Webster defines hypocrite as 1. A person who pretends to have a moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., he does hot actually possess. 2. A person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude. I give you Newt Gingrich. The former Speaker of the House of Representatives this past week has publicly stated that at the same time he was leading the Republican charge to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about the President’s involvement with a woman outside of his marriage, he himself was at the time involved with a woman outside of his marriage. Do you think charges of lying about his digression would have followed Newt, (I just love that name) had a special prosecutor looking into his affairs spent $100 million dollars doing so? It appears Newt has accomplished this feat twice as evidenced by his third wife, twenty years his junior and his public statements. As if testing the waters of wrath that might befall upon him from the far right Evangelic Christians towards a possible presidential campaign, Newt made his announcement. I say, “Come on down.”
The use of the word “whore” implies the act of doing something for money or gratuity. “Payback” implies a similar set of acts. “Spineless” implies a lack of character or personal deficiencies of ethics or integrity. I give you Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. The governor's spineless non-action of allowing Energy Solution’s bill to become law without his signature is matched only by his whorish and payback actions of signing the bills which targets the Gay Straight Alliance Clubs at our high schools and the one which allowed the government vouchers for private schools. I don’t think a governor by the name of Matheson or his son, Scott Jr., as governor would have committed any of these cowardly acts.
This brings me to Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives Greg Curtis. Is the Salt Lake City Tribune Sunday headline of “Friends of Curtis fare well with ‘07 bills” a ringing endorsement of the “good old boy network” or “the beholding to special interests” of the Utah legislature? Or is it a searing indictment of an abuse of power for the enrichment of a select few? Think about that as you read the article in the Tribune. Even the authors of the Tribune article acknowledge the re-election of Curtis by a mere 20 votes. I suggest the formulation of the committee to find 21 more votes against him in the next election. Or how about the committee to find the 11 folks who voted for him in the last election who have had enough of his votes for abuses of power and will now vote against him in the next election. How about considering these names for the committees, The Magnificent Eleven or The Knights of the Twenty-One? If I were the speaker I would be extremely aware of the tenuous nature of my power. A small grassroots group could have a major impact on Utah politics and negate one of the largest campaign expenditures of the last state elections. Food for thought?
What are you going to do with your vote in the next election? Are you going to go to the polls this time or keep making excuses about your vote not counting?
3 comments:
Just to balance this one-sided onslaught...
Speaker Curtis did more for every single democrat in the House of Representatives (and Senate for that matter) than they even attempted doing for themselves.
Democrats in Utah (and I was always been tempted to join their ranks until seeing firsthand their performance in the Legislature) have no power because they don't try, not because the conservative forces in the state stifle them with their "good old boy network" and special interests. So before we target them personally with generally false criticisms, lets at least attempt to outwork them.
Some where out there someone read and respoonded to Votes Count. I'm agree, I'm mostly one sided. That's mainly because what I see from the other side generally upsets my sense of fair play and ethical behavior.
I am curious though, how did Speaker Curtis do more for the Democrats than they did for themselves?
I generally use the local television news coverage and the Salt Lake Tribune for the basis of my comments regarding the happenings in the state. If they, the Trib and TV news guys, are in error then some of my comments may be skewed.
This is how I'm working the playing field. This is how I'm attempting to have conversations with members of both sides of the isle. I'm hoping to influence those eleven votes in some manner.
Your comment implies a possible yearning for liberalism, yet I get the impression you wear a red jersey. As Chris Cannon and Rob Bishop both bemoan their lack of influence in the US Congress in today's Tribune, how would you suggest Utah's Democrats go about trying harder to gain more power? Is power the real brass ring? I was under the impression that representation of the people within the constrains of the constitution was the true goal of our system of government.
I'm glad we had this chat.
I don't know if using the local TV guys as a source of info is such a good idea. I hear those TV stations will hire just about anyone :-)
Post a Comment