Utah vouchers out of context

Must admit to becoming intrigued at the debate in Utah on private school vouchers. Should the state pay private school tuition for rich and poor alike? It's a question voters will answer on Nov. 6.

As a Republican, I've been fascinated by two evolving strategies. The first is that of voucher supporters to take everything "out of context" to try and bolster their arguments. The second is the strategy of current Gov. Jon Huntsman, who says he supports vouchers, but who is a fairly reluctant warrior on behalf of the voucher program.

My previous post about Gov. Huntsman's "dipsy doodle" on the voucher issue is below. I add to it based on recent media reports. It's a fascinating tightrope that the Governor is walking.

Huntsman, of course, signed the bill that is now the subject of the referendum. He says he supports vouchers as one avenue of school reform.

But he is an increasingly reluctant standard bearer for the cause. And with due note. It's not a popular idea with the majority of Utahns, from what I read.

At a news conference almost two weeks ago, Huntsman appeared and gave his tepid approval for a voucher program. BUT he urged Utahns to read up on the issue and decide for themselves.

Then, a pro-voucher group called Parents for Choice, selectively cut and pasted the Governor's remarks into a TV ad. They took his words out of context and used them for their own ends.

That seems disingenuous to me.

The Governor, through his spokesperson, said:

"Huntsman's spokeswoman Lisa Roskelley says the Governor's office did not approve the ad, but "The governor has said that anything in the public domain - people are welcome to use."

That was reported by Glen Warchol of the Salt Lake City Tribune. The whole article is here.

Particularly intriguing is how the Governor has not objected to this cutting and pasting. Note these stories about what Gov. Huntsman REALLY said:

"What you don't see is the part of the press conference in which Huntsman tells Utahns it is OK to vote against vouchers."

"Whatever you think is right, whatever you can justify, is the right answer for you," Huntsman says in the portion vouchers supporters edited out.

And, this analysis from long-time political reporter and columnist Paul Rolly, also of the Tribune:

"Huntsman, after months of sitting on the fence, even though he signed the two pro-voucher bills sent to him by the Legislature, finally agreed to participate with voucher supporters in a press conference Oct. 17, just three weeks before the election. He said he would vote for vouchers, but still urged his constituents to follow their conscience.

"Voucher spin doctors edited his comments as best they could and now are using them in their latest TV ads."

You can read Rolly's piece here.

Reading both these articles and previous ones leads me to only one conclusion: Gov. Jon Huntsman is a supporter of vouchers but isn't as passionate about the issue as those who are so willing to cut and paste his face onto the issue. This is one issue of many that he must address.

Has the issue of creating a new entitlement program in the form of private school vouchers and supported by a fringe group become the "litmus test" for Utah Republicans??

If so, it would seem that many Utah Republicans are allowing this fringe group, dedicated to the single issue of having taxpayers pay for private school, dictate what it means to be a Republican in Utah.

I hope this isn't the case. Not only are new entitlement programs such as school vouchers the downfall of the Republican Party - as we've seen in the U.S. Congress - dividing Republicans on these kinds of issues doesn't allow our party to be the party of leaders.

The threat of the third party

"Alarmed at the possibility that the Republican Party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate. Participants said the group included James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family; Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer; and dozens of other politically oriented conservative Christians." - New York Times.

Well, they're going over the edge again. It's still a long way until the general election of 2008. Are we in a permanent campaign cycle these days? Is that what it takes to get the attention of voters? Or, perhaps I should say "potential" voters since turnout is so poor.

Extremes hurt

I grew up in Kansas, that Republican state. Not many Democrats where I'm from. For most of the time before I moved away, the state was run by common-sense, rational people who were very conservative with tax dollars. The "social agenda" just wasn't part of the state's fabric.

Shortly before I moved away, the state Republican party took a hard-right turn. It was taken over by zealots whose first - and only - issue was banning all abortions. For a while it seemed the fiscal and the social conservatives could get along. But that didn't last.

Today I see too many extremes in the Republican party at the state level. From Virginia - where Republicans wanted to allow teachers to carry guns to Utah - where hard edge Republicans voted for a private school voucher law - it just seems everyone on our side of the aisle has lost sight of the "middle."

And they've even lost sight of common sense. Take Utah, for example. From what I've read, their private school voucher program would ENTITLE all parents to have a voucher. Eventually all kids in private school would be state-subsidized. What kind of rational thinking is that?

It's the rational that's been lost.

There is too much emphasis on the social issues, too much emphasis that ALL Republicans should be against funding even basic operations of government. (Even Republicans expect government to maintain roads, law and order, and public schools.)

Government, it seems to me, is the art of compromise. One can't compromise when one won't budge from hardened positions.

I agree in part with Stephen who says the Party left him; he's not sure he left the Party.

What's going on with Republicans?

This is my first blog. I am not the blogging kind of guy. I'm average. Probably sort of middle of the road. (Is it a blog or a Web-log?)

A life-long Republican, too. My father was a Republican, my mother was, too. All my brothers and sisters are Republicans. The old family joke used to be about Aunt Myrtle. We think she was a closet Democrat but she never would confess to it.

I'm not much of an observer of what goes on politically, but I have to wonder what Republicans are doing, not just in Washington, D.C. but in the states.

Through the Internet, I do pop in on current events. Whew. Sometimes I wish I didn't. The state of things in our country just isn't good.

Now I can't blame Republicans alone, though they had power in Washington for a long time. Geez, the Democrats in charge now are bad. too. Republicans, though, still have power in a lot of the state capitols and that's where I read about the laws they pass or regulations or whatnot that really aren't Republican.

I guess it started in Washington where Republicans - when they had power - behaved just like the Democrats and created whole new spending programs. Like the Medicare drug benefit.
Now I'm all for seniors getting the prescriptions they need, but good grief, did anyone really tell us how much that would cost?

Entitlements. We don't need a lot more of those kinds of programs.

Well, since this is my first effort at this, I'll keep it short. Thanks for checking in if you did. Please be understanding. I am a novice at this.

Ken