Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Will Utahns march to their party caucuses this week?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Earl Sandy, UT
    March 11, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    David King has nailed it. As long as journalists just echo what they've heard other journalists or critics say without bothering to do their own examination, there's little hope that we'll ever get fair analysis of political candidates. Who can we trust then?

  • Earl Sandy, UT
    March 11, 2012 4:10 p.m.

    David King has really nailed it. This is exactly why Americans remain so uninformed while thinking they're informed. Those who should know better (the "informed" pundits) just repeat everything they've heard from everyone else rather than going to the sources. That's why there's no hope for this train-wreck they call the American political process.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    Re: the Sex Ed bill.

    If you read the current law first, and then compare it to the proposed law.

    I believe you will find that the intent of the current law remains, with added parental input and an option for the local school not to teach the class if they don't want to follow the law.

    From the Salt Lake Tribune: "According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of February 2011, 21 states and the District of Columbia required public schools to teach sex education, and 35 states and the District of Columbia required students to receive information about sexually transmitted infections."

    The bill allows a local school to provide the class if they follow the law. Currently we have schools in Utah that are required to provide the class and the claim is that some schools are not following the current law. Some have even questioned if the State School Board was following the current law.

    If that is the case, either the law needs to be clarified, or we add teeth to the law, or both. This clarifies the law assuming the schools will follow the law if it is clear.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2012 3:56 p.m.

    The caucus system 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 60,000 republicans in Utah that went to the neighborhood caucus elections in 2010 to elect the 3500 delegates. Add to those numbers to democrats and the primary elections and certainly the municipal elections didn't do any better in voter representation.

    Most people that want the caucus system changed, there are exceptions, are frustrated that they don't have as much power as people that show up to the neighborhood election caucus meetings. It doesn't take money, you just have to show up.

    What we need are more people getting involved earlier, not shutting down the system that protects us from power hungry people wanting to take over.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    March 11, 2012 1:51 p.m.

    Interesting takes from our political duo, but as a white, upper middle class guy who went to an affluent high school, I still didn't learn about sex from my parents (or teachers) either...

  • David King Layton, UT
    March 11, 2012 12:55 a.m.

    "Utahns are...befudfled with Ron Paul's isolationism"- Frank Pignanelli, from the article

    Mr. Pignanelli, you lose credibility when you use terms like "isolationism" to describe Ron Paul's foreign policy positions. He is a non-interventionist. Ron Paul does not want to cut ourselves off from other countries. We should talk to them, trade with them, be able to visit. It is the idea that we have to be mixed up everywhere with troops in over 130 countries that causes us to be isolated from the other nations of the world. Or as Dr. Paul says:

    "It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example."

    You see, Frank? You could have done ten minutes of reading on the internet and used the correct term, non-interventionism. Or you can continue to lose credibility with your readers by parroting everything they hear and see on TV.