Coincidence, I'm Sure
Three members of the House complained bitterly that their bills were being held by the House Rules Committee -- of which Mark Walker is 1 of 8 members (1 of 6 Republican members). Those 3 complainants are (drum roll please) Neil Hansen, Sheryl Allen and Steve Mascaro.
In 2007 and most of 2008, each rules committee member nominated an equal number of bills to the list the Rules Committee would consider for committee assignments or floor prioritization, meaning that those 3 couldn't find a single member to move his/her legislation. When Hansen, Allen and Mascaro complained that their legislation wasn't moving, I candidly told them that they were perceived on both sides of the aisle to be grandstanding hacks who brought little of value to the process, and that the perception probably wasn't helping their cause. (For example, Phil might want to explain to Neil why no Democrat on the Rules Committee and no member of Democratic leadership in the House was willing to lift a finger to get any of Neil's legislation moving forward). I pointed out to the 3 that they only needed 1 member of the Rules Committee to help them out; but, I pointed out, they couldn't find a single committee member who believed they had anything of value to add; I suggested that they might want to consider why that was. Of course, none of the 3 liked hearing that, and all 3 promised vengeance on Rules Committee members, if their legislation did not move forward. Their legislation did not move forward. It just might be possible that they're now delivering on that promise, kicking a Rules Committee member when, clearly, he is down.
That's a funny aspect of politics. It has long been my perception that these 3 members are cancer -- unwilling to accept the fact that they cannot work well enough with colleagues to ever convince them to do anything, and willing to use any way possible, legitimate or not, to gain relevance. Yet, now, they proclaim themselves surgeons, ready to remove the cancer.
As it should, the ethics committee will investigate the allegations and make a determination. However, if things are going to be laid on the table for dispassionate consideration, it also might be proper to consider whether the accusations themselves are politically motivated. Because I was told by the 3 that vengeance would be exacted, that seems like a fair inquiry. This simply could be politics as usual.
And, because the victimization story is sure to follow, let's go on record now that none of the 3 can move legislation. (In 2007-08, Hansen passed 1 bill out of 26 attempts; Allen was 5-for-14; Mascaro was 4-for-11). I'm sure that next term, when they also can't move legislation, because they still won't be able to work effectively with others, they'll claim that it is because of retribution for their bravery in filing the complaint, and the media will eat it up without ever pointing out their prior ineffectiveness.
UPDATE (7/1/08): Notice the close of Bob Bernick's article today. Conservatives very bad. I'm sure Bob will follow up in 2 years, to let us know whether thuggish conservatives retaliated against Hansen and upset his previous lofty pass rate of 3.8%. I guess it's possible. Maybe parking privileges could be taken away, or something along those lines.
In 2007 and most of 2008, each rules committee member nominated an equal number of bills to the list the Rules Committee would consider for committee assignments or floor prioritization, meaning that those 3 couldn't find a single member to move his/her legislation. When Hansen, Allen and Mascaro complained that their legislation wasn't moving, I candidly told them that they were perceived on both sides of the aisle to be grandstanding hacks who brought little of value to the process, and that the perception probably wasn't helping their cause. (For example, Phil might want to explain to Neil why no Democrat on the Rules Committee and no member of Democratic leadership in the House was willing to lift a finger to get any of Neil's legislation moving forward). I pointed out to the 3 that they only needed 1 member of the Rules Committee to help them out; but, I pointed out, they couldn't find a single committee member who believed they had anything of value to add; I suggested that they might want to consider why that was. Of course, none of the 3 liked hearing that, and all 3 promised vengeance on Rules Committee members, if their legislation did not move forward. Their legislation did not move forward. It just might be possible that they're now delivering on that promise, kicking a Rules Committee member when, clearly, he is down.
That's a funny aspect of politics. It has long been my perception that these 3 members are cancer -- unwilling to accept the fact that they cannot work well enough with colleagues to ever convince them to do anything, and willing to use any way possible, legitimate or not, to gain relevance. Yet, now, they proclaim themselves surgeons, ready to remove the cancer.
As it should, the ethics committee will investigate the allegations and make a determination. However, if things are going to be laid on the table for dispassionate consideration, it also might be proper to consider whether the accusations themselves are politically motivated. Because I was told by the 3 that vengeance would be exacted, that seems like a fair inquiry. This simply could be politics as usual.
And, because the victimization story is sure to follow, let's go on record now that none of the 3 can move legislation. (In 2007-08, Hansen passed 1 bill out of 26 attempts; Allen was 5-for-14; Mascaro was 4-for-11). I'm sure that next term, when they also can't move legislation, because they still won't be able to work effectively with others, they'll claim that it is because of retribution for their bravery in filing the complaint, and the media will eat it up without ever pointing out their prior ineffectiveness.
UPDATE (7/1/08): Notice the close of Bob Bernick's article today. Conservatives very bad. I'm sure Bob will follow up in 2 years, to let us know whether thuggish conservatives retaliated against Hansen and upset his previous lofty pass rate of 3.8%. I guess it's possible. Maybe parking privileges could be taken away, or something along those lines.
posted by steve u. at 6/26/2008
Subscribe
47 Comments:
The power to shut out legislation from these "bad" legislators wasn't enough...you have to bitch and moan about them publicly too. That is a lot smaller than what I've come to expect on your public blog.
It seems even the best of our Republican politicians have to go off on petty rants from time to time.
This certainly adds an interesting perspective to what would otherwise be a clear-cut story from the papers.
A juvenile rant.
Jeremy,
If you don't think it's relevant that they promised vengeance, then that's your prerogative. I believe it is highly relevant.
This isn't a case of responsible legislators simply filing an ethics complaint and letting the committee conduct its investigation, do its work and announce its findings. Rather, it is a group (at least 3/5ths of the group) that promised vengeance, and accompanied a complaint for an internal investigation with a splashy press release -- suggesting, rather than statesmanship, a desire to pillory a political adversary through the media. So, if this is going to be tried through the media, the public should know (and never would through the media) that this might just be petty politics by a group that merely is looking to change the composition of the House.
And a prediction: the "legislator to be named later" in the allegations will be named in, oh say, late September or October and will be a conservative in a swing district. Just a hunch.
This post has been removed by the author.
"Legislator to be named later": I'll put $10 on Greg Hughes. The Democrats and Allen/Mascaro think they can take him out. (Not that I think Hughes is guilty of anything, just that I think he will be the legislator to be conveniently named later.
Who will take me up on this and what odds will you give me?
I'm sorry if my comment gave you the impression that your post doesn't have relevant information. I agree with you that previous threats to the rules committee members from these legislators should be brought to light in view of current events.
Anyone who uses the weight of public office to get a little payback deserves the public's contempt. Kudos to you, Mr. Urquhart, for bringing this to light.
Oh, no. Nothing sends shivers down my spine more than reading that "Languatron" has posted on my blog. Does this mean that your computer privileges have been restored? Please don't tell me that you've been released from your "Happy House."
Payback? Whatever. Let's see the evidence and let's give the "paybackers" a chance to respond to this latest deflection-as-allegation from Rep. Urquhart.
"they cannot work well enough with colleagues..."
This is bullyspeak for:
"they do not roll over for Republican leadership"
What arrogance!
CraigJ,
Though you intend to demean me, you demean Democrats and moderate Republicans, by suggesting that they cannot be effective. There are several extremely effective Democrats and moderate Republicans. They simply work well with other members.
Similarly, there are some conservative Republicans who are not effective. Why? They don't work well with other members.
Just like any human endeavor, the Legislature has pathways to success and pathways to failure. Way before the current situation arose, these legislators took pathways to failure. The current allegations might be factual. Or, they might fall within the polemic, scorched-earth pattern these 3 historically have pursued.
Baloney! Your characterization of these reps is cheap and unfounded. You're simply deflecting from the actual issue - whether one of your own participated in unethical and possibly criminal activities.
"Pathways to Success" = Will roll over for Republican leadership.
"Pathways to Failure" = Will not roll over for Republican leadership.
"Polemic" = Might say something negative about Republican leadership.
"Scorched Earth" = Action not originating from Republican leadership.
I hate to say this Craig, but you're sounding a lot more partisan than Rep. Urquhart is. And it doesn't help your case.
For an attorney the credibility of a witness means the difference between calling him to the stand, or leaving him off the witness list.
These three legislators were called to the stand, and the media failed to reveal any possible motives that might distract from the impact of the complaint.
And I don't think this is an issue of whether moderates and Democrats are generally ineffective. Many are. Holdaway, Menlove, Dmitrch, McCoy and others come to mind immediately. Steve is not saying that. What he is saying is that these three are ineffective. Why not try to shuffle the deck at the legislature? Surely things couldn’t get any worse.
The other key issue is whether the media will ever have the integrity to question the people it tends to praise: the Mascaros and Allens of the world.
I'm not holding my breath. In fact, the issue of media bias is so ignored nowadays that its hardly worth mentioning anymore.
Even here.
Jesse,
Isn't it obvious what is going on here? Rep. Urquhart is levying an irrelevant ad-hominem attack against three individuals in an attempt to marginalize the allegations against his friend Rep. Walker.
As for the specific charge that these 3 are lame reps, I'm simply disagreeing. But you're right I probably shouldn't get drawn into that fight. It just makes me angry because Rep. Urquhart is unfairly smearing them to bolster his own argument.
If you think I'm being partisan or unfair you might want to contact the three reps being skewered and see what they have to say.
Craig: I don't see that it's irrelevant if it's true. I also don't see anyone yet who has disputed the veracity of Rep. Urquhart's claims that bad blood exists between these three representatives and Rep. Walker. If there is, that does paint a more complex picture than the cut-and-dry story that has been reported in the major media outlets. Even if the allegations against Rep. Walker are true (and I have a feeling that that is the case), someone with a personal vendetta would probably pursue it with an irrational fervor.
I also have no reason to believe that Rep. Urquhart would intentionally misrepresent the facts. He's built a pretty solid reputation as being fair and forthright.
Jesse,
Thanks for the comments. I must simply disagree on the relevance issue. It's a fabricated smear plain and simple.
One thought to consider: by automatically "trusting" Rep. Urquhart's assessment by default you are invalidating the actions of Reps. Allen, Mascaro, and Hansen. In the interest of fairness why not hear their side of this issue? You might find it quite enlightening :-)
Thanks...Craig.
I'm certainly open to it, Craig. Now if they'd just go get blogs too... ;)
"In 2007 and most of 2008, each rules committee member nominated an equal number of bills to the list the Rules Committee would consider for committee assignments or floor prioritization, meaning that those 3 couldn't find a single member to move his/her legislation."
There are two Democrats on this committee. They wouldn't consider anything from Hansen, Allen and Mascaro either. That doesn't scream "evil right wing Republcan" to me.
Craig: "Let's see the evidence and let's give the "paybackers" a chance to respond"
The evidence is Rep. Urquhart's conversation with the other Reps. I'd be delighted if they did come here and respond.
Craig,
How do you know that Urquhart's claims are fabricated? Are you assuming that Urquhart must be lying because, as a conservative Republican, he can't be trusted?
Also, why must our scrutiny only be focused on Walker but not on his accusers? Again, is it because Walker is a conservative Republican and his accusers are not?
And why must we just take at face value what they notoriously biased Tribune and News have to say about this? (If you can't acknowledge that the Tribune is biased, then there is no sense having a discussion).
Jesse/Cameron/Jobu,
No one is taking the MSM at face value - although interesting that's not what I'm talking about here. The problem is with Rep. Urquhart's claims.
We have yet to hear any real evidence from Rep. Urquhart except for a vague and specious notion that (a) three supposedly ineffective, jilted representatives promised "vengeance" and that (b) Rep. Walker is the subject of this alleged vengeance.
What we have yet to hear is how these alleged conversations played out - exactly how did they threaten Rep. Urquhart and other members of the Rules Committee with "vengeance"? Did they each come up to him in turn to "venge"? Did they approach him together, arm-in-arm? Did they send nasty letters? Did they leave a tuna can with a nail on his desk? If Rep. Urquhart felt they were threatening him and the other members of the Rules Committee why didn't he raise the issue at that time? Why didn't he file an ethics complaint against them for such undignified behavior?
Seriously, what possible reason is there to trust this account from Rep. Urquhart? We know that he donated $1,000 to Rep. Walker's campaign for Treasurer. We know they are close personal friends and staunch partisan allies. That is not in dispute. And yet, with no evidence aside from an airy-fairy description of supposed threats of revenge from 3 lame-brains (which they're not) we're all expected to just buy into his claims and ignore the obvious possibility that Rep. Urquhart is simply covering for his pal.
Rep. Urquhart's allegations wouldn't hold up in my son's Junior High school mock court.
Thanks...Craig.
Per Cameron: "There are two Democrats on this committee. They wouldn't consider anything from Hansen, Allen and Mascaro either. That doesn't scream "evil right wing Republcan" to me."
Yes it does, Cameron. It bespeaks the corrupt and heavy handed Provo-based right wing dominance in the legislature.
Even the Democrats are afraid to act, support their own, or even speak up.
Think about it. That's how bad it's gotten in our legislature.
Kudos to these five legislators, Republican and Democrat alike, who are finally bringing the state legislature's demonstrably low-grade ethics to the public forefront.
And to those Republican fellows of mine, remember this:
ETHICS AND STANDARDS
We demand honesty, integrity, morality, and accountability of our public officials. We
will work to expose and stop corruption.
That's the number four "plank" in the Utah GOP Party Platform, by the way.
"Seriously, what possible reason is there to trust this account from Rep. Urquhart?"
Because he has a history of answering actual citizen questions and comments, even when the questioner is an overzealous bully.
Rudizink,
Are you saying that these Democratic committee members didn't nominate any bills, or if they did they were all Republican bills? That doesn't sound likely.
Cameron, I see you want to give Rep. Urquhart the benefit of the doubt. Fine. Let's see his actual evidence. So far everything he's said is malicious inneundo and hearsay.
craigj,
Are you Craig Johnson, married to Lisa Johnson, democratic candidate running against Rep. Greg Hughes?
If so, that just might be the most precious thing I've ever heard!
If so, please tell: is Rep. Hughes the "legislator to be named later?" And when might that be revealed -- late September, October? Not that you've given any thought to whether that might help your wife's campaign against Greg.
I know that the motives of people trying to ruin other people shouldn't be questioned, and I'm sure you and Hansen, Mascaro and Allen wouldn't engage in a smear campaign to leverage an election, but it just might be fun to know if your wife stands to gain from all this.
You said, "It's a fabricated smear plain and simple." Apparently, it might not be quite so plain and simple.
Man, do I love politics!
Steve,
Are you now trying to marginalize my comments as well :-)?
The fabrication in my mind is straightforward - you are trying to connect point A ("vengeance") to point B (having it in for Walker). You've raised these points without any specific evidence and expect us all to just trust your account.
And how dare you try to drag my wife into your sick charade! Neither she nor I are involved in any way with this ethics complaint. I'm sorry to say but I don't have any idea what the anonymous poster is talking about.
It's no surprise, though, that I see your friend Rep. Hughes as part of the problem with Utah politics and we are working hard to defeat him.
In spite of your continued innuendo and slimy suggestions of cheap electioneering, my challenge for you to present actual evidence of your claims against your fellow house reps. stands.
Thanks...Craig.
"Are you saying that these Democratic committee members didn't nominate [sic} any bills, or if they did they were all Republican bills? That doesn't sound likely.
No. My statement wasn't gibberish, unlike yours.
What I'm saying is that these five legislators should be applauded for their efforts to shine sunlight on the behavior of Rep Walker, and perhaps others.
It's been a long time since the legislature looked into the ethics of any of its members.
It's been a long time coming, and now the time is here.
The Utah public has been screaming for this quite a long time for this.
Thank goodness the time has now come to effectuate the public will, whether legislative leadership likes it or not.
You read my link to the GOP party platform, right?
Please tell me you didn't ignore it.
Too many people in the Republican party, I think, blindly adhere to Reagan's admonition: "Of fellow Republicans speak no ill." In doing that, far too many in the GOP ignore more essential and fundamental party principles which are designed to support high ethics and morality.
Here again I quote the fourth plank of the Utah GOP Platform:
ETHICS AND STANDARDS
We demand honesty, integrity, morality, and accountability of our public officials. We
will work to expose and stop corruption.
One thing I've learned in a lifetime devoted to GOP grass-roots politics:
Fundamental truths need to be repeated over and over again.
craigj,
Ya, how dare me, pointing out that you might just have some political motives in this little debate -- because it's obvious that you weren't going to point out that you have a donkey in this race.
And, you can't really say that such things shouldn't be pointed out -- or have you changed your mind about that since 2:09 this afternoon?
You wrote, "Seriously, what possible reason is there to trust this account from Rep. Urquhart? We know that he donated $1,000 to Rep. Walker's campaign for Treasurer. We know they are close personal friends and staunch partisan allies."
Assuming, of course, that you and Lisa are close personal friends. How dare me!
I agree with Rep. Urquhart that information demonstrating that the complainants have an old ax to grind is directly useful in assessing the value of the charges they are leveling. The information is doubly useful in this case since it seems pretty clear that the people going after Walker are on a fishing expedition for other possible “bad guys” and no longer seem so directly concerned with Walker’s personal conduct in the election.
On the other hand, the normally fair and accessible Urquhart would be far more effective in getting his point across if he weren't being so uncharacteristically caustic. It is almost as if he's trying a little too hard to make his point that his "cancerous grandstanding hack" colleagues in the House can't be trusted.
Fair enough, Jeremy. As always, your advice is sage. I'll take a little break and get some work done.
But, I think there is a great possibility that Mark is being used as a political football for others to score points for their political agenda. For example, it's difficult to believe that craigj is simply a dispassionate citizen, rather than someone who is happy to poke my friend (and his conspirator-to-be-named-later) in order to advance his wife's campaign. And, unfortunately, that is the kind of thing that the media never will pursue, if it fits its theme that conservatives are horrible people.
Jeremy - what exactly is the "ax"? That's my whole point. The ax seems a little dull. If there is actual evidence let's hear it.
Steve - C'mon now...you're trying to deflect the discussion away *again* from your original blog post and my challenge to present evidence for your claims.
I never said I was a dispassionate observer. I post on the blogosphere all the time and don't hide who I am :-) I'm simply saying I find your claims to be unfair.
The connection between you, Rep. Walker, Rep. Hughes, Curtis, Bramble, etc., is clear - you are political allies and friends. That speaks to my point - you've made deragatory comments about other house reps. not in your group that should be corroborated with real facts, not just innuendo.
Thanks...Craig.
This is an amusing thread and in a way is a case study in the very point that I think Rep. Urquhart made in his post.
It does matter what the political motivations of people are.
We all know that Urquhart is a former colleague and supporter of Walkers. What we did not know is that "Craig J" is the husband of someone running against Rep. Hughes.
I literally laughed out loud when Steve outed him here.
So, Lisa Johnson's husband, I think the nature of your harsh comments speak for themselves. Indeed, you now look like a bit of a fool.
Anon,
Hmmmm...interesting comments. So in your mind it's ok for Rep. Urquhart to call three house reps. a "cancer" and to say all other sorts of nasty things but it is not ok for me to challenge his claims?
I guess we all know where we stand.
But there is one difference between me and Rep. Urquhart - I didn't take an oath of office as a legislator.
Thanks...Craig.
Connect the dots...
Ellis I believe worked for Draper City and had some run-ins with Greg Hughes who lives in Draper over vouchers and some other issues. Ellis really pissed off Curt Bramble and Greg Curtis over his involvement in killing the WCF deal Curt Bramble had worked out, which cost the state taxpayers 50 million. The HOTBED of voucher / anti voucher, Pub Ed reform is heavily centered in Sandy & Draper because of Greg Hughes and Howard Stephenson. The root to all this is Pub Ed. and voucher / anti voucher. The three GOP members are all vocal anti-voucher, and this is suicide for any legislation passing out of the rules committee. The removal of two outspoken pro voucher State School Board members including Bill Colbert has only increased the flames of resentment between these two groups. Elected officials here in Utah have no problem attending church on Sunday, then knife their fellow Ward members in the back Monday through Saturday if they don't tow their respective Representative's positions on Public Education. Just like the movie, "There Will be Blood" in the upcoming election and 2009 legislature. Of this I'm certain.
Captain Mark
As I understand it, that Hansen bills were being held up because he held up a stupid Ronny Reagen bill from advancing and that you Steve were the one to hold all his bills up. So why don't you tell the truth and have some integrity and do what is right. It is interesting that you have to smear the very people that will stand for something and you have to put them down. Shame on you. Shame Shame.
Characteristics of Psychopath
(Sociopath, Anti-social Personality Disorder)
This is a fascinating clinical list. I leave it to you to apply these elements to any politician who works or lives in and around ST. George.
1. Glibness/superficial charm.
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth.
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Conning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioral controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12. Early behavior problems
13. Lack of realistic, long-term plans
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility become a lawyer.
Isn't there a House Rule, BTW, that says that a sitting legislator like Steve Urquhart is "prohibited from impugning the motives of a fellow legislator?" If so, does this apply to the rules chair from St. George? Or do loyal Republicans get a pass?
Well Steven just where is the facts and who are your witnesses! So lets not bear false witness as the ten commandments tells us.
Hey Lisa Johnson's husband: You are right about one thing, you have not taken the oath of office. And I am right about one thing: neither will your wife.
Craig J says "And how dare you try to drag my wife into your sick charade! Neither she nor I are involved in any way with this ethics complaint. I'm sorry to say but I don't have any idea what the anonymous poster is talking about."
I think Craig protests too much. He brought himself into this discussion and his wife decided to run for elected office. They brought themselves into this, not Steve.
Grow up Craig. Or stay on the sidelines. You can't play and then complain if you get bumped.
I was told I should read this blog site. I have never read it before. After reading Rep Urquhart's "explanations" I will nver read it again. I will give only one example of how rediculous his comments are and then leave. My one example is one of the many, many times that he has been a part of stalling legislation. Example- I had a bill this past session that all paper trails from Leg Research, Fiscal Analysts office and such said the bill was sent to Rules. When I asked Rep Urquhuart why the bill was not even on his list he simply said it is somewhere in the processand we will get to it. After nearly 10 days and still getting answers from Rep Urquhart that he just didn't understand where the bill could be, I went to one of the Secretarial Staff that works with the Rules Committee and asked about the Bill. When I told her that Rep Urquhart said he did not know where the bill was she looked at me in a puzzled manner and motioned to me to follow her. I did. In the room, near to the Rules Committee rules room, were boxes of bills for the Rules Committee. She walked strait to the correct box and pulled the bill out in less than 10 seconds. She then said it had been their all the time, and shrugged her shoulders. Hard to consider bills that you "can't find."
Now multiply that times the many occassions that Rep Urquhart says we just don't have people willing to carry our legislation and you begin to get the tip of the ice berge.
I have been a Republican for 42 years. I joined the party when there was decorum, professional courtesy, and respect for those members that may have different opinons. Some of our "younger, newer members" of the Republican Party seem to view those with different opions as the enemy with some terrible plan to usurp their authority and power. We only ask for some " old fashion" professional respect.
As an Attornery, Rep Urquhart has trained and studied how to be sucessul in taking adversarial and confrontational positions with those who don't agree with his position. He is very good at it. Very skilled at his profession. I hope all remember that when they hear his rebuttals to those with whom he disagrees. It is his job to make the others look and sound, "vengeful", conspiratorial, like they "don't work well with others," That his profession, and he is good at it.
Rep Steven Mascaro,
Representative Mascaro, I have worked with you in the Utah House for several sessions. You regularly complain that you are being vicitmized by the "power brokers". Wake up friend, and smell the roses. Your socialist "Jones/Mascaro" income redistribution scheme is an example. This badly crafted, poorly thought out proposal had many, many hearings over many years, and yet you still complain that it was killed because of "vindictiveness". You confuse getting a fair hearng with agreeing with your socailist views. For the record, the Jones/Mascaro tax bill was killed because Utah is still a "democratic republic" and a majority of the people's elected representatives saw through your charade of wealth redistribution and socialist/communist leanings "from each according to his ability, to each according to Jones/Mascaro". Get a life, you regretable excuse for a Republican elected official. Have you pursued changing parties like your buddy Dave Houge?
Does anyone else find it ironic that CraigJ doesn't trust Steve Urquhart's claims because he donated to Walker's campaign, and yet, he's more than happy to accept any email produced by Ellis' campaign donor with hearsay implicating Walker?
Why the double standard? Perhaps, because like most everyone else in politics, CraigJ has a political end in mind.
This post has been removed by the author.
And do Paul Rolly, Bob Bernick, and the RINO's in the legislature get together to decide what talking points to use each week to slam anything to do with the Republican Party?
If Rep. Mascaro longs for the golden days of Republican civility, which supposedly occurred in the 1980's, why did he file an ethics complaint with such a scandalous press release??
Where's the civility and party unity in that Rep. Mascaro?
The reference to the 1980's golden age of Republican civility is from Paul Rolly's recent column. According to Rep. Mascaro's post, the golden age had already come about in the 1960's.
Both dates are unfortunate for us Generation Xers. I guess negative campaigning was probably invented when I was in high school, so by the time I could vote, the world of politics had suddenly become political, unlike in previous ages when political rivals would simply smile at each other during debates. The winner was the candidate who could out-smile his opponent.
Our only hope is that Obama will usher in a new golden age of politics where partisan bickering will be abolished because everyone will suddenly agree with his liberal agenda.
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify why I mentioned the 1980's when Rep. Mascaro made a reference to 42 years ago.
Hey Steven, I understand that the retaliation has already begun. It is call the throw out the republican incumbents. Good luck with all the great things you guys did in the legislature. Like vouchers, education omni s bill, new parking garage for yourself s, new offices for yourselves, tax and spend. This is just what the public has been waiting for.
Can we all say Watergate. This is a classic example of I'm not a crook. Just how deep this culture of corruption runs is going to be the great headlines in Utah for the election. Just watch and see.
This the friends of yours steve and will you come out and tell the truth.
Post a Comment
<< Home