NEWS & EVENTS

 

 

 

 

Foxley & Pignanelli Foxley & Pignanelli

Health vs. the economy — the politics of COVID-19

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Politics never shelters in place ... even in a pandemic. The wrangling in Congress over the relief package, sparring between the president and opponents, and disagreements over prioritizing health or the economy demonstrate this reality.

Utah politicians are also maneuvering and seeking advantage, although in rather subdued ways compared to the nastiness elsewhere. We inoculate our readers against political confusion.

Last week, Gov. Gary Herbert announced a three-phase economic response plan: Urgent Phase, Stabilization Phase and Recovery Phase, lasting about 8-10 weeks each. Some Utahns are demanding a mandatory shutdown of the state (shelter at home) while others suggest more targeted restrictions to maintain economic activity. Does the Herbert task force plan satisfy both sides?

Pignanelli: “Public health looks to separate people. Our economy is built on integrating people. Both principles have to be implemented in a coordinated fashion.” — Rahm Emanuelformer mayor of Chicago

The last severe pandemic was more than 100 years ago. Thus, advances in technology, transportation and culture necessitates the proverbial wheel be reinvented for a response. Among educated professionals, there is a tug of war of whether the government should mandate all but essential personnel remain at home versus more strategic — less strident — actions.

A whispered analysis is being conducted outside polite conversation. With limited testing COVID-19 has 1.43% fatality rate in the U.S. (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine). Does this statistic warrant a shutdown of the economy with Depression era results?

Because of the crushing impact upon health care facilities, many are claiming strong lockdown measures are needed. But an increasing number of recognized experts in the country are articulating legitimate concerns such a “cure” is more devastating than the disease, urging alternative targeted policies. A recent editorial penned by state Sen. Dan Hemmert, state Rep. Mike Shultz, state Auditor John Dougall and former GOP Chairman Thomas Wright offers a thoughtful, compelling process — focused on testing and procuring adequate medical resources through the private sector.

The Herbert administration deserves immense credit for leadership in providing a course of action that protects the economy, with sensitivity to public health. Implementation (aka inventing this wheel) will be difficult, but imperative.

Webb: Politicians can’t keep everyone happy, but the state response has been good. We need a lot more data to say whether we’ve overreacted to the pandemic or haven’t been strict enough. Until we have the data, we must err on the side of caution.

Everyone wants to stay healthy. But everyone also wants to have jobs to support their families. The politicians, relying on the data and the best medical science, must find the right balance.

We need millions of tests, including random sample testing, to know how many people have been infected, the hospitalization rate, and the actual death rate. The problem is, we have to make decisions without all the data. Protecting life right now is more important than work. Jobs will eventually return. Dead people won’t.

But it is a balance. We already tolerate many deaths, injuries and disease because the economic cost is too high to eliminate all of it. We actually could eliminate almost all deaths and injury from auto accidents, and deaths from the common flu — if we were draconian enough and willing to destroy the economy.

But we don’t want to live in a prescriptive, dictatorial society with little freedom or economic opportunity. We will eventually know the real rates of infection, hospitalization and death from COVID-19. And we’ll have immunizations and treatments. Then society will adjust appropriately.

Will the state response to the pandemic, and those of other elected officials, be used as campaign issues in the upcoming primary and general elections?

Pignanelli: Utahns are filled with common sense and compassion but will hold officials accountable for perceived carelessness. Candidates seeking to replace Herbert will soon need to promote their detailed position on this subject. By the fall, other candidates will face similar standards. Unfortunately, no one knows the ultimate result that will be the touchstone for judgment.

Webb: The crisis is currently a political benefit for incumbents and well-known candidates, simply because traditional campaigning has been upended, citizens aren’t paying much attention to politics, and candidates have had to reinvent their campaigns and messaging on the fly. That provides an advantage to candidates who are already well-known.

At the federal level, President Donald Trump’s reelection will be largely determined by the success or failure of his coronavirus response. He has been harshly criticized for suggesting that at least part of the country could be reopened, with proper precautions, by Easter. But perhaps he will be right.

Gov. Herbert has issued an executive order allowing candidates seeking placement on the primary election ballot to gather signatures without personal contact. Was this needed?

Pignanelli: The first phase of the Herbert coronavirus plan includes “extensive social distancing.” It is impossible to conduct a productive conversation with a prospective signatory more than 6 feet away. An emergency situation compels creative solutions to protect this element of democracy.

Webb: This election is like no other. Temporary emergency measures to facilitate ballot access and citizen involvement are entirely appropriate.

Read More
Foxley & Pignanelli Foxley & Pignanelli

The Great Shakeout:

The morning of March 18th a 5.7 magnitude earthquake shook all of Northern Utah. Fortunately the Fox & Pig offices were not damaged, and all of the staff and our families are safe. Several historic buildings downtown and near the epicenter in Magna suffered damage, some cosmetic and some structural. Even the historic Mormon Temple in Salt Lake suffered minimal damage. 

Read More
Foxley & Pignanelli Foxley & Pignanelli

How will the coronavirus pandemic affect Utah politics, elections?

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

The coronavirus has changed everyone’s lives. And last Wednesday’s earthquake spooked Utahns. The impact of both crises on the political world will be very significant in the weeks and months ahead. We offer our perspectives.

Many Utah political offices are up for grabs this autumn. How must campaigns adapt to reach voters and make their cases at a time of social distancing and almost no meetings or personal contact?

Pignanelli: “Sometimes paranoia is just good sense.” — Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal

As with most Utahns, I spent Wednesday morning planning my daily response to the pandemic. After the tremors subsided, I declared out loud: “Really? What’s next, locusts?” Insightful politicians comprehend such apprehensions shared among the Utah electorate. Yet, they are deprived of the traditional means of expressing empathy available to humans for thousands of years.

This problem is further compounded by the necessary decisions of both parties to cancel precinct caucuses and empower the delegates elected in 2018 to serve in their capacities in 2020. No federal and state candidates (except some legislative contenders) participated in recruiting and electing these delegates. The tradition of hosting events for delegates is forbidden and conventions will be conducted online. This is a huge shift and the delegate/convention system may not survive as the shift to primary elections becomes more practical.

Social media along with the usual routes of television, radio and mail will be extensively utilized. The large number of gubernatorial, congressional and legislative candidates demands that only the most creative and powerful messages will be absorbed. Cookie cutter commercials and advertisements will likely fail.

Hopefully by November the virus, earthquakes and other biblical horrors will have ceased, revealing which candidates are the most adaptable.

Webb: This is a really weird time for politics. When our normal comfortable lives and routines are abruptly upended by pestilence or earthquakes, we quickly turn our attention to the basics of survival and making sure our families and friends are OK. Politics becomes suddenly secondary.

At times like this, voters aren’t much interested in seeing typical campaign commercials or speeches about how great a candidate is. They’re looking for reassuring leadership, not self-serving messaging or attack ads. Traditional campaigning is awkward.

And the process of campaigning has changed dramatically. No more door-to-door contacts. No more in-person campaign rallies or speeches. The usual events where candidates appear or speak have all been canceled. Debates will be virtual.

This will be a real test of a candidate’s ability to pivot quickly and adapt to the new realities. Social media was already very important, but now it is paramount. Reaching the right audiences with the right messages is entirely possible via social media, but it will test a candidate’s expertise and communications instincts.

Smart use of traditional broadcast and print media, along with creative public relations, will be good channels to build support as citizens tune in to get the latest crisis news.

Will the crisis create an advantage or disadvantage for incumbents in the coming elections?

Pignanelli: Office holders and seekers who truly comprehend the current emotions of voters in this changed environment, and craft their messaging accordingly, will succeed. Those who rely solely on past methods, do so at a risk.

Webb: It’s tricky for incumbents, but an advantage for them if they perform well. As they suspend traditional campaign activities, they have other opportunities to get before the media and reassure citizens. If they’re seen as exploiting the crisis, it will backfire. As state coronavirus czar and gubernatorial candidate, Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox has the most to gain — or lose if he does not rise to the occasion.

In times of great need, even anti-government people look to government and political leaders for help. Is this crisis a validation of the importance of government in our lives? Will governments measure up to the challenge?

Pignanelli: Americans work every day to perform or suffer the consequences. So, they expect their elected and appointed government officials to provide services, especially in emergencies. Most Utahns correctly have confidence in the state and local jurisdictions whose record of success is unassailable. But the feds garner mixed reviews.

An ardent capitalist and defender of the free market, I believe in certain roles for government — especially management of a public safety crisis. Citizens appropriately demand officials abandon partisanship and self-promotion for the greater good. Utah leaders will respond accordingly — as usual. Hopefully, national politicians use this opportunity to reverse the erosion of respect.

Webb: Just like there aren’t many atheists in a foxhole, there aren’t many anti-government people in times of crisis. A major catastrophe takes away the ability of people to take care of themselves, and can even overwhelm the capacity of neighbors, nonprofits and churches to meet the needs.

So, government steps in, and especially the federal government, with few limits on its ability to borrow and spend. There are always fits and starts in gearing up to confront a major catastrophe and ensuing economic crisis. Given all of that, I think the coronavirus response on the local, state and federal levels has been quite good. President Trump’s own messaging has been mixed, but he has surrounded himself with some excellent people who keep the nation reassured.

Read More
Foxley & Pignanelli Foxley & Pignanelli

It’s establishment Biden vs. revolutionary Bernie

Anyone who believes politics is boring likely does not have a pulse. Last week demonstrated the capriciousness of politics, nationally and locally. We explore the ramifications of the presidential primary and the unusual pressures in the legislative budget process.

Presumed dead, former Vice President Joe Biden defied all expectations and is now the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Yet, in Utah, he did poorly, while Sen. Bernie Sanders won big. What does this say about local politics?

Pignanelli: “Bloomberg proved … a presidential nomination can’t be bought with all the money in the world.” — Jeff Greenfield

The old canard a Utah Democrat is a Republican anywhere else was finally demolished last week. Sanders garnered almost 80% in 2016 and placed first this year with 35% against a much wider field. Combined with 15% captured by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, firm evidence demonstrates the progressive left is a major influence in Utah’s Democrat party.

Other surrounding states also went for Sanders, highlighting major demographic shifts in the Western United States. These include the rise of Latino and millennial voters, indicating strong trends in regions with expanding populations.

Utah Democrats seeking federal office or state positions in swing districts must appeal to independent and moderate Republican voters to succeed. But a strident progressive element demanding adherence to all their positions makes this problematic. The ultimate nominee selected will either soften or empower this emerging dynamic.

A new canard for Utah Democrats could be written this year.

Webb: The Bernie win shows that while Utah is one of the nation’s most conservative states, Utah Democrats are as liberal — or more so — as anywhere in the country.

Assuming Biden wins the nomination, having him at the top of the ticket won’t especially excite Utah Democrats, but Biden is a lot better for down-ballot Democrats than Sanders. One warning sign for Utah Democrats is that Republican voting in the Utah primary was dramatically higher than Democratic voting, even though Republicans had little motivation to vote. Trump received over 100,000 more votes than all the Democrats combined. That’s good news for Republican congressional candidates. It means Congressman Ben McAdams will need a lot of Republicans and independents to cross over and vote for him. Bloomberg’s poor finish shows, as elsewhere in the country, that money can’t buy political love. The Democratic primary is now a two-person race between Biden and Sanders. Will this be a protracted fight to the convention?

Pignanelli: Older traditional Democrats finally expressed their opposition to an avowed socialist taking over their party. They appreciated the Vermont senator’s compassion, but feared the potential disaster with him as a nominee. But Tuesday nights results also revealed that an internecine war is further developing. In almost every state, adding Sanders’ and Warren’s results, while comparing them to the combination of Biden and Michael Bloomberg, reveals an almost even split between far left and moderate camps. In Utah and other states, the factions will argue over local conventions, delegates, party machinery and other elements of control. This is a fight of ideology and personality (Bernie vs. Joe), so the two major candidates are incentivizing deep emotion amongst their followers. Webb: Biden will win the nomination because Democrats finally got real. Boring Biden is a lot safer than revolutionary Bernie. So, the Democrats’ rousing 2020 rallying cry is going to be: “Vote for Joe. He’s safe!” That should inspire a lot of Democratic voters. Of course, in the age of Trump disruption and chaos, perhaps humdrum safety is what voters want. But, remember, Democrats tried a safe, establishment candidate in Hillary Clinton and it didn’t work so well. The full spotlight of media and Republican scrutiny will now be focused on Biden. Whether he can hold up is an open question. Over the years, many candidates have emerged as front-runners, only to fade under the glare. And Trump would easily win if he would just stop being crazy. He gets the big things right, but then squanders the goodwill with stupid tweets. I expect much more turmoil before this thing is over. And the coronavirus impact is unknown. In the midst of the primary hoopla, Utah lawmakers continue to grind through the state budget process. Despite a booming economy, Utah’s general fund simply cannot keep up with basic demands. How will lawmakers deal with these challenges? Pignanelli: Legislators should — but will not — hang a huge banner in front of the state Capitol declaring, “We told you so.” The revenue problems of the general fund are creating consternation for policymakers and recipients. There will be some suffering at every agency but education. Further, there will be a variety of traditional and creative taxing tools to alleviate the shortfall. Webb: The general fund shortfalls are evidence that tax reform is desperately needed. Lawmakers will muddle through this session, but Utah’s next governor has a big problem. Legislators know how to solve the problem, but can they convince wary voters that fixing Utah’s structural imbalance is in everyone’s best interest?

Read More
Foxley & Pignanelli Foxley & Pignanelli

Why the 2020 legislative session may go down as the strangest in modern history

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

Veteran observers and insiders are concluding that the 2020 legislative session is perhaps the most unique — if not the strangest — in modern history. Since your columnists are rather strange themselves, we’re well-qualified to explain the peculiarities.

What are some of the unusual dynamics surrounding lawmakers, advocates and lobbyists at the Capitol?

Pignanelli & Webb: “Voters don’t decide issues, they decide who will decide issues.” — George Will

Well, here’s a partial list of abnormal items, starting with Utah issues: Looming above the session has been the specter of a face-slapping referendum that gathered 150,000 signatures and repealed tax reform approved a month earlier ... a wacky revenue forecast of a huge surplus for the school fund, but tight constraints in the general fund ... numerous lawmakers facing intraparty challenges by opponents grumpy about tax reform ... the issue that never dies: Medicaid expansion ... disposition of another citizen initiative, this one creating a commission to redraw legislative and congressional district boundaries ... more marijuana stuff ... constituent pressures to lower pharmaceutical costs ... the never-ending inland port battle ... and legislative action sponsored by Republicans targeting a Republican U.S. senator.

And overshadowing the session are a couple of national issues: A roller-coaster stock market and recession fears caused by threat of a global coronavirus pandemic ... and a screwy presidential election in which a proud socialist could be elected. Whew!

What are the chances of tax reform, or even a cut? Anything else?

Pignanelli: I hope the pressures described above do not delay passage of this session’s most crucial legislation, SB103 and HB157 (sponsored by Sen. Gene Davis and Rep. Mike McKell, respectively), which allow Utahns participation in a wine subscription program from out of state vineyards. Life in Utah is great and could not get better — but this is would a wonderful benefit.

A surplus in the Uniform School Fund, combined with political environment, is the recipe for some tax relief. Because income tax is the most volatile of revenue sources, the fears of a recession may reduce the amount of the cut or creating a temporary adjustment, permanency dependent upon future conditions. The demands of Medicaid and basic state services are huge pressures on a general fund expanding at a lower rate. Thus, there will be some actions to increase the coffers of the general fund through the reduction of exemptions or other actions. The common feature of any such tax activity will be avoiding controversy.

Pignanelli: Cautious policymakers are incorporating how the sickness will impact the economy, especially the stock market. This is driving discussions as to future tax revenues and general economic considerations.

But the truly interesting conversations are happening in Capitol corridors as to whether the legislative session will end before any drastic measures are taken to prevent infection. Will legislators, staff and lobbyists be required to conduct business at a minimum of 6 feet from each other? How soon will face masks and tubs of hand gel become a mandatory accessory to parliamentary interactions?

Webb: Coronavirus right now is a bigger economic threat than a health threat. We’ve already seen that with the stock market plunge. In an interdependent national and world economy, Utah’s tax revenue won’t be immune from a global downturn. That’s why lawmakers should postpone cutting taxes and boost rainy day funds until we better know the full impact.

Read More
Foxley & Pignanelli Foxley & Pignanelli

Does Utah need a new state flag?

Politics often proves the old adage, “The more things change the more they stay the same.” Lawmakers are deliberating some issues that have been around for years, decades and even over a century. As really old columnists we remember these things, although we weren’t quite around in the days of polygamy. It wouldn’t have worked for us anyway, as consideration of a No. 2 or 3 would certainly prompt the threat of death at the hands of No. 1.

A resolution was filed by Rep. Karen Kwan to endorse the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA, to the U.S. Constitution. This was a major controversy 50 years ago. Will and should this pass?

RELATED

As Utahns mark women’s vote, what of ERA?

Pignanelli: “The Equal Rights Amendment would turn holy wedlock into holy deadlock.” —William Rehnquist, 1970

Ahhh, the 1970s. Discotheques, bell-bottom jeans, oil embargoes, “M.A.S.H.” … and intense emotional arguments over the ERA. The contention caused huge demonstrations in the streets and in millions of American households. Dinosaurs like LaVarr and I remember well the controversy in Utah. Because of long-lasting memories for older Utahns, combined with the element that many under 50 do not know what an “ERA” is, the resolution may not be heard this session.

Although similar resolutions were passed recently in other states, the congressionally imposed deadline of 1982 for a state to adopt has long since passed, suggesting the current Utah proposal could be moot. Even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg suggested the ERA process needs to start over.

Recent polling indicates over 60% of Utahns support an ERA provision in the U.S. Constitution. So, if Congress ever acts on the amendment Utahns will definitely participate in the conversation … and disco fever returns.

Webb: While mandating “equal rights” for all sounds like a no-brainer, youngsters won’t remember the monumental battles of the ’70s and the questions raised about the ERA. Like concerns about forcing males and females to be treated precisely the same despite physical differences. Or the reversal of progress in women’s sports if sports teams can’t be differentiated by sex. Or separate bathroom facilities. Or elimination of women preferences in hiring. Or women subject to military draft and combat. Or ramifications for alimony, child custody and abortion.

Perhaps common sense would prevail. But it would take a mountain of litigation to determine what the new constitutional provision actually means in everyday life.

Sen. Dan McCay is sponsoring legislation to repeal SB54 and give political parties the choice to disallow the signature gathering process for candidates. Why does this keep reappearing?

Pignanelli: The 2014 compromise legislation (the famous SB54) was based on an agreement legislators would not later repeal it, and signature gathering proponents would not attempt another initiative. McCay was instrumental in its passage.

Because an initiative was attempted for 2018, McCay is understandably bothered by the breach of faith. But, this may not be the year lawmakers want a return to this fight.

Webb: Many lawmakers who voted for the unpopular tax reform law are very glad they can collect signatures to get on the primary election ballot and not have to face the wrath of delegates in the caucus/convention system. Thus, McCay’s bill won’t go anywhere.

The redistricting process is soon upon us. Will lawmakers revise the redistricting commission law created via initiative process in 2018?

Pignanelli: Lefty national special interest groups infused their bizarre agenda into the initiative language. Apparently, there are deliberations between lawmakers and commission proponents to amend this mess.

Webb: Legislators have already been burned by messing with voter-initiated laws. But the Proposition 4 redistricting law does have a number of flaws and needs some work. Hopefully, negotiations can result in mutual agreement for needed amendments. Proposition 4 initiative supporters are getting a clear win with creation of a redistricting commission.

Sen. Deidre Henderson is sponsoring legislation to decriminalize polygamy, while maintaining stiff penalties for any criminal conduct associated with this lifestyle. Normally a taboo topic, the bill is flying through.

Pignanelli: Henderson deserves commendation for undertaking what many shied from. Her bill allows victims of polygamy to seek help without worries of criminal action.

Webb: In an era where most anything goes, it’s tough to prohibit consensual unorthodox marriage relationships. If a woman wants to marry a couple of guys, who’s to say it should be illegal? But any manner of domestic abuse, including child abuse, ought to be strictly prosecuted.

Reps. Stephen Handy and Keven Stratton have legislation to change our state flag. Is this needed?

Pignanelli: Our current flag is boring. Utahns deserve a flag commemorating our proud pioneer and religious heritage, while boasting of the natural beauty surrounding us. Some are demanding diversity, so I suggest including emblems of Diet Coke and wine. The discussions promise to be entertaining.

Webb: Some people have said that with tax reform dead, this legislative session is really boring. This legislation proves it.

Read More
Foxley & Pignanelli Foxley & Pignanelli

Sausage-making, referendum ghosts and other things the Utah Legislature has been tackling this week

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

While national politicos are engaged in bare-knuckle cage fighting, our local lawmakers are busy with solemn public policy deliberations — otherwise known as sausage-making. We review the malodorous ingredients and whether you should watch or avert your eyes.

In the first week of the legislative session, lawmakers scuttled the tax reform they passed in December. Although referendum ghosts still haunt the Capitol, will tax measures be revived to increase the general fund and reduce revenue flowing into the education fund?

Pignanelli: “Modest proposals are better than grand designs: they serve the political function of registering concerns, but are too small to provoke opposition.” — The Economist

On rare occasions, professional and amateur chefs will unintentionally create an inedible meal. But always immediately after, additional attempts to feed patrons or the family are undertaken. Lawmakers are developing another meal of tax reform — with less controversial ingredients. These will include the taxation of some services and activities unlikely to generate public opposition. Another approach will be reallocating revenue sources currently depositing into the education fund into the General Fund.

A classic example is the tax on liquor, in which a substantial portion of proceeds are dedicated to the school lunch program. For many decades my drinking companions and I congratulated ourselves on contributing to the nutritional benefit of Utah children. I unselfishly recommend re-directing these fees to the General Fund toward the worthy cause of tax reform. (Of course, consumption will not alter.)

Also, because the Uniform School Fund is where the money is, lawmakers are torturously redefining programs as an education activity.

So, the best flavors for this next round of tax reform are those less offensive to the public palate.

Webb: Tax reform died an ignominious death at the hands of a rare left-wing/right-wing coalition. But the tax imbalance remains, and it’s a serious problem. Lawmakers must be careful doing piecemeal tax reform. Cutting income taxes (which fund education) does nothing to bolster looming shortages in the general fund.

It’s a lot easier to do substantive tax reform with a nice surplus to work with. Even with a tax cut sweetener, tax reform was defeated. It would be even more difficult to try to solve the structural imbalance without having money to move around.

It still makes great sense to pay more of transportation spending with user fees. It still makes great sense to broaden the sales tax base as service purchases replace product purchases. It still makes sense to reduce earmarks and provide flexibility.

What are some of the unexpected issues that are percolating as a result of private citizens and well-organized special interest groups pressuring lawmakers?

Pignanelli: Those who question the strength of modern democracy in the 21st century need only spend an hour at the Utah Legislature for a change of mind. Every day, hundreds of private citizens descend on the Capitol personally or through email to communicate with their representatives. It is effective.

The cost of pharmaceuticals — especially insulin — has evolved into a hot topic this season as constituents bombard state officials with frustrations. (The public hearing reviewing insulin costs filled the largest committee room). Thus, legislation to address these concerns is a certainty.

Clean air legislation was expected, but not to the degree reflected by the number of proposals before lawmakers. Additional action to promote less pollution is expected.

Webb: Speaking of sausage-making, I (along with a lot of other people) am carefully watching SB91, sponsored by Sen. Dan McCay, which would repeal SB54 and allow political parties to revert exclusively to the caucus/convention system to select party nominees.

McCay’s bill, if passed, will create a civil war within the Republican Party, dry up contributions to the party from business leaders, probably spark referendum or initiative efforts, and generally take the state back to the political dark ages. The right for all party voters to select party nominees, rather than a relatively few delegates, needs to be protected.

This newspaper published poll data showing that most Utahns are OK with Sen. Mitt Romney’s vote to convict Pres. Donald Trump and remove him from office. However, 60% of Republicans disapproved. Will fallout continue, or have disgruntled Republicans moved on?

Pignanelli: Immediately after the vote, Romney shrewdly flew home to soothe feelings and explain his thoughts to legislators. This accelerated the healing process and any legislation to publicize frustration was shelved.

Webb: While I disagreed with Romney, I accept that he voted his conscience after much deliberation. But no one should be surprised at the negative reaction. After all, Romney is usually among the “can’t we all just get along” crowd. But in this case, he voted to utterly destroy Trump politically. Nothing is more divisive than attempting to force someone out of office. Those who want to recall Romney are suggesting the same outcome that he sought for Trump. It’s hard to achieve any sort of political unity when each side is attempting to annihilate the other.

Read More
Foxley & Pignanelli Foxley & Pignanelli

It was a remarkable week in U.S. politics — how will it impact the future?

Pignanelli & Webb

Wow! What an extraordinary week in national and local politics. We watched the fiasco in the Iowa caucuses last Monday (which further muddied the Democratic presidential nomination contest), the president’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday (with Nancy Pelosi ripping it up) and, finally, the end of the impeachment process with a Senate vote to acquit on Wednesday (highlighted by a surprising vote by Mitt Romney to convict). We look at ramifications nationally and locally.

Utah’s two senators split on impeachment, with Romney being the only Republican to vote to toss the president out of office. What are the ramifications for Romney and the rest of the Utah delegation? Has impeachment hurt or helped Trump’s reelection prospects?

Pignanelli: “We have known for the last three years this is an important election. But on Day One the Democrats in Des Moines shanked it. They can’t even count farmers holding their hands up in a high school gym.” — Stephen Colbert

The constitutional process of impeachment observed and endured by Americans mirrors a root canal procedure — painful, but soon forgotten. Because of recent events the nation was reminded of the not too distant fact President William Clinton was impeached … then acquitted. The late ’90s vibrant economy and his strong personality overshadowed such recollections.

Therefore, history suggests the impeachment proceedings alone will not impede Trump’s reelection. By autumn, dynamics including the economy, results of other investigations and the Democratic nominee will determine the election results. This also means in the short term Romney will receive intense criticism from local and national politicos, but different controversies will soon dominate conversations. The recent proceedings will evolve into an historical footnote.

A long-term beneficiary from the Senate trial could be Congressman Ben McAdams. He can use Romney’s vote to deflect the anticipated attacks for his support of the impeachment articles.

Impeachment proceedings generated moderate interest among Americans who will unlikely willingly reflect about it in the future — just like a root canal.

Webb: The big outcome is that Trump survived impeachment stronger than ever and will stay in office and face voters in November. Personally, I think that’s a good thing for the country. Trump’s actions were not “perfect,” but didn’t rise to the level of requiring his removal from office. I disagree with Romney on this and agree with Sen. Mike Lee and Reps. Rob BishopChris Stewart and John Curtis.

I want to give Romney the benefit of the doubt and not ascribe his vote to sour grapes over Trump rejecting him as secretary of state, or his general loathing of Trump (remember Romney’s blistering criticism of Trump on moral grounds in 2016).

In explaining his vote, Romney repeatedly referred to his strong religious convictions, saying his “oath before God demanded” his vote to convict. Some Utahns I’ve talked to felt Romney wrapped himself in their religion to justify his vote — and they didn’t appreciate it.

I don’t think Romney intended that. I assume he acknowledges that members of his same church, and other religions, just as devout as he is, having taken the same oath before God, reached an entirely different conclusion. There is no religious martyr here.

Some also questioned Romney’s moralizing, given his inconsistencies (some called it flip-flopping) on a variety of positions when he was seeking the GOP presidential nomination, in contrast to his positions when he served and sought office in liberal Massachusetts.

Going forward, I don’t think Romney has totally burned all bridges with his colleagues or the administration. But I think he will have to work harder than ever to effectively represent Utah.

Trump’s lengthy SOTU speech was crafted for social media viral moments as he welcomed numerous guests in tender anecdotes and boasted about the economy. Was this speech, delivered under an impeachment cloud, effective for the president?

Pignanelli: I watched every minute. This incredibly choreographed entertainment event alternated between frustrating, moving, shocking and stirring. The hyperpartisanship of the speech (which should not have surprised anyone) was matched by similar extreme emotions in the audience — especially the indefensible antics of the house speaker.

Trump served notice that he is running hard for reelection by not only appealing to his base, but also targeting minority communities. The hope is to raise support among them, while assuring suburban voters that he does care about diverse Americans. Thus the 80-minute presentation was classic Trump — which was his intention and strategy.

Read More