Note to any candidate: Never say "Frankly I hope it's the other guy."

So I'm late to the party as usual in terms of catching up on the Party Convention last Saturday. Call me a nerd but I had a good time. Some of my candidates and issues won...others lost. All in all as it should be I suppose.

As a campaign junkie though I just had to include this note on what not to say if you ever hope to be elected to well...anything...

Read this article in the Provo Daily Herald about Dave Duncan, candidate (at the time) for State Party Chair: Duncan a long shot to win GOP Chair

A few excerpts to highlight:

"The heart of the question is who should have the ultimate say in party affairs? The delegates or the power brokers?" asked Duncan.

Duncan admits being this aggressive about the issues and putting his name out there for everyone to scrutinize is a bit out of his comfort zone. He even says he hopes another candidate for chair, Arnold Gaunt, wins on Saturday. The third candidate for chair is Thomas Wright.

"I hope that one of us gets elected," says Duncan. "Frankly, I hope it is Arnold."

But Duncan's name is on the ballot and he is hoping he can change minds on Saturday. He notes this group is a different group than the traditional GOP delegates that have been involved in the past. Many Tea Party delegates who brought down former U.S. Senator Bob Bennett will be voting again at the convention and Duncan hopes their resentment for the old guard might work in his favor, but he isn't holding out much hope for a victory.

"I think my chances are very slim," he said.

If you ever hope to win, don't ever say what Dave said in this article. It comes across as though he doesn't really want to win. I've seen this happen dozens of times, mostly during convention speeches where a candidate gets up and all but apologizes for even running at all.

My point is that if you are going to run - run for crying out loud. If you don't think you can win then you won't. It's 50% attitude 50% hard work - the last 10% is luck ;)

I actually like Dave. I believe he's sincere and committed. The interesting thing is given the way the voting worked out I think Dave really had a legitimate chance of winning his race. But I think his attitude towards winning as demonstrated by his comments proved to be his downfall.

A Tale of Two Sites

Most folks associated with campaigns will tell you that a campaign website is the new yard sign. It's been like that for at least the last ten years I'd say - so maybe it's not all that new. But really, the website is the central hub for disseminating campaign information. It's all very interesting how campaigns develop their sites, what they post, what the new/latest add-on or plug-in features they choose to use, etc...

But what about domain names? Consider NY Assemblywoman Jane Corwin's (for Congress) site JaneCorwin.com, then consider JaneCorwin.org

I'll wait while you take a look at each...No really look at BOTH sites.

Notice anything different?

The .org site is from the opposition. I doubt it's directly from the opposing candidate's camp but certainly it's not from a fan. My favorite part is the bogus slogan: "Together we can make delicious soup from the bones of the poor." As opposed to the official one: "Together we can build a bright future that is lit with prosperity and opportunity."

The truth is, I think the .org/bogus site is actually the better site. Cooler graphics, better features. They've actually gone to great lengths to make it look official, with crisp photos, a Twitter feed, rotating banners, and links to official sites like ProjectVoteSmart for voting records.

It'll be interesting to see the reaction to the bogus site. It's humorous, but cuts fairly deep. I suspect as many people will go to that site as do the official one. And perhaps the publicity of a bogus site may drive more traffic to the official one - kind of a no publicity is bad publicity scenario.

Campaign 2000 was one of the first Presidential races to really use the web as it came of age. At the time George W Bush bought a number of domains, anything from BushSucks.com to GeorgeWBush.com (.org/.biz/etc). People at the time thought it was a bit overkill, but I think larger campaigns should think about purchasing domain variations for very reason Jane Corwin is facing right now, not to mention possibly having to shell out chunks of valuable messaging dollars to purchase a domain (see this story on a squatter back in 2000).

Anyhow, one of those goofy things that comes up in a campaign. It'll be interesting to watch or should I say See Jane run...She does look rather regal standing next to a firetruck.

Update (like five minutes after I first posted I know!): turns out it's this guy, the Green Party candidate and a notorious prankster.

"I've Got Better Stuff to Do."

This morning President Obama released his long-form birth certificate. The President said that "he decided on the release because the conspiracy theory over where he was born had eclipsed the debate on the budget." And I agree with him.

I see two problems with this whole silliness.

First, is that it took him so long to do it. I mean the requirements are fairly straightforward to be the President of the United States; No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...(Article II Section I). So if your qualifications are ever in question I would think it simple enough to provide the appropriate documentation and move on.

And this gets to my second problem with this issue; the conspiracy theorists would not let this issue die. In the vacuum of formal proof, which has just now been provided, the birther issue got legs and kept running much longer that it ever should. And I think you see Obama's frustration with this non-issue in his statement today "I've got better stuff to do," referring to the budget issues.

Obama miscalculated how distracting this issue would become. People in their desperation (that doesn't seem like quite the right word though) to discredit him grasped on to this issue of all things. And to me the frustrating thing is that we're talking about a birth certificate here, not the budget, not the wars, not education, not ...name literally ANY other issue. It's just silly.



And now, because it's so curious to me, the side-bar to this story - Donald Trump.

If you read Obama's statement this morning it's full of awesome one-liners that as a guy who dabbles in campaigns like me just eats up. My favorite; "while the parties debate their fiscal policies, people can’t be 'making stuff up' and providing 'sideshows and carnival barkers.”

Sideshows. Carnival Barkers. Awesome. And really, is there any better way to describe Donald Trump right now?

There is an interesting article in the Union Leader that sums up my feelings of Donald Trump fairly well; see it here. In the article the author sites a Trump appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show where Trump said:

“If he wasn’t born in this country, it’s one of the great scams of this time.” To which O’Reilly replied: “It’s provocative. I think it gets a lot of attention, but I don’t think you believe it.”

I think O'Reilly was on to something at the time. Trump knows this issue is not substantive, but it is provocative, and it certainly has got Trump a lot of attention over the last month or so. But in the end, he comes off as a Carnival Barker. Someone who when history looks back at this presidential race will label as a literal sideshow.

And it's happening already; Jimmy Kimmel challenges any serious journalist to interview Trump with a straight face.

It'll be a fun (side)show to watch.

What's your Budget IQ?

So have you ever been at a party, BBQ, or just sitting around with co-workers and friends and the one really opinionated person pipes up with some totally outlandish spending 'fact' or 'statistic' they heard from a friend of a friend who saw something on Glen Beck a few weeks back and you just know you are in for five minutes of trying to keep your blood pressure at a normal level while you quietly let the person relieve themselves of the said 'fact' and they attempt to enlighten the group on why America is going to hell in a hand basket? Ever happened to any of you? Anyone?

Of course it has. Why? Because we're all idiots! Our perceptions are our realities. The news media, pundits, and even politicians themselves highlight items, cases, stories, and statistics that grab your attention and prompt an emotional response. You hear enough of these stories attached to an emotional reaction then they start to become your reality. Politicians and media pundits then capitalize on these new realities and use your feelings; often of anger and fear to keep you watching or listening to their shows or to keep voting for them.

Consider this poll from CNN on America's Budget IQ. Here is the accompanying article: American's flunk budget IQ test.

Let's take one item, say Foreign Assistance; What percentage of the budget would you say America spends on Foreign Aid? According to the poll on average people say we spend 10% of the budget on that one item (1 in 5 say we spend 20% on it). The truth? It's about 1.65%. Are you surprised? If so, why? Why do you think it's higher than it is? Is it because aid programs in Haiti, or parts of Africa, or other places around the globe get so much media attention?

Or is it cases closer to home like Congressman Chaffetz highlighting the inefficiencies of USAID in Haiti? "The relief effort is not progressing fast enough - why are we spending soooo much money there?" That's the message right? Does that make you angry? Of course it does. Are we wasting money in Haiti? Maybe. But would holding hearings and then cutting aid to programs like USAID really make a dent in the deficit? At 1.65%, and I'm guessing USAID isn't even a 10th of that, cutting that whole program wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. Yet you feel like our representatives are working on cutting the graft - trimming the pork right?

Wrong.

To get a sense - a true sense of where cuts need to happen take a look at this graphic for the 2012 proposed budget. It (see graphic at top of this post) gives you a nice visual of the largest programs and puts the smaller (yet often most highlighted) spending programs in context. What are the biggest spending items? Social Security at 20.04%, National Defense at 19.27%, and Medicare at 12.86%. Those three items are over half the total budget alone(!). Scroll over the various items to see their amounts.

So the next time your uneducated yet very opinionated associate starts in on how much the US is spending on what, you can chime in and say 'Oh yeah? If we're ever going to make a real dent in spending, you should take a look at those darn entitlement programs." Or when they say "We're spending 5% on NPR!" You can say; "Actually, it's only one tenth of one percent...If you really want to make a difference we should think about what it's costing us to fight wars on two fronts. 19.27% of our budget goes to national defense..."

Yeah, try giving them a dose of that reality. And the real reality is, that's where the discussion should be, not on earmarks, not on roads to nowhere, not on foreign aid programs. It's time to reform Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and come up with a cohesive national defense strategy.

Wimmer's no Jimmer

I hate to get into this so early in the 2012 congressional races...BUT it's not secret Carl Wimmer is running for Congress. Which District? We don't know, he doesn't know and honestly I don't think he cares. He's decided he's needed in Congress and the District will find him. It's funny in a time when borders are talked about so vehemently that we've had our struggles with those pesky lines right here at home. Rep Craig Frank's unfortunate situation comes to mind, the upcoming redistricting of State House and Senate lines, and the new 4th Congressional seat, not to mention Congressman Jason Chaffetz not living in the District he represents.

But I digress.

This post is really about HB 477 - no, it's really about ambition, but I'll get to that in a moment. The infamous GRAMA Bill. The one that prevents/makes it more difficult for the average citizen (read news reporters) from gaining access to public records, including text messages and emails. I think it's no secret (notice the common theme) that the process of it's passage has been much criticized by the local media and rightfully so.

Any steps by newly elected Speaker Lockhart to push for a more open process have been severely shadowed by this bill. And it's ironic really. I mean what is the public, let alone the media, to think about a bill that limits access to various public records, when it's pushed forward so quickly and with such little process that a bill of this subject matter traditionally requires? It's really puzzling. And I'm also a bit surprised that the Speaker's new Chief of Staff Joe Pyrah, a former Herald news reporter and favorite blogger (SausageGrinder), didn't advise the Speaker on the potential backlash.

But now comes Representative Carl Wimmer. If Jimmer is everything good about basketball, Rep Wimmer is everything bad about politics. The classic definition of an ambitious, self-serving politician in the year of election. Wimmer is now conveniently calling for HB477 to be repealed. To me Wimmer comes across as an opportunist trying to capitalize on the public displeasure with HB477 and make himself a champion of its repeal. All the while I might add he voted FOR it the first time it came before the House then voted against it the second time when I believe he held his finger to the wind and saw it as a potentially harmful vote that would be held against him in his congressional run.

Does anyone remember the famous "I voted it FOR it before I voted AGAINST it"Kerry political ad of 2004?

Carl. YOU voted FOR HB477 before you voted AGAINST it!

Wimmer is an election year opportunist driven more by ambition than principle at this point. His usage of the repeal of HB477 as a vehicle for his own purposes is the perfect example.

If any of you know of an honest principled candidate considering a run. Please let me know. I'm anxious to help keep this guy out of a place where ambition is all to often rewarded over principle.

In my next post I promise to tell you how I really feel. ;)

Go Cougs!

Military Leave for an Elected Official of a Political Subdivision

Just to follow-up on the National-Guard-City-Council-Vacancy issue...Here is the link to my Letter to the Editor in the Provo Daily Herald that ran earlier this week: Better Solutions.

It's basically a watered down version of my previous post - they only give you like 200 words so it's tough trying to sound intelligent - but as a conservative I always try to do more with less. ;)

Senator Valentine is running the bill, which you can track here: - SB66: Military Leave for an Elected Official of a Political Subdivision (Political Subdivision just means a 'city' which is technically a political subdivision of the state.

You can see the current language here: SB 66.

Please consider sending a note of support to your State Representative* or State Senator*.

*Disclaimer: the links to your local representatives district maps are provided by the state legislature, which may or may not be dependent on county governments, city boundaries, and the price of rice in China. They may or may not be accurate.

Resigned to This

The Provo Daily Herald just published an odd editorial: Honor in resignation trying to link (former but soon to be rightfully restored) Rep Craig Frank's recent resignation to the situation of current Provo City-Wide Councilwoman Laura Cabanilla who is currently serving in Kuwait as a Colonel in the Reserves.

I fail to see the connection. It seems as if the Herald for some reason wants the Councilwoman to resign and is desperately trying to tie the two cases together. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the difference. One a bizarre map making error, the other fulfilling one's military duty.

I for one support Councilwoman Cabanilla. Is anyone else offended that The Herald so easily dismisses her willingness to serve our country in a time of war? If The Herald were so convinced of her need to resign where were they six months ago when the City gave her a proper send off?

I'm surprised The Herald's best idea is one of simple resignation. Federal law requires that a servicemember if called to serve cannot be fired and is entiled to their job when they return. Would the Board then have those in the private sector resign from their places of employment before fulfilling their military duty as well? Perhaps The Herald Editorial Board would benefit from brushing up on their HR basics: The USSERA - The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA 38 U.S.C. 4301-4335)

USERRA provides that returning service-members are reemployed in the job that they would have attained had they not been absent for military service...with the same seniority, status and pay, as well as other rights and benefits determined by seniority...USERRA also provides that while an individual is performing military service, he or she is deemed to be on a furlough or leave of absence and is entitled to the non-seniority rights accorded other individuals on non-military leaves of absence.

Provo residents still enjoy representation from their District Councilmember, the other City-Wide member and the Mayor. Additionally, the advance of technology allows those called to military service to still fulfill their duties as members of the Council. The Councilwoman has participated in meetings over the phone, and has on two separate occasions corresponded with my wife via email while overseas.

But really, is resignation the limit of The Herald's imagination? The Councilwoman was elected to a four-year term. The length of her call is expected to be one year. Could the Editorial Board not come up with a reasonable alternative? Senator Valentine is exploring options, including one that would allow the Member to appoint someone in their place for the duration of their leave. I understand the concerns such a proposal raises, but why not use it to further the dialogue? Other reasonable ideas would include, allowing the Council to appoint a temporary replacement or my preferred method would be allowing the Mayor to make the appointment.

In each alterantive the power is centered in one area or the other, either the Councilmember involved, the Council, or the Mayor. I understand the concerns. Perhaps there is some combination of all three, but it seems like this isn't rocket science. Let's define an appropriate process and follow it.

Resignation is unnecessary. Provo deserves better.

Healthcare...get your Healthcare...get your Healthcare...Reform

Great op-ed by former Utah Gov and Bush Cabinet Member Mike Leavitt (yes I realize I just mentioned him in my last post and no I'd don't have a crush).

See the full article here: Healthcare reform: Less spending, less government control

I'll summarize his key points quickly:

1) Define contributions not benefits
2) Engage consumers
3) Give states more flexibility
4) More towards sustainable expectations

He offers the three primary reasons why healthcare, an issue Republicans generally do not win, was in 2010 a winning issue for them: "The truth is that people don't like Obamacare for three reasons: It represents too much debt, too much deficit and too much government."

Amen.

2012

So this comes as no big surprise that Senator Hatch is going to run for another term.

I think he's going to have a tough battle ahead of him. Rumored to run is Rep. Jason Chaffetz and recently mentioned is former Governor Huntsman. I thought it was interesting that two days ago Jason's campaign manager Deidre Henderson followed me on Twitter then literally two hours later so did Senator Hatch.

I suspect Huntsman won't run. I suspect Chaffetz will.

That means 2012 is going to be nuts for elections. The Governor's office is up for election (already), Attorney General (Sen Valentine has been mentioned as interested), Hatch's seat, and all what will by then be four Congressional seats, not to mention the Legislative seats.

I'm looking forward to it. Odds are with so many races going on at the same time there will naturally be an increased demand for people with political and/or campaign experience. The good ones will be nabbed up early so folks need to start organizing now - or else you may be caught in a moral dilemma of trying to decide between high school interns and hiring illegals from Mexico - just sayin. ;)

But back to the Senate race. Who would you like to see run? I think it'd be interesting to see someone like Mike Leavitt run, or even his brother David Leavitt (neither are really being mentioned as interested). I'm a huge fan of Provo Mayor John Curtis (but he's not that politically ambitious). West Valley City Mayor Mike Winder is someone with a political future, but I see him happy with being Mayor (for now). Honestly, at this point I'm not that excited about any of the current Legislators rumored to be interested, but that could change as things get closer to kick off. Not rumored to run but I'd be interested in watching his campaign would be someone like Curt Bramble. Same with John Dougall.

Who knows what it'll bring but with so many races I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Shawn Bradley again, with that, why not Steve Young, Thurl Bailey, Karl Malone (he could come back right), or maybe even that crazy chick from Utah on The Bachelor?

Update 1/24/11: A new addition I'd like to add to the list. Sen Dan Liljenquist. He comes across very sincere and more than qualified.

A House without a Home

I honestly do feel bad for Rep Craig Frank in Cedar Hills. He got shafted. But I am a litle surprised at how quickly people are willing to toss out the State Constitution.

This commentary in the Daily Herald nails it I think:

The pro-Frank crowd felt that the committee and legislature should follow what has been traditionally believed to be right for the last 10 years and ignore the plain language of Utah's constitution that would remove him from office.

I understand the frustration. I understand the confusion. But if you live outside the line you live outside the line.

What's curious is that the majority of Craig's supporters are ardent defenders of the US Constitution. It's just interesting how folks react when an issue hits as close to home as this one does.

Just to add even more intrigue to the issue...Senator Valentine is looking into the definition of what the line actually is.

UPDATE
Valentine and Dougall to run a Bill