Happy Christmas Eve

I saw this snowman and his snowdog (complete with twine leash) while walking my own dog last night.

Drive carefully and best of luck on your travels.

backup quarterback

I know, I know tired old sports analogy, coming right up.

So have you noticed that Senate Republicans appear to be gearing up to get a scalp in January, namely Eric Holder, Obama's nominee for Attorney General? As much as I am sure the nation would love to watch a political "scandal" version of "I love the 90s," I think Obama has other plans.

Namely, his old Harvard Law School buddy Rep. Arthur Davis (D-AL) is waiting the wings to be his disignee instead of Holder. Why else would Obama have asked for the FBI to do a background check on Davis, and why else would Davis agree to do it? There isn't another appointment left open that Davis would be willing to trade a safe House seat for other than to be A.G.?

I think Obama's people are considering weather to cut Holder loose and go with Davis, and whether the risks of having a nasty confirmation fight outweigh the risk of changing nominees.

ever to true to Brown

Since my boss is stuck in Twin Falls or some place and the office shut down at 4, I decided to head home early and read the backlog of magazines.

I started to read about Thomas Tamm, one of the whistle blowers on the NSA's illegal wiretapping that eventually hit the New York Times and three things jumped out at me:

1. I have walked by the payphone Tamm used to call the Times many times, and I hope in the future it will become as famous as the Watergate landmarks of Washington, or the Hilton where Reagan was shot.


2. While the FBI may be terrible at stopping terrorist attacks, or finding the anthrax mailer, they are terrific at making your life miserable in hopes that you will confess and they can be done with it.



3. Tamm himself, after graduating from Brown University in 1974 and Georgetown Law three years later, chose a different path in law enforcement.

   I am proud to say I am a fellow alumnus.

Spiting his face

Can you believe that we are half way through December? It seems there is not enough time in the day to do all of the things I need to do, at work and at home. And the things I used to do, like post to this blog, have unfortunately fallen by the wayside. So while I haven't as much time as I would like to digest the day's news and commentary, one thing I read recently struck me:

Jason Chaffetz is determined to continue the legacy of Chris Cannon by being as overly partisan and embarrassing to his state and constituents as Cannon was. Case in point: Utah's mythical 4th seat.

[Caffetz] is breaking with the rest of the state's delegation by saying he opposes a plan that would give Utah a fourth seat in the House and add a seat for the District of Columbia.

Republican Jason Chaffetz says he's opposed to the bill because he believes giving Washington, D.C. full voting rights in the House is unconstitutional.

Jason cares more about continuing to disenfranchise overwhelmingly Democratic and not coincidentally overwhelmingly African-American D.C. than he cares about increasing his state's power in the House. Is he worried that Jim Matheson would take one seat and a Becker/Corroon-type would take the lean-Dem seat?

We all know the constitutionality argument is a smokescreen for something else. Jason's ideological peers are the same congress-critters that voted to intervene in a lawsuit between the husband and parents of a brain-dead woman, the same ones that voted for the Military Commissions Act (which stripped detainees of the writ of Habeas Corpus without a state of civil war or invasion), the same ones that looked the other way or promoted bills that would condone or allow the U.S. government to torture people (in clear violation of signed treaties, which have equal force as the constitution itself).

So why cut off another seat to spite your state? To me, no other explanation makes sense besides the partisan one: if D.C. gets a seat, that is one more liberal Democrat in the House. He probably figures that Utah will get that seat in 4 years anyway, so why give up a seat to D.C.? How about because now the Democrats can give D.C. its seat without giving Utah one? Or making D.C. a state, and therefore also creating 2 more Democratic senators?

The news out of Minnesota sounds like Al Franken has a pretty good chance of pulling out a narrow victory, making 59 members of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate (including Lieberman and Sanders). All you need therefore is one scared GOP senator to vote with you to overcome cloture and the Dems could pass it even with a filibuster threat.

And there are plenty of those. Specter looks like he will get serious challenges from the left and right, if he decides to stick around (he has stage 4 Hodgkins's Disease)...and Pennslyvannia has gone Democratic since 1992. There are numerous other senators in bluing states that could be picked off on an issue by issue basis.

Jason, in short, is a freshman GOP House member during worst time to be a conservative partisan-hack back bencher. But he seems determined to stay as clueless as Cannon.

all over but the constitutional amendments

Over half the states in the union (29) have articles in their state constitutions banning gay marriage, including, most recently, California. Arizona was the only state in which such an amendment actually failed any time it proposed, but then it passed this year. Only two states allow actual marriages (Connecticut and Massachusetts) and a handful more allow civil unions for same-sex couples. So why are gay rights advocates feeling positive? Time, in short, is on their side.

The GLAAD poll -- conducted the week after voters outlawed gay marriage in California, Arizona and Florida -- shows that majorities of U.S. adults support expanding hate-crime laws to include gay people (63 percent), offering some type of legal recognition to same-sex couples (75 percent) and extending rights to fair housing and employment to gay and transgender people (51 percent). Nearly 70 percent oppose laws -- Utah has one -- that prevent gay and lesbian couples from adopting children.
...
GLAAD's [poll also found] that 47 percent of U.S. adults back gay marriage -- with 49 percent opposed (within the poll's 2 percent margin of error).

So that means that people alive today are becoming more and more tolerant of gay rights in general, but gay marriage itself is still off on the horizon.

Results, drawn from the Big Ten Battleground Poll, indicate that support for gay marriage will get a notable boost if the state's high court rules in favor of it. And, a majority of Iowa voters under age 30 are already in favor of gay marriage, suggesting that support for it could grow as time goes on.

Battleground polls were conducted Oct. 19-22[, 2008] in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota, home to the 11 universities in the Big Ten Conference. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent.

I remember seeing similar polling in Massachusetts in 2003 after Goodridge came down. The majority of younger voters supported gay marriage, their parents' generation was split, and their grandparents' generation was overwhelmingly opposed.

In sum, the culture wars are for all practical purposes over and those dirty hippies have won. While supporters of the mythical 1950s style Ozzie and Harriet family values might score victories now, their supporters are shrinking--both the number of evangelicals are shrinking as well as those left of the Greatest Generation. This is why supporters of such bans seek constitutional amendments and not legislation, not because they fear the courts (which they could pack via political victories in legislative and gubernatorial races), but because constitutional amendments are, in theory, more permanent and more difficult to undo.

But I fully expect that in coming years all this will rapidly change in favor of gay rights, including the right to marry. When this tipping point will occur, I cannot say, but anywhere from 5-20 years from now, I predict that gay people will be marrying everywhere...yes, even in Utah.

No shame

There's a joke I heard recently: two LDS missioniaries go in for a visit with a family. After a while, the hostess remarks that the
rumors aren't true, Mormons don't have horns. "No, we just saw them down," says Elder Smith. "Go ahead, feel," he says, leaning his head towards her. "I don't feel nothin'," she remarks. "Not even a little embarressed?" Asks Elder Smith.

OK that was a long windup to the point of this post: the shameless hipocrisy of ex-Rep. Enid Greene Waldholtz Mickelson. Enid came out of hiding to denounce Obama's AG designate Eric Holder as a "lawbreaking opportunist". This from a woman who violated FEC regulations by dumping over a million dollars of illegal funds to get elected, only to blame her husband and cry on national TV when she got caught (and prosecuted by Holder). "Ms. Kettle, may I introduce you to Mr. Pott? ... Oh I see you've met already."

"I think [Holder] has absolutely no moral or ethical integrity and shouldn't be attorney general," Enid told the Tribune's Ed board. She has to oblivious, right? No, she is anything but dumb, which is why the whole Joe-did-this-behind-my-back-he-tricked-me defense is remains laughable today. I mean, even Republican hack Hatch supports Holders nomination.

I had to share this

So I am taking a break from work (that's right, I have worked several hours EVERY DAY this week and I know that will also include tomorrow) to eat dinner and watch some TV. One of my favorite shows is Ace of Cakes and during the commercials I saw this gem:

(H/T Informerical-Hell.com)


Yes, you too can look like a Druid for just $19.95 plus shipping and handling. Do people really get deathly cold when they want to use the phone AND be under a blanket? Call me crazy, but to me, a "blanket with sleeves" is really just a robe that opens in the back like a nightgown. And seriously, what is up with commercials and the use of black and white as parade of horribles?

It has become so cliche now and I wonder why people think it is so effective. Aren't black and white TV shows and movies supposed to make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Then why are people always wrenching their backs, shaking their heads, and having trouble opening jars in black and white? Just asking.

The Word

"In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." --John 1:1

This is arguably the most famous opening lines ever, and for ranks above the lines for "A tale of two cities." Why?

For since its inception, humans have revered their most brilliant invention: writing. The written word is so powerful that Jesus used it to thwart the devil himself in his battle against Satan. The phrase "for it is written" is one of the most oft occurring phrase in the bible for a reason. The word is the basis of differentiation between us and other animals.

The U.S. was founded on the power of the written word. The Founders placed their new government in the hands of a piece of parchment they wrote on, not a royal family, or army as every person had before then. If you haven't yet, go visit the National Archives the next time you visit D.C. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights are placed on a secular alter for all to worship and view behind protective "glass."

The rule of law is not just a concept but a possibility due to the written word. It is reason I have been able to learn from those who came a millennium before me and become an attorney. It is the reason I work so hard and conversely why I am able to provide for my family despite my inability to repair or build almost anything physical. I owe my life, livelihood, and this blog to the written word.

So while you might not see many new words on this blog in the foreseeable future, the Word remains with God and the Word is God. Have a blessed Thanksgiving everyone!

politcal capital at the capitol

I am not surprised that Chris Buttars and the NRA can sink anything in the legislature out of ignorant vindictiveness. But here's what surprises me: Gov. Jon Huntsman is very weak.

In case you forgot, two weeks ago Huntsman won by the biggest margin of any governor up for election this year. He should have clout with the legislature like President-elect Obama supposedly has with Congress. Then again, Obama is not spending any of it on things like punishing Joe Lieberman for disparaging him for two years (and campaigning against him and a number of other Senate Democrats). So did Huntsman let Hilder let his Court of Appeals nominee twist in the wind? Did he see the writing on the wall?

Attorneys of all ideological stripes supported Hilder because he is a good, ethical judge and not anti-gun or whatever crap his detractors claimed he was. I have had occasion to go before him, hear him at CLE events, and talk to him on a personal level and you could have added me to the list of supporters.

Hilder was a pawn in a political show of force by the intransigent legislature heck-bent (this is Utah after all) in stymieing the will of the people. This time it was the NRA, next time it could be the culture warriors or any other member of the parade of horribles that make up their the lobbyist and wingnut base of supporters.

Missing in action

So where have I been? I started my new job on Monday. And while
people are super nice, helpfull and patient with me, I feel totally
overwelmed and lost.

As for my thoughts on the day's news, the LDS Church is turning into
the fall guy for the blowback on the passage of prop 8. Yet this
won't earn them any respect with Evangelicals or conservative
Catholics.

And Obama's choices thus far as underwhelming as his pick of Biden.
Change will be gradual, it seems.

--
Sent from my mobile device

why lawyers should dominate the legislature

...and why they don't.

The Odgen Standard-Examiner published a letter to the editor that uses his irrational fear to write a letter that is out of touch with reality:

Most of us know that a one-party system is not in the best interests of the claimed democracy. But, we also know that one profession, Utah's legal profession, has played the dominate rule in two branches of our government. Article 5 of the Utah Constitution pays heed to the domination of two branches at the same time.

All judges are lawyers, all prosecutors are lawyers, all public defenders are lawyers.

If we start counting the lawyers in the Legislature, we will see another domination. Not a one-political party, but certainly a one-profession legislative and judicial system.

While the majority of the founders of the U.S. Constitution were lawyers, less than ten percent of legislators are attorneys. That's less than Democrats.

Time and time again, the legislature passes a bill that is so poorly written that the result is contrary to the intent. Folks like Sen. Chris Buttars, who expresses a clear disdain for judges that do anything against his personal interests (and not just his ideology). While there are staff attorneys and some attorneys in the legislature, it appears they are often ignored. I can't tell you how many times I would listen to a legislative history where someone like Sen. Scott McCoy is trying to warn his colleagues of the possible unintended consequences of what they are about to pass. Or where the legislature completely fails to discuss some ambgibous passage that might help those trying to interpret it.

Lawyers are not all ambulance chasers like Siegfried & Jensen. They are trained not to be hacks (contrary to popular belief) but to be capable of both seeing both sides of an issue and being able to persuade others that their suggestion is the better course of action. Shouldn't that be the description of a legislator?

still up to their old ways

I was hopeful that the loss of Speaker Curtis would be a wake up call to Utah Legislators, not only to pursue serious ethics reform in a state that is rated at the bottom of by watchdog groups, but also to change the overall bully mentality that the legislative branch has towards potential political rivals, not just the Rocky Andersons but also the Jon Huntsmans.

On the plus side,ethics reform seems like it will actually happen next February, but of course, the devil can sneak into the details. However I was disheartened to read this:

Some local government officials are alarmed over newly proposed legislation that would block or severely restrict agencies with appointed boards from raising property taxes.
Sam Dickson, manager with the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District, said one version of the bill would essentially wipe out the district's ability to exist. That version would halt a non-elected board's ability to levy taxes for any new projects after 2010.
He also worried about an alternate version that would require a public vote for any tax increase.
"We're a forgotten entity in November," Dickson said. "If you have an election in July, it might help. But we don't have a lot of cheerleaders - we don't have the cute little animals the zoo can put out there."
The bill, unveiled Wednesday during a meeting of the Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee, is aimed at increasing transparency in property-tax issues and holding officials accountable, said panel chairman Sen. Wayne Niederhauser.
"I would like to see us craft something in legislation that would bring the accountability but yet not hurt the long-term issues that come with special districts," Niederhauser said.
Richard Bay, the general manager of the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, said that taxpayers could end up paying more for services such as water if special districts lose their ability to increase taxes.

While the buzzwords are there (transparency, accountability), the overall aim is to take power away from local governmental entities and concentrate power in the hands of the legislature so that they get to decide who wins and loses. Or in this case, who gets West Nile Virus or clean water. Frankly, I just don't trust anyone from the Utah County or Sandy machines to do the right thing in terms of looking at the bigger picture and looking out for more than just their friends.

Nor should all Utahns have to dole out their hard earned tax dollars for things better left to the decisionmaking process of local governments (cough RSL stadium cough cough). And sure, these taxing decisions should be made by elected officials who will have to face the music from voters if they go too far, but those officials should be those closest to the issue at hand, and not those insulated from the will of the voters ala the legislature.

this week's sign

One of my favorite bits by Sports Illustrated was the "This week's sign that the apocalypse is upon us" ... while generally it was an athlete doing/saying something mindbogglingly stupid, it was consistently a good read.

Anyway, that is what popped into my head (into my head and out into my blog dear readers) when I read this:

Billy Ray Cyrus and his daughter Miley, have made it clear that there is an open invitation to the girls [Sasha and Malia Obama] to appear as guests [on "Hannah Montana"] whenever they would like. The two Obama girls have expressed interest in entering showbiz one day, and Cyrus has said that they are "kind of like me before I started my own career. You are kind of put in it because [of] their dad and because of my dad."

Yes, because the Obama girls make hundreds of millions selling jammies at Target with their likenesses on them made by children in China. Thier dad becoming the first black president is just like your dad being a one hit wonder. And of course, Miley Cyrus has Secret Service protection because people want to kidnap her and hold her ransom, and other violent acts including kill her. ... OK well that last one might be true.


Michelle and Barack, please put your feet down on this one. I can't think of a single pre-teen girl that wouldn't want to do this, but if you want them to "keep it real" and for it all to "not go to their heads," I think shooting this one down tops the list.

trying to return the hype

Two commenters took issue with my contention in the previous post that a) Congressman Chaffetz thinks Obama is a socialist and b) that Chaffetz would be wrong to think so if he so believed.

Arc first states that there is a difference between declaring oneself to being a bulwark against socialist tendencies and believing the President-elect (or his party which controls congress) has socialist tendencies. But why would one feel the need to make such a declaration on election night if they weren't concerned about such tendencies (or believed that his constituents were so concerned)? Arc also gave me some sort of definition of socialism that seems more like the Social Democracies of Europe. But when McCain-Palin talked about "socialism," they also talked about "spreading the wealth" and "Marxism." Clearly, this means that they were talking about socialism in the sense of Marx-Engels, not Angela Merkel. Wikipedia defines socialism as "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."

To answer Trenton's comment as to why I don't think Obama is socialist, it is because there is no evidence in his proposals that he wants to collective own or administer anything the government doesn't already own/administer. Even arguably the most "socialist" policy proposal of Barack Obama, his health care plan is pretty minimal in terms of even social democracies. His proposed legislation (which won't be enacted into law because Congress will certainly change it significantly) would mandate health care for children, and give all adult Americans and their employers the ability to buy into the federal employee health care plan. There is also a bunch of stuff for reducing health care costs and ridding the insurance companies the power to exclude/deny coverage for folks with "pre-existing conditions."

It seems that George W. Bush and the 110th Congress are much more "socialist" when they passed a bill that went about buying stocks in financial companies under the $700 billion bailout package. And before that, when Bush had a Republican Congress to work with, Dubya expanded the government more any other president in history, yes even more that those great "socialist" presidents FDR and LBJ. You had prescription drug coverage, as well as a new federal agency that was corrupt and incompetent (the Department of Homeland Security). And like real communist countries from the 20th century, the Bush Administration featured jobs for incompetent party loyalists, torture, secret prisons, law enforcement agencies that were used political tools, and intelligence agencies used to spy on its own citizens.

The purpose of all governments is to use tax dollars and other revenues to make the lives better for people living in that jurisdiction. That means that some people will "get back" more spending towards things that help them than they gave to the government, but that is the price we pay for a civilized society that cares about those otherwise under-priviledged in their city/county/state/country. A rising tide should lift all boats, even if that means the yachts have to pull the dingies along. To quote that commie Adam Smith:

The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. The expense of government of a great nation is like the expense of management of to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.

In short, if Obama is a socialist, then so is the father of capitalism.

buying the hype

Towards the end, even John McCain admitted he didn't think Obama was a Socialist. Apparently, our BYU kicker turned Congressman didn't get the memo.

"As he [Obama] tries to bring us closer to socialism," Chaffetz warned, "I will be a strong voice in opposition."

I guess my question "Chaffetz couldn't be any dumber than Chris Cannon, right?" has already been answered. Sad really. Either that or he thinks constituents are rubes.

A Thousand words

(Photo Credit: April Winchell. Final Obama rally in Manassas, VA, November 3, 2008)
[H/T Erza Klein]

We believed in change

And without Utah's help, Obama won by as much as 7 percent nationally (there are 3 million outstanding ballots in California alone, which could change the outcome in a congressional race and the gay marriage proposition) as well as an overwhelming majority of the electoral college.

My impressions of last night:

1. When Obama was projected as the winner, and we saw shot after shot of people partying in the streets, beaming faces, teary happy faces, to me it looked like New Year's Eve parties in Times Square, and not an election. The country is ready for a change and eager to have Obama start.


2. Every network rounded up their black correspondents and random black preachers, put them in front of the TV and asked them what Obama's victory meant for them and their family. Ironically, doing this was a wee bit racist ("You're black, right Frank? You must be proud!"). Some moments were moving though.


3. In the end, the 1999-2002 McCain showed up to give his concession speech. It was a classy way to end his campaign that was so un-classy (especially his supporters who booed when McCain mentioned Obama's name). He genuinely seemed to want to help Obama be as legitimate a leader as possible and it almost appeared that he was contemplating caucusing with the Dems. The McCain redemption tour started last night 11:00 Eastern


4. Joe Biden is damned lucky Obama picked him. Really, it wouldn't have mattered who Obama picked among the safe bets--AKA not a Sarah Palin equivalent--for his VP. Biden tried his hardest to screw it up for Obama by saying trademarked dumb things.


5. If you thought your election watching party was lame, George W. Bush holled himself up in the White House to watch. That must have been less fun than a funeral.

I am going to try to get some sleep one these days, but boy that was fun to watch for a change.

change begins with us

Mitt Romney said it about Republicans but think it applies to all Americans in all 50 states. Something like 80 percent of us think the country is on the wrong track. The promise of America and the idea of America have been sullied the last 8 years.

The reason millions of Americans are waiting in lines to vote today is because of that. This is the poem that popped into my head that really seems to fit the day:

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today--O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home--
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay--
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain--
All, all the stretch of these great green states--
And make America again!

--Langston Hughes

(Photo Credit: Jim Lo Scalzo for The New York Times)
"Voters lined up before dawn in Nottaway Park in Vienna, Va., to cast their ballots."

voting Dem will INCREASE Utah's clout

I know it sounds counter intuitive. One of the most Republican states in the union would be aided by Democrats gaining more votes in Congress (and the White House). But the scenario goes like this:

"The Democrats will be looking for a series of things they can do really quickly," says Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, the measure's biggest proponent. Party leaders will want to pass popular legislation that barely missed approval in the last Congress, he says.
"We've been trying to make the case that D.C. voting rights qualify across the board," says Zherka.
House leadership isn't ready to outline its agenda for the new Congress just yet, but House Leader Steny Hoyer's office says voting rights for the district are still a priority for Hoyer and he's in discussions on how best to proceed with the bill.
House passage seems a given since that body approved the legislation in 2007 by a large margin. The bill fell short on its way toward final passage by three votes in the Senate, but it is expected to gain supporters in the next session.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is a co-sponsor of the Senate legislation on the DC Voting Rights Act and supported the bill in the Senate. Despite earlier indications of his support, Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted against the bill.

Most estimates are that Democrats will pick up 7-8 seats in the Senate (and 9 if Georgia goes into a runoff and somehow Jim Martin pulls it out in December with the help of a President-elect Obama), and somewhere between 25 and 30 seats in the House. And since Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill, whereas McCain (in one of the few votes he showed up for) voted against it, it seems safe to assume that Obama would sign such a bill into law, while McCain would veto it.

To refresh your memory, the bill would give Utah a 4th seat and DC a vote in the House. Come 2012, Utah would keep its seat (and maybe pick up another one depending on the demographic trends). The Utah legislature has already voted on a map that would unite West Valley with Park City to create as safe a Democratic seat as possible in Utah. If I was advising Jim Matheson, I would suggest he let an up and comer take that seat and go for the jugular and run against Chaffetz (or Bishop) in 2010. With 4 seats, especially if two are held by Democrats--the party that looks to be in control for the foreseeable future, Utah will have more power in DC to get things done that the state wants (light rail funding for instance) as it rapidly grows in the next decade.

Only one more day until the election. I voted early and did NOT vote straight ticket, voting for the first time in my life for candidates from another party. There were some candidates that did not earn my vote and so I either voted for the other candidate or chose to abstain from that race. No matter who you support or where you live, make your voice be heard and VOTE. Then make sure your friends and family vote. In 2004, a guy raced around town shuttling his mom and sister to the polls to vote in Ohio, just getting mom in before the polls closed. While it didn't effect the outcome of federal races, a local judge won because of one guy's efforts. Your vote does count. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

Change IS coming to Utah, part drei

Can you feel it in the air? No it is not the freakish, man-made-climate-changed weather that I am talking about, but rather change.

A recent Mason-Dixon poll commissioned by The Salt Lake Tribune shows that 66 percent of likely voters had concerns about ethics violations on Utah's Capitol Hill. The same percentage said they support outlawing abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the mother's life or bodily function.

That's right serious ethics reform is as popular as banning abortion in this pro-life state. This statistic is yet another data point in support of my thesis that incumbents will fall on Tuesday in Utah.

Now I can't or won't predict which one it will be (Speaker Curtis? Senator Walker? Senator Buttars? Rep. Hughes? Rep. Monsen?) But there sure are ones that won't be missed.

Rendell, who is challenging Sen. Chris Buttars, tried to beat back a whisper campaign he said suggested the husband of 25 years and father is a stooge of the gay-rights crowd and might be gay himself.
"That's what he says I'm saying," said Buttars, who insists it's not true. "I do believe he has the total support of the gay community."

Seriously, Buttars has so many paranoid delusions that it is hard to keep track. Now for the party hacks predictions (totally non-biased I am sure):

Todd Taylor, executive director of the Utah Democratic Party, is predicting an eight-seat pickup in the Utah Legislature this year - the Senate seats held by Buttars and Sen. Carlene Walker, and six or more in the House, including the seats held by House Speaker Greg Curtis and Rep. Greg Hughes, head of the Conservative Caucus.
"We think it's a good year, between what's going on nationally and the local issues that have popped up," Taylor said. "I think it has to do mostly with the nature of the Republicans who are representing those areas [who] are arrogant and out of touch with Utah voters."
Utah Republican Party Chairman Stan Lockhart says he's confident Republicans represent the values of Utah voters and the GOP will do well at the ballot box.

You remember Mr. Lockhart? He's the guy who broke party rules to get his daughter seated as a delegate\. Of course, those two ideas pedaled in the article are not mutually exclusive. Given the number of races, the Dems could pick up 8 seats and the GOP would still obviously still do very well overall.