Saturday, November 18, 2006

The Constitution

So what do we do about constitutional questions regarding the 4th seat? If you believe the Governor, it's up to D.C. to worry about The Constitution. Of course when the NCLB was passed down, Utah's dashing politicos were tripping over themselves to defend the integrity of The Constitution against the attack of the killer unconstitutional concept. What was that prophesy about Mormon politicians, The Constitution, and a thread? Oh yeah, I remember: "In the latter days, Utah's politicians will be raging hypocrites".

14 Comments:

Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear Ethan,

The only people who are not hypocrites are those who are either perfect or who have extremely base values. For most of us, who like to think of ourselves as possessing noble ideals, hypocrisy is a constant companion--just like repentance.

I think that is what Jesus tried to teach us by declaring, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!”

Besides, only half the members of the Church are really wheat anyway, right? So, please don’t be so easily disillusioned, dear friend. Some folks are just along for the ride.

But, I think we need to cut each other a little slack anyway. The good men and women who serve in public office are usually well-intentioned, but just as equally flawed, like you and me. And yet, just like you and me, they can be taught.

That is the challenge before us now: To teach our elected officials constitutional principles.

It is also important to consider that perhaps the prophecy you reference was actually referring to men like you when it speaks of Elders of the Church stepping forward to preserve the Constitution. And, maybe it was not referring to just a single event in history, but rather a process in which many of us need to be engaged over time.

What say you, then? Shall we take up the challenge and do our part? Shall we mobilize and defeat the figurative enemy at the gate?

It can be done if we are only willing to pay the price. The price is simply to treat our elected representatives with the same kind of respect that we would like to receive, and to teach them with patient determination.

Joseph Smith said that, “The truth can cut its own slough.” All we have to do is tell the truth, and the truth will do the rest. Or, as someone else famously stated: “Speak truth to power.”

Thank you very much for what you have done so far, Ethan. You are a hero. Please keep up the good work!

11/18/2006 08:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Thomas Burr - Salt Lake Tribune said...

SUNDAY, November 19, 2006

Reid leads Mormons into D.C. mainstream

U.S. senator, D-Nev., will be highest-ranking elected Mormon ever when he becomes the majority leader

By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - The day after it was clear the Democrats would rule the U.S. Senate, President Bush invited its top two leaders to the White House for conversation and coffee.
It's a good bet that Sen. Harry Reid didn't partake of the latter. The Nevada Democrat, a faithful Mormon, won't touch coffee, tea or alcohol.
"He doesn't even drink soda. I'm sure it was orange juice" Reid sipped during the presidential chat, joked Tessa Hafen, Reid's former spokeswoman.
It's a small but important detail to note for Reid, who was elected last week to lead the Senate when Democrats take over in January. He'll assume the role of majority leader and take his place in history as the highest-ranking elected Mormon in U.S. history.
Observers say that shows that Mormonism, long a religion seen outside Utah as peculiar, is becoming more mainstream.
"It's an important symbol," says John Green, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "That has always been a mark of religious groups in American society, that in some important sense the group has become part of the mainstream."
Mormons already hold several key positions in Washington. Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt is secretary of Health and Human Services; two federal departments have Mormon chiefs of staff; and five senators and about a dozen representatives are Latter-day Saints.
But Reid has gone further than any of them.
Born in a small mining town in Nevada, Reid now attends services at a wardhouse a block outside the District of Columbia every Sunday he is in town. He always finishes his home teaching - where members check on a few families to ensure they're well - and once taught a gospel doctrine class. There's a copy of the Book of Mormon on his office bookshelf.
"He's always looking after other people," says his bishop, Michael Seay, the lay leader of his ward. "He's very much loved by the members."
And while he doesn't push issues simply because of his faith, friends say Reid's religion and his stands as a senator are inseparable. Reid, the father of five boys, is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty and opposes same-sex marriage and gun control. But he's no Republican-lite; he takes liberal-to-moderate stands on issues such as education.
"His faith clearly affects who he is," says Kai Anderson, Reid's former deputy chief of staff. "It's a big part of what makes him a decent, kind, loving man. But he doesn't legislate it."
Unlike many other Mormon politicians, Reid is not often identified by his religion. Many news outlets across the country noted his faith only after he was elected majority leader. It does not appear to be an issue in the Senate.
"It's a historical milestone that I'm sure LDS scholars will note," says Sen. Bob Bennett, a Mormon Republican from Utah. "Interestingly, in the Senate no one seems to care."
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wasn't aware that Reid would be the highest-ranking elected Mormon, and it didn't seem to matter to him.
"Religion is not a factor," Obama says. "Obviously, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have risen to the heights in business and government - look at Orrin Hatch, for example - so, in some ways, it's not considered particularly newsworthy."
Same for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who noted that Reid is a Mormon, Majority Whip-elect Richard Durbin is a Catholic and Charles Schumer, head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, is Jewish.
"Religion is becoming less and less significant in everybody's mind," Leahy says. "I have never ever once heard anybody - in Harry's presence or not - mention anything about his religion."
More important to the Democrats, with their narrow majority, is Reid's propensity for negotiation and compromise.
While he'll throw bombs when necessary, "One thing about him is he is balanced, prudent and very easy to work with," says William Nixon, a Washington lobbyist, former Hill staffer and an LDS stake president.
"He is the example that the Democratic Party is not going to allow itself to be co-opted by the far left."
Bridging the liberal and moderate wings of Senate Democrats will not be easy, but Nixon says, "The fact they would elect him as a leader speaks volumes about his integrity."
While friends and associates of Reid praised him as above the corruption that has plagued Washington in the past few years, Reid has been under increased scrutiny for his financial dealings.
The Associated Press reported last month that Reid made $1.1 million from the sale of a parcel that he had not personally owned for three years. Reid later redid his financial disclosure to note the transfer of the property and the sale.
The Los Angeles Times has reported on Reid's son and son-in-law lobbying his office on a land deal in which the son and son-in-law reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. And the Times also recently explored an $18 million appropriation for a bridge that some say will increase the value of his nearby landholdings.
That said, most of the coverage of Reid has been positive.
One side note in his ascension is that it could end up helping Republican Mitt Romney, who is expected to run for president. Several pundits have warned that Romney's Mormonism could be his biggest hindrance, but if the public becomes accustomed to Mormons in high office, the going might be easier.
"Harry Reid's LDS affiliation will be a net plus for Mitt Romney, clearly demonstrating to moderates and independents Mormons can be active in the church and be a leader of great consequence," Nixon says.
Overall, the Pew Forum's Green says the United States has made broad progress on religious tolerance. Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, just became the first Muslim elected to Congress; he'll serve in the U.S. House.
"Not to get too teary-eyed about this, but part of what America has been about is living up to its ideals," Green says. "We started out with idea that all faiths should be treated with respect. Certainly we're not perfect yet, but there's been a better acceptance of other faiths."

tburr@sltrib.com

Tribune reporter PEGGY FLETCHER STACK contributed to this story.

SUNDAY, November 19, 2006

Reid leads Mormons into D.C. mainstream

U.S. senator, D-Nev., will be highest-ranking elected Mormon ever when he becomes the majority leader

By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON - The day after it was clear the Democrats would rule the U.S. Senate, President Bush invited its top two leaders to the White House for conversation and coffee.
It's a good bet that Sen. Harry Reid didn't partake of the latter. The Nevada Democrat, a faithful Mormon, won't touch coffee, tea or alcohol.
"He doesn't even drink soda. I'm sure it was orange juice" Reid sipped during the presidential chat, joked Tessa Hafen, Reid's former spokeswoman.
It's a small but important detail to note for Reid, who was elected last week to lead the Senate when Democrats take over in January. He'll assume the role of majority leader and take his place in history as the highest-ranking elected Mormon in U.S. history.
Observers say that shows that Mormonism, long a religion seen outside Utah as peculiar, is becoming more mainstream.
"It's an important symbol," says John Green, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "That has always been a mark of religious groups in American society, that in some important sense the group has become part of the mainstream."
Mormons already hold several key positions in Washington. Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt is secretary of Health and Human Services; two federal departments have Mormon chiefs of staff; and five senators and about a dozen representatives are Latter-day Saints.
But Reid has gone further than any of them.
Born in a small mining town in Nevada, Reid now attends services at a wardhouse a block outside the District of Columbia every Sunday he is in town. He always finishes his home teaching - where members check on a few families to ensure they're well - and once taught a gospel doctrine class. There's a copy of the Book of Mormon on his office bookshelf.
"He's always looking after other people," says his bishop, Michael Seay, the lay leader of his ward. "He's very much loved by the members."
And while he doesn't push issues simply because of his faith, friends say Reid's religion and his stands as a senator are inseparable. Reid, the father of five boys, is anti-abortion, pro-death penalty and opposes same-sex marriage and gun control. But he's no Republican-lite; he takes liberal-to-moderate stands on issues such as education.
"His faith clearly affects who he is," says Kai Anderson, Reid's former deputy chief of staff. "It's a big part of what makes him a decent, kind, loving man. But he doesn't legislate it."
Unlike many other Mormon politicians, Reid is not often identified by his religion. Many news outlets across the country noted his faith only after he was elected majority leader. It does not appear to be an issue in the Senate.
"It's a historical milestone that I'm sure LDS scholars will note," says Sen. Bob Bennett, a Mormon Republican from Utah. "Interestingly, in the Senate no one seems to care."
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wasn't aware that Reid would be the highest-ranking elected Mormon, and it didn't seem to matter to him.
"Religion is not a factor," Obama says. "Obviously, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have risen to the heights in business and government - look at Orrin Hatch, for example - so, in some ways, it's not considered particularly newsworthy."
Same for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who noted that Reid is a Mormon, Majority Whip-elect Richard Durbin is a Catholic and Charles Schumer, head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, is Jewish.
"Religion is becoming less and less significant in everybody's mind," Leahy says. "I have never ever once heard anybody - in Harry's presence or not - mention anything about his religion."
More important to the Democrats, with their narrow majority, is Reid's propensity for negotiation and compromise.
While he'll throw bombs when necessary, "One thing about him is he is balanced, prudent and very easy to work with," says William Nixon, a Washington lobbyist, former Hill staffer and an LDS stake president.
"He is the example that the Democratic Party is not going to allow itself to be co-opted by the far left."
Bridging the liberal and moderate wings of Senate Democrats will not be easy, but Nixon says, "The fact they would elect him as a leader speaks volumes about his integrity."
While friends and associates of Reid praised him as above the corruption that has plagued Washington in the past few years, Reid has been under increased scrutiny for his financial dealings.
The Associated Press reported last month that Reid made $1.1 million from the sale of a parcel that he had not personally owned for three years. Reid later redid his financial disclosure to note the transfer of the property and the sale.
The Los Angeles Times has reported on Reid's son and son-in-law lobbying his office on a land deal in which the son and son-in-law reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees. And the Times also recently explored an $18 million appropriation for a bridge that some say will increase the value of his nearby landholdings.
That said, most of the coverage of Reid has been positive.
One side note in his ascension is that it could end up helping Republican Mitt Romney, who is expected to run for president. Several pundits have warned that Romney's Mormonism could be his biggest hindrance, but if the public becomes accustomed to Mormons in high office, the going might be easier.
"Harry Reid's LDS affiliation will be a net plus for Mitt Romney, clearly demonstrating to moderates and independents Mormons can be active in the church and be a leader of great consequence," Nixon says.
Overall, the Pew Forum's Green says the United States has made broad progress on religious tolerance. Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, just became the first Muslim elected to Congress; he'll serve in the U.S. House.
"Not to get too teary-eyed about this, but part of what America has been about is living up to its ideals," Green says. "We started out with idea that all faiths should be treated with respect. Certainly we're not perfect yet, but there's been a better acceptance of other faiths."

tburr@sltrib.com

Tribune reporter PEGGY FLETCHER STACK contributed to this story.

11/19/2006 03:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Peggy Fletcher Stack - Salt Lake Tribune said...

Reid proof that good Mormons can also be Democrats

LDS politics and religion: Modern LDS leaders have made efforts to dispute the idea that the GOP is the church's party, but the perception still lingers

By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

Sen. Harry Reid's ascension to the top of the U.S. Senate is an unexpected victory for a tiny band of beleaguered Utahns: LDS Democrats. His most vocal critics?
Other Mormons.
Despite the fact that Reid held weekly Family Home Evenings and sent three sons on two-year missions for the church, and all five of his children were married in LDS temples, some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints question his faith because of his politics.
Reid's son, Josh Reid, tells the story of a Halloween party at his brother's LDS ward in Nevada. Someone had put up a picture of Harry Reid as a vampire.
"Dad's pretty comfortable in his skin," Josh Reid said, "but it bothers some other family members."
Utah Democrats hope Reid's new position as Senate majority leader while being a temple-recommend-holding Mormon ends such personal attacks.
"It puts to bed once and for all the idea that a good Mormon can't be a Democrat," Democrat Kem Gardner said Friday. "You can not only be a Democrat, but at the highest levels."
The LDS Church declined to comment on Reid's new position, but Josh Reid said a couple of years ago he accompanied his father to a meeting with the LDS First Presidency.
"President [Gordon B.] Hinckley had great things to say about my father," Josh Reid, who is active in Utah's Democratic Party, recalled this week. "From the top, they've always been supportive; some rank-and-file [Mormons] are less so."
The idea that Mormonism and Democratic Party affiliation are incompatible traces back to the early 1970s, when LDS general authority Ezra Taft Benson, who later became church president, was quoted as saying it would be difficult for a faithful member to be a liberal Democrat.
Eight years ago, LDS officials became so concerned about the perceived link between the Republican Party and Mormonism that it took steps to publicly refute it.
"We regret that more than anything . . . that there would become a church party and a non-church party," Elder Marlin Jensen of the First Quorum of Seventy, a long-standing Democrat, told The Salt Lake Tribune. "That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."
Gardner thinks Reid's new position will help Utah Democrats recruit more Mormons to the party. They will likely "parade him all over the state" as a kind of Exhibit A to show Latter-day Saints they have the same values and standards as the leader of the Senate.
"We all have confidence he will do a great job," Gardner said. "I think he'll be a uniter."
Jill Remington Love, a Mormon Democrat on the Salt Lake City Council, echoed that enthusiasm.
"If we can get the word out, the more successful we will be," Love said. "It would be very healing in our com- munity."

pstack@sltrib.com

11/19/2006 03:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone read the article from Saturday’s Deseret News?
Redistricting rehashed -
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650208152,00.html

“But going after a fourth seat now so the District of Columbia can
have a voting member in the House is a bad idea, says Jeremy
Roberts, a Salt Lake County GOP activist.
At the Dec. 2 county central committee meeting, Roberts, a
member of the committee, and his supporters will try to get the
county party to officially oppose a fourth seat now. He'll also try
to get the same resolution passed in a February meeting of the state
GOP.”

I have it on good authority that Jeremy Roberts has received
unpleasant calls from Sen. John Valentine, Sen. Curtis Bramble and
Rep. Greg Curtis plus others since this article came out.

The sad thing is that I think these are mostly good men, just
very misguided on this issue.

So if any of you think this thing will not get past the Utah
Legislator because of a little problem like the Constitution you may
be wrong.

From the Utah Legislative Site:

Sen. John Valentine
Office (801) 373-6345
Home (801) 224-1693
Fax (801) 377-4991

Sen. Curtis Bramble
Office (801) 373-1040
Home (801) 226-3663
Fax (801) 812-8297

Rep. Greg Curtis
Home Phone: 801-943-3091
Work Phone: 801-538-1930

11/20/2006 12:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Adding a voting DC representative now will just increase the Democrats' majority in the House. And there is no guarantee that a fourth Utah House seat would be won by a Republican, rather than another Blue Dog Democrat like Matheson. Utah could end up adding TWO votes to the Democrat majority!

The fairness argument for DC residents can be answered very easily: Agree to become part of the State of Maryland again, and you can vote for Representatives, Senators, and even a Governor and legislators! You can pay State taxes too, like the rest of us!

11/20/2006 12:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like Reid, the "good Mormon Democrat" , isn't above "corruption" and greasing the palms of family members either. Hum? Where do we go from here? Can anyone cite where Reid has once said he was anti-abortion or voted that way?

11/21/2006 06:15:00 AM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

From the Senate Site blog:

Anonymous said...
Many people seem to assume that if we don't get the fourth seat for Utah then DC won't get their (likely Democratic) seat either. I don't believe that is true any longer. A Democratic controlled congress and Senate w/a President who won't veto this...as he's going to want his other "more important" agenda items supported...will result in DC getting their seat with or without Utah...Utah might as well try and get the fourth seat now.


That is an interesting point, but if Utah is taken out of the mix then the compromise falls apart. The conservative Republicans in congress would then be free to vote their conscience and oppose the legislation on constitutional grounds.

And, however much the President may want to work with the Democrats, most pundits I have heard say that he really has no hope of passing anything of consequence that he would want anyway. Like it or not, his legacy will be the War in Iraq. Look for him to focus his energies upon that above all else.

Now, as for the President fearing to alienate the Democrats by vetoing this bad piece of legislation, I believe he would actually have more to fear from alienating his conservative base by signing it. The Democrats that passionately support this bill are quite few compared to the Republicans who passionately oppose it.

The President needs his base (the people who love him) more than he needs to pander to the Democrats (the people who hate him). Someone will surely remind him of that.

Interestingly, the same holds true for any local leader who hopes to gain the newly created fourth seat. If he is seen as having trampled the Constitution in order to serve his personal political ambitions then he essentially will have cut his own throat. It will come up in convention, where the conservatives dominate, and he will lose.

In short, it would be a mistake for anyone who depends upon the Republican conservative base to underestimate the passionate feelings possessed by those who appose this dreadful piece of legislation. Hopefully the wise will take note and do the right thing.

11/21/2006 02:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anything of consequence? There are many things of consequence THAT HAVE TO BE PASSED in the remaining tenure of GWB...Budgets for each fiscal year, NCLB must be re-authorized (hopefully the entire education package minus all the nclb crap, retitled), along with every other expiring/renewal legislation.

Bush has shown many times he is going to give up because the election did not go his way. He resubmitted Bolton, an appointment many Republicans even questioned...he will try like hell to do whatever he wants to do. Failure hasn't often slowed him down, he just pushes harder. The Texas Rangers? Harriet Miers? He just pushes harder.

DC cannot become part of Maryland, because no state will agree to that, no state will agree to allowing the revenue and prestige of housing the National Capitol within its borders. DC will get a seat (probably 3 eventually) in the Congress, Utah will get another seat. My question is this...as a state, regardless of everything else (including what party would get the seat) why would you not want MORE REPRESENTATION for your state in the federal government?

Which ever plan they end up with, 1 more seat is good for utah, the special elections will be good for utah. Everyone needs to get over their own personal gains and ambitions and just look at it as something good for the state.

11/23/2006 12:51:00 AM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear Anonymous,

Let me see if I understand you correctly: In response to most of the beltway pundit's assertions, that I have heard, claiming that a lame duck President Bush will not be able to get any major piece of legislation "THAT HE WOULD WANT" through this Congress, you come back with "passing a budget" and "renewing No Child Left Behind" as examples of things he would need to sacrifice the Constitution to achieve?

Wow! That's quite a trade off, isn't it?

I do not mean to make fun of you, my friend, but please try to remember that the Democrats also need to pass a budget. And, they already want to renew most of the provisions of No Child Left Behind. So, your argument is not persuasive.

And, in fairness to the all-wise pundit class, they are talking about LEGACY type pieces of legislation, not house cleaning items. They claim that the administration acknowledges that its legacy will be the War in Iraq. History, they say, will judge the President by what he is able to salvage from this immensely difficult situation. Thus, his administration is supposedly going to set aside any futile attempt to pass new landmark legislation, and focus its energies on stabilizing Iraq sufficiently to sustain a face saving withdrawal for the US.

These same pundits tell us that the Democrats also see such a withdrawal from Iraq as being where their mandate lies. Thus, neither will they entertain delusions of liberal grandeur in seeking to pass all kinds of Great Society type legislation.

Well, I guess we will see about that, won't we? Pundits are frequently wrong.

For me, where your argument has merit is in the fact that history demonstrates both President Clinton and the first President Bush supposedly defying conventional wisdom to compromise with hostile congresses. We remember the first President Bush being pressured into going back on his "Read my lips, no new taxes!" pledge in order to pass a budget with the Democrats. And, President Clinton ended up abandoning his socialized medicine plan, only to later pass major cuts in welfare with the Republicans. So, legislation of consequence is certainly possible for the President, but is it something "THAT HE WOULD WANT?" That is the question.

I personally hope that the President's tenacity, that you reference, is fully employed in resisting the unconstitutional piece of legislation seeking to grant both the District of Columbia and the state of Utah new seats in Congress. This horrible proposal creates precedent that is bad for America. Utah is part of America. Thus, the answer to your question is this: Utah does not need to rush to get a fourth seat in Congress so badly that it is worth sacrificing the Constitution. It would be better to simply wait until the next census in four years, and get that new seat legitimately. What little the state would gain in the short run would not be worth the damage done to our country in the long run.

Please forgive me, but your comment regarding the unfeasibility of Maryland reabsorbing the District of Columbia, demonstrates that you have very little understanding of the arguments against the proposed legislation. No one, like me, who opposes the bill on constitutional grounds, would ever make that suggestion, because such a plan would also be unconstitutional!

The framers of the Constitution had a terrible real-life experience that convinced them that the seat of national government needed to reside in a neutral zone that only it controlled, not some individual state or any other kind of local government jurisdiction. So, the Constitution provides for the creation of just such an area--the District of Columbia.

The only proper way to get around that requirement would be to amend the Constitution.

During the Carter Administration, just such an effort was attempted, but it failed. Within our system of federalism, the people spoke. The answer was "No."

Now, the current proposed legislation would try to achieve the same result, but by degree, and by going around the Constitution. First, the District of Columbia gets representation in the House. Once that precedent is established, there would be no basis for denying it representation in the Senate. Then, all the rights and privileges of statehood would eventually follow, step by step, because there ultimately would be no basis for withholding them.

But, that is not what the Constitution mandates.

And, I personally agree with the framers' original vision. The same dangers that existed in their day are also present in our own. Indeed, their provision may actually be more relevant for day.

Remember the anarchy that manifested itself in the city of Seattle when the WTO met there several years ago? What if such a crowd came to the nation's capital, but unlike Seattle's leaders, the local authorities were actually sympathetic with the demonstrators and refused to disperse them? The nation's elected officials would then be held hostage to the whims of some local leaders over whom they had no control.

A similar thing happened to our founding fathers, and they wanted to protect the nation from that ever happening again. That is why we have a District of Columbia, instead of the capital of our nation residing in a state. It was a good idea then, and I think it is still a good idea.

Now, as for achieving some kind of representational justice for the folks living within the District of Columbia, that is another question. It may be appropriate for us to address their situation. But, we should do so only by following the proper procedures for amending the Constitution, and I further believe that we should do so without abandoning the framers original vision of having the capital located in a federally controlled district.

That is all I am saying.

11/25/2006 02:53:00 AM  
Blogger Alienated Wannabe said...

I am sorry, Anonymous. I wrote the piece above in a sleep deprived state, in the middle of the night, while attending a fussy baby. I apologize for the arrogant tone I adopted, and for my proclivity for run-on sentences. I’m not sure which is more annoying, but I sincerely hope you will forgive me.

Please remain engaged in the discussion. I want to hear and understand your side of the debate. Please respond to my arguments with more of your own. Eventually, we will understand each other. Until that happens, we won’t be able to accommodate our respective concerns. Thanks, my friend.

11/25/2006 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger Reach Upward said...

The shtick that the Gov. and the legislative leaders are using when constitutional hardliners (like me) hit them up is, "Hey, they're going to do this back there whether we like it or not. That being the case, we should get on the ball and be prepared for when it happens. We should get it cut the way we want it, since it's going to happen anyway. There's nothing unconstitutional about us drawing up districts."

This practicality-beats-principle take makes sense from a certain perspective, but it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. I agree with AW that Utah will shortly get it's fourth seat in a few short years anyway, so quit pushing this short-term gain thing and go for the principled thing. Instead of mimicking Alfred E. Neuman (What, me worry?) or going ahead and cutting the thread, how about doing it the right way? I seem to remember some teachings along this line somewhere.

11/28/2006 12:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm hungry.

12/23/2006 01:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

minnesota escort services

3/13/2007 05:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

free internet miss nevada photo usa

3/14/2007 02:51:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home