Jordy Blog

I thought these emails were insightful as to the way the insider politics work in the Utah GOP:

—–Original Message—–
From: Ivan DuBois [mailto:idubois@utgop.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:15 PM
To: Utah Republican Party
Subject: State Central Committee Issue
Importance: High

Dear State Central Committee Member:

Today we received a written request from State Central Committee member Mark Shurtleff to give our National Delegates some flexibility at the National Convention regarding the Utah vote.  (His modified State Convention Resolution is below for your reference).  He is asking that the State Central Committee allow the delegation to consider and fulfill the wishes of Mitt Romney, the winner of the Utah Republican Presidential Primary with over 90% of the vote.

I have had many discussions with the Romney campaign on this issue.  They are firm in their desire for their delegates to be released.  (See the attached Letter from Mitt Romney).

The Utah Republican Party Constitution does not address the issue of rebinding delegates once a candidate has withdrawn and asked to have their delegates released.  To research this issue, I have spoken with the RNC to find out how other States are handling similar situations.  I have also studied the Utah Republican Party governing documents, RNC Rules, Utah State law, and our Parliamentary Authority - Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.

I have concluded that our National Delegates can be released, in part because no harm will be done to the affected party (Mitt Romney). In fact, this action is in response to his request. This procedure will be consistent with how other State Parties have handled this issue, according to the RNC.

I am asking for your support of my finding to allow Utah’s National Delegates to be released from voting for Mitt Romney at the Republican National Convention.

The State Central Committee is the governing body of the Party so your advice and consent is very important on this issue.  I would like to request that each State Central Committee member review this information closely and then respond to this e-mail.  Please provide your feedback on my decision by tomorrow, Friday, August 8 at 5 p.m.

Respectfully,

Stan Lockhart

P.S. If we are unable to come to an agreement electronically, we will need to address the issue at a State Central Committee meeting on Saturday, August 23, 2008.
_____________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION REGARDING RELEASE OF UTAH’S NATIONAL

CONVENTION DELEGATES

WHEREAS, Governor Mitt Romney was the candidate receiving the most votes of the statewide vote in Utah’s February 5, 2008 Republican Presidential Primary;

WHEREAS, Senator John S. McCain was the candidate receiving the second most votes of the statewide vote in Utah’s February 5, 2008 Republican Presidential Primary;

WHEREAS, Governor Romney has since withdrawn from the 2008 Presidential Election;

WHEREAS, Governor Romney has endorsed Senator McCain;

WHEREAS, Governor Romney supports Senator McCain’s candidacy for President of the United States of America;

WHEREAS, Governor Romney has respectfully requested that Utah’s National Convention Delegates attending the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota cast their votes for Senator McCain. In particular, in his February 29, 2008 letter to Utah Republican Party Chairman Stan Lockhart, Governor Romney wrote:

“Because I am no longer a formal candidate for the presidency of the United States, please consider this an official release, to the extent allowed by party rules and state law, of all delegates bound, committed, or otherwise pledged to vote for me at the 2008 Republican National Convention. I strongly encourage all released and uncommitted delegates to cast their votes for Senator John McCain at the Convention.”;

WHEREAS, the Utah Republican Party desires to respect Governor Romney’s request;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Utah’s National Convention Delegates attending the 2008 Republican National Convention are released from voting for Mitt Romney.

LET IT ALSO BE RESOLVED that we give the delegation the decision making ability to vote for John McCain.

Respectfully submitted,

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff

Here are some excellent responses.  This one is from Don Guyman:

Stan,

With all due respect this request is completely out of order.

1) Where in the rules does it allow our delegates to be unbound? Utah voters went to the polls and voted by over 90% for Mitt Romney. These same voters gave John McCain 5% of the vote. According to our rules our national delegates are bound to Romney on the first vote. It is not fair to the Utah voters who went to the polls to vote for Romney to suddenly change the rules after the vote has been taken.

2) This same proposal was presented to the state convention delegates who voted to table the matter.

3) There is no provision in the C&B for electronic voting. This process is out of order.

4) Through the email process there is no room for debate of delegates. Only one side is being presented.

We can spend all of the money we want on ad campaigns, but if we are not viewed as a party that can be trusted we will eventually lose political power in the state.

With all due respect, I ask you to reconsider your motion.

This one is from Rob Alexander:

Dear Utah Republican Party Executive Committee,

The proposal by Chairman Lockhart and Attorney General Shurtleff to release Utah’s national Republican delegates from voting for Governor Romney on the first ballot is an egregious violation of the rules, especially the way it is proposed to do so. The Utah Republican Party Constitution does not address the issues of binding or releasing national delegates. The Utah Republican Party Bylaws clearly state the following:

7.0 CONVENTIONS AND ELECTIONS

B. Allocation and Binding of National Delegation. All National Convention delegates and alternates shall be allocated to the candidate receiving the most votes of the statewide vote in the Republican Presidential Primary. On the first ballot, the national delegation shall be bound to vote for the candidate who has received the most votes in the Republican Presidential Primary, but the delegation shall not be bound on any subsequent ballots.

Also, we delegates at the state convention resoundly booed Chairman Lockhart when he requested extra time to speak in favor of releasing the delegates from Governor Romney. I believe we delegates voted to table the matter not because we wanted it brought up by the State Central Committee at a later time, but because we wanted to end discussion on the issue.

Further, as National Delegate Guymon mentioned below, there is no provision in the Utah Republican Party Constituion or Bylaws for electronic voting, thus making the proposed process out of order.

As such, I respectfully encourage each of you to request that Chairman Lockhart and Attorney General Shurtleff withdraw their motion.

Thank you,
Rob Alexander
REPUBLican State Delegate, Salt Lake County
REPUBLican Candidate for State Representative
Utah Legislative District 35
http://voterob.alexanderfamily.org

This one is from Lowell Nelsen:

Thank you for asking, Stan.

Here are three quick reasons (not exhaustive) why Mark Shurtleff’s request should be denied:

1. As you said, our party constitution does “not address the issue of rebinding delegates once a candidate has withdrawn and asked to have their delegates released.” It does, however, clearly indicate that the votes of our delegates in the first round be given to the candidate who received the most votes in the Presidential Preference Primary (regardless of the status of that candidate). Therefore, our delegates must remain bound to Mitt until after the first round of balloting is concluded. This is a “rules” issue; we must follow the rules.

2. This question essentially was answered at the state convention when, by a super majority, state delegates voted to table the motion to unbind our national delegates from Mitt Romney. For the State Central Committee to reverse the decision of the convention would be a breech of the trust placed in the committee by county parties and Republican delegates throughout the state. This is a “trust” issue. First, the electorate of Utah said that Mitt Romney should receive 36 votes in the first round. Second, the state convention (composed of roughly 3500 state delegates) said that Mitt Romney should receive 36 votes in the first round. Is the State Central Committee (SCC) so brazen as to repudiate those two referenda and just do what it darn well pleases?

3. In our party constitution, Article IV, Section D, we read the following: “Quorum. In order to conduct binding business, the State Central Committee must have a quorum in attendance, defined as 40 voting members.” (This clause is echoed in the bylaws, Article II, Section B.) These two words, “in attendance,” clearly implies that a meeting (something that can be attended) be held in order to conduct binding (or unbinding, in this case :–) business. Therefore, putting forth this resolution is out of order. No provision is made for the SCC to meet, establish a quorum, debate, and vote (conduct binding business) electronically.

Please withdraw the motion/resolution.

Thank you. Lowell.

I couldn’t agree more with these last three.  This back-door motion should be offensive to Utah State Republican Delegates who already voted on the matter in convention.

Why are Utah GOP insiders so anxious to show support for John McCain that they would disregard their own bylaws and trample the will of their own state delegates?  Politics are supposed to be from the bottom up, not the top down.

If you liked this post, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Thank goodness our “limited government” Republicans are here to bail us out of the negative economic results of big government through the use of even more big government.  Socialized housing, here we come.

I’m going to the first quarterly Blogger Blood Drive today.  If you’re in the SLC or Utah County area, I hope you’ll join me.  If not, I hope you’ll consider starting one in your own area for next quarter.

See the Serenity Foundation National Bloggers Blood Drive page for more general info.

One of my friends sent me the following email:

Tomorrow, our Senate will vote on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which the House of Representatives recently approved. You can read Ron Paul’s observations about this bill here. Please urge Senators Hatch and Bennett to vote against it…

If our “limited government” Republican leadership passes this, they deserve to get kicked out of office.  That said, I shutter to think of the alternative.

Have you contacted your senators yet?

I was eating breakfast at Gondolfo’s when I noticed that Fox News was covering this hard-hitting story from the Associate Press.  Apparently a recent poll shows that pet-owners prefer McCain.

Wow. It’s a good thing there are no important issues that could be covered right now.  Of course, by important issues I mainly mean dead bombshells whose childrens’ potential fathers are squabbling over custody of the money, former baseball stars who may have used steroids (thank you congress for overseeing those hearings), or even the transcendently wise tips on wearing sunscreen since –this just in– the sun is still hot.

I wrote this brief little Byrd’s parody for my friend who’s doing a Summer internship in Texas.  Perhaps you’ll recognize the tune:

To every task turn, intern.
There is a reason. (Turn, intern!)
There’s an intern for every purpose under heaven.

An intern to type, an intern to clean,
an intern for food, an intern for drinks,
an intern for calls, an intern for blame,
Intern, the men’s room TP will soon need replacing.

Warning: Big-time nerder alert! If you find overt nerdyness offensive, zone out now or just click right on through.

I’m neither a computer scientist not a mathematician (and it probably shows), but I’m curious enough to poke around a bit. Lately I’ve been having fun with combinatorics.

One of the programs I often write as I’m learning a new programming language is a cryptogram maker. A cryptogram is basically it a word puzzle where each letter of a piece of text has been replaced by another letter according to a randomized substitution cipher. Here’s an example:

BEFORE: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs.
AFTER : QGF JKHDY ZESRP WSV CKUIFN SOFE QGF BMXL NSTA.
LETTER : ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
CYPHER : MZDNFWTGHCYBUPSIJEAQKORVLX

Anyway, I’ve long known the total number of possible cypher keys (supposing that any letter can be replaced with itself), but I’ve spent several boring church meetings thinking about another simple combinatorics problem. Of course, it’s probably pretty basic to one who has studied combinatorics, but I’ll put it to you just the same.

The question was:

How do I process any given cypher key so that an ordered ’solution number’ can be derived from it (or vice versa) without iterating through the possible cyphers (or solutions).

After having the answer suddenly dawn on me the other night, I now put you to the test. And to make it only slightly more interesting, the first person to comment with the answers and an accurately described algorithm (complete with the basic math behind it) wins a whopping $5 cash prize mailable by me. Note that just writing a script to cycle through does not count because the whole point is not to iterate through all the cyphers. Also, I shrunk the alphabet to make it nicer on you. :)

Solution Number	Cypher
1	ABCDEFGHIJ
2	ABCDEFGHJI
3	ABCDEFGIHJ
4	ABCDEFGIJH
5	ABCDEFGJHI
6	ABCDEFGJIH
7	ABCDEFHGIJ
…	…
?	HDICAGEJFB
…	…
3096542	?
…	…
?	JIHGFEDCBA

Show your logic!  (Hint you can easily do the math on half a sheet of paper once you know the algorithm.)

---

Aside: This is not a particularly problematic problem (since I really had no need for a solution), but the math is fun just the same. I tried to think of a story problem that would make the math more compelling and less numerically intensive (without truncating the alphabet), but I sort of got bored of writing it. Maybe I’ll share what I came up with later.

I had the opportunity to see the Cannon, Leavitt, and Chaffetz campaign speeches at both the Utah County and Utah State Republican Conventions.  When it became clear through successive rounds of voting at the state convention that David Leavitt wasn’t going to win and that even Cannon would probably lose outright to Chaffetz at convention, all sorts of funny business started happening. It was like watching a large wounded animal give its last throws of life before submitting to defeat.

So what did Cannon do?  He colluded with Leavitt to get the votes of Leavitt delegates, which by itself is fine; but in order to get the message to Leavitt supporters, Cannon and Leavitt broke party rules against signage in the conference center twice: the first time by having Leavitt volunteers march right through the convention holding giant Cannon signs, and second by hanging a large handwritten sign that said “Leavitt supports Cannon” at the top of the stadium.  Both acts received tremendous booing from the audience and calls from the Chairman to maintain order and cease the disruptive behavior.

It struck me to see how unprincipled and disparate the two losing major republican candidates really were.  But in the end they got their message across.  The final vote after Leavitt was eliminated was 59% for Chaffetz and 41% for Cannon, with Chaffetz lacking only 9 votes from the 60% required to win the republican nomination outright.

And so, the vote went to primaries, where money and name recognition generally give a major boost to incumbents.  Those primaries are today, and polling suggests that the nomination could go either way.  I’m going to vote for Chaffetz, and if you’re a registered Republican in Utah Congressional District 3, I hope you do too.

Although I didn’t agree with the whole thing, here are some gems from the Chaffetz speech (video):

I believe the best hope for our people, for our families, is to return to those core conservative principles of fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense.  We’ve abandoned those principles…  Republicans had the house, the senate, and the presidency, and quite frankly, we blew it.  We did not do the heavy lifting on the issues that matter most.

When Mr. Cannon took office, the budget was $1.5 trillion.  Today it’s $2.9 trillion.  That’s unacceptable, and we cannot sustain that.  We have a $9.3 trillion debt.  Last year alone we paid $429 billion of interest on that debt.  That cannot stand.

Mr. Cannon voted in favor of No Child Left Behind.  I want to repeal No Child Left Behind; there should be no Department of Education.

Here’s my favorite misleading statement from the Cannon campaign video:

[Chris Cannon]  has told the Federal Government to stay out of our schools.

Well, Cannon may have told the Federal Government to stay out of our schools, but that’s certainly not how he voted.  No Child Left Behind meddles with our schools in unprecedented ways.

If you want to do a last minute check on the issues, here is the Chaffetz platform.

Incidentally, you are also allowed to vote between Mark Walker and Richard Ellis for as the Republican nomination for State Treasurer.  See their campaign speeches here and here.

Get out and vote!

Yesterday, a leftist pig friend of mine asked what I’ve been doing lately besides right-wing blogging.  Rather than answer his question here (because I answered it elsewhere), I’ll return his jest and just ask: can’t we all just get along?

Here’s a letter from an organization my “leftest pig” friend no doubt admires.  It’s a letter with which I agree 100%.  In fact, this letter is so important that I’ll “waste my time” blogging about it just to make sure that you read it. Are you ready?  I’ve temporarily obfuscated the names of the (sometimes) innocent to keep my “right-wing nut” readers from jumping to conclusions and discrediting the content based solely on the author. Here goes:

Dear XXXX Supporter,

Despite the outrage coming from a broad coalition of concerned citizens, by tomorrow night the House of Representatives will vote on whether or not to gut the Constitution and give immunity to phone companies who broke the law and spied on Americans.

We have to act now. Even if you’ve emailed, called or visited your members of Congress about FISA, we need you to contact them again today.

Congress is moving so fast and so secretively that we only got a copy of this bill this morning. I can tell you it’s horrible. It contains vacuum cleaner style surveillance that sweeps up the phone calls and emails of Americans. And it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that this is legislation that benefits a few of our country’s largest corporations while taking away basic rights from the rest of us. And it is unacceptable.

I’m going to spend the rest of the day on the phone calling Capitol Hill trying to stop this bill. I hope you will spend whatever time you can to make the voice of freedom heard in Congress — make calls, ask your friends and family to call — please do whatever you can.

Put Congress on notice that the American people don’t want a “compromise” that sells out our rights. Act now. We’re hearing the vote is tomorrow, so we could have less than 24 hours.

Believe me, no matter what happens, the XXXX will continue fighting this — if necessary, in the courts.

Thank you for all you have done through this fight. Your dedication has truly inspired me and all of us at the XXXX. Now, let’s hit the phones!

Thank you,
Caroline Fredrickson, Director
XXXX Washington Legislative Office

What is the name of the “leftist pig” organization with which this “right-wing nut” blogger nut so readily agrees?  Why it’s none other that the ACLU of course; and even though they refuse to defend my constitutional right to bear arms, the ACLU is dead right on this issue –and they’ve been dead right on a number of other issues as well.

So what’s my point?  Too often we turn our brains off when hearing an important message just because it’s delivered by someone we’ve already labeled as a leftist pig or a right-wing nut job.  “Liberals” do this to Bush all of the time.  “Conservatives” do it to the ACLU just as often.  It’s like we’ve been programmed to judge a message solely by the messenger, discrediting the content altogether; and no amount of good logic can compensate for our need to aways agree (or always disagree) with so-and-so.

If conservatives are are always pushing for limited government, why in the world do they want to give big government unlimited access to American citizens’ phone records?  And how is it that the supposed “big government” democrats are the ones fighting against this?  Seriously, think about it.  I think our desire to identify with and support our constituents while disagreeing with and thwarting our political rivals often times inhibits our ability to just use our noodle –and we’re all worse off for it.  (No, I don’t think my good friend is guilty of this sheepery; I just draw on his toungue-in-cheek question to prove a point.)

Anyway, this letter demonstrates an issue that both parties should be able to rally behind.  Government should not be allowed to spy on citizens willy-nilly.  If they suspect a citizen of terrorism and want to tap the wires, they should get a warrant.  These measures are there to protect citizens against a government that, if left unchecked, would in due time become tyranical.

In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

     –Thomas Jefferson (via Quoty)

Please do as the letter suggests and contact your representatives in congress. We don’t need big government to get any bigger.  Because the FISA bill would jeopardize our liberty, both sides of the aisle need to come together and oppose it.

I’ve blogged before about why I think America is in trouble.  A Ron Paul presidency would have gone along way toward fixing some of those problem (or at least prevent them from worsening), so I was sad to see that he clearly wasn’t going to win.  I’m amazed, however, how his candidacy brought these important issues to the forefront, and I was pleased to see loads of passionate people mobilize around his message of liberty.

As Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign officially came to a close, I was enthused to see his longer-term Campaign for Liberty initiative replace it.  It had upwards of 50,000 people sign up over the weekend, but membership growth has slowed somewhat since then.  Regardless, I’m glad to see a this more permanent fixture of liberty come into place; and I hope that it will be effective in promoting the principles of liberty, sound money, limited government, free markets, and non-interventionalism for years to come.

I think we have a long way to go, but I’m relieved to see people still rallying around this excellent cause.  I hope you’ll join us to help make America a safer place for liberty, prosperity, and peace.