Utah October Surprise

The video every person in Utah House District 51 needs to see.



I will be walking for Greg Hughes this weekend, because there is no legislator on Captiol Hill who I believe better represents the future of conservatism.

Greg Hughes Vindicated!

Cleared on all charges.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10748353

So much more to say on this, but for now, this is enough.

7 Days of Drama

According to the Weber and Davis Co. Attorneys, their investigation of bribery allegations in the Treasurer's Race will conclude "early next week". The Trib has the story: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10652477

So.... If this is true (remember, they said they'd be done in early August, and that didn't go so well), we have 7 Days of Drama starting Wednesday.

On Wednesday and Friday, Greg Hughes and Phil Riesen have the Ethics Committee conducting private hearings on their ethics complaints. This blogger is particularly irked by the private nature of these hearings. Think about it: If you are blasted in the media over a leaked ethics complaint, as Hughes has been, does it not make sense to have a public clearing of the air? This seems to be a manipulation of a process established to protect against just the sort of "October Suprise" many believe that this situation represents. If so, the process needs to be reformed, because a private vindication of a publicly aired grievance cannot possibly repair the damage to those who are innocent. As one person associated with Watergate inquiries who was later cleared of wrongdoing said, "Where do I go to get back my good name?" The Ethics Hearings may not answer this question, but whatever the outcome, the Legislature is certain to attempt an answer next year.


Then, on next Tuesday, the 14th, the Davis and Weber Co. Attorneys should present their findings in the Ellis/Empey/Walker probe. This could be the beginning of vindication for Walker, which is my sincere hope. I have endorsed Dick Clark, the Democrat, for this office due to the way this probe began. I challenge Richard Ellis to tell the public the truth in the wake of whatever the outcome of the investigation: Did your campaign receive legal services as an in-kind contribution from the UEA, or are your disclosure reports incomplete? This is a question I do not imagine Ellis will answer, but the public deserves to know.

To my friends, Rep. Hughes and Mark Walker, best of luck to you this week.

What Texas Hold 'em and Solomon Tell Me About the Smear of Greg Hughes

Two things tonight.

First, a poker analogy.

Facing an attack on his ethics and integrity, Greg Hughes was a masterful poker player today. Waiting, watching, and observing the actions of his detractors. He read the reports leaked to the media. Knowing he was guilty in no way of any unethical conduct, he did what all great poker players do: He slow played, and then reraised all in. This takes patience and discipline. But by calling for a full ethics investigation not only of his conduct, but that of Rep. Phil Riesen, Greg Hughes has called the bluff of Sheryl Allen, Phil Riesen, and the Democratic Party operatives behind this smear.

Let the investigation begin!

Second, a biblical analogy. In Ecclesiastes, the preacher writes:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.(Ecc 3:1, 7)

Despite the loud and relentless nature of politics, there are indeed times for silence. But for the friends of Greg Hughes, it is a time to speak. Now.

With an ethics charge against Rep. Hughes now filed, the most explosive charge is based entirely on hearsay. Two different versions of the same conversation. But in the drive by media, such accusations can ruin the public's trust in their elected leaders. That's why I took today off from work: Greg Hughes has many friends, but we must speak. I spent today on comment boards, defending, explaining, attempting to give insight to the public, asking for them to withhold judgement. It cost me a day of leave time at work. But I refuse to stand by idly, while my friend has his reputation run through the mud.

Everyone, it's time to speak for Greg Hughes.

At It Again: Phil Riesen, Sheryl Allen, and the Smear Machine Gear Up

By all accounts, I should be in bed right now. I will wake up in just a few hours to get to work by 6:30. But I can't sleep. It's happening again. And I'm not sleeping til I get this out.

It looks like Phil Riesen, Sheryl Allen, and the smear machine are lining up their next target: Representative Greg Hughes. Not content to have caused a media stir and near legislative ethics war earlier this year, Allen and Riesen are considering filing an ethics complaint against Hughes. KSL ran with this story tonight, which had been packaged neatly for John Daley. How else do you explain that KSL has the documents that were never filed with the Ethics Committee, and remain unsigned by the required three house members?

The complaint against Hughes seems to be three parts, though only the most explosive allegation is covered by Daley:

1. Hughes offered Susan Lawrence, a legislator dethroned in the 2006 election by Phil Riesen, $50,000 in campaign cash if she would switch her vote, or sit out, on Vouchers.

2. Hughes pressured people not to support Republican Ryan Wilcox against a sitting legislator, Republican incumbent Glen Donnelson, who lost in this year's Republican primary.

3. That Hughes attempted to pressure Margaret Bird her race against Hughes in this year's Republican Convention. Hughes trounced her handily.

Knowing Rep. Hughes, and having volunteered for a campaign event of his, with more to come soon, I knew something like this was coming. Right after Rep. Walker resigned, rumors swirled all over that Riesen and Allen were so pleased with their work spurring his resignation, that they would take on a new target: Rep. Greg Hughes.

That was months ago. The problem for Rep. Hughes: How do you counter accusations you know are coming, but that you have no clue as to the substance because you've done nothing wrong? Answer: You cannot. So when the lid blew off these allegations Tuesday, Hughes was anxious to get his hands on them. If you watch the KSL story, it seems that's what Hughes was on the Hill for: He came to confront his accusers, while Chris Bleak, Chief of Staff to Speaker Curtis, asked him to wait it out while Curtis checked the complaint's claims.

So now that the accusations are out, and the "bribery" accusation stands out, what do I think really happened?

1. On the bribery allegation, I have some insight. I was at the Republican Party in 2006 during Susan Lawrence's tough race against Phil Riesen. Parents For Choice in Education were very active in trying to find candidates to support, knowing that by having more Republicans in the legislature, vouchers were more likely to pass. So, my guess is that this is how this alleged conversation between Rep Hughes and Susan Lawrence probably played out:

Hughes: Susan, you're in ill health, and the Democrats aren't pulling punches this year. They've got Phil Riesen coming after you with guns blazing, and you need to be ready for the fight of your life. I know you don't like vouchers, but I think if the voucher folks know you are willing to listen to their ideas for a new bill, not even to vote for it, but just to listen, they'd be willing to offer you some support. Would you at least consider talking to these folks?

Lawrence: Thanks, but I think I've got this under control, and I'm just not comfortable with vouchers.

Hughes: Susan, it's going to take $50,000 to beat him. I want to help. Just let me know, and I'll see what I can do.

(Interestingly, Lawrence spent about 20k on her campaign, while Riesen pumped in about $45k.)

Now that's speculation on my part, sheer and utter speculation. But I'm confident that's about how it went down. Is that bribery? No way! It's like any other interest group: If, for example, Equality Utah sends you a questionairre, or wants to interview you to check your stance on issues, they will likely donate to your campaign if they feel you are someone they can work with. That's how this whole system works. No money for votes: It's knowing that, should vouchers or gay marriage or whatever issue the interest group has should come up, you won't ignore their voice mails, emails, requests for meetings, etc.., they will at least be able to talk to you and give their side before you cast a vote.

I have some questions, not the least of which is a question I raised about Richard Ellis and his complaint: Timing. When Ellis filed his ethics complaint, it had been nearly 2.5 months since the alleged bribe attempt, and Ellis had just nearly been eliminated at convention. And just as early/absentee voting is about to begin, Ellis files his ethics complaint. Convenient, eh?

Now, Riesen and Allen have dredged up this complaint. It's based on an event at least 2 and a half years old, and it is utter hearsay. And the letter Susan Lawrence wrote? It's dated September 3rd, 2008*. Thats 27 days ago. What in the world were they waiting for? Answer: This thing has October suprise written all over it. Maximum exposure, maximum damage.

This will not stand the sniff test.

Finally, one last thought. It's been 3 months since the Davis and Weber prosecutors got the Treasurer's Race probe from the Attorney General's Office, and still Mark Walker waits to hear his fate. Does anyone believe that, unless Hughes forces this into ethics committee himself, that he will have any chance at justice, and any hope but to be burned in effigy by the likes of Bob Bernick, Rebecca Walsh, and Holly Mullen? Don't bet on it.

It's 2:20 AM. There's more to this, but it will have to wait until tomorrow night.

*Edited 2:00PM 10-1-08. Originally a typo, I said "2009". Woops.

Eminence Front

Earlier this year, I started listening to The Who. One of the Blue Dogs in the Legislature introduced me to it, for which I am grateful. One of their greatest songs is "Eminence Front", a song Pete Townshend wrote during the early part of the 80s, and the lyrics seem particularly appropriate during this time of economic uncertainty. Townshend's composition, both lyrically, and musically, depict flashy lifestyles, partying, and stylish clothes, all apparently the product of immense wealth. But Townshend is not deceived:

The drinks flow, People forget.
That big wheel spins, the hair thins, People forget,
Forget they're hiding.
The news slows, People forget.
The shares crash, hopes are dashed, People forget,
Forget they're hiding
Behind an eminence front,
Eminence front - it's a put on.

Take a listen to the song. Buy it on ITunes. Because as I watch this financial crisis, born out of Democratic housing goals, American greed, and inflated home values, I keep turning back to this tune: In spite of all that wealth brings, in the end, it's an eminence front. Because as "shares crash, hopes are dashed", people are remembering, you can only hide behind your wealth for so long.

So as I consider what I would do, were I making this $700 Billion decision that is as philosophically heavy as it is economically, remembering the transitory nature of wealth is an important reminder to put value on those things which truly matter.

I encourage everyone to take some time, and reflect on this, and pray that our Congressional leaders, perhaps as much as ever before, get some kind of divine wisdom on this decision. Because as phony as this eminence front is, wealth can do wonderful things for our lives.

Economic depressions may serve to refocus us, but certainly do not bring great happiness or greater prosperity to Americnas generally. Paraphrasing Neal Maxwell, though we may travel through fiery furnaces in life successfully, wise men do not line up for another turn. Whatever decision they make, it is my hope that Congress is not starting up the queue.

"Numbers Never Lie...

but liars use numbers." Of all the things Dr. Dan Jones has said to me over the years, that statement stands out. Dan was right because, as another person once put it, "Numbers will tell you anything when tortured." Turns out, Bob Springmeyer is fully willing to engage in cruel and unusual punishment of numbers.

For anyone listening to Monday's debate between Huntsman and Springmeyer, this was quite evident. When Huntsman claimed "$1 Billion increased education spending over 3 years" under his administration (that's 40% more), Springmeyer countered with this:

"I don't know where Jon is getting his numbers, but off his own budget, it was just barely revised, public ed (in) fiscal year 2009 only provided a point three, 3/10ths of one percent increase in public ed...that's off your own website."

(Let's not get into Bob Springmeyer refusing to grant the Governor the dignity of the title Utahn's saw fit to grant him, and just calling him Jon. It's a classic, yet classless political move.)

Huntsman is right, and Springmeyer is wrong. In fact, Springmeyer seems to be attempting to tell the truth in order to obscure the reality of what Huntsman and the Legislature have done for public education, but he fumbles the truth and ends up lying. In fact, .3% is not the number in 2009, it's 3.0%. That sounds small, but it's over $92 Million dollars. Feel free to check me on this, but the budget is clear at http://www.governor.utah.gov/budget/Budget/Agency%20Summaries/FY2009/14_Public%20Education.pdf He may not of intended it, but by attempting to muddy the waters on education funding, Springmeyer ends up lying.

On another note, and a very boring one at that,Springmeyer whines that the Tax Commission is failing to release TC-23 reports, apparently in some sinister ploy by the Governor to hide public information. Now, for those unaware (that's 99.9% of Utahns), a TC-23 is essentially the Tax Commission stating what revenues are, and sometimes, predicting what revenues might be according to current trends. A forecast of sorts. What Springmeyer doesn't seem to realize is that the reports he whines about not seeing are reports that detail the first 2 months of the fiscal year that have only been compiled 3 of the past 10 years, and are generally just part of the Quarterly report issued by the Commission. So he's complaining about receiveing a report that is rarely issued, and that few people are even aware exists. Springmeyer is probably whining about this at the behest of Bob "Dirty Bernie" Bernick of the DNews, and Doug MacDonald, former Tax Commission economist. Are you bored yet? Me too, and Doug Fabrizio sensed the ticky-tack nature of this attack, moving the debate on.

But by all means, Mr. Springmeyer, continue fighting for those TC-23s. Send mailers out about it. Doubtless, half of the 1/10th of 1% of people who know what you are talking about will find your TC-23 complaints to be the main issue driving them to the polls...

One last note on the debate: Governor Huntsman gets the first ever Ninth Circle "Quip of the Day" for his take on the Salt Lake City Weekly. When asked about a Holly Mullen article in the liberal SLC rag, where Editor Holly Mullen (wife of Ted Wilson, who is a good Springmeyer friend from what I know) essentially says Governor Huntsman is a leader unwilling to use his political capital, willing to coast and not take on the issues of the day, the Governor responds in full dry wit mode:

"...that comes from a great newspaper, by the way, the Salt Lake Weekly, which is where I go to get all my information, since we don't have any other reliable papers in the state."

Meantime, this is one thing the people of Utah should understand about their Governor: He is a diplomat, and a kind man, but do not mistake his gracious and calm demeanor for a man devoid of passion, intellect, or pride. In fact, in my 28 years, only Neal Maxwell has impressed me more with his talent for dry one liners. Having spent time around both men, these quips are rare, but always richly deserved by the target.

AG Candidate Webpage Hacked!!!

I came home from work a bit early today. With the boss out of town, she was kind enough to allow me to use some leave time. I went to surf the campaign sites for updates, and stumbled across http://www.jeanwelchhill.com/. I was shocked to find that the website for the Democratic candidate for Utah Attorney General has been overtaken by a hacker! Take a look by clicking the link.

Though I can't imagine a great deal of traffic is flowing to her website, I feel for the Democrat and her campaign. This kind of nonsense can take hours to repair, and writing the material for a website takes a significant chunk of time. Here's hoping the culprit is caught, but regardless, let's hope Jean's website comes back up soon.

I am no internet security expert, but it would probably be wise for campaigns take a good look at their webpage provider's security options.

What Happened to the Treasurer's Race Probe?

Does anyone even remember this? This was frontpage news just 3.5 months ago, when Richard Ellis accused Rep. Mark Walker of attempting to bribe him to drop out of the Treasurer's race. I should stipulate, I supported Walker, a good friend, over Ellis, someone I met during my stint with the Lt. Governor's Office.

Ellis, the Deputy Treasurer, filed a complaint wtih the office of Lieutenant Governor Gary Herbert. When Herbert set aside the complaint to avoid unduly influencing the outcome of an election before the complaint could be fully investigated, Ellis was furious. He called Herbert's actions "outrageous", and told the Deseret News "He's frustrating the process from moving ahead."

So what did Ellis do? He filed a lawsuit to force the Lieutenant Governor to act. The legal representative for Ellis even called the Lt. Governor "stupid". The Supreme Court shot down Ellis, and said the Lt. Governor was within his rights to determine the time table of his response to the complaint. So the moment the polls closed on Richard Ellis and his resounding Primary Victory (aided in no small part by his accusation against Rep. Walker), the Lt. Governor forwarded the complaint to the Attorney General's office. Having endorsed Walker, AG Mark Shurtleff's office sent the complaint to the County Attorney's in Davis and Weber County, a Republican and Democrat, to investigate the allegations.

On July 19th, the prosecutors said they should be done "by August". It's now mid September. The media has let the story drop, aside form a mention of the scandal in a Cathy McKitrick story on Sunday in a Treasurer's Race profile story.

I have some thoughts:

• What is delaying the County Attorneys? Lt. Governor Herbert endured withering criticism for his decision to hold up the investigation to wait for the primary in order to provide due process to all involved. 2 months ago, they implied "we're almost done". Apparently, something is delaying this. Anyone who now claims the Lt. Governor stopped an investigation that could have been concluded before the Primary probably needs to have their head checked.


• What is up with Richard Ellis and his campaign finance disclosures? Reading a bit on blogs, rumor has it that the UEA bankrolled Ellis and his lawsuit. The dates associated with UEA contributions appear to match the dates of major significane in the complaint and lawsuit. Take a look here https://ucrs.state.ut.us/ Of course, I'm open to Richard Ellis's campaign contradicting this account. I'd be happy to have breakfast with you anytime, Richard. Just expect me to bring a witness to avoid any unfortunate lawsuits...


• I'm a Republican, but I will be voting for Democrat Dick Clark. I know both Richard and Mark Walker, and after watching this affair, I have no confidence in Richard Ellis. His timing was transparently political (waiting months to file the complaint)and his legal counsel was disrepectful to one of my personal heroes (Gary Herbert). Now I understand that disagreements happen: But filing suit against your own party's Lt. Governor? The possibility that the UEA funded your legal counsel? With Dick Clark, we get a fresh start at the top in the Treasurer's Office, and get to put this unfortunate event behind us.

I'm anxious to hear some results from this investigatoin. Let's get to the bottom of it and move on!

Facebook Follies

Recently, one of my best friends, Joe Demma, was in hot water for a Facebook posting. If you missed the controversy, you missed a classic example of the tempest in a teapot media, with Joe's Facebook posting serving as the media's "controversy of the day". If nothing else, the episode served as a warning to all campaign managers and staffers that the world wide web and social networking sites, while great campaign tools, can also be wielded by the media as a tool against your boss.

Apparently, Jean Welch Hill's campaign manager, Maryann Martindale, missed the memo. Her Facebook page is still full of politically explosive opinions, which could serve to undermine her candidate. A smattering of examples:

"Maryann Martindale isn't afraid to say it -- Palin IS a pig and someone DID put lipstick on her. But that's still not what Obama meant, idiots!"

"Maryann wants people to realize that wanting to see more women in office doesn't require them to vote for a fascist (Palin). "

"Maryann is wondering if an article on how much corporate money Shurtleff raises actually increases his corporate donations."

"Maryann has had her toes stepped on enough lately, thank you. Back the f*** off!"

This displays what most Utah campaign insiders already know about Democratic politics: While most Democrats posture themselves as moderates (and indeed, some truly are moderates), many of their campaigns are filled with hard-core leftists who are far from the mainstream in any state, let alone Utah.

Considering the moderate posturing of Jean Welch Hill, her campaign manager would be wise to throw out the extremist rhetoric. Certainly, in the no holds barred campaign world, her comments are potential fodder for anyone with a Facebook account and a little bit of time on their hands. If I can do it, so can Bob Bernick (though rumor has it that Bob has limited computer literacy, and let's face it, he can't write anything to hurt his friends in the Democratic Party) or Matt Canham.

Some may complain that these worries are stifling to the personal lives of campaign managers. That's hogwash. Campaigns are never supposed to be about the campaign manager. It is your job to let the candidate stay front and center. Those unprepared to deal with that reality need to find another line of work.

Jay Seegmiller on the Issues: Public Financing of Elections

Occassionally, I'll post my opinions on state legislative races. Today, it's the big one in the House: The Speaker of the House, Greg Curtis, has been challenged once again by Jay Seegmiller. The Trib profiled the race on Monday morning: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10409209

I make no secret that I am a fan of Speaker Greg Curtis. He's done a ton for Utah schools via increasing funding. He's been one of the leading forces in making Utah the best managed state in the nation. And he will not buck principles he believes in to raise his popularity. That's the kind of leadership I appreciate, and not to be to cliche, this really is "Leadership that Delivers".

In the above linked Trib article, Seegmiller supports Public Financing of elections. This is an idea I flat out despise. I'm so anti-public financing, I'm glad Obama's turning the money down. I never check that box on my tax return to give $3. The IRS says it doesn't add to my tax bill, but if it doesn't add to my tax bill, the money does come from somewhere.

And it's not because I am cheap. I simply think that taxpayer money should not be used to fund someone's campaign. Let me be clear: The government has a responsibility to fund the cost of administering an election. But supporting candidates by giving them funds is not a role for government.

Why should my tax dollars support speech which I do not endorse? Why should there be limits on the amount of money spent on politics? In my mind, if all candidates were funded equally by tax dollars, does that not disconnect the citizens from the political process by making it feel rather distant and impersonal? Why shouldn't a citizen be able to give their money to a candidate? If a candidates message is more persuasive, would it not make sense that they would have less trouble raising money from a supportive electorate?

These are just a few of the problems with public financing. I understand Seegmiller is trailing in fundraising by thousands of dollars. But don't come to me, or any other taxpayer, and hope to have my taxes solve your financial disadvantage.

Utah Dems Disgusting Attack on Palin: How to Lose an Election

Wayne Holland has gone too far. In a press release on Sarah Palin, the Utah Democrats claim Sarah Palin is a member of an Anti-Mormon church. From their press release:

"Will Republicans of the LDS faith vote for Sarah Palin, a devout member of
an anti-Mormon denomination?"

This claim of Palin belonging to an anti-Mormon faith is absolutely false. And in two ways.

First, the Church the Dems refer to is the Assembly of God. But Palin hasn't been a member there since 2002.

Second, the Assembly of God is not an anti-Mormon faith. Officially, they have no stance. But I can relate personally that these folks are not anti-Mormon as a whole. When I served an LDS Mission in Texas, I tracted into many AoG members who wished us well in spreading the message about Christ. They were, on the whole, very kind, and humble people. A few wanted to argue and give us literature to explain our faith to us, but that happened with random folks everywhere.

Now the Utah Democrats have stepped back from their release. Gratefully, the
It's truly a shame that Party Chair Wayne Holland has seen fit to belittle Palin based on her faith. Is there any area off limits in politics any more? Perhaps there never was, and never will be.

Democrats are simply lucky to have people like Sen Pat Jones, my former boss, to help deflect the criticism. She's the best thing the Democrats have going for them.

Republicans should pounce on this as proof the Democrats in Utah will use any and all available issues to win. If Wayne Holland wants to complain it's unfair, perhaps he should have his press releases checked for accuracy, and more importantly, stop trying to draw in LDS voters through fear.

Note to Democrats: As an LDS Republican in Utah, I don't think I, or my LDS friends, are drawn to your victimization narrative. I could care less if members of my party think my religion is a cult: I would probably think the same thing if I heard the silly rumors spread about Mormons. You're going to have to do better than that to make me question my commitment to fiscal discipline, limited government, and personal freedom.

What Joe Biden's Hair Says About Joe Biden

I'm no Derek Zoolander: I'll never be asked to show someone "Blue Steel", "La Tigre", or even the venerable "Magnum". So what I write here is not because I think politics is only for the beautiful. But I'll be darned if Joe Biden's hair doesn't say something about him...

So what is it? Is he stubborn, as in, "I've had bad hair plugs since I was 30, and I'll have bad hair plugs when they bury me!"

Is he flat out in denail? "What hair plugs? John Stamos and I have the same barber!"

Or maybe he's the ultimate regular guy. "I know I have hair plugs, you know I have hair plugs, EVERYONE knows I have hairplugs. So what?"

I don't know which one it is.

But I do know one thing, and a tip of the hat to my friend in DC who still thinks this could happen (stranger things have happened), if Mike Huckabee managed to become John McCain's running mate, Rogaine would see sales double.

Time for Quality Control at the DNews

An Open Letter to Joe Cannon

My Friend,

Though John McCain has taken to over-using the term, I sincerely mean it: I view you as one of my friends. You and Jeff Hartley hired me at the Republican Party just a few years ago. Your race in 1992 for U.S. Senate was one of my first political memories, and I still think, like my entire extended family does, that you would have been a fantastic Senator. You and my uncle are pretty tight, too. So I say this in all sincerity, and with no intentions to harm that relationship.

But I must be honest: Bob Bernick is truly costing the Deseret News credibility, and it's reflecting poorly upon you. Just take a look at the blog Rep. Steve Urquhart is updating almost daily the past week: www.steveu.com/blog . If this isn't a damning example of a journalist failing the integrity test, I don't know what is.

It's perfectly clear that Bob Bernick has ceased being useful as a reporter. Just take a look at the stories he's producing from day to day: It's a ridiculous compilation of what I call "calculator column inches", IE, Bob simply finds some numbers, adds verbs and nouns, and calls it a day. Between calculator columns, and his recent fabrication, feigned retraction, and John Florez's remarkably-poorly-timed reaction, the DNews is looking the fool. And Urquhart is calling you on it.

It's time for action, Joe. With all of the cutbacks recently, and the rumored "icy reception" you received upon taking over, you couldn't be in a more difficult position to make this decision. But when the GOP Legislators you worked to elect avoid talking to your political editor, but are more willing to talk to your liberal competitor, you have a problem.

It's time, Joe: Let Bob go. You'll take heat, but nothing you haven't dealt with before: Accusations of partisanship, or that it was an order from "the Brethren", or that legislators were controlling the paper. But Joe, your job isn't about them: It's about your reader, and instilling them with confidence that the DNews is what the New York Times claims to be: All the news that's fit to print. With Bob Bernick as your Political Editor and consistent headliner, you have a long ways to go.

Sincerely,

Brian Maxwell

WWJD? "Vote for me," says Bennion Spencer.

Every so often, a candidate says something so dumb, so conceited, and so self-righteous, you have to question their grip on reality.

Bennion Spencer just had one of those moments. Let's let the man speak for himself, according to the Salt Lake Tribune story: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10207723

"If Bennion Spencer wasn't the Democratic candidate in Utah's 3rd Congressional District, he'd be working on publishing a book he wrote about how Jesus might vote - and he recently said he thinks the son of God would vote for him. "I think he would," Spencer told The Tribune, although he later backed away and said he couldn't say for sure how Jesus would vote....Spencer said he thinks the Bush tax cuts hurt families and Jesus would oppose making them permanent..."

Sorry, Bennion, but I'll leave saying who Jesus would vote for to...Jesus.

Can we all just agree, right here, right now, that any candidate using this sort of rhetoric is disqualified from our support? Because I can tell you one of the following is true about Mr. Spencer:

1. Bennion is so religiously inclined, he doesn't even realize how silly these remarks are, and is thus unqualified to serve.

2. Bennion is literally off-his rocker, and thus, unqualified to serve.

Mr. Spencer, good luck against Chaffetz. You are going to need it. For any faults Jason Chaffetz may have, choosing his words poorly in public is certainly not one of them. That's the main reason he took Cannon down: His grass-roots organization combined with an eloquent public speaking style made Chaffetz the perfect storm.

And his response to Spencer's comments was picture perfect:

"I believe there is a proper role of religion in our society and we ought to promote that and not run away from it, but I don't think it's appropriate to guess which candidate Jesus Christ would support. That's sacrilegious to me."

Score one for Chaffetz, in a battle where he didn't need any more advantages.

Paris Hilton for President

To those who know me, I've been less than thrilled with our choices for President:

One one side, we have Barack Obama. He has approximately ZERO experience that applies towards being President (2 years in the Senate? Cmon, Merrill Cook was in the House for 4!), his policies started out WAAAAAYYYY out left to court Dem Primary voters, and suddenly he's shifting quickly towards the middle. Plus, he's got a following not unlike the Grateful Dead. I'm talking both passion and make-up here...

On the other side, we have John McCain. He has decades of experience in Congress, and to his credit, he's actually tried to stop government spending from going out of control...and even though he failed, he's not an earmarker for his state. He was a decorated war hero, tortured and permanently maimed for serving his country. But he's older than Reagan was, and looks more frail, and he doesn't seem to have a core political philosophy, other than being a populist. What direction would he take the country? I just don't know....

But now, a newcomer is altering the race substantially. I have my doubts about Obama and McCain and the youth vote. But Paris Hilton for President? I'm guessing 18-24 year olds turn out in droves... Plus, Paris could keep those pesky photographers at bay with the Secret Service...

Check out her energy policy at http://www.funnyordie.com/.

County Council to Hogle Zoo: Show Me the Money!

I noticed this http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10099732 in the Trib this morning. Basically, Hogle Zoo is attempting to convince the County Council to reconsider their actions on the Zoo Bond. You can read the article, but the County Council, Republican controlled 5-4, told Hogle Zoo that in order to get their $65 Million bond on the ballot, they would have to raise the $20 Million they promised the County Council they would eventually raise to fund the project before taxpayer funds are used.

This has Democrats and Zoo supporters up in arms, saying that the standard being set is too high. In fact, the Zoo folks are wondering whether they'll put the bond issue on the ballot at all.

Since I actually pay property taxes now, I've earned my opinion. And I'm with the Republicans on this one.

Reason: I know it's a small tax hike to my newly purchased town home (10 bucks a year or so, if I recall), but if Hogle Zoo says they can raise $20 Million in private money to fund this project, I think, as a taxpayer, it is my right to ask them to "show me the money". Because I would hate to think that, call me a pessimist if you like, Hogle Zoo gets the cash infusion, then falls short on fundraising, and either A) comes back to the taxpayers for more, either via ballot initiative or the County Council, or B) just scales back their projects, and simply use the taxpayer money to create an exhibit that doesn't meet the standards being sold to the taxpayers in order to pass the ballot initiative.

To put it in poker terms, this may be the County Council Republicans doing a fantastic job of not only calling Hogle Zoo's bluff, but raising them as well. And Hogle's response says to me that they aren't holding the cards to back the chips on the table.

Even if it gets on the ballot, I may still vote "no". But I'm glad Republicans like Mark Crocket, David Wilde, Marv Hendrickson, Michael Jensen, and Jeff Allen are watching out for my money, and are making sure that, if I do get a property tax hike, Hogle Zoo can't play games with that money.

Now, about that soccer stadium...