I discovered a gem this evening, Anti-Strib.com. Welcome to the blogroll!

Two-term U.S. Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) lost his seat due to the Constitution Party drawing conservative votes away to their own party candidate. Here are the unofficial final results:

• Jeff Merkley (Democrat) … 48.8%
• Gordon Smith (Republican) … 45.7%
• Dave Brownlow (Constitution) … 5.2%

The Constitution Party’s National Chairman, James Clymer, brazenly declared

It’s good news for the Constitution Party when a liberal incumbent US Senator and his major party spend money directly attacking one of our candidates. It shows our significance, that their polls are showing we are taking votes from them, and it results in many more people hearing of the Constitution Party alternative.

I empathize with Mr. Clymer, but in reality his party’s actions moved the liberals a step forward while true Republican conservatives in Congress have taken a HUGE step backwards due to an even more LIBERAL candidate inheriting the seat in the Senate. How could anyone be proud of being directly responsible of placing an ultra-liberal Democrat into the U.S. Senate? I have lost some respect for Mr. Clymer — Your vision is self-serving and will have a neverending negative impact on our society as a whole. By trading away a semi-conservative U.S. Senate seat for an ultra-liberal, well, may I suggest next time you try a positive political strategy, one that actually takes the conservative movement forward? Good grief.

And another morale to the story… Oregon is allowing a non-majority candidate (one who received less than 50% of the vote) represent its constituents in the U.S. Senate. All states should rally behind this lesson to NOT allow it to happen to them! Individuals should demand to have their representation only go to Washington, D.C. with a majority vote! Why would a state not sponsor a run-off between the two leading candidates whenever a majority vote is not obtained?

Being LDS and politically active I frequently field questions from colleagues about where Mormons stand on certain issues. More exact, I frequently hear remarks from these colleagues indicating “Mormons vote as a block” or “Mormons are all Republicans.” Rather than being defensive about my religious beliefs, I normally present the argument that the LDS Church endorses no single candidate or party, but the more obvious argument is to simply look at Senators Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid. These two men could not be further apart politically, yet they both espouse the same religious beliefs. An interesting article was posted by a guest (I wonder who?) at the “By Comment Consent” blog demonstrating the fact that these colleagues of mine are apparently out of touch and my argument stands. Thanks to the research done by the author of the article, in 111th Congress will be attended by 14 Mormons, clearly from both sides of the political spectrum:

• 5 Senators: Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), and Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)
• 9 Representatives: Congressman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), Wally Herger (R-California), Congressman Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Buck McKeon (R-California), Congresman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)

Although there are more “R’s” than “D’s” among these 14 members of Congress (10 R’s, 4 D’s), my point stands simply due to the fact that Mormons are found in both parties, and mighty extreme points-of-view from two of them (Hatch and Reid). Anyway, just throwing the information out there.

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting Utah’s new Senate President is West Jordan’s Michael Waddoups. This leadership change could prove a good thing for Utah! A new Majority Leader was selected, too, Sheldon Killpack. Congratulations to both.

I am honored to have participated so heavily in the Jason Chaffetz campaign since February. As of now, with over 94% of the precincts reporting, Jason has collected 64.8% of the vote. Congratulations Congressman-elect! I look forward to seeing your voice in Congress!

In legislative district 42 (in my hometown), Jim Bird sweeps with 66.6% of the vote. Congratulations Jim. Your efforts have been noticed and we appreciate you!

The Deseret News/KSL-TV election poll results are out. Polls were taken from 24-30 October of only regsitered voters. No surprises, but the numbers are interesting:

Utah’s 1st Congressional District:
Rob Bishop … 60%
Morgan Bowen … 27%
Joseph Geddes Buchman … 12%
Kirk Pearson … 2%
Undecided/Refuse … 8%
(margin of error +/- 5%)

Utah’s 2nd Congressional District:
Jim Matheson … 65%
Bill Dew … 26%
Mathew Arndt … 2%
Dennis Ray Emery … 2%
Undecided … 5%
(margin of error +/- 4.6%)

Utah’s 3rd Congressional District:
Jason Chaffetz … 58%
Bennion Spencer … 24%
Jim Noorlander … 5%
Other/Undecided … 12%
(margin of error +/- 5%)

West Valley City’s Lions Club sponsored a debate this evening between Utah’s 3rd Congressional District candidates, Jason Chaffetz, Jim Noorlander, and Bennion Spencer. I made time to attend. By the time I left at 7:40 (for other obligations) Bennion Spencer had not even made the time to arrive. Regardless, Spencer had requested someone represent him in his absence and to be honest, I have no idea who the replacement was… He [the mysterious visitor] played the same old tricks Spencer has been trying to use, purporting to lay out Chaffetz’ points-of-view in an awkward, tilted manner, full of personal attacks, rather than debating ways in which Congressional direction can be improved. It showed me that either Spencer is lame, or he is getting political pressure to represent himself that way. Go figure. After leaving this evening it is more clear than ever that it is time for Jason Chaffetz to represent Utah in Congress! A man who represents fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense.

I received an email a couple hours ago from The Heritage Foundation. Apparently the Obama campaign released a 30-second television advertisement with false information and then repeated the information on their website. The “information” is that the Obama campaign wrongly suggests The Heritage Foundation supports Obama’s tax plan and is purposefully misleading voters. An attorney from Heritage, Alan P. Dye, sent a letter to the Obama campaign which partially reads:

“Two recent campaign advertisements seriously misrepresent the views of my client, The Heritage Foundation. They suggest, quite falsely, that The Heritage Foundation and one of its analysts support your tax plan.

The print ad on your Website as well as your ad entitled ‘Try This’ reference a quote from policy analyst Rea Hederman. In fact, Mr. Hederman never said what is quoted there. Rather, the words you quote are from a New York Sun reporter who interviewed Mr. Hederman and summarized his views erroneously.

That the reporter’s summary is erroneous is evident from the actual quotes from Mr. Hederman presented in the article, which make is quite clear that Mr. Hederman believes your tax plan would be bad not only for the country, but for the middle class. By omitting the direct quotes from Heritage that are contained in the article and attributing to Heritage a conflicting statement not made by its analyst, the advertisement appears to be an intentional attempt to mislead.”

Whoops.

Another one of us for Utah, Ladies Logic! Welcome to the blogroll.