Utah’s politics are off the charts when it comes to the weirdo-meter, and this is just the latest installment of the trend.
This is a state where a “good Mormon” politician can take hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Tobacco and no one (his constituents, other state or local politicians) bats an eye, but if the same guy was ever photographed actually SMOKING a cigarette (or drinking a cup of coffee or having a beer) his political career would be over by days end (seriously).
Did the conservative Republican voters of Utah have some kind of obligation to keep Bob Bennett in the Senate forever, even if there were other candidates they liked better? I don’t see why- especially in a state where their nominee is almost certain to win.
But let’s grant the OP’s proposition. Is the OP equally outraged that liberals in Arkansas are trying to unseat incumbent Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln? She has a score of 80 from the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action. Shouldn’t that be plenty good enough, especially in a Southern state? Apparently it ISN’T!
Is the OP equally concerned that the Democrats are self-destructing and “purging” moderates?
I’m sure you made every effort to report this issue correctly and fairly.
So it’s odd that you failed to mention that the law simply provides for the law of criminal homicide to extend to causing the “…death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development.”
Specifically excluded from the reach of the law:
So what conduct do you believe this law would have prohibited that should be allowed, exactly?
I think its a streatch to read that as a criticism of Lee, at least one beyond the fact that he’s very conservative, but I guess elucidator will have to tell us one way or another what he meant.
Well, it isn’t really clear that he would’ve lost a primary had he been allowed to run by the Utah GOP leadership. So I don’t think its obvious that there were other candidates that Utah Republican voters liked better.
Are we reading the same OP? I don’t really detect a lot of outrage there. And what proposition do you think the OP is making?
I don’t exactly see what the big deal is about Bennett. It makes sense that activists in each party would want to nominate people who swing their way as much as possible, to the extent that they can get elected. And since the GOP candidate will almost surely win the Utah Senate race, no matter how far right the GOP nominee is, it makes sense that if Bennett is merely a solid conservative, rather than a what’s-the-color-of-the-sky-in-his-universe conservative, that the party activists would want to replace him with one of the latter.
Similarly with the Dems trying to replace Specter with Sestak in PA, or Lincoln with Halter in AR. Not only are the challengers a notch to the left, but judging by the polls, they’re actually more electable in the fall.
Since there’s been a lot of talk among the media about ‘purges’ in both parties, ISTM that you’re only getting into ‘purge’ territory when a bunch of more moderate nominees are voted out in the primary by the party activists, even though the activists’ candidates are much more likely to lose the general election.
Note the use of the plural: once isn’t evidence of a trend, and it’s often hard to tell, in just one election, just when moving away from the center puts you at greater risk of losing the election. I remember in the run-up to the 1980 Presidential primary season, all the smart money was that the GOP stood its best chance of winning with Howard Baker, George Bush (Sr.) or someone with a similar reputation for moderation, but they’d lose the center, and the election, if they nominated Reagan. And we know how that one turned out.
I object to the law because it’s a ridiculous fucking law. I don’t know if you’re pro-life or pro-choice–given what I know of your politics and background, I’m guessing pro-life. But from where I’m sitting, this is a very alarming development, and a law that only came into being because they needed to find a way to criminalize pregnant women. The person who proposed the legislature isn’t shy about why did it–he wants to restrict abortion in Utah.
As a woman in Utah, this chills me down to my very bones. I’m sure that you and others are probably cheering and agreeing that this is perfectly reasonable. We’re going to have to agree to disagree, because I’m not going to get into a pedantic legal discussion with you Bricker.
I see the big deal as being the nominating structure of the state party. The state party has the power to prevent the people from even voting for a particular candidate, for one thing. For another, a small group of ideologues has the ability to take control of the meeting where those decisions are made. Both problems are hijacks of democracy.
Is there any other state that uses that system? In some, the party leadership plays no role in the nomination process; in others the party can endorse a candidate and give him its support in the primaries; but in no others AFAIK can a candidate rejected by the party leadership not even run as a write-in.
That’s only because of John McCain’s strong primary victories. Romney will probably be able to sweep the non-Southern states and maybe some of the Upper South states.
I think Bob Bennett’s defeat was unfortunate, he seems to have been a constructive and experienced politician. My only hope is that these Tea Party fanatics will not drive out John McCain and other mainline Republicans.
You wouldn’t happen to have an example of someone, a “good Mormon,” whose political career tanked after he got photographed smoking, or drinking a cup of coffee, or having a beer, would you? And since you inserted “(seriously)” in that post, it certainly seems that would rule out hyperbole.