Tag: parties

Categories
Local politics

Making Logical Rules

I’m sure that Leaders of the Utah County Republican Party hoped that their policy reversal would put this stupid move on delegate email distribution behind them. They have done the right thing now and released the delegate email lists to all Republican candidates but their excuse for the original action lies somewhere between lame and pathetic.

Monnahan had promised delegates she would keep their e-mail addresses private. At the caucus meetings, leaders declared the e-mail lists would be used only for internal party business.

That was a new policy. The party had provided delegate e-mail addresses to candidates in the past. Two longtime legislative district chairmen forgot the new rule when they got the delegate e-mail lists and handed them over to the Republican candidates in their district.

I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept it as lame, but the cynic in me still holds out the possibility that it was a pathetic excuse for an underhanded attempt to swamp the challengers in the Republican primary.

Next time they want to try to save the delegates from unwanted solicitations they should write a policy that goes something like this:

  • If you are a delegate to the county convention your email address will only be given to candidates you will be choosing among at the county convention, and it will not be passed to the state party by us. If you are elected as a state delegate we will pass your email address to the state party, but not to the RNC.
  • We trust our candidates not to engage in shady practices against faithful party members whose votes they are trying to win, and we trust our delegates to be smart enough to recognize when a candidate is not fit to represent our party.
Categories
politics

Federalist No. 2

Federalist No. 2 has been a really interesting read, and I look forward to Nos. 3-5 which continue discussion of this issue of union vs separation. One of the things I find so fascinating is that I agree with the argument, that union is preferable to a looser confederation of the states such as regionalism, some of the premises are not as true in our nation today as they were in the 1780’s

. . . notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . .

Rather than a people that are united in the ways described above, more and more of our nation descends from ancestors that were not common to the Americans of the 18th century, there is a growing schizm in our language as immigrants – especially latino immigrants – cling to their native tongue rather than join in the conformance to a common language, while the majority of our citizens profess some Christian belief system that majority continues to shrink and we have expanding proportions of many belief systems even outside the Abrahamic traditions that are dominant in nearly all the world.

The lack of unity in these things is not nearly as worrisome as the recitation of what naturally happened after the First Continental Congress convened and made recommendations to the various states:

. . .the memorable Congress of 1774 . . . recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress.

This degradation of officers of government from being servants of the people to beginning to serve their own interests was noticed within a few years. How ready are we for a cleansing when there has been over two centuries for such attitudes and actions to become ingrained in the psyche of our officers of government.

Before our nation was founded, the American people were confronted with politicians advocating division:

. . . politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous (that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united), and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.

Today we have no such politicians professing that division is preferable to unity, but we have two very powerful parties that encourage us to take sides in a war against our fellow Americans. They have in common the trait of offering an us-against-them mentality to all who would enter their respective parties.

Is unity preferable to division among the people? Yes, but it need not be a union of universally held beliefs and perspectives. What we really need is a union of universally applied civility and a common striving for the good of the nation and the defense of the constitution upon which our nation is based rather than slipping to the baser instinct to pursue personal gain in the public arena and victory at all costs through the politics of division.

Categories
Local meta politics State

Party Shenanigans

I would think that people who are politically involved enough to be elected as delegates and precinct chairs for the Republican party would want to be contacted by candidates so that they could choose who they would support. That is at odds with the assertion that the Utah County Republican Party promised not to give the emails of their delegates to the candidates. The water becomes extra murkey in light of the fact that there is evidence that some candidates do appear to have those email addresses. Kip Meacham has links about this as it develops plus his own experience as a precinct chair. The story is also being followed at Out of Context. This is definitely a case where people need to keep the issue in the public eye and put pressure on the party to not interfere with a fair political process – if some candidates have the email addresses then they should be released to all Republican candidates.

If delegates do not want to hear from candidates then they should not accept the position of being delegates – but I don’t think that’s what is happening here. If candidates want to try spamming the delegates to win the primary then I think the delegates are smart enough to vote against those candidates at the convention – but I don’t think that’s what’s really happening here either. Maybe it’s my own personal bias here, but this seems like exactly the type of thing I would expect from a party that has no significant opposition (meaning another solid party to counter them) which has grown accustomed to simply dictating who will come before the citizens on the ballot for their perfunctory approval.

I sure hope to see the Utah County Democrats grow to the point that they can regularly get their candidates elected – forcing the county Republican party to stop talking and start listening. We also need to see more active Republicans like Kip who will stand up to their party and say publicly that this is unacceptable.

Categories
politics technology

Straight Party Tickets

While thinking about the importance of voting my mind led me back to a personal belief that voting a straight party ticket with one mark is a bad thing for government. I have nothing against someone choosing to cast all their votes for one party, but they should do so for each candidate – parties are not supposed to run the government, elected individuals are.

The only argument that I can imagine in favor of the straight party option on a ballot is that someone might accidentally vote for the wrong candidate when they mean to vote for candidates from a single party. Imagine that they vote D, D, D, D, D, D, R, D where that R was a candidate for the school board that they accidentally mixed up the name since there was less advertising for that race.

This is where technology can help us. Since we have already moved to touch-screen voting machines (here in Utah as well as many other places) we could change the straight party selection so that instead of casting our votes for us that selection would make the candidates from our chosen party stand out (change color, larger font – there are plenty of options) but the voter would still be expected to select the individual candidates for their votes to be cast in each race.

Categories
National politics

Sitting Out the Final Period

Seeing all the recent commentary on the Democratic Primary contest I have seen the pattern of less and less substantive discussion and more and more trash talk (by trash talk I’m not referring to the tone of the “discussion” but rather the way that it looks just like trash talk in sports – it has nothing to do about athletic ability and everything to do with getting in your opponent’s head).

Democrats have been saying for most of the primary season that they were thrilled to have such a large slate of well qualified candidates. Now that their contest has been narrowed to two candidates and no room for substantive discussion I’ve decided to quit paying attention to the primaries. Once we get into the general election I’m sure I’ll have some opinions to offer on the candidates, the issues, and the election process. Until then – I’ll focus on more local politics.

Categories
politics

Passing in the Dark

I thought it was interesting to read that Randy, at the Utah Conservative Democrat Blog, is seeing progressives among the Republicans and some rather undemocratic things among the Democrats and has begun considering the possibility of turning into a Utah Progressive Republican. This comes at the same time as I look at the big-government conservatives all over the Utah Republican party and the rising profile of blue dog Democrats and I am becoming convinced that the last thing Utah needs is another Republican.

On the federal level I am convinced that whatever party the president is from should not control both houses of Congress (possibly should not control either house) – especially for any sustained period of time (meaning not more than two years).

Categories
culture politics State

Secular Theocracy

Sometimes the truth stings – and Jeremy nailed it:

“We’ll soon have a new law (because you know that our big-government-loving governor will sign it) that will make us feel good, will give us a new source of revenue via law enforcement, and will give the finger-waggers another reason to rag on parents.”

Its not just the governor…it is all of our Republicans. These jokers stick us with more and more nanny government year in and year out yet Utahns keep going back to them.

Sorry Reach but any Republican who complains about too much paternalism in our government isn’t assigning the guy in the mirror enough of the blame. We need more libertarian minded leaders in both parties.

It used to be that I would hear people suggest that Utah is a theocracy and I would think they were just bitter because Utah is so politically resistant to secularism. Tonight I have concluded that what we have would qualify as a theocracy. It’s not a theocracy dictated by the LDS church as many would suggest (that’s what made me resist the idea for so long). Instead it is a theocracy based on an informal secular religion focused on enforcing kid- and family-friendly laws lest anyone face the possibility of making a wrong choice. While it is not dictated by the dominant faith of the state it is very palatable to many followers of that faith.

As I have watched our big-government Republican legislature I have clung to the notion that the state Republican party was out of touch with the residents of Utah and that they stayed in power because the state Democrats were too closely tied to the DNC to approach the majority of Utah citizens on some crucial issues. My new theory is that I am out of touch with the majority of Utah citizens and that most of them actually want the kind of government we have here – one that will do anything possible to “prevent” anyone from making any really bad choices (especially where children are involved), one that will solve our health care crisis since the LDS governor of Massachusetts has shown that it can be done, and one that will lead the way in fixing the global warming crisis so that they can drive everywhere they go knowing that the crisis has been averted by their wonderful government regulations.

  • RJ: That is an S.U.V; Humans ride in them because they are slowly losing their ability to walk.
  • Penny: Jeepers, its so big!
  • Lou: How many humans fit in there?
  • RJ: Usually, one.

(from Over the Hedge)

Categories
politics

Political Wrap-Around

I found Libertarians for Obama very interesting. I don’t consider myself to be a libertarian, though I have libertarian tendencies, but the points that were cited as places that Obama could score among libertarians are positions I generally agree with and I thought it was ironic that “the most liberal member of the Senate” could hold some positions that would resonate with the “anarchists” in the libertarian section of the political map.

This should serve as a reminder (as if we needed one) that the political spectrum is much more complex than a simple right/left, red/blue, republican/democrat, conservative/liberal line.

Categories
National politics

No Good Delegate Answer for DNC

With the debate over the role of super-delegates and the delegates from Florida and Michigan in choosing their nominee, the Democratic Party finds itself in a no-win situation. Without the unpleasant idea that the super-delegates might have to publicly buck the democratic primary voters to give the nomination to Senator Clinton, we would not hear the Clinton Campaign calling to have the delegates in those states that she won (Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan) seated to make the race more level.

If the party chooses not to seat delegates from those states they open the door for Republicans to attack them for not backing up their “make every vote count” rhetoric.

If they do choose to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan they face a whole range of paths to bruise themselves. First – any delegate seating will undermine the authority of the party to affect the primary schedule (that power struggle is what started this whole mess). If they choose to accept that defeat they then have to choose how to seat the delegates. They can take the existing results and hear people cry fowl who chose not to vote, or who chose to vote in the Republican primary, based on the fact that their votes would not count in the selection of the Democratic nominee. If they chose to hold new primaries in those states they have to cover the costs or persuade the states to pay for a second election and they have to choose who to allow to participate. Michigan has open primaries so they run the risk of having people vote in their new primary who already voted in the Republican primary (the reverse of what Markos advocated as Michigan arrived). If they choose to limit their primaries in any way it can only be an arbitrary line.

Interestingly, if this same eternal nomination fight were happening in the GOP most of the problems outlined above would not exist because they chose to respond to the states that abandoned the party calendar by only stripping half their delegates so the original votes can stand and represent the votes taken without undermining party authority.

When I went searching for the Daily Kos link above, I thought it was funny to discover that Markos made many of the same arguments I just made on this issue. He recommends seating the delegates from both states and splitting them 50/50 between Obama and Clinton. Why don’t we just award an extra 200 delegates for each state that obeyed the party rules with the same 50/50 split condition while we’re at it? A 50/50 split is meaningless in deciding the nominee. It expands the pool of delegates, but adding 200 delegates to the delegate count of each candidate only means that there is a larger convention. Getting 1191 delegates to win the Republican nomination is just the same as getting 2025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination – the numbers may differ, but it all comes down to who gets 50% + 1. Besides that, the 50/50 split is unenforceable – either they have a choice, or they have no vote to cast. There’s no point in inflating the numbers to say “Welcome to the convention, check your seat for a number – odds vote for Clinton, evens vote for Obama.”

Categories
politics

Round Peg, Square Hole

I could never have been called an enthusiastic supporter of John McCain, but the more I read about him the less I would like to see him as president. Everything about his life and his time in office shows him to be the embodiment of a Washington insider who feels that he is above being questioned by the unwashed masses. The funny thing about this is that I was planning to write about what I had come to believe today. Before I got to it however, I got an email with a link to an article by Mark Levin which expressed my thoughts on McCain much better.

Let’s get the largely unspoken part of this out the way first. McCain is an intemperate, stubborn individual, much like Hillary Clinton. These are not good qualities to have in a president. . . To the best of my knowledge, Romney’s ads have not been personal. He has not even mentioned the Keating-Five to counter McCain’s cheap shots. But the same cannot be said of McCain’s comments about Romney. Last night McCain, who is the putative frontrunner, resorted to a barrage of personal assaults on Romney that reflect more on the man making them than the target of the attacks.

Not only that, but Levin also reminded me of what is so dangerous about voting for the “most electable” candidate this early in the race. It goes much deeper than the fact that polls this far in advance are virtually worthless.

Of course, it’s one thing to overlook one or two issues where a candidate seeking the Republican nomination as a conservative might depart from conservative orthodoxy. But in McCain’s case, adherence is the exception to the rule . . . Are we to overlook this record when selecting a Republican nominee to carry our message in the general election?

Political parties are (or should be) about a platform even more than about winning. Winning is a way to enact the platform, but to abandon the platform for the sake of winning is a sure sign of a party without character. The candidate must be more than a vocal advocate of the platform – they must also represent the platform. This is where McCain is a total loss for the conservative platform of the Republican party. Aside from the undeniable military background – this man does not match the message he would be expected to promote. Even where he agrees with the Republican party it is from the perspective of him being right, not from the perspective that the principles are correct.