The Rest of the Story

GenRolly Speaking:Political insights by columnist Paul Rolly.

Friday, October 20, 2006

The Rest of the Story
I wrote on this blog Wednesday about the lawsuit filed by Republican activists Jim Decker, Ella Duke-Baxter and Maxine Barney, claiming their constitutional rights were violated because another person, not the plaintiffs, was allegedly barred from participating in Republican events.The lawsuit stemmed from the fact that 3rd District Judge Sandra Peuler issued an injunction against Republican activist Mike Ridgway, barring him from having any contact with Republican rival Mark Towner and his family.

It also alleged Republican leaders had stopped Ridgway from participating in certain Republican events.But Ridgway was not a plaintiff in the suit and the plaintiffs showed no damage to themselves as a result of the actions regarding Ridgway.

Federal Judge Ted Stewart dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous. No kidding? Stewart must have drawn the short stick. Before he reviewed the case and issued his order, federal judges Dee Benson, J. Thomas Greene, Bruce Jenkins and David Sam all recused themselves from the case, asking the court clerk to find someone else to hear it.Meanwhile, it appears the defendants Towner, Peuler and a group the lawsuit describes as "Utah State Republican Boss Hogs" were not even notified of the suit that was filed several months ago, nor were they served with any documents, as defendants in a case usually are.It seems Towner and Peuler would have been pretty easy to find for notification, although it is conceded that Republican Party "Boss Hogs" might have been a little difficult to track down.

On another matter: I erred in my blog earlier this week when I said State Reps. Jim Dunnigan of Taylorsville and Wayne Harper of West Jordan were running against each other for House Majority Whip. Dunnigan is running for assistant whip. So he will be vying against current Assistant Whip Ben Ferry of Corinne and Brad Dee of Washington Terrace.Harper is running for majority whip against Becky Lockhart of Provo and Gordon Snow of Roosevelt.I had made the point that if Harper and Dunnigan were running against each other, they would cancel each other out among the Salt Lake County vote and ensure the election of a non-Salt Lake County representative. But they are not running against each other so that argument is moot.I had compared them to Democrats in Salt Lake City who keep running against each other for mayor and cancelling each other out. So, apparently, Salt Lake County Republicans are not as foolish as Salt Lake City Democrats after all.Cheers,Paul Rolly
2:33 PM 0 comments

Panelists clash on the right to health care

By Angie WellingDeseret Morning News

A state senator believes that every Utah resident has a right to basic, affordable health care and would like to see such a right reflected in the Utah Constitution. Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, has written a constitutional amendment making it the "responsibility of the state to ensure that no resident of the state lacks access to basic, affordable health care." "This sets a framework," McCoy said of the proposed amendment, which he plans to introduce in the upcoming legislative session. "This does not define what the system looks like, this just sets out the fundamental principle." The amendment would have to pass both houses of the Legislature by a two-thirds majority and then be approved by voters in November 2008. The measure would force state lawmakers and the governor to work toward a solution to the rising number of uninsured and underinsured Utahns, McCoy said. "What the amendment says is, 'This is something that is so fundamentally important that you have to do it,"' he said. "Right now, we're doing nothing, and we do have a crisis."

Numbers vary by source, but estimates place Utah's uninsured between 300,000 and 400,000 people, with some 300,000 more underinsured. The proposed amendment was met with mixed reviews at a Thursday evening health-care panel discussion at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law. "This is laudable to the extreme," moderator Ted Wilson said of the "brave" proposal. "The question is, how do you do it?" That question, for some panelists, was the problem. Roberta Herzberg, head of Utah State University's political-science department, said it would be "irresponsible" to mandate health care for all without specifying how to fulfill the requirement. "Health care is one of these issues where we have a great deal of consensus at this general level and virtually no consensus when it gets down to the details," said Herzberg, who has done extensive research on health-care policy. "I'm happy to put an amendment into the Constitution if we are able to work out how we intend to achieve that goal as a state." Joe Jarvis, McCoy's Republican challenger in next month's election, also opposes the proposed amendment. It would be, at best, a symbolic gesture, said Jarvis, a physician and chairman of the board of trustees for the Utah Health Policy Project, a health-policy think tank. "The lack of a constitutional right to health care is not the reason Americans are uninsured," Jarvis said. Rather, he said, the problem is a health-care system with high overhead, high administrative costs and bureaucratic waste. In 2006, Americans will spend $2 trillion on health care, with 60 percent of that paid through tax dollars, Jarvis said. This summer, a national working group tasked with suggesting changes to America's health-care system recommended a universal health-care system that makes at least basic medical, mental-health and dental care available to all Americans. One of the recommendations from the Citizens' Health Care Working Group was a public policy that all Americans have affordable health care. Several panelists Thursday night said the problems have become a national crisis. "When one in four people can't afford the health care they need, you have a health-care crisis," said Bill Tibbetts, executive director of the Crossroads Urban Center, which supports McCoy's amendment.
E-mail: awelling@desnews.com

Class Action? Cival Rights? What the Heck!

GenRolly Speaking:Political insights by columnist Paul Rolly.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Class Action?
The Utah Republican Party has long had its problems with the "fringe" element and those constant complainers who want to spend hours in party caucuses and conventions debating the finer points of GOP rules and regulations.But when that intra-party sniping began to clog up the courts with frivolous lawsuits, at least one federal judge, a long-time Republican operative himself, was not amused.U.S. District Judge for Utah Ted Stewart recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by Republican activists Jim Decker, Ella Duke-Baxter and Maxine Barney, who claimed their civil rights were violated because the Republican Party "interfered" with one person's participation in its convention and a state district judge issued a restraining order against another Republican, even though none of the plaintiffs were the affected people in those alleged wrongs.The defendants in the case were "Utah State Republican Boss Hogs, Mark Towner and Honorable Sandra Peuler."Peuler granted a restraining order against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike Ridgway, banning him from getting close to Towner, a Republican rival.After pointing out the ambiguity of the plaintiffs' claims ("In response to the question: Was the defendant acting under the authority or color of state law at the time these claims occurred? Plaintiffs responded: Possibly.") Stewart concluded the plaintiffs made "no allegations that these defendants took any actions and list no causes of action." He also noted the plaintiffs have no standing to demand that federal law enforcement officers be compelled to accompany a person, someone other than the plaintiffs, to a political convention."It appears that plaintiffs seek to challenge an injunction issued by a state court against a non-party," the judge wrote. "This does not state a claim for a violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights."No wonder it takes so long for litigation to wind its way through the federal courts.Cheers,Paul Rolly
12:46 PM 0 comments

Foley Timeline and events

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/FOLEYTIMELINE_GRAPHIC.html?currentcasetype=crucial

Click on the above link. This is incredible

A new Ogden plant and the A-700 jet Adam Aircraft

A new Ogden plant and the A-700 jet propel Adam Aircraft
By Steven Oberbeck The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:10/17/2006 11:34:10 PM MDT


High above the crowd gathered on the outskirts of Ogden's Hinckley Airport, the Adam Aircraft A-700 jet soared into the clear morning sky. Its passage above the crowd of dignitaries gathered late last week at the Kemp Ogden Gateway to mark the groundbreaking for Adam Aircraft's manufacturing facility was noticeably quieter than the small prop-driven planes taking off from a distant runway. The dignitaries, who included Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Rob Bishop, hailed the beginning of construction on the company's assembly plant as a major step forward for the state's aviation/aerospace indus- try. "We're seeing it right before our eyes, the creation of an aerospace [industry] cluster [of companies]," Huntsman said, noting that those businesses include composite fabrication, jet engine makers and enterprises that provide support for Hill Air Force Base. Adam Aircraft expects that the 96,000-square-foot facility, which is scheduled to be completed in May, eventually will be the company's primary assembly point for the A-700 light jet, which is in flight testing and expected to receive Federal Aviation Administration certification by late 2007. "Once this new plant is fully operational [in 2008] we're expecting it to be assembling 10 [A-700 jet] planes per month," said Craig Johnson, chief operating officer of the Colorado-based
Adam Aircraft. Adam Aircraft already has a smaller parallel plant at the Kemp Ogden Gateway Center that is assembling its A-500 twin-engine piston aircraft. The first A-500 produced in Utah is expected to roll off the assembly line in December. "Ramping up our operations here in Ogden is a top priority for us," Johnson said, noting the company expects to employ about 50 to 75 workers by year's end and quickly increase that number until it reaches approximately 300 workers by late 2008. steve@sltrib.com

WE ARE GOVERNED BY IDIOTS...

October 17, 2006
WE ARE GOVERNED BY IDIOTS....Jeff Stein has an op-ed in the New York Times today in which he recounts his adventures asking various mucky mucks if they know the difference between Shiite and Sunni. It was amusing, but I was going to skip blogging about it because it's the kind of gotcha game that probably tells us less than we think. But then Attaturk pointed to a passage I had skimmed over. This is Rep. Terry Everett (R–Ala) after admitting he didn't know the difference:
To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. “Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”
If you don't know the whole Ali/Hasan story from the 7th century, that's one thing. But if you literally don't know that there are different sects of Islam that form majorities in different regions, and that conflict between these sects is as defining as the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland — and you're the vice chairman of the House Intelligence committee — then we're doomed. As Attaturk says, we are governed by idiots.—Kevin Drum 11:37 PM Permalink Trackbacks Comments (55)

More on Democrats and Redistricting

October 16, 2006
MORE ON DEMOCRATS AND REDISTRICTING....In a recent column, Paul Krugman suggested that the structure of House districts is fundamentally rigged in favor of Republicans:
The key point is that African-Americans, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic, are highly concentrated in a few districts. This means that in close elections many Democratic votes are, as political analysts say, wasted — they simply add to huge majorities in a small number of districts, while the more widely spread Republican vote allows the G.O.P. to win by narrower margins in a larger number of districts.
My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that because of this ''geographic gerrymander,'' even a substantial turnaround in total Congressional votes — say, from the three-percentage-point Republican lead in 2004 to a five-point Democratic lead this year — would leave the House narrowly in Republican hands. It looks as if the Democrats need as much as a seven-point lead in the overall vote to take control.
Is this true? Krugman is referring to "majority-minority" House districts, in which minority voters are packed heavily into single districts in order to encourage the election of minority candidates. These districts were originally created as a result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and their numbers were later enlarged thanks to the charmingly named "Project Ratfuck," a Republican program designed to help groups like the NAACP create greater numbers of majority-minority districts after the 1990 census. (See Rachel Morris's "The Race to Gerrymander" for the details.)
Did it work? The number of majority-minority districts increased from 27 to 56 after the 1990 round of redistricting, and in 1994 Republicans won a landslide victory in the midterm election. Case closed?
Not really. It's true that Republicans won 53% of House seats in the 1994 election, but they also won 53% of the two-party vote that year. And it's not just 1994. Delia Grigg and Jonathan Katz of Caltech, using data from congressional elections in every state from 1972-2000, have concluded that majority-minority redistricting has had at most a tiny effect in favor of Republicans — and most likely no effect at all. Project Ratfuck may have been meant to help the Republican cause, but in practice it had very little impact. (Although it did help a lot more minority candidates get elected.)
The table above lays out more evidence. It shows the percentage of the two-party vote and the percentage of congressional seats won by Democrats in every election since 1992. In 1992 they won more seats than they should have, and in every election since then (with a modest exception in 1996) they've won nearly as many seats as the popular vote suggests they should. Dems do seem to have a structural disadvantage, but it's closer to 1% than 7%.
This doesn't prove anything conclusively — in fact, the 1996 exception is a data point in favor Krugman's thesis — but the overall evidence, combined with the Grigg/Katz results, suggests that majority-minority redistricting hasn't seriously affected the ability of Democrats to win congressional seats. If Dems win 53% of the two-party vote this November, I'll bet they win close to 53% of the seats too.
NOTE: I'm mostly posting this in hopes that someone who knows a lot about this stuff will see it and chime in. I'd be interested to hear some expert opinion about whether there's more to this than meets the eye.
—Kevin Drum 6:43 PM Permalink Trackbacks Comments (68)

Tribune Supports Jarvis over McCoy in SD2

Jarvis in Senate 2
Doctor could lead health-care reform fight
Article Last Updated:10/13/2006 10:13:38 AM MDT

The voters of Senate District 2 in Salt Lake City are fortunate indeed. Regardless of which major party candidate they elect to represent them, they will have an articulate advocate in the Utah Legislature. The Democrat, Scott McCoy, is a lawyer who was appointed early last year to fill the seat when Paula Julander retired. The Republican, Joe Jarvis, is a medical doctor, former State Health Officer of Nevada and chairman of the Utah Health Policy Project. The Tribune's Editorial Board recommends Jarvis because of his moderate Republican views and his expertise in health policy. The failure of the last Legislature to provide dental and vision benefits to the most vulnerable Medicaid recipients during an unprecedented budget surplus highlighted the need for a strong voice there for health-care reform. Jarvis would provide that voice within the caucus that controls Capitol Hill. There is not a physician in the Legislature now, and Jarvis would fill that void. The only drawback we see to our recommendation is that if voters elect Jarvis, McCoy will no longer be in the Legislature. It's a shame that voters cannot send both men into the next Utah Senate, but that's not an option. McCoy has carried Sen. Julander's long battle to force health insurers to cover contraceptives. He proposes a state constitutional amendment recognizing all people's right to health care. He would outlaw smoking in cars when children are passengers, and he would create a task force to study safe disposal of toxic materials in consumer electronics. At 36, McCoy is the youngest member of the current Senate and an openly gay man. He helped to lead the fight against the Utah constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage. Because both young people and gays are under-represented in the Legislature, McCoy's departure would be unfortunate. However, there is another openly gay member of the Legislature, but no doctor, and specifically, no doctor with Jarvis' expertise in health-care reform. He led the effort to allow small business owners to buy into the Public Employees Health Plan, a way to reduce the number of uninsured Utahns. We want him to carry on that fight in the Senate.

Legislature flawed but doesn't deserve contempt

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Webb: It's quite remarkable how perfectly normal, upright, intelligent Utah citizens, respected in their communities, are magically transformed into stupid, insolent, partisan hacks and right-wing ideologues when they are elected to the Legislature. Or so it would seem reading some of the harsh criticism leveled at the Legislature, mostly from people who could never get elected to anything themselves and who are mostly out-of-touch with reality. The latest anti-Legislature diatribe came from Morning News columnist Don Gale on Oct. 7. His way-over-the-top harangue accused legislators of "neglect, stupidity and greed." He charged that they operate with secret deals, that lobbyists run the place and that they are biased and absolutists. He said they are cruel and heartless with a majority consisting of "ultraconservative, reactionary, head-in-the-sand quasi-Republican ideologues." And there was a lot more. I talked to good, honest, hard-working Utahns, who also happen to be legislators, who were genuinely hurt by Gale's sweeping rant. These are typical Utahns, chosen in free and open elections by their neighbors and community peers, who sacrifice enormously to serve. They are business people, educators, retirees, farmers, attorneys, homemakers, engineers, etc., who spend most of their time like the rest of us, working and supporting their families. Then they go do their legislative duties and somehow become monsters. The truth is that the vast majority of lawmakers serve with honor and distinction. Most of Gale's criticisms are both unfair and unfounded. Worse, he adds to the incivility, disrespect and harsh rhetoric that poison our political process and breed cynicism and apathy. The Legislature is certainly not a perfect institution. Sometimes mistakes are made. To people who don't understand the process, it appears chaotic and undisciplined. At any given time a silly bill might be introduced or a silly speech might be delivered. But you judge a Legislature by its final product, what is passed by both houses and signed by the governor, not by any single occurrence along the way. And no one should be surprised that the Legislature is political. That's the system created by the founders of our country and state. The reality is that the political process works very well in Utah, far better than at the national level. Utah's 104 citizen lawmakers deal forthrightly with the big issues facing the state. They prioritize carefully and spend wisely. They balance the budget. They reflect the opinions and desires of a majority of Utah citizens. They deserve praise and support, not derision and scorn.

Pignanelli: The Legislature invokes the same emotions as your in-laws. You whine and moan about their boorish and crude behavior. Their exhibition of entitlement and/or superiority is infuriating. You harbor hope that a family member gets smart and dumps an obnoxious spouse. However, you enjoy many of them on an individual basis and are thankful for the process that produced them. I entertain audiences with the antics of Capitol Hill (no shortage of laughs), but respect the institution. Intermixed with my jokes is strong encouragement to improve the process through participation in elections and citizen lobbying. To underscore my objectives, I provide some observations:
• In public relations, legislators are incompetent. They make boneheaded moves (i.e. denying $2 million for Medicaid but funding $12 million for a garage). Further, caucus dynamics prevent leaders from securing too much exposure. Lawmakers hire good PR assistants, but they do not use them. (Which explains why, when I was Minority Leader, capturing good media was akin to "shooting fish in a barrel.") Utah Governors since 1993 have excelled in this arena, thereby exacerbating the problem for legislators.
• Most lawmakers sacrifice professional careers and monetary gain to serve. (Insiders know the limited few who are benefiting in a proprietary manner.) Unlike sports or entertainment figures, they receive all the criticism free.
• Because of LaVarr's beloved precinct caucus system, extremists in both parties wield extraordinary influence early in the election process. Good politicians have to throw red meat at the hungry activists, thus all the right-wing rhetoric.
• The part-time Legislature is structured to react, not lead. The governor is imbued with responsibility to provide vision. (So do not expect monumental changes in government from lawmakers.)
• The ridiculous "message bills" (which also infuriate me) garner most of the publicity during the session — but rarely pass.
• The majority caucus closes too many meetings from public scrutiny — breeding conspiratorial conclusions. (From what I gather, these assemblies rarely produce results. Insiders and the media learn of the juicy bits anyway.)
• More than 2,000 lobbyists swarm Capitol Hill every winter (signs of a healthy democracy) to push and pull 104 lawmakers in various directions. But the most influential lobbyists are the neighbors, co-workers and outspoken constituents of a legislator.
The Legislature is not imposed upon us from above. The public, by selection or omission, determines its composition. I encourage those who are angry and frustrated to participate in the elections and make a difference.
Republican LaVarr Webb was policy deputy to Gov. Mike Leavitt and Deseret News managing editor. He now is a political consultant and lobbyist. E-mail: lwebb@exoro.com. Democrat Frank Pignanelli is Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist and political adviser. A former candidate for Salt Lake mayor, he served 10 years in the Utah House of Representatives, six years as House minority leader. Pignanelli's spouse, D'Arcy Dixon Pignanelli, is a Utah state tax commissioner. E-mail: frankp@xmission.com.

Keep Utah Moving

Keep Utah Moving!
Vote FOR Proposition 3 on the Salt Lake County ballot and the Opinion Question on commuter rail and roads in Utah County. Help Utah avert a transportation crisis, build FrontRunner commuter rail across Utah's four most populous counties, expand the TRAX light rail system, preserve highway corridor, and construct other top-priority highway projects.
Imagine having most of the Wasatch Front’s major shopping, business, entertainment and educational centers connected by a fast, efficient and dependable public rail transit network. From most anywhere on the Wasatch Front, hop on a TRAX or FrontRunner train and commute to work or school, take in a concert at the E Center, a family outing at Lagoon, a shopping spree at Cabelas, dinner at Thanksgiving Point, a football game at the U., or a Jazz game downtown. And avoid congestion, travel more safely, and at less cost, than driving a car.
The campaign needs endorsements and volunteers willing to put up lawn signs. To help, go to http://www.votefor3.com/ and fill out a simple form. See Morning News story about the campaign kickoff event.

Hatch says House feared anti-gay label

Hastert's busy schedule also may have delayed action on Foley, he adds
By Matt Canham The Salt Lake Tribune

U.S. House leaders may have delayed taking action against former Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley because they were afraid of appearing anti-gay, according to Sen. Orrin Hatch. Utah's senator called Foley's sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages to congressional pages "abysmal" and inexcusable, but he also defended House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has drawn repeated criticism for not acting on concerns brought to his office earlier. Hatch's defense, presented to the Tribune editorial board earlier this week, centered on how busy Hastert is as the Republican leader in the House. But he also said: "I don't know anybody today in the Congress who wants to act or be homophobic, so that may be part of the problem here." Hatch's campaign opponent, Democrat Pete Ashdown, bristled at Hatch's remarks. "I think it is ridiculous," he said. "Protecting children has nothing to do with homosexuality." Equality Utah, a gay rights organization, also doesn't buy Hatch's explanation. "It's interesting that Senator Hatch and other members of Congress would express a concern about being homophobic when they have supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage. Do they not consider that be homophobic?" asked Mike Thompson, Equality Utah's executive director. Foley resigned in September after sexually
Advertisement
document.writeln(AAMB6);

explicit instant messages he sent to a male page were made public. Since then, House Republicans have been embroiled in a scandal that may cripple their bid to hold the majority. Hastert has been at the center of the controversy, since some lawmakers have said they relayed concerns over Foley's messages with pages and former pages years ago. While Hatch may defend Hastert, most Utahns want to see him punished, according to a recent poll conducted by Survey USA on behalf of KSL TV. The poll of 500 people said that 68 percent don't believe House leaders did enough when they learned of allegations against Foley, with 28 percent believing Hastert should resign his leadership posts and another 34 percent saying he should leave Congress. The FBI and a House ethics investigation are looking into Foley's actions and the response of House leaders. "There were mistakes made in my opinion that were human mistakes, but I think they are now approaching it in an intelligent way," Hatch said. Ashdown said if those investigations find that Hastert didn't act quickly enough, then "he should be removed." But until the investigations are done, Ashdown doesn't want to make a judgment. "I'm not gong to be judge and jury on Hastert," he said. Earlier this year, Hatch teamed with Foley to pass a child sex offender bill, requiring a nationwide database. Convicted sex offenders who fail to register could be charged with a felony. The irony hasn't escaped Hatch. "Here is a man who has co-sponsored the sex offender bill. He may very well be the first person prosecuted under that bill." mcanham@sltrib.com

REDISTRICTING: FACT AND FICTION.....

October 12, 2006
Is gerrymandering responsible for the fact that it's virtually impossible nowadays to defeat an incumbent in the House of Representatives? Reporters and pundits seem to accept this without question, but academic research suggests otherwise. For example, Alan Abramowitz, an Emory political science professor who's studied the decline in competitive seats, recently published a paper concluding that redistricting has had "little to do with the recent decline in competition in House elections. Other developments, such as the growing financial advantage of incumbents and increasing partisanship in the electorate, appear to be more responsible." He figures that only 12% of the decline in marginal districts has been a result of redistricting.
Still, 12% is 12%, and when the House is split as evenly as it is now that can make the difference between being in the majority and being in the minority — something that Republicans seem to understand better than Democrats. In "The Race to Gerrymander," in our November issue, Rachel Morris provides a fascinating 20-year history of Republican efforts to gain control of state legislatures in 1990 and again in 2000 so that they'd be the ones in control of redistricting:
Republicans prepared earlier and poured money into the 2000 legislative elections in critical states like Pennsylvania. Some Democrats, particularly [Martin] Frost, advocated a similarly ambitious approach, but the 1994 wipeout had thrown the party into something of a tailspin, and for the next few years presidential contests consumed much of its energy and money. Eventually Democrats did devote considerable attention to state elections and preparing for the census, but they had already lost valuable time.
After 2000, Democrats found themselves entirely locked out of redistricting in four large swing states where Republicans had won all three branches of government: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. “In those states we got hammered,” one Democratic redistricting operative said.
It may be that Republican gerrymandering has produced a net gain of no more than 20 seats for the GOP over the past couple of decades. Still, that's enough, and it's one of the reasons I think Howard Dean's focus on rebuilding state party infrastructure is so pivotal. When 2010 rolls around Democrats need to be in a position to compete in every state, either to gain control of the redistricting process outright or to at least win enough control to prevent Republicans from dominating the process the way they have for the past two cycles. 2004 was none too soon to start working on that.—Kevin Drum 1:43 AM Permalink Trackbacks Comments (12)

Blogging and the Law

October 10th, 2006 @ 8:48pm
Some people view blogging as the democratization of the media. But if that's the case, bloggers should probably be prepared to play by the rules of media law. Nightside's Chelsea Hedquist has more.

Nightside's Chelsea Hedquist Reporting
A San Francisco firm that tracks blogs estimates there are now 53 million of them out there. The same firm says there are 1.6 million daily postings. And, contrary to popular belief, you can get into trouble if you post the wrong thing about the wrong person.
Most people think of the blogosphere as a free wheeling, no holds barred world where people can say whatever they want, and get away with it. Not so says attorney Jeff Hunt.

"Bloggers have to play by the same legal rules that the traditional media has to play by."
And that means bloggers are just as vulnerable to libel lawsuits as any member of the press. In fact, there have been more than fifty lawsuits this year resulting from postings on blogs and message boards.

"You're seeing a more aggressive response by some of the individuals who have been defamed on blogs to strike back."

In one case, a former U.S. Senate aid sued Jessica Cutler after she posted a blog about their sexual escapades. In another, a criminal defense lawyer in Pittsburgh filed a libel suit against a website called dontdatehimgirl.com after a posting on the site accused him of having a sexually transmitted disease.

Utah blogger Sarah Nielson has even had a close call.
"I write about dating and at one point I had someone that had written me an email that I reposted on my blog. And he had threatened to sue. So I do worry about things like that a little bit."
Nielson, who blogs on sarahbellum.org, doesn't think most bloggers realize they are bound by media law.
Neilson says, "Luckily, you know, bloggers are pretty savvy with the internet and there's always a way to find out the information they need."

One place bloggers can go to learn about their rights is the electronic frontier foundation. The site lays out the legal issues that bloggers might run into and how to handle them. Chillingeffects.Org is another good resource for bloggers. Hunt says it's a good idea for bloggers to brush up on media law.

"There's just no substitute for accuracy and bloggers need to understand that the way traditional media reporters understand that."
In all reality, libel lawsuits against bloggers are still quite rare. And Brigham Young University Professor Kevin Stoker thinks that bloggers won't pay much attention to threat of lawsuits until they become more common.

"Until we start seeing a lot of cases coming through the system - at least publicized cases coming through the system - I think you're going to see a lot of bloggers continuing to say what they will."

But after all, that's kind of the cool part about blogging. People say things they would never print on the front page of the New York Times. Law student and blogger David Billings doesn't want to see lawsuits against bloggers ruin that environment.

David: "It's a first amendment issue and, you know, no matter how many mean things they say about somebody it's just speech."
And as Stoker stresses, bloggers who are just expressing their opinion should be safe from lawsuits.

"If it's opinion it should be protected because it's hard to determine whether it's true or false, essentially.:

Nielson and other bloggers reluctantly admit there may come a day when libel lawsuits infringe on the blogosphere.
"I'm sure it will at some point but until then keep blogging."

And with as many as 150,000 blogs being created every day, we'll probably keep seeing some pretty interesting posts.

County to reprint "pubic" ballots at a cost to taxpayers of $40 thousand

GRAND HAVEN, Mich. - Ottawa County will pay about $40,000 to correct an embarrassing typo on its Nov. 7 election ballot: The "L" was left out of "public."

A total of 170,000 ballots will have to be reprinted.
The mistake appeared in the text of a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban some types of affirmative action.
The word "public" was misspelled one of the six times it appears, county Clerk Daniel C. Krueger said Tuesday. Five or six people in his office had proofread the ballot, but it was an election clerk who found the mistake early last week.
"It's just one of those words," Krueger said. "Even after we told people it was in there, they still read over it."

WHAT NORTH KOREA WANTS....

October 10, 2006
WHAT NORTH KOREA WANTS....Selig Harrison, who has spent a fair amount of time talking with North Korean officials, argues that their nuclear test on Monday was basically just a dramatic way of getting our attention:
Paradoxical as it may seem, Pyongyang staged the test as a last-ditch effort to jump-start a bilateral dialogue on the normalization of relations that the United States has so far spurned. Over and over, I was told that Pyongyang wants bilateral negotiations to set the stage for implementation of the denuclearization agreement it concluded in Beijing on Sept. 19, 2005, with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.
Washington focuses on Article One of the accord, in which North Korea agreed to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." But what made the agreement acceptable to Pyongyang was the pledge in Article Two that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations."
In North Korean eyes, it was a flagrant violation when, four days after the agreement was signed, the United States in effect declared economic war on the Kim Jong Il regime. The Treasury Department imposed financial sanctions designed to cut off North Korean access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting and money laundering.
Well, if we were in their position, we'd feel double-crossed too, wouldn't we? Far from being the hare-brained response of a bunch of "madmen," their feeling of betrayal was actually a pretty unsurprising reaction. Kim Jong-Il may be a weird guy, and the whole DPRK leadership is paranoid as hell, but within the constraints of how police states usually act, they actually seem to behave fairly predictably.
Of course, the part I've never really understood is our reluctance to give them the one thing they've consistently asked for over many decades: diplomatic recognition and some kind of security guarantee. After all, what's the downside? Treaty or not, if North Korea provoked a war we'd declare them in default of their obligations and then squash them. Recognition and security guarantees literally cost us nothing.
But ten consecutive presidents of both parties have declined to offer this, so there must be more to it. But what?—Kevin Drum 1:57 AM Permalink Trackbacks Comments (62)

McGee gets the Boot at the U of U

Can you remember the last time someone asked you a very simple question, and your brain just freezed up.

I can only assume that is what happened to Utah Representative Roz McGee up at the University of Utah this past spring. Roz elected to participate in a political bee where each participant was asked a political question. The first questions were very simple so as not to eliminate everyone right off the bat.

So the crowd was stunned when Roz was asked what the 2nd ammendmant protects. She honestly did not know, and guessed several possible answers which were mostly 1st ammendment protections. I think this goes to the heart of the question. When it comes to free speech and the other protections the 1st ammendment provides for, most Democrat's know the answer. However when it comes to protection of one-self or family, most democrats charge that the 2nd ammendment really does'nt protect individual freedom, but instead allows for a military to protect the population.

Roz got the boot on the first question, and this is an Utah elected official yikes?

Mark Towner, The Spyglass

Cannon adds fuel to fire

Utahn tries to clarify comments about possible 'precocious' pages
By Jeremy TwitchellDeseret Morning News
OREM — Comments made by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, have provided additional fuel for the fire heating up the cybersex scandal that led to the resignation of U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

Rep. Chris Cannon said he did not mean to place the blame on the page involved. In a radio interview that aired Thursday on KSL Radio's Nightside Project, Cannon said "precocious" pages may have been "egging this guy on." Foley is accused of sending sexually charged instant messages to a teenage male congressional page. Cannon attempted Friday to clarify his remarks. "I used the word precocious on purpose ... by that, I meant a kid who is smarter than other kids his age," Cannon told the Deseret Morning News. "He's also not naive. I used it in the context that they know more than I did at that age." Leaders of Utah's Democratic Party expressed disdain for Cannon's statements. Alyson Heyrend, spokeswoman for 2nd District Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said she had "no idea where (Cannon) was coming from" with those statements and that they speak for themselves. Christian Burridge, Cannon's Democratic opponent in the November election for Utah's 3rd Congressional District seat, said he was "disappointed" by Cannon's comments. "This is an issue where we need to get to the truth of the matter," Burridge said, adding that Cannon's implication that the page may have induced Foley to send the messages was "irresponsible and outrageous." "These kids are sent away from their parents, and the leaders of the Congress become their stewards and become responsible for them," Burridge said. The suggestion that the page may have pulled Foley into the exchange as a prank has been floated in some circles this week, but has not been substantiated. Cannon said he did not mean to place the blame on the young man involved.

"It's not wrong of the kids, it's wrong of the man who was in a position of power," he said. "There is nothing here that isn't Foley's fault; the entire matter is his fault." Cannon said he was trying to send the message that young people, given their intelligence and technological savvy, need to exercise great care online. He called for parents to place greater emphasis on teaching their children how to be safe in the electronic world. "The problem here is not that we have kids who are precocious, but that they're precocious in an environment of predators," Cannon said. Cannon said he felt he had explained what he meant in the context of the interview in which he initially made the comments. "I'd like to hear the whole tape," he said. "I think I said what I'm saying here, but taken in pieces, it sounds harsh. But on the bright side, it allows us to draw attention to this issue." Cannon's comments also stirred debate at the national level. He appeared on CNN's Situation Room Friday, interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. Much of the controversy in the wake of Foley's resignation last Friday has focused on House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who has been accused of knowing Foley had made inappropriate contact with pages prior to this incident becoming public. Cannon said calls for Hastert's resignation are "premature," and that an investigation into the matter needs to run its course.

Burridge said any investigation into Foley's actions needs to focus on the involvement of the Republican Party leadership. "We need to find out who knew, and when they knew it," he said.

Contributing: Suzanne Struglinski
E-mail: jtwitchell@desnews.com

Landslide Revisited

Kevin Drum

October 8, 2006

LANDSLIDE REVISITED....Republicans are in a death spiral:
Democrats now outdistance Republicans on every single issue that could decide voters’ choices come Nov. 7. In addition to winning — for the first time in the Newsweek poll — on the question of which party is more trusted to fight the war on terror (44 to 37 percent) and moral values (42 percent to 36 percent), the Democrats now inspire more trust than the GOP on handling Iraq (47 to 34); the economy (53 to 31); health care (57 to 24); federal spending and the deficit (53 to 29); gas and oil prices (56 to 23); and immigration (43 to 34).
How should Democrats take advantage of this? I boiled down my advice to 200 words for the New York Times two months ago, but it just got printed today. I think it holds up pretty well.—

Kevin Drum 1:00 AM Permalink Trackbacks Comments (4)

Democrat ads attack GOP over scandal

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Fri Oct 6, 9:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON - More Democrats went on the attack Friday with campaign ads linking Republican candidates to the Mark Foley House page scandal while GOP candidates moved to distance themselves from embattled Speaker
Dennis Hastert' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Dennis Hastert.

On Saturday, Democrat Patty Wetterling, a candidate for an open House seat in Minnesota, will continue the attack in the Democratic response to
President Bush' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> President Bush's weekly radio address as the party looks to reap political gains in coming midterm elections.

"Foley sent obvious predatory signals, received loud and clear by members of congressional leadership, who swept them under the rug to protect their political power," Wetterling said in the prerecorded address. "We must hold accountable all those complicit in allowing this victimization to happen."

Republican New Jersey Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr. Friday became the first major GOP candidate to call for Hastert to resign, while additional campaign appearances by Hastert for House GOP candidates got canceled. Hastert has come under heavy attack within his party's rank and file for damage inflicted on the party just weeks before the Nov. 7 elections.
"Hastert should resign as speaker," Kean said. "He is the head of the institution and this happened on his watch."

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, a Republican write-in candidate in the race to replace
Tom DeLay' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Tom DeLay in Texas, decided not to pursue plans to invite Hastert to raise money for her campaign after the Foley scandal broke.
"We just made a decision not to have" a fundraiser with Hastert, said Sekula-Gibbs' campaign manager, Lisa Diamond.
Democrats stepped up their attacks.

"What is going on in Washington? ... Deborah Pryce's friend Mark Foley is caught using his position to take advantage of 16-year-old pages. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert looked the other way," says an ad for Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, challenging seven-term Rep. Deborah Pryce (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, the No. 4 Republican in the House in a particularly competitive race.

And in culturally conservative southern Indiana, former Democratic Rep. Baron Hill (news, bio, voting record) took to the airwaves Friday with an ad attacking freshman Republican Mike Sodrel for taking thousands of dollars in donations from House GOP leaders, "who knew about but did nothing to stop sexual predator congressman Foley."

At the same time, Hastert canceled plans to raise money for Sodrel on Tuesday.
Earlier, Rep. Ron Lewis (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., a Baptist preacher and social conservative, canceled plans for a fundraiser with Hastert, who also dropped an appearance with Ohio GOP candidate Joy Padgett, who is in an uphill race to replace the disgraced Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record).

The nonstop news cycles for over a week have been filled with details of Foley's lurid messages to former pages and accusations by former top Foley staff aide Kirk Fordham that top GOP aides, including some in Hastert's office, knew about Foley's problems and the issue of the pages years ago.

But with no significant developments Friday, GOP strategists hoped the party could catch its breath and gain traction on issues like lower gas prices, the peaking stock market and the economy. Great skittishness remained about unforeseen developments in the Foley saga, nevertheless.

Democrats are increasingly optimistic that they will retake the House and possibly even the Senate. Even a prominent Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, seemed pessimistic about his party keeping its hold on the House.
"It's happened in the past that we've had divided government in terms of the House and Senate," Cornyn said. "I'm sure we'll do our best to work together to try to address the nation's problems."

What Did Sherri know and when did she know it?

Mark E. Towner, The Spyglass:

The current flap going on in Washington is when did the GOP Leadership know about the pervert Foley, and what did they do about it. The same case can be made here in the County Clerks office. The following is just the tip of the iceberg of the activities that was happening under Sherrie's watch. We had a corrupt auditor and the GOP replaced him. Where is the moral outrage from Rob Miller and the band down at the Utah Democratic HQ....

http://www.oppositionnews.com/sherrie/sherrie.php



The campaign has just now begun, and the gloves are comming off Sherrie.

Wannabe Alienated Establishment said...
I am not the "anonymous" who posted the preceding link to the Carrie Dickson campaign website, nor am I responding to it as part of a contrived and coordinated stunt. However, I must disclose that I am in complete sympathy with its apparent purposes.I have read several of the newspaper articles listed under the "News about Sherrie Swensen" link before. One of them, however, contains a quote that hits me everytime I read it. I think it is very telling:"It's not just the activities of Nick Floros that make me mad," said Democratic County Councilman Jim Bradley. "What really makes me angry is that he got away with it for years. It may be that the good ol' boy network protected him." ("Cronyism is hinted in sealed sex probe - Harassment allegation: Some say a former employee is being protected by his colleagues." Christopher Smart, Salt Lake Tribune, December 18, 2004)Firstly, I am impressed with the integrity of Democrat Jim Bradley in addressing the corruption of fellow Democrat Nick Floros and the "good ol' boy network" that protected him.I think most of us political junkies have a pretty good idea of who he is talking about when he refers to a certain "good ol' boy network." (Democrat insiders, David Yocum, Randy Horiuchi, Joe Hatch, and Sherrie Swensen come to mind.) The fact that Bradley would call them out is impressive. Some things are more important than party affiliation and he seems to get it. God bless him.Secondly, I am frustrated with the lack of quality journalistic coverage of county government issues and races. Because of this defficiency, the average voter in our community has no idea of who they're voting for when they walk into the booth on election day.Yes, the press was there to cover David Yocum's prosecuting of Nancy Workman when she used county funds to subsidize the services of an employee for her daughter at the Boys and Girls Club. (She, of course, was later exonerated of any criminal wrong doing.) But, where were they when David Yocum allegedly used his office to provide official favors for his son?There have been allegations that David Yocum made his son's recent DUI arrest quietly go away. This is the same son, Jason Yocum, who took Nick Floros' place as Sherrie Swensen's chief deputy. If this "good ol boy network" that Jim Bradley refers to really does exist, then why doesn't Salt Lake's media cover it?If they did, maybe the voters could provide a little housecleaning this year. Goodness know that it is far overdue.

4:59 PM