Thursday, May 14, 2009

How Should the Supreme Court Interpret the Constitution?


With Justice David Souter recently announcing his plans to retire there has been a lot of talk about who President Obama will nominate to take his place. In this context I found it very interesting to see the results of a new Foxnews poll.

The poll was conducted with 900 registered voters over two days (May 12-13). Potential Foxnews bias aside, after digging through the data (I used to work in market research and for a polling company so I'm kind of a geek about this stuff), I stumbled across this interesting gem.

Q36. How do you think the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution?

1- No matter what the outcome, the court should follow what the Framers meant when they wrote the Constitution.

2- If necessary, the court should ignore what the Framers meant to reach the outcome it feels is appropriate for today.

3-In between/Combination.

The results surprised me - at first.

Follow what Framers Meant
Republicans: 78%
Democrats: 44%
Independents: 61%

Reach Outcome Appropriate for Today
Republicans: 13%
Democrats: 37%
Independents: 27%

In between/Combination
Republicans: 5%
Democrats: 10%
Independents: 8%

(balances for totals made up of those who said "don't know" or "refused")

Really interesting insight into how conservatives and Liberals view and approach the Constitution. I guess really I shouldn't be surprised, I've just never seen it spelled out as clearly as these data suggest.

I think as conservatives this data is useful in helping us approaching the other side when it comes to the Constitution and conservative ideals. Conservatives believe the principles of the Constitution are timeless. Progressives may believe the principles are timeless but that the context in which those principles are applied is more subjective to the issues and current thinking of the day.

Let's not get into 'Constitution bashing', name calling, and questioning the other side's patriotism. Instead, I think being aware of where Progressives are coming from can help us design methods, strategies and even the language we use to help them understand why it is so important to honor the Framers original intent.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

How Tweet is That?


So the media is having a lot of fun at AG Shurtleff's Senate Campaign Twitter gaffe. If you haven't heard by now (which would be impossible because the media is just enjoying this too much), our good AG mistakenly sent out a series of tweets announcing he's in the race.

Having been part of a couple of high profile races I know these things are bound to happen. In some cases it's no so much who can out manuver who in a race but who will make the fewest mistakes. So is this really a mistake worth all the attention it's getting? Probably. Will it hurt Shurtleff's campaign? Not a bit.

Here's why:

First of all Shurtleff's plans to run have been anything but secret for some time now. If anything his mistake has been that of dragging out his 'announcement' for as long as he has. Kirk Jowers said it the best in a Desnews Article:

"Shurtleff has postponed this announcement so many times, he's starting to look like Fred Thompson," said Kirk Jowers, head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. The actor-turned-politician kept putting off getting into the race for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, and once Thompson did get in the race, he didn't stay long. Jowers said there's a danger of voters losing interest in Shurtleff's candidacy.

I don't see Mark as a Fred Thompson once he's actually in the race. Shurtleff will now (finally) follow-up with his formal announcement and then kick off a series of events and meetings that will start building momentum.

Besides, it's not as if the AG misspelled the word "potato" or is it "potatoe?" like former VP Dan Quayle. As long as the campaign manages to steer clear of additional mishaps the tweet mistake is early enough in the race that no one will remember it. But if the campaign stumbles again it sets a tone that Shurtleff may not be a good manager or leader.

The last reason this doesn't hurt the campaign is the fact that Tim Bridgewater announced his candidacy (intentionally) via Twitter the same day. But who is getting all the attention? SHURTLEFF! Talk about taking the wind out of a guy's sails, the Bridgewater camp was perfectly poised to lead the news and dominate it for a few days. Dropping his bid for State GOP Chair to challenge Bennett? That's a big deal. But is anyone talking about that today? Nope.

Shurtleff is obviously going to be fine. His people (and maybe more specifically Mark himself) are going to need to be more disciplined because they've already shortened their slack in what could turnout to be a very competitive race all around.

Should be a fun one to watch.
Update: Hat tip to Paul Rolly of the Trib for this link to Redline.com (an very conservative blog) regarding a post questioning Shurtleff's conservative credentials. It brings up, Mark's positions on illegal immigration, the BSC, and some questionable fundraising issues. The guy is not even formally in the race and already it's getting vicious! See the post "Is Shurtleff Ready for Prime Time?" here.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Bridgewater to Challenge Bennett




Just when Bennett appeared to have muscled out a potential challenger in Mike Lee (former legal counsel to Gov. Huntsman) another upstart from the Huntsman clan emerges. In a somewhat surprsing (to me at least) move Tim Bridgewater, a former Utah County Republican Party Chair and two time Congressional Candidate in the 2nd District has decided to forgo his bid for the State GOP spot and take on Senator Bennett.

With Mark Shurtleff all but decided to run as well this will be a very interesting mix of candidates. All experienced and capable men (I'm surprised we haven't seen a strong woman step forward for a Federal office in a while - come on ladies step it up!).

I can only suspect that during Tim's travels around the state in his GOP Chair bid folks encouraged him to get into the race. Shurtleff will be a formidable challenger certainly but he's got a record and will have his own set of skeletons to deal with (immigration and polygamy issues come first to mind).

If you are interested in where Tim is on the issues I found an old article from the Deseret News questionnaire they ask all the candidates to fill out - from his Congressional race back in 2004. You can see those responses here.


Monday, May 11, 2009

Pot Calling the Kettle Black...


As a former Congressional staffer I used to hear all the time from various State Legislators how horrible unfunded mandates from the Federal Government were and that the Fed's should just butt out of the State's business. That's all fine and well and I personally couldn't agree more. However, it was with a little guilty glee I have to admit I enjoyed a recent article in the Provo Daily Herald talking about the budget process in Cedar Hills.

You can read the full article "Cedar Hills mocks, challenges Legislature over Red Tape" here. Here are some highlights:

"City councils are burdened by two kinds of legislative nonsense, (Councilman) Perry said -- unfunded mandates, meaning the city is ordered to begin a program but not given money to pay for it; and red-tape in the form of bills that are "just meaningless, silly, or even condescending," Perry said.

"The requirement to adopt a 'preliminary budget' by a specific date is both meaningless and condescending," he said. "It is meaningless because we work on our annual budget over a period of months, usually starting in April."

Adopting the preliminary budget means nothing more than adopting the working draft by motion, "so it accomplishes nothing other than using time from city staff and adding an agenda item, thus taking time from our meeting," Perry said. "This requirement is condescending because it seems state legislators think they need to baby-sit municipal officials and set artificial and meaningless deadlines as if we otherwise wouldn't be working on our budget process."

While there are good state laws, "I would obviously prefer the state Legislature reduce their interference with municipal government, and especially eliminate micromanagement efforts, which offer absolutely no benefit."

Municipal elected officials and city staff "are infinitely more knowledgeable on the issues and workings of the city compared to state legislators, and thus are in a better position to decide how to manage the budget process, and most everything else regarding their city," Perry said. "Eric's motion was putting voice to the frustration we feel when faced with meaningless or counter-productive restrictions from the state."


Yes, even our own Legislature can put folks under its thumb sometimes - because it can.