I realize that there are many degrees of Republicans in the Utah Republican party, but those who have leaned so far to the left that they have actually climbed on board of the Democrat express need to turn in their “R’s” for “D’s.”
Two prominent Utah Republican women have recently stepped into the political spotlight by embracing the Democrat party while still claiming to be Republican. One is from Salt Lake and the other is from Bountiful.
A small article appeared on Section B of THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE May 21st 2010 edition by Paul Rolly, titled “Some in GOP see the right turning wrong” I applaud his accurate headline. Former Salt Lake County Republican Chairwoman Tiani Coleman is the campaign manager for Karen Hyer the Democrat candidate for Utah’s 3rd Congressional District seat currently held by Republican Jason Chaffetz.
According to Rolly’s article Coleman claims to be a conservative but doesn’t like the direction the Utah GOP is going. She then lamented what she called the “pandering of politicians to a small group of delegates in order to win the party’s nomination.” Hey Tiani isn’t that the way you won the party’s nomination to be the Salt Lake County Chair? Looks like it worked just fine for you but it’s not fair for anybody else! She says that she is considering becoming unaffiliated. Hey Tiani, I will second the motion for you to become unaffiliated. All in favor say “I”. The motion carries, “Good bye!”
Now let’s look at Bountiful resident Sheryl Allen who first ran for and was elected as a State Representative in House District 19 in 1994 and has maintained her seat for the last 16 years in fact most of her re-elections were unchallenged. She has been noted as one of the most liberal Representatives in the Utah House, yet she serves from the conservative city of Bountiful. How could a “left leaning moderate” continue to be re-elected for seven terms?
Sheryl Allen is the Foundation Director of the Davis County School District, an impressive non-profit organization with the objective of securing “contributions from private sources to help fund enrichment and learning projects not funded through the normal budgetary process” (as stated on its website http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/district/foundation/about.html).
She also served on the Davis County School Board from 1977 to 1989. Could her longevity as a member of the Utah House of Representatives have something to do with her heavily entrenched involvement with the UEA? It never hurts to have a large union backing you for political office and it is a great deterrent to would-be challengers who aren’t up to spending that type of matching funds for a campaign.
I find it interesting that within days of Sheryl’s announcement that she would not run another term that there were four contenders for her seat. Where were these people the last sixteen years? I know that most of them were living in Bountiful at the time and some were very politically active.
Anyway, here is the reason I believe that Sheryl Allen should turn in her Republican motif in exchange for a new “D” next to her name. Sheryl Allen has been named by Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate and current Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon as his running mate for this November's special election. Gee, am I missing something here? Is a long-time “Republican” member of the Utah House of Representatives running as a Democrat for the office of Lt. Governor? And is she doing so while still holding onto her letterman’s jacket from her Republican Alma Mater?
She was quoted as saying; "I really want to preach the gospel of bi-partisanship," and will join Corroon in "getting back to basics" to improve Utah's educational system and our economy.” Is this for real? I know Sheryl personally and she is a likeable and very intelligent person but does she really expect us, her fellow Republicans in her home town to simply smile and yell “Go Sheryl go!” while fighting against the Republican candidate for Utah Governor???
And I have a big issue with someone like Sheryl Allen who has successfully obtained millions and millions of dollars from the Utah tax payers over the years for education to talk about how we need to “get back to basics.” What basics could she be talking about, reading, writing and arithmetic or better pay for teachers and more accountability from the school districts and administration? Or how about smaller class sizes?
While I’m on the subject she also fought against a key point in the Utah Republican platform called a parent’s choice in education. If this is what she means then why did she fight so hard against Charter Schools which have proven to reduce the size of public schools and have higher test scores with smaller class sizes?
It seems to me Sheryl, that the best way to get back to basics in education is to reduce the role of the government and increase the role of the parents in education. Then let’s target the exceptional teachers and give them a raise and ask the tenured and checked out teachers to consider one of two options, an early retirement or an early retirement!
To recap, more schools, smaller class sizes being taught by the best teachers who make the highest pay. Why is this so difficult to do? Yeah, I know, it's called UEA! (Usurped Education Association).
I don’t question that Tiani Coleman and Sheryl Allen have done some good along the way in their respective political offices within the Republican Party. But I do find it interesting that they both think they can simultaneously ride two trains on two tracks heading further and further apart from one another. Even Gumby can only stretch so far before losing a limb. So for your own health and our well being, here’s a boot to help you make your decision. And to make it as clear as possible we’ve added a very prominent letter “D” to the tread. “Good Bye!”
Thanks again for your comments. I appreciate the fact that you take time to create well articulated opinions. I think that you and I agree on quite a bit. I would never ever propose putting caps or spending limits on political campaigns. I am against anything that is an assault on our constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech. I believe that my comments on the winner being the one who spends the most money are simple statements of “that’s the way it is”, if I can quote the late Walter Cronkite.
I realize that the winner is not ALWAYS the person who spends the most but the odds are extremely high that those who lose are those who are out spent.
Let me try to clarify my comments about delegates voting in behalf of the people.
There are basically three types of citizens in every community,
Group One: the concerned and educated voters
Group Two: those who vote without educating themselves on the issues or candidates.
Group Three: those who don’t vote
Typically Group one, the educated voter is proactive in the political process. They are truly concerned about what happens in their community, State and Country so they learn all they can. These are the voters who normally attend their neighborhood caucus meetings. These are the voters who choose the delegates to represent them at the state convention. I am the most empathetic with this group simply because they take the time to learn and then to teach and educate others. They understand and value their constitutional right to vote!
Group Two voters “typically” don’t take the time to become educated and simply vote according to the impressions they get from cards with bullet points, robo calls, yard signs and various campaign junk mail. These are the voters most candidates want because the candidate doesn’t need to personally answer tough questions or justify their positions. This is why incumbents always want a primary run-off because they hope to be re-elected by the uneducated voter who won’t question their record but simply vote according to name recognition. If they can “buy” a vote with a flashy post card they will do it. (Now, don’t jump on me for the “buy” a vote comment. I am simply trying to illustrate how the money factor plays a big part in a successful campaign).
The Group Three non-voters who don’t exercise their constitutional right to vote simply miss out on letting their voices be heard. I am amazed at how many in this group will complain about elected officials when they did not take the time to vote!
You asked me “In your opinion what is the solution to the problem in local elections?” Unfortunately local elections are often the toughest because small communities like Bountiful have city council seats at large. This means a candidate needs to get his or her message to over 40,000 people. It takes a LOT of time and MONEY to do this. Again, the incumbent has the advantage simply due to name recognition. We may have the Clipper but it is not a daily paper and like most papers it is slanted toward the incumbents too.
MY SOLUTION: A simple solution for cities like Bountiful. Create council districts that take the city and divide it into smaller geographical sections. This will allow candidates from each district a better and less costly opportunity to meet the people in their district. It will also make for better representation since different parts of the city have different needs. Perhaps one of the council seats could remain a seat at large. (Hey that sounds like the delegate process used by the Republican Party! Yes, it does! And it is a great idea, something I campaigned on).
It looks like my response is longer than my original blog post. Sorry for the length but this is why I post so that people will talk and exchange ideas. I don’t claim to know it all. I do have firm beliefs but I too am educated every day and I truly appreciate people like you who take the time to ask questions and express your opinion. You would be amazed at how many people are afraid to link their name to a comments section on my blog so they respond to my posts by sending me a private email. Most are very kind and are in agreement others are vulgar and inappropriate to publish.
Thanks again Marc. Your comments are always welcome!
I think that most people are too busy trying to make a living to consider running for public office. If they live in a town that seems to be well managed they don’t notice anything wrong that makes them question how well their local government is doing its job.
If the water comes on when they turn the nozzle, the lights come on when they flip a switch, the snow is plowed before it’s too difficult to drive through and the roads are not filled with pot holes then life seems to be just rosy in the town where they live.
Occasionally someone will attend a city council meeting because they hear about a local issue affecting a friend, co-worker or family member. They attend the meeting and get their first taste of local politics. After assessing the meeting they think to themselves that they would have done a much better job if they were a member of the city council or even the mayor. But for the average person these feelings don’t last long and then they return back to their busy life and daily routine.
But every now and then something happens to jolt a citizen into action. They want to fight for a cause or against an injustice and they take on City Hall. The experience gets them a small measure of local fame and then they think that perhaps they could do a better job than the elected official. Then realty sets in and they soon discover that there is no way they could fit one more thing into their busy life so they pull out from the controversy and try to quietly slip back into their anonymous life.
There are others who would make excellent legislators or local city officials but they are not in a position financially to take on the cost of a political campaign. Often, if the candidate is popular enough people will contribute to a campaign helping to offset the costs, but most local campaigns still end up costing the candidate.
So who wins most campaigns? Typically those who win campaigns are those who have the time to devote to public office and enough money to spend and run an expensive campaign. Seldom does the best candidate win an election; instead it is the candidate who can spend the most money. There is a simple reason for this; it’s called “name impressions” through marketing. The more often a candidate gets their name in front of the voter the greater the subconscious impression they make with the voter which results in a greater likelihood of obtaining the vote.
Surely you have known someone who said they voted for the name they knew, or perhaps you have even done the same thing. The average voter does not take the time to learn the issues or discover how the candidates believe or would vote on the issues. Instead, they tend to vote for the name they recognize on the ballot. So, if you are running a campaign the more you can get your name in front of a voter the greater the chances that they will recognize your name on Election Day and vote for you.
This is why you are constantly asked to donate to a campaign either directly through the political party you are associated with or from a candidate who believes you would support them. Money is essential in winning a campaign; qualification or ability unfortunately often comes in a distant second. In the end he or she who has the most money wins!
I find it amazing just how out of touch and misinformed the media is. I heard several different reporters all saying the reason Bob Bennett was not sent back to Washington was because the Utah State Delegates were more conservative than the average Utah voter. Do these people not do any investigative reporting on their own? Or do they simply read the teleprompter? And do all of the news outlets compare notes to make sure they are all saying the same thing?
Just who elects the State Delegates in Utah? Surprise! It’s the average voters! It’s called holding elections at the state caucus meetings that were held last March. And guess what media; the average Utah voter who attended their state caucus meeting decided who they wanted to go to the Utah Republican Convention to represent them! They “chose” delegates from each precinct to represent them!
So if the Utah State Delegates were more conservative than the average Utah voter it seems that the average Utah voter figured that they better send those who were more conservative. Does this make any sense? Of course not! Why can’t the media call things they way they are? The reason Bob Bennett was voted out at the Utah Republican Convention was because he had become a Rhino Republican, he was no longer acting as a conservative, he voted for TARP and then told Delegate audiences all over Utah that TARP didn’t really need to be as big as it was but that Washington thought that they had better at least double its size so that the average American would believe it was a bigger problem than it was and would agree with the bailout!
He co-authored a Health Care Program with a liberal Democrat that included unconstitutional mandates for every citizen to either buy the plan or join elsewhere, no there was not an “opt out” option, if you didn’t buy into his plan you were mandated to buy into another!
Perhaps one of the biggest unanswered breaches of public trust was when Senator Bennett accepted large sums of “Bribe” money from associates of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and conveniently kept his mouth shut over and over again when President Bush called for an audit of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some may think calling it Bribe money is too harsh and unsubstantiated, but what would you call it when a US Senator takes money from the two largest buyers of US Mortgages and then turns a blind eye to numerous calls to their investigation which later turned out to be one of the largest financial disasters in US history causing world-wide recession and a multi-trillion dollar US bailout program?
Is the average Utah voter so moderate that these things don’t matter? Or is it possible that the average Utah voter was more than irritated at a respected US Senator who traded his integrity and good judgment for money and power?
Bob Bennett, the junior Senator had some great accomplishments in his first term. He then promised the average Utah voter that he would only serve two terms but that promise was not kept when he ran for term number three. It is an extraordinary lack of judgment and just plain arrogance that he wanted to run for a fourth term after what he knew were extremely controversial votes, proposed bills and questionable acceptance of large sums of money .
I was empathetic to Bob Bennett until he said while being interviewed after his defeat that he did not think his votes and decision would have ended his “CAREER”! That is perhaps the biggest issue with Bob Bennett; he went to Washington to represent the State of Utah for two terms and then decided to make it his career!! We did not send him there to become a career politician!
The average Utah voter sent Bob Bennett home, not just the 3,500 delegates at the State Convention. Oh and one more thing, I am not a member of the Tea Party movement. In fact, I met many, many delegates at the Convention and the words Tea Party never came up! But words like RHINO, self-serving, disingenuous, term limits, career politician, moderate, liberal, arrogant, selfish, out of touch were bantered around by many all day long.
I believe that Bob Bennett is a good man who was tempted by money, prestige and power the bi-products of public service when it becomes a long term career. Over time it clouds the mind and impairs the judgment.
Bob Bennett may be the first Utah Senator in seven decades to be ousted at Convention but he surely won’t be the last. Your time is coming too Orin Hatch!
I consider myself very blessed to be a part of political Republican Party history today as I participated in the retirement of Senator Bob Bennett. After 18 years as a US Senator from Utah his reign has come to an end. Although he was introduced at the convention by Utah’s (adopted) very own, Mitt Romney he could not muster enough votes to make it through the primary.
As I sat listening to each of the candidates most of whom gave very good patriotic and moving speeches I was most impressed with Cherilyn Eager. She was dynamic, passionate and extremely articulate. She was my first choice. She is by far the most conservative of the bunch and it was probably her ultra Conservative positions that did her in.
The first round of voting looked like this: Mike Lee28.75%, Tim Bridgewater 26.84%, Bob Bennett 25.91% and Cherilyn Eager 15.84%. The first round eliminated four other candidates including former two-term Merrill Cook. I don’t understand why he tried to run for another high office. Can’t any of our Senators and Congressmen be satisfied with serving two terms? He gave a very good speech but looked like he was about to have a heart attack at any moment. The gentleman sitting next to me leaned over and asked me if I thought that the streams of sweat running down Mr. Cooks face were indications of a pending heart attack.
The comic relief of the bunch was Leonard Fabiano. I probably shouldn’t say such a thing because I am sure that he is a fine person but his speech quickly turned into an endorsement for Cleon Skousen’s (incredible) book, THE 5000 YEAR LEAP, a book that teaches an in-depth course on the founding of our constitution.
He spent the majority of his 5 minute speech talking about how he wanted to organize an army of soldier delegate who would go two-by-two all over the state of Utah teaching from the book. I know what you are thinking, yes, it did sound very similar to a very successful program run by the LDS church. But I will cut him some slack since he recently returned as an LDS Mission President in Europe.
But just when you thought his call for this massive conservative political army was purely metaphoric he called for two of us from each County to meet with him after the convention to start the organization of what he eventually called “Revolution for the Constitution.” At this point delegates began to laugh under their breath at this poor man. Again, a very nice guy but in the end I was convinced that he was probably not operating on all cylinders.
Back to the vote…
Round two was euphoric. The atmosphere in the Salt Palace was filled with tension and anticipation. We waited what seemed like hours, although it was about 40 minutes for the ballots to be counted. Then the news came around 3:30. Bridgewater took the lead with 37.42% and Mike Lee second with 35.99 and Bennett left the Senate with a third place finish and only 26.59% of the vote.
The crowd jumped to their feet and erupted in cheers and whistles for what seemed like another 40 minutes but actually only five very long minutes. Now that Bridgewater took the lead it was time for the final vote into round three. After another very long wait for ballots to be counted Bridgewater came in on top with 57.28% of the vote to Lee’s 42.72%. He fell short of winning the nomination without a primary by only 2.72% or about 94 votes out of 3,452 voting delegates.
At this point Bob Bennett had already become ancient (no pun intended) history. All of the attention was focused on Bridgewater who for weeks was considered the underdog behind Lee. Tim gave a very passionate and conservative speech. He outlined his conservative beliefs and political agenda. I am confident that he will win over Lee in the primary. He surely has my vote!
One last thing, the Chairman called for recognition of the years of service Bennett gave our state and the delegates offered him a hearty applause.
I believe this election was more about “Self-Imposed Term Limits” than anything else. Although Bennett stepped in the political cow dung on several occasions with his huge cash contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac employees, his own version of a Health Care bill with “Government Mandated” requirements and his pro vote for the TARP (troubled asset relief program), it was obvious to me by the numerous comments I heard all day long about his commitment to only serve two terms that really ended his political career.
It will be interesting to see if our next Senator makes the same term limit commitments or if he will be running for a third term in 18 years from now.
History in the making and I loved every minute of it!
Wishy-Washy: According to the Urban Dictionary is “Someone who is indecisive, ineffectual; afraid to stand up for what is right and moral. A typical attribute of a Liberal.”
How many times in your lifetime have you heard that phrase used to describe someone? We tend to think that a liberal is someone with definite ideas that lean to the extreme left, but in fact the definition of a liberal is more encompassing.
I find it interesting that the liberals in our society today claim to have a big tent where everyone with differing opinions is welcome. I guess they really do since their tent doesn’t just include the extreme leftists but also everyone else who is Wishy-Washy.
The more you think about it a person who is indecisive and afraid to stand up for what is right and moral is easily swayed to believe the liberal agenda that teaches that there is no absolute right and wrong, and to avoid those who believe differently.
The other interesting thing is that liberal ideology claims complete freedom of thought yet without morals and religious values that sustain and enforce right and wrong. The liberal movement slowly moves toward tyranny as those within the movement who lust for power fool the Wishy-Washy followers to follow their feelings instead of logic. And the power mongers have convinced their “open-minded” followers that they can lead them to ultimate fairness and happiness with socialized ideas to “Level the playing field” thereby making everyone equal.
But in the end, the more a person moves to the left the closer they get to Oligarchy where those with the power in the tyrannical movement make the decisions and speak for those who have “Opened their minds” in order for others to fill them up!
Look at many of the liberal activist in the US today. Most of these men and women have little or no morals and values. They are tax cheats, haters of freedom and the US Constitution, fake champions of the poor whom they keep dependent on the government with hand outs and special rights and privileges to keep them voting in their favor, they have illegitimate children, hidden affairs, millions of dollars in hush money, and special interest money.
They claim that the planet is warming due to man-made causes and events and they preach about reducing our carbon foot print while they live in secluded estates with homes in excess of 10 to 25 thousand square feet, drive large luxury SUV’s and travel the globe in private jets. The things they preach do not apply to them, only the little people. They rise in power and notoriety by exploiting the lives and misguided beliefs of their followers.
So the question you may want to ask yourself is’ “Am I wishy-washy, indecisive, ineffectual; afraid to stand up for what is right and moral?“ Because if you are wishy-washy you will eventually end up as one of the liberal lemmings who follow their leaders everywhere and eventually off of the cliff
Bob Bennett has been a US Senator for 18 years now and it is time for him to do the admirable thing and step down. The arrogance in Washington is unbelievable in this day and age. We just witnessed the liberal Democrats and our Socialist President Obama push through the most outrageous, expensive and unconstitutional health care reform bill in US history! Nearly 70% of the citizens in this country were against it yet they thumbed their noses at us and did it anyway.
Senator Bennett and his supporters will tell you that he stood alongside all of the Republicans in defiance of this bill, yet what he won’t tell you is that over two years ago he proposed a very similar health care reform bill of his own, Senate Bill 391 that he co-authored with liberal Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon. This bill was even quoted by Obama as evidence that there was bipartisan support for his health care reform bill.
If Senator Bennett’s bill had passed it too would have included (illegal) government mandates forcing every American citizen to buy the government health insurance or pay costly fines for non compliance. In fact, Bennett’s bill was used as a pattern for the bill Congress finally passed!
Bob Bennett may have served well his first two terms but he, like most, who become career politicians has forgotten the conservative values he took to Washington eighteen years ago. It infuriates me to hear these seasoned politicians claim that due to their tenure and seniority that they have the power to stop Washington from imposing its will on us. This is the BIG LIE! Our Founding Fathers never intended for citizens to make politics a career. In actuality, the opposite is true of seniority, it does not protect us it deprives us of our freedoms.
Thomas Jefferson said; “Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Tyranny happens when government gets too powerful and exerts its will on the people, such as this outlandish health care bill that just passed. And YES, people, Senator Bob Bennett would have tried to push his health care bill through if the liberal Democrats had not succeeded with theirs!
This is one of MANY reasons that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR BENNETT again! He is no different on this horrible issue than all of the liberals who voted for it! If Thomas Jefferson were alive today he would rally as many as possible against Bob Bennett!