I dislike the term, "Swallow fiasco!" This is from a left-wing democrat
who wrote this article.John Swallow is a good, decent man who
deserves to be found innocent, instead of the other way around. So many in the
media and academia believe he is guilty until proven innocent. This is NOT our
justice system!Why are people so slanted and evil-thinking today?
I found this article refreshingly non-partisan. I would not have known the
author was a democrat if not for the disclosure at the bottom. His tone is not
nearly as harsh as several prominent conservatives such as Dan Liljenquist (not
really a left-wing democrat) and others within the Utah legislature. Even
though he may not have technically committed any crimes (still under
investigation), Mr. Swallow has definitely exercised very poor judgement which
is not a strong endorsement for Utah's top law-enforcement officer. I
think fiasco is appropriate on many fronts, the most simple being that the
Republican-dominated legislature had no choice but to appropriate millions of
tax-payer funds to investigate him. Mr. Swallow really should just step
down.I think this article is a good starting point to evaluate the
current system and gives us some good things to think about.
I agree w/ BYU alum.Swallow is innocent. He is actually more than
that, he is a saint. We all know that KSL and the Dnews are Communist liberal
media outlets who will stop at nothing to destroy the LDS Church and GOP in this
He gets a pass and the right is all over Sim Gill for conducting an objective
investigation. The buddy system rules Utah.
"5. Forty-three of the 50 states currently provide for the election of the
attorney general, and none of those states has reversed course, indicating
general satisfaction with this process. "That's a lot like
saying "All forty three of the people who survived cancer did not die,
therefore cancer does not kill people."Not saying the AG should
or shouldn't be elected, but lets at least use real arguments.
By all means, don't trust the people. Don't allow them to elect
someone whom they find qualified to hold public office. Make everything an
appointment. Let the Government appoint his friends to all offices. Take the
people out of politics. Why not just appoint a King and be done with it?
You really think the Swallow issue is reason to amend the Constitution?I've heard of not letting a good crisis go to waste, but changing the
CONSTITUTION in reaction to the Swallow having some dirty dealings before taking
office... seems a little extreme.I say let the electorate take him
out the next chance they get. He's not doing any damage today (IF the
media could just leave him alone). I mean he's not out there running
around looking to get in more situations like the one he got pulled into before
he was elected to be the AG.Why is everybody in such a hurry?
We've had dirty politicians before. We've never had an impeachment
before, we've never a Constitutional amendment to get rid of a politician
before. Why is Swallow so different? I don't get the obsession with
Swallow. He's just another politician who made a mistake! If it's
keeping him from doing his job... unelected him next chance you get! It's
not that long. I can't believe the extremes his enemies are going to.
one vote,RE: "He gets a pass and the right is all over Sim Gill for
conducting an objective investigation".Bad comparison to begin
with... but lets look at it.I haven't heard anybody calling for
Sim Gill's impeachment. I have for Swallow (even from Republicans). I haven't heard anybody asking for a Constitutional amendment to
get rid of Sim Gill. We just heard it from the Left for Swallow.And
yet... you think Swallow is getting a pass, and Gill is getting too much
attention. Amazing.I guess if you call the Left calling for
impeachment and a constitutional amendment for Swallow "a pass". And
nobody calling for either for Gill "the right being all over Sim
Gill".I have advocated the same for both of them. Vote them
out next chance you get.
So Mike Richards, your argument is that we should trust the people to elect
their leaders?On these very message boards you've railed
against the fact that we amended the Constitution to allow the people to elect
Senators rather than letting the legislatures select them.This is
why a lot of us have such a hard time with your positions. They change
constantly. You end up arguing against yourself.The author of the
article showed the pros and cons of each position. It would ultimately be up to
the PEOPLE to change the state Constitution- but then, YOU might not trust them
to make that decision.And BYUalum, I'm a moderate independent
and I think that "Swallow fiasco," fits the issue nicely. And, by the
way, authors of newspaper articles rarely write their own headlines- that would
be the copy editors.