Comments about ‘Challenger Claudia Wright expects to take Rep. Jim Matheson to a primary’

Interesting times.

Even more interesting will be the new media responses to this.

We have seen all sorts of editorials, polls and stories touting Bob Bennett's seniority, and sneering at the silly conservative rabble and the caucus and convention system that might challenge an experienced statesman like Bennett.

Will we see the same reaction to the challengers from the left?

By the way, the Democrats allow anyone to vote in their primary, so Republicans of all flavors are free to vote their conscience and help the Dems select their candidate. Just playing by the rules, here folks!

There is no question that Utahns are upset at the representation (or lack of it) of their Congressional delegation. Republicans and Democrats want representatives who listen to them, beyond robo-calls and electronic"townhalls." They want representatives who are not purchased and in the pocket of corporations, who will be fiscally responsible and work together to find pragmatic solutions to the difficult problems facing our country. Unlike my grandfather, a "rock-ribbed" Republican, I can't support a party that has been hijacked by extremists. Neither can I support Jim Matheson in Utah's 2nd district, our current Member trying to straddle the ideological divide and doubly marginalized. I support Claudia Wright. She has the measured intelligence and people-friendly skills to add a new voice and a fresh ideas to our polarized national discourse. I'll vote for her in the June 22nd primary and in the November election.

If Utah Democrats want any type of voice in national politics. the delegates will not vote Matheson out. It is complete nonsense to think otherwise. Utah is very conservative, to me it is a miracle that one of Utah's three representatives is even a Democrat; and despite what most people think Matheson does not get elected by a strictly SLC district. He was gerrymandered and has only a third of SLC and still gets elected comfortably every year. Developing the Democratic Party in Utah is a process that will take years, maybe decades. Throwing out your highest ranked elected office-holder is not the way to build up the party.

A primary might be really good for Jim. He gets a lot of free publicity and a chance to show that he understands how Utahns really think better than the "true believers" of the left or the right.

Yep, Steve,

I'll bet her ideas will be as fresh and new as Nancy Pelosi's.

I encourage everyone to vote in this primary. Getting rid of Jim Matheson is the ONLY thing that we, here in Utah, can do the make any difference nationally this year.

No man can serve two masters. That's what Matheson has been trying to do for years. He votes with his Democrat leadership all the way up to final passage. Then he is "released" to vote "his district" in order to protect his seat." That's how he plays in order to appease his leadership while pretending to represent his constituents.

A vote for Matheson is a vote for Pelosi. Just bear that in mind when you go to the polls.

The point isn't to "build up the party." I'm a pragmatist, not an idealogue. I vote Democrat because, in a two party system (which we unfortunately are stuck with for the time being), the Democratic party platform represents most of my values. I'm not willing to choose someone just because he has a D by his name, if he doesn't fight for the principles I believe are right. I'm pragmatically not after a victory for a particular party, but for legislation that represents my worldview. Hence, Claudia Wright has my vote.

Funny how both Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bennett have made their respective parties angry, but are considered OK by the majority of voters when polled. As an Independent I could and previously did vote for both, but in this election cycle, I predict trouble for both as they have made the party faithful angry. Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bennett both minimize the effect this anger will have on their careers. Maybe they should read "the tea leaves" and understand how angry voters are and look for gainful employment as lobbyists.

@ Steven Harper:

Your characterization of Matheson straddling "the idealogical divide" is nothing more than his trying to represent all the constituents in his district, the majority of whom are more conservative than liberal. Matheson has done a fine job. He'll have a more serious general election challenge from a Republican this time but there is no question he'll be the Democrats' nominee.

As an independent voter (read this as Republican who votes for democrats about 40% of the time), it is highly unlikely that I would vote for Ms. Wright. If democrats want the cross-over votes, the nomination should lead the candidate to change her name to Ms. Wrong.

to juniperG, so are you a Democratic delegate or something? Or are you planning on writing her name in? Just curious because you said your vote is for her.

Unfortunately, the classical theory that envisions an informed, intelligent citizenry weighing candidates and issues and then making wise decisions does not always square with the realities of a modern democratic state. Most democracies that were originally dedicated to the theory of giving ear to the voice of the people provide the machinery to accomplish that goal, but the machinery has been clogged by manipulators.

And just who are the manipulators?

For the most part they are persuaders who have given up the legitimate, democratic device of persuasion and replaced it with manipulative techniques.

A political candidate who takes a position on issues and speaks to his/her own qualifications for office operates in the best tradition of democratic persuasion. Manipulation enters the picture when issues are evaded or opposing candidates are smeared.

The line between good and evil is becoming ever more transparent as one would manipulate the conscience of a voter to "look past" 'lifestyle' choices just for the sake of achieving the [label] "PROGRESSIVE".

My conscience guides me to not vote for one whose own lifestyle directly conflicts with the love [I] have for them and [their] 'exaltation' and I allow all persons that same privilege.

I remember when many of us were begging the imperious Jim Matheson to vote for health care reform - with no effect. Matheson thinks he has a lock on his party's nomination and his seat. That's why he needed to be challenged in his own party. You go Ms Wright!

Jim is a fine person and votes his conscience and represents his district well. His vote against the socialistic and devastating Obamacare was right on. As hard as he could have tried, he couldn't have changed one iota of the health debacle against the overwhelming tide of power-hungry politicos that make up Obama's coterie.

So in our 2nd congressional democratic race we have someone who doesn’t believe in change. He concedes the simple stuff and yet on every major issue he votes Republican. Some would argue he is the voice of reason within the democratic party who has to vote no (or yes for the Iraq war-that turned out great) in order to balance the yes (or no’s) within his own party. I thought that was what being a Republican was all about. In Utah’s own virtual reality a democratic morphs into a republican when the special interests supporting him speak.

But we do not want to talk about that. We want to denigrate the candidates, paint their electability futile and move onto the really important issues like foot size. What’s foot size got to do with it? See my point? Issues are important. Votes are important and thankfully we have someone else keeping track of their votes for us. I do not know about you but I need all the help I can. I remember Iraq, Cap and Trade, Health Reform. I also remember Jim Matheson didn’t vote the way I wanted him to, the President wanted him to, or the way many of his other constituents wanted him to.

We all know the expression, “Don’t sweat the small stuff.” Believe me I’m not. Jim has already conceded the small stuff. I am focusing on the bigger picture and Jim isn’t a part of it yet.