for health care...was tweaked and substantially expanded by the legislature, and in the final analysis, the negotiations that led to success were managed more by the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate than by the governor."

He never would have been famous to those the-Church-should-be-the-State GOPers had he not been governor when the SJC ruled on Goodridge so he could be against it. He was a loser from day one in office. The whole governorship was a big PR spin, like his "cleanup" of SLC's Olympics. Everyone but him worked their butt off to make it a great games. And he takes all the credit?

I dream of Romney being the Presidential nominee. Too bad it won't happen. He will get crushed in the SBC belt.

much to do about nothing

Another story about Utah's "congressionally mandated" reredistricting, another slow news day burial.

According to the Tribune"The day after the hearings, the committee expects to select a final map to be debated by the full Legislature during a special session Dec. 1."

Now the G proposal will be presented to the public after all, because get this, Utah Democrats think that the public should have input on the map process. What a riot. Utah Democrats also think claims that rural-urban mixed districts are better should be vetted by Utahns; crazy huh?

Meanwhile, Matheson is calling for an independant commission to draft these maps rather than a hyper-partisan legislature. Enid replies with a not so veiled threat: "Jim Matheson's never going to get a better district than he is going to get under these circumstances," said the acting Utah GOP party chairwoman.

Sources close to Matheson tell this blogger that Jim, like Sen. Bennett, doubt that the Davis bill will pass before the lame duck expires. So I may have been front-paged on MyDD for nothing. Oh well, them's the brakes.

I hope everyone is enjoying their Thanksgiving weekend. And come home safe.

plan G from outer space

As expected, the committee assigned with the task of drawing a 4-seat map released those maps when they were sure no one was looking--the day before Thanksgiving.

(Graphic credit: Salt Lake Tribune for more detail, click on this PDF by the paper)

All four plans share common elements. Sandy, parts of West Jordan, and most of Southern Salt Lake County not be part of the new 2nd district. Proposals I and J include Park City into the 2nd district. Davis and Weber Counties remain the "heart" of the redrawn 1st, although Proposal A gives the new 2nd district a tiny piece of Bountiful. All but Proposal G place Southern Salt Lake County in the new 4th District, and even then G places half in the new 4th and half in the new 3rd.

So which map would be the best for Democrats? Proposals A and G would allow Jim Matheson to run in the new 4th district and allow a Peter Carroon-type Democrat to run in the new 2nd district. Proposals I and J would be more difficult for Jim to run in their 4ths because of the inclusion of Washington County (St. George). Similarly, Jim would have a tough time running in their new 3rds because the parts of Salt Lake County, along with Carbon and San Juan (Moab) Counties would some how have to overcome Utah County (Provo). Thus, if I or J are adopted, I would expect Jim to stay in the 2nd district. But if A or G passed, I would press Jim to run in the new 4th and find a suitable Democratic candidate for the new 2nd.

Here are the redistricting hearing times and locations. If you live nearby, please attend. (Graphic credit: Deseret News)

So what are the chances of each proposal? The Deseret News gives us the scoop:

Senate Republicans, however, have insisted that the 2001 proposal known as "Plan A" continue to be considered. The committee's other two proposals, "Plan I" and "Plan J," were put together behind closed doors during a break in Tuesday's meeting.
...
The committee rejected a proposal by the minority Democrats, "Plan G," that would have created two largely urban districts from most of Salt Lake and Utah counties and two largely rural districts from the rest of the state.
"This really is a snapshot of what the state is," said Senate Minority Whip Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake. But Republicans disagreed, arguing that the state is better served when all members of Congress represent rural constituents.

Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake City, stormed out of a meeting after G lost according to the Salt Lake Tribune "They always say they want input from the Democrats. Why have Democrats on the committee if you are going to ignore what we have to say?" "The governor said this was going to be a fair and nonpartisan process or he would use his veto," Biskupski said. ''He can't pretend this was nonpartisan.''

"If you are going to take three plans on the road for public hearings that are the same and not include the option from the minority party, it's obviously a partisan process," Biskupski said. Newsflash! Redistricting is a partisan political process, News at 10. Even though no political affiliation data was inputed into the mapping program, everyone on that committee knows where Democrats do well, where Jim's base of support is, and where Republicans do well. Let's not kid ourselves with this "non-partisan process" crap.

The interesting thing will be if Biskupski is correct and Huntsman indeed vetoes ones of these other plans for being overtly partisan.

Utah Republicans carve up map like Turkey

Sorry for the lack of posting yesterday. I have been writing a paper for a class and my topic is the Allen-Webb senate race. Boy, did Allen have some great quotes. "For folks to think I would know what sorts of genus of monkeys are in eastern Asia ascribe a lot more intelligence to me than I actually have."--August 17. Now to the Turkey meat, thanks to the Salt Lake Tribune:

"With such a large population concentrated in Salt Lake County, it is very difficult to do it in two parts," [State Rep. Dave]Clark said. "Every possible division into four districts will be considered."

That is the biggest hint I can think of that the legislature doesn't like Huntsman's proposed map. And here was Huntsman's retort:

"We are allowing the Legislature to do its work," said Huntsman spokesman Mike Mower. "But the governor will have the final say. Our goal is to make sure it is fair."

The Deseret News provides a helpful graphic showing when open hearings will be held for this ultra-important process involving democracy

That's right, when no one will be able to attend. I am sure this is the bare minimum required under open meetings laws. So if they do make a map that both a GOP legislature and a GOP governor like, what happens next? The Deseret News explains:

"It would be a clean slate," said Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, the co-chairman of a special legislative redistricting committee. "We'd have to elect four new congressional representatives."
Just how that election would be structured, though, remains to be seen. Bramble, the incoming Senate majority leader, said lawmakers would likely wait until the 2007 Legislature meets in January to figure out the special election process.
But Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said he wanted to see candidates go through the regular nominating process at political party conventions. Committee members were told, however, that Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. could speed up that process.

Meanwhile, leaders in both parties are pouring over 6 year old census data (which the state argued was inaccurate to begin with to the Supreme Court) to draw up their own fantasy maps. With a special election next year, Salt Lake City will have a "non-partisan" mayoral race and two to three Congresscritters to vote on. It seems like it won't be such an "off year" after all.

more like this please

The the Salt Lake Tribune has a fantastic headline, and I want to reward good behavior: "Reid proof that good Mormons can also be Democrats"

Many folks think Democrat and Mormons don't belong in the same sentence, except with "hate" or "aren't" in between. Well, Majority Leader Harry Reid seeks to change all that, but first he has to overcome the culture of the church members themselves.

Despite the fact that Reid held weekly Family Home Evenings and sent three sons on two-year missions for the church, and all five of his children were married in LDS temples, some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints question his faith because of his politics.

What more can the guy do? He is pro-life, but votes for against anti-choice judges out of party loyalty. He drinks neither alcohol, coffee, tea, or soda. The Democratic Party has lots of religious diversity and religiosity.

Same for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who noted that Reid is a Mormon, Majority Whip-elect Richard Durbin is a Catholic and Charles Schumer, head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, is Jewish.

Abortion and gay rights are the big two 'values' issues that tend to keep Latter-Day Saints opposed to the Democratic Party. But the party is home to many pro-lifers, like Senator-Elect Bob Casey, and many pro-traditional marriage members too, like Tennessee's U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis. True, these folks are in the minority in the party and that the presidential candidates must be pro-choice and pro-gay rights to be the nominee, but it doesn't mean these folks can't be proud Democrats in the State House, the Governor's Mansions, the House and the Senate. The reverse can't be said for Republicans who are much more homogenized.

What unites Democrats is caring for people: raising the minimum wage, supporting the right to organize labor, improving health care, reducing taxes on the poor and middle class, caring for the elderly, equal rights for racial/ethnic minorities, and so on.

What unites Republicans is lower taxes. It used to be smaller government, but then congressional Bush Republicans decided to pork their way into "permanent power." I guess it is still smaller government social programs, but it also includes eliminating premarital sex, no gay sex, no gay marriage, no division between church and state, and no social welfare for the poor, the elderly, the young.

Since there are 3 Casey's for every one Rudy G's, and Democrats love to squabble between themselves, I say welcome to my LDS brethern who are tired of giving their social services away to tax cuts for the rich, who are tired of politicians professing their 'faith' in order to humor you for votes but never deliver, who talk about gay marriage and abortion all day long, but never address the root cause of abortion (poverty, lack of sex education, lack of contraception, rape, incest, abuse, misfortune).