Robert Gehrke column on Trump nomination of Utahn Ron Mortensen to a federal post.
“I know he has experience working with refugees outside of the country. I don’t know about his experience with refugees inside the country,” said Paul Mero, who hired Mortensen when Mero was president of the conservative Sutherland Institute. “In fact, the only thing I really do know is that he’s very anti-immigration and anti-refugee.”
In November 2014, I received a call from Governor Gary Herbert’s staff inviting, and then asking, me to stand with the governor as he announced his Healthy Utah plan – the plan that opponents referred to as “Medicaid expansion.” I knew nothing about the plan at the time, was sent some briefing materials and, ultimately, agreed to stand with him largely out of friendship and respect.
Of course, as a well-known conservative voice in Utah, I was heavily criticized for so-called “endorsing” the Healthy Utah plan. Up to the point of the press conference, I had not endorsed any such thing. I attended, as I said, out of respect and friendship. But a funny thing happened while standing there along side the governor and so many high-profile community leaders: I agreed with what the governor was proposing. It made sense. In fact, I agreed so much with what he described about the plan that I embraced it and argued for it among our conservative legislators.
You might think after decades of horrible sexual abuses perpetrated by people in authority over innocent and trusting individuals that law and policy would reflect every reality faced by the victims in a litigious society. But you would be wrong. Even today, victims of sexual abuse still face the humiliation of the original abuse and the subsequent abuses associated with having to face it and report it.
Just this month, a new law took effect removing the statute of limitations on childhood victims of sexual abuse in Utah. But the law has not gone far enough in my opinion. We should extend this legal courtesy to anyone sexually abused by someone in authority – be they subject to a parent or guardian, an employer, a school teacher, a youth leader, a law enforcement officer, a caretaker or, yes, even an ecclesiastical leader.
In one of Bill Buckley’s last television interviews, Charlie Rose asked him to explain the differences between the conservative movement today and the one Buckley started with National Review in 1955. Buckley replied that conservatives back then had a unifying enemy – communism – and all sorts of political factions on the Right were willing to set aside some glaring differences of opinion to stop the communist menace. And what about today’s conservative movement? Buckley paused and said, conservatives today are “trifling up against the general sense of satisfaction.”
Does it bother you that Vice-President Mike Pence proudly shares that he talks with God? I have to admit it bothered me a bit – but not for the same reasons many other people became uncomfortable with Pence’s revelation.
I understand why some people are dismayed by the vice-president’s faith in open display in the public square. In fact, a “faith standard” is a pretty high bar to meet in terms of public service. For instance, how credible is the faith of a man who thinks Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is a shining example of the rule of law, a man to be honored? If Pence’s faith-based political judgment whispers that Arpaio is an honorable man, what are we to think about Pence’s judgment on a wide array of other political topics?
My political sins, if you will, have been on full display for decades. Through the pages of my career’s open book, I have been anything but transcendent – although not for a lack of trying. By the time I arrived in Utah 18 years ago, I was determined to lead differently. In time, I created the Transcend Series at Sutherland Institute to help elected officials and community leaders overcome politics as usual. I often reached across the philosophical aisle in an attempt to raise civil dialogue.
Upon the announcement nearly two years ago from then-FBI Director James Comey that he would not further pursue the Hillary Clinton email scandal, I shared these thoughts with you:
Perhaps like me, you too watched all or a part of the congressional hearing with FBI Director James Comey. Regardless of his answers and defense of his report to the Justice Department, how did Comey come across to you? How did he make you feel? Did you sense a difference between Comey and Clinton or Trump? Did Comey come across as a liar? Did appear to be just another slick lawyer? Was there anything in Comey’s presentation that made you feel uneasy or that he wasn’t telling the truth as he sees it?
Salt Lake Tribune editorial writer, Michelle Quist, has spent her last two columns on equal pay for women. I have applauded both columns. I think equal pay for women is an obvious good, a no-brainer like legalizing the “dreamer” kids. Not many public policies are as easy to address as these two policies.
In fact, equal pay for women is such an easy concept to wrap your head around, it makes me wonder what opponents and even reluctant supporters are worried about? We have heard the many circumstantial excuses why policy makers and some business leaders are unwilling to accept the obvious – women’s lives are different than men, they are in and out of the work force, they cannot give full attention to their jobs because of domestic distractions, etc.
Now that the Utah Medical Marijuana Initiative has inched closer to obtaining a spot on the November statewide ballot, it is a good time to get absolutely real about what policies, and their societal effects, are at stake. Supporters of the measure argue that good people are being forced to break the law just to relieve chronic pain. Opponents argue that this initiative is simply the first step in a broader campaign to legalize pot, as in Colorado. So who is right?
Every statewide ballot initiative permits supporters and opponents to offer a few words to argue their case with voters. I would add a new category of ballot explanation titled, “The Truth” and here is what I would argue:
Immediately preceding the crucifixion of Jesus, the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, told the accusing crowd of Sanhedrin, “I find no fault in him.” He told them four times, “I find no fault in him.” The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead and, under both Jewish and Roman law in this circumstance, only the Roman governor could order the death of Jesus. But Pilate found Jesus innocent of the trumped up charge of sedition.
In the end, Pilate became more concerned with maintaining his position as governor of Judea than with the truth. He capitulated to the irrational but vociferous Sanhedrin and ordered Jesus crucified. Wrought with guilt for condemning an innocent man, Pilate symbolically washed his hands of the blood about to be shed and announced he had nothing to do with it.
