Comments about ‘In our opinion: Civil tone of Utah's conventions should be new political tradition’

The problem is that many voters prefer to wallow in gossip and character assasinations.

There isn't a week that goes by that I don't get some new email circulating attacking Obama -- most recently about his fondness of dog meat. From what I understand, he was given dog meat as a young lad by his Indonesian step-father, and he mentions it openly in his book.

I guess the GOP, responding to Gov. Romney's practice of sticking his dog on the roof of his car while traveling, is using this to somehow frame Obama as the more insensitive.

Another email I got shows Obama speaking at the White House without the American flag in the background. The email states that this is "new policy" -- no American flag whenever Obama speaks. A search on Google Images found the exact same picture WITH two American flags -- thus, someone photoshopped the flags out, but it circulates to hurt Obama's image.

Last week, I got one claiming Obama modified Air Force One's tail flag and replaced it with the Obama campaign logo. The plane is NOT Air Force One.

Sadly, these are "the issues" voters want to gossip about!

Why don't we just be honest with each other?

Citizens packed their caucus meetings because they were told to by their clergy, (a GOOD thing BTW).
Somehow, most citizens interpreted that advice to support incumbents especially LIFELONG politicians.

Now that caucus goers realize just how thoroughly BORING most of the state convention can be, and the incessant nagging by candidates at their homes, place of business, etc. to urge them to vote for THEM, - I wonder just how involved most citizens will be NEXT time around?

Baron Scarpia,

Agreed.

Irrespective of political party, there should be common agreement that we face significant obstacles in our future. We need vision and leadership and our discussions should center on which leader and whose vision will best serve our needs.

The past few years have been filled with political sideshows of the worst type (the whole birth certificate thing, that he is a Muslim, etc.). All of this blather crowded out any ability to have real discussions about serious issues.

As we go forward into the prime political season, I expect more such nonsense but now against both candidates.

I cannot believe that inane discourse is good for our country. We need sensible folks to get together and talk in realistic terms. The insanity we have been experiencing only serves to push the sensible folks out of the conversation and for new voters to tune out.

If we value our republic, we must do better.

How about that Utah! There are many more active Democrats here than we had ever thought!
And to the surprise of the Republican party, those Dems are well educated, informed, hardworking, employed, decent folks.

what was civil about the republican convention? novelty? the Stewart controversy? the back stabbing by Kirkham?

The LDS Church always urges its members to be involved in caucuses and to go vote etc doesn't it? Not a new thing at all.

I don't share the enthusiasm for "the average voter" expressed here nor do I think that because "The Church owns the Deseret News" that the newspaper typically reflects the views of "The Brethren" which I reckon it very often doesn't. I often seem to be reading views that I think or even know are different or opposite to those held by known general authorities.

Latter-Day Saints that I know support opposing candidates and the "average" members don't necessarily think about politics much and then in a very partisan way. It hasn't been "extremists" that have dominated conventions, I think, but a few who cared deeply about freedom and others who conversely doggedly protected the status quo.

I don't think "the average voter" actually goes to caucuses or, when they do, they often do not want to be elected as delegates, and don't want to discuss the candidates or the issues. I hope that this will change very soon though.

An after thought on the subject of civility.

I guess Orrin didn't attend the convention then. Recently our beloved senator stated of those opposing his candidacy: I despise these people and I’m not the type of guy you come in and dump on without getting punched in the mouth.” Senator Hatch called those who challenged his record in the Senate "ultra liars". I have read carefully the claims of Hatch's opponents and the response of the Hatch organization to the anti-Hatch mailers and find the criticisms of Hatch's record to be accurate and the Hatch campaign's riposte misleading.

I also appreciate the reference of one poster to the tactics applied to Chris Stewart by at least two of his competitors for congressional office at the convention. This was covered prominently on a Glenn Beck broadcast (my wife told me about it so I then watched it online myself). The mayor of Eureka, another competing candidate, got upset by being asked to combine with a last minute attack on Stewart's character at convention. The plot backfired and Stewart won out even after he was called a "bald faced liar".

Sorry Baron, but the issues Obama is running on are strictly personal attacks on Romney as you parroted. Real issues like energy independence, crushing sovereign debt, failed jobs creation, hiring lobbyists in the White House, pay-for-access to the White House, a foreign policy "more flexibility after the election," much needed health care reform that is financially unsustainable and possibly illegal, crony capitalism enriching his donor bundler's, etc. will not be discussed.

There is the huge myth that elections today are much worse then in the past. Of course Fox News' Bill O'Reilly leads the bandwagon that he expects this election to be the worst ever.

Of course there was the election of 1860 were Lincoln was burned and hung in effigy all across the south.

In 1824 and 1828, unspeakable things were said about Andrew Jackson's wife.

In 1800 Jefferson's marital indiscretions with Sally Hemings were scandalous. Luckily, DNA tests didn't exist back then. But Adams vs. Jefferson election was especially nasty.

Elections like 1912, 1936, 1960, and 1968 weren't exactly pleasant either. I mean the whole Watergate thing came about because Nixon was paranoid of McGovern and was going to do about anything to win the election, not like it was necessary.

@Gildas, disdain for the average voter is hardly compatible with the idea of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

@Spanish Fork Guy

I typed: I don't share the enthusiasm for the "average voter" expressed.

Since most people DON'T vote, most people are not "average voters".

"The People", and I think understandably, seem jaded with politics and we know 91% of them don't have faith in Congress, so that the "average voter" and "the people" are not actually the same thing.

On the other hand, I believe in government for the people and by the people and of the people however:

1. We don't have government by the people but by an elite contemptuous of us.
For example both Republicans and Democrats have accepted or promoted the misnamed "tax cut" which targeted FICA deductions, so reducing Social Security funding.
Likewise both parties have talked about cutting SS and cola's etc.
OTOH in a United Technologies/ National Journal Congressional Connnection poll, 76% of "The People" want no cuts whatsoever in Social Security, and prefer cuts in military spending.

2. Our government is not "of the People" but very frequently of career politicians, lawyers, political activists and the like.

3. Our government is not "for the people" but for the politicians and their benefactors.

Churchill wasn't joking. He had a knack for expressing a candid view of the obvious tha could invoke humour, but it wasn't in jest.