Maybe I am reading too much into this. Maybe I am seeing things that aren’t there.
But have you noticed the absence of the Elephant on Republican political campaigns?
Looking primarily at candidate websites, the elephant is not there. Of the four Federal positions currently open for election, I know of 8 different candidates. One of those eight (Merrill Cook) doesn’t seem to have a 2010 campaign site yet. So, looking at the seven Federal Candidates sites, only 2 have an elephant on them.
The two candidates who are displaying an elephant are Representative Jason Chaffetz and Senatorial Candidate Cherilyn Eagar. I do have to give Representative Rob Bishop some credit, he does list himself as a Republican. However, I am hesitant to count that, because a look at his calendar shows that his campaign website probably hasn’t been updated since the 2008 campaign.
Did I miss something? In Utah, I am used to Democrats hiding their party affiliation by not displaying the donkey. I have often found it rather quaint. But this seems like this is the first year in a long time that the elephant has gone extinct in Utah.
As I have reviewed the varying sites, each of the candidates do mention that they are Republicans. Some candidates (i.e., Bob Bennett) don’t mention the Republican Party on the front Page. But most of them (like Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater) at least let us know that they are Republican without having to click through to another page. However, it does require some reading in order to find it. This still doesn’t hold the same wait as a graphic of an elephant.
If I haven’t proven myself totally crazy yet, let’s take a closer look at Senator Bennett’s Campaign Site. I found something rather interesting on there. The “headline” graphic cycles through a few images, that encourage you to learn more or to sign up and help Senator Bennett. One of these images was interesting to me.
Am I seeing things?
Am I seeing a donkey where there isn’t one?
I know that it is supposed to be a picture of a man wearing a tie who is ripping his shirt open with a map of Salt Lake County and Utah County. I suppose it is to show the willingness of people to vote for Bennett. However. If you look on the right hand side, you see that the tie looks kind of like the ear of a donkey, and the arm and elbow look like a donkey’s snout.
How fitting. Don’t you think. But I am getting off topic.
I am not calling for the resurgence of the elephant with this post. I don’t know much about running a campaign. But I find it interesting that when these candidates are seeking the Republican nomination very few of them are showing their party pride.
The real purpose of this post is to explore the reason for the absence of the elephant. I can come up with four possibilities.
The first is a simple oversight. However, with as much thought that goes into any campaign, I can’t believe that the presence of the party mascot would not come up somewhere in a planning meeting, so I doubt that it was just over looked. Especially when more that 70% of the campaign sites don’t have one.
A second reason might be that it is not considered appropriate to use the elephant until you have the official nomination from the party. I haven’t ever heard of this, but it could be a possibility. If you know about the ethics regarding this I would appreciate your incite. However, I currently doubt it is an ethics thing because Senator Bennett doesn’t have an elephant either. But there could be other reasons for that too.
One of the better reasons that I can come up with is what I will call the Scott Brown effect. Scott Brown campaign was very successful. Many current candidates believe that they are trying to catch the Scott Brown wave, and with a lot of additional work, they hope to ride that wave into the election. A look at Brown’s campaign website also shows that there is no elephant.
If this is the reason for the forgotten elephant, then I think that they are sorely mistaken on how to run a Utah campaign. It seems to me that Brown didn’t include the elephant because he is in a blue state. In a blue state, a Republican would want to run a campaign like the Democrats do here in Utah. Such a candidate would want to make his party affiliation as low key as possilbe.
So, that leaves me with the final reason. And perhaps the most likely reason. I believe that the elephant is gone because the Republican Party has failed those who elected them. It is getting to the point that we don’t have a donkey or an elephant any more. We now have a donkephant (or should we say and elephonkey). There isn’t really such a think as a red or a blue party any more. It is just a fuzzy shade of purple.
And these candidates are trying to send the clear message that they aren’t the Republican Party that has betrayed you. They are a new kind of candidate. The kind that will keep the promises made during the campaign.
Again, I am not calling for the elephant to be back on any website or campaign material. I do not wish to condemn those candidates who have placed an republican logo on their campaign literature. I am just simply interested in the reasons behind the forgotten elephant. And I believe it is to send a clear message of a new kind of candidate.
I wish that I had something profound to say to you. I would love to tell you that there are things I would like to see happen in this congress. I would like to tell you about something that you could improve on.
However, I can’t.
I can’t because you are doing a great job.
You might be wondering why I am writing to you. First, it’s because I promised you at the beginning of the session that I would. Second, the reason that I made the promise, is because I know you probably get a lot of negative mail. Just like you get a lot of negative press. But I want you to know, that we support you. You are our representative, and we are grateful for it.
So, what do I like about what you are doing?
First, congratulations on the State’s Rights Bill that is dressed up as a gun bill. Don’t ask me what the HB # is, I am too busy to bother with such things, but I believe that you know the one I am talking about. I am glad the Governor Herbert signed it.
Next, I love the bill by Representative Ken Sumsion and Representative Chris Herrod. Using eminent domain to claim our state’s land back is pure genius. I don’t have much hope that it will pass this year, but I look forward to next year and it’s passing. But I want you to know that I support it. Even if litigation is eminent because of it.
Some have accused the Patrick Henry Caucus of too many message bills this past session. They claim that these bills are only on the table so that you can get reelected. I feel that these are people who don’t truly understand the Patrick Henry Caucus, their founders, or their purpose.
Third, Good work on your abortion bill. You saw where there were potential flaws in it, and you were willing to amend it. I am honored to have a man strong enough to propose such legislation, but humble enough to make it good legislation representing me at the State level.
Fourth, and this should probably first on the list. Thanks for supporting no tax increase this year. I know that it can be tough. But I believe that it can be done. My family has had to learn to live on less over the years, and I know that the State can too. Gov. Herbert has my support in his efforts to not raise taxes.
One tax that I am specifically against, and one that is getting a lot of media attentions is the Tobacco Tax. It is a terrible tax, and we should not push it. When you look at the supposed 80% of Utahns who support it, you should also note that a large part of that 80% also said in the same survey that that don’t support a tax increase. Which means, that they don’t mind a tax increase as long as someone else is paying it.
I don’t need to tell you this, because you won’t support it. But I don’t support any tax increase, whether it is on tobacco or anything.
Thanks Carl. And can you please thank that dear wife of yours. I know that she make many sacrifices so that we can have such great representation.
Keep up the good fight.
Sincerely,
Travis Grant
Your #1 Constituent in Precinct 3621
This is part three of a three part series on controlling the power of our representatives. The first in the series was on term limits. The second was on seniority in congress.
After having read my first post in this series, I am sure many believed that I am opposed to amending the constitution. I wish to state now very clearly I am not against amending the constitution. I feel that amending the constitution is a very constitutional act. Conner Boyack addresses this very well, and I will let you read his comments instead of spending too much time on that issue.
However, as Boyack mentions, there should be at least some measure by which a constitutional amendment must be measured. Among there 27 amendments, there are several that I feel should never have passed. Boyack expresses at least two of them, but his reasoning for opposing them are different from mine.
To understand that difference, we need to take a closer look at the first 10 amendenments, better known as the bill of rights. Here’s a quick rundown just to help refresh your memory:
Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc.
Right to bear arms.
Freedom from quartering soldiers.
protection from unlawful search and seizure.
Right to due process and protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination and eminent domain.
Right to criminal trial by jury.
Right to civil trial by jury.
Protection from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Protection of individual rights not specifically mention in the bill of rights.
Protection of state’s rights.
Let’s take a look at these amendment as a whole. What do each of these amendments have in common. It might be easier if you look at just the first nine. Each of the first nine are focused around individual rights and liberties. While the tenth is often though of as the state’s rights clause we must not forget that it grants the same rights “to the people.”
While history tells us that these amendments were added because of the demand by the people for an enumeration of the rights of the people, I think that it sets a very interesting precedent. When amending the constitution, we must look at it’s effects on the rights of the people.
Of the remaining 17 amendments, the most problematic one are those that limit people’s rights. One example of this is the 18th amendment. By prohibiting alcohol, we limit individual freedom. Fortunately, the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment and individual freedoms were restored.
The amendments that have be beneficial to us are those that are about clarifying individual rights. The best examples of this are the 13th and the 19th amendments which granted freedom to slaves and allowed for women’s suffrage, respectively. These are generally celebrated amendments and that is because the have at their hearts the same thing that was at the heart of the first 10 amendments: individual rights and freedom.
I don’t oppose amending the constitution. I support it, when it is about guaranteeing rights, freedoms and protections.
One such amendment would be repealing the 16th amendment that made it legal to impose an income tax on the citizens. Not so much because I don’t like income taxes. Rather, because I feel that an income tax is an attack on my freedom as a person.
I would also support repealing the 17th amendment. You might question my reasoning on this. Doesn’t the 17th amendment give individuals the right to vote for their Senator. However, I would argue that the right to vote for your Senator was clearly not granted in the original constitution, and for good reason. That reason being that the founders didn’t want a democracy. And that the original intent was for the Senator to represent the state’s and not to represent the people. But that is a lengthy constitutional discussion that is beyond the scope of this post.
Another reason I support repealing the 17th amendment, such an amendment would effectively remove the desire for Senators to try and “bribe” the people with earmarks and entitlements. The Senators would now become servants of the states and not servants of the masses. It would be easier to replace an incumbent Senator under the original program, and would thus remove the need for term limits. It would also take care of the issue of seniority to a great extent.
I support amending the constitution. But only when those amendments are clearly in the interest of establishing the rights of the people, and the rights of the states as we see by the precedent established by the Bill of Rights.
This is the second in a three part series on controlling the power of our representatives. The first in the series was on term limits.
I have been putting this post off, because I haven’t really had the time to do the research that I need to write it. But putting it off isn’t providing me with the time to do the research. So, please understand that most of what I present here, is based on opinion and assumptions.
One of the main arguments that I have heard in favor of term limits is that it will remove the strength that is placed on seniority. As it stands, the longer a Senator or Representative serves they are often granted more power and position of influence.
Why are senior congressmen given more power?
From my study of the constitution, I find no constitutional authority for senior congressmen to have more power or influence than junior congressman. A quick look at wikipedia explains that “There is no mandated difference in rights or power, although Senate rules give more power to senators with more seniority. Generally, senior senators will have more power, though being a member of the majority party is more advantageous than being senior.” So, seniority is only a rule of the Senate, it is not constitutional.
Where did the concept of seniority start?
This is one area, where my research is lacking, but I have some experience with hiring practices related to seniority. I currently work for a company that has a large number of unionized workers. Seniority is big deal for the union workers. The longer you have been with the union, you are more likely to get better pay and better work.
So, this makes me think that the concept of seniority has it roots in unions. Further, when you look at the history of unions, they have been known to be tied to communism. So, I don’t think it is inappropriate to say that seniority has it roots in communism. Perhaps, that is too bold, and I would welcome criticisms of this argument. But I use this argument to claim that seniority is backwards thinking and it needs to be changed.
What would be a better system?
At my place of employment, if you are not a union employee, things aren’t done based on your seniority. Rather, it is based on need. I worked on the grave yard shift for four and a half years, because they needed me on the shift. There were several people who were just as capable to do the job, but the management wanted me to work the shift. At the time, I wish that seniority worked for me.
However, now that I am off of the shift, and can see things through different eyes, I realize that seniority isn’t always the best way to work things. Just because someone has worked longer for you doesn’t make them the best person for advancement. Yes, they may have more experience, but they could still be the worst person for the job.
If congress were to change the rules to allow any member of congress to hold important positions based on previous work experience and competence to perform the duties, imagine how things would change. We would be placing people in positions of congressional leadership just because they are old. Rather we would put them there because of their ability to perform.
In the first part of this series, I discussed how Glenn Beck says we should vote for people who are strong on term limits. I would argue that a better measure of a good candidate would be is he strong on removing the rules of seniority in the congress.
Okay, okay, the title is a little presumptuous. They aren’t at my command, but they are doing something I asked them to do back in June. In a state where roughly 67% of the land is owned by the Federal Government, we need to start claiming our state sovereignty. We need to get our property back.
The bill that Herrod and Sumsion have proposed “would give the state eminent domain power to take federal lands, including a coal-rich parcel in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument” and thus provide us with means to tax the land and raise funds for education in Utah.
Ultimately this bill would result in a lawsuit. Ultimately, it would be expensive. But I am willing to pay it. The Federal Government has become the overbear bully of a big brother, and it needs to be reined in. I have been perplexed about how to do this, since the formation of the Patrick Henry Caucus.
I was assured by members of the Patrick Henry Caucus that they had something planned, but couldn’t discuss it with me. Now that I see their plans. It is genius.
Eminent domain.
It is a wonderful slap in the face of the federal government. I really have nothing to add to the conversation, but I had to voice my support for this bill. I just hope that it will pass through, but I suspect it will take at least a couple of years before it will happen.
Lately, I have been pondering the issue of what can we do to keep our representatives in check, while giving them the constitutional powers that were granted to them. This is part one of the three part series on controlling the power of our representatives.
In the past couple of months, I have heard two prominent individuals argue that the solution to our overpowering government is term limits. Both of these people used slightly different reasons for term limits, but the argument was essentially the same.
For convenience sake, I am going to quote Glenn Beck’s argument in “Glenn Beck’s Common Sense”:
After George Washington’s first two terms, Americans begged him to continue his service, be he refused, believing it would set a bad precedent. Jefferson, citing Washington’s example, also refused to serve a third term, noting that history shows how easily [long-term public service] degenerates into an inheritance.
Of course, FDR didn’t care about Washington’s or Jefferson’s concerns. He stayed on for four terms–a reign that went so well that we followed it up by ratifying the 22nd Amendment, ensuring that it would never happen again…
Instituting term limits on all public servants is the only way to limit the damage that can be caused by those who lack the character to assume such a role. Ben Franklin insisted that service to your country not be a full-time job or career–and he was exactly right. Our public servants must be sent back into private life without the obscene perks they’re used to.
Will term limits result in good politicians being thrown out of office too early, the proverbial baby with the bathwater? Absolutely–but that’s a small price to pay for the freedom this will grant us. Freedom from corruption, greed, arrogance, and, most of all, freedom from those who put their carrers above their country.
Our part is simple: You must seek out and support those candidates who strongly support serious term limits. Any candidate who campaigns on the idea that their job is a temporary one is a candidate worth looking closely at.
– pages 55-56
Beck hits on one of the key arguments against term limits, but he approaches it from the wrong perspective when he discusses the removal of good candidates as a result of term limits. Beck’s focus is on the candidate and not on the voter. Actually, his whole argument focuses entirely on the candidate and not at all on the voter.
So, let’s ask the question a little differently. When we institute term limits, who really are we controlling? I don’t think that we are controlling the politicians. Rather, I would argue that the limitation is placed on the voter. My voice in support of a candidate is limited to a certain amount of terms.
The most common term limit rules that I have heard is 6 terms for a Representative and 2 terms for a Senator. If a person decides to run as a Representative then as a Senator they will serve for 24 years. That sound like the career politician that Franklin was warning us against. So, what have we done but rather more formalize the system by which one becomes a career politician.
It’s interesting that Beck says our part is simple. He argues that we need to seek out and support people who will support serious term limits. I would argue he is wrong. First it is not simple. Need, I point out Senators Hatch and Bennett? Both of them ran campaigns that called for term limits. But what happened after all these years.
I would argue that our part is not simple, but essential. We must seek out candidates who have the same moral fiber that Washington and Jefferson had will term limit themselves.
One example of this is Senator Tom Coburn. In 1994, he promised that he would not seek office for more that three terms when he ran to serve as a Representative from Oklahoma. He kept that promise. After a two year hiatus, he returned to political life in 2004 to serve as Senator. My understanding is that he did this at the request of many supporters, but I don’t have any evidence for that.
I am not saying that we should only vote for people who make the promise to only serve for X amount of terms. I don’t think that is a good measure of a candidate. I use Coburn as an example of a politician with integrity. We need to seek out candidates who have the integrity of Coburn, Washington, and Jefferson.
If we institute term limits, we will be imposing on individual freedoms. We will not be limiting congressman, rather we will be limiting the people. We will be taking away our fundamental right to vote for the person we want to represent us.
Today is my dear wife’s birthday. And I am so impressed with the wonderful gift that I got for her, that I want to toot my own horn for a minute on this site.
Having made the decision to have a fairly large family. At least, large by today’s standards. We have to cut costs where ever possible.
As part of this cost cutting venture, we don’t hire people to do any automobile repairs, unless we have to. Well, the last time that my dear wife was out rotating the tires, I was so moved by the efforts she made. Trying to remove those lug nuts with nothing more than a box wrench was tough for her.
After the first tire was removed her dear knuckles were already bloody, and she still had three more to do. It was all I could do watching her as she struggled with each nut.
I was so moved by her diligent efforts, I knew that there was something to do to help her. So, this year, I purchase for her a tire iron. Not just any old tire iron. Nope. I bought the cheapest one that money can buy. After all, we have a big family and can’t afford more.
It will be so nice to watch her remove those lug nuts with this new tool. No longer will I have to endure the pains of her screams and grunts. It will be sure pleasure to watch her rotate the tires in just over an hour compared to half a day as in years past.
I love you dear. Happy Birthday.
Oh, by the way. I think it’s time to rotate the tires on my car.
The above is with respect to Walter E. Williams and his dear, departed wife, Connie, and his past Christmas presents he has shared with us on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
What is the Deseret News thinking accusing the Republican Legislators of using biased polls? I have cited on this site several incidences of such bias. Oh, just for the fun of it, let look at a few examples (listed in order of newest to oldest):
And yet, they have the gall to accuse Repuplican Legislators of having a bias. What makes it worse, is they interview Pat Jones, the Demorcat Senator, and wife to Dan Jones (yes the Dan Jones talked about in the above link). What does she have to say about biased surveys: “No professional pollster would ever ask questions like some Republicans are if they wanted to measure real public opinion, Sen. Jones adds.”
Well, thank you very much Senator Jones. We now know that your husband doesn’t want to measure real public opinion. Oh, and I guess since the Deseret News also publishes these supposed poll results, we should also note that the Deseret News doesn’t want to measure real public opinion.
Don’t get me wrong. I hate the surveys that the Republican Party puts out. A few years back I refused to answer one of the surveys strictly because of the bias in the survey. Sure the bias was towards my end of the political spectrum. But I don’t like biased surveys. It tells me just the exact opposite of what Dave Hansen claims in the Deseret News article. I feel like they don’t care about my opinion when I read such questions.
However, I hold the Deseret News and Dan Jones more at fault when weighing these two infractions. First, you have to take into consideration that Legislators aren’t even amateur pollsters. They are simply women and men, looking to touch base with their constituents. When you think about Dan Jones, you can’t help but realize that he is a so called professional pollster. He knows better, and yet he continues to ask biasing questions.
Second, the Deseret News has a responsibility to publish the truth. If they don’t publish the truth, then they must have a reason behind the publication. It is most like to try and persuade political opinion. These legislators aren’t publishing these results. I would guess most of them don’t even really know how to interpret the results. They simply want to provide a venue to hear from their constituents. Perhaps it may influence how they vote, but the fact is, they already have an opinion on most of the issues already. So, no survey results will sway their opinion.
I wrote a shorter version of this post in the comments section of the web article. As you can see, it wasn’t published. I guess they don’t want to admit that they were caught red handed. It is absurd that the Deseret News would consider this article non-incriminating. But yet again, we find that they are trying to sway public opinion away from the Republican Party.
Sure, the Utah GOP is wrong, but they aren’t as bad as the Deseret News. And I say shame on Joe Cannon and the editorial board of the Deseret news.
I haven’t spoken much lately about a faulty Deseret News poll. Not because they haven’t had them, but for the most part they were uninteresting. Oh, they have gotten slightly better, but still they are skewed.
First, look at the question. Is this not a leading question? It is so leading that it is proceeded by 3 sentences. Of course this is only to keep the uneducated public informed before they answer such an important question. They wouldn’t be trying to influence poll takers votes, that would be unethical.
But they go further than that. Look at the exact question: “Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to reduce or avoid further cuts in education, health and human services…?” They might as well be asking people, “do you want to be a bad person and not fund education and health and human services?”
What would happen if they asked the question like this: “Gov. Gary Herbert has proposed a balanced state budget with no tax increases. Utah has one of the highest tax burdens of all 50 states. In past years, the state has succeeded in managing the state without tax increases. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes in order to reduce the burden on Utah citizens?”
If you were to ask this question, the response would be a resounding “Don’t raise my taxes.” People would be in favor of not adding additional taxes. People would support Gov. Herbert.
In addition to the biasing question, there is one other little item that the Deseret News fails to draw your attention to. It’s that pesky little “+/- 5 percent,” or the margin of error, found that the bottom of the graphic. This +/-5 percent can be added to the “definitely willing” group and the “probably willing” group. So, this statistic means that their is a high probability that 43-63% of Utahns’ probably support a tax increase. If the real statistic sits between 43 or 49 percent, then most Utahn’s are against a tax increase. Again, I have to point out that this is based on an already biased question.
Despite these problems with the survey, there is some interesting results in this survey, and it is really telling to me about how many Utahns really support a tax increase. Take a look at the second graphic provided by the Deseret News.
What kind of tax increase do Utahns support?
That’s right, they support a tobacco tax and an alcohol tax. So, what percentage of the people taking this survey do you think smoke and drink? Well, I would guess that less then 50% are regular consumers of such products.
So simply put, according to these two survey results, Utahns support a tax increase as long as they don’t have to pay it. Tax someone else, but don’t tax me.
Do Utahns want a tax increase? No. This poll doesn’t prove that. In fact, I think it is an excellent proof to the contrary.
I support Gov. Herbert and any of the legislators who are going to work extra hard to avoid a tax increase this year. It is the right thing to do.
I met with a couple of legislators this past week. And when one of them was asked why are we having to wait in long lines to get our driver’s licenses renewed, the response was it’s an “unintended consequence” of the bill that we passed.
To be completely honest, he seemed more interested in excusing their actions by calling them unintended consequences, then trying to explain the purpose of the bill that requires us to go through a longer lines to renew our licenses. I personally support the reason behind this bill, and I am willing to go through the longer lines. Fortunately for me, I go in June and hopefully a lot of the kinks will be worked out. My wife is going there sometime in the next couple of weeks, and she will have to suffer through the long lines.
But this legislators response reminded me of a similar response I heard another legislator give when asked about the district split bill. As a resident of the south west valley of Salt Lake County, I was one of the citizens whose property tax rate was raised because of the recent district split of the Jordan School District. In essence, the legislator responded that the tax increase was an unintended consequence of the bill.
As a resident of the south west valley, I support the reasoning behind the district split legislation. I believe in smaller more localized school districts. I feel that the Jordan School District was (and still is) too big to properly serve the needs of Utah’s students. However, I don’t support the unintended consequences of the bill. In this case there were two unintended consequences. The first was that a large body of people couldn’t vote on a change that directly effected them. the other unintended consequence was the needed tax increase on the citizens of the south west valley.
The issue that bothers me here is that these bills aren’t being thought completely through. They aren’t recognizing that their are ramifications in real people’s lives when these bills are passed. If they were, the bills would be written in away to prevent extensive unintended consequences.
My understanding is that if a bill has a financial impact that this must be studied. It seems to me that every bill should be studied similarly to prevent non-financial impacts on the community. Unfortunate consequences like long lines and voters not being allowed to vote. I never want to hear the word “unintended consequences” from a legislator again.
I don’t believe that all unintended consequences should be avoided. However, I think that the need to avoid a consequence should be directly proportionate to the impact that consequence has on society.
With these two particular legislators, I support them and the work that they are doing. Politically they are both very similar to me. But I would appreciate if they would take the time to understand that EVERY bill they pass will have unintended consequences and they need to write the bills in a way, that these consequences are minimized so that they have very little impact on the people.
I hope that every legislator will take an oath, that after the 2010 session, that they will never have to use the excuse of “unintended consequences” when they have to explain their bill.
Update (1 Feb 2010): Wow, I am shocked to admit that for once I agreed with KSL. They posted a commentary with the same title on their news today. We do part ways on part of it, but the meat of the subject is the same.
My Thoughts: Looks like Chaffetz is having a very positive influence on the Republicans. This is a great thing, and I am glad that Utah is a part of it.
.
.
Recent Comments