Thursday, September 17, 2009

Standard-Examiner: Ogden At-Large Seat B Candidates Gear Up for Work

With one-sided coverage like this from the Standard-Examiner, Phipps might not need to rake in another pile of realtor/developer dough

By Wildcat

Well this morning's Standard-Examiner article on the election results reads more like a campaign flyer for David Phipps:
Ogden At-Large Seat B candidates gear up for work
C'mon Standard-Examiner editors. An article that provides over 30 lines of direct quotes from David Phipps and then less than half that many lines of some paraphrased statements from Bart Blair. With one-sided coverage like this from the SE, Phipps won't need to raise another $4500 plus for the general election.

One more note from the article -- turnout for the primary election: about 9%.


Curmudgeon said...

Yes, Wildcat, this was apparently Episode #2 in the SE's continuing series, "Phipps On Phipps."

And it included virtually no substance. Mr. Phipps says thinks elected officials should serve the people, not their own agendas. [Anyone who's ever heard a candidate say he intends to serve his own interests and not the public, please raise your hands. Un huh. Just as I thought. Not a single hand up.]

Mr. Phipps wants, he says, to bring more businesses to Ogden, reduce crime, and lower taxes. [Anyone who's ever heard a candidate say he wants to drive business away, and increase crime, and do it by raising taxes, please raise your hands. Ah ha again. Just as I thought. Not a single hand raised. Imagine that.]

All Phipps offered up in today's Advocate is standard boilerplate stump speech rhetoric. It is the Council candidate equivalent of a Congressional candidate coming out courageously in favor of Motherhood, Apple Pie, the Flag, and Kittens. As to how Mr. Phipps intends to bring new business to Ogden, and increase law enforcement all the while lowering taxes despite increasing city services, he does not say.

To be fair, Mr. Blair doesn't say much in the bare couple of sentences the SE story devotes to him [except he does seem to be opposed to turning what remains of Ogden's undeveloped public bench lands over to real estate developers]. But then, the SE really didn't give us enough of Mr. Blair's statements to draw many conclusions from.

We got instead, yet again, mostly Blair on Blair, which turned out to be, mostly, boilerplate on blather, with nary a specific in sight.

Ah, Standard Examiner... once you were a real urban daily, I hear tell....

Lord Farquat said...

It is starting to look and read like the now-defunct newspaper Grit.

That is, Grit during the long slow decline to irrelevance and bankruptcy.
There are people who read daily , still; they would buy a local paper that did not suck.

Lord Farquat said...

Sorry, I forgot to add the directive of the Grit Founding Publisher to the "newsroom" staff: "Always keep Grit from being pessimistic. Avoid printing those things which distort the minds of readers or make them feel at odds with the world. Avoid showing the wrong side of things, or making people feel discontented. Do nothing that will encourage fear, worry, or temptation."

Sound familiar?

BC said...

Just when I thought it was safe to go back to the goes and publishes the Phipps on Phipps article. Not only that, but it was written by that Pulitzer winning Schwebke, not the girl. I'm having a fit over those curve balls they keep throwing us.

But here I have to take a quick detour and give credit where credit's due:
"All Phipps offered up in today's Advocate is standard boilerplate stump speech rhetoric." Damn, Curm, and I honestly mean this, this is one of the great sentences I have ever read on this or any blog. Seriously, it's a fine piece of literary talent. Salude!

Now, back to the premise....

Yeah, as soon as I opened the morning paper and read those words printed in the top right corner,

"On to the finals/1B
Ogden finalists optimistic,"

I was swept by a wave of trepidation. Without even turning to 1B, I somehow knew that this would be the story of ONE finalist, not EIGHT. And I knew it would somehow be mostly about Phipps and Phipps alone (by the way, I think in your second to last paragraph you meant to write "Phipps on Phipps" instead of "Blair on Blair").

Reading the article corroborated my suspicions and I thought to myself: didn't those editors read the debate between Curmudgeon and me, about the guy who raised the most campaign money? And now, on top of all that, comes an article about the guy who raised the most votes? Damnnit, aren't they ever going to learn? Probably not.

But I'm with ya on this one, Curm. It was a lack-luster, lousy piece of journalism. There are SEVEN other finalists that should be written about and quoted; not to mention the 9% of the registered voters who did get out to vote. I'd like to know who they voted for and why they voted the way they did. What with ALL those negative exhortations of anti-administration anger, and how Godfrey's actions are so unfavorably looked upon on this blog, all of which DEMANDS change, I'd have thought that at least a 15%-40% turnout was coming. For hell sakes, realtors, PAC money, grocery stores, WalMart, bonds, all of those negatives are right out there, smack dab in the middle of one's face. If ever a time for getting out to vote was necessary, it was NOW. These crooks HAVE to be run out of office and the first step is this grass roots opportunity called the Primary.

But where was the energy? Why the dismal turnout? Why the pro-administration victories? There's a much bigger story out there than Phipps tells and I want to hear it. But so far that story is strangely silent, just like all the people who should have gotten out to vote.

A mystery, to be sure.

Anonymous said...

Its no mystery. Its polisci 101. Old people vote. Politicians know old people vote, so they listen and respond to old peoples concerns.
Old people do not want change. They vote incumbency; or whomever the incumbent tells them is correct.

I am guessing the turn out was 75 percent homeowners over the age of 55.
The other 25 percent? Progressives.

Old people in Utah are overwhelmingly of the LDS faith. The LDS candidates won.

This "word of mouth" groundswell for one candidate of another is all decided in priesthood meetings on Sunday.

Ray Vaughn said...

BC Glassman; How nice of you to try to spin the morning story. If you had been reading this forum you might have noticed the complaints about the S-E reporting. It is often shoddy high school reporting. Remember one of the complaints is that the S-E declines to do any investigation on the issues. For whatever reason the paper seems to merely reprint press release type interviews. Will any of the Godfrey favored candidates ask for his appearance at their campaign appearances or an endorsement from the mayor? But do not worry I am sure that all of the candidates have a Patterson style "pure heart"


Center said...

Long after Godfrey is gone, families are going to be paying for amenities that were mismanaged, projects that did not come to fruition, and !AdventureCityOgden! attractions that do not draw enough patrons to even make payroll, let alone a profit.

And they will mostly still go to Riverdale to shop.

The bench land goes undeveloped for 3 and one half billion years.... but now, it has to be done, now! Quick! Build on it! Sell it. Sell it to the mayors friends! Now!

Why? Why the sudden push to sell, now?
It will be worth a 10 times as much, undeveloped, in just a few years.

Refurburninsh downtown. Get rid of blight that contributes to crime. Be as thrifty as my depression-era uncle. Leave the mountains be.

Curmudgeon said...


Friendly suggestion: give up sarcasm. You don't do it all that well. You're much better making straight arguments in defense of your ideas.

we know this guy said...

Actually Curm, if you knew how profoundly addled BC's brain is, you might think his attempts at subtle sarcasm were quite remarkable. His pathetic attempts at intellectual discourse with you and others on this blog are pretty funny. He must have a lot of time on his hands since the city quietly got rid of him a couple of months ago. Even though the voters of Ogden briefly overlooked his dumbness once and elected him to the council, his true nature is now coming out in this series of silly and pretentious posts he is making. His logic and use of the language are good indicators of his faulty intellect and shallow thinking. He continues to spin the Godfrey spin in an attempt to justify how quickly and easily that Godfrey completely co-opted his formerly firm political beliefs, spun him around his finger and bought him off with a lousy small time job with the city. At least Johnson got a high paying position out of his traitorous turn around on the voters who elected him.

I think that "BC" stands for Bill Chump, my wife disagrees, she thinks it stands for Bill CaCa.

monotreme said...

Are you trying to be offensive, or just merely stupid?--Debra Winger, playing Joy Grisham, in Shadowlands

Let's go through this one more time, BC. It's really not hard. Please try to follow.

The primary election is for the sole purpose of determining which two candidates (of more than two) get to go to the general election.

At this point, both of the top two candidates have ZERO votes in the general election. (Unless you know something we don't know. Here in Matt GodfreyLand, one never can be too sure.)

Therefore, both candidates should have an equal opportunity to present their case to the people of Ogden.

OgdenLover said...

There's a guy sitting outside (now inside) the Smith's at 42nd and Harrison. He has a stack of Standard Examiners that he's offering for free. No takers.

Mr. Mojo Sinking said...

I tell those street hawkers that I write a weekly column for the SE under the name The Wasatch Rambler and, that I do NOT read the paper.

I want the truth to be known said...

Well CURM,
I you think that it is ok to change ones mind and that it is not lying, I will tell you that that person does not keep there word, nor do they keep their integrity. If I can't keep my word. How is anyone suppose to believe the things or issues that I'm concerned about won't changed in mid stream. All you have to see is the lies that Bush used and how many people have paid for those lies? Remember when Godfrey told the Serra club he would not build a gondola before his second election. Then at the start of his second term, once elected, the issue then was not only front and center but a boat load of money was spent all because he changed his mind. With this said He LIED and is still A LIE and don't mince words with me. Once again if she doesn't come forward and explain herself here. It will go to the press in all of Utah papers. Along will some other things that I have on her.

Curmudgeon said...

Want the Truth:

If you'd said simply she broke her word, I'd not have objected. Then people simply have to make up their minds about whether the reason she did was sufficient to justify it. Same applies to Glassman resigning his Council seat.

But changing one's mind and breaking a commitment as a result is not the same as a lie. To lie, you have to say something you know not to be true at the time you say it. Gov. Huntsman broke his word to the people of Utah when he resigned to become ambassador to China. He did not, however, so far as I know, lie about his intent to serve out his whole term when he ran for re-election.

Danny said...

This is a strange conversation here between Curm and I Want the Truth.

Lying is when you deliberately deceive the other person in order to gain something from that person you would not expect them to grant you were you not to deceive them. By that definition Matt Godfrey is a liar and lies almost constantly.

On the other hand, if you break a commitment that you made, and that you intended to accomplish at the time you made it, that is not lying. It is being untrustworthy, unreliable, etc, but it is not lying.

Godfrey is therefore a liar and untrustworthy and unreliable.

The simple essence of honesty is the golden rule. Our dealings with other people, and our disclosures to other people, should be with an eye toward what we would want ourselves, were we in the other position.

Note that given this definition, it is okay to take something away from another person, provided they knew that was the game being played and agreed to it, as in gambling or the stock market.

But when we convey a false sense to another person who is under the impression we are being truthful, and when we fail to live up to commitments we have made,that is dishonesty.

Matt Godfrey is not honest by any possible reasonable definition.

Blaine Carl said...

Hard to fathom you don't know the difference between "sarcasim" and a good natured chain pulling, Curmudgeon. Or how to take a compliment. I somehow thought you'd get it, the guy who comments and analyses just about everything anyone has to post. But appears to have gone over your head like a missle.

Yo, Mono, I'm so damnned happy you explained to me what a Primary Election was all about. I've been staying awake at night wondering what those people at Election Central were doing in the middle of September. And it's good to know that all of the candidates have ZERO votes, at this time, and an opportunity to present their case to the people before November. Who'd a thunk it?

And Rockford, real good "guess." What was it, 75% of the voters were old Mormons and 25% were progressives, and that's why the Godfrey machine kicked ass? That's a hell of a rational.

As long as this kind of attitude prevails, Godfrey and his minions won't need to get up any earlier than they already do. When the next election rolls around, instead of you guys getting busy in the trenches, you'll still be sitting around your computers, writing scurilous posts about the administration to one another, and thinking that's the way to effect change.

No wonder things are what they are.
The thrill is gone.

pays attention said...

If somebody lies about his intention going in, it's a lie anyway you cut it Curm.

In hindsight it's blatantly apparent that the greatest Ogden Glasmann family embarrassment ever in Ogden, (yes, this makes Bill's cousin Disgraced Former Uta District Judge Mike Glasmann look like a boyscout) who originally campaigned as as populist, who would look out for "the people," lied about his intentions...

Curmudgeon said...

Aw, BC... your post was a mix I thought, part straight, part sarcastic. Thought you're better straight than wink-wink-nudge-nudge sarcastic and said so. Just my opinion, of course.

Curmudgeon said...

Off topic FYI:

For those casting about for some low-to-no cost entertainment [and aren't we all, these days?], just saw in the SE "GO!" section that this evening, the Ott Planetarium on the WSU campus will be offering free planetarium shows at 5, 6, and 7 PM. Part of the planetarium's 40th anniversary doin's. Can't beat the price of admission, certainly.

monotreme said...


You still didn't answer my question.

Ed J said...

Blaine Carl said,

"No wonder things are what they are"

Deep down, I always knew you thought things were fucked up too.

Anonymous said...

It is a fact much discussed in political science circles, elderly homeowners who profess strong religious beliefs and who attend church regularly, are the most likely to vote in primary elections. Look it up, Its pretty common knowledge.

And the next largest voting block in primary elections are 30 something progressives. You know: Satan?

Its simply a fact. Old Mo's voted for the guy who looks like one of their grandkids home from a LDS mission.

And really, the kid won fair and square. I have no bones with the youngster, yet. I have not even went and let him meet me, yet.
Now, I suppose I will have to, as he has earned it.
Ho hum.

I have not decided between Mr. Blair and the little kid, yet.
Perhaps he will convince me of his integrity, commitment to open space, and his tight fisted fiduciary bent.

If that is the case, perhaps him and I can make a deal; if not, he is going to lose.

fair and square? said...

Stay tuned, R. J. You'll be hearing more about just how fair and square that little kid played before the primary.

I want the truth to be known said...

Curm, Regardless of what you think about lying, I would still like to hear from Suzie's side of things and find out why she said what she said just to set the record straight. So will wait for a reply.

OgdenLover said...

I want,
Why don't you call Susie? Her contact information is on the WCF Candidate Information roster. Look on the right sidebar of the homepage.

Silius said...

I call all of my representatives, from Senator to Dog Catcher, soon after they are elected, make an appointment for a meeting, and inform them of our agenda, and how they fit into our perception.

With Godfrey, we didn't get past chatting up his extremely personable and lovely executive assistant.

Ms. VH is very generous with her time.

Danny said...

Comment bumped to top shelf

Henry Ford said...

For the amount of money raised and spent, Bart Blair had an outstanding campaign. David Phipps garnered only 15 more votes than Bart Blair. I predict a close general election.
Phipps said in the SE article by Schwebke that “We need to make the government work for the people, and not their own agendas.” Wow! Where did this kid go to school? First, he starts out using the first person plural and then with no explanation or warning, switches to third party. Or is he saying that the council members are serving and donating hundreds of hours for less than minimum wage to satisfy an ulterior motive and don’t care about their constituents and that other candidates running have a hidden agenda and he is the only person that doesn’t have an ulterior motive for seeking a council seat? After listening to Phipps and reading his literature, I am convinced that he does have a personal agenda! He and his father have a real estate business and what better way to be on the inside and be one of the first to receive confidential information especially if you’re an FOM?. If he is honest, he will be declaring a conflict of interest and recusing himself all the time.
Second, the campaign contributions that he received need to be checked thoroughly. It’s amazing that a first-time candidate and new to the community was able to raise the thousands of dollars that he did for the primary. Even more suspicious are the out-of-state contributions. What element will be introduced to Ogden after he is elected? Everything about his campaign contributions raises red warning flags. Am I the only one who thinks it rather odd, that a newcomer to the Ogden scene, is so “passionate” about Ogden that he wants to spend hours every week in meetings? Don’t tell me that he is doing this just because he’s a great guy – of course, he has a hidden agenda! My sixth sense tells me to avoid this guy.
He’s a dreamer or doesn‘t know what he’s talking about when he says, “The city council has to be proactive in accomplishing that” (meaning bringing businesses to Ogden “so that we can shop again in Ogden and keep our tax dollars here”). It sounds good, but does he really think a micro-manager like Godfrey will actually let the city council have an active part in bringing businesses here?
Both he and Blair believe that the Mayor and Council can improve communication. The Council has tried, only to have the Mayor go behind their back and sign contracts contrary to what he just told them and contrary to their wishes. How can anyone communicate in good faith with someone who has a past history of deceit?
His promise “I vow to be fiscally conservative, while growing our economy and relieving the tax burden placed on the citizens” really sounds like a winner, but I would like Phipps to tell us how he plans to accomplish it. There is no way in hell with Godfrey at the helm, that Phipps can be “fiscally conservative while growing our economy.” Godfrey isn’t content unless he can devise a way to develop a project at taxpayer’s expense. So as I see it, Phipps has just made a campaign promise that he will be unable to keep. Of course that is not unusual for politicians! But do we want a politician rather than a home-grown local young man with roots that go back generations?
I still say Bart Blair is an exceptional and very bright young man to have had the success he had with his campaign for the primary and be financially prudent. I ask Mr. Phipps if his campaign is any indication of how he will be “fiscally conservative”?
I hope voters look at both of these candidate’s promises and actions, and choose wisely at the polls. We will be living with the results of our voting for the next four years. Do we want a councilman who will represent us and our interests or another politician who will vote for Godfrey’s gondola, sale of the golf course, 350 condos and a hotel in our open spaces. Remember, realtors support home subdivisions and developments.

David Tropo said...

I have been silently reading all of this for a few months, and now I am going to weigh in with my conspiracy theory. Here goes. Follow the money right to Chris Petersen, I am going to speculate. I think Phipps is being payed to move to Ogden, live in Ogden, run for council, and help get a gondola to Malans Basin. What is another 40 thou a year to this rapacious thug of a developer? The Malans project is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, eventually. It think that SOMEONE could afford to put him on a secret payroll, ship him to Ogden to be a shill.

Curmudgeon said...

Henry Ford:

You wrote: "Am I the only one who thinks it rather odd, that a newcomer to the Ogden scene, is so “passionate” about Ogden that he wants to spend hours every week in meetings?"

Well, Mr. Gaddi Lasham did that for a while, didn't he, here in Ogden? And look how that turned ou.... Oh. Wait a minute.

Never mind.

Ed J said...

fair and square? said...
"Stay tuned, R. J. You'll be hearing more about just how fair and square that little kid played before the primary."

What's up?

Jennifer Neil said...

Here is my take on the Blair-Phipps thing, if you care to take a look at my blog -- many thanks to Rudi for having the material easy as a click away ...

J Neil

Post a Comment

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