Utah! What a country!

And the GOP-run Deseret News ... what a news media.

I write comments here critical of the Utah GOP and suggestive of widely-implemented electoral reforms that would give voters more viable alternatives to Utah Republican and Democratic candidates.

Such comments rarely make it past moderation.

The article states "incumbents running raised an average of $7,400 each � with 69 percent coming from special interests". I am a county delegate and, to my understanding, the incumbant, Greg Hughes has more than $60,000 - with 97 percent coming from special interests. That is why I will be voting for Margaret Bird tomorrow.

Jack,

Greg Hughes is the best Representative Draper could have. He's a passionate legislator who knows his stuff. He sponsored and got funding for an arts and science program this year at the Legislature, The Beverly Taylor Sorenson Act, which will benefit so many kids. Jackson Elementary had this program, and test scores shot up. Hughes had to work hard for this appropriation, because money for most new programs was very scarce.

If he has a lot of money to spend for his campaign, more power to him. I've never seen Rep. Hughes do something that makes me wonder about his ethics: He's simply a thoughtful, charismatic, and effective leader. I'm proud to have him on the Hill representing me!

Rep Hughes voted to repeal Term Limits in 2003, was one of 6 in the House to vote against HB 94, Ban on Gifts to Elected Officials in 2006, and as Chair of Rules held up HB 130, State Ethics Commission, to die a quiet death this year.

Margaret Bird is a clone of Hughes' Democrat opponent, Lisa Johnson. If Bird is the nominee, I could see her purposely giving the election away to Lisa Johnson. Of course, if Bird wins the election, you might as well have elected Lisa Johnson. There's not a problem that they don't think government bureaucracy can't fix.

Anonymous-

Are you really bringing up term limits? The average member of the Utah House serves 6 years. So limiting their terms would only further empower the staff at the legislature (some have been there for decades) and the lobbyists to influence events on the Hill. Term Limits are a poor solution for non-existant problem. I applaud Hughes for actually thinking about it enough to notice that.

The Gift Ban he voted against? That was a baloney bill, full of loopholes. It still allowed gifts to legislators if they were related to a funeral, a wedding, a graduation, and a plethora of other exceptions. That's why Hughes co-sponsored a bill to have FULL disclosure of any gift received over $5, no exceptions. If a lobbyist took a legislator to McDonalds for a happy meal, they might get by without reporting, but that's about it.

More below....

continued from above...

And finally, the State Ethics Commission. Ethics Commissions are usually nice in concept, but think back to Nancy Workman, and there's a lesson to be learned. Despite the fact that she was acquitted on all charges post-election, there is no doubt she lost the campaign because of a politically motivated investigation. The State Ethics Commission proposal would simply be a tool for candidates to lob baseless accusations at each other to finish the campaign, a practice known as "political dynamiting". Having an unelected commission (non partisan, some say, but how can a commission monitoring partisan elections be non partisan?) screen charges and become a tool for candidates to smear their oppononents and get free media seems completely unwise.

Now, let's review: Anonymous 9:15, you told 3 half truths and are obviously keen on telling only part of the story. This State Ethics Commission you support seems like it would be a bad idea, not only in principle, but for you!

I will full on admit it: I am a huge admirer of Rep. Greg Hughes. He represents what the Republican Party is meant to represent: Responsive but Limited Government, Lower Taxes, and Personal Liberty.

Just look at his voting record, and you'll see a principled defense of Reagan Republican ideals. It's the place the Republican Party belongs, and that we have ignored at our own electoral peril. Let's get this guy back up at the Legislature, and find more like him.

Why don't we people just fight to elect or re-elect Representatives who are willing to fight for our causes, for what we believe in and so forth, rather than worry so much about the funding. And, if you really are so concerned about the funding, then write your own check to the candidate of your choice. I rarely care if a candidate is "bought," as long as he represents the same values that the of the company or lobbyist that he accepts money from. Remember it is not about the money it is about your vote.

Greg Hughes fans must be proud of him referring to another Senator in a very disrepectful manner while the house was in session. Greg Hughes is a bully and if you are proud of him representing you then you deserve what you get...an arrogant self serving fool.

To "who cares": I couldn't disagree with you more. You say "I rarely care if a candidate is bought"? Is this really what we want from our elected officials? This kind of "influence peddling" has opened the door for conflicts of interest and (in general) legislators padding their own pocket books at the expense of the people they were hired (or, as you say bought) to represent. I somewhat agree with GOP Mom that Mr Hughes is charasmatic but when things don't go his way he can get really mean. I wonder how many of the blogs defending the incumbents were written by the incumbents themselves?

Conservative Cathy, Hughes is not a bully, or an arrogant, self serving fool. There's bad blood between Hughes and that Senator for a reason: Sen Bill Hickman isn't called "Wild Bill" for no reason: He has a reputation as a grumpy, and sometimes unreasonable Senator for unjustly holding bills in his committee.

As far as the "fool" comment, it would be nice if your invectives had some basis behind them. Instead, you are throwing the debate into gutter. At least the Half Truths told by the Anonymous person earlier were based in some fact. You are simply name-calling. So what's your axe to grind with Rep Hughes?

GOP Mom: Greg Hughes just happened to be the Legislator that got to sponsor the Sorenson Arts Bill. It was not something he pursued, it fell into his lap as a trade off because the Sorenson family donated land and they wanted an arts bill in exchange. As a legislator, he has consistently had one of the worst education voting records. He is backhanded and manipulative and as chair of the education committee is known to purposely hold up bills so only the ones he deems important end up getting heard. I would not be proud of a Representative that so freely uses the f bomb to make a disparaging remark about a Senator's heigth. If you want an arrogant representative on the hill the who listens to no one other than the special interest groups who give him money, then vote for Hughes. If you want someone who will listen to her constituents, has a broad education and economic background, is well connected and respected in the education and business community and is truly for ethics reform then vote for Margaret Bird. I hope she sends Greg Hughes packing.

Greg Hughes divides, not unites, our GOP. His campaign webpage hypes "keep punching" (other Republicans?)

Hughes ("copyright, 2006") copied Legislative attorneys' paragraphs (uncredited) summarizing most 2007 laws (not 2006's); no 2008 laws? He copied all lines summarizing 2007's HB-148 (vouchers), omitting one line he disliked (recompensing public schools).

College-dropout Hughes chairs House Education. His website ridicules foes and teacher pay for advanced degrees or experience.

His "65% solution" opposes more school funding til 2004's 63.6% for instruction returns to our (pre-NCLB) 65+%. Yet all states closely cluster (within +/-4%) around 62%; ignoring more relevant factors flunks math.

He subtracted $1,372,663,000 instruction costs from $1,574,463,000 4 years later; his 0.31% error ($80k)ballooned to 2%, by dividing %instruction cost-increase vs. %operating cost-increase. He ignores (as do his bills) inflation multiplied by soaring pupil ratios. Hughes' math education? Our public-schooled family took (and use) ever-tougher math beyond calculus.

Utah's decade-drop in education effort (vs. income) only partly recovered in recent years. Utah wages (83% of national) reduce workforces, including teachers and nurses (women most).

Contrived housing shortages via flipping plus enticing more buyer-voters here for supposed "universal" vouchers (WSJ Feb-1-07) ballooned home-and-insurance costs; Hughes profited. Income tax changes helped him, hurt us.

Greg Hughes is supported by pro voucher org's and a major promoter of vouchers against the majority of his constituents. Not very representative of the constituents he is elected to represent.

What did Christensen say, "Every two years there is an election; the people decide who is best." Really, then how come the people of White City can not remember one time where LaVar Christensen came into our neighborhoods to speak with us, to let us decide who truly is best. Representative Andersen pounded the pavement and went door to door in every city in her district when she ran two years ago. I find it funny that the delegates that had sided with her, 24 hours before the vote, switched over to LaVar's side. Interesting, I guess blowing your own money really does pay off in the long run. Getting to know your people through one-on-one contact.....yes, he does, provided you make over $100,000 dollars per year.