Last Night's Utah GOP Caucus

Sen. Hatch can turn that frown upside-down after last night's results.

Here's what I saw at our meeting in Orem last night.

Every time I go to the GOP caucus, our turnout is larger than expected.  The first one I went to in this area in 2004, we had maybe 20 people.  By 2010, we were up to 80.  Last night, OR28 had 171 credentialled voters show up.

Now I'd planned on running for something, but my wife couldn't come, and my sister had to leave before we got to real voting, and some of my neighbors left... It started at 7:00pm but it was almost 9:00pm by the time we elected our precinct chair.

We had five people run for precinct chair.  Three of the five were vociferous Orrin Hatch supporters, and I'd say about two-thirds of the people in the room were that.  When it came to question time, the only thing the people seemed to want to know was if they'd support Orrin Hatch for a seventh term and if they're affiliated with anyone.  The affliliation question was really about FreedomWorks, which has been running a lot of "Retire Orrin Hatch" ads.  (Personally I don't care for FreedomWorks.)

Pro-Hatch candidates won Chair and Vice-Chair.  I went ahead and ran for Vice-Chair.  I didn't expect to win it, but some of the people who were going to vote for me for State Delegate left.  Then came the election for Secretary/Treasurer.  We had 13 run for State Delegate, including me, and I was one of the lower vote-getters.  I get the feeling if I'd been pro-Hatch, I would have done better, and there were some candidates who softened their "Retire Hatch" stances.  I did say we're representing you, not ordering you, so if the vast majority in this precinct wants Hatch, I'd vote for Hatch.

I believe 10 ran for County Delegate, and I got in on first ballot.

I've been hearing similar stories from all across Utah.  Caucus attendance doubled what it did in 2010, and those extra people were all for Hatch.  Before last night, I would have though for sure Hatch would face a primary run-off, but considering how many state delegates won their election on a "Keep Hatch in Power" platform, I don't think it'll come down to that anymore.

So why such an attendance jump?  Well, there was very good publicity for caucus night.  It's a presidential election year, so people are excited to support Mitt Romney.  It's a Senate race year, and in 2010, Bob Bennett and his supporters were shocked he didn't even make it out of convention.  Orrin Hatch has spent the past two years planning for last night.  Last night was more important for his campaign than the convention, the primary, or election night.  Whoever the Republican nominee is for Senate in Utah can usually pencil in 63% of the vote, and everything after that is a signal as to how strong a candidate he is.

I was not an "Anybody But Hatch" guy, but the past few months made it difficult to remain that way.  I've liked what I heard from Dan Liljenquist, and I hear good things about Chris Herrod, and so I've been able to embrace more and more that we'd have a good candidate with whom to replace Hatch.  Hatch's support for the NDAA and SOPA/PIPA and extending the Patriot Act have just been signals to me how he's okay to nickel-and-dime away freedom, add some more guilty-until-proven-innocent laws to the books.

Also when he originally ran for Senator in 1976, he said abouty his three-term incumbent opponent, "What do you call a Senator who's served for 18 years?  You call him home."  Now he wants to extend his 36 years of service to 42 years.  Hm.

In 2010, it was about the Tea Party.

In 2012, when I was at the rec center this morning, I overheard two old men talking.

One: "The Republican Party has to watch out for that Tea Party. I'd never go to one of their rallies."

Two: "They want to get rid of taxes.  We're $17 trillion in debt! How we going to pay that off with no taxes?"

After last night, I also wonder if they're going to draw up smaller precincts.  With that type of participation, it's something for the Party heads to think about.

BUT!.....

My focus now is on being the most informed county delegate I can be.  Between now and April 14, I'm going to go to my meetings, read the campaign literature, talk to as many people running as I can.

Romney wins Hawaii...

... but the real headlines will be about Mitt Romney coming in third in Alabama and Mississippi.  Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich drawled their best while the cheesy grits fan knew if the money was even, he'd get blown out of the water.  Ironically, Romney may wind up getting more delegates than Santorum from last night.

Now I caught part of Newt Gingrich's "concession" speech, where he spun it as victory and bashed Romney.  It's clear that Gingrich hates Romney, and he can't hide it.  He flaunts his spite.  He also revealed why he will not drop out.  Sure, if he did drop out, maybe the ultraconservative base flocks around Santorum, but say only 70% of them go to Santorum and the rest go to Romney.  At the pace the states are going, Romney could still get to that magical 1144 number.

But if Newt stays in, he vacuums up delegates.  Not as much as Romney or Santorum, but it's enough to possibly keep Mitt from getting 1144.  He's going all in on getting to a brokered convention.  Naturally he's delusional to think if it got to such a point, that the Republican delegates would pick him.  And I do think part of him believes that, but there's nothing more important to Newt than to make sure Mitt Romney is not the GOP nominee.

If Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum somehow wind up with the nomination, I wouldn't vote for them.

Game Change: HBO stands for Help Barack Obama

Game Change debuted on HBO today.  I currently don't have HBO; I'll probably get it for a month so I can watch Season 2 of Game of Thrones, and in that time I may catch Game Change.

I emphasize once again: I loved the book Game Change.  John Heilemann & Mark Halperin's book about the 2008 presidential election was wild and trashy and suspenseful, even though we all knew the outcome.  I was thrilled when HBO announced they were going to make a movie out of it.  While HBO's political movies tend to make Democrats the heroes and Republicans the villains, Game Change was bipartisan excitement, and two-thirds of it would be about the fascinating trio of frontrunner Hillary Clinton, fresh blood Barack Obama, and delusional sociopath John Edwards.

Alas, HBO has revealed itself as Obama's own SuperPAC by cutting all of that out of the movie.  HBO, aka Help Barack Obama, elected to make Sarah Palin the main character, even though she is at best the fifth most prominent character from the book.  I would venture this was a calculated move by HBO, as they guessed Palin would be running for president and this would come out at a good time to weaken her in the primaries, remind people of all her flaws.

I don't care if they say it's a fair take, or it's accurate.  I am fine with them making the McCain-Palin part of the story a two-hour movie. But it bothers me to no end that they didn't tell the other four hours.  It should have been a miniseries.  If they needed to trim it down to two hours then it should have been trimmed down to its main plot:  Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama.

What can I say about HBO, or Heilemann & Halperin, or writer Danny Strong, or director Jay Roach?  It was cowardly, lazy, calculated and craven to give it the title of Game Change and then only tell the Palin story.  It's a bunch of Democrats washing away all the sins on their side to rehash the sins of the Republicans.  Of course it's politically motivated.  Of course it's partisan.

I'm no Palin fan.  I'm relieved she's not running for President.  But I deeply resent what HBO did with a book I enjoyed, and I deeply resent the authors for selling their souls and letting it happen.  If they make Game Change II and tell the rest of the story, maybe that'll be okay.  But I guarantee it wouldn't come out before November 2012.

Here's Byron York's take on the real bias of Game Change.

Stop Joseph Kony 2012

I was Viewer #65,969,792. I really hope this works. I would love to see a movement like this succeed.

CNN Arizona Debate

"Okay, I'll endorse you again! Quit twisting my arm!"

Openings statements:

Why do they still have to introduce themselves?


Ron Paul calls himself the champion of liberty.

Rick Santorum says we've got troubles right here in River City.

Mitt Romney whistles the theme from The Andy Griffith Show.

Newt Gingrich will make sure no president ever bows to a Saudi king again.

FIRST QUESTION:

1. For the first time in 65 years, our debt exceeds our GDP; what will you do about it?

SANTORUM - I'll cut $5 trillion in 5 years. I have experience in cutting entitlements. When I was born, the budgets were at low levels now they're at high levels. Cut welfare, freeze it, give it to the states. Poverty is not a disability.

ROMNEY - Rick voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, but to the question, I've been in business where you have to balance the budget or you go out of business. I've balanced budget in business, in the Olympics and in Massachusetts.

SANTORUM - You use Occupy Wall Street rhetoric.

ROMNEY - I have a better record than you.

GINGRICH - As Speaker, I balanced the budget for four straight years. Going to the Founding Fathers, Hamilton said you have to have jobs to generate growth. We need a better energy policy.

Romney always looks directly at whoever's speaking so if they happen to glance at him, they'll meet his eyes.

(John King: Ron Paul, you called Santorum a "fake" in one of your ads. Why?)

PAUL - Because he's a fake. (Laughter/applause.)

SANTORUM - I'm real.

PAUL - Congratulations. When people run for office, they run as fiscal conservatives. When they get there, they do something different, then they say, "Oh I want to repeal that!" You lose credibility.

SANTORUM - You serve in one of the most conservative districts in Texas; it was easy for you. I served in Pennsylvania.

PAUL - You know what this is? The world's tiniest violin.

(John King: Mitt, you called yourself "severely" conservative. Defend yourself.)

ROMNEY - I was a pro-life governor. I stood up for the Catholic church. I saved the Olympics. I balanced the budget as a businessman. You can't be anything but a fiscal conservative to be a successful businessman.

GINGRICH - Romney moved in the right direction in getting closer to supply-side economics, but frankly not cutting more capital gains taxes would be disastrous. I want to fundamentally change everything, making me kind of like Ron Paul. Secure the border, balance the budget.

(John King: Earmarks are a sliver of the budget but Tea Party activists think it's a big deal.)

SANTORUM - Romney asked for earmarks for the Olympic Games. I fought against earmarks once I saw there was abuse in the system. I'm like Jim DeMint, except he's an earmarker.

ROMNEY - Whatever. Ban earmarks. Rick voted for the Bridge to Nowhere. In the history of the Olympics, the Fed Govt has always taken care of transportation and security, so that's what we asked for.

SANTORUM - You would've been for earmarks. I'd like the president to have a line-item veto. ANd hey, Paul, is a huge earmarker. (Some audience grumbles.) Hey, I'm not criticizing...

GINGRICH - Olympics earmarks were appropriate but how can Mitt criticize Rick for doing the same thing because he thinks his earmarks were right and Rick's were wrong?

PAUL - All of Congress is screwed up; that's the problem. If you don't like the spending bill, vote against the bill.

(John King: Question on auto bailouts.)

SANTORUM - I've been on the consistant side against bailouts. Romney was not.

ROMNEY - Nice try, but let's look at the facts. In 2008, Bush was still in office. The 3 auto-heads flew on their jet planes to Congress and asked for $50 billion bailout. I found that inappropriate. I said they should go through managed bankruptcy. (The fact that this gets applause shows the audience here is pro-Mitt.) The head of the UAW said the auto industry would disappear.

SANTORUM - Wall Street got bailed out and you supported that.

GINGRICH - The auto bailout was just Obama paying off the UAW.

PAUL - There aren't good bailouts and bad bailouts. They're all bad. Calling the auto bailout a success is like saying if you robbed a bank and got away with it, you're a success.

John King then asks about birth control and it gets boos from the audience. Newt then says no one in the elite media asked Barack Obama in 2008 why he supported "legallizing infanticide." Mitt says no administration in history has been more opposed to religious freedom. (Um, James Buchanan, anyone?) Rick is against birth control, but gives a great answer, he says the difference between him and the left is that just because he's talking about something doesn't mean he wants a government program to fix it. (Applause!) But then he also talks about contraception encouragin morality. Ron says contraception cannot be blamed for the immorality of a nation. Mitt then cites all the stats on how being born out of wedlock puts you at a disadvantage.

GINGRICH - As Ron Paul has been saying for a generation, when you have government enter health care, you're on the road toward tyranny, whether it's Obamacare or Romneycare, any cetralized government approach to health care takes aware our freedom.

PAUL - If you vote for Planned Parenthood as Rick has, you voted for birth control pills. Planned Parenthood should get nothing.

SANTORUM - Well, I did vote for appropriation bills that had stuff in it I didn't like, but to counter I also pushed for abstinence programs.

PAUL - That costs money too. I'd be against this.

Starting to feel bad for Rick Santorum. This crowd is clearly pro-Romney and pro-Paul, and the two are doing some good tag-teamming on Rick.

Romney points our Rick endorsed him in 2008, also points out Rick endorsed Arlen Specter, the 60th vote for Obamacare.

It shifts to immigration. Gingrich pimps his double-fence border idea. We get a shot of Callista Gingrich sitting next to Rick Perry. Where's Mrs. Perry? "Danger! Danger!"

Santorum says we need to use E-Verify (a federal program).

John King asks them to use one word to describe themselves.

PAUL - "Consistant."

SANTORUM - "Courage."

ROMNEY - "Resolute."

GINGRICH - "Cheerful." (Laughs.)

We now go to foreign policy. Romney slams Obama, points out Syria's a mess. King asks about women in combat. Gingrich and Santorum give artful, dodgy answers, but Paul vehemently comes out against war. He doesn't want women to die in combat, he doesn't want men to die in combat.

We slide now to the question of Iran, and Gingrich said this is one of the times he's for pre-emption, if Israel belived Iran was about to bomb them, he'd be okay with them striking first. Which was pretty much the rationale for going to Iraq.

I am honestly starting to lose interest now.

They shift back to Syria, and Santorum passionately pleads that if Obama's re-elected, it will be a cataclysmic doomsday World War III apocalypse started by the nuclear Iran and Syria. Gingrich says we need to make the US the biggest supplier of oil in the world. We need to have our allies covert destroy the regimes over there. Romney says he agrees with both of them, but he says it's great that Syria's leader is in trouble. We should encourage Saudi Arabia and Turkey to provide Assad's enemies weapons.

PAUL - I've tried the moral argument and the Constitutional argument, let's try the financial argument. We're spending trillions being bogged down in the Middle East. We don't have the money. Remember, the Soviets left Afghanistan because they were bankrupt.

John King brings up No Child Left Behind, and Santorum says yeah, Bush wanted it and I voted for it, and I regret it. (Boos.) Hey, politics is a team sport. I believe the federal government should get out of the education business, and the state government. Send it to local communities. (Slow down, dude.)

Final question. What's the misconcpetion about you?

PAUL - That I can't win. I clearly can.

GINGRICH - I wish people understood the amount of work it actually took to balance the budget and get welfare reform.

ROMNEY - Gives his usual summation speech, doesn't answer the question.

SANTORUM - Takes Mitt's lead, pleads for people to vote for him becuz he can do a lot with a little, doesn't really answer the "misconception" question either.

I didn't feel like there was a clear winner here, if you're talking momentum changer. Ron Paul was his usual twinkly-eyed self, only lost the crowd on foreign policy. I don't think he or Mitt Romney ever directly criticized each other. Romney showed no fear in going after others, and I think he did enough here to solidify Arizona and probably squeak out Michigan. All the polls right now show that no one is going to dominate Super Tuesday. Newt should win Georgia, Rick should win Pennsylvania, but Santorum, by not hitting a home-run in the debate, should slip. Therefore I'd have to say Romney was the winner and Santorum the loser.

Scott Jenkins wants troops to pay taxes

Sarah Palin and Political Language

Listened to a few minutes of Sarah Palin giving pat, red-meat answers on Fox News Sunday, then I happened upon this quote:

"Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell