Turning The Reddest State Blue
Act Blue has agreed to expedite an infrastructure expansion to support fundraising efforts for our state-level democratic legislative races. The $10,000 we need to cover that cost will allow us to raise hundreds of thousands for ’06, 08 races and beyond. We CAN turn Utah blue.
Believe it or not, Utah has seen a strong revitalization of our progressive roots in recent years. The stereotype that all Mormons vote Republican is simply not true either. There is a strong progressive movement within the LDS Church from the top as well as at its core.
Two-term Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is one of the most progressive in the Country. Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon and Howard Dean’s cousin, is young, smart, effective and well loved.
Our State Democratic Party has put together the strongest slate of democratic candidates in recent history. Even Utah Republicans are beginning to leash their right-wing candidates by removing incumbents at convention.
Something is happening in Utah. Between the kind spanking given to the 70% majority republican Utah Senate during floor debate, to the dramatic four-month slide in Bush’s Utah approval rating from 63%-55%, Utah will soon surrender it’s vaulted position as the reddest state in the nation.
Go back to ThankYouStephenColbert.
May 3rd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Cliff, this is a fantastic idea! I only gave $5, but if everybody did…
GO UTAH!
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Bravo, Cliff. Thanks for working with Act Blue. Their service will strongly benefit Democratic candidates in Utah.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:39 am
Excellent idea! Realistic and effective. The normally “red” minds of Utah are ripe for change. The Republican establishment has failed most Utahns and most Republicans. Democracy requires change. Utah must change or it is stuck wallowing in Republican machine corruption. The Cannon-Hatch conglomerate has failed to help regular Utahns. The Republican Congress has failed its duty to check Presidential abuse of power. ACT BLUE is the best idea I’ve seen all year. I support it.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:42 am
The real problem is Matheson.
He was one of the few democratic defectors that approved the sham lobbying reform bill put up by the GOP. We can do better than Matheson in this state.
Jim — You’re on notice.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
The Utah democrat is currently an endangered species. Act blue may be able to bring some revitalization and spawn a few changes in the Utah Democratic Party but Utah’s five electoral votes for president will never swing. Even if Bush’s approval rating drops below 50%, which it hasn’t yet, Bush can’t run again and Utah will pull their small vote in favor of a new Republican president. Until more than 50% of the state changes its conservative, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-environmentalist attitude Utah will remain predominantly republican. Good luck on Act Blue, but it will probably be about as effective as the Baptist Conventions missionary endeavors in Salt Lake City- Highly active and ambitious but ultimately futile.
May 4th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Jeremy, you forgot pro-God and anti-gay. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly!
May 4th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
I saw a Utah Democrat once up at Red Butte Garden, but the sun was in my eyes.
May 5th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Has it occured to anyone that both Hunstman and Shurtleff are by any measure of their policies and actions, progressives? Good democrats don’t care as much about labels as they do values.
Jeremy and The Heretik seem more interested in labels than issues. That’s fine. While we run democrats disguised as republicans, you guys can keep telling yourselves there are no democrats in Utah.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Governor Huntsman and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff are going all out to thwart wilderness designation in Utah. They are using our tax money to partner with rural counties and litigate rights of way for old jeep trails across our public lands. This is largely a secret project– just try and get a map of the right of way claims! Not my idea of a progressive policy.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Richard raises a good point. At the same time, however, opposition to RS2477 claims in rural Utah may well have been the death-knell for Huntsman’s candidacy. Rural Utahns are rabid about these claims - which cover not only old and unused Jeep trials, but trails merely reportedly used decades ago by horses, etc. Regardless, imagine if Marty Stevens had been elected governor! God help us.
May 6th, 2006 at 4:35 am
I fear that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” Jim Matheson has never voted to install the Republican do-nothing leadership that has done almost nothing to investigate Bush and the evil Republican machine. Name an elected Utah politician who is more firmly against nuke waste in Utah. Before we Swiftboat members of our progressive movement, let’s focus our efforts first on the Republican corruption and incompetence that is killing all we hold dear. Matheson and other moderate Dems are united with liberal Dems and other progressives on the need for competent, ethical government AND wilderness protection. The Bush-Rove method is to promote incompetent, corrupt government as a self-fulfilling prophecy that government is bad. I voted for Nader (a good government purist) for various reasons but not because I expected him to win. Where your vote and support in Utah matter more, as in Congressional races, it is basic poli-sci that we must hang together or hang separately. Huntsman and Shurtliff, much to my surprise, are more moderate and even progressive than most other Republicans. They will not easily lose their base support, though, because Republicans currently have a more effective and loyal machine than the progressive movement. The evil of wilderness denigration is not the bread and butter issue that consistently captures the attention nor imagination of moderate, swing voters on both sides. Yet it is moderates (see the Udall family, Wayne Owens and others like Teddy Roosevelt a hundred years ago) that have done more for wilderness protection than all the Naderites and other purists combined. We need moderates, moderates need the support of purists. With the exception of the Lieberman case and the case of the crazy former Georgia Senator Zell-ous Miller, let’s not divide ourselves unnecessarily with purity until we have gained some modicum of official power.
May 7th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Jeremy, Why such pessimism? Polls don’t predict elections, especially local and mid-term ones - voters do. Any republican anywhere in this state can be beat given the proper tools.
We’ve got more great candidates than ever before. Example http://www.votenewby.org to name one.
http://oneutah.org/2006/03/22/why-most-utahns-are-democrats-and-just-dont-know-it-yet
Who will you work for?
May 8th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I can see how a person might view my remarks as pessimistic and label-oriented. Nevertheless, my statements are true. It’s not pessimism, it’s realism. In regard to labels; issues have labels. Gun control, law enforcement, and environmental utilization are all issues. Unfortunately, issues are not the real standard for election; public opinion is. Which is more important the price of health care or the price of gas? Which gets more attention? It doesn’t matter what the issues are, all that matters is what people think the issues are. In that regard, Polls predict everything! Polls reflect the publics’ views. The public’s views determine how they will vote. Whether you agree with the republican or democratic view- that his how you will vote. Act Blue is trying to get people to agree with the democratic view. If they succeed or not will be determined in the polls.
That said- I wish that it could be about issues and REALLY be about issues. Not about the democratic candidate or the republican candidate, but about the ISSUES! Who will do the best job? NOT which party will have more power. I don’t support parties. I support qualified candidates regardless of political party. I believe the two party system is tearing us apart- as communities and as a nation. I don’t support Act Blue because I don’t support parties. If you want to donate, donate to a worthy candidate not to a political party. Perhaps then, rather than focusing on parties, we can focus on issues.
May 8th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Bravo Jeremy, bravo. It’s too bad something like this was placed on this blog and not in a forum where people will actually listen to what you say. None-the-less, I tip my hat to you.
All to often people confuse thought like yours to people who wont take a stand on issues. The first thing I do is ask the candidate why are you running, if the statement opens with to get those ——– (insert Party name here), I tend to get turned off right away. I have worked with both Democratic and Republican candidates over the years, I can tell you that it didn’t matter what inital was behind their name, they all stood in the right place.
James
May 8th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Bravo Jeremy and James! Your righteous niavete is refreshing. Unfortunatley politics has nothing to do with policy. Good governance requires balance.
Cliff nailed it. As long as special interest are driving campaigns you will never get accountability on a large enough scale to overcome party politics.
ActBlue is nothing more than a fundraising mechanism that enables the little guy to get back in the game without getting off the couch. Jeremy, your righteous, misinformed, stubborness gets you nowhere except the label of former Bush supporter and current appologist for not being able to take a stand.
Nevertheless, I congratulate you both for getting and staying in the game.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:34 am
#1 I was complimenting Jeremy for the courage to look beyond party politics and look at the candidates and issues that would benefit a community, not divide it. Your arrogance is annoying and you should spend a little more time reading the post than just skimming to hurry up and write you blathering.
ActBlue is a special interest, their special interest is electing Democrats, and that supports the idea that special interest drives a campaign. However, you can find places in this country where you can have a legitimate candidate run for office, with the right support and direction, can actually win. Then the next challenge is keeping the candidate focused on issues and tries to make an impact.
And yes you can sway special interest, incumbents and move issues center stage in an election cycle. To help you to see I will lay out the following example:
You can work with several candidates in different districts, and *maybe* different parties. Now for the candidates that are in a race that they can’t win, they focus on the one issue. So on election night, if they pull within a percentage not done before against the incumbent, you better believe that incumbent will pay attention to that issue.
If you have multiple candidates running on similar issues, the other side will take notice, for those that win; they will bring that issue to the floor. Now this issue that is important to the people in one or two election cycles has become center stage.
Utah and many other states fall victim to party thinking, you can’t win that seat so let’s spend our time elsewhere. Even if you can’t actually win that seat to office, you can win by bringing important issues to the public and smack the other side across the head to pay attention.
Jeremy is idealistic and I applaud that, maybe one day he will become as frustrated and hopeless as you James Too, but for now he isn’t and it takes courage to stand up and say so. This is why I pointed out and said too bad it was wasted here on this bathroom wall.
#2 I don’t need any congrats from you for anything, I help because I can, and I am very good at what I do, I am not in it for the acknowledgement.
May 9th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
By “special interests” I meant the ones that fund the bulk of campaigns on both sides of the aisle - such as energy, transportation, pharma, insurance, banking, telecommunications etc.
ActBlue hardly falls into that category, nor do they contribute one dime to any candidates. I wonder if you really understand the concept other than to reject it, because the idea of supporting democrats for party affiliation alone sends shiver through your basically republican bones.
It’s fairly obvious. If you never supported Bush in the first place, if you hadn’t, you would be mad as hell. Instead you accuse me of being a divider. That concept didn’t exist with respect to community before Bush came along. He is the divider. He is the one who gave Republicans permission to condemn people based upon party alone, and let it transcend communities and families. You just don’t like it because it turns out, you’re not as mean as you have to be to be a repubublican these days.
Yeah, its true I’ll take almost any democrat over a republican because they have proven to be total sell-outs as a party. They let Bush destroy this country and on the state level, they emulated the fear mongering with hate-filled legislation.
Bigotry is alive and well in the republican party. If I were wrong, you could point to one republican who supports gay-rights and a woman’s right to choose. But you can’t, because in order to be a republican today you MUST follow the mantra.
Please spare me your thinly veiled apologetics. Independent thinking means standing up against unitary executive, the trashing of the 1st and 4th amendment, a 37% increase in the national debt, giving the pharms and oil companies permission to rip off everybody, and lying to congress and the American people.
Its awfully cute that you and Jeremey can transcend party affiliation, but your argument is hypocritical because the candidates you support did pick their party.
If you want any credibility, waste your time, and support independent candidates.
Thank for letting me vent. Please don’t take it personally. This is nothing more than my anger towards the voters who refused to listen when we warned them about this administration, and won’t appologize to those of us who knew better, and our kids and soldiers and families who and have to suffer the consequences of this evil administration.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Isn’t it funny, within two posts you think you know me, and think you can place me accurately in some little box
Divider? I’m sorry, but I think Divider has been around a long time, lets go back to before the Civil War, there was a president that divided this country then, and what about Hoover, I would think it is safe to say he was a divider.
You response to Jeremy, you don’t think that was a divider? This guy made a comment about his opinion and you tried to make fun of him, belittle him and humiliate him. How is that going to get someone like him to unit to your cause?
The Republican Party and the Democrat Party are equally corrupt, and equally full of short comings, both have racists as you describe, both get drunk on power. However, in each party are good people trying to do good things, and I will always help those, I wont discriminate a good soul because they had to choose a team to play the game. Its not about cute, its about working to make this community a better place, and to show people who could make a difference how to do so.
When you vent like that, or when Leaders in the Democrat Party Vent like that, do you really think its going to attract a large amount of voters, or the Solid D’s? Republicans may be unhappy with the policies of the Bush administration and its direction, or its weak attempt to court support by “shaking up the white house”, becoming a big government Republican, but a Republican isn’t going to switch and vote for a Democrat candidate for President in 2008 as a result. They will vote for another Republican, don’t get these low approval ratings mixed up, Republicans are upset at Bush, but will stay loyal to their party. It couldn’t be done in 2004, the only difference you could see between Kerry and Bush was that one was a Republican and the other was a Democrat.
If you trying to appeal to the moderate middle, it will take more than a campaign slogan, “Republicans are evil, Democrats are less evil.â€
April 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
“Progressive” does not mean better.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Why not move to San Francisco? Perhaps you would feel more at home and could save campaign money?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:32 am
How ironic that one called “Thinker” should reflect a posture more closely associated with tribal instinct that the classic interpretation of the idea of thought.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
sell life insurance policy…
Hi. Very nice blog. I’ve been reading your other entries all day long..lol….
August 21st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Florida Life Insurance…
Insight is difficult. It’s always easier to stand outside the box and critisize then stand in it and remember what to do….