Republican delegates got a gift in the mail today – a trifold pamphlet outlining the evils of the so called “Common Core” program in Education, claiming that it is an insidious and underhanded way for the federal guv’met to take over our schools and, therefore, our kid’s fragile little minds!

The reality, of course, is that core standards upgrade curriculum so that the state produces a higher quality of student. Good thing, right? I would say so. After all, good students mean quality students, quality students mean skilled workers, skilled workers mean higher pay, higher pay means higher quality of life, and Utah becomes an all around better place.

But none other than the infamous Gayle Ruzicka (seen here diligently defending Utah – Thanks Pride In Utah) of the Eagle Forum feels that Republican delegates need to know about the core curriculum, and more importantly, who voted for it – especially before this Saturday’s Republican Convention.

Now, I count about nine different ways I can take this blog post at this point: do I take the easy route and talk about how Gayle is up in the night? Do I support the core curriculum as a step in the right direction for our schools? Do I talk about how the Eagle Forum has far to much power in this state when their only real claim to fame (as near as I can tell) is that they are fantastic at harassing lawmakers? No, no, that is far too easy.

No, I want to talk about one line I found in the Tribune article that brought this all to my attention: “Ruzicka said the pamphlet isn’t the work of any group. She said there is one man — whom she would not name because he wants to remain anonymous — who paid to publish and mail the brochure.”

Yes, an anonymous backer is pumping , by my estimates, some $2,500 directly into our election process by attempting to directly influence delegates and, therefore, our elections.

$2,500 may seem like small change, and in many elections it is, but let us focus on the principal of the matter – our democratic system is so vulnerable to intrusion that an investment  of a very cheep car could have a dramatic effect on the state for years to come.

In a related story, another wing nut, anonymous individual recently sent out a letter degrading Sen. Curt Bramble (R-Provo) in a presumed attempt to oust Bramble from office. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of Bramble in particular and the Republican party in general, but stories such as this point to the fundamental problem with our current election system.  Anonymous individuals can easily influence a select group of individuals with very little effort.

The irony is that this happens to also be the strength of the delegate system – a candidate with passion and determination can, theoretically, oust a long time politician if they are better on the issues. But in that situation we know exactly who is funding the campaign and  the motives behind their actions. Here we simply have a lone wolf who got a bug up their butt and feel it is far more important to promote their own agenda rather than think about the interests of the state of Utah. Even worse, let us consider the possibility that this individual actually does feel that they are promoting the interests of the state; if that is the case, than this individual does not have the conviction to stand behind what they have produced, depriving the public (or at least Utah Republican Delegates) of a fair and proper debate – and, in my mind, that is almost worse.

By depriving people of debate while simultaneously promoting your own agenda, you show that you care little for our democratic process.  You show that you have no problem perverting the system that, when used properly, elevates the rights and dignity of people. Faceless individuals such as these are proving that there are deep cracks in our system and, perhaps, we should reevaluate the delegate system here in Utah and either reform or remove it from the process. The delegate system is proving to be moving away from its intended purpose of allowing the “everyman” to be elected, and instead is showing us just how easy it is to entrench candidates and influence elections.

From the moment Ben McAdams threw his hat into the ring for Salt Lake County Mayor, I was excited. Over the years I have watched McAdams, first as an adviser for Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, and then as my state senator; and every time I have had the pleasure to work work with him on various issues, I have always come away impressed.

McAdams is a smart, forward-thinking, and approachable man whose  humility is only matched by his effectiveness. He is the first to step into a fight, and often the last man standing.  His work, in particular, during the redistricting charade solidified in my mind that he is a man who is willing to fight for what he believes in, even when he knows it is a Herculean task to even get your foot in the door.

But anyone who knows Ben knows that he would not do it any other way. I have never seen him simply throw his hands up in the air and say “it can’t be done;” on the contrary, he is the first to ask “who can we talk to to get this solved?”

Yes, ultimately, Ben is a problem solver who understands how the gears and cogs of government do and don’t work. His position as one of 29 state senators limited his ability to push through effective policies (and being in the minority party did not help much either) – however, when given a chance to shine on such issues as the non-discrimination ordinance and continuing pushes towards stricter anti-fraud laws, Ben does not disappoint.

Not afraid to shy away from his Mormon faith, Ben has been able to not only reconcile, but embrace issues such as LGBT rights and the liberalization of liquor laws; though I can’t speak for McAdams, I suspect it is because he realizes the world is not as black and white as many Republicans would like to think it is, and that one of the principal tenets of any faith is to first do unto others.

This mindset also places McAdams in a unique position – he has been endorsed by many across the political spectrum, and for good reason. The issues Ben wants to address (and have always wanted to address) do not fit nicely into “Republican” or “Democratic” labels; rather they fall into issues that have common sense solutions, yet seem to befuddle old-school politicians. Issues such as clean air, smarter planning, and better use of public space only become bewildering when close-minded politicians wish to make it that way.  By no small miracle, Ben has already found a way to cut through those traditional barriers in an attempt to find solutions.

I must also admit that I am amazed by the personal relationship I have forged with Ben.  As an example, when MRW had to go into unplanned, major surgery a week ago, a phone call was not far behind to her, asking how she was doing and pleased to hear that she was making a fast recovery.  Though I would not expect him to make such a gesture to every resident in the county, it does show that Ben has a honest heart and is genuinely concerned about the well being of others.

Democrats will face a tough decision at the Salt Lake County Convention; Ben’s opponent, Senator Ross Romero, is no slouch. Both men bring great attributes to county government. This pre-convention race should prove to make the winning campaign more powerful, and whomever comes out victorious will have another hard fought campaign in the books. I am hopeful that whomever comes out ahead, we as Democrats recognize that we will all win. I have chosen to endorse Ben because I feel that he is the better man for the job, but I can completely understand why others would feel that Ross fits that same description. As a party we are all to eager to rip each other apart – but let us fight fair, and let us fight hard, for the ultimate future of Salt Lake County.

Please, consider joining me in supporting Ben McAdams as Salt Lake County Mayor.

To learn more about Ben McAdams, visit www.benmcadams.com

Last Tuesday it was announced that West Vally City Mayor, Mike Winder will be a regular contributor to the Deseret News’ online, local news oriented, feature “Deseret Connect.” Since then, Mayor Winder and the Deseret News have successfully reopened the debate regarding how close is too close when it comes to having politicians involved in the news cycle.

Let us start by discussing what this is not.  This is not a state takeover of a media outlet – but in the same breath it is also not a politician simply wishing to communicate with their constituents through another means.

I hold sacred the idea  that the media is the so called “fourth estate” in our electoral process. Providing a check and balance to the three main forms of government we learned about in 8th grade civics class. The role of the media is to question if the decisions of the legislative, executive, or judicial branch are sound – not if they should have a corner office or just a cubicle to write from.

We should not forget that politicians are regularly allowed to participate in the media through opinion pieces. These articles often are given more weight that regular letters to the editor and are segregated in newspapers to emphasize their importance. This higher standard is fair, if only because politicians are naturally regarded as experts in the field of municipal affairs.  It is not as if decision makers are left out of the media, it is just that they do not receive an additional platform to politic from.

In a very short press release from Salt Lake County Chair Mary Bishop, the county party hinted at the true nature of the problem, but fell short at hitting the mark. In it Bishop states that “It truly defies fairness for a candidate for public office to be granted such a stage from which to trumpet himself,” and “if Mayor Winder wishes to use the conveniences of the internet to reach his constituents and other interested parties, he can easily do so using a blog on the West Valley City website.”

Bishop is correct in saying that it is unfair to give one elected official more clout than any other in a major publication, but she falls short in placing the blame squarely where it needs to go: on the Deseret News.

Although I doubt the Deseret News had any sort of nefarious motives when they chose to bring on Winder as a contributor, they did show an astounding lack of respect for journalistic integrity by doing so. In an effort to add to their business by beefing up their local news coverage, they ignored the idea that integrity should be upheld and bias should be removed whenever possible.

Bishop is right when she says that this provides Winder an unfair platform – but it is not unfair towards Winder, it is unfair towards the public who may not be able to decipher the difference between actual news and political opinion. Deseret News Managing Editor Rick Hall feels that by simply labeling  a news article in slightly bold print at the top of an article as coming from the mayor, people will automatically be able to decipher what follows as an opinion piece. This line of thinking is a dangerous one to go down because it implies that the Deseret News has no qualms about where stories and sources come from.

The role of the news is to educate, and education implies ignorance on certain topics. In this case it is not the role of the news to educate the public on this topic or that, but to educate the public on the news itself. By attempting to downplay and brush off the  potential violation of public trust, the Deseret News has said that it has put profit before journalistic integrity.

Winder did what he did because not only does he have a passion for his city, but also because it is in his best interest to continue putting his name forward as he attempts to run for County Mayor. The problem is that the Deseret News did what it did because it has lost its way on how proper reporting should work.

Even if Winder never touches a story that has to do with himself or his administration, there will now be the cloud hanging over the newsroom that he has input in the editorial process. His mere presence casts doubt on the Deseret News’ ability to accurately report, and  that alone should have been reason enough not to invite him to the table.

Last week Senator Orrin Hatch held a “Tele-Town Hall Meeting” in Utah County where he asked various questions to the audience and posted results on Twitter. The questions he posed, as well as the responses he received makes it clear that Hatch is quite content in his bubble and more than happy to think that the views of a select group of people should be what we base our national policy on.

As I rummaged through my junk-mail pile, it became more and more clear that I did not, in fact, receive an invitation to participate in this meeting; this, despite the fact that I am a) a tax payer, b) a Utahan, and c) a voter in good standing. Clearly a mistake was made, therefore I have to go entirely off of Hatch’s Twitter feed to determine what was actually discussed during the “town-hall.”

According to Twitter, Hatch asked three questions:  What would you do to lower gas prices? To reduce the Federal Deficit should we raise taxes, cut spending, or both? And should Obama-care be repealed. The answers were predictable. To the gas price question 32 percent of those asked said expand domestic production, 10 percent said “alternative energy,” and 58 percent said both. Reducing the deficit also was quite predictable – 1 percent want to raise taxes, 78 percent said they want to cut spending, and 20 percent said both. Finally, a resounding 95 percent of those lucky enough to have found the embossed and gold leafed invitation said that “Obama-care” should be repealed.

It is clear that Hatch was not so much interested in connecting with his constituents as he was with connecting with the Republican base. After all, one sure fire way to know if Hatch is up for reelection is if he is actually in Utah.

But what is upsetting is that this puts into stark detail just how little Hatch actually cares about getting a well rounded opinion on the views of the people. No doubt, Hatch will go back to Washington with a chip on his shoulder saying that “the people of Utah overwhelming want to get rid of Obama-care, cut spending, and drill baby, drill;” failing, of course, to point out that by “the people of Utah” Hatch really means “the people he is trying to court to get reelected.”

At least I certainly hope Hatch does not actually believe that this unbelievably biased and small sample is the will of the people of Utahns. Indeed, health care reform may be unpopular, but I have to believe that at least the most hardcore of Democrats, comprising about 10 percent of the population supports the basic idea behind it.

But what this really points to is another example of the biased delegate system. If there is one complement I can pay to Hatch, it is that he always runs a campaign as if he is three points behind. Hatch will work a small group of delegates over and over again until he is sure that his support is solid – the downside of this is that it means Hatch does NOT have to listen to or appeal to the majority of Utahns, just the majority of Republican delegates.

Provided, of course, that Hatch is successful in courting 51 percent of delegates based on the actions that take place at these biased town-hall meetings, he will most likely win yet another term. This would ensure that, barring death or retirement, Hatch will serve in office for 42 years (fun fact – Hatch was elected to office for eight years when I was born). If he is not, it is clear that, in the mean time, he will continue to court a select group of voters right up to the bitter end – possibly ignoring his true beliefs, the true desires of the voters, and perverting the process.

In the waning hours of the legislative session, I decided to to head up to Capitol Hill and take in the festivities. At one point I returned to a very packed House gallery and found the first seat I could find. Quite by accident I discovered that, seated one row in front of me, none other than former Utah House member and perennial challenger to Jim Matheson, John Swallow was carrying on a very loud (and not so subtle) conversation.

Swallow, talking to a man and woman around my age, was clearly discussing campaign strategy. Both clearly knew what they were talking about as they continued to discuss how Swallow could beat “him” if he announces soon. The gentleman Swallow was talking about said that he could “easily raise a quarter of a million in three months and half a million by convention.” Swallow was bolstered by this and said that he knows the federal issues – rambling things off such as  taxation and really emphasizing his knowledge on immigration.

Having spoken to a few Republican colleagues, the inside talk was that Swallow was eyeballing the Attorney General’s position – being a lawyer, that would be a very logical conclusion. But you don’t need half a million dollars by convention time to do this. As a point of fact Attorney General Shurtleff spent under a quarter of a million by convention time in 2008, and many of these expenses were to other candidates and travel expenses outside the state (gotta love Utah election law).  To be confidant that you will raise, need,and can get such a large amount of money so early is a good sign that Swallow has his eye on something much larger.

Finally, when Swallow and I very briefly exchanged a glance, Swallow immediately apologized for talking so loud and shot up and left the chamber with his cohorts in tow – all this in under two seconds. Interesting behavior for someone if they are talking about a campaign that has already been expected but quite understandable if you are plotting something bigger that you don’t want anyone to see coming.

What I found interesting (aside from the obvious) was that Swallow was doing all of this in the House chamber in the last hours of the session. Only true political nerds such as myself would knowingly and happily spend a Thursday night on the Hill, and only nerds such as myself would have anything to gain by hearing such a conversation. It is a bit of an understatement to say that this it is a rookie mistake to have this type of conversation in that particular setting – as I said before, I sat by Swallow quite by accident. Furthermore, if you are going to have this conversation, don’t conduct it so loudly that I can clearly make out the topic of discussion.

I mean really, how stupid do you have to be?! In the most political spot in the state, where people have the most interest in this sort of thing, Swallow is either so arrogant or so stupid, that he thinks it is safe to have this conversation in the most public of settings.

So, we shall see if Swallow moves forward on his election goals. There has already been quite a bit of conversation about knocking Hatch out at convention, and all the right candidate needs to do is ensure that they are in the top two by the end of the day. It worked for Mike Lee, and it could easily work for a well funded, established candidate such as Swallow.

The news that is rippling through the Utah political scene today is the announcement by President Obama that he has tapped Governor Huntsman to be the U.S.’s ambassador to China. The ramifications of this still remain to be seen but, needless to say, they are many – both nationally and state-wide.

Let us begin with the national perspective. One of the most prevalent rumors surrounding the outgoing Governor was that he intended to run for president in 2012; all the while thinking that he did not have a shot in hell at actually getting the position.  I suspect that President Obama has heard these same rumors but feels that Huntsman is a greater threat.  What better way to block a challenge than to send your potential adversary to the other side of the world?

Now, please don’t get me wrong, I feel that Huntsman is a fantastic choice for ambassador.  His experience serving a mission in Taiwan makes him intimately aware of the tensions involved between those to nations.  Furthermore, I feel that if you come across as diplomatic in the eyes of Democrats and Republicans in Utah, you have to have some skills at keeping the peace. Furthermore, as ambassador to Singapore under Bush Sr. he knows what it takes to get the job done.

But, on that note, lets focus on Utah.

First off, I know that the next election for Governor will be the newly created special election in 2010, however I doubt that a reasonable campaign will be put together by a challenger to unseat Herbert, either from a Republican or Democratic candidate.

Lets focus on the most obvious jumping off point: what happens once Herbert takes office. Governor Herbert’s first official act will be to appoint a new Lieutenant Governor.  Herbert, being far more right that Huntsman and knowing that he can get more done if he tows the party line, will most likely pick another far right conservative.  Now, hailing from American Fork, Herbert can either choose a candidate also from Utah County and risk upsetting Salt Lake and Weber Republicans, or he can choose a candidate from Salt Lake  in an attempt to tow the party line and attempt to make the county Red again and secure a power base for at least the next five years. Obviously I feel that the latter is the route he will go.

Now who is out of work, is far right, has aspirations for higher office, and comes from Salt Lake County? Now I fully admit that I hope I am wrong on this one, but the three names I come up with are former Speaker of the House Greg Curtis, former state Representative and federal office seeker LaVar Christensen, and former Salt Lake County Mayor Nancy Workman.

We now have our Herbert/(insert name here) ticket for 2012; depending on the job he does, Herbert may be challenged internally.  As it stands right now, Huntsman was a formidable opponent, pulling 80 percent of the vote in the 08′ election – I doubt that Herbert could pull those same numbers, and this weakness opens him up to a challenge.  Watch and see if Attorney General Mark Shurtleff accidentally tweets his intention to stop running for U.S. Senate and picks up the gauntlet for Governor.

On the other side, who are the Democrats going to run? The person needs to be a moderate, have statewide name recognition, be plausible, and either is out of work or would be by 2012.  The one name that I keep turning to is Representitive Jim Matheson.  Matheson has, time and time again, proven to be a moderate Democrat on many issues (sometimes upsetting his liberal base), furthermore Jim is well-known across the state for both the work he and his father, former Governor Scott Matheson, have done for the state.  Being a Federal Representative, Matheson as Governor is not a hard sell to make and would be considered a political “step up.”  Now on to my final point, they must be out of work or would be by 2012.

The census is coming up in 2010 with the 2012 election to be the first affected by the inevitable boundary changes taking place.  It is also no secrete that Utah will get a fourth congressional seat. No matter how you cut it, Utah will have one Democratic seat at a minimum (most likely consisting of parts of Salt Lake and Summit County), and this seat will be very liberal. Matheson will, most likely, be cut out of his district and his tactic of being a moderate Democrat will come back to haunt him.  He will be too conservative for the new fourth seat and too liberal for the rest of the state. Result: Matheson probably can’t win in 2012.

What better way to avoid the embarrassment of loosing a seat that you have held for 12 years than to run for Governor? His moderate voice would be a good contrast to Herbert’s probable far-right rhetoric and fill the moderate “hole” that Huntsman creates when he leaves office. To win over more voters, Matheson would need to pick a Democrat that is also well known.  I predict that this means either Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corron, former federal Senate candidate Pete Ashdown, or Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker are put on a short list.

In short, I am saying it now, we will have a Herbert/(insert name here) Matheson/(insert name here) ticket. in 2012.

Next post – how Utah will change with Herbert as Governor.