Friday, April 23, 2010

Wright Claims She's More Moderate than Matheson: WTF?

St George Spectrum:

Hoping to wrest the Democratic nomination to represent Utah's 2nd District from Rep. Jim Matheson, Claudia Wright made her first campaign stop in Southern Utah Sunday in search of support and delegates.

"The (Democratic) party will tell you I'm not electable because I'm a progressive," the associate instructor at the University of Utah told an audience at the Painted Pony restaurant. "But I'm closer to a moderate than Matheson."

Her supporters claim that Matheson only votes with the Democrats 40% of the time on "key issues." (Overall Matheson votes with the Democrats 92% of the time, but for kicks and giggles we'll use the 40% number.)

The more moderate candidate would be the candidate closest to 50% (half the time voting with Democrats, half the time voting with Republicans). So, unless she plans to vote with Republicans 41-59% of the time on "key issues," I just don't buy her claim.

Besides, take a look at her web site, there's not a moderate or conservative thing on there.

Speaking to your audience does not mean being dishonest with them. It makes you no better than other politicians.

And that's why it's getting harder and harder to support you.



Anonymous said...

Your post presumes that the political spectrum--left, right, moderate--is determined by the two major parties in their contemporary incarnations. Personally, I don't grant them that privilege or status--I take more of a universal/historical view of the left, right, moderate spectrum. IN America today, both major parties are radically pro-corporate. In that sense, Claudia Wright's politics are more "moderate" because she balances the interest of the masses versus big business more even handedly. If you accept--as Wright does--that most Democrats have abandoned the people in favor of corporate interests, then--and maybe only then--does her comment about being more moderate than Matheson makes more sense.

ash_anderson said...

"Moderate" is a subjective word, and Claudia should have a chance to explain what it means to her before she is accused of being "dishonest". Did you ask her what she meant? I know she would be happy to talk with you anytime.

I also know Claudia, and being honest is at the top of her agenda.

Anonymous said...

Since we have these things called elections, in which someone loses and someone wins, I think it's probably best to use the term "moderate" as it's understood by voting blocs.

In that respect, Claudia is anything "but" moderate.

Know her, and respect her all you like, as do I, nothing changes the fact that she's unelectable in District 2 (shocker for those of us in Salt Lake who think the world revolves around our urban mecca). Those behind her campaign deserve the attacks though, not Claudia, for not taking the primary challenge process seriously enough to seek out a viable candidate, rather than an ideal we all hope for one day, but which is unrealistic today.

One must balance idealism with pragmatism if one hopes to be relevant.

Claudia, for all her commendable bravery, getting the nomination will result in nothing more than Congressman Morgan Philpot. You like the sound of that?

Didn't think so. Matheson deserved a primary, but this one will only push him further to the right. Should've been taken much more seriously than Mr. Anderson and Mr. DeChristopher have done so in this instance.