Senator Reid's perscription assumes a status quo economically and
politically. But in a global recession which is very much alive things could
change mighty fast, and a leftist Utah Democratic Party could return a la the
1930's. This is not something I hope for; I have kids who have to survive
in this sytem. But capitalism is not stable and will end, no doubt much sooner
than Reid thinks.
As long as most moderates fail to attend caucus meetings, we won't be
represented by either party. Our only solution is to show up. Perhaps we would
have a better chance with the Democrats. Their caucuses are even more poorly
attended than the Republicans'. Perhaps we could do the them
what the tea party did to the GOP. No entrenched minority can stand up to a
Let's be clear. Moderates in Utah aren't Republicans. They'd be
democrats in any other state. I lived in Connecticut, as blue as Utah is red.
The opposite happens. Republicans, if they want to have a voice or get elected
in a blue state, run within the dominant party. Stop whining about the caucus
and get involved.
We will keep electing extreme conservatives? Like Orrin Hatch, for example?
These delegates are the Hatch delegates and the turnout this year was better
The founding fathers were right-wing conservatives. NO!!!They were
Libertarians that fought against the status quo generally.I say
generally because we are all somewhat guilty of seeing the Founding Fathers as
some monolithic group. They had huge differences in philosophy. Thomas
Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton did not see eye-to-eye on most things.
Arguments were deep and many delegates walked out of The Constitutional
Convention. But most of them found ways to COMPROMISE. Perhaps I would even
recommend for many of my conservative friends on these blogs that they watch the
BYU production of "A More Perfect Union." This is hardly a leftist
interpretation of things. But they will see all of this history and the honest
and intense disagreements many had. But ultimately they will also see how these
great men dropped their swords so to speak to find common ground to create a
nation. I don't know if this is moderation or an honest respect for loyal
opposition. That has been lost a bit in our current state of politics.
Everything is personal and compromise is hard if not impossible to achieve
between strident points of view.
I shall vote against my state representatives next election for doing nothing to
change the caucus system. I shall also ask my delegates at the next caucus
meeting if they voted against changing the system. If they did, I'll vote
against them, too. We, the people, have the right to vote directly for our
candidates. We don't need a filter.
The Utah Republican Party is dominated by the far right, even though Utah as a
state is not. Contrary to what the author would have you believe, today's
Utah Democratic Party is a very moderate party whose values are very much in
line with the average Utahn's. In recent years, Utah's Republican
Party has amply demonstrated their disconnect with Utahns by trying to kill
GRAMA, restrict access to sex education, allow anyone to carry a concealed
weapon without a permit, and meddle with the state curriculum, among other
things. They even managed to take away from municipalities most of their rights
to restrict fireworks, proving that they're only in favor of local
government when it's convenient for them. More and more Utahns are waking
up to the fact that the Republican Party isn't representing their
One of the principles of those wanting to gut the neighborhood election caucus
meeting and convention system we have in Utah, was this: " A system that
provides inherent advantages to those who are incumbent, wealthy or famous is
not acceptable."The problem is their proposals would do exactly
that.The Caucus System in Utah is the best way to make sure grass
roots movements can work over large amounts of money. It is the only way someone
with $100,000 can go against someone with $2,000,000 in election funds.There were about 120,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood
caucus elections in 2012 to elect the 4000 State Delegates. Add to those numbers
the democrats and the primary elections. Certainly the municipal elections
didn't do any better in voter representation.Bypassing the
Caucus / Convention System will NOT create more participation. There are 4000
state delegates that spend countless hours vetting candidates to be on the
ballot. They are selected by those that attend the neighborhood election caucus
meeting. You just have to attend.The current system does not protect
the incumbent, wealthy or famous. I think that is a good thing.
georgeof the jungle Are you familiar with history? You may want to
look up feudalist societies and see how well that worked out.
While "Conservatives" actually believe in less government control, "Moderates" seem to feel that it is best to "get along"
Democrats don't actually believe in "Democracy" as a form of
government (hardly anyone does)because leaving any issue in the hands of a
simple majority is risky at best. When you believe in a strong central
government, you believe in granting ultimate power, including life and death, to
that body. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao did it, Idi Amin did it, and with
the help of "moderates", Obama will do it.
I've lived a long time. Hardcore conservatives have always been the same
only now more so. They were against the GI Bill, against the Marshall Plan,
against Medicare, against the civil rights movement (it was a "communist
conspiracy," as I remember), against women's rights, against fully
funding education. What are they for? War, bombs, guns, and destruction. Being
the biggest bully. Jingoist patriotism. Unfettered capitalism. Free-range
pollution. Exclusionary voting. Mining and drilling the landscape. The enemy is
anyone who looks different or isn't a "Christian" or speaks English
with an accent or cleans toilets for a living. Today they have become more than
annoying. Their contempt for anyone outside their camp has become nauseating.
Abandon hope, ye Utah moderates...
No, moderates are NOT wishy-washy wimps.Moderates are people who try
to become well informed, who try to think clearly and then, based on what they
learn by paying attention and listening to as many different ideas as they can
-- try to cast a vote based on WISDOM and not mindless propaganda.
Flashback,So the progressives are trying to undermine our freedoms.
Like the freedom to get health care when you need it instead of when you can
afford it? My European friends feel a lot more free with their single-payer
system than most Americans I know. But of course free to
conservatives means the freedom the market dispenses, a freedom enjoyed by those
who own and control capital but not so much by those who are owned and
controlled as "human resources." Has it ever occurred to you that most
hired employees in America do not enjoy much freedom at work? In fact, they give
up several of their Constitutional freedoms every day when they walk through
their employer's door. If you conservatives really wanted to secure freedom
for all citizens, you would throw all your rhetoric behind worker ownership of
business. Then the people would really be free. As long as you support the
current corporate system of ownership, you don't support freedom. You
support economic authoritarianism.
There are conservatives, then there are stupid conservatives.Stupid
conservatives want the my way or the highway approach which is basically,
"if I don't like it, it should be gone."The real conservative
says, "yes I feel government is too big. It has its place but is too
big." They also say, "people should take responsibility for
themselves."What I'm saying is, there is a purpose and a
place for government, but not at the risk of our personal freedoms. The purpose
of a conservative is to work with the other side and strive to make legislation
better but not give up the farm doing it. Also not trying to please all of the
people all of the time, like moderates.Why don't we try to eat
the elephant one bite at a time instead of the whole thing at once? The
progressives have figured that out and continue to undermine our freedoms with
continual control of the media and our education structure.Moderates
need to quit crying and try to get along. They whine loudest when they
don't get their way. Democrat lite.
The caucus system is far and away THE BEST system to get yourself elected,
especially if you don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars to start
with.If you're a moderate you can go to you local precinct
meetings and try to elect a moderate to represent you. Or, you can run yourself
if you have a mind to. Just because someone, in their big campaign ads tries to
tell you they're a moderate - don't believe them. Let them tell you
in person at the state convention.The only reason I see behind the
big push to reform the caucus system are two things.1. Incumbents
feel "put out" that they have to secure their place on the ballot, even
though they've been in their elected positions since the beginning of
time.2. The media doesn't get tons of money spent on commercials
BEFORE the caucus (or open ballot) takes place. The media, obviously would like
money from "well-heeled" candidates before primary voting even takes
DougSOakley, UTI would classify the "Founding Fathers"
as "Right Wing Conservatives"...----Haha-hardly!Try turning off your Glenn Beck University reading a
some actual History.The Right-Wing Conservatives were the Torries
who wanted to "Conserve" the British Crown.The Founding
Fathers were uber-Liberal "PROGRESSIVES".They didn'w want to
conserve anything the European Monarch had to offer.All men being
Equal?One man, One vote - regardless of wealth or social class? Live and Let Live?To each his own?Public Services - Roads, Fire
and Police departments, Free Public Schools [something unheard of in Europe]
including a Constitutional requirement for a Post Office [something right wing
conservatives can't wait to kill today...]
continued...Who should pick primary candidates? The party? Or
the People?People keep saying "we need an election for
Republican primary candidates". Do you think Democrat primary candidates
are elected by tax payers? Have YOU ever voted to pick a Democrat primary
candidate? You can't... there is no such election. Democrat primary
candidates are picked at their convention just like Republican candidates.
Only dif is who attends the convention... Who votes at the Democrat Convetion
(hint... party_officials). Who votes at the Republican
Convention... (hint... normal every-day tax paying people like you and me are
selected by your neighbor's votes at the neighborhood caucus).
What's so terrible about that? I don't get the outrage.Do you want party officials you don't even know picking the primary
candidates (like Democrats)? or normal everyday people from your neighborhood
(like Republicans)?IF you think tax payers elect Democrat primary
canidates... you are terribly mis-informed on the process.
george,You think tax payers should be the only ones to vote...1. Who do you think votes in caucuses? (hint... tax payers)2. What do
you think every delagate is? (hint... tax payers)Here's the
kicker...3. Who do you think picks the Democrat's primary candidates?
(hint... not neccesarily tax payers, and not even Utahns... they are picked by
the DNC and their local surrogates at the convention).4. Who do you think
would be more succeptable to big business pressures and political quid-pro-quo
offers? Party officials? Or normal everyday working stiff tax payers like
you and me (hint delegates are just you and me, you could be a delegate if you
went to your local caucus meeting and raised your hand when they ask for
volunteers).So... who should pick the primary candidates? The
party? or the people?
JoeBlowFar East USA, SCWell? What is a moderate?I
consider myself one. You tell me...============ You and
MOST commentors on these boards are indeed moderate.It's just
the goal posts here in Utah have mooved so far to the uber-far-right-wing -- We EASILY come across and are viewed as extremely liberal-lefties.Just like Ronald Reagan would be today.BTW - abortion.Moderates can seen the rare legal need for it in the cases of Rape, Incest,
life and health of the woman.The GOP says a rape victim needs to
make lemons out of lemon aid, or IF the rape is lgitimate - the woman will
naturally some how magically abort automatically.And a doctor must
sit back and let a woman die during emergency complications during
childbirth.The extremeist all-or-nothing GOP uber-far-right-wing
position currently isn't in-line or in harmony with the position of the LDS
Church.THAT and everything else you discribed is why Moderates are
not welcome in today's GOP.
Some like to point to Mitt Romney as an example of the Republican party being
too conservative for "moderates". In fact, Mitt lost because too many
conservative Republicans stayed home, not trusting him to uphold their
conservative principles. He had spoken in favor of gay marriage and pro-choice
(pro-abortion), and had authored the health care plan in Massachusetts that many
believe was the blueprint for Obamacare. He said he had "repented" of
his past indiscretions and was now a true conservative, bot too many were not
convinced. As a result, he wasn't able to turn out the base. Mr. Obama
actually received fewer votes than he had 4 years earlier. It was conservatives
not voting that gave him the election.Mr. McCain lost in large part
because conservatives were still feeling betrayed by George W., who had spent
like a drunken sailor during his last couple years in office, aided and abetted
by McCain and other moderate Republicans. Too many chose to stay home, thus
leaving the door open for Mr. Obama.Instead of wringing hands and
trying to appeal to moderates, perhaps the Republican party should consider
electing a conservative next time.
What ever happened to Calvin Rampton, Scott Matheson, Wayne Owens, or Gunn
Why do "Moderates" always loose to "Radicals"? Because the
"radicals" care more!Think about it... if you were going to
lead a group of individuals into battle... would you want the group who care
moderatly? Or those who care radically?Personally I don't buy
the stereotype that if you like the old system you are a "Radical" or an
"Extremist". I think that's just media biased bunk. Of course
SOME are... but that doesn't mean ALL are. SOME are radical on EITHER
side of any issue if you ask me (not just one side, and not just this issue).
"...I want my choice to be clear whether Democrat or Republican, Independent
or Libertarian...".Too many seemingly clear choices adopt
political positions based upon their audience.
Apparently, winning elections is far more important than what is expected from
those who were elected. I would classify the "Founding Fathers" as
"Right Wing Conservatives" yet many compromises were made in the
founding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am not against
compromise, just those thaty violate principles of good, limited, government.
Yes, Utah will remain out of touch and will keep electing extreme conservatives.
But as the nation recoils from the extreme right wing, Utah will become
increasingly irrelevant (as if we weren't irrelevant enough already). And
just because right-wingers keep harping about the Democrats' liberal agenda
doesn't make it so. Much of what President Obama has promoted would have
been seen as very moderate, even right of center, a couple of decades ago. If you read the Utah Democratic Party's positions on a swath of
issues, you realize they are pretty much a moderate party. They don't need
to change to offer a realistic alternative. They already do. Utahns just need to
wake up and see how out of touch the Utah GOP has become. The
national GOP apparatus conducted some official navel gazing after the disastrous
national elections in November 2012. They are the ones who declared themselves
"out of touch," a party for "old white men," and so on. They are
at a loss as to how to shed this image. But in Utah, most Repubs want to embrace
this image. I say, go ahead. Sink your own ship. It's probably inevitable
UT legislators Jason Chaffetz and Mike Lee are helping to bring the Republican
Party down.President Barack Obama could possibly face impeachment
over his administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, anniversary
attack in Benghazi, Libya, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) repeated in an interview
with National Review published Monday."This is an administration
embroiled in a scandal that they created," Chaffetz said. "It's a
cover-up. I'm not saying impeachment is the end game, but it's a
possibility, especially if they keep doing little to help us learn more."5/20/2013)
What needs to be brought up; is that gerrymandering by Utah republicans, has
skewed the numbers of actual republicans in this state.Everyone deserves a
voice; republicans have decided to silence the votes of Utah democratic voters,
through unethical, and what should be illegal, arbitrary voting districts. This is not a good thing.There needs to be an independent committee to
draw voting districts.It would be better to have a fair number of
democratic representatives in our Utah legislature. It would prevent so many of
the things that have happened recently: failure to pass an ethics law, trying to
eliminate GRAMMA disclosure. Wasting our tax money on law suits; that could be
better spent on our schools.We should be sending at least two democratic
congressmen to Washington.Voters in SLC are being cheated out of their
right to elect who they believe is best for the state.
I am a Moderate Republican.This means that I don't completely
endorse either parties policies yet I see positives in both sides.Being a moderate, this allows me to look at the candidate directly. Are they
willing to listen to and accept criticism, are they willing to see something
from a different point of view or are they to engrained in the party doctrine
that they are always right no matter what the evidence may show?These are the questions that I ask myself when I am researching the candidates
for each office. Party affiliation is less than 25% of my consideration due to
the far right leaning politics of the current Republican party.I
would encourage more people to look at the candidates rather than the party
affiliation. There are good people on both sides and there are bad people on
both sides. It is those in the middle that will listen to their constituents
because they know that the people elect them, not the party.
Well? What is a moderate?I consider myself one. You tell me.I like the FDA and feel safer knowing they are there. Are there
problems? Sure. But, I dont want to disband them. Just fix them.Wars should be a last resort. I feel that our military budget is far too high
and could be scaled back where the military is forced to make better choices.
Hear about the Abrams tank that the politicians push and the military does not
want?I think our government spends too much money. We need a big
cut in spending. Military, SS and Medicare need to be looked at first because
thats where the big money is.I am not gay, but dont see gay marriage
as a threat.Bush was a good guy. Made some mistakes and did some
things I disagree with, but is a decent person. I could make he exact statement
about Obama.We need reasonable and balanced Govt. Left completely
in charge, the Dems will hurt this country. Same with the GOP.I
think money corrupts both parties and would love to see all corp and union money
out of the election process. Does that make me_Moderate?
I agree with DougS, "moderates" seem wishy washy in principle. They
want to please everyone and wind up pleasing no one. If we agree on the broad
goal, compromise is a way to get many people on board. Today, compromise from
conservatives means getting half of the desired outcome which is ineffective and
wasteful.Today is a battle of ideas and philosophies, moderates just
want to get along, they ride on whatever train is in the station without a clear
philosophy or goal.The liberal Left is basically unified in goal and
purpose and do not allow deviation from their ranks. The conservative Right is
getting the message and unifying their message and membership. Moderates
don't like the Left but don't want to join the Right, they just sit in
the middle trying to feel good about their acceptance and openness and in the
end they have no goal, soul or following.
The whole premise of this article assumes that the choices are right wing
Republican or Democrat.Isn't the real issue, right wing
republican vs moderate republican?Like it or not, right wing
Republicans will not win the presidency. Try nominating Ted Cruz or Rand Paul
in 2016 and see how far they get.The GOP pushes candidates so far
right to get the nomination, that they become unpalatable to the general
electorate.Perfect example is Mitt "I am a severe
Republican" Romney.The GOP is in full out civil war. And those
who are the loudest would rather lose with their ideal candidate than win with a
moderate.Seriously, does anyone consider Reagan right wing?
For many years, people had little choice in their candidate because there were
no "principles" clearly available. A "moderate", in my book, is
a "fence sitter" and therefore, can decide any issue based on which way
the wind blows (or the money comes from). If an election is lost because the
candidate fails the "popularity" test, who is the real losers? I want
my choice to be clear whether Democrat or Republican, Independent or
Libertarian. Then I should have a better idea of what I would be getting.
I think that tax payers should be the only ones to vote.