"Oh No Joe Say It Ain't So!"

I and some fellow hard core Republican political junkies were watching the Vice Presidential Debates last Thursday. Sarah Palin, in her casual, "I'm not one of YOU" fashion chastised Joseph Bidon for back pedalling, recreating past history with the efficiency of a clever mom planning to win a round with a child who just got caught raiding the cookie jar 5 minutes before dinner and lied about it. But she proved she was more than that. Palin volunteered discussion on national and international issues, brought up blunders by both parties-a gutsy move--and looked Americans straight in the eye when talking to them. And she said she would. She must have listened to her mother when growing up. Or she was listening to mine, who taught me to look people in the eye when I was talking to them. It was rude not to.

With all Palin's direct but polite manners, there was one comment that resonated all night for me. It took me back when she said it, because it rolled off her tongue just like she was chastising that youngster again. Done without guile or malice, Palin went straight to the point: "Bidon. you are out of line and trying to pull a fast one, and I'm not taking it," was the message. But what she said was, "Oh, no, Joe, say it ain't so!" What a phrase. Every time Bidon made a gaff, we. in the living room, chimed, "Oh, no, Joe, say it ain't so!" It should be a bumper sticker.

It should be the clarion call for local politicking in Utah races. "Oh no, Joe Democrat, say it ain't so!" I have never seen such a mess of desperate measures and albeit debatable, quite possibly winnable measures as well, taken on before in this state. Where Utah was once a state of integrity and unmeasured strength of character in the political arena, the Democratic Party has guaranteed that reputation will change for Utah with this year's races.

Take District 62 for instance. Chris Herrod, the Rookie Republican is the incumbent. His Democratic challenger is Claralyn Hill. She is supposedly running on a platform of transparency--transparency that the Republicans don't have she allegedly claims. Trouble is, that she apparently has the problem herself. She, until cornered by some Republicans, including Herrod himself, I understand, was not telling people she was a Democrat. Her signs, along with ALL other Democratic candidates does not bear any designation or identification of how she has filed. Who and What is she? In addition, her signs, along with the Utah County Democratic Platform look conspicuously similar to Republican signs--more red than blue. I'm surprised they didn't find an elephant to stick in the corner! The platform language is so surprisingly similar to the Republican one, that at first blush, you would believe Claralyn Hill was actually a second Republican running against Herrod in the General Election--at first blush.

Since the scope of this article doesn't take in discussion about the content of the platforms, I'll reserve that for a latter date. For now, the point is really about the deception that seems to be running so rampant this year for the sake of winning. Winning a race, for the most part--at least in Utah--used to be about the best man or woman suited for the job. These days, it seems all about the man or woman him or herself. What ever it takes to win a race is what is done. Lie, deceive, twist words around a bit to get a different perception than what the facts really were all seem to be the tools used to justify the ends--to secure the win. Indeed it may just do that because an unsuspecting public, as we have already seen from the Primary is ill-prepared for choosing the best candidate unless both candidates voluntarily tell the truth. If one chooses to lie, the election will derail.

Looking at the Herrod/Hill race then: Hill say Herrod isn't transparent because he was initially not even elected but appointed to his position. Rather, she allows the constituent she speaks with to believe that he was appointed without an election, when she merely need say that he was appointed. That he was appointed, in a literal sense might be true--well sort of. You see, Herrod was one of 10 candidates who ran in an open race in a special election when the popular Jeff Alexander resigned his House Seat due to some other goals that were taking precedence over his elected position. When a special election for the delegate yielded a near tie with Herrod at something like 36 votes and contender John Curtis at 37 it meant both names had to go the the Governor, according to County by-laws. State statute had just barely changed to read that only one name could be submitted from the Party, however. The Governor sent both names back to the Party, to Enid Green, the State Party Chair at the time, who had no other choice but to conduct interviews--even as one would for any job--to see who she felt would best suit the position. Being that the delegates couldn't come up with a 60% winner as required in the Party by-laws, and since the State statute required only 1 name be submitted, she stated her intention to the public and the next day a winner was named. Chris Herrod was the new Representative.

But according to Claralyn Hill, none of this ever happened. The statute doesn't exist, and the Newspaper archives, as well as all the delegates (yours truly was also at that special election), and John Curtis himself are figments of imagination--bits of dilution, because according to her, say those who have sat through her cottage meetings, Herrod was picked by the whim of Green, "behind closed doors" hence her campaign for transparency.

So perhaps Hill should start with some transparency of her own. I'm sure she if familiar with the old saying about glass houses...Let's start with those signs: For one. Put a "D" or a donkey behind your name Claralyn, where it belongs. You are, after all, a Democrat. "Oh no, Joe, say it ain't so!"

Disclose that the UEA is paying for your signs and that you don't have to add their money to your account because they are a union, until after the disclosure dates. Also that the UEA STILL has a vendetta against every legislator who voted for vouchers. That's ancient history, UEA, get over it. So let's talk about transparency, Ms. Hill. Let's talk about yours.

There is always more. The Democratic Party is pulling a fast one on the elderly and home bound this year with an application they created to look like the one the counties have for early voting and absentee voter ballot by mail. The clever trick is that the Democrats will send out an application to persuade the voter to apply for one of the above and send in the application. Trouble is, the application doesn't go to the County Recorder. It goes to the Democratic Party! That is right! It goes to the Democratic Party. One has to assume that the Democratic Party is going to turn in the application to the specific County Recorder involved. Whether they turn it in or not is their sole discretion, though it is a misdemeanor offense if they do not. But to make matters seriously worse, all the applicants new information goes to the Democratic Party, logged into their data base. Only after they have the info does the application supposedly get turned into the County Recorder. What state is this again?

Through out the state there are weird races like the one between Herrod and Hill. The applications for early voting by mail are going out all over the state of Utah. Rumor has it that this is part of an objective set forth by the National Democratic Party. Regardless, for the state of Utah, one has to wonder about candidates who have to hide their party affiliation. Who wouldn't think twice about voting for someone who's subjectivity of the facts is based upon what benefits her rather than what is actually statute. It is disturbing that Hill would refuse to believe that the statute on replacing a Representative is simply for the seated party to present a name. What is most disturbing is that she won't even bother to look up the statute to see what it says before spouting off. What kind of Legislator will she make?

"Oh no, Joe, say it ain't so!"