| From: | jonathan |
| To: | Tom |
| Date: | 29 Feb ’08 10:17 |
| Subject: | topic idea |
Tom,
I have an idea for a topic.
The cache valley school board has just come out with their calendar for next year, and a new change is going to be that students will be going to school on Martin Luther King day next year. I thought it would be interesting to hear your guys take on why the school board decided to make the change.
thanks for your show I listen everynight (it makes work go by fast)
Jonathan
| From: | Jason |
| To: | Tom & Ryan |
| Date: | 29 Feb ’08 09:37 |
| Subject: | Just How Far with the Attorney General Go? |
Attorney General uses “department of homeland security summons” to
bypass courts to get information about a misdemeanor crime.
http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=5BC5024D-14D1-13A2-9F80B8852AFD3243
Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…
We’re live from the State Senate in Salt Lake. The state budget is taking shape with implications for education funding.
We’ll talk tonight with some of the Cache County delegation including State Senator Lyle Hillyard Represenatitves Jack Draxler and Curt Webb.
The effort to dismantle Salt Lake City’s registry is renewed.
All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!
| From: | Childrensneeds.com |
| To: | T.R. Grover |
| Date: | 28 Feb ’08 09:57 |
| Subject: | midwife bill 93 and more |
4-6 PM.
It’s not a daily talk show.
It’s an event.
Be there tonight as we broadcast from the inner sanctum that is the Senate Lounge.
4-6 PM.
Major thanks to Senator Hillyard and Ric Cantrell for making this happen.
-Tom
| From: | Marc Neilsen |
| To: | Tom |
| Date: | 27 Feb ’08 23:30 |
| Subject: | Immigration |
Hey Tom,
I just wanted to commend you for your words today concerning immigration. I felt that you made some excellent commentary about the subject, and tactfully refuted some of the arguments made by a few callers. In fact, I found myself shouting a couple of “amens” to second your thoughts. While we may not agree entirely on some issues, I think we have some common ground on the issue of immigration. Furthermore, after today’s discussion, I decided to write my Pi Sigma Alpha research paper on the impact of immigration in the US- primarily Utah. This was heaven-sent seeing that I have been brainstorming furiously to find a topic!
I am of the opinion that for the most part, the United States is handling the issue of immigration completely wrong, and is also setting a bad example for the rest of the world. Can any student of American history deny that this nation is a nation of immigrants? I myself can trace one line of my ancestry through Ellis Island to Sweden, and yet another all the way back to the Founding Era of this country. No matter how far I go back in time, my antecedents could all be considered “immigrants;” and I am proud of this fact. And no ancestor of mine had to apply for a green card, pass the TOEFL, or battle with the INS to prove their desire to succeed.
I find it somewhat offensive that some of the most ardent “patriots” will pridefully rattle off the history of this nation, telling of pilgrims and expatriates from other lands seeking religious and economic freedoms, as if they have automatically inherited this legacy. And yet often in the same breath, these individuals will spitefully attack real foreign-born pilgrims and expatriates and refuse them the same freedoms and dreams that were afforded to countless others long ago. We are a nation of immigrants! And like President John F. Kennedy said, that the US is “a society of immigrants, each of whom had begun life anew, on an equal footing. This is the secret of America: a nation of people with the fresh memory of old traditions who dare to explore new frontiers…. ”
Concerning Mexico, the United States conquered much of Old Mexico, automatically annexing an entire group of people to a foreign entity. While I do not find it needful to lament over the past (for I am very glad that Utah is a part of the United States, today), I recognize that for many years, Mexicans have traversed the undeclared boundaries between what we know today as Mexico and the United States; this transience has always been an element of many Mexican-Americans. Secondly, throughout history, this country has openly invited Mexican laborers to “save” the economy, such as the “Bracero Program” in which more than 4 million Mexicans were invited by the US government to work during and after WWII. Yet after they had served their purpose, many were deported and mandated to leave, which was a rather ineffective action in retrospect. For these migrant workers couldn’t find work in Mexico and soon enough returned to the US. From such actions WE have created our own monster.
Today, Mexican workers and other immigrants make up a fundamental portion of our workforce. To attempt to remove this element is ridiculous, especially in highly urban areas on both coasts. As we have seen in states such as Oregon and Arizona, without immigrants, the American economy is in trouble, for they are the unskilled laborers which are demanded by a growing economy!
Finally, our current standards concerning immigration are ineffective, too rigid, and illogical. They do not respond to the need we have for economic growth and in my opinion, many are racist. The Immigration Act of 1990 and it’s “diversity” visa program is an example of this. US policy concerning asylum is also an example. The laws need to change. Building a wall and/or deportation will not work. We need to legalize, not “grant amnesty,” but find a way to document, incorporate, and include these valuable people into our society. If the United States can again remember its heritage as a “nation of immigrants,” I think that we will actually begin to solve this problem.
Sorry for the long e-mail!
Marc Neilsen
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker may have dodged Chris Buttars, but now more Capitol Hill cohorts are ganging up on their former colleague.
A bill unveiled today – sponsored by all 21 Senate Republicans – would doom Becker’s newly adopted domestic-partnership registry in the name of preserving Utah’s ban on gay marriage.
It also would, the city attorney insists, gut the capital’s 2006 adult-designee ordinance, which provides health-care benefits for city employees’ domestic partners.
And Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, the chief sponsor, says he was not influenced by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who said this week that the state has no place “overreaching or micromanaging” local government.
“I obviously disagree,” Bell said.
I know that I’m very much in the minority in Cache Valley on this one. Very much in the minority, but I feel strongly about this.
Above all else, this registry benefits arrangements that are not same-sex partnerships. It seems that in some Legislators zeal to condemn homosexuality they are willing create collateral damage and deny the ability of children to care for infirmed parents and other familial arrangements.
Homosexuality must be some awful thing.
It must be creating harms that are in the interest of the state to stop.
But I don’t see them.
Tell me.
Karen and I were married March 12, 2005 in the Manti LDS Temple. How does a same sex couple receiving equal protection under the law harm my marriage? Or any marriage?
Even if we accept that a mother and a father as the optimal structure for children, do we really want the state promoting that? Is this is justification for intervention in creating punitive and/or prohibitive legislation toward homosexuals? If such legislation are we going to create discriminatory legislation for other family arrangements that are less than optimal? Will we punish single mothers? What about drunk fathers? What happens if the State of Utah decides to define family in a way that harms your family? My namesake, Mormon pioneer Thomas Grover, was persecuted because the federal government deemed his family arrangement as abhorrent. I regard him as a hero. Are we doing the same with this domestic registry and Amendment 3?
Even if we accept that homosexuality is perverse, sick, disgusting and abhorrent, is that really justification for government intervention? Isn’t Liberty self-determination, including the right to make bad decisions? Even if homosexuality is perverse and wrong, isn’t it just as wrong to create punitive and prohibitive legislation to coerce behavior? Will the State of Utah start creating punitive and prohibitive legislation for mean, dishonest, lazy, unfriendly, selfish, inconsiderate, rude or unintelligent behavior? All of these things are “wrong” and do harm to others. Why not create punitive and prohibitive legislation for civic disengagement? That’s certainly hurting all of us, isn’t it?
If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, isn’t the Liberty-loving way to combat it to try and convince homosexuals to abandon the practice of their own free will? Isn’t using the force of government to get others to adopt the lifestyle you think would be best for society an assault to liberty?
-Tom
| From: | JOHN PAYNE |
| To: | Tom |
| Date: | 27 Feb ’08 22:24 |
| Subject: | Legislature question |
In response to your question about the responsiveness of our state legislators:
In late January I emailed an opinion that I had on an issue to our local legislators. I received responses from Reps. Hunsaker and Webb that they had received and read my letter. I have not heard anything from Reps. Draxler and Ferry or Senator Hillyard.
John Payne
From Michael Castner at SenateSite.com:
7:00 PM – Ric Cantrell calls me out into the hall to discuss the Des News matter. As a former reporter I have an issue with members of the press behaving in a less than professional manner regardless of their personal agenda. Yelling at the Majority Leader in the halls of the Senate? Yeah…not cool.
Is it just me or is anyone else salivating for more details?
-Tom
Thursday, March 6.
Noon.
Fredrico’s Pizza.
Everyone’s invited, don’t let the satirically secretive name fool you.
-Tom
Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…
Logan’s State Senator, Lyle Hillyard has a Democratic opponent for this November’s race. It’s Joe Dulin and he’s announcing his candidacy on tonight’s KVNU For the People.
KVNU’s Craig Hislop talks with Cache County School District Superintendant Steve Norton about Legislative issues?
Vice President Jon Huntsman, Jr? That’s the buzz in some east coast media.
An online petition for a county wide library has been created. We’ll give you all the details.
We’ll extend our discussion on immigration from last night. We’ll also recap last night’s Obama/Clinton debate.
All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!
From LaVarr Webb in today’s Utah Policy Daily:
Utah County Democrats are offering the strongest field of legislative candidates that I’ve seen in many years of observing Utah politics. The remarkable class of candidates reflects the strong leadership county Democratic Chair Richard Davis and Vice-Chair Larry Brown. Davis, a BYU political science professor, is showing that someone who hangs out in the ivory tower can also fight and scrap and do the nuts and bolts grassroots work so important in building a county party.
Many of the candidate recruits are prominent in their communities and have strong ties to BYU and the LDS Church. Most of them will run smart, well-organized campaigns. While winning in overwhelmingly Republican Utah County will always be difficult for Democrats, it’s clear that GOP candidates are going to have to get out and work, for a change. Here’s a list of the current Democratic candidates, with more expected to announce over the next few weeks. The Republican incumbent in each district is also noted.
Senate 13: Ken Peay is a retired commander of the Utah Highway Patrol in Utah County and worked in law enforcement for 31 years. He heads the criminal justice program at Provo College. In 2006, he ran against Becky Lockhart in House District 64. (Sen. Mark Madsen)
House 27: Gwyn Franson is a former member of the Highland City Council. She was the only person to be elected to two terms on the council. She is currently an elementary school teacher at Highland Elementary School. Her husband, Jay, is currently the mayor of Highland. (Rep. John Dougall)
House 58: Steven Baugh is a former superintendent of the Alpine School District. A native of Orem, he is currently on the faculty of the College of Education at BYU. (Rep. Stephen Sandstrom)
House 59: Paul Thompson is a former president of Weber State University and former dean of the Marriott School of Management at BYU. He recently returned as president of the Massachusetts Boston LDS Mission. (Rep. Lorie Fowlke)
House 60: Boyd McAffee is a retired educator in the Alpine School District and currently director of the Clear Creek Camp in Scofield, Utah. He is a long time Boy Scouter. His father served as a Democrat in the state legislature representing Provo. (Rep. Brad Daw)
House 61: Deon Turley is the president of the Provo Council PTA. She previously served as secretary of the Provo council PTA; secretary to the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters; and Deputy County Clerk in Weber County. (Rep. Keith Grover)
House 62: Claralyn Hill is a local estate planning attorney in Provo. She is a co-author (along with Dallin H. Oaks and Reese Hansen) of a well-known textbook on trusts. She has served on the boards of several community organizations and is a popular lecturer with her husband, Ned, on budgeting and estate planning. Her husband is dean of the Marriott School of Management at BYU. (Rep. Chris Herrod)
House 63: Don Jarvis is a retired professor of Russian at BYU. He was director of the faculty center at BYU and is currently a consultant on faculty development at UVSC. He also served as president of the Russia Moscow LDS Mission. (Rep. Stephen Clark)
It shouldn’t have to be this way, but these are the kinds of Democrats that could win in Cache County this year. The opportunity is outstanding. Nationally, there is a surge of excitement for the Democratic Party that should provide some boost to Utah candidates. Statewide, there is backlash over vouchers. Locally, Republicans have done nothing to drawn the ire of voters. Even so, the planets seem to be aligning for Cache Dems to possibly win an election or two this November.
In addition to picking the right candidate, here’s a list of things I would recommend the Cache Democrats not do (these are issues of being right rather than relevent):
Just a few, free friendly thoughts for the Cache Democrats. Take them for what they’re worth.
-Tom
|
Contact: Joe Dulin 435-787-4303 |
|
Dulin for State Senate |
Press Release
Dulin announces candidacy for Utah Senate
The Democratic Party of Utah is supporting Joe Dulin’s candidacy to challenge incumbent Lyle Hillyard for the state Senate.
Logan, UT, February 27, 2008: A former liberal columnist for the Logan Herald Journal, Joe Dulin has announced his intention to run for the Utah Senate out of Logan as a Democrat. Dulin stated that “It is a privilege to be a part of the democratic process in Utah and I plan to give the voters of northern Utah a choice for change.”
When asked to describe his reason for running, Dulin stated “I do not want to continue to send generation after generation of Utah Children off to the lowest funded schools in the country. It is time to move from worst to first. Furthermore, I have lost patience with the Utah senate. With a wink and a nod, they spend our tax dollars to hold hearings that demean and humiliate entire classes of people based on the prejudice and personal insecurities of their proxy, Sen. Chris Buttars. Government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people – and that means all of the people. The selective persecution of groups of people and the use of derogatory racial analogies have no place in my value system or my government. It is time to end this nonsense and get down to business working on the environmental, energy, health care, education and transportation challenges facing this state.”
Dulin plans to run an aggressive campaign in an effort to unite the voters of Northern Utah in support of change. When asked why he thinks he has a chance to win in what has been traditionally a Republican stronghold, Dulin replied “After the way shabby way Mitt Romney was treated by the majority of Republicans calling themselves evangelicals in the recent national primaries, I would surprised if Utah Republicans aren’t looking for an alternative to the Republican Party. To them I say, come join the Democrats, we welcome people of all faiths with open arms. Your faith is your faith. What I am interested in is to hear your ideas about how we can make Utah even a better place to raise our families together. Join with me. We can make a difference.”
Dulin graduated Magna Cum Laude with a degree in Accountancy from Arizona State University in 1985 and he subsequently earned an MBA from Utah State University. His professional accreditations include a CPA certificate and an Associate in Risk Management designation from the Insurance Institute of America. He has lived in the Cache Valley since 2002 and presently is a Business Officer at Utah State University.
It’s Democrat Joe Dulin.
He works in risk management at Utah State University. Some may remember that he wrote Op-Ed pieces in the Herald Journal for some time.
He’ll be on KVNU’s For the People tonight at 4:15 PM.
-Tom
| From: | Steve Francis |
| To: | Tom |
| Date: | 26 Feb ’08 20:49 |
| Subject: | library petition |
Tom,
Can you post a link to this petition on your blog?
http://www.petitiononline.com/CACHELIB/petition.html
Also, it would be good if you could mention this
petition on your show when you discuss the county
library issue.
Thanks,
Steve
| From: | Camille Welker |
| To: | Tom |
| Date: | 26 Feb ’08 16:01 |
| Subject: | Re: SB 93 this is a copy of the letter I am sending to legislators-from Camille Welker |
To Whom It May Concern: Re SB 93
I would like to add my perspective and experience on the topic of homebirth and midwifery. I do not claim to be an authority on the subject. I am a mother who has researched and made the decision to give birth at home attended by a very competent midwife. I have many friends who are midwifes or doulas, and many more friends who have opted to give birth at home. And of course, most of my acquaintances have given birth at the hospital. Also, I have read literally thousands of birth stories online. In my experience, a large percentage of women who choose homebirth are very informed about birth and how a woman’s body responds to labor, though there are some who are relatively ignorant about both; while those who choose to give birth in a hospital, ironically seem to be the exact opposite, having a large percentage of women who are relatively ignorant about birth and how a woman’s body responds to labor, and a few who are very informed about both. (No offense intended, this is just my experience.)
It has been said that women who choose to birth at home are “anti-medical”. While in some cases this may be the case, this is definitely not the majority. I personally have had 5 of my 6 children at home and anticipate having my 7th child at home as well. I am not anti-medical- all members of my family have been to doctors and the hospital when it was necessary. During a pregnancy I do find it much harder to obtain medical care when I seek it, simply because I have had homebirths in the past, and usually am planning to for that current pregnancy. I am RH- so I need to have blood tests throughout my pregnancy and often choose to have an ultrasound as well. When I lived in Ogden and was expecting my 5th child, I wanted to have an ultrasound. I called the OBGYNs on my list of providers for my insurance. I told them that I was planning to have a homebirth, but would like to have an ultrasound. Most offices simply refused to see me, and others told me that they view homebirth as ignorance, or neglect, or child abuse before they refused to see me. Finally I called the last provider and simply said I would like to be a patient and I need an ultrasound. With this (my 7th) pregnancy I had some early spotting that lasted for nearly 3 weeks, which caused me some concern. I, being 33 years old am close to the age obstetricians claim is high risk for some birth defects, mainly Down’s Syndrome, and Spina-Bifida. My husband and I decided 13 years ago that if at any time a pregnancy became high risk we would seek care from an OBGYN and opt for a hospital birth, so when I was having this spotting I began to look for a doctor. I contacted the [a medical clinic] and was able to get an appointment right away to get an ultrasound (at that point I had not mentioned homebirth). All seemed right from the ultrasound, it was simply a low-lying placenta that would most likely clear up soon. I still wanted to have an appointment with the new doctor, [Dr. X], because I had a feeling that I would like her and I had not decided yet whether I would give birth at home or the hospital, so I looked forward to seeing her. I called the clerk at the [medical clinic] to ask how they would charge my insurance if I ended up not liking [Dr. X] and going elsewhere. The clerk asked if I was considering a homebirth and if I was they could see me. I told her I have had previous homebirths, but was still deciding for this baby. The next day the manager of the clinic called me and said that the clerk told her I was planning a homebirth, and therefore they absolutely could not see me. I told her I was still deciding, so she said I could come but it would be a consultative visit because they did not want to appear to be tied to me in any way. When I met with [Dr. X] she was extremely respectful toward me and listened to what I had to say (a first in 13 years). She answered my questions and was very helpful. I told her that though I had not yet decided- if all is fine with my baby, I am leaning toward homebirth. But, she regretfully informed me that if I chose to go ahead with a homebirth, then needed to transfer to the hospital during labor neither she nor anyone else at her clinic could see me. I asked if I could schedule an appointment to get the 4-way screen (for Down’s Syndrome, Spina-Bifida, and 2 other common birth defects) since that information was part of what I needed to make the decision between home and hospital. She left to speak with the manager and was told that I had 7 days to decide. I said that was not enough time because it was still several weeks before the optimum time to perform the 4-way screen. They were “sorry” but they could not continue seeing me due to their malpractice insurance. (Though at that point, I had not officially decided between hospital and home, and technically they could see me on a consultative basis without being legally tied to me.) About 10 days later I received a letter severing any relationship between me and the [medical clinic]. And, ironically, they advised me to seek medical care for my pregnancy. I have since had the 4-way screen elsewhere (with no help from the obstetrical community) and all of my results were normal. With this and other information I have finally decided to go ahead with a homebirth.
Whenever there is a debate between parties concerning homebirth and hospital birth, the OBGYNs favorite line seems to be either that they’ve seen “too many dead babies”, or “too many horror stories”. These would be legitimate arguments if the statistics could prove it, but they simply cannot. The American obstetrical community is far behind the world obstetrical community, in that the world OB community sees the value and safety of midwifes and homebirth in normal healthy pregnancies, leaving the OBs to their specialty which is high-risk pregnancy. And, the world OB community has the stats to back up their claims. The American OBs like to pretend that safety is on their side since they are licensed and trained. They don’t seem to be forthcoming with the fact that many thousands of women have suffered from hospital-introduced intra-uterine infection-which can easily cause death, nor do they quickly share that many, many women have actually been sewn up with sponges and medical instruments inside their uterus after a c-section (amongst other serious negligence). Do an internet search of iatrogenic mistakes in obstetrics if you would like more info on this topic.
My experience is that there are clueless/careless parents and providers, and informed/ competent parents and providers on both sides of this debate. This debate could go on and on if both sides tried to parade their “specialists” in hopes to convince people of the safety/competence of either side, but that is not necessary. This debate is about parents’ rights and in that the UMA has not sufficiently proven their claims they have absolutely no legitimacy to their argument that parents’ rights should be taken away.
My view of the current bills re: midwifery at the legislature this year is that they should all die.
Thank you for your time and service,
Sincerely
Camille Welker
Note from Tom: The original letter mentioned a specific medical clinic and a specific doctor. With Camille’s permission, the name of the OBGYN was changed to “Dr. X” and the clinic is simply referred to as “a medical clinic” rather than a specific name.
| From: | Lyall Swim |
| To: | Tom |
| Date: | 26 Feb ’08 12:36 |
| Subject: | March Blogger Briefing |
Tom,
I wanted to shoot you an invite to our next blogger briefing:
This is a calendar reminder that we will be hosting the monthly blogger briefing on Wednesday, March 12th at 7:30 here at Sutherland. We will be hearing from LaVarr Webb, president of the Exoro Group and Publisher of UtahPolicy.com. He will be giving his thoughts on the legislative session, winner & losers etc. and will also share some thoughts on new media outlets and their ability to influence policy discussions.
Please let me know if you have names/bloggers that should be added to this group.
Once again, I ask that you shoot me an RSVP so I can plan food and let LaVarr know about how many to expect. I look forward to seeing you in two weeks.
Cheers,
Lyall
Lyall J. Swim
Director of Operations
Sutherland Institute
From Ars Technica:
As a politically and socially conservative state, Utah has been at the forefront of many attempts to keep objectionable material away from the eyes of children. The latest attempt comes in the form of a bill introduced into the state House of Representatives that would give ISPs who block access to objectionable material the equivalent of a “G” movie rating.
HB 407, introduced by Rep. Michael Morley (R), would designate some ISPs as “Community Conscious Internet Providers” if they meet certain criteria. In order to be certified as a CCIP by the Attorney General’s office, an ISP would prohibit its customers by contract from posting pornography or other material that’s harmful to minors. Customers of the G-rated ISP would also be prevented from reaching what the bill refers to as “prohibited material.”
It sounds innocuous enough, but there are some troubling aspects to the legislation as well. ISPs wanting to get the CCIP designation would have to keep track of IP addresses used by their subscribers for at least two years after they were first allocated. In addition, they would be required to cooperate fully with any law enforcement agency seeking to identify one of their customers. CCIPs would also need to respond to anyone complaining about porn or other objectionable content still accessible via its network.
The program may sound family friendly, but there are serious questions as to whether any ISP would want to go through the hassle of being certified and take on the additional expenses necessary to ensure that its subscribers have a completely smut-free experience. This would involve not only blocking pornographic web sites, but possibly access to P2P applications and USENET, both of which contain their fair share of naughtiness. It sounds like a traffic management nightmare, one that ISPs might not want to be a part of. There’s also the matter of facing $10,000 fines each time a naked breast makes it through your filters.
There are also a some legal questions that go hand-in-hand with the CCIP program. Given the poor state of broadband competition in the US, many users are fortunate to have two broadband providers to choose from; some have just one and others none. What happens if the only ISP in town carries a G-rating and you don’t want your IP address held onto for two years?
Another bill introduced into the Utah House earlier this month would require anyone operating a WiFi network to verify the ages of its users. Sponsor Rep. Bradley Daw (R) belatedly realized the problems that his bill could cause, but has yet to amend it as it sits in committee. Utah is also the home of nonprofit CP80 (founded by SCO chairman Ralph Yarro), which wants porn pulled off of port 80 so that it can be filtered more easily. Hopefully, the G-rated ISP initiative will remain nothing more than a bad idea.
Look, if there’s a market for “G-Rated” ISP’s, the services will emerge without the assistance of the State of Utah. Furthermore, it’s the duty of the parent, not the State and not the ISP, to monitor and screen the materials coming into a home. Different families are going to have different standards. The autonomy of the family must be respected. The legislation is a total waste of time because no ISP would be willing to become liable for the choices that its customers make.
-Tom
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_YOOUa_HLk[/youtube]
At first Obama stumbled on this one. After “denouncing” the bigoted comments of Farrakhan, but with holding a “rejection” of the man himself, Hillary Clinton called on Obama to “reject” Farrakhan. At this point, Hillary had the upper hand.
However, Obama employed one of debate’s greatest strategies: the permutation. In simple terms this is when you state that you not only hold your ground, but also can claim the ground and arguments of the opponent. To do this, the two positions cannot be mutually exclusive.
Clinton attempted to draw a contrast by stating that when in a similar situation, she rejected the support of an anti-semitic group. At this point, Obama looked acommodating and even tolerant off Farrakhan’s rhetoric.
Until.
Obama permutated Hillary’s argument and made it his own.
“If the word reject Senator Clinton feels is strong than the word denounce, then I am happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce”.
And suddenly the contrast is wiped away.
-Tom
The Deseret News reports the allegation is being made.
From today’s Salt Lake Tribune:
Senate leaders had known for months about Sen. Chris Buttars’ letter scolding a state judge who ruled against his friend, but let him continue to head the committee that screens judicial appointments until the letter hit the news media.
Senate President John Valentine removed Buttars as chairman of the Senate Judicial Confirmation Commission on Monday, three days after his scathing letter to 4th District Judge Derek Pullan was reported in The Salt Lake Tribune.
Buttars wrote the letter on Senate letterhead in May on behalf of his friend Wendell Gibby, a radiologist and developer who has been in a running clash with the city of Mapleton. In it, Buttars reminded Pullan that, as chairman of the confirmation committee, he had advocated on Pullan’s behalf and was embarrassed by a decision he rendered against Gibby. He accused the judge of “bias” and questioned his integrity.
Pullan entered the letter into the court record. It also came to the attention of the Judicial Council, the panel chaired by Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham that oversees Utah’s courts, which sent the letter to Senate leaders in June.
“We gave the letter to President Valentine for the Senate to deal with internally,” said Richard Schwermer, assistant administrator of the Administrative Office of the Utah Courts. The council did not provide any recommendation with the letter, he said. “If we have issues, we let him know. . . . It was an issue. We let him know about it.”
A spokesman for Valentine said in a statement late Tuesday that Buttars’ letter was a “private expression of disappointment to a judge he helped confirm.”
Until there is acknowledgment or proof that Valentine approved of or was aware of the letter in advance, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. It should also be considered that Gibby has an incentive to come to the defense of the friend that went to bat for him. Just as Buttars accused Pullman of impropriety in an attempt to benefit his friend, so too might Gibby accuse Valentine of impropriety to benefit his friend, Buttars.
-Tom
The Podcast
