Categories
Local State

Davis County GOP Convention

I wanted to share a few thoughts from the Davis County Republican Party convention from Saturday. It was fun for me as the first time I have attended such a convention with the ability to vote. Because I have spent so much energy researching and considering the Senate race and other races that will be decided at the state convention (such as my Utah House district) I did not feel as prepared for this convention as I would have felt if it had been the state convention this weekend. Thankfully I had some good friends there who were better prepared. After talking with them I was able to make decisions on races where I felt under-informed before (I’m sure we did not all vote alike) and to feel even more confident in my choices on the races where I had felt prepared and informed.

I was mildly impressed with the statistic that 97.7% of delegates made it to the convention but considering that they (we) were elected only 18 days ago I would consider anything under 95% to be disappointing. I can’t wait to see the attendance at next year’s convention. Then I would be pleasantly surprised if we got 75% attendance.

I have come to the conclusion (again) that conventions could operate more quickly if we could reduce the amount of generic campaigning such as having current officeholders speak if they have nothing more to say than we are fed up with the actions of the other party and we’re going to take back the presidency/House/Senate/governorship/state legislature (whichever ones apply). We could also save time by skipping the speeches that say nothing more than give ourselves a pat on the back for the great things we have done in {whichever of the above we control currently}. (That might also save some hospital bills.) For example, my reaction when Orrin Hatch spoke was that even when he said the rift things he completely failed to convince me that he cared about anything more than getting to stay in the Senate.

If all speeches were focused on “here’s what we are or should be working on going forward” the time would be more valuably spent.

Categories
life State

An Example of Constituent Communication

Two months ago I wrote about my newly solidified position on why we should abolish earmarks. As part of that, I criticized Rep. Rob Bishop and his office for failing to even acknowledge two questions on the subject that I sent the congessman now nearly a year ago.

Somehow my post came to his attention and Rep. Bishop felt that he was being unfairly maligned as his staff could find no record of my questions getting to their office. At some point (I suspect recently) Rep. Bishop discovered that they had received my questions and considered them important (or unique) enough to warrant an individual response instead of a stock answer. The questions were given to the congressman himself and then somehow they slipped through the cracks and been buried. When he discovered his mistake Rep. Bishop took it upon himself to track down my phone number (and it’s not an easy task to sort through the many David Miller’s out there) and offer his apologies and a personal response to my questions.

I was quite surprised when I received his call Wednesday evening and I appreciated very much the time he took to speak with me. His was not some simple two minute call to appologize and share his position on earmarks in answer to my questions. I stead he took the time to listen to my thoughts and enegage in a full conversation until I was satisfied that I was being heard. He did not even attempt to change my opinion on those points where we do not share a common perspective but I finished the phone call confident that we share the same overall goal on the subject of earmarks and that he understands the reasons I think earmarks should become a thing of the past.

Thank you Rep. Bishop. You deserve as public an acknowledgement as the criticism I offered before.

Categories
Local State

Tasks for State Delegates

Heading into the last few days before the precinct caucus meetings I feel that it is important to acknowledge that state delegates have more to do than simply vote for the senate candidate of their choice at the convention. I know that my focus here has been on that race and it seems that many other people focus primarily there. I can honstly say that only the various senate campaigns seem to be making a large push to get their supporters to run as delegates.

At the caucus meetings it is important for those running for state delegate positions (and those who are voting for delegates), regardless of which senate candidate they may favor, to keep in mind that delegates have more to do than pick and support a senate candidate. For example, in my precinct there are three offices that have intra-party challenges (assuming nobody files to run for the Republican nomination against Rob Bishop today):

  • Governor — Gary Herbert, Richard Martin, and “SuperDell” Schanze
  • U.S. Senate — Bob Bennett, Tim Bridgewater, David Chiu, Cherilyn Eagar, Leonard Fabiano, and Mike Lee
  • House District 20 — Becky Edwards, Chet Loftis, and D J Schanz

Interestingly the incumbent is alphabetically first in each of those races.

All caucus attendees need to keep in mind that a state delegate must attend to each of the races, not just the one they are most interested in. We may give more weight to the race that we are most concerned with but we must realize that the position encompasses all the races.

Categories
culture Local State

Demanding Accountability

With Kevin Garn resigning, the possibility of closure for the legislature over this sad story is within sight. By resigning promptly Rep. Garn has demonstrated greater wisdom than some of his colleagues who facilitated this public circus by allowing this to be aired from the chamber floor and then giving him a standing ovation.

Out of respect for the seriousness of this situation and the honor that should prevail within the elective body this should have been handled somwhere other than the floor of the house. Regardless of where the public announcement was made it should not have been followed with applause for any reason. (I might make an exception if he had chosen to announce his resignation in the same prepared statement.) I’m not saying that his colleagues should have publicly castigated him when he made the announcement but there was nothing to applaud in his admission of shameful past actions.

I believe that anyone who participated in that inappropriate applause should publicly explain their participation. Anyone who does not do so in the next few days should face at least a token opposition in the primaries by an opponent who will demand an explanation of that action. There are only two possible explanations: “I was foolishly caught up in the crowd” or “I was coerced to join in the applause.” Either reason should be publicly acknowledged.

I questioned my own representative relative to what happened and her explanation was in line with “it was a reaction to very surprising news.” In her own words she said:

At that time, his statement was so out of context for what we were expecting to hear . . . My personal reaction at that initial moment of hearing the 2 minute statement was thinking that while his political career was most likely over, 1) that the forthright nature of the confession was admirable and courageous, 2) the work he had done as a legislator was effective . . . and 3) he had been a real support to me on several tough issues this session. Those 3 thoughts, combined with the fact that in the House we have a propensity to stand and clap for everything, led to that reaction from all of us. Also, when Speaker Clark finished his statement it was an invitation to stand and support our colleague. There was no condoning or justification or excusing the behavior included in the statement, however.

Now, understand, the standing/clapping is a very different issue than condoning the initial behavior . . .

However, I can see how inappropriate the clapping was and the message that it sends to the public. It is confusing and misleading at best and ultimately was the wrong reaction to a wrong venue for a significant statement such as this. (From private email correspondence—used with permission.)

I consider that to be a reasonable explanation especially in light of a statement she made later that as more information has become available she is very disturbed by the behavior.

I think it is as important for the public to be conscious of how much more we know now than was public when his statement was read as it is for public officials (now and in the future) to recognize that a very measured public response is always in order (whether in drafting laws or in supporting a colleague) because the public will still see their initial response after more information is available.

Categories
State

Public Office and Private Morality


photo credit: aurélien.

Just to be clear from the beginning, this topic is inspired by the Kevin Garn story and while I will refer to that story specifically everything I say is meant to apply to any matters of the private morality of a public official.

First, I would like to say that Rep. Garn seems to be dealing with this in the best way he knows how. Second, I agree with this comment on Holly’s site saying that we should:

hold our elected officials to the highest moral and ethical standards

Having said those things, I don’t believe that Rep. Garn’s problem is any of my business because he is not my representative. If he were my representative that would be another story.

Categories
State

Senator Cook

In case anyone has forgotten (or perhaps you simply missed this blip of news) Merrill Cook is running to replace Bob Bennett in the U.S. Senate. If you happen to be among the forgetful or uninformed you are hereby unequivocally forgiven based on the fact that Mr. Cook made his announcement (at the same time as James Williams abandoned his bid) and then promptly disappeared from the public eye.

If this is typical of his many previous campaigns it is a wonder that he was ever elected to anything and no wonder that he lost so many races he ran in. More importantly, if this is any indicaion of how he operates then he has no business being a legislative aid in Washington, let alone a senator. His rightful place in the capital could be nothing more than “tourist” if this disappearing act is any indicator. So far it appears that every single candidate is working harder than Mr. Cook despite the fact that every one of them had a headstart.

Categories
State

Meet the Candidates

Ben Horsley, a friend and candidate for House District 19 this year, put together a meet the candidates event as part of his campaign on Saturday at Bountiful City Hall. This was not a chance to meet the candidates for District 19 (where I don’t live anyway but if I did I’d be voting for him) but the candidates for U.S. Senate. It included all the Republican Candidates as well as other political figures in Utah (most prominently Rob Bishop and Mark Shurtleff). Although I have been interested in this race for over a year and thus have been closely studying the candidates for a long time I had not previously met Tim Bridgewater or James Williams – I could hardly pass up such a great opportunity right in my own back yard (so to speak). Thanks Ben!

Having studied the candidate previously I had some idea of my order of preference, but I really enjoyed this debate as it allowed me to really get things sorted out. Here’s my order of preference:

1. Mike Lee – I don’t think that surprises anyone considering I already publicly endorsed him but after hearing him with all the other candidates together I am that much more confident that he should be our Senator come next year.

2. Tim Bridgewater – I really like Tim overall. I think he’d make a decent senator – I just think that Mike would be better at filling the Constitutional duties of a senator.

3. (tie) Laura Bridgewater – she sat in for her husband for the first bit of the debate as he was running late and she had a good grasp of what our next senator should be and do – she’d be a great support to Tim if he were elected.

3. (tie) Sharon Lee – I’ve heard her speak before and believe she is a good support for Mike. I hadn’t thought to rank her among the candidates until I saw Mrs. Bridgewater in her husband’s place among the candidates but I think either of those two spouses would be better than the other candidates.

5. (tie) Bob Bennett – Despite his failings Bennett is not the worst choice available to us in this campaign. Like a typical Washington insider he is so busy viewing everything as “extremely complicated” that he seems to have lost sight of most of the simple facts that should be informing our complicated decisions.

5. (tie) James Williams – I had high hopes for James. I had heard really good things about him from people attending other debates, but after listening to him I am forced to conclude that he is a good and well-intentioned man who is out of his depth politically. Philosophically he has good principles, but I don’t believe that he would be an effective force at representing those principles or the people of Utah.

7. Cherilyn Eagar – I remember being excited about the possibilities when I started investigating her as a candidate, but seeing her in a debate showed her as combative, passionate, and disrespectful. If I wanted someone like that there must be 20 other states I could move to where I would have two such Senators in place already. She argues that having a conservative woman in the Senate would be a powerful thing – I’m sure that’s true, but I’ve already named two other conservative women from Utah who would make better senators.

Categories
State technology

Evolving News

It’s interesting to watch as nothing turns into a news story. Here’s the roundup of one such process from this week.

Holly Richardson writes about Tim Bridgewater’s momentum. When she talks about his fund raising she doesn’t mention that over 80% of it was a loan to himself. Tim likes the coverage (naturally) and the next day he posts her article on his RedState diary. Tim gave all the proper attribution and everything – I’m not trying to accuse him of plagiarism. The day after that Thomas Burr writes that “Holly Richardson is boosting Tim Bridgewater’s campaign” over at RedState. Whether it was an oversight or a calculated move is open for speculation, but the fact is that Holly didn’t promote Tim over at RedState – unless she did so under Tim’s name. Finally, Tim gets to tweet about the article by Thomas Burr which declares how beneficial Holly’s support is.

So with a couple of nudges from Tim this little game of Chinese whispers has produced, with a little invented fact here (Holly promoting Tim on RedState) and a little omitted fact there (Tim providing almost all his own campaign funding), almost a week’s worth of positive coverage.

The point here is not to accuse Tim of anything untoward – it is to illustrate the cycle of coverage growing in a vacuum. Tim did nothing this week (at least nothing to garner more coverage in those articles) and yet he got a four days of positive news from a topic (fund raising numbers) that seemed to have died before Holly’s post.

Categories
State

Endorsing Mike Lee

Mike Lee for Senate

Last night I finally got to meet Mike Lee in person. I had been looking forward to the opportunity for a number of reasons. As long as I have been interested in this Senate race I have been carefully looking at the many candidates (past and present). Even before Mike entered the race I had met almost every candidate seeking this seat and, despite how promising a few of them initially looked, I had found many that I could not endorse and none that I was comfortable endorsing. In fact, by the time Mike announced his intention to run I was almost ready to support him by default (there was only one other candidate I had not completely ruled out by then).

After meeting Mike last night and talking to him, asking a few questions and listening as he answered the questions of a few other people, I came away knowing that this was a candidate I could endorse as completely and freely as I would endorse myself if I were a candidate for some office. Mike Lee is the right candidate for this position. He has the knowledge and the capacity to fill this office well and he is in the race for the right reasons. In fact, as I talked to him I discovered that he is in the race for the exact same reason that I have been so interested in this race for so long.

My plan now is to go out and do everything I can to make sure that I don’t have to try making another endorsement as the field of candidates is whittled down. I plan to still be cheering Mike on in December.

Categories
State

Taxes: Supply vs Demand

The bulk of the discussion at the legislative town hall meeting last week was focused on fiscal issues of one kind or another. One thing that was briefly touched on was the potential return of sales tax on unprepared food. I have always been a fan of not having that tax, because of its supposedly regressive nature and because unprepared food is generally what I spend my money on, and I see no reason to volunteer for higher taxes on it. A couple of statements in that brief discussion got my brain thinking about some different aspects of tax policy.

One statement that someone made was that when the tax on unprepared food was eliminated the stores simply raised their prices accordingly so that the savings went into their pockets rather than taxpayers. That didn’t strike me as accurate, but even if it was accurate it is no excuse to reinstate the tax – the stores would let consumers absorb the taxes on the now higher prices rather than lower the price to accommodate the tax.

Sen. Liljenquist mentioned that people don’t tend to buy luxury items in down economies. When combined with the fact that our expectations fo government tend to increase in down economies I saw why governments tend to grow endlessly – there is generally an inverse relationship between our demand for government services and our ability to pay for them. When times are tough we demand more and politicians do their best to oblige us. When times are good we tend to expand government in areas that were not previously considered crucial by eating into any taxes that exceed our recession-limited budgets. When times become lean again the once-discretionary programs are viewed as essential and demand greater sacrifice from citizens to maintain the programs that would have been considered outrageous in the previous downturn.

From this perspective it makes more sense to favor regressive or at least “fair” tax schemes where those with the least ability to pay also have a vested interest in the tax rates so that they are less likely to get extravagant when times are generally better and so that the tax revenue is generally more stable. It is simply foolish to base our most essential services on revenue sources that are unavailable when the services are crucial.

I’m not trying to argue that luxury goods should be tax-exempt, but if they form the basis of our tax revenue for essential services we will always be in for gut-wrenching decisions whenever their is a dip in our economic outlook.