Muni broadband is a hot-button enough issue for me that I made it one of my main questions when I asked candidates where they stand. Sadly, all of them either don't know much about it or take the knee-jerk "it's government competing with private enterprise" reaction. It's sad that so many of them are luddites like Orrin Hatch rather than savvy like Pete Ashdown.

I want to address the argument that voting for a third party is the same as voting for a Democrat in Utah. It is simply not true. The Democrats, while a minority, caucus together and do have enough sway on a few committees (where they have a -1 minority, not proportional) to have influence on the agenda on the hill.

Who will McGarr caucus with? The Republicans because they are idealogically the closest? If this is the case, he is only a member of the CP on paper and is just another Republican for all intents and purposes. He will certainly not caucus with those gay-loving godless tax and spend liberal Democrats (TIC, folks). And if he caucus' not at all, he does his district a tremendous disservice.

Voting for a 3rd party is not even REMOTELY the same as voting for a Democrat. We have a single member district system, that by it's inherent incentive structure precludes the long term viability of third parties. 3rd parties, 99/100, are mere temporary manifestations of frustration with one or more of the mainstream parties. They usually only stick around for a couple of election cycles and then die away in existance or at least relevence.

Furthermore, the Constitution Party's insistence of codifying Christianity into our laws is downright scary. And it's not just any brand of Christianity, it's a narrow, ultra-orthodox view. It's Ezra Taft Benson (pre-President of the Church) on proverbial neo-conservative steroids.

The line that they want to "restore" the Constitutional framework of the government is complete B.S. It's a front for an ultra-conservative agenda. They act as though the "Founding Fathers" were this group of monolithic, homogenous fellows who saw eye to eye on the role of government and even the Constitution. They treat Jefferson as if he practiced their brand of Christianity (Jefferson was very loosely a 'Christian' and denied the diety of Jesus Christ).

I find the ideas of the CP extraordinarily dangerous. Go listen to the interview we did with their 1st Congressional District Candidate Mark Hudson. We should teach the Bible in schools, but not the Quran (whose interpretation of the Bible isn't entirely clear). We should forego reduction of world trade barriers (despite the aggregate mutual gains) because NAFTA and CAFTA don't fit in their literalist interpretation of the Constitution. The CP believes that Christians "allow" freedom of religion in the United States, because Christians founded it.

And don't even get me started on their liberal use of Ether 8 and secret combinations.

I'm not making any of this stuff up. Go listen to the interview.

http://kvnuforthepeople.com/?p=95

Being endorsed by someone dubious like Ferrin and being identified with some of the voucher liberals does give me some concern. The jury's still out for me on Sandstrom.

Why do you say "dubious" for Ferrin Jim?

Maybe a stronger word is more appropriate. With some of the tactics, conflicts of interest, special-interest identification (yes I realize that would include most of the legislature), crassness, and such he has displayed, I'd be leery of any of his involvement.

I would love to see a LOT of special interest group reform happen this next year--REALLY limiting the gifts and money spent. It seems like the legislature is becoming even more beholden to special intersts (of all types, some are getting even "huger"). Wishful thinking.

Tom: I don't know how I missed your interview with Mark Hudson, the Constitution Party candidate for US Congress (not sure when you did it), but I hit your link and went back and listened to your interview. Mark Hudson's philosophies call for a fundamentalist theocracy and your and Ryan's questioning brought that out very well. Here's the problem with CP philosophies: it will bring the state (starting with schools) in the business of teaching and interpreting religion and God. "Thank you, but no." I'll teach my children religion in our home and at church; you stick to teaching them math and reading. The irony here is that while they call for limited gov't, Constitution Party philosophies, if executed, would call for gov't growth and intrusion into the most private arenas of our lives.

David,

This is an important point you make. Religion thrives best in privacy and agency. Our society needs religion for stability- without it we fail. The problem comes when zealots want to bypass that agency, usually with a pretense of holiness that hides a seperate agenda.

Also, one more thing- there is no way in hell the GOP will let McGarr caucus with them, even if that's what McGarr wants. Think about it. The Utah Republican Party certainly isn't going to incentivize third parties by creating a "coalition" government with even one CP'er. They won't need the vote to maintain a super majority and he will be left out in the cold without committee assignments and without an ounce of clout or pull.

So, if that's what the folks in his district want, knock yourselves out.

Another thing to think about--would Mormons like an evengelical government?

Tom,

Better to have someone representing my district who can't get something done than someone who'll do the wrong thing. If those are my choices, I'll vote for the first.

That's exactly what happenend in my district. I'm sure the special interest groups will be happy and well-represented though.