Monday, October 16, 2006

Representation

The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Dr. Joe Jarvis over Senator Scott McCoy in the 2nd District. I disagreed with one of their reasons. While they noted gays were "underrepresented" at the statehouse, they said that Utah already had a "gay" legislator but no "doctor" legislator. I don't think that a representative has to share your lifestyle/ profession to politically represent you. While it's great to have a diversity of backgrounds, etc. on the hill, this is a flawed approach to democracy.

29 Comments:

Blogger Oldenburg said...

I have listened to Scott McCoy in senate debates and he is one of the few articulate, interested in good government Senators we have right now on Utah's Capitol Hill.

Who knows, "Dr. Joe" might be a great guy, but I will take a great guy who I know is great over him any time. That's why I am voting for Scott

10/16/2006 07:40:00 PM  
Anonymous the Spyglass said...

To Ethan and Oldenburg. I would suggest you take the time to actually meet these gentleman in person, talk about issues, and ask questions before making any decision about who to vote for. They both will be speaking up at the U Law school about Healthcare on the 18th.

As the person who ran against Dr. Joe (and by the way what Sherrie Swenson did to Joe on the ballot was unforgiveable) I feel I can speak with authority as to who would better represent the 2nd District. Joe Jarvis is the right candidate, right person, and lets face represents the party in control of commitee's and rules. Joe can actually help Salt Lake City receive representation it greatly deserves, but has lacked in the past decade.

The healthcare system is a joke, and we finally have someone who can explain it to other elected officials and the press, so that radical change can take place.

Pure and simple the best candidate for the 2nd Senate district in 2006 is Dr. Joe Jarvis.

10/16/2006 07:53:00 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

The quota stuff from the Tribune was absurd reasoning. If we ran a felon would they be better than another candidate because we do not have any felons in the legislature (yet? known? convicted?)?

10/16/2006 08:11:00 PM  
Anonymous the Spyglass said...

And by the way Ethan, why no link to the Jarvis website? One would think you are supporting another Democratic candidate. Your list is getting longer and longer. Maybe it's time you switched parties and filed as a democrat, since you clearly are one.

10/16/2006 08:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

Mark, for those of us who don't know what happened to Dr. Joe Jarvis on the ballot, would you please explain it? Thanks.

Also, I don't think that Ethan is necessarily endorsing Scott McCoy. Rather, he is stating that he doesn't agree with ONE of the reasons given by the Tribune for their endorsement. Perhaps we could read into it that he does agree with the other reasons. Right?

10/16/2006 08:15:00 PM  
Anonymous the Spyglass said...

When Joe filed for office he used his full name Joseph Q. Jarvis. When he won the Republican nomination, his campaign advisor Elly Muth sugggested he use Dr. Joe Jarvis on all his ad's, billboards, etc. Joe requested permission from the Lt. Governor to use Dr. Joe Jarvis, and this was granted. Then Scott McCoy sppealed to Sherri Swenson that Joe should not be allowed to use Dr. Joe Jarvis. This was kicked up to the AG's office and Mark's office said that he could'nt use Dr., but Joe Jarvis was fine. This took time to get settled. With this ruleing in hand Joe went to Sherrie Swenson and asked that his name on the ballot be Joe Jarvis. She declined and said that it was to late to change. So now voters in the 2nd Senate district will not recognise Joseph Q. Jarvis.

Here is what Rolly had to say on the issue.

Dr. Joseph, we presume: The campaign signs for the Republican candidate in Senate District 2 identified him as Dr. Joe Jarvis.
But on the ballot, he will be Joseph Q. Jarvis, much to his consternation and despite his protests.
Jarvis says that even though the Lieutenant Governor's Office sent the certified names to the Salt Lake County Clerk's Office with his name as Joe Jarvis, Democratic Clerk Sherrie Swensen has refused to change it, and that will confuse voters as to who he is.
But it's not a partisan conspiracy, says Swensen. When he filled out his declaration of candidacy, he signed it as Joseph Q. Jarvis. The GOP then requested it be changed to Dr. Joe Jarvis, but a subsequent attorney general's opinion said titles were not allowed. So the name on the declaration of candidacy was used.
By the time the office got the certified names from the lieutenant governor, says Swensen, the office had locked down the database and uploaded the memory cards, making it impossible to change.
prolly@sltrib.com

10/16/2006 08:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

Thanks Mark, So you don't believe Sherrie Swensen's explanation? do you think that she could easily have unlocked the database and reloaded the memory cards?

I personally don't know if this is possible or not, or how easy it is to do. Do you?

I honestly want to know. Do any of you tech people know? It does sound terribly unfair to Dr. Joe Jarvis. I hope he wins.

10/16/2006 08:35:00 PM  
Anonymous the Spyglass said...

Well what's in a Name? Everyone knows Representative Jones (of Dan Jones and assocoates) as Pat Jones. Her email address is patjones@utah.gov Now that she is running for Patrice Arent's Senate seat, her campaign signs and ad's say Patricia Jones. (Patrice/Patricia) hummmmm

You don't think husband Dan polled a focus group for this? Voters will vote for names they recognize, when in doubt.

Sherrie Swenson did a very calculated thing here, and she should be held accountable.

10/16/2006 08:55:00 PM  
Blogger Stenar said...

We've had lots of felons in the legislature! :P

10/16/2006 09:20:00 PM  
Blogger Stenar said...

If Joe Jarvis wanted to be known as Joe Jarvis on the ballot, he should have filed as Joe Jarvis and not Joseph Q. Jarvis.

10/16/2006 09:24:00 PM  
Anonymous the Spyglass said...

Stenar,

That's the issue here. Because of Utah's delegate/convention system of selecting it's nominees, the Name you file with the Lt. Governor says only that you are seeking the nomination just like me when I filed for the same office. Once he was elected as the GOP nominee, the County party requested his name be Dr. Joe Jarvis on the ballot to match his billboards and signs. Remember he is the GOP nominee, and Sherrie had no issue until McCoy cried foul when the party wanted Dr. Joe Jarvis. So OK remove the Dr. , but she should have at least used Joe or Joseph (Joe) Jarvis. This was done with purpose by the clerk. So are you saying that what Sherrie did was ethical?

10/16/2006 09:56:00 PM  
Anonymous I see you mark said...

I think Mark and Lars are both Mark.

I told you he was psycho.

10/16/2006 10:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Timmy said...

Patricia, Patrice, you guys overthink shit way too much. I agree Mark and Lars are both Mark, and I actually think that Ethan is running Spyglass, Ridgway, and Utah Consevative.

Its a sick game and Ethan is the EviL MoNKeY!

10/16/2006 10:31:00 PM  
Blogger Stan said...

You have some anti-federalists running!

Madison would agree with you.

10/16/2006 10:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

Dear "I See You Mark," You are close, but not quite right. It's not that "Mark and Lars are both Mark," as you have guessed. It is actually that Mark and Lars are both Lars. I know it's only a subtle difference, but an important one nonetheless.

Based upon this new information, I demand that you change your name to "I See You Lars!" Did I say demand? I mean politely request. Thanks, my friend.

Oh, would you also please tell Mark that I am sorry for not letting him know that he is actually Lars? I only recently found out myself. I'm sure that this is going to come as a very disturbing surprise to both him and his family. I don't want to be there when the proverbial Lars hits the fan, if you know what I mean. There's probably going to be restraining orders, court appearances, uncomfortable contact at Executive Committee meetings, etc. It could get real ugly. You know how "psycho" he is--I mean, how psycho I am.

In all seriousness. I am not Mark. I think that fact is obvious to most people who have been reading our messages back and forth. But, beyond that, Ethan knows that we are different people simply from the web server logs showing our posts coming from completely different IP addresses. But, if you still want to believe, go for it!

PS. The nice thing about being both Lars and Mark is that if we get our time slot back on KSL, we could actually draw double the pay for the work of one person!

10/17/2006 08:01:00 AM  
Blogger Rob said...

I'm just glad to be me.

Go Scott!

10/17/2006 12:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

But, Rob, how do we know that you are not also me? Think about it my friend.

10/21/2006 02:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Scott McCoy said...

Just for the record. I didn't have anything to do with this whole name on the ballot thing. I was informed that Jarvis was appealing to the Lt. Gov. to have his title on the ballot but I made no "appeal" nor did I "cry foul". Sherrie apparently followed the law which says that the candidate's name goes on the ballot. All the cases that I have seen , including our own Attorney General's opinions, say no titles on the ballot. This is well established law. The Democrats tried to get "Dr." on the ballot for its candidate againt Orrin Hatch one year awhile back and guess what, Sherrie said, sorry, no titles. So this is not some partisan conspiracy.

As for the whole "Joe v. Joseph Q." thing, I hadn't heard about the continuing saga until now. And by the way, the Declaration of Candidacy from the County Clerk's office says "print your name the way you want it to appear on the ballot". If Joe filled out the form as "Joseph Q. Jarvis" that's his problem. I filled mine out "Scott McCoy" and that's what will be on the ballot.

In addition, Towner and Jarvis must think the Utah electorate is pretty stupid if it will be confused that "Joseph Q." is a different person than "Joe". If someone is going to the polls to vote for Jarvis, do you actually think they will get to that part of the ballot and say "Hey, wait a minute, who is this Joseph Q. Jarvis guy? I want to vote for "Joe Jarvis" but I don't see him here. Oh well, I guess I will vote for Scott McCoy instead or maybe just skip that race." I can assure you that this election will not come down to whether it says "Joseph Q." or "Joe".

On another note, let's be clear, the Utah Legislature has failed to enact health care reform, not because it lacks the expertise of a doctor among its ranks, but rather because it lacks the political will. The answer to this problem is not to increase the size of the Republican majority in the Legislature by electing Jarvis. What we need is a new majority; a Democratic majority.

10/22/2006 03:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

Dear Scott, Thanks for giving your side of the story. I am confused, though. If you are not the one who raised a fuss about how Joe Jarvis' name was going to appear on the ballot, then who did? Somebody raised the issue, right? Who would that person be?

P.S. What do you think about my Dayside Spun idea? Rob didn't bite, so I'm still looking for co-host.

10/22/2006 09:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Scott McCoy said...

Well Lars what I was told was that Jarvis wrote a letter to the Lt. Gov. asking to be put on as Dr. Joe Jarvis. There apparently was also another request from a different canddate in another county about a nickname. Apparently all the clerks have regular meetings where they discuss the elections with the Lt. Gov's office and these two requests where brought up in one of the Clerks' meetings. Sherrie apparently said, and the other clerks backed her up, that titles were not allowed and that there were guidelnes for the use of nicknames. There were two published Attorney General popinions about it already and then there was the past Democratic attempt to put Dr. on that was denied. As far as I know that was the end of it. When people looked at the law and the past practice, the issue was already decided. That is how the whole affair was explained to me.

10/23/2006 01:53:00 PM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Scott, I appreciate you answering direct questions from bloggers. I wish that other candidates were as accessible as you are in this forum. It really is wonderful that a person can turn on their computer and clarify an issue with a candidate directly instead of having to rely upon third parties. You are to be commended.

I actually don't have a problem with Joe Jarvis not being allowed to use the title of "Dr." I think Sherrie was right about that. What concerns me is that she apparently did not have a problem with it initially. I believe this created a false expectation, which then lead to delays resulting from the appeal process, which ultimately made it so that the name the Republican Party actually certified as being its candidate, "Joe Jarvis," is not used because it was "too late." In my mind, that outcome is not just, and I believe Sherrie bears much of the responsibility.

You see, this is not the first time she has done this. Remember back when the Salt Lake County Republican Party certified Ellis Ivory to replace Nancy Workman as its candidate for Salt Lake County Mayor? What the news media failed to report very well is that the Party was actually taking its cue from the Democrat County Clerk, Sherrie Swenson. She is the one who said the party could do it. She is the one who asked the party to hurry up and certify him. Then, she suddenly did an about face and silently watched as her own party brought a law suit, causing enough delays and confusion in the minds of the voters that Peter Corroon was able to come out of no where to win. Sherrie Swenson played an important role in helping her party win the mayor's race. It was wrong, but it is what happened.

Now, her decisions and reverses are going to help you. Please don't get me wrong, like Peter Corroon, I think that you are a fine man. I do not blame you for this, but I still think the outcome is wrong and unjust. As a Republican and a social conservative, I obviously differ with you on many important issues, but I sincerely wish you well.

10/23/2006 03:40:00 PM  
Anonymous The Spyglass said...

To Scott McCoy,

I stand corrected, and will accept your word that you had nothing to do with this. However, can you also assure us that someone in your campaign, or the SLCO Democratic party did'nt have a role to play here. Are you trying to say that Sherrie Swenson, the Democratic county clerk, waited until it was too late to change the ballots, in the same way she always places the Democrats first on the ballot, even though she campaigned that she would'nt. Why was this not addressed early on in the campaign when Joe decided to use Dr. Joe Jarvis on all his campaign signs and flyers. This does'nt pass the smell test.

As to your other statement regarding no Medical doctor in the Legislature. The unique thing about Joe is he is not controlled by IHC, Blue Cross, UofU or anyone else. To be financially independent from the healthcare reimbursement industry, and say outloud what we all know to be true is a real advantage.

You must also have to admit that GOP leadership will help Joe succeed, and will ensure your failure. Until the Utah democratic party can again take the leadership role, little if anything you sponsor for the 2nd Senate district will ever come out of the House rules commitee and you know it.

Mark

10/23/2006 07:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Scott McCoy said...

Dear Wannabe,

I see your point of view. In the end, honestly, though, like I mentioned before, I really don't think the race will come down to any confusion about name on the ballot. But I do understand that all you are looking for is a fair playing field.

Scott

10/23/2006 07:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Scott McCoy said...

Mark,

On point one, I have no idea what went on or goes on in the county clerk's office, so who knows. As for the whole which party is first on the ballot thing, GOP clerks in other counties put GOP candidates first all the time. Look, if it is such a big deal, and the GOP controls the legislature,right? Why not just change the law to say it is random how candidates are listed on the ballot? Well, probably because that would take away the GOP ballot listing advantage in all the GOP controlled clerk's offices. So I think it goes both ways.

On point two, I am not in IHC's or any other insurance companies pockets and am free to tell it like it is just like Joe is so no advantage for Joe on that score.

On point three, what makes you think the GOP is going to let Joe succeed on policies they fundamentally disagree with. Do you actually think Joe will be able to convince the Senate and House to pass universal, sigle-payer health care as they are currently constituted? Steve Mascaro couldn't get the PEHP bill through last year and Leadership shut him down on a preferred drug list too, what makes you think that Joe is going to have a magic wand that will make it happen? As for getting things through the House and Senate, we'll just have to see what happens over the next four years.

Scott

10/23/2006 07:49:00 PM  
Anonymous The Spyglass said...

Scott,

On point One we can both agree that it's not fair, and actually stinks. I would support legislation that now we are using new technology voting machines, I'm certain they could be programmed to randomize the ballot to address this issue.

On point Two comparing your's or for that matter any other current legislator's understanding of reimbursement, adjudication, slideing fee structure's, medicare/ medicaid coverage etc would be like comparing my understanding of the Law to your's. I know just enough about the Law to get in trouble, it will be nice when Carrie graduates and I can have a full time inhouse attorney to pester. I have nearly 25 years of experience in claim adjudication, medical records, and coding, and I can honestly say Joe know's more than I or anyone else I have talked with including the current State Health director. Joe should have been tapped for this position, but the fix was already in. Let's talk a second about Steve's bill. The Insurance lobby put pressure on Steve and he folded. They did'nt want to give up the 25-50 employee policies, and they made it clear to drop it or suffer the consequences. The Rx industry is totally corrupt, and they can be very persuasive (make you an offer you can't refuse) if you catch my drift. Steve's livelyhood is Valley Mental Health, and well.....

It would be the same for any other practicing MD in Utah that is reimbursed by the Insurance industry. You need to have a spouse who is a Shareholder at Ray, Quinney, Nebeker, and financially Independent.

On Point Three, it's politics. You know full well that being one of only 29 votes carries alot of influence. Even though you are in the minority caucus, being a State Senator just like a US Senator you have to have the votes to get anything passed. Leadership will want Joe "GOP" to succeed in Salt Lake City, and you the "DEM" not to. You will get Legislation to pass out of commitee on the Senate side because they may need your vote for their legislation. But over in the House is another matter. The folks down in Utah county will make sure every piece of sponsored, co-sponsored, endorsed, or remotely connected to you will never see the light of day.

I'm not saying it's right, or fair, it's just reality...Sorry

Mark

10/23/2006 11:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Scott McCoy said...

Mark,

You have given me an idea. I will start co-sponsoring all the bills I don't like so that the House will kill them.

Scott

10/25/2006 09:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Lars Larson said...

Dear Scott,

Great idea! Would you please introduce legislation that would mandate all new highways built in the state be funded by making them toll roads?

I personally would like to see that idea go away as soon as possible. Everyone in the state had to pay for the existing roads through taxation whether or not they would ever use the road in question. It's not fair, now, that the rules be changed so that only certain folks have to bear the lion's share of the cost for a new road. It strikes me as being unjust. What do you think?

10/25/2006 02:01:00 PM  
Anonymous The Spyglass said...

Scott,

You are now beginning to understand how this game called pollitics is played, good for you. If you are elected I would expect nothing less than holding up any legislation, nomination, etc until Salt Lake City receives it's fair share of the tax revenue collected here. It would be no different if I was elected. Look at how James Evans was successful for SD1. I would be the burr under the saddle. There are enough votes in the Senate to stop any extreme legislation, you just need to play the game.

10/26/2006 10:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott,

Oh so Joe won't be able to turn around health care in the first week? Wow, we should vote for you cause I thought that Joe would not only get the health care system perfect pretty easily. What we need is Joe. He knows what to do, and what is the right step. He can guide us on that first step towards getting health care for all. And I have listened to Joe, he has never said anything derogatory about lawyers in appealing to voters to elect a doctor.

10/31/2006 02:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home