I'm not the only one "not pissed off!"

Seems like I really struck a nerve with several people by writing yesterday's blog post.

Rob Miller and Craig Axford both wrote excellent comments in rebuttal, which deserve their own posts in reply. I'll get to those in a bit (and by bit, I mean within the next few days. In the meantime, click here to read them.

Last night, I spoke to two Democratic office holders while at work. One of the conversations had nothing to do with the post. The other one did. Said office holder wanted to remain ff the record as they ranted about their beefs with party leadership, including some of those I brought up. I asked this person to send me an email that I can post anonymously on the blog. They were non-committal, but one can hope, can't we?

And, that's not the only one. From the comments:

Robin said...

I think you and Jason at the Sidetrack are both brave for saying what you said, and so are many others being ignored by the party. I've felt for many years now that as Democrats we are fighting such an uphill battle in this state against the misinformation and bs coming from overly confident Republicans that we hesitate to criticize our party leaders for fear the possible media attention will cost us elections. But we're not winning elections. We are attracting candidates, and we don't have even 1/10th the outreach and online engaging presence of other D parties in equally as red of states. Our leaders have shown us they have no vision, and it's a shame anyone would try to silence your criticism with an anonymous comment rather than take what's being said to heart, and heaven forbid try something new in response.

Holland had/has potential, but the resistance to vision he's shown is trickling down to other party leaders, dilluting even their own vision. We're dead in the water with him at the helm.

There, I said it.

craig41 said...

bob, you're right, it's frustrating, embarrassing, off pissing, and all in all puzzling. anonymous on the last post was confused, and i think their prejudice is causing them to miss the point. either that or they can't read election results.

the party has a long way to go in this state, and ideas need to come from either those in the state office, or anyone else that has them. but right now we're running around like a basketball team down big late in the game, looking for someone to foul. it's time to get back in the game, and saying that we should all look good losing isn't really that inspiring, nor is it a plan to do anything other than lose, hopefully looking good while doing so.

Voice of Utah said...

While we're venting, my pet peeve is when Democratic legislators agree to carry the water for the GOP on bills that (rightfully) would be viewed as self-serving if sponsored by a Republican legislator (e.g., Brent Goodfellow, Gene Davis). That is one reason why I have quit donating to the Democratic party, and only donate to individual candidates.

David said...

[...] It's time to be realistic about how little ground we've gained, and at least explore the possibility that it wasn't a pre-destined certainty, but rather the result of poor leadership. Maybe the party wouldn't be so understaffed and underfunded if they had won on any issue (other than vouchers, which was a collective win, not driven by the party) in the past few years? [...]

And, from Jason at the Side Track:

In summer 2008 I visited the office to pitch an event idea, which I was willing to volunteer my time for, if accepted. I suggested, in a friendly tone, that maybe, just perhaps, as a mere idea to be considered, we don't treat 2008 as just business as usual. Host a few unique events for candidates to interact with the public, get some grassroots fundraising going. I was met with a glare, and a declarative statement that we had the Eleanor Roosevelt event coming up, and that would be the end of the conversation. We're underfunded underdogs, they tell me. True enough. But underfunded underdogs are making gains in Colorado, Wyoming, and Idaho. What are they doing that we aren't? My guess is they're actually fighting back with more than push polls, attempts to buy moderate Republicans as candidates, disenfranchised candidates who feel ignored by the party, and thinly veiled attempts to co-opt religion for electoral gain. Aren't we supposed to be different from Republicans, not following their lead?

In the spring of 2008, I criticized the lack of creativity going into the party convention, as I watched Mr. Cantrell and volunteers turn the Republican convention into a very impressive online extravaganza -- one which even my fellow Cache Valley politico's could be a part of through streaming video and frequent web updates to a dedicated page. Rob Miller called me out (to his credit) on my criticism, and handed me the video from the Democrat's convention to cut up / upload to youtube. While getting the video, I spoke to Mr. Holland about how behind we were compared to Colorado, and even Idaho's party efforts in using online resources to reach out (a factor I don't think is unrelated to the fact both states saw Democrat gains in 2008, while we lost ground) and engage the public with candidates. Mr. Holland challenged me to pitch him a "business plan" that he could use to "sell" to large donors. I never did. How can you explain to someone the importance of something so vague and unpredictable that you see working in neighboring states -- across the nation, in fact -- if they aren't seeing it themselves. So instead, we got a large donor and "Utah Common Values." Never heard of it? I'm not surprised.

Go read all of Jason's post. It's a must read.

-Bob

Am I Pissed Off At Party Leadership? I Don't Think "Pissed Off" Is the term I'd use.....

My dear friend Anonymous left a comment on an earlier post:

Bob, you've been pissed off at party leadership for some time now and I think your prejudice has missed the point here.

But, before I get to the main point of the comment, I just want to share a few things about the comment:

1) Anonymous could be anyone. Wayne Holland, Todd Taylor, Tracy Van Wagoner, Rob Miller.... Heck, it could even be Paul Mero trying to rile me up. I doubt it's Paul, and I also have my doubts it's Todd or Rob.

2) Most of the post was cribbed from another blog. So, it wasn't just my prejudice.

However, let's get down to the nitty gritty of this post. I've been accused of being "pissed off" at party leadership.

"Pissed off" is not the term I'd use.

Frustrated and Disappointed are the words I'd use.

Frustrated and disappointed at the deafening silence on local issues during the legislative session. This despite the blacklisting for the first third of the session of any bill coming from a prominent Democratic Representative.

Frustrated and disappointed at the deafening silence when our Democratic Legislators took on legislation that promoted Common Values of love and compassion supported by the majority of Utahns. Legislation that the only statements made by the LDS Church were in support of the issue. Yet nothing from party leadership. We heard a lot from Republicans opposed to the issue.

Frustrated and disappointed at the deafening silence when our legislature, despite overwhelming support from the citizens of Utah, failed to pass meaningful ethics reform. And the small ethics reform that were passed, Republicans are claiming victory for.

And don't get me started on liquor reform.

Frustrated and disappointed at celebrating failure. Sure, we had a net gain of two members of the House. But our goal was 4. And in the process, we lost a part of the state we've held since statehood. And, there was statistically insignificant gain in Democratic voters statewide from 2004-2008. In fact, if you take away Barack Obama, there was a decline. And this with spending the most money ever.

Frustrated and disappointed with a party leadership that, until a month or so ago, treated the Internet like it was 1999. And still doesn't quite know what to do with it.

Frustrated and disappointed with a party leadership that uses Rovian tactics when challenged (take push polling, for instance).

Frustrated and disappointed with a party leadership that uses faith as a stepping stool for political gain, yet discredits many people of faith. (Note: I want to clarify that while I worked for the party, my faith was never challenged.)

And, as a personal note to anonymous, if you really want to see me "go after" the party, I will. I have pulled so many punches over the last 18 months or so, it sickens me....

-Bob

Validation -- SMILE!

H/t: My friend Adam, who is awesome!



P.S. I Think you're great!

UPDATE: Leno's Utah GOP News came from Utah blogger

Yesterday, I posted video of Jay Leno reading a piece from a Utah Newspaper referring to Senator Buttars as "some guy who had some problem with the way he said something."

I knew I had read it somewhere, but I couldn't remember where.

Lucky for me, Joe over a Sausage Grinder outed himself. His Defense:

IN MY DEFENSE, IN MY BUTTARSISSUEDIEDIEDIE DEFENSE, it was originally posted here on this very blog.

Right here.

It made perfect sense in the context of anyone following the Grinder, but the transition to trees ground up, pulped, bleached and flattened then put into large rolls and run through a large metal contraption covered in ink certainly made for some great Leno.

And that, Joe, is why you should never try to kill off a story about Senator Buttars. Just when you think he's dead, it just comes back to bite you again.....

Utah's Hottest Politician

Warchol:

Lesbian lawmaker Rep. Christine Johnson has been crowned (is that the right verb?) one of the nation's "SexyPants" elected officials by the blog Queerty. She was the only female to get the title:

Honestly, our search for sexy lesbian politicians mainly taught us that the most electable lesbians seem to prefer grandma glasses and perms, but Johnson's a refreshing exception — still pleasantly dykey (short hair), while also electably ladylike (matching jewelry!)

.

I will readily admit that I have had a crush on Rep Johnson for a few years now. There, I said it. However, it's not just her looks:

Johnson told QSaltLake magazine that she was flattered and embarrassed by the title and would have rather been honored for her intellect.

I'll take her intellect over that of anyone else on the hill.

The looks and the brain: Utah's hottest Legislator, regardless of sexual orientation.

Utah Democrats to candidates: "You'll lose, but run anyway"

From the Tribune:

Friday's visit marks the Progressive Majority's first session in Utah.

The organization got its start in 1999 as a federal political action committee and mushroomed to where the political network now staffs offices in Washington D.C. and eight states.

According to www.progressivemajority.org, it backs candidates who stand for economic justice, civil rights, affordable health care, quality public education, protecting the environment and reproductive freedom.

"[Progressive Majority] focused on battleground states in the past," says Utah Democrat Tracy Van Wagoner. "This year they're expanding."

The focus, Van Wagoner says, is to get progress-minded candidates contending for nonpartisan school board and city council slots.

"Of course, we're looking for legislative and state candidates as well," she adds.

Holland cautions that new candidates should view their maiden run for office as an apprenticeship.

Van Wagoner agrees.

"It's the eyes you're opening, even if you don't win," she says, "to tell people they have a choice."

Voters acquired in the first round become a candidate's base for the next run.

And Jason over at the SideTrack, sums it up best:

This may be a fact, and it may be good advice for potential candidates to keep in mind, but if you're not saying anything else, you're not going to get those potential candidates. This is something to tack on to your message, sure. A message that shows you have a plan (something a bit more than "Common Values" perhaps?). But when voters and those thinking about candidacy -- who have heard nothing from you in months -- read this, you drive them away with the implied lack of vision or plan for the more immediate future. You've got to say more, more often.

Bad form, Mr. Holland/Ms. Van Wagoner. I'm sure Progressive Majority (an organization to be admired) feels their efforts here now are well worth their time and expense.

Overall, I think it's about damn time we get some real leadership from 455 South 300 East.

Jay Leno Reads Utah GOP News

How the Utah Republican Party wants you to remember the Chris Buttars affair:

Comment on Gallivan Center Redesign Moday!

Press Release From the inbox:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 23, 2009
Contact: Jill Wilkerson-Smith
801-535-7243

Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City to Hold Public Design
Workshop for Gallivan Center Renovation Project

Salt Lake City – The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Gallivan Utah Center will host a design open house for the renovation of the Gallivan Center . The public is invited to attend a presentation regarding the current design, gather information about the project, and offer comments or suggestions for new design ideas. At the beginning of the meeting, which starts at 6:00 p.m., the RDA will give a history of the project to date, after which a work session will be held with picture boards, sketching tools, and other comment materials for the public.

WHO: Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and The Gallivan Utah Center

WHAT: Public Design Workshop for the Gallivan Center Renovation Project

WHERE: Gallivan Utah Center Stage
50 East 200 South
Salt Lake City , Utah

WHEN: Monday, March 30, 2009
6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

For pictures and more information about the redesign, click here.

Tech Support

Why I Hate Twitter in 4.45 Minutes.

March Madness: I'm Dead Last, most manly

KVNU is hosting a March Madness Pool. Of the 70 people who submitted brackets, I'm in 70th place.

Given that women with no basketball knowledge do the est at these things, that makes me the most manliest person, right?

-Bob

My Take On Big Love

Back before Comcast robbed me of HBO, I loved watching Big Love. The only time I've missed HBO has been when Big Love was on.

But I haven't really wanted to see it. Until this week.

Because I wanted to see for myself what the uproar was over.

I watched it illegally on YouTube. And, frankly, the uproar was misdirected.

After all, as LDS Scholar Hugh Nibley said (H/T KVNUftp):

“Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is… No matter what happens, it will, then, always remain secret: only I know exactly the weight and force of the covenants I have made - I and the Lord with whom I have made them - unless I choose to reveal them. If I do not, then they are secret and sacred no matter what others may say or do. Anyone who would reveal these things has not understood them, and therefore that person has not given them away. You cannot reveal what you do not know!” (The Temple and the Cosmos, p. 64)

One thing that killed me was how many people made it sound like the full Endowment Ceremony was going to be portrayed. In fact, only a small portion was shown.

And, there were two glaring mistakes. I won't mention what they were, but they were obvious.

And, the Temple wasn't the only secret thing portrayed. In the end of the episode, the head wife gets excommunicated from the LDS Church. I'm not sure how accurate the proceedings were to reality, but I'm sure you can't find that on YouTube like you can the Temple ceremony.

And, it should clear up any rumors that they are trying to paint mainstream Mormons as polygamists.

But what should really trouble us was something the LDS Church pointed out in their press release:

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creators and HBO executives assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons. However, Internet references to Big Love indicate that more and more Mormon themes are now being woven into the show and that the characters are often unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous.

And the problem isn't that they are portraying tus that way. It's the Mormons who are portraying themselves as unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous.

I'm talking to you, Gayle Ruzika. Chris Buttars. Paul Mero.

I'm guilty of it, too, on occasion.

However, it's usually what my non-LDS friends mean when they tell me I'm not like other Mormons they know.

As a missionary, I was always nervous when someone informed me they once lived next to/worked with/knew a Mormon. Was the person they knew a "good guy" or narrow and self-righteous?

And, I think City Weekly hit it on the head a few weeks ago with their cover story:

Utah is bisected along religious, cultural and ethnic lines. But Utah doesn’t like to show its two faces. Every effort is made to wear just a good face for our visitors, to smile for the cameras, to promote our wholesomeness and to otherwise let the world know that Utah is normal. Except it isn’t. And it’s getting worse.

The death of former LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley marked a transitory time in Utah’s perception of itself and of its residents’ willingness to cooperate with one another. Beloved on one side and highly regarded on the other, Hinckley may have been the last finger in the dike, holding back what is becoming a bloodbath of ill will toward each side of Utah’s cultural divide. Since Hinckley's death in late January 2008, a slew of angry influentials have grown so powerful and outspoken that, to persons outside the LDS faith, they appear not only to speak for the LDS faith but are tacitly allowed to do so.

Thus, to non-Mormons and outsiders, state Sen. Chris Buttars—who frequently cites LDS scripture—is the face of Mormonism, not current LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson. We can’t imagine this is a good thing. Nor can a growing number of formerly silent Mormons. If people like Buttars—and his hatemates on Capitol Hill—are ever to change or decline in influence, that change will have to come from pressures within the Mormon community itself.

March Madness Extends to 4,096 Teams

Ron Paul Explains Earmarks

Livin in the 801

Can Twitter Blow Up Your Computer?

Follow Me On Twitter, if your aren't already.

-Bob

Part Zero - Hate

You have probably noticed that, with the exception of a post about Holly Mullen leaving City Weekly, I have not posted for nearly three weeks.

Part of that had to do with the passing of Larry H Miller. It hit me harder than I thought it should. It also added about 20 hours to an already busy week (I work for LHM Group).

Another reason for the absence is the fact that I've been sick for about 10 days. People keep telling me to go to the doctor, but I just can't afford that right now.

And I'll admit laziness played a part in me not posting.

But a big part of the reason for my absence is what made me threaten to quit politics back in October. And it's the thing I want to discuss in a new series of posts.

Hate.

Hate is a two way street, but I am only choosing to focus on one side of that street.

Why?

Because I can live with people hating my religion. I figure it's gone on for 180 years or so, and it will go on for 180 more, and probably 180 more after that. Plus, I know that those people fall into two categories. The first group is the so-called Christians who profess that Mormons are going to Hell. I'm OK with this group, since I know they are going to Hell, and the Mormon concept of Hell is much nicer than the Christian concept of Hell, so we're all better off.

The second group is the people who hate the Church because of it's actions. However, most of the time (there are exceptions), rather than the actions of the Church, it's the actions of members of the Church who try to out-church the Church. I'm not going to name any names today, because I don't need to. You've probably shouted them at your monitor already. If you are stumped, just say your own name.

It's this second group that I want to address in this series. I'm not sure how long it will take me to write these posts. I do know that the length of the posts will vary. Some will be a few sentences. Others wil be small novels.

This is tentative list of the posts I will write:

Part One: What I Believe
Part Two: The Questioning of My Faith
Part Three: Their Words are Near to Me....
Part Four: Brokeback Miller
Part Five: Wo be unto the liar....
Part Six: Amen to the Priesthood of that Man....