Skip to main content

A Brief Review of Remaining Chaffetz Replacement Candidates


I sat down this weekend and did some initial investigation into the remaining candidates for the 3rd Congressional District. The results are disappointing. In the end, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to vote for any of these people. That's a valid conclusion to come to, but a rather sad one as well.

I have four candidates that I am considering, and four that I have eliminated from consideration.

Candidates I Am Considering

These candidates all have negatives, but I haven't eliminated them yet, nor have I distinguished which one I would prefer. Elimination may require more information, or simply some more thought.

Joe Buchman: Libertarian. His vocal UFO enthusiasm makes it hard to take him seriously.

Jason Christensen: Independent American Party. Inarticulate, and stumbling. He seems to have adopted an interest in the Constitution, but it is not clear that he has much depth of understanding. He does not appear to demonstrate good critical thinking skills or depth.

Sean Whalen: A life coach for men and former property investor. He has obviously put resources into his campaign and he presents himself very well. Past complaints about his property investment business are cause for concern. The overall impression that I am left with is that he is a self-promoter at heart. This is a good fit for politics, even if concerning from a possible corruption standpoint. Among impossible third party campaigns, one of the many motives for running is self-promotion to improve existing businesses, and this motive is the one I would ascribe to Sean Whalen. If he was to have run against John Curtis in the Republican primary, he might have been a shoe-in for the position he's running for.

Russell Paul Roesler: There is very little information available regarding this candidate.

Candidates I Am Not Considering

I've already looked into these candidates enough to know that I would not vote for them. (Most of them didn't require much research to come to that conclusion.)

Kathie Allen: Democrat (A party with a platform incompatible with my principles.)

Jim Bennett: United Utah Party. This took some investigation. My impression of the party was initially negative, and after review, that didn't really change. There are a number of good platform points, but there is not any interest shown in any solid principles, and there are some disturbing points in their priorities. There are enough red flags that I would be disinclined to support any of their candidates.

Brendan Phillips: Green Party (A party with a platform incompatible with my principles.)

John Curtis: Republican. Good party, bad candidate. He is clearly not interested in fundamental principles, whether constitutional or otherwise. Collaboration with leftists to promote his campaign, and his use of the signature gathering method to insert himself into the Republican primary, flag him as more interested in himself than in defending our freedoms.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Debate Over "The Best a Man Can Get"

The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods. (Wikipedia) I'm a little late on the commentary here, and it really isn't Utah-specific, but I have plenty of unoriginal thoughts that, perhaps, I might put together in an appealing way. More importantly, somebody made the above cartoon for me, and it seemed like it would be a terrible waste to not air it a little. (It has been posted elsewhere, but it was made for me, and I love it.) You're welcome to share the image around if you are so inclined. My impression of Gi**ette's ad was negative from the start. I was disgusted with the extremely negative view of men in our society (ie. western masculinity), and by use of a clip from the Young Turks (a panel of radical leftist commentators). The message has often been portrayed, by those who like the ad, as a sort of "we can do better, men; look how great you can be" sort of message. That's an interesting interpretation, b...

Sending Letters to Candidates and a Response from Mike Hardy

Earlier this week I wrote a letter to the mayoral candidates in Payson, Utah. Frequently, when local elections are held, the low profile of the elections makes it difficult to get a clear picture of the candidates. So, in order to get the data I need to distinguish the candidates, I will email the candidates. I try to keep the letter to 4 questions, and, invariably, the responses (or lack thereof) tell me a lot about the candidates. Maybe it is just because my questions dovetail nicely with my way of thinking, but I tend to find that the responses I get are much more helpful than the responses I get from some of the blah questions politicians are frequently asked. Some of my questions are fairly standard, but I try to mix it up sometimes. Some common go-tos are "why are you running for [the position]", "if you are elected, how will you be able to act as a check against abuses perpetrated by [other branches of government]", "what role do you see citiz...

Neural Networks, Pavlov's Dogs, and Elections

Assorted Flowers Today's blog post is a bit technical. My intention is to explain some of my thoughts on how people behave unconsciously (and sometimes even consciously). At its heart, this is about group psychology, and applying the ideas of classical conditioning . I really came to this understanding from a different direction, however; one informed more by my experience with computer science and physics than by psychology. Image by BruceBlaus . Obtained from Wikimedia Commons . To begin with, I need to describe the humble neuron . Neurons are the basic unit that makes up the brain. They are cells. By themselves, neurons are relatively simple things. The basic feature that makes neurons special is the way they link up and pass signals to one another. A typical neuron is made up of a cell body with an axon and dendrites. The axons and dendrites are basically like tentacles. Typically, the axon of one neuron will connect to one or more dendrites of other neurons. The de...