Saturday, November 01, 2008

Another Community Blog Takes a Close Look At "Addled Ed" Allen

Good Addled Ed Allen stuff, guaranteed to crack our readers up

Just for fun between Saturday college football games, we'd like to direct your attention to a fine community blog, operating out of South Ogden, Utah. Blogmeister BenJoe Markland does at his From Where I Sit Blog many of the same things we do here at Weber County Forum:

• He reports on the happenings at city council meetings;
• He reports and invites comment about his community's citizen scuttlebutt;
• He thoroughly investigates and reports about the records of politicians who run for political office in his community; and,
• He has a sarcastic sense of humor and is funny as hell.

In the latter connections, we're delighted to link one of BenJoe's most recent blog posts, wherein he examines the record of Boss Godfrey's father-in law, "Addled" Ed Allen, the current Demo House of Representatives candidate in Leg. District 10, ( the last time the voters were lame enough to send him to the Utah Legislature).

"Addled Ed's" greatest landmark legislation, according to BenJoe? S.B. 155 (200o) UNLAWFUL USE OF A LASER POINTER!

Check out BenJoe's October 15 blog post. It cracked us up, frankly... and we're dang near certain it'll do the same for you:

Laser Pointers and Ed Allen

As an added bonus, we link another of Benjoe's posts, wherein he enlightens his readers about Addled Ed's recent possible misuse of his medical office's presumably confidential patient records:

Ed Allen - Did He Break the Law?

Something to think about, the next time Ed Allen shows up at your door, introducing himself as your "former Stake President," oozing "high ethics" from his every corrupt pore and asking for your vote, we guess.

You can also bet your boots we're adding a link to From Where I Sit to our right sidebar. BenJoe is good... danged good, we think!


fill me in said...

What in the world is a laser pointer?

drewmeister said...

They're little laser lights, usually in a keyring-attachment style. You can use them to point at an overhead slide, for instance, instead of using a stick. They're also great for entertaining cats, because they think the red dot is an insect. Well, for about 30 seconds at least, until they grow bored and tell you to either feed them or go to hell.

cecil said...

I hear he likes Broback Mountain

Just observing said...

It looks like he learned that you can break the election laws and get away with it from his son-in-law, Mayor Matthew Godfrey. In my opinion, the worst mayor Ogden has had the misfortune to be stuck with because of his unethical practices.

Just Observing said...

I also observed Ed Allen walk into the viewing of a deceased person who was one of his church members when he was a bishop and later when a stake president, and who was a member of his ward. They had a difference of opinion on politics and the antics of his errant son-in-law which is no excuse for his behavior at the funeral parlor. Ed Allen did NOT pay his respects to the mourning spouse but approached a son of the mourning spouse, talked several minutes and turned and walked out. That is not the behavior of a Christian let alone a church leader. In my opinion, he is morally and ethically bankrupt. Voters of District 10 deserve what they get (just like the poor voters in Ogden) if they vote for Ed Allen.

Curmudgeon said...

Well, well, well... what just arrived with my Standard Examiner but a campaign flier for Bushie Brent Wallis, Republican candidate for the House in the 10th District.

Let's apply a little Bill C. or Disgusted's preferred form of evaluating a candidate to Bushie Brent's flier, just for fun. Let's begin with guilt by association. The flier has an effusive endorsement of Bushie Brent by Bush Sock-Puppet and lap dog of Energy Solutions [currently importing foreign nuclear waste into Utah in violation of its previous agreement not to] Radiation Rob Bishop .

So, we can fairly conclude from that that if Bushie Brent gets elected, he will, like Cong. Bishop, work to permit more of the world's nuclear waste to be shipped into Utah. Bishop too praises Bushie Brent for knowing how to prioratize spending and opposing taxes. This from a Congressman who voted for every Bush budget, all of which increased national debt many billions. This from the Congressman who voted for The Bridge to Nowhere without a qualm. Who voted for budget after budget under six Republican congresses stuffed with earmarks. And he thinks Bushie Brent has the same "conservative" approach to budgeting. Seems pretty clear, if Bishop wants Bushie Brent in, it's because he expects him to open the nuclear waste gates wide, and to leave Utah with the same budget crisis Bishop helped create as a dutiful Bush sock puppet in Congress. Why else would Bishop support Bushie Brent if not for those reasons?

Hey, that's not how I usually look at a candidate, but that's how Bill C. and Disgusted and others here have been insisting we look at Allen, so turnabout's fair play, I figure.

Bushie Brent's flier also has a picture of his extended... and extensive... family. Man, there are lots of them. [I recall the derision that appeared here when the first Allen flier came out with a picture of his family on it. I expect the same derision will now appear from the same people for Bushie Brent's flier, right?]

Some of the relatives in the picture seem to be in-laws. And I don't know who those in-laws are, or how they stood on the gondola matter. Surely you folks cannot possibly be recommending a vote for Bushie Brent without knowing who is in laws are and how they stood on the gondola? Why, that seems for some here to be THE most important thing to know about a candidate. And yet only silence from the Bushie Brent campaign on this vital issue. We can only wonder why....

If you like Bush and Bush sock puppet Bishop, I guess you'll love Bushie Brent too. Yet another neo con out of the same box.... Using Bill C and Disgusted's preferred form of election analysis, that seems irrefutable.

See how silly this kind of thing can get? And it's no less silly applied to Allen.

Curmudgeon said...

Rob Bishop, shill for Energy Solutions and advocate of making Utah a nuclear waste dump for the world, has endorsed Brent Wallis. Wallis for years headed the Ogden-Weber Applied Technology College... which trained people in skills needed by, it seems, Energy Solutions. And now Energy Solution's lobbyist has endorsed Wallis. Come on people... connect the dots.

Wallis needs to come clean about his connections with Bishop. We need to know how many people his Tech College trained for Energy Solutions. Until we know the full extent of Wallis' connections with Energy Solutions and its man in Congress, Radiation Rob Bishop, until Wallis comes clean about what he promised Bishop in return for his endorsement in this election, I don't see how any committed environmentalist could possibly consider casting a vote for Wallis.

[Gosh, this if fun, doing analysis like the critics of Allen posting here like to do....]

RudiZink said...


Is Rob Bishop Boss Godfrey's father in law?

Howbout Brent Wallis?

Case closed.

Curmudgeon said...


Thanks for illustrating the point I was trying to make: that much of the opposition to Allen rests on people not liking his in-laws. And I am shocked... shocked!... that there's gambling going on at Ricks... oh, no, wait. I mean shocked that you'd vote for Wallis without demanding he come clean about his in laws and where they stand on the gondola question. Shocked, I say!

And still Bushie Brent refuses to come clean about his relation to Cong. Bishop [R-Energy Solutions] or to come clean on what he promised Bishop in return for his endorsement. Why the silence? Inquiring minds want to know?

disgusted said...

i am not a big fan of bishop for some of the exact reasons that you illistrated.
that say i dont think hes all bad either where as you think hes all bad just because hes a republican irregardless of how he votes. i notice that you did not give him any credit for the fact that he voted against the bank bail out along with matheson. a vote that went against bush by the way. in your mind matheson is all good and bishop is all bad not because of their votes but because of their party affiliation. your logic keeps getting weaker and weaker.
i hope i an never that closed minded.

curious 1 said...

Bishop is ahead in the polls which says to pose with him for the Republician vote is a good idea. I personally cringed with that photo. In 2 years if we all made a mistake in voting for him we can vote him out. I hope he is a moderate and has some common sense, I have talked with him and support his positions. Look at who his campaign contributors are.

On the other hand Ed Allen can do a lot of damage proposing to privitize our golf course, pass legislation that would hurt not just Ogden but other cities. Also look at who his main contributors are to his campaign, secret menbership PACS that support a gondola probably. Who are the members od Envision Ogden, member list? Their website still says a gondola will be built here in Ogden.

I'm tired of the scare tactics by the republician party, but Brent Wallis seems like a man of his word.

boo radley said...

Brent Wallis' son is a golf professional and surely has an opinion on what to do with Mt. Ogden GC. We'll have to look into it for Bill C. What if Brent's son is also in favor of bulldozing the golf course? Bill C. might have to write himself in.

disgusted said...

you point out only one dot in the string of dots to be connected when you refer to his son-in-law.
what about his blind faith belief in the both gondola systems which would have given away our trails and golf course. would have all but eliminated our opportunity to get a real and viable mass transit system into our city rather than some marketing gimmick or his support of efforts to get a seated fellow democrat at the state level removed from office.
one point determines a location two points determines a line but several point in the same alignment indicates a trend.
allen has established a trend and your bias for anyone other than a democratic candidate at the state level has blinded you to the obvious.

RudiZink said...

Ed Allen gets together with his political cronies

disgusted said...

Comment bumped to front page

dan s. said...


It's unlike you to lower yourself to such a level, responding to one smear campaign by launching another. Can we go back to discussing the issues and the facts, please?

Curmudgeon said...

Disgusted and Curious:

Disgusted: On Bishop's vote against the bailout. He spent seven years dutifully nodding "yea" on Bush's command to red-ink budget after earmark-loaded budget. Then, four months before an election in which Bishop was running, with Bush's favorable ratings down in the twenties, suddenly Bishop discovers fiscal conservatism and declares he's a maverick? Bailing on Bush in the past few months required exactly zero courage. Just as McCain is now scuttling away from his huggy-friend Bush as fast as he can.

Nor, by the way, did I say Bishop was "all bad." [I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth.] I did say he's been a mindless sock puppet for Bush on nearly everything over the past years, and he has. He also worked to bring in pork for Utah via earmarks, and worked to protect HFB [as any N. Utah rep not insane would have done and will do]. There are, in his record, other occasional scattered sensible votes. But overall, he's been a loyal Bush lapdog. Even more of a loyal lapdog over the past four years than McCain... and that took some doing.

Curious: You wrote Bishop is ahead in the polls which says to pose with him for the Republician vote is a good idea. Of course. But are you saying the Hon. Mr. Wallis sought Bishop's endorsement for purely political reasons? Why, that's what I thought Disgusted and His Merrie Bande has been accusing me of doing and they've pronounced it an unwise thing to do. Wallis no less partisan than Curmudgeon, then? Which, of course, is all I've been trying to point out. The man is running to join the Republican caucus in the Utah legislature. He's solicited and gotten Bishop's endorsement, so he's kissing up to the Neo-Cons. There is no evidence to suggest that he will not become one of the go-along-to-get-along right-wing spear-carriers in the Curtis/Bramble/Valentine/Buttars majority. None what so ever.

Curious, you also wrote this: On the other hand Ed Allen can do a lot of damage proposing to privitize our golf course, pass legislation that would hurt not just Ogden but other cities.

First, selling Mt. Ogden Park is a city decision, not a legislative decision. As for these laws you are afraid Allen would pass [as a Democrat, remember, in the minority], what are they? Most of the ones that have done that, of late, have been Republican measures... the one to let cities opt out of civil service protection for police and fire... the one making Mayors not removable as RDA heads, etc. Introduced by Republican House and Senate leaders, pushed by them, and passed by Republican majorities. And you're worried that Democrat Allen would pass laws to hurt Ogden and other cities? Why? All of the damaging legislation since I've been here has come out of the Republican caucus, and nearly all of it has been opposed by the Democratic contingent in the House. So how, exactly, would switching the 10th District seat from D [where it is now] to R improve things? The logic escapes me.

And, Curious, as for this argument you make in re: Wallis: In 2 years if we all made a mistake in voting for him we can vote him out. Well, that argument applies equally well to Allen.

Curmudgeon said...


I was being sarcastic. [Did you miss my last line, Dan? "See how silly this kind of thing can get? And it's no less silly applied to Allen."] The post was intended to illustrate the silliness of some of the criticism of Allen often posted here, which has been heavily based on who his in-laws are, and on extensive guilt-by-association speculative dot-connecting. Just trying to point out that same sort of silliness could be applied to Mr. Wallis with the same effect. Sorry you missed the satiric intent.

Though I am glad to see you seem to agree that much of what's been said of Allen constitutes [let me quote you exactly] a "smear campaign." Exactly my point.

One last point: Bishop's endorsement of Wallis is a fact. And Wallis' placing that endorsement on his latest flier makes it plain Wallis welcomed that endorsement. That too is a fact. And, I would suggest, they are facts certainly no less significant than who Mr. Allen's in-laws are.

Dr. Bill, Phil's younger better looking brother said...

Dude, where do you find time to post all these comments? My question, are you aware you are making all these comments, or do you have multiple personalities?

Another one of rudi's personalities, my name is Sara said...

Dan Schroeder isn't a registered Democrat.

Enough said on his bogus letter.

dan s. said...


You can't have it both ways. Either you think it's relevant that Bishop has endorsed Wallis (and that Wallis is bragging about it) or you don't. If you do think it's relevant, than your "sarcastic" disclaimer rings hollow.

I stand by my characterization of your comments as a smear campaign against Wallis. Like most smear campaigns, it is based on a few grains of truth. But it's not the sort of campaigning I would expect from someone who is usually very good at distinguishing the important from the superficial.

dan s. said...


When I called myself a Democrat in the endorsement letter I was referring to my general voting habits, not my official registration. Trust me, I don't endorse (or vote for) Republicans very often.

I've been registered at various times as either a Democrat or an independent. The last time I registered was 10 years ago, when I moved into my current home. I don't remember exactly why I chose to register as an independent at that time, but there are many poossible reasons. Maybe I didn't want people to know how I usually voted; or maybe I didn't want to get any more junk mail from the Democratic Party; or maybe I was just mad at Bill Clinton for something. If I were registering today I would check the Democrat box. And ten years from now--who knows?

dan s. said...


p.s. I should clarify my statement about not often voting for Republicans. Our municipal elections are nonpartisan, and I don't bother to look up the candidates' registration status before I decide whom to vote for. And although our county-level races are officially partisan, I don't see much reason to pay attention to party affiliation in these races either since most county decisions are pretty far removed from the issues that define the national parties. So my statement was intended to apply only at the state and national levels.

Curmudgeon said...


Then, Dan, you're going to have to explain how pointing out that Wallis has been endorsed by Bishop and has chosen to proclaim that endorsement on his fliers, and my saying that that information is at least as relevant for voters to know about as who Allen's daughter married constitutes a "smear."

Clearly Mr. Wallis thinks its relevant. Otherwise he would not have advertised the endorsement. The curious thing to me is why you think my pointing that out is a smear. Pretty low standard for what constitutes a smear you have, seems to me.

Dan, Allen's critics here, many of them, have engaged in an orgy of "guilt by in-law" and self-serving speculation. By demanding [tongue in cheek] to know how Willis' in-laws stood on the gondola, and by demanding that he "come clean" about imagined promises to Bishop, I hoped to illustrate just how far from reasonable those attacks on Allen, here, have gotten. Point's still good, as far as I'm concerned.

disgusted said...

you state "There is no evidence to suggest that he will not become one of the go-along-to-get-along right-wing spear-carriers in the Curtis/Bramble/Valentine/Buttars majority."
well show me where there is evidence that he will. prove to us he will. youre speculating and definately smearing by your suggestion.
where as with allen case it is fact that he supported the gondola and it is fact that he put together lift ogden now envision ogden and envision ogden is contibuting to a campaign against hansen.
btw envision ogden raised money at the rec center just before it opened to the public that was never accounted for by the city or the organization. is this illegal and was ed allen part of this. you want smear heres some to go around.

dan s. said...


Good. So we agree that you weren't merely being sarcastic; you really were making a serious point about Wallis when you brought up the Bishop endorsement.

By "smear", I mean an exaggerated, largely speculative, attack upon a candidate--often accomplished through the rhetoric of guilt by association, and often accompanied by name-calling. Your mention of the Bishop endorsement was not, in itself, a smear. But this was: "Seems pretty clear, if Bishop wants Bushie Brent in, it's because he expects him to open the nuclear waste gates wide, and to leave Utah with the same budget crisis Bishop helped create as a dutiful Bush sock puppet in Congress. Why else would Bishop support Bushie Brent if not for those reasons?"

I suppose you'll now say that that particular quote was mere sarcasm, and not intended to be taken seriously as a criticism of Wallis. But when you mix serious criticism with sarcasm in the same post (even the same paragraph), you shouldn't expect your readers to painstakingly separate the two for the purpose of further discourse.

In any case, the Bishop endorsement itself, while notable, isn't as important as the candidate's experience, positions, and character. But you don't seem to be very interested in discussing those things, even when it comes to your own candidate. That's why I'm disappointed.

Curmudgeon said...


Yup. What you quote was offered as an example of the kind of silliness people can construct, piling supposition upon guess upon innuendo , as Allen's opponents have done here repeatedly.

The ONLY things I offered as fact, and then only in response to your plea that we get back to discussing fact, right at the end of my reply to you, were (a)Bishop's endorsement of Wallis and (b) Wallis's including that endorsement on his flier. That's all.

Take a look at Disgusted's latest above. Envision accused of criminal acts on a matter of city policy offered as evidence of why Allen would be a bad choice. And we hear yet again that Allen liked the gondola. I'm willing to bet that Rep. Allen will not get to vote on a gondola even one time in his entire term. But keeping school vouchers out he may well get to vote on. And health care. And a whole raft of other matters on which he has, again, a solid Democratic record. But if I bring that up, as I have several times, I will hear yet again, as I have many times, about who his daughter married.

I have talked about Allen's experience, by the way, as a Democratic state senator, which was apparently so annoying to Zion's Right Wing Legislators, they gerrymandered him out of his seat. You may not consider his experience convincing, just as I don't think Wallis running the Tech college for 36 years necessarily trumps his commitment to Utah Republican Party policies --- he was endorsed by Bishop after all, and is apparently proud of that endorsement. You want to discount that, fair enough. But there's no reason others have to agree with you as to its insignificance. You complain I haven't talked about Allen's "passions." Well, Dan, I've heard him speak, on several occasions, on what the right wing has done to American public education, and wants with its voucher plans to do still. He spoke passionately about it. And about the health care crisis... and it is one... in this state, and spoke passionately about that too. But I tend not to like to characterize candidate's "passion" in campaign speeches. Too subjective a judgment to make, seems to me.

As for character: there has been a great deal here of what I think can fairly be called character attacks on Mr. Allen. I've not run into character problems in my dealings with him [fairly limited]. But I do tend, during election campaigns, to take character attacks with a grain of salt. And this campaign is no exception. I've seen Allen attacked here for his religion [which I don't share, as you know], and often by the same people who tell me he's a man of bad character. I take those charges with an extra large grain of salt.

Getting the discussion of the 10th District race off character assassination, off in-law analysis, off speculation built on chains of guilt-by-association is good idea, and was, in fact, the very reason I put up the post you disliked so much.

sara said...

My name is Sara.

I am not one of Rudi's personalities.

I speak for myself. Aren't you Bozos aware that females have opinions, too?

If my remarks sound like Rudi's opinions then consider me well informed.

Thanks for the compliment.

Golf Pro said...

hi everyone.... This is Brent Wallis's son "the golf pro." I have enjoyed reading the blog the past week or so, and wasn't going to comment until you wanted my opinion. I have been a golf pro in both the public and private sector, first at Eagle Mountain in Brigham City, and then at The Ogden Golf and Country Club. As it pertains to bulldozing Mt Ogden GC; I am against it!!!!! My twin brother and I played golf at OHS in high school. We learned to appreciate the beauty and the views the golf course provided on a daily basis. Mom was the women's club champion and my brother is a member of the men's league at the course. Obviously, the family wants to see Mt Ogden continue. My opinion is we need to support Jeff and the staff, by providing sufficient funding to have a playable and more enjoyable golf experience. In my opinion if you want to find the problem...... do what my Dad has always taught me "FOLLOW THE MONEY"!!!

danny said...

I would definitely lean toward Brent Wallis over Addled Ed Allen, for many many reasons documented here.

1. For Allen calling WSU faculty "all idiots".
2. For Allen's frenzied support of Godfrey, and the mindless letter he wrote on the subject.
3. And for Wallis' education background illustrated by Dorrene Jeske.

Wallis seems much better than Allen.

And Neil Hansen seems better than Jeremy Peterson. Hansen is very independent and populist, wherease Peterson works for Sue Wilkerson.

I believe Gage Froerer sold out his Ogden Valley constituents on the Powder Mountain issue, and so I would support his opponent, Trent Alvord.

And I will vote for Bob Springmeyer for governor.

I would support Rob Bishop and Jim Matheson for congress, as well as Craig Dearden for Weber Commissioner.

I also plan to vote for Bob Barr for president. As a lifelong Republican, I would enter the gates of Hell before voting for John McCain; indeed, I look forward to the massive change Obama will bring, which I hope will include some outside of Washington thinking and some intelligence.

Some of my choices are Republicans, some are Democrats, one is a Libertarian.

disgusted said...

i like the way you like to ignore certain relative comments or points that you cant attack made by others and then pounce on the irrelivent or side bar comments that the person made.
fact is that allen has a history of making decisions and supporting causes at a local level that are not in the best interests of the residents of ogden.
he very much can effect the local goings on by proposing legislation and garnering votes for legislation that supports godfrey but not the residents of ogden. very much as we saw happen with a last minute addition to a bill last year. the bill that mandated that the mayor be the exec of the citys rda. action such as that will definately effect us here in ogden. i truely feel that he is a threat and has the potential to enact legislation that will assist the ogden administration.
you acknowledge allens involvement in envision ogden but not in the organizations support to remove hansen. he has not disavowed himself from the group. as a founding and active member of the group you do not think he is unaware of their actions. if he is unaware then he is a loisy founding member and that in itself speaks volumes for his leadership skills.
but in the bigger picture from where i see things he has estblished a record of not acting in the best interests of the people that he is now trying to get to elect him and you of all people should know that history has a way of repeating itself.
to expect allen to act any different than he has acted in the past is as they say.

Wants integrity in government said...

Why aren't ethics and character among the points by which you determine how a person will respond on issues and should be elected?

It seems to me, Curmudgeon, you really don't have a good, valid rebuttal for those who oppose Ed Allen.

Ogden City has been divided and raped by an ethically depraved mayor. Do you want the whole state of Utah suffer the same fate?

dan s. said...


I'm not interested in rehashing everything "disgusted" has said. I'm trying to elevate the dialog--but it's a struggle.

Thank you for mentioning Dr. Allen's record as a legislator. Can you point to anything more specific that he accomplished, or in which he played a major role?

Thank you for mentioning that you have heard Dr. Allen speak. I wasn't aware of that. Did he say anything specific about how he would improve education or health care in Utah?

Do you know where Dr. Allen stands on the issues of taxes, transportation, land use, and/or open records (which I specifically asked Mr. Wallis about and reported here)?

You've repeatedly raised the voucher issue as one on which Allen and Wallis might differ. But I can't find the word "voucher" on either of their web sites, and I'm not aware that either has publicly taken a position on the issue. Do you have any evidence that their positions are different?

I take character attacks with an especially large grain of salt when they come from anonymous sources, as they frequently do on this blog. But Allen lied to me in person on one occasion (about the impact of the gondola proposal on the east bench trails), and people I know and trust have told me similar stories about him. Yes, I've attacked his character on this blog by repeating some of these stories, but at least I do so under my real name. I also think his public letters on behalf of Mayor Godfrey say something about his character. In any case, I hope you agree that a candidate's character is relevant in an election, at least to the extent that it can be ascertained.

I don't remember asking you to hold forth on Allen's "passions". I do remember asking you to defend the guy on his own merits, not just on the basis of his party affiliation.

Finally, let's review once again why Allen's dedication to the gondola is relevant. (You know this already, but you keep acting as if you don't.) The gondola project cannot happen unless WSU sells its 120 acres of foothill land to Peterson. WSU is a state university that depends on the legislature for its funding. Therefore Allen, as the legislator representing WSU and its surroundings, would be in an excellent position to pressure the university to sell its land. Given his stated position on the land sale (and indeed, leadership of the group that campaigned for the land sale), we can only assume that he would use his leverage as a legislator in that way. Whether the land sale ever occurs or not, WSU would suffer as a result.

disgusted said...

the following are not innuendos or smears but rather are just bare facts.
allen was a founding member of lift ogden.
lift ogden wanted to see the city sell off the golf course and trails system to fund the gondola and build homes in there place.
allen supports the gondolas.
lift ogden morphed into envision ogden.
allen is a member of envision ogden.
envision ogden supports the gondolas.
envision ogden donated money to the opponent of neil hansen.
neil hansen is a democratic incumbent candidate for state office.
envision ogden does not want neil hansen in office if they are funding his opponent.
godfrey wants gondolas.
godfrey still wants to do something different with the golf course.
godfrey had an agreement with the city council that he would get their prior approval on all state legislative action that the city would pursue or support.
city council is also the rda.
godfrey orchestrated a last minute addition to state legislation to protect his role on the citys rda.
mayor protected his position on the rda and went against his agreement with the council.
allen supports godfrey.
lets start here with these facts and then we can add to the list cause there are several more. please feel free to argue with these facts that have influenced my decision to vote for wallis.

p.s. not dot connected

disgusted said...

dan s
you say elevate the dialog but in this case the facts are relevent and the pattern of historical decisions and who he has supported or affiliated himself with are important.
the only positions that curm has put forward are that allen is a democrat and that curm would like to see more democrats in state office irrespective of the candidates history character or his disregard for the concerns for the interests of the people that he wants to represent.
i would be glad to elevate the conversation if i thought that it would do any good but its hard to argue with subjectivity.

Curmudgeon said...


You chide me for not mentioning things like this: very much as we saw happen with a last minute addition to a bill last year. the bill that mandated that the mayor be the exec of the citys rda.

Ah, hate to tell you, but I did discuss this, pointing out that the bill was (a)introduced by the right-wing Republican leadership of the House and Senate (b) supported by them and (c)passed by Republican majorities... to aid their fellow Republican, Mayor Matthew Godfrey. Allen is a Democrat. I know, Disgusted, I know, the facts are inconvenient for your argument. But there they are. Sorry 'bout that.

And you still cannot, it seems, help putting words in my mouth. You wrote: you acknowledge allens involvement in envision ogden . Well, actually, no, I didn't. I don't know what Mr. Allen's involvement with Envision was or is. Do try to comment on what I've said, not what you wish I'd said, OK? I'll do the same for you.

Curmudgeon said...

Wants Integrity:

YOu wrote: Why aren't ethics and character among the points by which you determine how a person will respond on issues and should be elected? Sorry, but I NEVER said ethics aren't among the things I expect in a candidate. Or anything like that. If you're a regular reader, you've noticed, I hope, my frequent questioning of the Mayor's thin grasp of what ethical conduct requires of a public man.

I did say I try to stay away from assessing character, especially during election campaigns, because it seems few of us can agree on what indicates good... or bad... character. ["He didn't wear a flag lapel pin. He has no character!" and similar nonsense often results.] Ethics has to do, largely, with conduct and can be reasonably defined in most circumstances. What constitutes character is much much dicier. I think, for example, Sen. McCain is a man of no character at all. I suspect many would disagree with me because we, clearly, have differing understandings of what character involves. So in election races, I try to stay away from that particularly bucket of smoke. But I NEVER said ethics are irrelevant.

As for this: Ogden City has been divided and raped by an ethically depraved mayor. Do you want the whole state of Utah suffer the same fate? Well, last time I looked, Ed Allen was not running for Mayor of Ogden. Nor was Matt Godfrey running for state rep. in district 10. As I've said many time before, Mr. Allen's views on city policy, like the proposed and now [please god] dead gondola are wrong. And if he were running for city council or mayor, I'd pound the pavements for his opponent. But he's not. He's running for state rep. And yes, that does make a difference.

Curmudgeon said...


First, I misread "positions" as "passions." My bad. [Have a lot of balls in the air today, replying to incoming on several threads. But that was careless on my part.]

On vouchers: I've heard Allen inveigh against them, in person, on several occasions. I've heard nothing from your guy on the matter. It's an important issue to me. I do not know where he stands on open records. I'd only note that it has been Republicans who have, as a rule [there are always exceptions] acted to limit public access and public input into the legislative process, and it has been Democrats in this state [there are always exceptions] who have generally gone the other way.

One of the key differences between us, I think, from which springs much of our disagreement about candidates, is that I think... no, I know... that party matters, and it matters a very great deal in legislative affairs. It's how legislatures are organized, according to party. You evidently think it matters less than I do. I think you're wrong about that.

On accomplishments: I remind you that Mr. Allen served one term, as a Democrat, in an overwhelmingly Republican house. I recall the same arguments being raised against Neil Hansen when he ran for Mayor [though Neil served several terms], and the reply being, given the lop-sided Republican majorities, it was impressive that he got anything at all through.

I notice for example you dismiss as irrelevant the importance of party in county commissioners races. As I think you know, in Utah, the Republican Party has most often and most consistently served as the handmaiden of unrestrained development [think of the Developers Dream Bill as but one example], or Chris Buttars threats to towns, trying to use zoning to restrain over development, particularly on geologically sensitive lands, that they'd better knuckle under to his development cronies, or face legislation limiting their zoning authority. The treats are taken seriously with good reason, because Republicans rule both houses.

And as you also know, the County Commissions play a significant role in development and zoning decisions. So yes, Dan, I think party matters on County Commissions. And I think the people are best served when both parties are represented on those commissions by at least one commissioner. That makes it difficult for things to happen on the commissions in the dark. [And yes, I'd say the same if the Commission in Weber were all Democratic. We'd be better served with one seat in the other party's hands.]

If you dismiss the importance of party, as I think you too cavalierly do, then your arguments follow logically. If you don't dismiss the importance of party in the state legislature, as I do not, then I think my arguments follow logically.

And, once again, I refer you to the final lines of the post I put up to which you took such great exception and which you claimed engaged in smear tactics: "See how silly this kind of thing can get? And it's no less silly applied to Allen."

Ciao, paisan.

disgusted said...


the legislation that i pointed out was in deed put forward by a republican. i dont dispute that but rather used it as an example of how state level matters could effect local issues. but i suggest that in the future such similar shenanigans may be put forward by your own candidate if they benefit his efforts to support his son in law. that is what i fear and that was my point and not the political party.
democrats can play the same game as republicans if they know how to work the system. since godfrey has as you would say republican views then allen as a democrat suggesting ideas that fit republican legislators would not be a hard sell for him up on the hill. ogden residents would be disadvantaged as allen did what hes always done. that of supporting his family over the interests of the residents.
have we gained if he presses the school board to sell land to peterson as dan s pointed out as a possible effect of his presence at a state level. just think about it a little.

as your comment about allen and envision ogden you were the one that stated a couple of weeks ago on this blog that envision ogden was just lift ogden with adult supervision as i recall.

i want to say imho that at this level of politics i too feel that party is less important than the character and historical decisions making process that the candidate have shown. bottom line in allen case it isnt something that would encourage anyone to vote for the man. is he all bad no but in the areas that are of most concern to me here locally and that i fear that he may have an impact on yes.

Curmudgeon said...


You wrote: is he all bad no but in the areas that are of most concern to me here locally and that i fear that he may have an impact on yes.

And there is, I think, detail aside, the nub of our disagreement. You are looking at Allen as a municipal politician. I am looking at him as a potential state legislator. I suspect that's one of the key differences between me and many posting here on the other side. They see all, or nearly all, through the gondola [a city issue] lens. For a state legislator, I do not.

help for this issue said...

Here is the poop!
We elect Allen to the leg. #10.
This way we do get another Democrat in the house.
Then when Dr. Ed becomes endieded for things that envision Ogden has done then Dr. Ed has to resign and the seat then goes to the democrats and we don't have to put up with either Wallis or Allen for the next two years. This way we all win, but them. Enough Said.

Wants integrity in government said...


I think your excuse for not considering character in assessing a person for an elected office is weak. I just consulted my dictionary and the definitions there are as I thought: "1. all qualities or features possessed;
2. moral strength or weakness; special way in which any person feels, thinks and acts; 3. moral firmness; self-control; integrity;
4. the estimate of an individual by the community in which he lives; reputation; 5. good qualities, or the reputation of possessing them; good reputation."
I think that is the definition most people hold.

By the posts on this blog, it seems that you alone determine that Ed Allen is a man of good character or integrity. Perhaps that is an indication that you have blinders on and cannot see the true nature of this man and the harm he could do to Ogden if elected as a state representative.

Wants integrity in government said...

As BenJoe has pointed out, Ed Allen has violated the HIPAA law. This is far more serious than violating the Utah Election Code (which doesn't mean a damn in Utah). This breaks a civil law. All those who received the letter from Ed Allen have grounds for a class action suit. Charges should be filed against him.

If he so blatantly breaks a privacy law, what other laws does he break? Can such a person be trusted to a publicly elected position?

Curmudgeon said...

Wants Integrity:

You wrote: By the posts on this blog, it seems that you alone determine that Ed Allen is a man of good character or integrity.

First of all, I am not the only person who's posted here to back Allen for District 10.

Second: this blog has host, mostly, opponents of the gondola and opponents of much of Mayor Godfrey's administration of Ogden's affairs --- I am one of them. But since that is so, and since so many of those people think who Mr. Allen's daughter married is a vital issue in this race [I am not one of them], you can hardly take the distribution of opinions posted here as representative. It's skewed anti-Allen by a considerable margin.

Dictionary definitions are very helpful if you don't know the meaning of a word. But in real life, and in political campaigns, words like "character" take on many different meanings to many different people. People get accused of having no character because someone turns up a picture of them in a public place not wearing a flag lapel pin. Just by way of example. So long as that is true, and sadly it is very true, I prefer to stay away from discussing character in elections. It's too slippery a concept to be very useful. We can't seem to agree on exactly what it means, or exactly how character relates to job performance in office. I would say, for example, Rob Bishop's claim that he is a fiscal conservative [which his congressional voting record belies] suggests he is a man of no character. I suspect Republicans would disagree with me about that.

Then there's Bill Clinton, who catted around on his wife in the WH. That made him a bad husband, certainly, and raised questions about his character, for sure. But on the other hand he did a damn fine job as president, and led the country to a budget surplus and general prosperity we have squandered under eight years of G. Bush, who never cheated on his wife in office, so far as we know. Clinton's character flaw was a matter of concern, I am sure, to his family. It should not have been to the voters, since it evidently did not affect his job performance.

For all these reasons, character, particularly during a heated election campaign, seems to me not a productive thing to try to assess. Now, you want to talk about a candidate's ethics, I'm your guy.

disgusted said...

its quite obvious that you only see what you want to see hear what you want to hear and speak until the other party has no more time to converse. theres a big difference in getting the last word in and winning an arguement. you no doubt will get the last word in.
in response to your comment. not to see that this election as having both state and local implications is nieve. if you dont see this connection then that is just one of many difference as to why i wont vote for allen while you will. but also one of the differences that most other people see as well. and in you mind everyone else out there is wrong and youre the only right person on the blog.
in response to your comment to another blogger that addressed character as an issue in choosing a candidate and your dismissal of that as to being a consideration in choosing a candidate i just want to say i strongly disagree. an individuals characted is important as is his history of decision making. in both cases allen has not demonstrated the characteristic of an individual that will conduct himself in a manner that would represent the best intersts of his constituent.
you vote for who you think will be the winner so you can be a winner too and ill vote for who i think will best represent me and the people of ogden. good luck.

disgusted said...

one last note couldnt help myself. in regards to character and your illistration above to Wants Integrity.
you use bill clinton as an example of a president that "led the country to a budget surplus and general prosperity".have you got alzheimers or what.
that myth about clintons great running of the economy just went out the window 30 days ago with the economy when it was finally understood that greenspan clintons main man created the good economy for bill and other presidents by letting the business world have all the money they wanted i.e. a loose federal reserve.
what do you think you can manipulate history like those that think the holocaust never happened either or what
come up with a better reason than bill clinton if you think there is one as to why character doesnt matter. personally i dont think you can.

Curmudgeon said...


Oh, my. Still putting words in my mouth, or telling me [wrongly] what you think I'm going to do. Just can't shake the habit, can you.

For example, you wrote: you vote for who you think will be the winner so you can be a winner too

So you think I vote based on who I think will win, so that I can say "I won"? Disgusted, I'm a Democrat. In Utah. Which means most of the time I vote for people who do not win. Most recently, my candidate for mayor did not win; my candidate for president did not win; my candidate for governor did not win; my candidate for congressman did not win; my candidate for senator did not win; my candidate for state senator did not win. In the last two elections, only my candidate for state rep, and one of my council candidates won. In this election, if I voted for who I think will win, I'd be voting for Wallis and Huntsman and Bishop and Dearden. I'm not voting for any of them, though. Where in the world do you get your ideas about what you think I think? Sure as hell, not from anything I've posted.

And you wrote: in response to your comment. not to see that this election as having both state and local implications is nieve. if you dont see this connection then that is just one of many difference as to why i wont vote for allen while you will.

Of course I see the connection. I just disagree about which end of it is most important in a race for the state legislature.

As for the rest: sorry, Disgusted, but when you start to characterize Alan Greenspan as "Clinton's man" [Greenspan was in place long before Clinton got there and long after he left], and when you try to argue that the freakin' disaster that George Bush's economic policy has visited upon all of us is, somehow, Clinton's fault.... well, then Disgusted, we don't really have much left to say to each other.

dan s. said...


OK, let's review the reasons you're supporting Allen:

1. He's a Democrat.
2. He says in private that he's against vouchers, but is apparently unwilling to put it in writing on his campaign materials.

I note that you seem to know nothing about his actual record as a state senator, or about his specific positions or plans on other issues. You've dismissed, rather than rebutted, the evidence that he is dishonest, arrogant, and hostile to WSU.

Instead, you keep turning the conversation back to the fact that he's a Democrat. Yes. I agree. We've established that. You don't need to keep saying it. Over and over.

You and I already had a general discussion, in an earlier thread, about the role of party affiliation in the Utah Legislature. In my last post on that thread, I laid out some actual numbers and tried to explain why, for the foreseeable future, I see no reason to automatically prefer a Democrat over a moderate Republican. You never responded. Instead, you seem to want to start the discussion all over again, from the beginning, on this thread. Sorry--I don't have time for that.

And let's not bring county-level races into it, ok? I brought that up in a reply to someone else, merely in the course of explaining in what sense I consider myself a Democrat. If you don't consider me a true Democrat, fine. Call me an independent if you prefer.

Getting back to the issues, I'm pretty sure Wallis is also against vouchers. We discussed the issue briefly and he left me with that impression but it's not a particularly important issue to me so I didn't make a point of remembering his exact words. If his exact position on vouchers is important to you, please give him a call and ask him about it. He's in the phone book.

ozboy said...

Mr. Curmudgeon

It baffles me why you keep writing off Ed's alleged ethical lapses as merely people going after him because of who his in-laws are. It reminds me of that other Democrat who threw red hearings about with things like "well, it depends on what the definition of "is" is" How about addressing these allegations about Ed's ethics straight on. Do you believe he has had ethical lapses? Do you think he would act in the Mayor's interest over that of the citizens when contemplating state legislation? Do you think he is tainted by attacking a fellow Democrat office holder (Hansen)? Do you think he would plant a gondola tower in your back yard if he had half a chance?

Although you are correct in pointing out that he is running for a state office and not a municipal one, I think you know that "all politics are local" as the old saying goes, and also here in Utah the over reaching state legislature has been passing laws for years that directly effect the local government's ability to control things on a local level, especially land use issues which most directly effects the citizens of Ogden.

By the way, Ed has a full page ad in today's (Monday 3 Nov) Salt Lake Tribune. It is a very good looking ad by the way, very professionally executed. He looks very honorable, clean and professional. He is surrounded by four very cute kids, his grandchildren I assume. The ad Headline reads:

"Ed Allen, Ogden. Physician. Grandfather. Latter-day Saint."

Great ad, except for the following lines that make one want to puke:

"True leaders do the public's business in public. They work for the people who elected them, not the special interests who paid for their campaigns. They don't put themselves and their own interests first, over the interests of you and your family......"

This from Godfrey's mentor/God Father. This from the leader of the cabal that is notorious for being all about special interests and dealing out public assets to their insider cronies in secret behind closed door deals!

A great political ad just brimming over with a bunch of disingenuous bull shit for copy! This ad alone demonstrates his lack of integrity. He's a cheeky bounder as they say in England.

Curmudgeon said...


You ask: Do you think he would act in the Mayor's interest over that of the citizens when contemplating state legislation? As you put it, no. If you mean if Allen thought he faced this choice: (a)The public good requires X but (b) the Mayor wants Y, that he would choose Y? No, I don't.

Do you think he is tainted by attacking a fellow Democrat office holder (Hansen)? Sorry, Oz, but I've not seen or heard Allen attack any other Democrat in a race this election.

Do you think he would plant a gondola tower in your back yard if he had half a chance? I'm pretty sure I can convince him to put it in your backyard instead of mine.

You wrote: Although you are correct in pointing out that he is running for a state office and not a municipal one, I think you know that "all politics are local" as the old saying goes, and also here in Utah the over reaching state legislature has been passing laws for years that directly effect the local government's ability to control things on a local level, especially land use issues which most directly effects the citizens of Ogden. Yes, Oz, I know. Tip O'Neal is one of my favorite congressional Dems too. Where we differ is, I don't think city matters are going to drive Mr. Allen's votes on most matters that come before him in the legislature. I suspect the gondola is, as a practical matter, deader than a doornail, and that we'd be better off with Democrat Allen [and he is a Democrat and yes, that means something in Utah with respect to legislative policy] in that seat voting on matters likely to come before him than yet another R.

Now about that ad: I don't like it. I dislike any candidate making an issue of his or her faith. Were I a campaign manager, I'd resign before I signed off on such an ad. I understand the politics of it, but I do not like it and find it, in fact, un-American. The ad's religious appeal has done more to make me reconsider an Allen vote than all the brayings of those who think In-Law-Analysis is the key to candidate evaluation.

As for this: "True leaders do the public's business in public. They work for the people who elected them, not the special interests who paid for their campaigns. They don't put themselves and their own interests first, over the interests of you and your family......" Well, Oz, you've seen me inveigh here, often, against the Mayor's penchant for secrecy and acting in the dark. The Mayor's penchant for. Mr. Allen is not Mayor. And have to tell you, his attack on special interests resonates with me, since I am very aware of how the realtor lobby and construction lobby and developers lobby have bought and paid for legislation out of SLC for a very long time. Think "developers dream bill."

You've seen me inveigh here, again, often against cronyism in the Godfrey administration. The Godfrey administration, last time I looked. Not the Allen administration. I'm not convinced that Mr. Allen is the Svengali behind the scenes of the Godfrey administration, pulling the strings. Hell, if he were, I think Godfrey would be more effective than he is, and more dangerous than, thanks to his bumbling ineptitude at public administration, he has turned out to be. I know Allen-as-Svengali is considered holy writ here at WCF. But I'm not convinced.

ozboy said...

Mr. Curmudgeon

For a guy with 20/20 political vision you sure seem blind sometimes. Must be those "Democrat" cataracts that are clouding your ability to see the "truth" in these "casual" connections between the Lil Lord and his Svengali. My guess is that the punk doesn't make a single move without consulting with the evil Doctor first.

With any luck the smarmy and dark Dr. Ed will have it shoved up his "bung hole" by the electorate tomorrow.

PS - I voted for a Democrat for the first time in my life today! In fact I voted for all the democrats on the ticket, and damned if it didn't feel good! Good thing I aint in the snake Dr. Ed's voting area or I wouldn't of felt the rush!

Curmudgeon said...


Wonderful, Oz. Nobody ever forgets their first time....

Ah, but how did you get to vote today? Early voting closed Saturday, and the polls don't open for another twelve hours.


ozboy said...

Well Mr. Curmudgeon it was rather easy. I walked into the Davis County Court house, followed the signs to the Office that said "VOTE HERE", whipped out my ID, took the ballot and marked it up one side and down the other then put it in the metal box with the slit in the top. Really wasn't too hard at all. When I walked in I announced in a loud voice, like I always do when entering a polling place, "is this where we go to throw the bums out!" Got a laugh from the dozen or so people there, usually does.

So maybe we been reading different voting rules cause early voting sure was happening here and SLC as well. Maybe its a religious thing going on there in Godfrey County where you live?

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved