Radical extremists on the margins of our political discourse profit and grow
their brand by driving the rest of us apart with their rants and untruths. We
should see them for what they are. We can't let them do that to
us. We can't let them fracture our nation by appealing to our baser
instincts. The centrist majority wants our blessed Nation to come
together, to heal our differences, and face our external challenges.If we stoop to fighting another Civil War we will surely fail on the World
Scene. We will have only ourselves to blame. Ben Franklin said:
"Either we will hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately".
That is as true today as it was at the Signing.
2bits - 2 points: 1 - I was being facetious when commenting on the
land ownership issue. I was pointing out the curious nature of your comment
because a) you only spent a few months in one part of a state, and b) you
mentioned that 90% of the state's geography was conservative (thereby
implying they are being marginalized by a one person, one vote system). If you
weren't suggesting these rural conservatives are somehow being
marginalized, despite occupying all that land, why the "their vote matters
literally zero" statement even though their vote counts like any other New
Yorker? 2 - You do realize the "fly-over state, equal
representation" argument undermines your earlier point, right? You are
correct that states like Utah have 2 Senators, just like California, which means
conservatives in rural areas end up being overrepresented in national politics.
In theory, it's absolutely absurd that California shares the same amount of
votes as Utah in the Senate even though Utah's economic output amounts to
little more than a rounding error for our nation's GDP. And yet,
that's the system we (coastal states) are stuck in but you're the one
complaining. Does irony know no bounds with you?
Stalwart Sentinel,Who said anything about "voting laws to reflect
one's ownership of land"?Since you were commenting on my
comment I would assume you are saying I advocated for that (that would be a
strawman, because you threw that in, I didn't say it, nor do I advocate it
in any way).What I was saying is... that rural areas and their
issues get no representation unless we do something.The founding
fathers did something. They formed a Republic (instead of a pure Democracy)...
with representatives (call them delegates if you will). AND to avoid having
fly-over States that have no voice... they created the Senate, which has equal
representation for every State regardless of population (2 representatives from
each State regardless of the State's population).If it's
so evil... why is it the way the founding fathers setup our Government? (with
Representatives/delegates instead of a popular vote on everything)? And
why did the founding fathers try to avoid fly-over States (but some people like
you are fine with having fly-over communities in Utah that will have no
voice)?This "who cares what rural people want" attitude is
disgusting to me.
:Dr. Goebbels would be so proud.:Yes he would.... for so very
careful cheery picking of data and numbers. Majority don't like the
current law, but majority don't want repeal... that want it fixed.And for that fact, most people polled also don't approve of the
Republican Party, and even fewer approve of the Tea Party... so perhaps we
should just get rid of them too.... if we are going to play that game.Yes, Goebbles would be proud........ party purity. Purge the Rinos.... yada
yada yada.... sounds very familiar.
"They watch their State elections like they are an outside observer, knowing
their vote matters literally Zero."Or... their vote matters
literally the same as every other citizen in the state and there happen to be
more liberals that live in that state. But you're right, 2
bits; based on your few months of anecdotal experience, we should change voting
laws to reflect one's ownership of land. I can't imagine there would
be historical evidences of that being bad for society. How could that possibly
Someone should have told that to the house Republicans before they went into
@procuradorfiscalTooele, UTRe: ". . . It like it."Sound like a good conservative Republican political motto -- "It
like it."----BTW - People who live in glass houses
should not be throwing stones.
Procuradorfiscal - So, if I take your statement that "too many Americans
either don't care, or are so fed up they don't see a reason to
vote" and combine that with your assertion that "Americans are decidedly
right of center on nearly every political issue, and all moral issues" then
the fact that the majority of Americans who voted chose liberals leads to the
conclusion that your moral, right-of-center American majority is plain lazy.
They're too lazy to even vote. So, it seems liberals also
outperform conservatives when it comes to ambition b/c we actually show up to do
our civic duty (despite state-level conservative efforts to undermine this). Further, statistically-speaking states that are headed by liberals tend
to have higher GDP per capita ratios (we're more productive economically)
but perhaps that's because we're more educated? Or maybe it could be
because we're statistically less obese? Commit fewer violent crimes? Or
maybe it's because we subsidize states like UT with federal dollars every
year so we have to work harder knowing that your state isn't
self-sufficient? What a conundrum, so many options.
I also agree with Utah_1's observation that IF this kill-the-caucus
campaign is successful... you won't see a State politician in rural Utah
again.Why campaign in small communities when all you need to do to
win is win the Wasatch Front?Any smart politician would spend all
his time (and money) campaigning in the Wasatch Front.They already
have this in NY. I worked in upstate NY when Hillary Clinton was running for
Congress and from all the signs on the lawns and bumper stickers on the roads...
she had no chance. Everybody I talked to while I was there (several months)
was very vocal and didn't want her. I assumed she wouldn't win.
When she did win (and it wasn't even close).. I asked the guys what
happened. They said they knew that would happen (because it always does).
That they are resigned to the fact that 90% of the State (geographically) is
conservative. But that 90% doesn't even touch the number of votes that
are in just one Manhattan district.They watch their State elections
like they are an outside observer, knowing their vote matters literally Zero.
what has become obvious is that Mitt was right about 47 percent seeing
themselves as victims but who at the time knew it was actually Republicans
feelings sorry for themselves because they are so picked on by the big bad media
Re: ". . . the majority of people voted for Democrats for House, Senate, and
President."Not true, of course. 43.5% of voting-age Americans
didn't vote for anyone.Truth is, since too many Americans
either don't care, or are so fed up they don't see a reason to vote,
only a politician elected with 90+% of the votes cast could honestly claim to
have been elected by a majority.Something like 53% of 57% -- 30% --
of America elected the liberals.A consistent finding of objective
polls is that Americans are decidedly right of center on nearly every political
issue, and all moral issues. Suggestions to the contrary are either uniformed or
disingenuous.Liberals outperform conservatives in one area only --
spin and propaganda. And, since liberals are heavily overrepresented in
politics, media, and academia, the ideas and values of a clear majority of
Americans are simply not represented at all.That's what will
change in upcoming elections. Real people will become candidates to represent
real people and our values.And liberals politics will drift into
The current system just means Gayle Ruzicka is in charge of who gets to run for
office. She is an extremist with a great deal of power, far out of proportion to
the views of most Utahns. I'm signing the petition just for that reason.
The United States is NOT in the center anymore. Two Obama victories will tell
you that. Mitt estimated that 47% see themselves as victims who would rather
take handouts than work. Mitt was WRONG - the number is close to 55%! America -
as a majority - has fallen out of the exceptional category to the mediocre
category and we now see China and other world powers passing us by economically.
That trend will continue as America becomes more and more an entitlement state.
I suspect you will also soon see an exodus of American companies simply because
Obamacare will choke the life out of them in the coming months and years and
they will find greener pastures overseas.Take a long hard look at Detroit. I
expect other cities to look just like Detroit in the not too distant future and
it is all due to the adoption of socialism. Good grief it isn't hard to
look at Greece and France and see that we are on the same ugly course with the
same eventual result waiting for us. Bankruptcy and desperation. I would love to
see another outcome but I just don't anymore.
Boy... the DesNews is really pushing that anti-caucus agenda now days. I
wonder why?Could it be so when the masses of people wake up on
election day and realize they don't know who they want to vote for but they
want to vote... they can just open the DesNews and see what the DesNews
recommendations are on each candidate or referendum item?Or is it
that the DesNews just does the bidding of the people behind the buy-my-vote
movement (Mike Leavitt, Norm Bangeter, Bob Bennett, and the rest of the
old-school Republican establishment)?I don't want Mike Leavitt,
Norm Bangeter, and the Republican establishment pulling the election strings
(through the DesNews).If you're getting your voting
recommendations from the DesNews... think again. I'd rather get thoughts
and recommendations from neighbors I KNOW I can trust (at a neighborhood
caucus), that getting my guidance from Norm Bangeter and Mike Leavitt's
pics (through their surrogate the DesNews).
@procuradorfiscal"Affordable Care Act."Using the
bill's actual name is propaganda? Hah, that's funny considering your
party had the "Repealing the Job-Killing Healthcare Bill Act" as a bill
name even though there's zero evidence the ACA kills jobs.Also
amusingly, the term Obamacare itself is propaganda, that KYnect program in
Kentucky is wildly popular... it's also their Obamacare exchange, but that
detail isn't so emphasized by the Republicans there. It's just like
Obama said, once people find out they like it, Republicans won't be calling
it Obamacare anymore.
@procuradorfiscalWell we took a poll in Nov 2012 and the majority of
people voted for Democrats for House, Senate, and President. So either
they're centrist and rejected the more extreme party (DW-NOMINATE scores
score Republicans in Congress farther from the moderate 0 than Democrats in
Congress)... or they're liberal (if the Democrats are really as extreme as
conservatives say they are). Pick your poison.
Re: ". . . that is suppose[d] to be sad not ad."Sound like a
good liberal Democrat/Republican political motto -- "sad, not ad."It like it. It encapsulates the disingenuity of modern liberal politics,
pointing out that voters accepting the spin and lies of a liberal
politician's campaign ads, are quite likely to be sad with his/her actions.
sorry that is suppose to be sad not ad.
@pracuradorfiscial it is so ad that Mia was such a victim isn't
it, I guess all those appearances on fox news and the out of state conservative
money and media attention could not save her. I have to say the idea that Jim
some how represents liberals out of state or in state made for a good laugh,
Utah_1 points out an inconvenient truth that contradicts the DesNews conclusion
(that Caucus people are radicals and the general population wants more
centralist candidates).Evidence:- Tim Bridgewater got 57% of
the delegates in the last round of voting by the delegates (Remember... these
are the radicals picked at the caucuses).- Tim Bridgewater (picked my most
of the radicals)... LOST in the Primary (the supposed Centrist people) to Lee
(who didn't get the majority vote from the radicals at convention).So blaming Lee on the Radical convention delegates... when they picked
Bridgewater and the PRIMARY picked LEE... is kinda lame.- If Lee was
the radical tea party guy... then the radical tea party delegates should have
picked him instead of Bridgewater. But they didn't.- And the
Centrists primary voters SHOULD have picked the less radical Bridgewater... but
they picked LEE over Bridgewater. So evidently the general population is even
more radical than the delegates.You could say that IF Bennett had
made it into the top2 he would have won in the primary... That's a leap.IF Bennett thought he could win in the general (more centrist)
election... why did he decide not to run?
Re: "[Y]ou mean there is a reason Mia Love lost despite the fact even most
democrats in Utah do not care for Jim [Matheson]?"Yeah.
It's called Matheson's out-of-state liberal donors. And too many
low-information Utah voters being swayed by the disingenuous adds their money
bought.And, since those out-of-state liberals bought the election
for him, who do you suppose Matheson feels beholden to?
What a farce. The media didn't put their stamp of approval on Mike Lee;
therefore, we must stop 'people' from electing their representatives
because it is obvious that Mike Lee is an extremist. Let's open it up to
more manipulation by the media by pretending to give the ignorant and
uncommitted classes more say. If 'people' want more say, then they
had better start paying attention and go to the caucus meetings and let their
voice be heard.
you mean there is a reason Mia Love lost despite the fact even most democrats in
Utah do not care for Jim Mathewson? Our system in Utah is so broke we get to
vote for the far right or the far far right. there is no centrist let alone
Re: "New data shows the majority of Americans hold beliefs closer to the
center . . . ."Yeah, yeah. "New data" is just another
way liberals try to repackage "newspeak."ANY poll conducted
by NBC News [even if you don't add in that bastion of objectivity, Esquire
Magazine] would be suspect, even under the best of circumstances. But, when a
propaganda arm of the Democrat National Convention suggests it conducted a
"poll" during a politically-charged period -- like today's -- you
can bet the farm it really conducted a political focus group, figuring how best
to package the Party's leftist bilge, making it, if not attractive, at
least less offensive, to an essentially conservative, but low-information
America.It's illustrative that other "polling"
indicates that a clear and healthy majority of Americans oppose
"Obamacare," but that this majority slips, somewhat, when that same
Faustian political bargain is disingenuously re-packaged as an "Affordable
Care Act."Similar packaging propaganda is used to rig results of
all liberal polls, in order to advance socialist agendas.Dr.
Goebbels would be so proud.
The radical right took a big shot and lost big time. There are consequences for
such drastic action. The majority of Americans want to get rid of the "house
republicans". They will be hiding from being associated with Cruz and lLee
the next election. The tide has turned.
Brad,just because those changes were turned down doesn't mean some
won't pass Saturday. As you know from 2008 to 2010 neighborhood
election meeting attendance doubled. From 2010 to 2012, meeting attendance
doubled again. There is hope that in 2014, it will double again and 250,000 will
attend. I know that The State GOP has a committee that is working to make sure
we don't have the same growth problems for 2014 and that the system can
handle the volume of those interested and still allow time to meet candidates
and ask questions.New proposals for 2014 include a better system for
check in, including optional preregistration. The ability to optionally pre-file
to run to represent your neighbors as well. The meeting will be designed to last
for 2 hrs. or less, from 7pm to 9pm. There will be a pre-meeting from 6pm to 7pm
to allow you to personally meet candidates to represent your neighborhood that
have decided to run and for you to ask one on one questions. Even with large
groups, changes to make sure members can agree on questions to ask neighborhood
representative candidates with more time to hear from them.
"New data shows the majority of Americans hold beliefs closer to the center
of the political spectrum than to either ideological edge,"Is
that a surprise? I bet old data shows exactly the same thing.
I can't see why anyone would defend a caucus system that prevents many
people from attending and voting. Work evenings, or can't find a
babysitter, or away on a business trip, or your health doesn't permit it?
Apparently you don't deserve a vote.Any why would anyone think
the caucus delegates want to fix its shortcomings? The last time reforms were
pitched to make the process more open and inclusive, those entrenched in the
system told all caucus goers to reject every reform suggestion, which they did.
And why think the caucus delegates represent the state population
when delegates are 75% male?And why would anyone believe "let
those caucus goers do the thinking, they research it better and avoid the
problems with money." Am I not able to research candidates on my own? Are
caucus goers somehow not tainted by the gifts and meals directed at them?Those supportive of the caucus system are afraid of letting everyone
have a vote. They are afraid this would mean their candidates would never win.
So they fight against any change of their exclusive and limited system.
Utah's Neighborhood Elections force candidates to pay attention to rural
areas of Utah. Direct primaries encourage candidates to ignore rural areas and
communicate only by paid advertising. A direct primary would create fly-over
areas of Utah that will rarely get to meet their candidates face to face.At only one time for 10 years in Utah’s history did the state
depart from the Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention System. In 1937, a
powerful democratic state senator convinced enough of the legislature to switch
to an open primary. He had had two losses, a US Senate race and also for
governor, because the majority of the convention delegates disagreed with his
legislative voting record. But he was well known and had money.Many
at the time felt like an open primary was his ticket to the governorship, and he
did win. But the change in the system only lasted for a decade. After public and
media disillusionment, and even worse voter turnout, Utah restored the Caucus
and Convention System. Why go back?
Whether you like Sen. Mike Lee or not you should consider the following:re: Sen. Bennett in 2010. He was not in the top 2 coming out of
convention. In fact the more moderate of the two, Tim Bridgewater was selected
by 57% of the delegates in the last round of voting by the delegates. If he had
received 60% Tim Bridgewater would have been the party nominee and Mike Lee
would have been eliminated.Sen. Bennett endorsed Tim Bridgewater
during the primary, but with voters ticked at TARP and ObamaCare, they went with
Mike Lee.Sen. Mike Lee was the party nominee after the primaryThe Neighborhood Election and Convention system in Utah is the best way
to make sure a grassroots process can win over large amounts of money. It is the
only way someone with $100,000 can go against someone with $2 million in
election funds.We have a system that that does NOT favor the
incumbent, the wealthy or the famous. This is a good thing, and should be