Reflection of loosening social morals in a mostly white state

The morals of the author of this article are certainly in question:

More socially accepted, multiracial people outpace Hispanics to become fastest-growing group

WASHINGTON (AP) — Multiracial Americans have become the fastest growing demographic group, wielding an impact on minority growth that challenges traditional notions of race.

The number of multiracial people rose 3.4 percent last year to about 5.2 million, according to the latest census estimates. First given the option in 2000, Americans who check more than one box for race on census surveys have jumped by 33 percent and now make up 5 percent of the minority population — with millions more believed to be uncounted.

Demographers attributed the recent population growth to more social acceptance and slowing immigration. They cited in particular the high public profiles of Tiger Woods and President Barack Obama, a self-described "mutt," who are having an effect on those who might self-identify as multiracial.

Population figures as of July 2008 show that California, Texas, New York and Florida had the most multiracial people, due partly to higher numbers of second- and later-generation immigrants who are more likely to "marry out."

Measured by percentages, Hawaii ranked first with nearly 1 in 5 residents who were multiracial, followed by Alaska and Oklahoma, both at roughly 4 percent.

Utah had the highest growth rate of multiracial people in 2008 compared to the previous year, a reflection of loosening social morals in a mostly white state.

They had breakfast . . . and that was the end of it

Yesterday, I wrote about the saga of accused Ponzi schemer Rick Koerber and how his fair-weather politician friends are now trying to downplay their relationship and the work they did on his behalf.

Here’s a reminder:

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff declined an interview request by KSL on Koerber, but his spokesman says, "They had breakfast. The Attorney General heard this guy complain, and that was the end of it."

Then the spokesman directly contradicted that story saying they did ask the Utah Division of Securities for more information on the Koerber, but he says, quote: "We didn't get any."

Today, we learn that that wasn’t the whole truth, either. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that in the fall of 2007, the Utah Division of Securities prepared a civil complaint against Koerber and took it to Kirk Torgensen, the chief deputy at the attorney general's office, for screening.

"They declined to file the case," said Francine Giani, director of the Utah Department of Commerce. Instead, Giani said she made the decision to take the information the division had gathered and turn it over to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which announced a three-count criminal indictment against Koerber this week.

The Tribune goes on to report that Mark Pugsley, a Salt Lake City attorney who frequently battles the division and until recently served on the division's advisory committee, said individuals in the division have told him that there was considerable political weight thrown behind Koerber. "There were political pressures as I understand it that were brought to bear with regard to that case and Mr. Koerber is connected and involved politically and I think he used those contacts he had to put pressure on the state to drop the case," Pugsley said.

Did politics factor into their decision making? Of course, not.

"No. No. Absolutely 100 percent no," Torgensen said. "Nothing Mr. Koerber said, nothing he protested, influenced the outcome of this case. Nothing. And that's the absolute truth, not from Mark Shurtleff's perspective, not from my perspective."

State Rep. Carl Wimmer, "The idea that I tried to interfere with this investigation is just ludicrous."

The Trib  adds whipped cream with a cherry on top by quoting Koerber, "[Shurtleff] said, 'Relax, the Department of Commerce doesn't control the Attorney General's Office.'"

Must have been a hell of a breakfast.

What are Wimmer and Shurtleff really hiding?

Voters rank honesty pretty high when trying to decide which candidates to support. So, in 2006 when the Democratic Party publicized candidate Carl Wimmer’s support for school vouchers and he denied it despite taking large sums of campaign cash from Parents for Choice in Education, we knew that in the long run Wimmer’s character would shine through.

The Republican voters out there were not willing to believe us at the time, but Wimmer showed after just a few weeks in office that he misled the voters. Ultimately, he would be part of the group that pushed through a bill so controversial that millions would be spent to repeal it through citizen referendum.

Now, he’s at it again.

KSL reported that this Wednesday that State Rep. Carl Wimmer denied he was friends with federally indicted Rick Koerber who has been accused of running a Ponzi scheme.

Wimmer told the Salt Lake Tribune that he invested no money in Koerber's businesses and Koerber has given him no money, other than when he voluntarily bought hamburgers for re-election campaign workers late last year.

But KSL, of course, found minutes of a meeting where two state lawmakers requested an audit of the Utah Division of Securities, which was investigating Koerber. Rep. Carl Wimmer "identified concerns involving a friend -- Rick Koerber."

Salt Lake City Weekly reports that Wimmer says he was a former student of Koerber’s American Founders University but is now just a friend and an associate.

And, of course, Rep. Wimmer has amended his campaign finance reports to include in-kinds from C. Koerber. Almost certainly a little digging could find other channels of campaign funds from Koerber’s enterprises to the good Representative from Herriman.

Wimmer isn’t the only one trying to keep the public from learning the truth.

Mark Shurtleff, a man who would walk over hot coals to get in front of a camera, declined an interview request by KSL on Koerber, but his spokesman says, "They had breakfast. The Attorney General heard this guy complain, and that was the end of it."

Then, of course, the spokesman admitted the Attorney General's Office did ask the Utah Division of Securities for more information, but he says, quote: "We didn't get any."

Did they follow up? Or did they really send a message and it wasn’t really a request at all.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on a 40-minute meeting between Koerber and Kirk Torgensen, Shurtleff's chief deputy, where Koerber insisted the investigation into his business was a witch hunt and would end with a civil rights lawsuit against the state.

Did Torgensen take the threat seriously? What did he do to try to avoid it?

Notably, it wasn’t the state that indicted Koerber. It was the feds.

Why does it matter?

Because Wimmer has done a number of favors for Koerber that put pressure on the Securities Division and the Attorney General.

Wimmer set up meetings for Koerber with Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, Shurtleff's chief deputy Kirk Torgensen, House Speaker Greg Curtis, requested a legislative audit of the Utah Division of Securities along with Rep. Jim Bird, and publicly called for the agency to be dissolved.

According to City Weekly, Koerber with Wimmer’s assistance was able to gain an audience with House Speaker Greg Curtis to push for expediting the legislative audit, which at the time had yet to be approved.

Also, according to City Weekly, Wimmer realized pushing for shelving Securities might be considered a conflict of interest because of his relationship with Koerber. So Wimmer offered a solution: He’ll just have some other legislator run the bill for him.

Wimmer’s partner in the audit request, Rep. Jim Bird, did run some legislation this past year on the Securities Division (HB78).  While it didn’t go as far as Wimmer had suggested it should, it did do many of the things he had talked about. It is also worthy of note that Bird lists securities on his official notice of conflicts of interest.

Unfortunately, the ethics review process in the Utah Legislature is broken. This cries out for an investigation of whether Wimmer, Bird or Shurtleff abused their offices. Alas, we fear there is no one with the fortitude to file a complaint, and nowhere to take the complaint if one were determined to get to the bottom of it.

Utah has a reputation as a hotbed for affinity fraud. Given what we know about the actions of our elected officials, is there any reason to wonder why?

One can only ask, if they will mislead us on the small stuff that is so easily contradicted, what else are they hiding?

Lack of universal coverage costing us all

The Thursday, May 28 issue of the Deseret Morning News has an article about the "hidden tax" on health insurance created by the rising number of uninsured.  It is already a well established fact Americans pay more for health insurance than citizens of any other industrialized country.  Now, according to the Deseret Morning News article, a study released by Families USA shows each insured family paid an average of  $1,017 more in 2008 for health coverage to pay for "uncompensated health coverage".  Uncompensated coverage is the the cost of providing health care to the uninsured and eventually passed on to the insured.  

While there are a number of proposals floating around out there about how best to provide universal coverage in this country, the Families USA study makes clear simply providing everyone with health coverage in some form would bring down the cost of health care for working families by more than $1,000 a year.  The study's authors also argue the cost of the uninsured to insured individuals and families is likely to skyrocket in 2009 due to the number of Americans losing their insurance during the current economic downturn.

Of course, those denied coverage due to so called "pre-existing conditions" or who find themselves under insured upon being diagnosed with a serious problem also often end up being unable to pay their doctor or hospital for care.  These costs too are passed on to employers and individual workers with coverage. 

President Obama has articulated the goals and values shaping his health care reform efforts.  These include:

• Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
• Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
• Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
• Invest in prevention and wellness
• Improve patient safety and quality of care
• Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
• Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
• End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions

He is asking Americans to join with him in helping shape the outcome of the health care reform debate now underway in Congress by participating in a Health Care Organizing Kick Off on June 6th.  Together, we can achieve real health care reform that will deliver higher quality care at a lower cost to every American.  It is clear we can no longer afford to put it off any longer. 

Republicans need a fight – but not this one

The punditocracy has warned us that the Republicans are so divided these days that they need a hot fight to unite them. Former Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove picking on Gen. Colin Powell and elevating Rush Limbaugh has produced a schism that they need to close over. Further, in this poor economic climate, the GOP and its candidates need to excite their donor base.

Normally, a Supreme Court nomination would be just the ticket for a good, old-fashioned, party-line brawl. The GOP will give it a try this time, too; but, a fight over the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be on a battlefield full of landmines they would do better to avoid.

First, the GOP has to be careful not to anger the electorate further. As the first Hispanic and only the third female nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), there is celebration and community pride that will create tone problems for the GOP.

Next, there is history. According to the Salt Lake Tribune both Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch voted for Sonia Sotomayor in 1998 when she was nominated to a federal appeals court. In fact, Hatch was the Chair of the Judiciary Committee at the time. The Deseret News reports Hatch as saying, “The confirmation process must focus on determining whether Judge Sotomayor is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.”

So, we come to the next landmine. Is she qualified? Hard for the GOP to say “No” on this one unless they appear to set the bar higher than for their own nominees. Obama said that Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated.

Her personal story is inspiring and presents other landmines for the GOP. Sonia Sotomayor was born on June 25, 1954 to a Puerto Rican family who  moved to New York during World War II. Her mother, Celina, served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Sonia was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes at the age of eight. Her father, a tool-and-die maker and factory worker with a third-grade education, died when she was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sonia and her younger brother, Juan, who is now a physician living in Syracuse, New York.  As children, they lived  in a public housing project in the South Bronx.  Sonia reports having been inspired as a child to a legal career by fictional characters that are as American as apple pie -- Nancy Drew and Perry Mason.

Sonia excelled in school, graduating as valedictorian of Cardinal Spellman High School Class of 1972 and winning a scholarship to Princeton University. After graduating  summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976, she entered Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal in 1979. 

Out of law school, Sonia Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, where she tried dozens of serious criminal cases over five years.

She married Kevin Noonan on August 14, 1976 shortly after graduating from Princeton, but they divorced in 1983 and did not have children.

Sonia Sotomayor entered private practice at the firm of Pavia & Harcourt in 1984, and worked as an international corporate litigator handling cases involving everything from intellectual property to banking, real estate and contract law. 

In 1991, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. The Lexis databases contains 460 decisions issued by Judge Sotomayor while she sat as a district judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York between 1992 and 1998.

In 1998, Judge Sotomayor was nominated by President Bill Clinton and became the first Latina to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which covers New York, Vermont and Connecticut.   She has participated in over 3,000 panel decisions and authored roughly 400 opinions, handling difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations. 

Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them.  In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time.

Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Sonia Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system – as a prosecutor, litigator, trial court and appellate judge -- yielding a depth of experience and a breadth of perspectives that will be invaluable – and is currently not represented -- on our highest court. 

If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years.

Finally, the GOP will face another landmine – excessive delay. Citing Judge Sotomayor’s vast experience they will want to delay the confirmation vote needlessly depriving the SCOTUS of a full roster of personnel. They should avoid this tactic, too. Since Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, the average number of days between the designation of a nominee and the start of hearings has been 45 days. The average number of days between nomination and confirmation for the last five Supreme Court justices is 72 days.   Justice Roberts was confirmed 72 days after his nomination, and Justice Ginsburg was confirmed in just 50 days. There is plenty of time for Sonia Sotomayor to be seated in early September as the Court prepares for its next term.

While the Republicans may need to pick a fight to unite their base, they should avoid this one lest they shrink their base even further.

The Reason for the Holiday

Many of us will be celebrating this Memorial Day weekend as we do every year: weekend getaways, picnics, camping in Utah's beautiful mountains or red rock deserts. Time with family is a rare commodity in our hectic lives, and certainly Memorial Day weekend is one of those all too infrequent occasions when we can spend some time together.

But as we take time out of our busy lives this Memorial Day weekend, it is important we not forget why we celebrate Memorial Day in the first place. Countless men and women over the course of our history have given their lives for this country. Without their sacrifice our nation wouldn't be what it is today.

As each of us enjoys the warmer weather and the company of family and friends this Memorial Day, the Utah Democratic Party asks we each take some time to reflect on the men and women that have nobly served our nation over more than two centuries. Thank the veterans in your family or among the friends you are sharing this weekend with. We all owe them a debt of gratitude it is impossible to fully repay.

Senator Bennett sticks it to consumers

With at least two challengers looking likely from the right, and so called "tea baggers" upset with his vote on bailouts for major banks, Senator Bennett decided yesterday his re-election strategy rests at least in part on standing up for banks and sticking it to consumers, "tea baggers" included.  In the increasingly confused world of the GOP this apparently amounts to protecting your right flank.

Senator Bennett was one of just five senators to vote against legislation tightening regulations on the credit card industry yesterday.  He apparently feels regulations like prohibiting the marketing of credit cards to minors already facing the burden of skyrocketing costs for a college education in this country, or requiring credit card companies to actually give you 45 days notice before jacking your rates through the roof will negatively impact the general public. 

In the interest of fairness, I probably should try to explain his reasoning and then counter it with arguments of my own, but I would need to actually understand what the good senator is thinking to do that.  Maybe someone from the Senator's office will post a reply explaining how giving billions of our tax dollars to banks and then going easy on them when it comes to jacking up the fees and interest rates even on consumers with stellar credit ratings is really good for America. 

On the off chance no one from Senator Bennett's office dare try to explain the Senator on this one, I encourage you to email him yourself by clicking here.  Forward whatever explanation you get.  We would be interested in knowing what he has to say. 

Blind Faith

No major political happening occurs without someone trying to measure the public opinion – even before the news has had time to sink in.

The Deseret News and KSL charged first out of the gate.

These are the “for fun” polls that are entertaining but ultimately result in public animosity towards any decision making that utilizes polling as an element of the information base. It shows that when people don’t have time to consider and, possibly, research, they make inherently nonsensical decisions that will be abandoned over time.

Consider the “blind faith” on exhibit here:

58 percent of the public doesn’t even know the name the current lieutenant governor.

But 73 percent think he is definitely or probably qualified to be governor, including at least 31 percent who can’t tell you his name.

And, finally, 48 percent approve of the job he is doing including at least six percent who don’t know his name. One can only wonder if anybody polled can identify any of the duties of lieutenant governor or identify one that he has fulfilled to their satisfaction.

Sadly, while the science is real, it is measuring junk. These are not formed opinions – or if they are reliable, then we truly see blind faith at work.

That’s what you get for leaving town . . .

Chair Wayne Holland and I left Salt Lake City for the biannual state party training ritual sponsored by the Association of State Democratic Chairs last Wednesday morning.

This year’s festivities were hosted in Richmond, Virginia by DNC Chair and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. Like most of these events it was dominated by lawyers, fundraising talk, a series of getting-to-know you receptions with the new staff and leaders in various Democratic campaign services organizations, a sprinkling of thoughts from the new Obama administration, and some “best practices” tips from hardcore campaign operatives. All very informative and thought provoking.

Then on Friday night the phone starts ringing with news of the announcement of Utah Gov. Huntsman’s appointment in the Obama administration. As if our minds weren’t already being filled with learning new things, meeting new people, and making presentations of our own, this news presented a whole new set of considerations.

To be sure, the immediacy of the news was surprising; but, the news itself that Huntsman would be taking a job in a federal administration – even one headed by the Democrats – was not.

Somewhat more than a year before, the Party had counseled our likely Governor nominee, Bob Springmeyer, to think carefully about his choice of running mate since a potential campaign theme might be running against Lt. Gov. Herbert since no one believed that Huntsman would be likely to serve out the entire next term. In other words, don’t run against the popular Jon Huntsman, make the campaign be a choice between Bob Springmeyer and Gary Herbert.

Patrick Thronson reminds us that at the gubernatorial debate between Bob Springmeyer and Gov. Huntsman which aired on KUED on October 1, 2008, Gov. Huntsman repeatedly committed to serve a full four-year term.  Here are some relevant quotes:

Bob Springmeyer: I've challenged you, and I'll challenge you again, Jon, will you make a commitment for a full four‑year term?

Governor Huntsman: That's exactly what I intend to do.

Bob Springmeyer: And you'll commit to finish out a full four‑year term?

Governor Huntsman: That's been our commitment, absolutely.

There is little question that this event has the potential to shake up the Utah political world. Many politicians are already looking past a short-term Gov. Gary Herbert to the possibilities of  the administration that follows his. They find Herbert affable, but, given his strong ideological temperament and roots among the highly-disliked real estate development sector, they don’t expect Herbert to command the respect or the votes of the Utah public. (The Party has done polling tests to see the public reaction to endorsements from the Utah Realtor’s Association – among many other organizations that do political endorsements – and the Realtor’s rank dead last – far worse than any of the left-leaning political organizations.)

So, hold on! We are in for an interesting ride over the next couple of months. Attendance at the State Party Conventions this June should be worth your time – if for nothing more than watching body language of various individuals and who’s talking to whom.

Fond farewell to Joe Bernini and Cal Gould

One of the best things about becoming involved in a political party is the opportunity to meet a large number of people that do remarkable things to help make all our lives better and weave together the strong foundations of a community.

Recently we have been mourning the death of former Congressman Orton. But, if Bill were able, he would be the first to point to his inspirations: people like Joe and Grace Bernini of Eureka or Cal and Joan Gould of Fruit Heights.

During the past week we saw in the newspapers that Joe and Cal have died. Utah is much richer for their lives and contributions to our community. And their wives, Grace and Joan, were full partners in their accomplishments.

Joe Bernini was an immigrant to the United States born on January 15, 1921 in Craco, Italy.  He proudly served in both the U.S. Navy and Army during World War II and the Korean Conflict. Joe was a police officer for nearly 40 years. He was known as the police chief, a town councilman, a Juab County Commissioner for 20+ years, an occasional firefighter, a member of the fraternal Elks, and a regular in his small Catholic congregation. Joe initiated an emergency medical technician (EMT) program and was an EMT team member for 5 years. He was a Board member of the Central Valley Medical Center Hospital. Seniors in Juab County had greater access to physician appointments and socialization opportunities by riding the transit bus driven by Joe. His wife, Grace, wrote, edited, published and provided the local news through the Eureka Reporter.

Former U.S. Magistrate Judge Calvin Gould was an attorney in Ogden from 1953-1970. He was appointed a 2nd District state judge for Weber County in 1970 by Gov. Rampton and served in that capacity until 1983. In 1973, the Utah Bar Association honored him as the Judge of the Year. In 1984, Cal was appointed as a U.S. magistrate judge in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City. He worked there until his retirement in 1992 when I met him as he became involved with the Davis County Democratic Party. Judge Gould served in World War II from 1943-46 in the U.S. Navy, where he was the quartermaster on the USS Guadalcanal aircraft carrier in the Atlantic Ocean. He was active in Habitat for Humanity, the homebuilding program and restoration program for disadvantaged people, and after his retirement also was involved in the American Association of Retired Persons. He also found time for a favored hobby of carpentry. His wife, Joan, was the principal of Mountain High School, an alternative program, for at-risk students in the Davis School District.

KUED interviewed both Cal and Joan for a 2006 documentary on Utahns during WWII. You can read their interviews here:

http://www.kued.org/productions/worldwar2/gould_joan.php

http://www.kued.org/productions/worldwar2/gould_calvin.php

Utah State Democratic Party Chairman Responds to Senator Hatch's criticism of President Obama

   The following has been submitted to The St. George Spectrum and The Uintah Basin Standard in response to an Op-ed by Senator Orrin Hatch critical of President Obama's first 100 days in office.

Wayne Holland

Chair, Utah State Democratic Committee

In the May 5 issue of the St. George Spectrum/Uintah Basin Standard, Senator Orrin Hatch demonstrated one thing: He has never heard the phrase “it takes two to tango”. Republican leadership in the House and Senate, Senator Hatch included, clearly feel not negotiating with the other side and consistently voting “no” on legislation and then blaming the other side for failing to “work with Republicans” is a winning strategy.

This is not Senator Hatch’s first trip around this particular rhetorical block. Elect a Democratic president and Senator Hatch’s response is as predictable as spring rain.

Time will tell whether having it both ways will work for the Republican Party in future elections. With health care, climate change, and a variety of other issues the door is always open for Republicans interested in working to build consensus just as it was prior to the recovery package vote, just ask Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. However, neither President Obama nor Democratic leadership can make Republicans like Senator Hatch show up for the meetings.

Senator Hatch also clearly feels a number of investments being made in Utah as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s passage amount to little more than a Democratic “wish list”. The Senator is silent on exactly which investments these include. Does he consider accelerated removal of the uranium tailings from the banks of the Colorado River near Moab a Democratic wish best left ignored or under-funded for years as it was under a Republican Congress and the Bush administration? How about the rebuilding of the long neglected and eventually condemned visitors center in Dinosaur National Monument or the estimated 6,000 private sector jobs UDOT states are being created repairing and expanding our transportation infrastructure?

Senator Hatch also falsely argues President Obama’s budget contains the “largest tax increase in American history.” After voting against the president’s tax cut for 900,000 Utah working families totaling more than $500 million dollars, it is remarkable Senator Hatch would accuse the president of raising taxes. The President’s budget does not propose tax increases on any American making less than $250 thousand and only proposes returning to the tax rates of the prosperous and fiscally responsible1990s for those making more.

Finally, Senator Hatch expresses concern congressional Democrats might actually get something done on health care reform at a time when 50 million Americans and more than 300,000 Utahns are going without health insurance. Implicit in his criticism of using what is known as “reconciliation” to avoid a filibuster on this issue is Senator Hatch’s support for using the filibuster to avoid providing insurance for Utah working families. I could take Senator Hatch’s allegations that Democrats are “forcing” health care reform on the public by using the reconciliation process much more seriously if he had been equally critical of Republican use of this process when they were in control.

Contrary to Senator Hatch’s allegations of a more polarized electorate under President Obama, polls consistently show approximately two thirds of Americans support the President. Even in Utah a majority support the president according to the most recent polling data. When it comes to bipartisanship it takes two to tango, and there is nothing Democrats can do to force Orrin Hatch or other Republicans to join us on the dance floor.

Citizen’s Initiative – Redistricting Commission

The work got started in earnest today as nearly twenty people joined together at the State Capitol to file the paperwork to begin the process of putting an initiative on the 2010 general election ballot that would create an independent redistricting commission.

The work is being done by Fair Boundaries, a non-partisan political issues committee.

This is an issue that the Utah Democratic Party has been concerned about for nearly three decades since the Republican legislature overturned Governor Scott Matheson’s veto of their extreme redistricting plan in 1981.

In the decades since, the matter has only become worse as the technology gets better. In 2001 and since, it has not been just the simple partisan gerrymandering to disfavor Democrats. The technology allowed legislators to draw boundaries around an individual block to avoid including specific persons in their district who they think might challenge them.

This has become a process of legislators choosing their voters instead of voters choosing the legislators. They even target members of their own party that they think need to move on. Don’t believe us? Ask former Congressman Jim Hansen.

The public support for an independent redistricting commission is overwhelming with over two-thirds of Utah voters consistently supporting the concept in public opinion polls.

Both Democrat and Republican legislators have put forth bills proposing such a commission for more than two decades. But to date, not one of these bills has ever had a public hearing in a legislative committee.

Even the Utah Constitutional Revision Committee has gone on record supporting the concept of an independent commission.

The legislature is too enamored of its power to even consider how it is abusing it. They will never give up any part of it willingly. It is way past time for the public to require them to behave responsibly and hold them accountable.

Fair Boundaries intends to circulate a petition this summer to put a citizen's initiative on the ballot in 2010.  We hope all citizens will sign on and allow the people to vote on this important issue of fairness and accountability. Consider volunteering to help them meet the signature goals this summer.

You can read the language of the petition by clicking here.

Celebrating Diversity and a shared history on Cinco de Mayo

On Cinco de Mayo, 2009 Americans of all backgrounds have much to celebrate.  In addition to a celebration of the 1862 Mexican defeat of a French Emperor supportive of the confederacy at the height of our own Civil War, Cinco de Mayo is a symbol of the value our country places on diversity.  Where other nations see diversity as holding the potential for discord, Americans see it as a source of strength.

According to a recent Pew Research Center report the 2008 election saw the most diverse participation in history.  That together with the election of Barack Obama demonstrates America's continuing progress toward reaching our highest ideals.  Turnout was generally up in 2008, but particularly so among Latinos and African-Americans according to Pew.  Each group saw an increase in participation of approximately two million voters over 2004 levels, and Asian-Americans increased participation by more than 300,000 voters over 2004.

As we enter Barack Obama's second 100 days in office following an election with record minority participation, it seems more fitting than ever to commemorate a holiday marking a victory over a foreign invader supportive of those fighting to continue the bondage of African-Americans in our own Civil War.  Perhaps this year in particular there are few more American holidays than Cinco de Mayo. 

The Challenges of Mormon Tribalism

This is a repeat of a blog post of Boyd Peterson from a month ago that I had missed. It is long. but worth some attention.

Boyd Petersen was a candidate for the State House District 64 in Provo, Utah in 2008.  He received 31.5% of the vote – more than 10% better than previous Democratic performance. Boyd is a fifth-generation Utah valley resident attending Provo schools; serving an LDS mission to Paris, France; and graduating from Brigham Young University. He was employed on Capitol Hill, as an intern for former Rep. Wayne Owens, a staff assistant with the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and a senior information specialist with the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress. Boyd currently serves as the Program Coordinator for Mormon Studies at UVU and as president-elect of the Association for Mormon Letters.

Here is what Boyd has to say about in the aftermath of his campaign:

Last year, I did something no sane person would do. I ran for the state legislature. In Utah county. As a Democrat. I knew going into the campaign that only five percent of the district was registered Democrat, and that Utah county is often referred to as one of the reddest counties of one of the reddest states in the union. In 2004 Bush won Utah county 86% to Kerry’s 12%; statewide, Utah gave Bush his largest margin of victory, and Utah County gave Bush the largest percentage of any county its size. The fact that I knew all this going into the campaign and still proceeded proves, I suppose, just how mentally unstable I was.

But I also knew that within my district, a larger percentage of voters were registered as “unaffiliated” than Republican, 49% to 43%, so I thought it might be possible to win over these voters. And I was running as a socially conservative Democrat; my most radical position is supporting public schools and the PTA. We had seen a referendum on vouchers go down to defeat the year before, in my district vouchers failed by a strong majority, and I was running as an anti-voucher candidate. I was hoping the voters would consider the election Vouchers Part II: Revenge of the Voters.

I discovered, however, that in politics things are just not that simple. First, I found that most of these unaffiliated voters self identified as Republicans, or at least saw the Republican “brand” as more appealing. They liked to claim independence of thought, but most were every bit as committed to the Republican Party as the affiliated Republicans. I found that even the registered Republicans liked to think of themselves as fair-minded people who study the issues and vote for the best candidate. But what they think they do and what they actually do is not the same.

For example, my wife was helping out with polling one night and she reported speaking to one self-identified Republican voter, reading the prepared questions:

“On what do you base your voting decisions?”
“Issues,” responded the voter.
My wife continued, “If someone shared your views and was running as a member of the opposing party, in your case a Democrat, would you vote for him or her?”
The response, “absolutely.”
“Do you plan to vote for Becky Lockhart, or Boyd Petersen for state legislature?”
“Which one is the Republican?” the voter asked.

Some voters, however, didn’t seem to know they could vote for individuals rather than a straight party ticket. I spoke with one Hispanic gentleman who had very strong feelings about immigration reform but also had very strong conservative moral values. He said he was going to vote a straight Republican ticket. It took twenty to thirty minutes to explain to him that if he did this he would end up voting against his interests about half the time. I finally ended up getting a sign in his yard and probably got his vote, but I realized that every vote above my 5% was going to require a long conversation.

Nevertheless, if some votes came hard, some came surprisingly easy. I found that the people who knew me, people in my neighborhood and ward—most of them strong Republicans, enthusiastically supported me. If they knew me, they tended to support me, and my position on issues didn’t really seem to matter to these people. In fact, my home teacher and I had just engaged in a very lively debate about vouchers a few months before I announced I was running. He was solidly pro-vouchers and I was solidly anti-vouchers. Nevertheless, when I announced my candidacy, he was one of the first people in the neighborhood to request a sign and offer to help with the campaign.

But I also found that some votes, even from people who agreed with my platform, were impossible to get. Some people who should have supported me ideologically but didn’t know me often would adamantly not support me. Several public school teachers and officials told me flat out that they could not support a Democrat.

On election day, I got a phone call from a sister in my ward who reported “Today, I did something I have never done before: I voted for someone who was not a Republican!” She had voted for me, but still couldn’t say the “D-word.”

My positions really didn’t matter to most people. It was about whether I had a relationship of trust with them. Was I one of them? It all came down to tribe.

Now that the election is over, I have been reading up on the subject of how voters make decisions, and I have found that the anomalies I encountered as a candidate can all be explained by current research on the brain. According to that research, positions don’t much matter in politics. It’s all about emotion. Emotions about party, candidates, and, finally, issues.

In study after study, researchers have found that it is not so much what voters think than it is about what voters feel. “In politics,” states Drew Westen, “when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins”. Contrary to Enlightenment models of thought, emotion works hand in hand with reason.

Summarizing the conclusions of cognitive and brain scientists, George Lakoff notes that idea that reason is “conscious, literal, logical, universal, unemotional, disembodied, and serves self-interest” is completely false. In fact, 98% of our thought takes place unconsciously and emotion and reason cannot be separated. It’s not so much that we are duped by emotion, but that emotion guides reason.

Westen compares emotion to a “compass” that, in conjunction with reason, helps us to avoid adverse stimuli and seek out rewarding stimuli.

In sum, Weston states, “although the marketplace of ideas is a great place to shop for policies, what matters most in American politics is the marketplace of emotions”. And three sets of emotions, in this order, are primary in determining how people vote: their feelings toward the parties and the party’s principles, their feelings toward the candidates, and, if they haven’t decided by then, their feelings toward the candidates’ policy positions.

Voters get their feelings toward the parties largely by internalizing the values of their parents. “The single best predictor of party affiliation—and of broader value systems associated with it—is in fact the party affiliation of our parents”. So party loyalty is largely determined before one has really thought about the issues, despite what we might consciously want to believe. Most of us determine what tribe we belong to long before we know what that tribe stands for.

In a study I found particularly interesting, Drew Westen and several of his colleagues at Emory University did brain scans on fifteen committed Republicans and fifteen committed Democrats during the 2004 election. The psychologists discovered that when subjects saw images of their own party’s candidates, a part of the frontal lobe called the “frontal pole” was activated. It is an area that other studies have shown is particularly active when a subject thinks about something related to him- or herself. In short, the very sight of an image of our party’s candidate involuntarily activates brain synapses that foster identification with that candidate; whereas seeing images of the other party’s candidates activated areas of the brain where negative emotional reactions take place. We perceive candidates from our own party as “like us,” as part of our tribe. These responses are as involuntary as our breathing.

In another part of their study, Westen took brain scans as subjects read a series of statements attributed to the Republican and Democratic candidates, statements that any dispassionate observer would find conflicting. What Westen and his colleagues found is that people had no problem seeing the contradictions in the opposition’s candidate, but found their candidate’s position much less contradictory.

The brain scans showed that when confronted with the initial conflict in the person of their candidate, neural circuits associated with negative emotional states turned on, but as the individuals reasoned, falsely, toward a rationalization for their own candidate, neural circuits associated with positive emotions turned on. The partisan brain actually rewarded the individuals for biased reasoning. The circuits activated overlap significantly with those activated when a drug addict takes a hit, “giving new meaning,” as Westen puts it, “to the term political junkie”. Again a tribal instinct kicks in: our brains suppress conflicts with those who are part of our tribe.

I discovered when running a campaign that what voters really wanted to know was what tribe I belonged to. Was I one of them? My positions mattered very little. Voters were focused on their emotions about the political party I was affiliated with first and foremost. If they already knew and trusted me, their feelings toward me overshadowed their feelings about my party. But if they didn’t have any feelings for me, they focused on party and often voted, I believe, against their own interests.

So how did Mormon voters as a group come to have such positive feelings for the Republican party? How did Mormons come to see themselves as part of the Republican tribe? (My wife suggests it comes from Joseph’s Inspired Version translation of James 1:5: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men conservatively….”)

Thomas Alexander has outlined five distinct periods of Church involvement in Utah politics. During the first period, spanning from 1847-1891, the church “essentially dominated the Utah scene” with its own party, sponsoring candidates and opposing gentile political involvement. As the Church moved into the 20th century, it was forced to confront the dominant American culture head on. We can think of this as a process of assimilation, as Armand Mauss has called it; as a process of reconstructing memory, as Kathleen Flake has called it; or as a process of colonization of the Mormon mind, as Richard Bushman has called it; but we know that this process involved both accommodation of American values and a reinvention of what it means to be Mormon.

In order to achieve statehood, Mormon leaders disbanded the Mormon People’s Party, and urged members to become Republicans in order to achieve the political balance necessary for Utah to be granted statehood. Mormons were asked to switch their tribal loyalty from the Democrats (who had not had a party platform against the “twin evils of slavery and polygamy,” as the Republicans had), to the Republicans, in the name of political expediency. The administration of Heber J. Grant inaugurated a less partisan period of Church influence; however, Grant’s concerns about the New Deal and J. Reuben Clark’s increasing influence in the First Presidency led to a more partisan approach. From the late 1950s to the present, despite many individual Church leaders’ avowing Republican leanings, the Church as an institution has taken a more neutral part in political affairs, only entering the political fray, as Alexander put it, “to support or oppose measures they considered moral issues”. Significantly, this is the very period in which Utah Mormons became more closely allied with the Republican party.

Looking back, it is hard to believe that Utah (and its predominately Mormon electorate) once voted enthusiastically for Democratic presidential candidates. From William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson (second term), through all four terms of FDR (despite President Heber J. Grant’s advice to vote against him), to Truman and LBJ, Mormon Utah supported Democrats. Certainly, it also supported Republicans, but it was once considered a swing state, one that both parties courted and wooed. However, since 1964, every Republican presidential candidate has won Utah, and in all but two cases by over 60% of the vote. Utahns have not elected a Democrat to the Senate since Frank Moss left in 1977, nor to the governor’s mansion since Matheson left in 1985. The shift in Utah politics took place over the very period that Alexander says the Church leadership became less overtly and publicly partisan. It is curious that this tribal identification of Mormons with the GOP took place at a time when the Church leaders were less directly involved in politics.

Certainly the issues coming to the fore during the decades of the 50s through the 70s—communism, civil rights, welfare reform, abortion, the ERA—were galvanizing. Furthermore, the impact of Ezra Taft Benson’s outspoken conservatism during these years must also be considered. However, I believe there was another factor, one more subtle but more profound: Republican discourse frames began to overlap with the frames of Mormon discourse in subtle ways that remapped the Mormon mind.

Linguists have known since the mid-70s that the brain organizes words by semantic fields, or what Lakoff calls “conceptual frames”. We are mostly familiar with this concept in the idea of professional jargons. For example, for an actor, the words  “play,” “direction,” “score,” and “run” have specific meanings in the semantic field of her profession. The exact same words used by an athlete, in the semantic field of sports competition, mean something else entirely, and the framing is what makes the difference.

Such frames, in turn, create conceptual metaphors that organize our thinking. We think metaphorically and, at the same time, metaphors shape how we think. Political issues, like everything else, are always framed, and political language is never neutral. Take, for example, the issue of immigration reform. If we use the phrase “illegal immigrant” we are already, by framing it with that adjective, making a judgment about the issue that is very different from the alternate frame available in the term “undocumented immigrant.” We are usually not aware that we are using such frames when we think about issues, but by talking about these issues in these ways, repeating the framing metaphors over and over again, our brains are changed.

George Lakoff argues that there are two primary frames that shape the way people think about political issues: both see governance through metaphors of the family. One is an obedience-oriented frame that Lakoff calls the “strict father” metaphor. It sees a family structure where “children” (i.e., the citizens) need to be disciplined by a strong “father” (i.e., the government) in order that they can be made into responsible “adults.” Once the “children” reach adulthood, however, the “father” should no longer interfere with their lives: the government should not interfere with the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility.

The other frame is an empathy-oriented approach that he calls the “nurturing parent” metaphor. This metaphor sees both “mothers” and “fathers” working to help the essentially good “children” develop and keeping them away from “corrupting influences” like pollution, social injustice, and poverty. Most people are what Lakoff calls “biconceptional,” employing both models in different spheres of their lives. But when one frame is activated, the other turns off. The difference between conservatives and progressives, Lakoff argues, stems from the fact that they subscribe with different strengths to one or the other of these orienting metaphors.

Conservatives follow more closely the “strict father” metaphor and thus find themselves in the Republican tribe, while progressives follow the “nurturing parent” model and find themselves in the Democratic tribe. However, Republicans, both Lakoff and Westen concur, have been much better at crafting frames for their arguments, moving politics from the world of ideas to the world of emotion-laden values.

At the same time Republicans have been mastering the world of metaphorical framing, Mormons leaders have, likely unconsciously, employed metaphorical frames from the same network. For example, Gordon and Gary Shepherd have shown how the rhetoric of General Conference shifted between 1890 and 1950, as uniquely Mormon themes like Zion, kingdom-building, eschatology, missionary work, apostasy, etc. declined and more American themes like patriotism and good citizenship increased. Particularly important has been an increased emphasis, especially since the 1950s, on obedience, keeping the commandments, and the importance of obeying priesthood leaders. Academics like Richard Poll, Eugene England, and most recently Terryl Givens have noted the tension within Mormon thought between obedience and individuality, community and freedom, the “Iron Rod” and “Liahona” perspectives. However, within the general Mormon populace the emphasis has shifted so far toward “obedience” that most members don’t often perceive much tension.

For example, when I read to my High Priests Group the 1945 ward teaching message that “when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done,” all of them nodded in agreement, assuming the statement was gospel. When I told them that the statement had been repudiated by President George Albert Smith, they were astonished, but seemed, ironically, eager to follow their priesthood leader’s orders to stop blindly following orders.

Combine this discourse of obedience with the patriarchal structure of Mormon hierarchy, and contemporary Mormon cultural framework maps astonishingly well onto Lakoff’s metaphor of the “strict father.” In fact, Lakoff even cites as an example of the strict father “politics of authority” a quote by President James E. Faust: “Obedience leads to true freedom. The more we obey revealed truth, the more we become liberated”.

Another significant shift in Mormon rhetoric has been noted by Armand Mauss in an essay published in the recent festschrift for Eugene England. Mauss sees a change in Mormon discourse from the analytical to the affective, from an emphasis on doctrine to an emphasis on feelings. He astutely observes that while speakers in Mormon chapels once “reached under the lectern in search of the books of scripture,” today they reach for that “dependable box of Kleenex tissues”.

This change in discourse, Mauss argues, “symbolizes the triumph of feeling over understanding” in contemporary Mormonism. It is indicative of: “a softer worship over a harder one; perhaps of an evangelical—or even Pentecostal—homiletic over an analytical style; of personalized adaptations of scripture over appreciation of historical context. It represents the triumph of the heart over the head in popular Latter-day Saint religious expression”.

I certainly do not wish to characterize conservative thought as less intellectual or less rational, but many on both sides of the political divide have acknowledged that Republicans have done a better job of framing their agenda in emotional terms. Democrats have too often grounded their campaigns on Enlightenment theories of rationality, ignoring the ways emotion and reason work together in the decision making process. So the Church’s move toward more emotive discourse would also help solidify an unconscious tribal connection between Republicanism and Mormonism.

Many Mormon Democrats share with me a sense of frustration that we are not fully accepted within Mormon culture, that our tribe has been voted off the island. We believe, as we must seeing the world as we do through our framing metaphors, that what we see as our core moral values—caring for the poor, providing strong education, protecting the environment—are fully compatible, in fact, central to Mormonism. Yet many of our fellow Church members see us as apostates.

For example, in Tuesday’s Deseret News, an op-ed written by an adjunct history professor at Weber State cried out for tolerance among Mormon congregations for differences of ideology, stating that Mormon Democrats “have faced increasingly vicious verbal attacks in [our] wards and in [our] neighborhoods.”

Many of the comments from readers of the online version of the article drove her point home with unconsciously and self-righteously vicious irony. They compare progressive ideology to “Satan’s plan,” state that tolerating Democrats’ views would necessarily “dilute the true doctrines of the Church,” and call the author of the column “morally week,” “unstable,” and “a nutcase.”

Utah Mormons still ask the question, “Can a good Mormon be a Democrat?” But no one is asking “Can a good Mormon be a Republican?” despite the fact that many of us see, as we cannot help but see, through our progressive Mormon frame, serious problems reconciling some of the values of the Republican party with Mormon values.

At times we progressive Mormons feel like we are not just a different tribe, but like we are living on a different planet from politically conservative Mormons, and I’m sure that conservative Mormons can only look upon progressive Mormons with disbelief. While we may not be living on separate planets, we are seeing our world through different frames and that gap that divides us into separate tribes can seem unfathomable.

This gulf between the tribes is not healthy for Mormon religious devotion. I have personally known many students who have left the Church because they have felt excluded or ridiculed for their progressive beliefs. However, I believe, one-party dominance is a problem for the Church itself. As others have noted, nationally both parties tend to ignore the Mormon vote; Republicans know they have it in the bag and Democrats know they don’t have a chance. Candidates for national office don’t bother with Utah. But one-party rule also leads to ethical lapses. When I lived in Washington, DC, I experienced first-hand the problem with single-party Democratic party rule, and I believe similar problems plague Utah.

The problem also affects the image of the Church as we become a world religion. It becomes difficult to bridge cultural divides when we have a dominant “strict father” political frame and Mormonism is so closely tied to the Republican agenda. However, the bigger problem can result when our culture’s “strict father” obedience frame overwhelms and even denigrates the “nurturant parent” frame.

I reported elsewhere how the Church received some extremely unfavorable media attention these past few years as it was revealed that Mormons had been involved in creating, implementing, and defending interrogation techniques that many felt crossed the line into torture. This was not just a crisis of bad publicity; it took a human toll. The press also reported how one Mormon Army interrogator committed suicide after she was forced to implement these techniques. The “strict father” model certainly is a valid frame from which to view the world, but without the mitigating influence of the “nurturing parent” model, it can lead to abuses.

So how might progressives create a space within Mormon culture for their tribe? The answer is to do exactly what conservative Mormons have done: employ frames both within political discourse and within Church discourse that remap the brain.

Mormon theology fully supports an empathy-based frame, perhaps more so than any other Christian denomination. Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father, who are literal parents of each of us. We believe in serving each other and the community. We believe in building communities where people live with one heart, one mind, dwell in righteousness, and eliminate poverty among us—and not just by building gated communities in which the poor are unwlecome. We believe in an earth that is created spiritually, and we can understand environmental responsibility as an act of stewardship. And in a moving examples of a completely nurturant parent, Mormon scripture tells us that God himself looks down from heaven and weeps for his suffering children. In short, Mormon theology supports a metaphorical frame of empathy.

Finally, I believe that as both sides come to understand the workings of language and the mind, we will be able to foster more tolerance. As we discover that each individual’s moral vision is necessarily framed by an organizing primary metaphor, one that necessarily shuts off competing frames, we can better relate to one another.

We will, we can hope, stop assuming that political difference is simply a matter of sinfulness, insanity or not having all the facts. To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, “For now we see through a frame darkly.” We must remember that each of us has a point of view. “I have a point of view,” says Madeline L’Engle, “you have a point of view—God has view.”

Works Cited

• Alexander, Thomas G. Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1986.
• Bushman, Richard Lyman. “The Colonization of the Mormon Mind.” Annual Meeting of the Association for Mormon Letters (2000): 14-23.
• Flake, Kathleen. “Re-placing Memory: Latter-day Saint Use of Historical Monuments and Narrative in the Early Twentieth Century.” Religion and American Culture 13 (2003): 69-109.
• Gottlieb, Robert, and Peter Wiley. America’s Saints: The Rise of Mormon Power. New York: Putnam, 1984.
• Heinerman, John, and Anson Shupe. The Mormon Corporate Empire. Boston: Beacon, 1985.
• Lakoff, George. The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain. New York: Viking, 2008.
• L’Engle, Madeline. Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art. New York: Shaw, 1980.
• Mauss, Armand L. “Assimilation and Ambivalence: The Mormon Reaction to Americanization.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 22.1 (1989): 30-67.
• —. “Feelings, Faith, and Folkways.” “Proving Contraries”: A Collection of Writings in Honor of Eugene England. Ed. Robert A. Rees. Salt Lake: Signature, 2005.
• Ostling, Richard N., and Joan K. Ostling. Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.
• Prince, Gregory A., and William Robert Wright. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Salt Lake: U of Utah P, 2005.
• Quinn, D. Michael. Elder Statesman: A Biography of J. Reuben Clark. Salt Lake: Signature, 2005.
• —. The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Salt Lake: Signature, 1997.
• Shepherd, Gordon, and Gary Shepherd. A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism. Salt Lake: U of Utah P, 1984.
• Westen, Drew. The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. New York: Public Affairs, 2007.

Granato to seek Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate

From Paul Rolly at the Salt Lake Tribune:

“Popular deli chain owner Sam Granato will run for Sen. Bob Bennett's seat in 2010.

Granato, who owns several Granato's delis throughout the Salt Lake Valley, also is chairman of the Utah Liquor Control Commission. He confirmed to me Thursday that he is in the race for sure as a Democrat, and he has secured early support from several Democratic insiders and officials. He will make the formal announcement June 1.

Granato is known as one of the nondrinkers on the Liquor Control Commission, which makes his optimism about running for the Senate in Utah as a Democrat even more impressive.”

The boardroom at Granato’s deli on 300 West in Salt Lake City has been a private gathering place for the Utah business elite, non-profit organizers, and politico’s of both parties for years. In recent years, Sam moved his business and warehouse operations to Redwood Road and the elite followed. He even expanded to include three private rooms and kept the boardroom at 300 West. All of these rooms see plenty of action.

While the company is best known by the public for the deli operation, Granato’s is an importer that is Utah's leading supplier of authentic Italian and Mediterranean food for much of the hospitality industry from restaurants to hotels to grocery stores. Sam’s father, Frank Granato, established the business 61 years ago in 1948.

Granato’s carries the finest imported food possible including but not limited to fresh meats, cheeses, antipasti, canned and jarred goods, gift baskets and an amazing assortment of breads and pastries made daily in their on-site bakery. They also provide ready-made meals to take home and prepare with little effort.

The Democratic Party and its campaigns have regularly hired Granato’s through the years to supply gift baskets, catering for our most intense GOTV operations, use of the boardroom for strategic meetings, and you can’t do much better for a fundraising event than a dessert reception featuring a tray or two of assorted desserts from Granato’s with the mini éclairs, mini fruit tarts, brownies, lemon bars, napoleons, palmers and cannoli.

Sam Granato called the State Party a few weeks ago to explore the possibility of a Senate campaign. When we met with him, he had already talked with a number of politically savvy people – Republicans, Democrats and friends in the business community.  In recent days, Sam has joined State Party Chair Wayne Holland at a few of the County Party conventions.

Sam will be making a formal announcement on June 1.