I thought that the UEA and PTA were going to kick everyone out of office for being pro-vouchers?? Hopefully, this is the year that the teachers union realizes that their their pro-bureaucracy, anti-parent and anti-common-sense-business-practice ideology belongs in the other major party in Utah, and it's not the Republican one.

It would be interesting to know what the reasons were for this particular election, Tilton's. I know that those opposed to nuc power will blame that; those opposed to conflicts of interst will blame that; those opposed to vouchers will blame that. I am willing to bet some issues coming out of zoning in Mapleton will show up as well. Could be that he just didn't do his home work, or didn't work for an issue or two for his home district.

I would hope the Deseret News could actuall cover the story of what happened, not just give us the final score.

I am one of those who think the conflict of interest issue is pretty big. I have no idea if this played in that race at all. What I do know, is there are about ten more legislators that need to be removed so they can make lots of money, but not changes laws in order to benefit their personal business venture.

To the Tilton family, a prayer. No matter the reason I am sure it is tough. In the end I hope good lessons come out of this.

The first amendment police were at it again at the Utah County Convention. In Legislative District 66--Morley verse Williams, the Chairman said that if the speeches in the three minutes alotted became Mudslinging, He would "shut the thing down". One delgate walked out with out voting out of protest for infringment on first amendment rights.
If you recall, this is the same race that the same thing was stated on a meet the candidate night. "There will be no negative comments here tonight".
Traditionally candidates try to avoid bringing up negative things about their opponents. However, when the opponent is as a gifted politician as Mike Morley (who gave a great speech), and he has as many allegations as he has had leveled at him by the press and others(SEC fraud, conflict of interest, sponsoring land use bills that benefit him, charter school development), you need to bring some of the concerns up and give a different persective to let voters have an more educated vote.
But once again, it is an example of the Utah County Republican Party protecting their own. The win is more important than the truth.

Why do delegates get to deprive the voters of the right to select their party's candidate? The constitution allowed for a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto, but the Utah Republicans have a better idea--60% and this "supermajority" trumps the rank and file registered voters. Is this a scam or what?

Sounds like you're still smarting over the voucher blow-out. Sounds like you're still in denial that a majority of your party didn't agree with you.

Keep up the apologist rhetoric, Dave. Brilliant stuff!

I'm in denial? Given that only one pro-voucher incumbent has been pushed out of office so far and it apparently didn't have much to do with vouchers, it would appear that the Republican Party agrees with me on this issue.

And in response to "people first", the Democrat Party uses the same 60% rule. More importantly, every voter has a chance to participate by attending their caucus. Instead, most people chose to watch American Idol. Also, anyone with $10 can be on the ballot. But if you want to have the Republican Party endorse you, it would only make sense that you go through their nominating process.

Yes, Dave the 60% rule helps the extremists in both parties keep control. Too bad the people lose with that rule.

Also Dave, three other candidates barely scraped through, due mostly to the voucher vote. Had they gone to a primary, they probably would have lost.

You dodge, Dave. To again address your first point - vouchers were unpopular with the majority of both parties. It is clear that those opposing vouchers extended far beyond what you describe as anti-parent, pro-bureacracy unions.

Rep Tilton got a bum deal. Its a part time legislature and the man is entitled to make a living, at least he's not going up there asking for money like all the educrats who get elected.

And what do we know about Francis Gibbons, other than he was being pushed by special interests and certain lobbyists?

The ruling republican elite (corporate lobbyists, campagn financiers, etc) control who you get to pick from to ensure the candidates are friendly to them. In Iran, the ruling mullahs do the same thing.

All that Tilton had to do is step down from that committee. That wasn't difficult. Not only did he not do that, he also blew it by not disclosing information in a timely manner. Of course, when you hide something it becomes about twenty-times worse.

Had he stepped down from that committee he still could have presented his issues before it with no problem. Nothing would have changed other than he would no longer have been sitting on the committee.

And had he disclosed from day one what was going on, not let the media discover it first he would not have had a problem.

And then once it did come out his answer was right up there with Al Gore's "...no legal controling authority." It was way to legalese/split-the-baby.

Every legislator is going to have a "conflict of interest." Not every legislator makes money off of it, or handles it so poorly.

By hiding so many details, to include a "silent partner" Tilton's exact words, it creates all of the wrong images.

He needed to go.

Now to remove all of the other legislators with direct conflicts, to include teachers voting on their pay raises! Service, not profit.