By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
October 30, 2000
After growing up in pre-World War II South, mostly Alabama and Tennessee, with its one political party (Democrat) culture, I lived in several states, Missouri, Iowa, Ohio and Minnesota before settling in upstate New York in the late 1950s and then on to California in 1973. Every state I've lived in has its own political character, but tor the last forty-two years I've been involved in politics, first as a Democrat and then as a Republican in the two states that have vied with one another over who had the largest number of electoral college votes.
Then, a little over a year ago I moved to Utah. This is the first time I have lived in a devoutly Republican state. Utah today has a Republican governor, both its state house and Senate are Republican controlled and its entire Congressional delegation is Republican. In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton came in third in Utah, after Ross Perot. In fact, in a couple of counties Clinton actually came in fourth, after Bo Gritz, who ran on the Populist ticket in 1992.
It seems in Utah even Democrats are ashamed of their national leaders. They mostly seem to be trying to distance themselves not only from Bill Clinton, but also Al Gore. For example, in my own State Senate District for Utah County, Democrat John Curtis has covered the area with signs. None of them identify him as a Democrat. Over the week-end the Daily Herald Newspaper ran an election tabloid which contained two quarter page ads, one which starts out "John, a lifelong Republican..." and the other, called "John Curtis and Friends" are personal testimonies tell the voters that John is in favor of education. The last statement finally mentions he's a Democrat.
In a recent lunch meeting John Curtis was quite emotional in his opening remarks about finally finding the Democratic Party and observed that he believed that many of the people in the room were also secret Democrats but were afraid to admit it. One observer noted it was a bit like an Alcohol Anonymous meeting. The audience was encouraged to admit their addiction. Then, in his closing remarks Curtis boldly announced he was proud to be a Democrat and proud of the Democrat platform and what it represents.
His opponent, Curt Bramble, responded by saying, "John, I'm glad you finally admitted you're a Democrat because, as a Democratic candidate, you are a foot soldier for Al Gore and the National Democratic Party's agenda." Bramble was promptly accused of negative campaigning and reportedly even hissed by some folks. Apparently connecting a Democrat candidate for State Senator with the head of the ticket, Al Gore, is an insult to the candidate.
On his website, in response to the question: "How can you be part of a party that embraces abortion?" Curtis said:
"That the entire party embraces abortion is a misconception. I'm proud of the Utah County Platform that takes a stand against abortion. Simply put, John is pro-life. Now that both parties agree on this issue, John would like to support legislation that educates people on alternatives to abortion."
One would have to assume from that statement that the Utah County Democratic Platform is Pro-life. However, it isn't. What it says on the subject of abortion is:
Utah County Democrats stand for life and liberty, personal freedom, responsibility, and accountability. We want to make it clear that we are different than National or Salt Lake Democrats. We are proud Utah County Democrats with families and mainstream, moderate, and fiscally conservative views. We believe President Clinton's lies about his personal behavior hurt his family and the nation, bringing dishonor to all Americans.Utah County Democrats also want to state our position on life. "Abortion" has been used as a litmus test against us for far too long in Utah County. The language of "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" is a forty-year old language debate that "feminists" lost many years ago to the men who control the "Right-To-Life Coalition."
Utah County Democrats do not support any medical or surgical intervention to terminate a pregnancy, except in the case of rape, incest, or to balance the life and liberty rights of a mother and an unborn infant. We believe that both the mother and an unborn child have life and liberty rights.
So, what is the unborn supposed to do if his or her mother decides that he or she is going to unbalance her liberty? Call a lawyer? As the mother of six and grandmother of twenty-five, I can say with some authority that just about any baby unbalances a lot of a mother's liberty. For starters, if the baby is allowed to be born, mother may not be at liberty to go to a movie whenever she likes because the baby wants to eat or needs a diaper change every two or three hours. Would this be grounds for a late-term abortion to halt the erosion of the mother's liberty? Would the unborn baby have grounds for a lawsuit because its mother interfered with its life and liberty rights if the mother aborts him or her?
I can just imagine a group of lawyers trying to determine what it means to "balance the life and liberty rights of a mother and an unborn infant." That's a perfect example of Clintonesque language on a par with "I never had sex with that woman!"
It seems in this election every effort to let people in Utah know that some of the candidates are actually Democrats is being called "negative campaigning." Calling a Democrat a Democrat has reached the boiling point in the Second Utah Congressional district, which is in Salt Lake City. In that race, the Republican candidate, Derek Smith, beat the incumbent Republican congressman Merrill Cook, and is running against Democrat James Matheson, son of a former Utah Democrat governor.
An article in the October 19 Deseret News quoted Matheson, as saying "in a voice cracking with emotion" that an ad being run by the National Republican Congressional Committee was "deceitful and unfair." In fact, he called the ad "political toxic waste." And just what horrible thing did the deceitful and unfair ad say about Matheson? It not only called him a Democrat, it identified some of the people contributing to his campaign. Matheson accused Derek of "trying to tie me to Al Gore. And that is wrong. I disagree with (Gore) on a number of issues and in any case I won't be going back to rubber stamp what any political party wants,"
Matheson called the ad "political toxic waste," because the Republicans "link him with 'the stands of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore or to the stands of people or groups who have contributed to Matheson's campaign.'
The ad, created by the National Republican Congressional Committee, has a voice-over asking questions about who supports gay Boy Scout leaders and abortion, as a dozen or so contributors to Matheson's campaign roll across the screen. Those contributors include folks like Jane Fonda, better known in Utah as "Hanoi Jane" for her traitorous trip to Hanoi while American soldiers were being killed, as well as several pro-abortion advocates, openly homosexual Democrat Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who was one of 52 Democrats who were present, but abstained from voting on the bill to rescind the Boy Scouts federal charter and from the bill's sponsor, Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California.
Matheson is furious. By avoiding the issue of being a Democrat, and with money rolling in from everywhere, especially the National Democratic National Committee which hopes to snatch the seat from the Republicans, Matheson seemed to be winning big. Matheson said that just because someone donates to his campaign doesn't mean they agree with his views.
So, why, do you suppose, Jane Fonda, Barney Frank, and other Democrat members of Congress, who didn't want to support the Boy Scouts of America in an election year, contribute to an obscure candidate in Utah of all places? Because that obscure candidate disagrees with them? Not likely. Can the people of Utah trust Jim Matheson to tell them the truth about what agenda in Washington he would support?
Requiring immediate public posting of contributions to a political candidates on the internet is highly recommended means of Campaign Finance Reform. Now we learn from Jim Matheson that anyone who reads those FEC reports and reports on who is contributing to a candidate will be accused of "negative campaigning. Why are people who call a Democrat a Democrat accused of negative campaigning? Has the word "Democrat" become so closely identified with Clinton and his lying that "Democrat" is now an insulting word?
I think it is just part of what I've been saying for several months. The only real issue in all this is trust. And, it appears that a lot of Utah Democrats don't trust the head of their party. Why else would a group of local Democrats put in their platform, of all places, a condemnation of "Clinton's lies about his personal behavior (which) hurt his family and the nation, bringing dishonor to all Americans?" After all, Bill Clinton is not running for anything.
A puzzled Curt Bramble observed:
"After all, the reason we have political parties is for like- minded people to come together. I'm proud to be called a Republican. I'm proud of Republicans from the highest office in the land to the lowest. That's why I registered as a Republican. I'm proud of what the Republican party stands for."
In Utah it is obvious that Democrats are embarrassed and angry when they are accused of being Democrats. However, its not just Utah Democrats who have the problem. Al Gore himself seems remarkably reluctant these days to admit that Bill Clinton was even IN the Clinton-Gore Administration.
The question at hand in this election seems to be: Will Democrats come out in huge numbers to vote for fellow Democrat candidates if they are so ashamed of BEING a Democrat that they consider it an insult to be called one?
We'll soon find out.
To comment: mmostert@originalsouirces.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription