What Are They Thinking?

The Salt Lake Tribune saved the best for last apparently. They endorsed candidates for the 1st and 2nd district on Saturday and today they endorsed for the 3rd district. It was not a surprising endorsement.

Utah's 3rd Congressional District hasn't been represented by a Democrat since the early 1990s and is the most Republican of the state's three districts. Right up there with the most conservative in the country, in fact.
The question that 3rd District voters will answer on Nov. 4 is whether they want to be represented in Congress by the radical right-wing idealogue Jason Chaffetz, who is at odds with much of his own party, or Bennion Spencer, a right-of-center Democrat and erstwhile Republican.
But setting aside any consideration of party labels,The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board believes Bennion Spencer would better represent Utah County and the rest of the district than would Chaffetz, who cites party reform, not the drafting and shaping of legislation, as his top priority.

Party reform is needed within the Republican Party (as I noted on Friday) however now is not the time for that discussion. Now is the time to totally dissect the SLTrib's "reasons" for supporting Bennion Spencer.

First is Spencer's "opposition" to drilling in ANWR.

Chaffetz favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Spencer does not.

One has to wonder what exactly Spencer DOES support. In response to a question at the UVU debate, where Spencer was asked specifically about drilling in ANWR he said "Drill everywhere, I say!" If Spencer is so easily swayed between positions depending on who he is speaking to, how can we expect him to stand up for the district in the face of intense lobbying or his caucus leadership?

Then there is his support of the Bush Administration's bail-out. That is not going to sit well with the Bush hating, far left in his base. Then there is the fact that this bail out was horrible policy to begin with. Groups like IBD and Market Watch were opposed to the bail out as were many prominent economists. Especially after the Senate got done adding $150 BILLION in pork projects to the bill.

Then comes the obligatory reference to Chaffetz' purported "xenophobia", a lie that I addressed here, here, here, here and oh yes here.

The next two paragraphs were by far the funniest (although I suspect an attempt at humor was not on the editoral boards mind when they wrote it).

For us, the chief difference between the candidates is that one has the instincts of a collaborative problem-solver and the other has the markings of a self-righteous zealot.
Chaffetz vows he will be "pounding on lecterns" when he gets to Washington. We acknowledge that this rhetoric plays well with voters justifiably angry with their government. But unbending adherence to political ideology is partly to blame for the current mess, and it surely is no recipe for getting out of it.

Given the fact that Bennion Spencer went from supporting an "all of the above" energy policy on his website to repeating (ad naseum) the Democrat House Leaderships "we can't drill our way out of this crisis" mantra, it sure seems that if anyone is kow towing to the dictates of party purity it is Bennion Spencer.

The SL Trib closes with this.

The art of politics is principled compromise, and it is regrettable that Jason Chaffetz seems to have no eye for complementary colors. Bennion Spencer clearly does, and would take that vision to Congress.

The problem is we have too many people in Washington DC that are compromising their principles in order to "get things done" in Congress. We need people in DC who can stand up to the compromisers and do what is best for the country, rather than what will get them re-elected. That is what propelled Jason Chaffetz past Rep. Chris Cannon in the primary and what (I suspect) will propel Jason to Congress in 9 days.