after the music stops

The best way to see what a politican is all about is to see what they do when there is they are lame ducks or out of office. Some, like Al Gore (D-TN) and Jimmy Carter (D-GA), go on to do meaningful things about stuff they care about. Others, like Trent Lott (R-MS) and Al Wynn (D-MD), take the money and run.

Roll Call, one of the two big Capitol Hill Newspapers, is reporting that Wynn will announce today that is will "leave the House in June to join a Washington, D.C., law firm" aka become a lobbyist and make millions. Lott already did the same thing, going even the extra step of registering the domain name of his super lobbying firm before resigning from the Senate. Which, by the way, is illegal. Wynn's retirement is a forced one, having been trounced last month by Donna Edwards by over 20 points thanks to new Obama voters (both candidates endorsed Obama in this middle-class majority minority district).

It used to be that people sought elective office because they wanted to do great things and make their country/state/county/town better. Then it used to be that they wanted power and priviledge. Now many politicans just use decades in Congress as a stepping stone to a much more lucrative career in lobbying their former collegues about stuff they don't know (or care) a thing about.

So the real question about Utah's elected officials is, if they had their druthers, what would they do after being what they are right now? Gov. Huntsman clearly would rather be in the executive branch in a cabinet post; he seems to find dealing with the legislature annoying and the topics of dispute petty. Speaker Curtis seems to be trying to hang on to his seat so that he can run for Rep. Matheson's when he expects Matheson to run for governor. Senator Valentine, I have no clue.

Sen. Hatch would rather be a music/movie/tv star, as witnessed by his many albums, fighting for copyright changes, and cameos on movies like Traffic. Sen. Bennett also seems to be more comfortable as a technocrat than as a senator. Although he does love bringing home the bacon, whereas Hatch again just wants to be famous.

The House side is tougher to call. Rep. Matheson seems to have a distaste for lobbying and lobbyists, even if his friends and former collegues coming knocking. So I doubt he will go that route. Rep. Bishop likes to do a couple of pieces of serious legislation here and there, and doesn't need a high profile. So I think Bishop is happy as is. Rep. Cannon on the other hand loves to go on TV and say ridiculous stuff that I can't imagine he actually believes. I think he wants to be a TV pundit.

When did baseball become partisan?

Remember that terrible hearing that Roger Clemens demanded in front of the House Oversight Committee? It was terrible because Republicans were attacking Brian McNamee while Democrats were attacking Roger Clemens.

The top Republican on the congressional committee investigating whether Roger Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs released a report Tuesday questioning whether Clemens lied in his testimony before the panel last month.
The 109-page report, obtained by The Associated Press, contains details Rep. Tom Davis believes could challenge the credibility of Brian McNamee, the personal trainer who testified under oath he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone.
Republican staff from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform say they will pass along additional information to the Justice Department. The FBI is investigating whether Clemens lied to Congress.
''It's a far more complicated picture than some may want to believe," Davis said.

But the reason Democrats attacked Clemens was not because they thought McNamee was an alter boy, but because Clemens' own friend and teammate, Andy Petitte gave a sworn deposition [warning PDF] that confirmed the main thrust of McNamee's allegations--that Clemens used HGH.

A sports columnist asked the same question I am, and came to this conclusion:

When did this thing get so partisan?

There are plenty of folks who would agree that Congress should stop meddling with baseball (and now, the NFL) and really do the work of the people. On its surface, [Rep. Patrick] McHenry [(R-NC)]'s point certainly has merit.

But here’s what McHenry told The Gazette in 2005 on the afternoon after he’d just grilled Mark McGwire [...]
[...]
What happened between then and now to change his mind? Plenty.
For starters, his party was in the majority in 2005 and was actually the body that called for the hearings in the first place. Now that the Dems are calling the plays, McHenry wants to stay on the sidelines.
[...]
Another, perhaps more conspiratorial view, is that Clemens was embraced by the Republicans at the behest of George H.W. Bush, who served one term as president beginning in January 1989 and is the father of current president George W. Bush. Like Clemens, Bush is a longtime resident of the Houston area. The elder Bush routinely attends Astros games every season, and during Clemens’ three years with the team (2004-06) the two forged a reportedly strong relationship and attended social functions and fundraisers together.

Their friendship goes all the way back to 1991...
[...]
An even more cynical fan might take the view that the Republicans simply despise the Mitchell Report itself, the investigation by former Sen. George Mitchell into baseball’s steroids problem.

Mitchell is a prominent figure within the Democratic Party, after all.
[...]
Clemens is pathetic. To defend him is a losing proposition.
But then again, Republicans are going down with plenty of sinking ships these days.

So is the Bush family really going to bat, so to speak, for Roger Clemens, and lobbying Republican Congressmen? Who knows, but either way, it doesn't make sense for these Congressmen to go along with Bush on this one.

I mean, in retrospect, doesn't it seem obvious that a guy this old couldn't suddenly step up his game to untold hights (and be able to play on the same rest schedule as he did in the 1980s) without the assistance of illegal injections?

Of course, I am partisan too....I am a Boston Red Sox fan.

necessary evil

CNN analyst and Hillary Clinton advisor James "the ragin' Cajun" Carville had this to say about Bill Clinton's Super Bowl watching buddy. (Doesn't he look pissed that he has to watch the game with Richardson?) "Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," he said, calling it "[a]n act of betrayal."

Now Carville is known for his crazy commentary that is some times apt--"it's the economy, stupid"--some times outrageous and some times light heartedly funny. And I could get into the Godfather-esque ways Clintonistas (and not the Clintons themselves) talk about Richardson ["How many times did [Clinton] appoint him?" McAuliffe marveled {after Richardson's strategy to tell his supporters to go to Obama if they didn't meet 15% "caused" Hillary to get 3rd place in Iowa}. "Two? U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary?" He looked at me, half-glaring, awaiting confirmation. "I don't know," I joked, "but who's counting?" "I am," McAuliffe said firmly."] But I would rather focus on the Easter message that is being distorted.

The more I think about it, the more I don't get why people "blame the Jews" or "Judas" for "killing Jesus." In case you forgot, Jesus wanted to be killed. He knew that one of his disciples was going to point him out to the authorities, and since it was Jesus, he probably knew it was Judas but just didn't want the other 11 to attack him before Judas did the deed. Assuming Carville is a Christian, which I believe he is (a Catholic, I think), then he knows that it was necessary for Jesus to be crucified for our sins. Without Judas or the Jewish authorities turning him over to the Romans, how would Jesus have died, and would Christianity have got on the way it did? What symbol would one use to connote one's belief in Jesus? Not a cross.

Unless you assume that the same or similar thing would have happened anyway. Really, the whole thing gets one into one of those debates involving any piece of fiction that involves time travel or engaging in hypothetical situations where history is altered. Would Lincoln or Kennedy be considered great presidents if they hadn't been assassinated? Would the Reconstruction or Vietnam occurred? Would Marty McFly have made his parent fall in love? As much as I like to debate topics like this with friends--I do love pointless arguments about silly topics like Back to the Future parts I-III--I think the whole "blame Judas" or "blame the Jews" thing is stupid and counterfactual.

To be clear I am not saying that Clinton is Jesus or that she needs Richardson to endorse Obama in order to win. Who knows how that will all play out. What I am saying is that Judas--and the nominal authorities of Jeruslem in 33 CE--played a critical role in creating Christianity as a world religion and was a necessary act for Jesus to be the redeemer of sinners under that same faith. Anyway, Happy Easter Monday.

Is Utah in play?

(Photo Credit © 2008 Deseret Morning News)

The article's headline is "Utahns getting over Mitt" and talks about how John McCain is getting twice as much support as he did last month. But the poll notes that Obama's and Clinton's support remain unchanged. So all that means is that McCain is solidifying GOP support in the reddest state in the union...and he still only has 54% of the vote.

Of course, this is a dumb poll. Why? Because only one of the two remaining Democrats will be on the ballot in November, so asking people who they will support for president and listing everyone currently running is a waste of time unless you do head-to-head match ups. Another problem with this poll is that they include Nader, who got .38 percent of the vote nationally--compared to .32 percent for the Libertarian candidate, who was not polled here--and .012 here in Utah. And Utah should be prime Nader vote country, where liberals, angry that their vote doesn't count for president due to the Electoral College system, pull the lever for him in protest. So including Nader just takes a percent away from Democrats and or Undecided or Refused.

But look who is McCain's Western States Coordinator--Tim Bridgewater--the guy who twice failed to win a Republican primary in Utah for the right to lose to Jim Matheson. "People have not immediately embraced John McCain. It's taken some time," Bridgewater told the Deseret Morning News. "Utahns are rallying around him in support of his leadership on the war, the economy and the fact that people trust him." I would like to see a poll on Utahns' level of support for the war, which although assuredly higher than the rest of the country, is probably not exactly soaring.

If John McCain can't get more than 54% in Utah when the Democratic/liberal vote is split between Clinton, Obama and Nader, how is Utah not competitive in November? And how crazy is that?

whither John Edwards?

With news this morning that NM Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Obama this morning, and the Obama campaign is planning on rolling out more endorsements between now and April 22nd's Pennsylvania primary "to create a sense of momentum," one wonders what happened to erstwhile candidate and number one endorsement get ex-Sen. John Edwards.

After Edwards' Iowa slingshot strategy didn't pan out, he completely dropped off the radar after a dissipointing finish in South Carolina, the state of his birth. For a couple weeks, Clinton and Obama tried their best to channel Edwards, and to woo him to their side. After Super Tuesday, however, they largely forgot about that and seemed to tack to the center.

Since neither are able to put the other away, Edwards could still be a kingmaker...or at least an elder statesman. Why wasn't Edwards stepping in when things got nasty between the two in February and March, telling them to be grown-ups, like he did in the debates? Why didn't Edwards take a stand on Florida or Michigan, to force a redo? Or Edwards could have offered to mediate the stalemate between Obama and Clinton in May/June, to avoid a convention floor fight or credentials committee battle.

During the campaign, Edwards showed his neutrality between the two by attacking both, although he did attack Clinton more. However, that was necessary since he was selling himself (this time) as the change-ist candidate and amazingly the first serious woman candidate was the establishment candidate. So why hasn't Edwards done any of those things and why doesn't it seem like he will do any of those things?

To me, the only logical answer is that he doesn't want to piss off the nominee if they win, or the loser if the nominee ends up losing to John McCain. Still, I think Edwards could get whatever cabinet post he wanted (i.e. Sec. of Labor, HHS, AG) in exchange for endorsing whomever it was. And if he went the mediator route, he would be sure not to either Clinton or Obama mad at him. The non-logical answer is that he is pissed off a both for ignoring him post-Super-Tuesday, and he doesn't think either of them would be nearly as good as he would be as president.

But let's face facts, John Edwards is never going to be the Democratic nominee for president. You don't get to run three times, unless you want to be an also-ran. Even Joe Biden learned not to run between 1988 and 2008. So Edwards' options are to be a cabinet level dude in a Democratic administration, run for Governor or Senator of North Carolina next cycle (the filing deadline was March 3rd), or leave politics and become the Al Gore of Poverty (which is something he genuinely seems to care a lot about). So far however, he hasn't made moves to do any of those three.

It must be tough to get very close to being a presidential nominee, especially when it seems like a good year to be a member of your party. It takes a lot of hard work and planning to get even that close, and I understand his disappointment and frustration. He could have made the most of a bad situation, however, he doesn't seem ready to do the necessary things.

And it is too bad. Democrats need a talented politician who has a nose for what the public mood is in their upper echelon.

meet Oldenburg jr.

In a break from posts about politics, please welcome the newest resident on The Third Avenue:
To answer a few questions you are bound to ask: the due date is late September/early October, no one knows the gender yet (that's it's arm, not a male organ), and I am totally excited. Freaking out, I assume, will come at a later time.

While this will be the first great-grandchild on both sides of my family (and both of our parent's first grandchild), it will be my wife's grandmother's twenty-fifth great-grandchild from one of her 25 grandchildren. I just blew your mind, didn't I?

Anyway, I have been dying to tell my readers for a while but had to get Mrs. Oldenburg's permission first (I redacted her name from the picture) and make sure das Baby (that's German for baby) was alright. On Monday, we saw it moving about on the ultrasound. I could watch that for hours....

What's the big deal?

There are three stories out today about SL County DA Lohra Miller's purported proclivity to party. [Say that three times fast!] As you can guess from this post's title, I really don't get what Miller did that was so terrible.

[Private investigator Todd Gabler,] who has tracked Salt Lake County District Attorney Lohra Miller for months[,] contends Miller is undermining the credibility of her office.
[...]
Gabler said there were some "intervening events" that prompted him to continue looking into the situation.

"The first was that Lohra used her public office as a platform to call her neighbors liars. Had she not done that, the investigation would just have gone away. But we started receiving calls from prospective clients who we had interviewed regarding this case. Basically clients started lining up outside the door — they didn't like being called liars.

"The second reason is that she made a public statement that she believed she was held to a higher standard of scrutiny as a public official, which she certainly is. She made the claim there is no underage drinking in her house," which Gabler said he knew was false, referring to a December 22, 2005 report from the South Jordan Police Department.

"I read the report where both Lohra and Lorenzo and their son told police there had been drinking by minors in their house," Gabler said.

Gabler said techniques used in the investigation, such as going through trash and videotaping the Miller home, were legal and did not invade Miller's privacy.

Further, he said the real underlying issue is not underage drinking or neighborhood complaints, but the integrity of the district attorney's office.

The "lack of integrity" is apparently contradicting a PI's memory of a police report, which might be erroneous and even if true wouldn't be admissible in a court of law.

The Salt Lake City Weekly delves into much more detail that finally gets at what might be wrong about this whole thing...AG Mark Shurtleff's office's investigation into the accusations.

The results of Gabler’s work are striking. They’re also obvious. The documents he examined would have been available to anyone else—had anyone else bothered to ask. No one did.

Lohra Miller did not respond to repeated requests for an interview left with Miller's office assistant and the district attorney office spokesman. City Weekly's messages for her husband Lorenzo Miller, left with the secretary at his law office, on his cell phone and his work email, were not returned. A "Very Thorough Investigation[.]"
[...]
In fact, the attorney general's office didn't say it couldn't find anything. In a two-sentence letter that was the Utah attorney general’s entire report, the Attorney general wrote, "Our investigation revealed no basis for criminal charges."

"We looked only at potential violations of state law," says Paul Murphy, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. The attorney general’s investigation was limited to three areas: allegations of unlicensed daycare, underage drinking and drug use.

Murphy says the attorney general, "did a very thorough investigation" into allegations of underage drinking and drug use. "We didn't call any of the neighbors liars," he says. But no one the attorney general's office interviewed was able to provide any concrete evidence against the Millers.

But even here, there doesn't seem to be much there there. No one is saying Miller should be ousted because she is a hypocrite or even provides any solid proof that anything illegal occurred in her home.

KSL News says a video of the surveillance was recently mailed to the Salt Lake City TV station. Gabler says he was trying to prove Miller has lied about purported parties at her home involving minors.
[...]
Complaints about the parties were recently investigated by the Utah Attorney General's Office -- and no evidence of criminal activity was found.
KSL News says that interpretations of what the video actually shows are in dispute. Miller says she and her children were out of town during one of the alleged parties filmed.

Now if someone had any solid proof of Miller doing something illegal while urging her DDA's to prosecute others for such illegalities, that would be something. But it seems to be that worse case scenario, her kids were doing dumb things like partying late at night and drinking. Last time I checked, how one parents their children has nothing to do how one heads an office of prosecutors. And really, why should we be so quick to judge her family and parenting skills/choices?

If someone could prove that Miller solicited illegal campaign contributions or fired DDA Kent Morgan for political reasons or failed to prosecute a police officer for a wrongful shooting because of police union endorsements, any of those would be a very serious and troubling issue. And ones that, if true, should cause her to resign.

But right now, all we have an overzealous PI snooping in her trash and filming her house, with nothing really to show for it. The whole thing smacks of neighbors who really don't like her and her family. W ake me up if you have any real news to report. My advice to the Millers would be to move somewhere else, and get a restraining order on this PI.

Change is coming to Utah Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your world in charts

(H/T Erza Klein)

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

(graphic by the New York Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

crafting a narrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well played Rob, well played.

big little states

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HRC's bad week

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

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

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

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

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

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

If he were a woman...

GIBSON: You mean if he were John Edwards?

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

GIBSON: Geraldine, are you playing the race card?

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

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

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

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

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

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

straight on 'til morning

(Photo Credit, BluBet)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

marginal candidates

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

registry contest

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

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

time management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spin

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

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

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

Chris Buttars Letter

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

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

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

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

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

priorities

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

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

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

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

why we need ethics reform

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

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

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

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

From Friday's Tribune editorial:

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

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

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

thanks but no thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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