So here is a little supposal:

Think of a presidential candidate that you do not support.  Now put the candidate’s name into the appropriate places in the following passage:

And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should support [a specific candidate] for President; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I supported a [candidate of that ideology/party/record]. And I shrunk and would that I might not support [her/him].

And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold it is the Lord’s desire that [that candidate] be President of the United States…

We spend a lot of time debating and defending our political beliefs, and comparing political candidates to our ideals. But what if, regardless of political party, or ideology, or record, or aptitude, or personality, or anything else we might use to judge our candidates, the Lord for His own reasons wants you to support a candidate different than the one you would choose?

It seems likely that most of the time He will leave it up to our best judgement. But we should also be open to the possibility that He will prompt us contrary to our reasoning. We should make sure that we consult with the Lord in prayer about who we should support in our political decisions and not rely solely on our own understanding and political philosophies.

So, continuing with the supposal:

Once the Lord has communicated his desire, how do you go about supporting the candidate? You can’t say that you honestly agree with the candidate’s positions.

You could say that he is the best person for the job, but since you don’t know the reason why the Lord wants him in office, you don’t know that for sure. Maybe she is not the best person, but the Lord wants her in office for some other reason.  All you know is that for some unknown reason, God has told you to support the election of this person.

You do not have the authority or stewardship to tell others that they should vote for the candidate because you have received a revelation that the Lord wants that candidate to be president.

And you’ve spent the last few years establishing your bonafides in a political position contrary to that of the candidate.  Now you will look like a flip-flopper, or even worse, incoherent.

So what do you do?

Hi. This is Regina work. Sort of. I’m calling to set the record straight about my friend Mike Lee. The truth is the bikes the key part of all the clear waste out of Utah we work together. I’ve got her husband’s Council. He stopped it from being transferred across our highways ad for big story, it does West desert. You may not know but my ex father. Rex week passed away from cancer related to be there with her. So, if you might expect. Mike, please record his commitment to keeping you talk to say from high level nuclear waste a second not anybody who tells you otherwise. If it’s a resort. It’s a last minute mislead attack ads for the role personal game. That’s the truth. Again, I’m not sure of the calling to set the record straight, and I encourage you to join me support likely the upcoming primary election. Thank you. Goodbye just calling to pay for. I found it and I agree.

That’s right, the primary elections are here in Utah once again! Tuesday June 22 is election day so make sure you take the time to vote.  If you are registered to vote, you can find out the location where you should vote at the Utah State website.  The site will also tell you what party you are currently registered with and let you see samples of both the Ballot for your party and the non-partisan elections for your area.  Also check out Abigail Adams Project – UTAH for information about the candidates.

If the erroneously transcribed voice mail above was complete nonsense to you, then don’t worry, a lot of the information that has been published during this campaign has been just as messed up even when properly transcribed.

I’ve been participating in local Utah elections actively for the last six years, and every time the dirty politics, acrimony, and enmity is thoroughly discouraging.  For example, last Saturday I received the two campaign fliers in the mail from the Bridgewater campaign.  Here’s a photo:

The first flier reads (more or less):

No wonder D. C. Lawyer Mike Lee is running a negative, D. C. Style Campaign.  Mike Lee has distorted businessman Tim Bridgewater’s record.  Here are the facts about Time Bridgewater:

Tim Has A Plan.

Blah blah blah…

Tim Is A Proven Fighter.

Blah blah blah…

Tim is a solid Fiscal Conservative

Blah blah blah

A campaign based on issues, not negative attacks

Blah blah blah

Paid for by Bridgewater for Senate

The second flier reads

Do we really want to be the world’s dumping ground?

You should know D. C. Lawyer Mike Lee is directly tied to the nuclear waste industry…

[On the back it makes several statements about how Mike Lee is really a puppet of Energy Solutions and wants to dump nuclear waste in Utah]

Paid for by Bridgewater for Senate

Now the accusations here are not really that important.  It’s the irony, the cliché, and the pettiness. “Hey! I’m negatively attacking my opponent by pointing out his negative attacks!  So vote for me because I’m campaigning on the issues and not negative attacks….P.S. See the photo of my opponent looking angry?  I told you he was negative.  P.P.S. Did you notice that I’m not wearing a tie and have a blue shirt?  I’m cool like that. I’m anti-establishment. P.P.P.S. Did you know that my opponent is part of a conspiracy run by an evil organization owned by radioactive SATAN? So freak out and vote for me instead.”

Nice.

Mike Lee’s campaign hasn’t been much better when it comes to magnifying to distortion some of Bridgewater’s background. Here’s Bridgewater’s response to some of the Lee campaign’s claims.  Others have responded to Bridgewater’s Energy Solutions accusations against Lee.

And then there is the whole “fake flier that appears to be from Mike Lee but is really from an anonymous group against Mike Lee that was intended to trash his campaign by making it look as if Lee was leveraging religion to trash his opponents when he really wasn’t, which was facilitated by a former long-time Senator Bennett staffer.”  If that seems incomprehensibly convoluted to you that’s because it is.  It’s a reverse-psychology dirty-trick you see.

Does your brain hurt yet?

The sad thing is that both of these men would probably be good, solidly conservative senators, probably.

Mike Lee knows the Constitution inside and out, and he is very consistent in his support for following the Constitution, even when it means taking the side of Energy Solutions when it comes to international contracts because international contracts fall under the constitutional authority of the National and not the State governments.  He is a real constitutional scholar with practical experience in applying the constitution to real-world situations.

Tim Bridgewater is an experienced businessman who truly believes in the free market, and understands the real-world consequences of National interference in the economy, taxes, and health-insurance.  He truly believes in limited government and is a real fiscal conservative with practical experience.

I’ll be voting for Mike Lee.  Why?  Here are my reasons:

1. Outgoing Senator Bob Bennett endorsed Bridgewater.  I was against Bennett before the convention because I want to replace Establishment Republicans with new, conservative outsiders who are focused on the Constitution.  By endorsing Bridgewater, Bennett essentially gave the Establishment Stamp of Approval to Bridgewater.  Establishment endorsement  = vote for the other guy.

2. The reverse-psychology dirty trick mentioned above really makes me angry.  Using those kinds of tactics to defeat a candidate makes me think that he must be a threat to the establishment.  And the fact that it was facilitated by a middle-man who was a D.C. staffer for Senator Bennett for many years reinforces that perception.  Dirty tricks by Establishment Republicans = vote for their target

3. Bridgewater’s ironic “my campaign is based on issues not negative attacks…Mike Lee is an evil, radioactive corporate pawn” fliers were craptastic.  Good bye moral high ground.  I first heard the Energy Solutions/Nuclear Waste attack against Lee in my caucus meeting from people who were big Bob Bennett supporters. Contradictory moralizing = fail!

4. I was attracted to Lee early on because of his firm understanding of the Constitution.  However, I was honestly worried about his positions because of some of the more radical conservatives who were rabidly supporting him and even linked to his campaign.  I contacted the campaign with my concerns.  I received a personal call from Mr. Lee and he chatted with me about his views, and those of some of his supporters for a good half an hour.  He and I don’t agree on everything, but he isn’t a Birther, or a 9/11 Truther, or any other kind of crazy.  Serious constitutional conservative – the crazy = my vote.

5. While I find Bridgewater’s business experience appealing, Free Market principles and practical experience alone are not going to be enough to get us out of the mess we are in.  We need someone with a solid, comprehensive, personal understanding of constitutional principles.  Bridgewater may not like D.C. Lawyers, but since his experience is in business not constitutional law, he’s going to have to hire a bunch of them to advise him if he wins anyway.  I’d rather have a candidate with an expert knowledge of the Constitution himself, and experience in applying it.  Outsourced constitutional knowledge = Fail! (If Bridgewater does win, I hope he’ll hire Mike Lee to advise him and vise-versa. Lincoln-style Appointing rivals = Win!)

6. The Mike Lee Campaign’s Google Voice Transcribed Voice Message is AWESOME!  I needed a laugh.

Anyhow, visit the candidate’s websites and vote for whomever you think would be best.

Utah County Candidates

I also feel strongly that we need some changes in the Alpine School District.  Consider voting for the following candidates:

A1-Lehi/Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain

Paula Hill (http://paulahill4u.wordpress.com/)

Casey Voeks (http://www.caseyvoeks.com/)

A2-Highland/Alpine/Cedar Hills/Small segment of Northeast Lehi

Wendy Hart (http://wendyhart2010.com)

Zonda Perry (http://www.zonda.org)

A3-American Fork

Incumbent-Tim Osborn (http://www.electtimosborn.com/)

A5-Southwest Orem

Scott Bell (http://www.BELLforSchoolBoard.com)

Brad Thompson

…Hi, this is J. Max Wilson. Sort of. I found it and I agree.

———————————-

Dear delegates,

Thanks for reaching out to ask for my opinion and for all your work to represent us at the state convention.

You might remember me from our neighborhood caucus meeting.  I also ran to be a state delegate with the intention of replacing Mr.Bennett.  I realize that in our precinct, most of you expressed support for Mr.Bennett, and that professor Frederickson, in particular, is a personal friend for his (though she did emphasize, to her credit, that just because she is a friend does not mean that she agrees with him).  I hope you realize that I do not think he is a bad person.  He has done what he thinks is right, and that is admirable.  I do think, however, that what Mr. Bennett thinks is right and what I think is right are no longer aligned.

Yes, it is true that working within the current system Mr. Bennett would be able to leverage his seniority to direct federal monies to Utah, and to Orem.  At our caucus meeting, Mayor Billings repeatedly emphasized that Mr. Bennett had been instrumental in getting the funding for several programs that have greatly benefited our city.  And if our goal were to continue to work within the current scheme of things then Mr. Bennett would clearly be the right man for the job.  But our goal isn’t to get the most out of the current scheme.  We aren’t just looking to get the most advantage out of the status quo.  The system is broken. Federal monies come with federal strings attached which are used to wield undue influence well beyond the constitutional roles of the national government. We are tired of selling our independence in exchange for federal money earmarked for our state and city.  We don’t want to get the most out of the current scheme, we want to overhaul the scheme to return it to the principles of liberty, limited government, and individual natural rights.

Mr. Bennett is part of the era of Big Government Republicanism with which we have all become so disillusioned.  No matter how good his intentions, he has been in Washington too long and as a consequence his views of how government should work have become mired in the status quo. The kind of changes we need to make in Washington require fresh, energetic, even revolutionary thinking to re-found our nation on the principles of good government identified by the original founders.  Under our constitutional republic, revolutions are fought with ballots instead of bullets. We want a revolution at the ballot box. We want a new senator that represents the principles of our revolution.  That is why Mr. Bennett will not be reelected.

I encourage you to reject the current scheme of things in Washington and embrace the need for new representation by voting for Mike Lee or Cherilyn Eager for Senator at the Utah State Republican Convention on May 8th.

Thank you for considering my point of view,

J. Max Wilson
http://www.sixteensmallstones.org

Well, part of the reason is that the official Utah voter website isn’t on utah.gov. No, that would make too much sense. It is at www.LeaveYourPrint.com . Which doesn’t make any sense at all, because finger prints are not required to vote in Utah.

The Leave Your Print website IS the official government voter portal. So why isn’t there a big announcement for it right on the homepage of utah.gov? 21 Days left before the election and there isn’t a single link to LeaveYourprint.com anywhere from the official state website?

That said, LeaveYourPrint.com is a vast improvement over what has previously been available. If you live in Utah, I recommend that you go there as soon as possible. The interface is fairly clean, though the red theme is a bit strong.

The website will ask you for your name, birth date, the county in which you live, and the numerical portion of the beginning of the address of your residence.

Based on that information the website will tell you whether or not you are registered to vote, what party you are affiliated with if any, and your Precinct. Then it will then give you a list of all of the candidates, initiatives, constitutional amendments, etc. that will appear on your ballot. Each ballot item is a link to information about the candidate, with contact information and websites so you can learn more. The candidate information portion of the website could be better implemented. Currently it is just a bunch of PDF documents. But it is better than nothing.

The website really should include mash-ups with Google maps to show precinct, district, and county boundaries, as well as your voting location, but it doesn’t. At least it tells you where you are supposed to go to vote, though.

Remember, the last day for registering to vote by mail has already passed. You can still register in person at your county clerk’s office through October 20th. However, if you were not registered to vote by October 6, you are not eligible for early voting, so if you register in person by the 20th, you will have to vote on November 4th.

You should re-register if your name has changed, or you have moved to a new residence since you last registered.

Please take the time to learn about the candidates before the election.

So in sum: the new tools provided on the website are a great step forward. But the “Leave Your Print” domain name and website name is lame and confusing and frankly, a waste of money. The marketing guy who came up with it should be fired. These tools should simply be at vote.utah.gov with a great big, obvious link on the front page of the utah.gov website. The fact that there are NO LINKS to the new website from utah.gov, let alone on the front page, is completely inexcusable.

If you missed it you can watch it online at:

debatehub.c-span.org

One issue that stuck out to me that hasn’t received much commentary in LDS circles that I have seen is the exchange concerning same-sex marriage and rights policies of the respective candidates (probably because everyone is sick of the topic in general).

In his first response to the issue, Biden clearly stated, “We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.” (emphasis mine)

So Biden, either on purpose, or by Freudian slip, refers to “committed couples in a same-sex marriage” as if it were a given. Perhaps he meant “same-sex relationship” but he said “same-sex marriage.”

Then, after Palin had clearly stated that she supports rights for same-sex couples, but not if it means changing the definition of marriage to anything other than between one man and one woman, the moderator asked Biden for a non-nuanced clarification. “Do you support gay marriage?”

Biden responded, “No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.”

It seems clear to me that, despite the moderator’s exhortation to avoid nuance, Biden’s words were very calculated to be nuanced. Either that or garbled and self-contradictory. On the one hand he says that they do not support redefining marriage from a civil side, but then he continues on to say that the decision of what to call it should be left up to individual faiths. So which is it? Do they think that it should it be defined by the civil government or should it be left up to individual faiths?

If Obama and Biden do not support redefining civil marriage, then how is that not a contradiction of the letter sent from Obama to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in July, previously discussed on this blog, in which he not only opposes Proposition 8 in California, which would specifically define civil marriage as between one man and one woman, but that he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what protects individual states from having to recognize same-sex marriage contracted in other states.

So which is it? Is the Obama campaign for or against redefining civil marriage to include same-sex couples or not? On a state level or a federal level?

The Issues section of the Obama website is woefully vague. Which section should I read to find his same-sex marriage position? Civil Rights? Nope. Nothing there. Family? Nope. Nada there either.

Let’s try site google to search the site for gay . Results: A number of blog posts, some of which seem to say he is against redefining marriage, a PDF Flyer that discusses his support for “Full Civil Unions” and against a federal marriage amendment, but no definitive, official statements about same-sex marriage.

Let’s try googling the site for marriage . Results: The same PDF Flyer, plus a different one with essentially the same content, more of the same blog posts. No definitive, official statement on same-sex marriage policy.

Why doesn’t Obama have a clear statement on same-sex marriage in an easy to find location on his website? If, as Joe Biden claimed in the debate, they are both against changing the civil definition of marriage, then why isn’t there a clear, easy to find statement?

Their lack of a clear position reinforces the view that McCain and Palin have both tried to pin on Obama by contrast: that he tells different groups contradictory things depending on what they want to hear. He wants the gay and lesbian vote, and he wants to attract moderate Christians, who don’t want to redefine marriage but are attracted to his other policies. So he lets them both believe that he is on their side on the issue of homosexual marriage.

I want a definitive statement. And I think that LDS Members who are concerned about the redefinition of marriage in California and elsewhere should demand a statement before they decide to vote for Obama.

To be fair, it isn’t obvious from the main Issues section of the McCain website where to find a statement on same-sex marriage, but if you poke around a little, there it is under Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life

McCain’s statement is basically that traditional marriage is the ideal and to leave it up to the states to enact constitutional amendments defining marriage according to the will of their own people and not up to the courts.

I would have liked something a bit stronger, but at least it is clear and relatively accessible on the website.

Here is the full transcript of the pertinent portion of the debate:

IFILL: The next round of—pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted—same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.

It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?

PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead.

But I also want to clarify, if there’s any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don’t agree with me on this issue.

But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.

But I will tell Americans straight up that I don’t support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.

But I’m being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

IFILL: Let’s try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let’s move to foreign policy.

I know what a bad feeling it is to go into the voting booth and to look at empty names, with no idea who they are or what they want to accomplish other than what I can assume from their party affiliation. So, as part of my volunteer efforts for Citizens’ Resource we now have short, online video presentations by nearly all of the candidates that will appear in contested races on the Utah County ballot available on Google video.

Hopefully all of you will take advantage of email, blogs, and the word-of-mouth power of “viral marketing” to help as many people view these videos as possible before voting on November 7th.

1. Watch the videos in the races you will be voting on.

2. Email a copy of this post to as many Utah County voters as you can.

3. If you have a blog, tell your readers about the videos and encourage them to watch them and to tell others as well. Also, because the videos are on the Google video service, you can go to the video web page and embed any of the videos right into your own blog or website. Feel free to contact me if you need help doing this.

I’ve posted all of the videos here on my personal blog in addition to the Citizens’ Resource website.

Video Introduction to the 2006 Candidate Preview by Jessica Connors

Video is available for one or more candidates in the following:

2006 Utah Candidates for U.S. Senate

2006 Utah Candidates for U.S. Congress District 2

2006 Utah Candidates for U.S. Congress District 3

2006 Utah Candidates for Utah County Commissioner

2006 Utah Candidates for State Senate District 11

2006 Utah Candidates for State Senate District 15

2006 Utah Candidates for State Legislative District 58

2006 Utah Candidates for State Legislative District 60

2006 Utah Candidates for State Legislative District 61

2006 Utah Candidates for State Legislative District 64

2006 Utah Candidates for Provo School Board District P4

2006 Utah Candidates for Nebo School Board District N5

Video is not available for the following races:

Utah State House of Representatives District 27

John Dougall (Republican Party, Incumbent)

Elizabeth Ann Rice-McFarlane (Democratic Party)

Utah State House of Representatives District 59

Lorie Fowlke (Republican, Incumbent)
Website: http://www.votelorie.com

Russ Zimmerman (Libertarian Party)
Website: http://www.utahlib.org/russzimmerman

Utah State School Board District 3

Edward A. Dalton (Nonpartisan, Incumbent)

Richard Moss (Nonpartisan)

A special thanks to all of the candidates, the individuals at Utah Valley State College, and Jessica Connors for the many, many hours spent filming, editing, and preparing this candidate preview.

Charles Garn Coombs (Nonpartisan)
Website:
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5458269664888729926

Rodney H. Oldroyd (Nonpartisan)
Website:
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7772883797363200606

Shannon Poulsen (Nonpartisan, Incumbent)
Website:
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6674443459039439133

Norman Thurston (Nonpartisan)
Website: http://electnorm.blogspot.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3931335489527902501

Shaun Knapp (Constitution Party)
Website: http://www.hangingbyathread.us
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1186903270633314799

Becky Lockhart (Republican Party, Incumbent)
Website: http://www.beckylockhart.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3864480697777806672

Kenneth Peay (Democratic Party)
Website: http://www.kenpeay.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2228429926041857002

Susan Chasson (Democratic Party)
Website: http://www.checkchasson.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2438534405186036577

Keith Grover (Republican Party)
Website: http://www.keithgrover.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-355463890933514836

Steve Saunders (Constitution Party)
Website: http://steve.fami.ly
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4906906912319727301

Brad Daw (Republican Party, Incumbent)
Website: http://www.braddaw.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8110456366475439909

Ed Lalone (Democratic Party)
Website: http://www.votelalone.org
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4682183285076438695

Scott Swain (Constitution Party)
Website: http://www.scottswainhome.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=250914675886580615

Stephen Sandstrom (Republican Party)
Website: http://www.votesandstrom.com
Video: [No Video for this Candidate]

Ed McGarr (Constitution Party)
Website: http://www.mcgarr2006.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3698497584945442459

Gordon Mella (Constitution Party)
Website: http://www.votemella.com
Video: [No Video for this Candidate]

Margaret Dayton (Republican Party)
Website: http://margaretdayton.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7598861658259584154

Bethanie Newby (Democratic Party)
Website: http://www.votenewby.org
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=322056671808340935

Adam Ford (Democratic Party)
Website: http://electford.org
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3098078690802387647

Howard Stephenson (Republican Party, Incumbent)
Website: http://www.howardstephenson.com
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2301710480967286735

Steve White (Republican Party, Incumbent)
Website: http://www.not1redcent.com
Video: [No Video for this Candidate]

Joseph Brierley (Democratic Party)
Website: http://www.yesjoseph.org
Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1108307056640743306