Tag: candidates

Categories
culture life meta politics

Looking Forward

I just passed 100 posts to this blog in just over 3 months since I started it. It was fun to see that. Despite that milestone I still feel like I am developing a feel for where this blog will go.

I have noticed that I enjoy writing politically oriented content when I find news of a political nature. Maybe that is because I am interested in a wide range of political topics and in political participation in general. With the official announcement today that Tom Vilsack would seek the Democratic presidential nomination for 2008, I have decided on one thing I will be doing with this blog in the future. I have decided that, for each person who announces their candidacy officially, I will research the candidate and make an endorsement for every candidate who I feel would make a good president. These endorsements will not indicate who I will be voting for (that has not been decided yet) but will indicate who I think deserves votes.

I will do this for any candidate who is running (not those who look like they will run) from any party so long as my research indicates that they could be a good president. In other words, don’t expect to hear anything about the likes of General Zod.

Look for my endorsement, or anti-endorsement if I think they would not be a good president, on any candidate I hear about within a week of when I learn of their official candidacy. If you hear about a candidate that I have not yet listed please let me know.

Categories
politics

Non-Sequiter

I stumbled on to another example of blind loyalty by our senior senator. In character for the man who said that the alternative to attacking Iraq was, “we could have attacked North Korea, Iran, or Syria instead,” Senator Hatch said that, “you’d have to tarnish every young American who served over there,” for Donald Rumsfeld’s legacy to be marred by mistakes in Iraq. This suggests that there is no difference of position between the soldiers on the ground and the men that give them their orders.

Just as it is possible for commanders to give good orders which are poorly executed by the men on the ground, so in this case we have had a series of mistakes from those at the top which have generally been well executed by the soldiers on the ground. Thus there is distinctly a difference between the soldiers on the ground and those that give them orders.

If Senator Hatch meant to suggest that making mistakes in Iraq does not prove that Donald Rumsfeld is evil, then I have to agree with him. What he does not acknowledge is that even a good leader may be tarnished by mistakes without becoming a bad leader. For example, the legacy of Robert E. Lee was tarnished by the actions at Gettysburg. Pickett’s charge was well executed by George Pickett and his men, but it was a colossal mistake by General Lee. None of this makes General Lee a poor general. Similarly, the mistakes made in Iraq will surely tarnish the legacy of Donald Rumsfeld without reflecting poorly on the soldiers who served there (not including Abu Ghraib participants). While this tarnish is in fresh view, it should be remembered that the perspective of history will determine whether Donald Rumsfeld was good or not. Either way, we can safely say that Secretary Rumsfeld is no General Lee.

Categories
politics

Senator Hatch

I found it interesting while listening to Senator Hatch’s interview on RadioWest that he uses the very same arguments as to why Senator Moss should be replaced back in 1976 as I have been using to argue that Senator Hatch should be replaced in 2006. He said that Senator Moss was not representing Utah. I have said that Senator Hatch represents the GOP more than he represents Utah.

When asked about Iraq he quoted the White House line about how this was the reason that we had not had another terrorist attack since 2001. I think the only affect this has had regarding terrorist attacks is that the terrorists have another target to hit. They can attack the green zone in Baghdad and it is an attack against the US. The only thing he said about Iraq that I agree with is that he praised the men and women who have served there. The war was a mistake and we need leaders who can admit that and look for the best way forward. We do not need leaders who doggedly insist that the war was necessary but not perfect. Senator Hatch implies that the only alternative to attacking Iraq would have been to attack North Korea, Iran, or possibly Syria in place of Iraq. Apparently we desperately needed to go to war and Iraq was the target of choice.

I thought that the Senator was off base when he implied that those who criticize the war are just people who are critical of everything. (“I think that the critics are just doing what critics always do.”) He fails to recognize that many of those criticizing the war are people who are generally supportive of their leaders, but who refuse to be blinded by the party line. He claims that “the liberal media criticized World War II during Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge.” I’d like to see evidence of that, even though he did rattle off the names of a dozen newspapers when asked about it. If I ever do see proof of that statement, I’ll compare the criticism from the 1940’s with the criticism of this war – I’ll bet that the criticism of the current war is much more specific and well founded – not to mention more widespread.

When I wrote about Pete Ashdown I had intended to cover the Orrin Hatch interview from a neutral perspective. After listening to the interview I no longer wish to do so. Senator Hatch seems more and more to represent the GOP rather than Utah. He doesn’t even talk about the concerns of our state – he talks about the concerns of conservatives. I recognize that Utah is a conservative state, but when coupled with statements like, “we didn’t have to attack Iraq, we could have attacked North Korea, Iran, or Syria instead,” I find it impossible to overlook the fact that we have a conservative senator or a Republican senator rather than a Utah senator. I’m voting for Pete. I think he’ll represent Utah instead of representing a party.

Categories
politics State

A New Senator for a New Century

I have been very interested in the senate race in Utah where Senator Hatch is running for his sixth term in the US Senate. I spent a lot of time last year hoping that some of the challengers in the Republican party would be able to unseat Senator Hatch in the Republican primary vote. Sadly, these challengers had basically fallen away before the primary even arrived and Hatch is still the Republican nominee.

I think my position with regard to Senator Hatch are fairly plain. I think I should explain why. While I agree with some of what the senator has done over his three decades in office, I do not believe that he is doing a good job of representing Utah in the last few years. His votes seem to be driven more by his party affiliation than his state affiliation. He appears to have a lack of understanding with regard to some legislation regarding intellectual property and emerging technologies. I honestly doubt that his views and votes are based on a lack of understanding as much as they are based on voting in favor of whoever has money tied up in the issue. In addition to all of that, Senator Hatch has continued to waste time and energy on a flag burning amendment that is no longer relevant. Perhaps when he began pushing this legislation, early in his 30 year tenure, it was an issue worth fighting, but the problem has proven to be a thing of the past. Even among protesters there is not enough flag burning taking place to warrant a constitutional amendment. Changing the constitution is a process which is difficult by design, but each time we make the attempt we run the risk of diminishing the original document. For that reason we should be very careful when deciding to amend our constitution.

In the other corner, the Democratic nominee for Hatch’s seat is Pete Ashdown. Pete is a political newcomer, but he has a few things in his favor. Pete understands about technology and will not be fooled by money or terminology with regard to those types of legislation. Pete understands that the old way of running politics by the money should be a thing of the past. We have the ability to increase communication, transparency, and accountability in our nation by making use of technology. Pete is doing that in his campaign. His status as a Democrat has more to do with necessity than ideology. In fact he complains about the lack of transparency among Democrats as much as he does among Republicans. I believe that Pete will strive to represent anyone who cares to communicate with him rather than representing anyone who can out-pay the competition. Whether Pete wins this race or not, I hope that his ideas will catch on throughout our political system and change how our political leaders represent, interact with, and answer to their constituents.

To learn a little more about Pete, visit his website at http://www.peteashdown.org/. You can also listen to his interview on RadioWest. I will post links to Senator Hatch’s website and interview with RadioWest after that interview takes place (not sure when that will be).

Categories
politics

Lunch with the President

No, that is not just a catchy header to get your attention. I really was invited to have lunch with the President this month. And yes, I mean the President of the United States.

It came as a surprise at first. I read the email subject from one of my senators and thought, “Wow, it’s amazing that I was among those chosen out of all his constituents.” I am at a slight disadvantage when someone sends me an email which is an image because my email client does not display images without my consent. This was one of those emails, so I did not know anything about what was in the message except the subject at first. While clicking the button to display the message, I thought that it must be because I had recently corresponded with this senator to express my views on some current bills in the senate. How else would he have picked my name out of a hat.

Display the image and . . . it’s from the committee to re-elect. Although I disagree with this senator and do not wish to have him re-elected I would still like to go – for a chance to say “hi” to the President.

Scan to the bottom of the image and it’s only going to cost me $500 a seat to accept this invitation. I’m so flattered. They even offer me a great group rate of $4000 for a table of eight. Okay, I’m not going to spend $500 that will help elect a man I don’t want elected – not even to meet the President. I’m not sure I could find $500 to meet the President and help elect someone I want elected (although I did recently find $503 to pay for new tires on my car – I still don’t know how the checkbook balanced this month after the tires).

So why write about this – I’m not going to the lunch and I was “chosen” because they hoped I’d cough up $500 like I did for my tires. I’ve been thinking about this since I got the email and considering my reaction to the possibility of meeting the President.

Some may assume that I am a fan of the President. The reason I’m writing is because I realized that my reaction to the possibility of meeting the President, or even a former President, would be the same whether I liked him or not. There is something about getting to meet people in positions of importance. I would love to meet the Pope even though I have already clearly stated that I am not Catholic. What it really comes down to is that I respect the office. I love this country and what it is supposed to stand for. Certainly there are times and places where it becomes a symbol of things which it should not stand for, but that is the exception and not the rule.

I just hope, and will always do what I can to ensure, that our country and the man who leads it at any given time, are worthy of our respect and deserving of our support, even if there is need for some dissent over some issues. I’d hate to see the day when I could no longer be comfortable being identified as a citizen of the United States, or meeting the President.

Categories
politics State

Utah Race Defined

Now that the republican primary is over I can say difinitively who I am voting for in the governors race. I have spent months looking at everything I could find on the candidates and so far as I can tell the least promising republican candidate just won the republican primary so I’ll vote for Scott Matheson.In Utah that is not quite as bad as voting for a third party candidate because the democrats still have a slim chance of winning. This is not a state where every vote counts. The majority is overwhelmingly republican so that nationally both parties have eternally roped Utah off as being a given red state.

Right now I am voting for a change in the political structure of the state. We no longer have political dialog, we are stuck with republican diatribe. There is no discourse here. I understand that a huge percent of the population share common values on the largest issues, but that has stifled the discussion on what seems to be the second tier issues where there is not as much uniformity of opinion.

Somehow the political atmoshpere here has to change so that presidential candidates do more than fly over Utah on their way to California and, if we’re lucky, stop for fuel occationally. We also need to have more diversity of opinion so that there can be real discussion in our state legislature because of the uncertainty caused by neither party having an overwhelming majority.

With the same rules as the US Senate a democratic fillibuster on a key issue would last only long enough to count the first 60% of hands as 80% of the legislature voted to end the filibuster. In truth we have a one party state in a two party nation.