Blue in Red Zion » 2008 Presidential Electon

Chaffetz Continues his Hypocrisy – and why Republicans are Falling Apart

Curtis Haring — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:00:40 +0000

So, a short while ago, I wrote a post regarding Representative Jason Chaffetz’s blatant hypocrisy regarding his mantra against big government in community affairs while simultaneously using his power as a member of Congress (read “big government”) to try and overrule D.C.’s recent recognition of gay marriage.

Now, I am not stupid, I know that, in reality, Chaffetz is far more concerned with protecting people from the ookie gays than he ever was about keeping government out of our lives. Indeed, Chaffetz’s recent tweets show that he is citing the rules set forth in the Constitution to give him the right to do this. To be fair, Chaffetz is right – he is well within his rights to try and take down the DC Marriage Act – but the point that I feel fails to connect with Chaffetz and his supporters is that just because you can do something does not mean that it can’t still conflict with your core beliefs. If you state that you are against big government and tout is as one of your core beliefs, you should not easily cast it aside because someone has done something you disagree with.

And this little action reflects the Republican Party on the whole. Now, I can’t say what is in one persons mind and how they came to the decision that they did to act, but I can view a body of people, their words, and their actions. The systemic problem of saying one thing and doing another is tearing the Republican Party apart. The examples are endless:

Saying that they are anti-spending while racking up the largest deficit ever seen in our nations history.
Saying that they want to spread freedom and liberty while supporting torture.
Complaining about our failing schools while pushing for greater cuts in education.
Running on pro-family platforms while cutting health care insurance to low income children.
Stating pro-life platforms up to the point that the child is born then ignoring their needs through the rest of their life.
Talking about the importance of God and Family but only if it is their God.

As I said, the list goes on and on (feel free to add some more in the comments).

Is it any wonder, then, that the Republican Party is lost and adrift? For the past eight years these contradictions compounded and became codified into policy. The hypocrisy became less theory and more fact – to the point where the American people roundly rejected the party in the 2008 election.

And so, today, we find Republican relics who continue to expose just how flagrantly they disregard their core principals for what is politically expedient, and reaping the seeds they have sown – less relevance, less respect, and less power. So Representative Chaffetz, continue to disregard core principals, or at least fail to justify why you do what you do, it only weakens your party further. Remember, just because you can do something does not mean that you should.

P.S. Don’t write responses stating something along the lines of “well Democrats have done x, so your point is invalid.” Of course Democrats have, that is not my point. My point is that hypocrisy is part of some peoples nature – and one that we have every right to judge people on. I have noticed it more in the Republican party of late, and the American people are judging them accordingly.

Did you catch this one?

Curtis Haring — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:28:00 +0000

So thanks to Jeff Bell for first pointing this one ou t. He may not be willing to discuss this beyond retching. Well I could not help but check it out to see what was on the site (kind of like how you have to look at a horrific car accident).

So here is, word for word,what the website states – with my own commentary thrown in:

SarahPAC believes America’s best days are ahead (because the last eight were terrible). Our country, founded on conservative principles (such as radically overthrowing the reigning government and creating a liberal democracy) and the fight for freedom, must confront the challenges of the 21st century with integrity (insert any Bush Administration scandal), innovation (CLEAN COAL!), and determination(Palin for President in 2010!).

SarahPAC believes energy independence (Drill, baby, drill!) is a cornerstone of the economic security (especially for Alaska and Texas) and progress that every American family wants and deserves (now that liberals have pointed out that energy efficiency is a good thing).

SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance (the Bull Moose Party thought the same thing) that will build a better future for all(rich, white, men *cough, cough*). Health care (lobby), education (vouchers *cough, cough*), and reform of government (but only after Nancy Peloci took over) are among our key goals. Join us today!

The Far-Right is Making Plans, Are You?

Curtis Haring — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:00:00 +0000

So the right has been quietly licking its wounds since the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election, wondering how they can recuperate their losses and rebuild the party. The fascinating thing is that that, due to the Internet, it has become much easier to actually read the discussions going on with the Right.

One item that has seemed to gain traction over the past view days has been Peter Berkowitz’s recent Wall Street Journal article – Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution.

This article is fascinating in-and-of-itself. In it Berkowitz admits to many of the same shortcomings the Democrats had to admit back in 1994. Democrats then and Republicans now are bloated, unable to create a cohesive message, and hate to admit the fact that they have made numerous mistakes in the run-up to this election.

What is interesting is that Berkowitz’s proposals seem to still be somewhat behind the political curve. Here are a few examples:

*“A foreign policy that recognizes America’s vital national security interest in advancing liberty abroad but realistically calibrates undertakings to the nation’s limited knowledge and restricted resources.” Haven’t Democrats been touting this for years?

*“A commitment to homeland security that is as passionate about security as it is about law, and which is prepared to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful trade-offs.” Again, Democrats have been touting this since the creation of the Patriot Act back in 2001; yes we need security, but we must also maintain liberty.

*“Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-immigrant.” Liberals of all stripes have stated that we need to have greater compassion in regards to the border situation.

Then there are the ones that are politically questionable, but I understand that it is possible for conservatives to swing people back to their ideological point of view:

*“A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus.” I suspect that this is a response to the idea that colleges are “liberal bastions” where students are pumped of “far-left doctrine.”

*“Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state’s democratic process.” Though I see why conservatives wish to halt the advance of gay marriage, it is still unrealistic to think that a national law will not, at some point, make gay marriage a reality. Though I do think that it is some progress to at least concede that states have the right to decide this issue, rather than just blanket oppose it.

*“The appointment of judges who understand that their function is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, and, therefore, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process.” Sounds like the same old song and dance of “activist judges.”

There are a few more issues that Berkowitz addresses, however I think two things have become blatantly obvious: one, Republicans know they need to retool and two, the only thing they can come up with is either repackaging their message or move further left in their opinions.

I will agree with Berkowitz that Republicans will have to incorporate the ideas of the Libertarian Party and Independents with right-leaning tendencies in order to have future success.

And so, my fellow liberals, your homework is to read this article, and the other right leaning blogs, so that we can all start to formulate arguments now so that we are not surprised a few years down the road.

An Open Letter to “Blue Staters”

Curtis Haring — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 05:17:00 +0000

So, I am feeling a little upset after reading this post I stumbled upon. Rather than just flaming the writer, I feel it would be best to send an open letter to all liberals in blue states:

Dear Liberal Blue Stater,

As you know, our nation has all too often been split up into “red states” and “blue states.” You, as a blue stater enjoy more progressive policies, are more urban, tend to place a greater emphasis on the arts and culture, are more accepting of various points of view, and benefit from the advantages of rater large economies. Odds are also good that you yourself consider yourself liberal and a Democrat.

I, however, do not benefit from the traits listed above (though my particular area is the economic and cultural hub of the region). No, I live in the redest of the red – Utah. Why do I feel the need mention this? Because it makes me a better liberal than you.

Yes, yes, I know, how dare I – someone who lives in fly-over country and views a less than thirty point loss for Obama in their state as a major step forward for our state and our nation – say that you are not a good liberal? Well, it is for that reason, along with many others in that vein that point out exactly why I am. You see, whereas you take your liberal polices for granted, I value the ones I do have and fight harder to change the ones I don’t like.

By being forced to defend my ideology to my peers and family, I am forced to weigh all sides of an issue and debate only when I know I have a sound argument. The result of all of this is that I am better informed on the issues and, though I may not be as far left as you, my liberalism runs deeper. Also, I hate to break it to you, but your far-left stance on issues wherein you completely disregard your conservative opponents only makes them better at debating their points (I can only assume that they hate a Democratic majority as much as I hate a Republican one). This makes their arguments stronger on an aggregate, national level, and weakens yours.

What you should also know is that you are not making my work, and the work of my fellow liberals, any easier by utterly disregarding us red-staters. There is a reason why, as a general rule, us square states don’t like “those east (west) coast types.” It is not because you are more cultured and they just hate being challenged, it is because you think you are more cultured and that they hate being challenged. Liberal becomes a dirty word because you perpetuate a stereotype that I have to work against once you leave.

And this, my friends, is the root of the challenge. You can talk about corporate media and a degradation in civil society all you want, but when it gets right down to it the real problem is that you are just as guilty as conservatives in embracing the “color” of your state. Instead of wanting to work with you neighbors, you are happy to push them aside as you steamroll an idea through. This causes more distrust and more unnecessary fighting.

So please, my fellow liberal, try to look at the greater picture. The color of ones state should not automatically cause one to degrade an entire population. The liberals in states such as Utah should not be ignored or viewed as “collateral damage” in some sort of pseudo war that we as Americans have nothing to gain from. We are your allies, we are your friends, we are the ones that put together real, solid, arguments that attempt to better the nation, if only because we are the ones that have to defend and adapt them for all of the people – not just the party.

Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy was one of the best things to happen to the Democratic Party and a big reason why the Republicans had to play defense in states like Montana (Montana for God’s sake!) In order to play offence, we must play in places that we have not won in the past, and the only way to win is to treat people (and yes voters) as people, not as a blanket color that demeans us all. To use a turn of phrase, we must win their hearts and their minds.

Regards,

Curtis Haring

Member, Utah Democratic Party

Yes We Can

Curtis Haring — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:50:00 +0000

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY&hl=en&fs=1]

Please vote.

It’s funny because it is true…

Curtis Haring — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:32:00 +0000

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xnk9aqih8o&hl=en&fs=1]

Election Predictions – Part V – Federal Races

Curtis Haring — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:01:00 +0000

This is the last in a five part series: Monday focused on Salt Lake County Elections, Wednesday concerned itself with the Utah State House of Representatives while Friday was the Utah Senate. Finally, last Sunday focused on statewide races.

Remember everyone, the election is in a week. If you don’t know where to vote, click here. Polls will be open from 7 AM to 8 PM on November 4th.

House District 1

Prediction – Rob Bishop – 66-30-2-1%
Endorsement – Morgen Bowen

As a citizen of the First Congressional District, I have been all too familiar with Rob Bishop and his proposals; having done many things that I fundamentally disagree with, I will not be casting my support for him in a week. The problem is that, though I do not agree with his politics, I see that he is a very smart guy. He has not been a blubbering fool while on Capitol Hill, just a conservative supporter of whatever way the wind blows for Republicans. Bishop will win, hands down, for two reasons: 1 – He has an “R” next to his name and this plays well with his constitutes and, two, Bowen has had a hard time campaigning. This second fact is why I give Bishop a 2-1 advantage. As a Democrat in the district, I don’t think I have received one piece of information from their campaign. With resources spread thin, I commend Bowen for putting up a fight.

Morgen Bowen(D) – http://www.bowenforcongress.com/
Rob Bishop (R) – http://www.votebishop.com/
Joseph Buchman (L) – http://www.buchmanforcongress.com/
Kirk Pearson (C) – (unknown web site)

House District 2

Prediction – Jim Matheson 61-37-1-1
Endorsement – Jim Matheson

Matheson has barely had to campaign in his district, and for good reason. Bill Dew offers no real challenge and has made little noise this election cycle. The fact of the matter is Matheson has done better and better every year he has gone up for reelection, and there is no reason to think that this year will be any different. No the real election story will be in 2012 when Matheson’s district is sliced and diced due to redistricting. Republicans will have to create one strong Democratic district in Utah, and Matheson will be in it. No doubt he will face and inner-party challenger and be in the race of his political life. By socking away money now, Matheson is looking four years ahead, trying to avoid becoming the Democratic Chris Cannon.

Jim Matheson (D) – http://mathesonforcongress.com/
Bill Dew (R) – http://www.billdew.com/
Mathew Arndt (L) – (unknown web site)
Dennis Emery (C) – (unknown web site)

House District 3

Prediction – Jason Chaffetz – 69-28-3%
Endorsement – Bennion Spencer

Speaking of Chris Cannon…This race certainly has been one of the more interesting ones to watch, if only because both candidates have made some interesting statements. On the one hand Jason Chaffetz said he would put illegal immigrants in tent cities wrapped with barbwire fences, on the other Bennion Spencer, in a very poorly worded statement, said that Jesus would vote for him. Spencer has the unenviable task of running as a Democrat in what is arguably the most conservative congressional district in the nation and I predict that, despite having a moderate message, the voters will elect Chaffetz in a landslide. Looks like we should reactivate the Topaz internment camp.

Bennion Spencer (D) – http://www.bennionspencerforcongress.com/
Jason Chaffetz (R) – http://www.jasonforcongress.com/
Jim Noorlander (C) – http://www.jimnoorlanderforcongress.com/

California Proposition 8

Prediction – To Close to Call
Endorsement – No

In what has become one of the most watched elections in the nation, Californians will be deciding the fate of gay marriage in their state. Polls, as of late, have stated that the proposition will pass by a margin of around 53-47, however, what the majority of these polls also point out is that young voters are severely under-represented in polls, and have margins of error well above 4 percent; hence the “to close to call.” The simple fact of the matter is, it is not unreasonable to say that at least three percent of young voters could turn this into a failing proposition and another one to two could be floating around.

Against Proposition 8 – http://www.noonprop8.com/
For Proposition 8 – http://www.protectmarriage.com/

Now what am I forgetting? I swear there is some other election that is going on, but I just can’t put my finger on it…Ooooooooh that’s right!

President – Utah Turnout

Prediction – John McCain/Sarah Palin –57-41-2%
Endorsement – Barak Obama/ Joe Biden

Anyone who thinks that Obama is going to win Utah is just fooling themselves, however the fact that I predict that he will break 40 percent speaks volumes. The Democratic National Committee’s fifty state strategy was designed to excited people in even the reddest of the red states, and this, combined with a fantastic candidate, will make a lot people vote for the first time for a Democrat (either because they have never voted before or because they have always considered themselves Republican).

President – National Turnout

Prediction – Obama/Biden 360 Electorial Votes

Lets face it, this election has been going on for far too long and both candidates would make a good president. Yes I know, I know, McCain is the Devil (or vice versa), but lets face it, either is a marked improvement over Bush. Obama, however, has taken his campaign to a whole new level. His message of change and hope are needed in a time where the politics of old are failing. We must reunite as a nation and work towards the common goods of liberty, education, economic growth, and liberty, and I feel that Barak Obama and Joe Biden with are the ones who will take us to that better future.

Barak Obama/ Joe Bide (D) – http://www.barakobama.com/
John McCain/ Sarah Palin (R) – http://www.johnmccain.com/

And, just for fun, here is my prediction for the electoral map!

Wazzzzzzzzup 2008

Curtis Haring — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:32:00 +0000

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1]

Sarah Palin v. United States

Curtis Haring — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:56:00 +0000

So I know I am a little behind the curve on this whole “Sarah Pailn has foreign policy experience because she is next to Russia” thing, but I heard it again today and have yet to hear this as an legal argument.

If, when refereeing to her tenure as Governor of Alaska, someone says that Sarah Palin has experience with trade envoys and being the first line of defense against Russia, what they are really saying is that Sarah Pailn is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States.

But don’t take my word for it – allow me to quote from Article I, Section X

Paragraph I:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…

Paragraph II:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul (sp) of the Congress.

Paragraph III:
No State shall, with the Consent of Congress,…enter into any agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So, allow me to translate:

Paragraph I:
No state (Alaska being one, last I checked) can never, never, never have any form of diplomatic relations. NEVER!

Paragraph II:
Unless the United States Congress specifically says that it is ok, no state (Alaska being one, I dare to point out) put a tariff, or tax if you will, on anything that leaves or comes into its ports. If they do get permission, the money goes straight to the United States Government, not the state where it was taken in.

Paragraph III:
No state (Alaska has been one for almost 50 years now) can never, never, never, go to war with another state or country unless they are invaded first and, for some reason, the United States Government, can not or will, not respond.

So, what the Constitution is saying is that a state can not conduct any diplomatic, economic, or military procedures against another country. It is almost as if the Founding Fathers wanted states to focus on being part of the republic, not their own countries.

So then, I ask to you, right-wing pundits. Was Sarah Pain engaged in foreign policy while Governor of Alaska? If so, she is in blatant violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and has committed treason. If not, I guess it would mean that you are wrong, and it is a lie to continue perpetrating it on the American people.

P.S. Sorry that, yet again, that pesky little Constitution got in the way of your grand schemes.

Is Salt Lake City Part of "Real America?"

Curtis Haring — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:35:00 +0000

I wanted to take a quick time out from my predictions to note this little gem.

Recently John Stewart of the Daily Show had a little equation to help you figure out if you live in “Real America:”

(Population* average price of coffee + Art house movie theaters * Streets
named after Martin Luther King) all over pieces of identification needed to buy
Sudafed * (the number of people who wear trucker hats in town – Actual truckers)
* 1/(houses of worship [not Jewish]-bars)

If the answer is less than 10, you live in real America!

So what is this for the saintly Salt Lake City? Well lets find out:

Population – Est. 180,746 in 2006
Average price of a cup of coffee – $1.50
Art House Movie theaters – 4
Streets named after Martin Luther King Jr. – 1
Identification needed to buy Sudafed – 1
Number of people who wear trucker hats – Estimate 3% – 5,422
Number of actual truckers – Estimate 1% – 1,807
Number of churches – 79
Number of bars – 23

And the result?

(180,746*1.5+4*1)/((1*(5,422-1,807))*(1/(79-23)) = 271,123/((3615)*(1/56)) = 271,123/64.5 = 4203

4,203 > 10

Therefore Salt Lake City, sadly, is not part of “Real America.”