I was recently reading a report on a recent poll of likely voters in the Republican primary which reported that 49% of voters were undecided, 29% favored John Curtis, 12% favored Chris Herrod, and 10% favored Tanner Ainge.
I had, for the most part, ignored John Curtis and Tanner Ainge when developing my voter guide. These are people that used the signature gathering method to get on the ballot without facing the caucus, forcing a primary. Generally, that is enough for me to lose respect for a candidate and drop them from consideration. However, the poll shows that voters still have significant interest in John Curtis, so I did some basic research. What I learned only reinforced my initial impression of the candidate.
The most significant thing I learned was that John Curtis ran as a Democrat in a Senate election in 2000. I am not a member of any political party, but I certainly have strong opinions about party platforms. I do not think that anybody with a good head on their shoulders and solid conservative principles could join the Democratic Party without wrestling mightily against his conscience. One of my voting principles has always been "don't support a party platform you do not think is generally good" and the Democratic Party has never had a platform that I have recognized to be generally good. It would seem that either John Curtis did not subscribe to that principle, or his principles otherwise were not solidly conservative. Either way it was bad.
Now, given that, if John were to say, "hey, that was dumb of me, and I've come to realize that those principles were not correct" it might be easier to give him a pass here. However, the most he can muster seems to be a regret that the decision has hurt him politically.
Raising further red flags is his choice to bypass the caucus by using the signature method to get on the ballot. This shows a disregard and disrespect for constitutional principles. That this is politically expedient, I cannot deny, but it is bad form and further supports the idea that there is a deficiency in his principles.
Although he can cite a couple of areas in which he aligns with conservatives, his overall behavior leaves us focusing more on this question: "what did he find so agreeable in the Democratic Party that he felt inclined to join?" Another question that comes to mind is: "Is he fighting all-out to benefit Utah, or is he doing it for himself." John's behavior suggests that John is only fighting for John.
It has been my observation since moving to Utah, that the Republican Party delegates are sharp individuals. They are generally well informed and thoughtful in the way they approach voting in a way that sets them apart from the average voter. It has been disheartening to see that while the average voter usually doesn't work as hard as their delegates, they also do not give much heed to their recommendations. Voters really need to give more weight to the caucus results. Candidates that try to avoid that kind of informed scrutiny should be looked at with distrust.
My analysis found Chris Herrod, the caucus winner, to be an excellent candidate for Utah's 3rd Congressional District. My hope is that voters don't shoot themselves in the foot by picking a man less worthy of their consideration. I'll also be looking to learn enough about Curtis to answer the unsettling questions he has raised in my mind.
I had, for the most part, ignored John Curtis and Tanner Ainge when developing my voter guide. These are people that used the signature gathering method to get on the ballot without facing the caucus, forcing a primary. Generally, that is enough for me to lose respect for a candidate and drop them from consideration. However, the poll shows that voters still have significant interest in John Curtis, so I did some basic research. What I learned only reinforced my initial impression of the candidate.
The most significant thing I learned was that John Curtis ran as a Democrat in a Senate election in 2000. I am not a member of any political party, but I certainly have strong opinions about party platforms. I do not think that anybody with a good head on their shoulders and solid conservative principles could join the Democratic Party without wrestling mightily against his conscience. One of my voting principles has always been "don't support a party platform you do not think is generally good" and the Democratic Party has never had a platform that I have recognized to be generally good. It would seem that either John Curtis did not subscribe to that principle, or his principles otherwise were not solidly conservative. Either way it was bad.
Now, given that, if John were to say, "hey, that was dumb of me, and I've come to realize that those principles were not correct" it might be easier to give him a pass here. However, the most he can muster seems to be a regret that the decision has hurt him politically.
Raising further red flags is his choice to bypass the caucus by using the signature method to get on the ballot. This shows a disregard and disrespect for constitutional principles. That this is politically expedient, I cannot deny, but it is bad form and further supports the idea that there is a deficiency in his principles.
Although he can cite a couple of areas in which he aligns with conservatives, his overall behavior leaves us focusing more on this question: "what did he find so agreeable in the Democratic Party that he felt inclined to join?" Another question that comes to mind is: "Is he fighting all-out to benefit Utah, or is he doing it for himself." John's behavior suggests that John is only fighting for John.
It has been my observation since moving to Utah, that the Republican Party delegates are sharp individuals. They are generally well informed and thoughtful in the way they approach voting in a way that sets them apart from the average voter. It has been disheartening to see that while the average voter usually doesn't work as hard as their delegates, they also do not give much heed to their recommendations. Voters really need to give more weight to the caucus results. Candidates that try to avoid that kind of informed scrutiny should be looked at with distrust.
My analysis found Chris Herrod, the caucus winner, to be an excellent candidate for Utah's 3rd Congressional District. My hope is that voters don't shoot themselves in the foot by picking a man less worthy of their consideration. I'll also be looking to learn enough about Curtis to answer the unsettling questions he has raised in my mind.
Comments
Post a Comment