By Uncle Don MillerThe, esteemed in his own mind, Rep. Steve Urquhart doesn't play well with others, even as he claims to be a fair minded legislative leader. House Rules Committee Chairman Steveu said three of the five legislators who dared to file asking for an ethics investigation, in the face of apparently strong documented evidence that an ethics violation might have occurred, are "grandstanding hacks," as well as cancerous.
So why is Steveu so upset with these three? Obviously, he often forgets the GOP rule that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Does this episode reflect on his judgment?
He said the three bad guys -- two Republicans and one Democrat -- who dared to ask for an ethics investigation are "very ineffective legislators." He reportedly continued: "they're not doing well ...., so I think they're willing to drop a bomb anywhere they can, figuring .... why not stir things up?"
If three of the five are bad, how did the other 40 percent somehow escape Steveu's wrath? Does Steveu somehow perceive these two are good as they have purer motives and are more effective legislators, and hence clearly not bomb droppers even though they also asked for an ethics investigation of the same person?
Steveu reportedly wrote "it has long been my perception that these three members are cancer," apparently for not playing well with others. More specifically, apparently for not playing well with Steveu, the most important person in the equation. Could Steveu just be projecting? How did the call for this specific ethics investigation become all about Steveu? How does this episode reflect on his judgment?
So why is Steveu so upset with these three? Obviously, he often forgets the GOP rule that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Does this episode reflect on his judgment?
He said the three bad guys -- two Republicans and one Democrat -- who dared to ask for an ethics investigation are "very ineffective legislators." He reportedly continued: "they're not doing well ...., so I think they're willing to drop a bomb anywhere they can, figuring .... why not stir things up?"
If three of the five are bad, how did the other 40 percent somehow escape Steveu's wrath? Does Steveu somehow perceive these two are good as they have purer motives and are more effective legislators, and hence clearly not bomb droppers even though they also asked for an ethics investigation of the same person?
Steveu reportedly wrote "it has long been my perception that these three members are cancer," apparently for not playing well with others. More specifically, apparently for not playing well with Steveu, the most important person in the equation. Could Steveu just be projecting? How did the call for this specific ethics investigation become all about Steveu? How does this episode reflect on his judgment?
Just asking.
Don L. Miller
6 comments:
Don, what part of Steve's position do you partially agree with that you lead to give him a D- instead of an F?
Don, the above question follows the same flawed logic as your blog entry.
Urquhart is correct to label these representatives as ineffective, especially Mascaro.
Mascaro has been in the Legislature since the 2002 General Session.That's seven legislative sessions. What are his major accomplishments?
He co-sponsored an ill-conceived tax increase that received MULTIPLE hearings and was still rejected. That's about it. And please, please don't tell us that the Huntsman reform was similar to the Jones-Mascaro proposal because it wasn't.
You can't blame his ineffectiveness on lack of conservative credentials. Several moderates and liberals have been able to pass meaningful legislation, including Mike Dmitrich, Patrice Arent, and Brent Goodfellow.
And just because Mascaro co-filed the complaint against Walker, that doesn't mean he should be immune to accusations of sexual harassment.
For the sake of full disclosure, Don, I would have to say that they're more effective than you were in your campaign against me 2 years ago.
Still missing the point, you missed the bit about Rep. Riesen (and, I assume, Rep. McGee) fighting against the splashy press release and the filing of the complaint immediately before the primary.
Details. Details.
Good grief, Rep. Steve ...
"...that they're more effective than you were in your campaign against me 2 years ago."
What a seriously pissy bitch thing to say. Wow ... I am both laughing (like at a fart joke) and feeling a sense of shock that you could actually act as juvenile as people say you can.
Thanks for the uncomfortable laugh, Rep. Steve. Now I feel all grimy.
Mister Steve "know it all, knows what's best for all of us, no matter what we think!" u,
You better apologize to Uncle Don Miller Steveu, or I'll sick the J-man on you! He knows your a legend in your own mind and no one else's.
Remember this Utah, it was Steveu who sponsered vouchers and cost us all a lot of unecesary time and money fighting Steveu's bull$h&+ voucher law that the majority of US didn't want in the first place.
BTW, great show Mr. Bell!
Steve, your childish posts and comments are not winning me over on this.
Again, act like you have at least an ounce of self-respect. If it's not too late...
Post a Comment