Thoughts on Amendment B

I have been questioned about my views about a proposal previously considered at SCC. Here is the proposal: “The Constitution may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the members at a State Central Committee meeting if subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the Delegates present at the State Convention. This Constitution may also be amended by 2/3 vote of Delegates present at the State Convention, if subsequently ratified by a majority vote of the State Central Committee.” (Utah Republican Party Constitution, Article X.B)

I support a few concepts with this and am interested in further and more robust discussion about this proposal. I recall the author said he was introducing it for discussion purposes and I think many voted for it to keep the discussion alive. I welcome the discussion and think this idea has merit but is not perfect by any means...in fact I hear that it may not come up in June (the author is reconsidering, I guess from feedback he's received).

At any rate, I think that we need to make it difficult to amend our party governing documents. I have seen too much time spent (wasted) in crazy ideas that really don’t build for a stronger party. I like the concept that if it's not broken then don’t fix it. Some like the constant tampering and fiddling. I don’t think it is productive.

This change will make it more difficult to amend the Constitution than the Bylaws “It formerly was common practice to divide the basic rules of an organization into two documents, in order that one of them--the constitution--might be made more difficult to amend than the other, to which the name bylaws was applied. In such a case, the constitution would generally contain the most essential provisions…” (Roberts Rules, pages 13-14).

One other key point is this in NOT a power grab because the SCC already has the ability to prevent a convention from amending the constitution. Under the Bylaws, the C/B Committee decides whether proposed constitutional amendments go to the convention or to the SCC. The controversial amendments are going first to the SCC, which has more time to deliberate on them and make improvements, before they go to the convention. (Bylaws 7.5.H)

Proposals considered first at convention are final. I like having the SCC vet and approve them, essentially strengthening them and also catching other possible unseen problems (like what happened in 2006 when a long amendment was adopted on the first reading and now many wish they had read it closer).

Why fear an added set of eyes on a good idea?

Thoughts on Convention & Future of GOP

The 2011 Organizing Convention is fast approaching. Now is when delegates start taking a deeper look at the candidates for party officers and the State Central Committee.

As the out-going Chair, I have a unique perspective on issues and many of these candidates. I hope you will read this post so you will be better informed about why I am running for the SCC and feel free to call me to hear how I stand on the candidates. My other recent posts will give you a chance to understand where I stand on other topics.

The Republican Party is the best vehicle to ensure that America remain morally strong and economically prosperous. I have been involved in the GOP since 1991 and believe that through active participation we can protect our Liberty. I got involved in the GOP because our principles are the path to prosperity and strength. When interviewing other candidates, make sure you ask them why they are involved because these past two years I have seen many that don’t share this view. I am concerned with the attitude that is causing the Party to be angry and full of infighting.

We have great days ahead of us but this path is not sure and vision and vigilance is required.

I have been a fighter for conservative principles all my life. I don’t back down from advocating for adherence to Constitutional principles and protection of the family. But not all share these ideals and so I will fight everyday to ensure a brighter future for our children.

That is why I want to continue to serve as a member of the SCC. Thank you for your consideration. If any want to learn more please call me directly 801-404-8635. I also have relevant insight into all the races that I am happy to share so call anytime.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve as chair these past two years and I appreciate all you do.

Taylor Oldroyd

Responsibility of SCC:

The SCC is similar to our county central committee and members need to be prepared to advocate for our platform. I take this responsibility very serious and that is why I have attended the meetings and never passed up an opportunity to protect the process and our platform.

One of my heroes is Ezra Taft Benson and he said we should never be afraid to advocate for conservative principles because of fear of criticism. I agree.

IRV:

I do not support IRV as a general rule. I trust a system that allows for educating the delegates and an IRV limits the ability to learn in-between rounds of voting. It is possible with an IRV method that the person with an extreme voice can get elected without a majority. For example, with four candidates running and three strong candidates and one extreme candidate that the three cancel out each other and the one without the majority support can win by default.

Ex-officio delegates:

I strongly believe that when we elect our Representatives that we ask them to perform a variety of functions and one of these is to be a delegate. Most Ex-officio delegates hold much institutional knowledge and it would be a disservice to the party to widen the gap of accountability. In fact, we need to close the gap not widen it. We can’t do that by driving a wedge between the grassroots and the officials.

The argument is a veiled attempt to force a wedge between our elected officials and party members and the result will be a weaker party and eventually elected Democrats. If you don’t believe me then look at the history of Salt Lake County; they have been through this and the proof is clear.

Challenges of the GOP:

I believe the greatest threat to the GOP and this nation is the apathy and complacency of the people. I am also worried that we are turning into a party of “angry” individuals instead of maintaining our core strength as united conservatives with a clear message for prosperity and moral strength.

We are strong when we stand together and our voices must be heard to make a difference. But analyze the significant challenges I faced during my term and you can see a real and growing threat to our party.

Rather than use proven processes accepted in Robert Rules and common sense, some try to sue and complain their way into power. They would rather personally attack others leading to their disenfranchisement and inactivity so that their voice is louder, than articulate a vision. I see this tactic used by enemies of conservative principles. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush talk about this all day so you don’t need to hear it from me but our values are under attack at home and abroad and we must vigilantly defend the process of rules and laws.

That is why I reject the law suit and those defending this approach.

It has been partnership and cooperation that has forged this nation and the freedoms we enjoy. Utah has become strong this way and the US will once again return to greatness through partnership and articulating our vision and not through fighting and other militant self-righteous tactics.

Obama's Red Tape

I am glad to have come across an article titled, Red Tape Rising in the Jan 22nd The Economist...not because it is good news, because it certainly isn’t, but because now I have more information to fight in support of business and economic prosperity.

I don’t know why reading about the rise in red tape struck me so sharply but the realization of what we now face has stirred me to even further advocacy for a return to conservative principles and rejection of the slide towards socialism. This is the cause of our day.

The article begins with a summary of the future we face, "Ever since his thumping in the mid-term elections, Barak Obama has been busily mending relations with business folk. He has extended existing tax cuts, introduced new ones, completed a free-trade deal and appointed a banker as chief of staff. Now he is attending to their biggest grievance: that he has enmeshed them in stifling new rules, form health care and finance to oil-drilling and greenhouse gases."

"In his first two years in office the federal government issues 132 "economically significant" rules, according to Susan Dudley of George Washington University. ("Economically significant" means that either the rule's costs, or its benefits, exceed $100 Million a year.) That is about 40% more than the annual rate under both George Bush junior and Bill Clinton. Many rules associated with the newly passed health-care and financial-reform laws are still to come."

I personally reject the recent moderation in his actions and speeches; after all, if it wasn’t for his failed policies in the first place, we wouldn’t be in such dire straights. Frankly, the only reason he has moderated at all is because even Obama can't ignore the hard reality since the dramatic mid-term election results. But his conversion is a bit to convenient for me; I don’t trust his new found pro-business posturing.

He talks big on one hand while stepping up enforcement on the other. The article states, "Existing rules are also being enforced more keenly. The workplace-safety regulators slapped employers with 167% more violations in Obama's first year than in Bush's last, according to OMB Watch, a liberal watchdog. The FDA has stepped up scrutiny of drugs already approved. The regulatory workforce has grown 16% in Obama's first two years to 276,429, while private employment has fallen." What this means is with federal regulatory jobs have grown to over 20% of the total percent of federal employment; the number of employers has dwindled.

Despite the fact that some businesses concede that some new regulations were needed, the pattern of systematic attack on the job creators means that America will be facing growing debt, deficit, higher fees, increased regulations, shrinking margins, and added risks all while fighting porous borders, pandering to foreign nations, and continued deficit spending. Sounds like the rise in Obama's red tape is further evidence that we need to continue changing the names on the doors on Capitol Hill and on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Is it OK to sue the Party?

I approach my volunteer service in the Republican Party with the optimistic notion that everyone is trying their best. I appreciate anyone who volunteers their time to make the world a better place. While each of us has different goals and objectives, I suspect we all want to defend the Constitution and protect the family. We have children or grandchildren and so are willing to roll up our sleeves to create a better future for them. America is a great land and our party ideals of limited government and adherence to the Constitution are the proven path to ensure that our liberty will be preserved.

Central to our Party and efforts to protect liberty is respecting the process of public dialogue and debate. In fact, our party and most organizations operate in good faith when setting policies, bylaws, and governing documents.

The Utah County Republican Party (UCRP) doesn’t have a perfect system or perfect documents and, none of us is perfect, but we volunteer in good faith and come to these meetings to engage in cordial discussion about how to make the UCRP better.

The UCRP faces a significant question: is appropriate to use a lawsuit as part of this process? I think the answer is a clear NO. But I didn’t get a chance to make my case during the Executive Committee last night.

The law suit is supposedly trying to enforce a rule that the plaintiffs claim we are ignoring.

But as chairman of the Utah County Republican Party and a duly elected member of the Central Committee, I filed a complaint under Constitution Article III – Organizing Powers (G, 2, d) and also under Bylaw 5 – Republican Party Accountability, and submit to the Executive Committee to consider acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.

I think that using your party title and suing the party violates your obligations and responsibilities as members of the UCRP.

The substance of the Complaint is that the URP and the County Parties are in violation of the state party constitution, bylaws and other rules regarding “automatic delegates.” The Plaintiffs asked for a Temporary Restraining Order to be put into effect.

The UCRP is tolerant of (and benefits from) a diversity of opinion but following a display of wanton disregard for Party operations, policies, and procedures these three have shown in their choice to jointly file legal action against the Party that they are not fit to continue holding their positions. I believe that they knowingly chose the timing of this complaint to do the most public damage to the Party and have chosen actions that would have disrupted our grassroots party caucuses at the last minute.

Judge Sandra Peuler denied the request for a Temporary Restraining Order and listed several reasons for denying the request:

1. Standing Rule #1 (which allows Counties to allocate Automatic/Ex-Officio delegate positions) was adopted in 2002. Judge Peuler also indicated that issuing a Restraining Order on the Party has the potential to cause great harm to the State and County Parties because the Caucuses are only two weeks away.

2. Judge Peuler did not see that any irreparable harm would be done to any delegate as previous delegates have reviewed the automatic delegate issue in the past and have allowed automatics to serve.

3. Judge Peuler ruled that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the Temporary Restraining Order because it did not appear to her that they would succeed on the merits of the claim for two reasons:

#1: A very similar complaint was brought before Judge Glenn Iwasaki in 2008. Judge Iwaski denied the Temporary Restraining Order, and eventually dismissed the complaint.

#2: In evaluating the need for a Temporary Restraining Order, Judge Peuler was not convinced by her preliminary reading of the URP Constitution that automatic delegates are prohibited or in violation of any Party Rules.

The lawsuit violated the following parts of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Utah County Republican Party:

1. As Republicans residing in Utah County, State of Utah, we do hereby establish this Constitution of the Utah County Republican Party in order to support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Utah; to support local, state and national Republican Parties; (Constitution Preamble)

The Executive Committee is obligated to investigate charges of alleged malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office by any party officer; to conduct hearings and make findings thereof; to remove officers based on its findings. (Constitution Article 3 G 2 d).

Malfeasance, “intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons (dictionary.law.com).”

The Utah Republican Party and Utah County Republican Party have a clearly defined process to make changes to its Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules. Those suing the Party have participated and understand the proper procedures to make changes; and knowingly attempted to exceed authority by bringing this issue to the Courts.

Bylaw 1 of the UCRP states: “Any member of the Central Committee may propose Bylaws. (Bylaw 1 C).” All three plaintiffs are members of the UCRP Central Committee. Article 2 of the URP Constitution states: “The State Central Committee may adopt Bylaws to govern subjects not covered by the Constitution (Article 2 A).” “Any Bylaw adopted or modified by the State Central Committee shall be binding and in full force and effect when adopted by a 2/3 vote of a quorum of the State Central Committee (Article 2 B 1).” All three plaintiffs are members of the URP Central Committee.

I see this debate, not about whether the application of Ex Officio delegates is right or if it violates our current governing documents. We have debated before and we will again debate the use and application of Ex Officio delegates. I welcome that debate; in fact, at the very first Central Committee that I chaired we changed the rules that allowed for the Chair to have 10 discretionary appointments.

We followed a good process to do that then. The losers didn’t file legal action when they lost. This is the process now. As leaders of the UCRP, I suggest we must protect the process. So the issue is whether it’s ok to sue the party during the course of regular debate. Is legal action against the UCRP to promote your side of an argument part of the established process to change our governing documents?

I adamantly suggest this is not the case and must not be, especially from those in leadership positions who are representing more people than themselves as they try to make their case.

Above all, an action like this dishonors everything we stand for. It instantly changes the nature of what had been free and equal debate, introducing protracted attorney interaction and threats of huge legal bills if one side does not cave in to the other, divorcing individuals from the organization and allowing the state’s legal system to try to finish the debate.

A lawsuit is especially divisive because it sends the message that the negotiating relationship is terminated. But it in this case it goes even farther because those bringing the suit hold positions of leadership. So, I ask you to ask Executive Committee members how they plan to protect the process of how to propose changes and at the same time make it clear that intimidating behavior that deliberately disenfranchises others will not be tolerated.

Main Arguments:

First, does the UCRP have a clear process for proposing bylaw changes? What is the proper method to change UCRP governing policies…Lawsuit or propose a bylaw change? The answer to this is obvious to me…one brings a resolution before one of the governing bodies of the Party.

Second, when filing the lawsuit, the three used UCRP titles and positions. This is clearly a violation of our rules.

Third, the three plaintiffs used a method they know has failed before –the courts have rejected it as improper procedure. The result is us taking valuable time we should be spending recruiting, training and motivating others to get involved and instead wasting it with lawsuits and complaints. The lawsuit also came just ahead of caucuses, which was viewed by many as a deliberate attempt to disrupt normal party operations and deny members of the UCRP their right to caucus.

Finally, the suit trumps the will of the UCRP governing bodies. The use of RONR is often held high by the plaintiffs and yet nothing in RONR allows for such a lawsuit. Further, this is an effort to replace the will of the CC, EC and SC.

If the suit isn’t bad enough on its face, each plaintiff used their party positions (SCC members) in their affidavit. The respondents committed misfeasance when, as officers of the party, they made public statements that injure the party and our purposes. Party office holders, by their election, have a duty to promote the party and its purposes.

RONR Page 624, Line 5 “.. An organization or assembly has the ultimate right to… require that its members refrain from conduct injurious to the organization or its purposes”.

RONR Page 630, Line 3 ““tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work.” In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not.

The respondents were party officers when they filed the lawsuit against the Republican Party, and made specific note of their positions of trust within the party as members of the State Central Committee.

Court papers are public statements, no different than holding a press conference on the steps of the capitol. When the respondents filed the laws suite they made the following statements about the Republican Party:

It does “threaten to again subvert the pact of freedom embodied in the GOP constitution.”

Is harming “many” members of the Republican Party by “depriving them of a free and fair election”

Is depriving the respondents of their “right to vote”

Is doing “immediate and irreparable harm” to these party officials

Is depriving the State Central Committee of its “lawful right to govern the Utah Republican Party”.

And Republican Party members “do not understand the principles involved in delegate selection”.

These statements disparage the party, discourage voters from membership in the Republican Party, and provide significant aid and encouragement to opposition parties.

If we look to our governing documents for guidance as to how to proceed on other violations, many removal-from-office violations are less serious than what we have here. Therefore, I suggest this egregious violation warrants removal from office.

I believe the people involved in the lawsuit knowingly used this attempt when, even with a minimal amount of research into the prior history of similar lawsuits, they would have realized it was just a repeat of a previous failed action. The timing of the lawsuit, asking for an injunction to stop the caucuses just prior to the caucuses, cannot and should not be seen as a coincidence and must also be viewed as a reason to seek enhanced penalties for this action.

Courts have stated in the past that they are not going to get involved in overseeing a private entity’s governing documents and policies. In 1994, due to a Supreme Court ruling, the State of Utah almost completely divorced itself from meddling in political parties. The real net effect of this lawsuit, possibly even the intent, will be to deter many frustrated voters who are looking for a political party that provides leadership and creative solutions to today’s pressing challenges. Nothing like that is forthcoming from this legal action.

My final point is the suit attempts to trump the will of the UCRP governing bodies.

At the last SCC, one plaintiff argued against a proposal to allow the body to act on certain proposals stating that it’s a question of numbers; the rules of the party should not be held by the fewest amounts of people but should be reserved for action by the larger body. Well, his suit is an ultimate disregard for the will of the body. The three plaintiffs are trying to force a rule on the entire UCRP by force.

I find this situation especially ironic given the frequency that the plaintiffs site RONR as the model for conduct in our party. I can’t count how many times these three chastise me and others when we have been following UCRP rules that trump RONR, but now they find it inconvenient to use RONR.

I challenge anyone to find a single reference in RONR that allows the filing of a lawsuit as an acceptable tactic for winning a debate. RONR has been adopted by our Party and I find no reference to the right of a body to sue? With no reference that allows the use of a lawsuit to prevail in a debate then I believe this effort is solely for the purpose of replacing the will of the CC, EC and SC. This is a clear violation of our rules and constitutes malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance.

VICTORY for GOP in 2010 and Beyond

BIG VICTORY for the GOP in 2010...and Beyond

Being the Chair of the Utah County Republican Party (UCRP) has been a great experience; I've only got a few short months left. But we have seen some important things happen in 2009-2010 and the foundation is set for an even better 2011 and beyond. We reached our goal to elect Republicans and the stage is set for continued success for years to come. Many of our candidates increased their margin of victory.

VICTORY has been our goal but it is also our theme for continued success. As we energetically articulate what it means to be a Republican and promote our conservative Vision, we educate others and motivate them to stay involved in the process of making public policy. But as we talk of prosperity through less government we must remain Inclusive in our dialogue, events and activities. For long-lasting strength, we must welcome all voters, including those from diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds. We must never fear those with a different idea; all deserve a seat at the table of discourse and let the best ideas rise to the top.

We must not only be inclusive in our behavior but we must improve our Communication with the party faithful and the public at large to recruit, train, and motivate others to be involved in the political process. We can do this by using Technology to improve outreach and increase understanding. Technology is a tool that promotes what it means to be a Republican but we must conduct ourselves with Openness and transparency to truly increase fairness and unity. This outreach to like-minded groups, individuals, and organizations will strengthen Relationships and help expand our interaction with today's Youth, since the rising generation will be tomorrow's leaders.

VICTORY and prosperity will only be possible when all members of the Republican family join together. We invite you to join with the UCRP and put aside past differences (politics should never be personal) and focus on that which will make us stronger.

VICTORY and progress towards unity is also only possible when we respect the process of making policy and rules. Our Party must protect the process of making rules and proposing changes to those rules; we must protect the process of vigorous dialogue and debate, and then unite behind the chosen solution. We will always face factions that want to dictate what they want above the will of the majority.

We face a future full of challenges. The UCRP will continue to achieve VICTORY and show we have the solutions when we respect the process and advocate for adherence to our Constitution and Platform. This is my goal in 2011.

Need for Courageous Public Servants Willing to Face Attacks

I read with concern a recent article in the Daily Herald about some residents complaining (again) against Councilmember Steve Turley. I am concerned because this appears like an early shot in the campaign for next year’s council races. Ask yourself, what business owner is willing to face unsubstantiated complaints like this? I say unsubstantiated because from what I’ve heard, these are old complaints that have already been dismissed but now brought up again in a new way. This appears to be is a sneaky move to influence the current council decisions and further discourages other business owners from participating in the process for fear of similar tactics against them.

That is why this complaint is so troubling; it undermines the process and disenfranchises participants. In addition to a dampening effect on future candidates for office, this is a veiled attempt to reverse the voters will. We have elections in America. In other countries, if your majority or coalition is questioned then the leaders can call for a vote of confidence and appeal to the voters for support. In America we hold our elections on set dates and this is the process established to hold accountable our officials.

In addition, this is a supposed call for increased transparency. But how can a call for transparency mean anything when those issuing it hide behind a spokesperson? When will the list of 23 be made public?

As I understand one of the alleged complaints is that Mr. Turley has diminished the council because he was involved in as effort to replace a member of the council: the Stop Cindy campaign. Did Turley hide behind his efforts? No. He published his support for a new voice on the council and stands behind the record of votes and facts that he was concerned with. I ask those bringing this complaint; Why the need to hide behind a spokesperson? In a call for accountability, I challenge the 23 to stand up and be accountable.

I also am not blind to the obvious attack against commerce that this complaint represents. How so you ask? Well one neighbor of the group’s spokesperson 2 months ago attended a council meeting and objected to a land proposal because, in part, the owner may make some money. And another associated with this group has attacked other developers, Realtors, landlords, and property owners. Yet another has proposed to change Provo’s ethics rules, already more strict than the state laws. He admitted his proposal would be nearly impossible for business and property owners to comply with.

This effort reminds me of how I felt when I heard President Obama describe the only member of his cabinet from the private sector as a spy behind enemy lines. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Barak Obama his disdain for the entrepreneurial spirit of America. We have now seen firsthand how this president feels about commerce. His headlong rush toward socialism has us nearly bankrupt. But should we condone this attitude here in our valley? I say no.

Some I guess just feel more comfortable that government has the answers to our economic woes. I for one am not supportive of that idea. I support the notion that the best government is the one that governs least; I support a part-time council made up of residents from a diverse background of businesses and community interests. We need our council to understand how when the city sets a budget they do so with tax funds; after all, when government spends money they are spending our money.

Taxpayers voted in the recent elections with a load voice that we are taxed enough already and that property rights are the foundation of this great community and nation and should not be taken without due compensation.

A narrow group of residents, hiding behind a call for increased ethics sounds all too familiar with the sham ethics proposal that was rejected by voters across the state. We don’t need a biased panel dictating what is ethical according to their standards. We as voters demand that elections mean something and that a small group should NOT be allowed to push their narrow and biased agenda through complaints and law suits.

I sure hope that the Mayor’s office, in working with the County Attorney and Attorney General can put this to rest with a quick dismissal.

I wonder at the motive of those brining up old news now. It seems obvious it is designed to influence Mr. Turley’s judicial proceedings, upcoming council leadership elections, next year’s elections, and other business endeavors of part-time council members.

I’m grateful that we have a courageous public servant willing to put up with this defamation and harassment. I hope that other business owners won’t be discouraged from stepping forward because what type of government do we have when good business-minded individuals stop serving? I dare say that the public won’t like the result. We’ll have our rights stripped and increased taxes and costs.

I’m hopeful that individuals that understand what it means to make payroll, and understand property rights will take the risks and stand for better government and help defend the process of holding accountability and it is done at elections.

Why Change a Good Thing? or If It Ain't Broke Don't Fix It

“Hope and change! Change we can believe in! Change we can trust! Change we need!” We all remember President Obama invoking those phrases on the campaign trail. Now along comes Richard Davis, Democrat Party Chairman, saying “It’s time for a change in Utah County.”

This plea comes at a time when Utah is being recognized nationally as “Best Managed State in America”(Pew Foundation), “Best Expected Economic Recovery” (ALEC), “America’s Best State to Live In” (Forbes Magazine), “Most Dynamic Economy” (Kauffman), “Best Quality of Life” (Business Facilities Magazine), “Some of the Best Places to Live” (Money Magazine), “Best Financial Situation in the Country” (Forbes Magazine), “Among the Top 10 States for Job Creation” (IHS Global Insight) among others. These prestigious recognitions don’t happen by accident. They come as a result of implementing Republican principles of government that maximize freedom, liberty, and free markets. After all, it’s the private sector that creates economic growth.

Nationally, Democrat change has translated into Obamacare, bail-outs, more government, more spending, and less freedom and liberty. At every turn, Democrats promised moderation during the election, and then delivered the most liberal, socialistic government in the history of America.

Rather than justify their party’s liberal platform, Utah County Democrats want voters to ignore the party label. They have adopted a “local” platform that almost mirrors that of the Republicans with the exception that they support universal healthcare (think Obamacare). They say they are “fiscally and socially conservative” and “in favor of gun rights.” It even sounds Republican. So either Democrats are closet Republicans who perhaps don’t want to put in the necessary work during the Republican caucus, convention and primary process or they really are Democrats who are disguising the fact in hope you’ll ignore it.

In truth, no matter how much Democrats say they are just like Republicans, in politics the leaf (local Democrats) is a part of the tree (national Democrats).

Take ethics for example and Mr. Davis’ implication that his party is somehow more ethical, an intended slight towards Republicans. Mr. Davis failed to point out that the Republicans have addressed ethics legislation over the past few years, creating a framework that increases transparency and disclosure. Those changes are substantial and are working. I also question Mr. Davis’s claim that Utah County residents support the ethics initiative even when it failed to gain enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. Maybe that’s because many Utah County voters know what’s in the 21-page document—that it is fraught with a host of constitutional issues and would preclude many good, honest community and business leaders from running for office. Utah County Republicans read the bill before passing it, unlike Pelosi Democrats.

A part of ethical behavior is disclosure and transparency. Yet Mr. Davis advised all Democrat candidates to not identify themselves as Democrats on their websites, signs, billboards or literature; confusing voters at best and deceiving them at worst. A Daily Herald editorial September 23, 2010 said it best why Utah County Democrats don’t want to be Democrats, “Utah County voters are not excited about the liberal policies of prominent democrats, Obama, Pelosi and Reid”.

Local Democrats would rather tell you about their religious affiliation and LDS church leadership positions so you know they are “good people” than be known as Democrats. While they very likely are good people, we have all heard the saying “never mix religion with politics”. Recently, many were outraged when Mike Huckabee attacked Mitt Romney for his religion. Using religion to demean or promote any candidate should have no place in American politics. The critical concern for elected office should be the ability to provide good government, not a contest to prove the level of faithfulness in religious practice.

Party affiliation does matter in partisan races. No matter how much a candidate may disclaim the national party ideology, local and state parties are foot soldiers for the national party. When controversy arises, party affiliation counts. Even in Utah this happens. In 2004, the constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman was approved in the State Senate by one vote; everyone voted along party lines. One more Democrat would have killed the bill to protect our traditional families.

Mr. Davis would have Utah County voters believe that there is little difference between candidates from his party and the Republican Party. I say, Utah County voters are smarter than that. When Americans bought Democrats “change we can believe in” two years ago, it was a big government mistake that has long-term financial impacts. Now at the national and local level Americans will get to choose between big government and less government, more spending or less spending, more freedom or less freedom.

In November, vote Republican. Your freedom, your values, and your pocketbook depend on it.