Racists Can Still Find Friends in Utah

We Utahns of the more mainstream political persuasion (nationally at least) have a certain affection for Utah’s Sutherland Institute Director Paul Mero. He is after all, exceptionally lovable, friendly and affectionately earnest in his radically conservative positions. Most endearing is his forgiving nature and patience in the face of our, at times, rough edges.

In response to Glen’s post RIP Jesse Helms: An Honest Bigot Paul wrote,

But when I knew Helms, 1987 to 1997, working with him and his staff when I was in the House, I never saw or heard one drop of racism or of the “good old days.”…Helms certainly was no racist by the time I knew him, if he really ever was one

Where were you Paul when “In 1990, locked in a tight race with an African American Democrat, former Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt, Helms aired a final-week TV ad that showed a pair of white hands crumpling a rejection letter, while an announcer said, “You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota.” (Reference)

As honored as we are, Paul’s argument is not with us. He should start with conservative hack David Broder who wrote in 2001, “What really sets Jesse Helms apart is that he is the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country”

In fact, I have yet to find even one person who is willing to suggest that Jesse Helms was anything other than an unapologetic racist right up until he became a dead racist.

Perhaps Paul knew Senator Helms in a way no one else did. Or perhaps Paul employed some psychological strategy to avoid the spiritual sacrifice required to work for a bigot. However one comes to terms with THAT, is a novel waiting to happen.

So that leaves my friend Paul Mero, who is without question a man of conviction, as the sole defender not only of Utah’s greatest racist (Chris Buttars) but now also America’s.

I leave you with one of the many more common references to Jesse Helms upon his death and one quite apropos today

Like scum on a stagnant pond, the rottenest elements in American society rose to the top of the political system during the last quarter of the twentieth century.

, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on July 7, 2008 - 3:16 pm

    Paul O’ Neil found the price of loyalty, even to his childhood friends Cheney, Rumsfeld and Greenspan, to be too high and did a book about it. His “friends” pulled out the standard arguments against him:

    Sour grapes.
    Did it for money.

    It’s amazing that another Paul comes here to actually conduct a dialog with the other side, but I commend him! Usually, Republicans yell loud or run away. If anybody should know, it’s me. Paul, at what point would you stop defending the people who have never given a fair shake to the blacks and made laws that require evening things out a necessity?

  2. #2 by jdberger on July 7, 2008 - 3:43 pm

    Where were you Paul when “In 1990, locked in a tight race with an African American Democrat, former Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt, Helms aired a final-week TV ad that showed a pair of white hands crumpling a rejection letter, while an announcer said, “You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota.” (Reference)

    First, how is an opinion article a “reference”?

    Second, I guess it depends on how you characterize racial quotas? Do they give preference to one person over another based on the color of their skin? And if they do, hhow is that different from forcing someone in a particular racial catagory from sitting in the back of the bus- whatever their color.

    If it isn’t a preference based on the color of their skin, what is it? A reparation for past injustice? A method to balance the scales of justice? An amelioration of national guilt?

    Or, is it, as suggested by Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell, white liberal assertion that the “negro” can’t succeed without the support of the white establishment?

  3. #3 by Cliff Lyon on July 7, 2008 - 4:58 pm


    I referenced the source of the fact of the campaign ad in 1990 during which time Paul was working with Helms. If you can disprove the FACT I referenced, well…good luck chief.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  4. #4 by Paul Mero on July 7, 2008 - 6:55 pm

    Ah Cliff, that hurts. 🙂

    To your quote, I would not have run an ad like that, or the Willie Horton ad that preceded it, but I can understand a consummate campaigner doing it. What I don’t see is how the ad is racist. It plays to reverse discrimination, not discrimination.

    To Larry, my loyalty would end if I knew he was truly a racist…like if he only hired white people, or actually wouldn’t hire a black person. Maybe you could check with the African-Americans on his staff to see if they felt he was a racist. Or are they just a bunch of opportunistic Uncle Tom’s?

  5. #5 by Cliff Lyon on July 7, 2008 - 8:35 pm


    Thanks for “taking it” as enthusiastically as I knew you would. I see from Utah Amicus you’ve been dodging bullets all day. 🙂

    You are nothing if not tenacious.

    My only point is Jesse Helms really was an unapologetic racist when you knew him and till the day he died and probably is in the hereafter.

    I can certainly see how your good manners and thoughtfulness for the deceased combined with your loyalty to conservatism albeit one of its ugliest heroes, might evoke a spontaneous overly generous remark.

    You’re hardly one to take a position directly opposed to both universal, across-the-spectrum, widely-accepted, common knowledge supported by a consistent empirical record, as well as the subject’s own admission.

    No, that would be inconsitent with your heretofore reliably constituent-based positions and most certainly NOT the Paul Mero we have come to love.

    I feel terrible I may have been a bit overzealous in seizing upon an innocent and well-intended show of respect and loyalty for someone who inspired you.

    I apologize for that and assume full responsibility for sending you down the path of re-defining racism with the old canards… you know, that opposition to affirmative action is not racist or hiring, trusting or even loving a black people somehow proves one is not a racists….but I won’t go there. 🙂

    I forgive you. Do you forgive me?

    Peas and Luv,


  6. #6 by Paul Mero on July 7, 2008 - 8:58 pm

    I need all the forgiveness I can get…and to get it you have to give it (at least that’s what us “theocons” believe). 🙂

    Perhaps you should rethink your drumbeat-use of “racist”? If you throw it around too much, you threaten its rhetorical power when really warranted. IOW, if everyone of my ilk is a racist, then racist takes on new, less serious, less moral, meaning.

    So save ’em up Cliff, and only use them for the really bad guys. Think of it this way…there are so many other appropriate names to call me and mine, why dip into the purest dose of poison when you could do us in with diluted forms of insults?

    Finally, while I do appreciate your kindness to me…stop it, it’s creepin me out. 🙂

  7. #7 by Housewife on July 7, 2008 - 10:04 pm

    If hiring a black person means Jesse was not a racist, does that mean by marrying me my husband thinks of me as his equal?

  8. #8 by Nephi on July 7, 2008 - 10:08 pm


    If both you and your husband are males – i.e., you are same-sex married – then the answer is yes, you would be his equal. If, on the other hand, you are female and he is male, then you are not his equal. That’s just the way things are here in Utah as dictated by the Mormon church.

  9. #9 by Cliff Lyon on July 8, 2008 - 7:36 am

    Hi Paul,

    My kindness toward you is while heartfelt may seem excessive but only because I was trying to prevent you from resorting to the now all too predictable Rovian tactic of attacking the messenger.

    I am absolutely certain I did not call YOU a racist. That is my testimony and I’m stickin’ with it.

    I went to great extremes in fact to avoid any such thing. It was easy in your case, because you have never in my experience uttered a racist word.

    I must also applaud your exemplary invocation of the higher order (more underhanded) Rovian tactic of expanding the messenger attack with hyperbolic characterization of your suggestion of name-calling with subtle innuendo such as “diluted forms of insults?”

    A fair review of my writing style should reflect little reluctance to call a spade a spade. I tend to favor declarative statements when name-calling and consistently telegraph my intentions to deliver an insult.

    Like you, I am a warrior for our side. So I implore you to holster your weapon and leave the “Karl” out of the discussion to avoid the collateral damage and begin the healing. (: ):

    As a reminder to you and our readers (and we have many thousands), my purpose in responding to your claim that Helms was not a racist was to point out your error and give you a graceful (as possible) way to retract that statement by highlighting a few of your many enviable characteristics.

    Underlying my motive of course is a more subtle message which I think is especially poignant and speaks the larger problem that so plagues the Republican party today. I will address it in my next top post.

    And that is; what is racism?

    I am intrigued by your suggestion that there are different degrees of racism and that the more subtle forms should be overlooked so as to avoid inflating the “rhetorical power” of the word thereby preserving it for “when [it is] really warranted.”

    Let us reflect on that in the interim.

    PS: Someone from the Trib called last night but didn’t leave a message, so I’d like to flush this out a bit in preparation.

  10. #10 by Paul Mero on July 8, 2008 - 8:33 am

    Thanks Cliff…when I wrote that last comment I actually thought that you might read into it that I might be insinuating that you were calling me a racist…but then thought that you would not bend on every word I wrote and so went ahead with it. My bad. And my apology.

    I was not trying to be Rovian (btw, he is a spectre only for you guys…I never quite understood his appeal as a strategist or even a tactician…but, what the hell, you guys have to always blame some nefarious character as the reason why Americans actually pick guys like Bush or Republic state legislators…it certainly couldn’t be that your alternatives are worse, could it?)…I was simply trying to let you know that a constant hard drumbeat isn’t always effective, and that subtlties are often called for or are more appropriate.

    And, of course, I have never said there are “different degrees of racism.” But I do think there are “different degrees” of human emotion and human expression…and human frailty. I would want to make sure I am not calling someone a racist when all they had was a bad day…as much as I would not want to mistakenly call someone a bad parent or a bad boss or a total A-hole just because they were having a bad day.

    Look, I am a complete jerk-wad at my sons’ basketball games, but that is not who I really am the rest of the day. And while it would be fair to characterize me as a jerk-wad (especially if you never met me elsewhere), it would not be fair to permanently judge me that way. Why? Because that’s not who I am the other 99% of my life.

    The Old South that Helms grew up in was certainly filled with both personal and institutional racists…and Helms was a party to it all over the many years he lived there. Politically, I am sure you can justify calling him a racist. Personally, you cannot because you did not know him. I think this is where we differ about his nature and character. And it is at this cross-section of judgment that it’s possible that we’re both correct.

    If I can flop the mop for a second…I could say the same thing (and have) about paternalistic public school defenders. Their policies are laden historically with racist sentiments (paternalism being their most manifest racist behavior…just like plantation owners who felt that blacks could not survive without the system of slavery) while, personally, they are otherwise very fine people, neighbors, and citizens. This same thing happened in Nazi Germany where otherwise “decent” family men were able to go home every night, after gassing Jews, to a loving family and neighbors.

    I think there is more to these experiences than each person reveals committing these horribles attacks and insults on human life…something more along the lines of a fractured culture or a diseased sense of morality enabled by the state (i.e. it was okay to kill Jews in Nazi Germany and to enslave blacks in the Old South).

    And I think it is on these points that the Left and the Right often find themselves in bed defending the human rights of people. But my point remains…let’s be careful in our judgments about people…you never know why people do what they do, especially if the State is directing morality, ethics, and simple good behavior — then we are all at risk.

    And if you really want a good argument…I believe the Left is complicit in promoting “State values” over community values that often leads to the atrocities we both disdain.

  11. #11 by Obi wan liberali on July 8, 2008 - 8:41 am

    So Jesse would hire a black person? Cool. I wonder if he would work for one.? Or would he be ok if one of his descendents married one? After listening to Helms for years, I just assumed everyone knew he was a racist. Like most racists, I’m sure Jesse also had some fine qualities and I’m sure there were people who knew him and sincerely liked him. To me, he represented what was worst about the south and rather than act as a healer in the rift between black and white, was someone not averse to reopening those wounds.

    However, speaking ill of someone who recently died is considered rude, so I’ll end here before I say what I really think.

  12. #12 by Anonymous on July 8, 2008 - 9:03 am

    Good point Paul, it would be good to review the 20th century for what caused the horrors. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all socialists or communists on the outside, totalitarians on the inside.

    Belief that your State ideology is absolutely right is akin to religion, and of the progressives I know, they are convinced in the same historical manner that the theories and methods for social control and direction are right and the People are wrong in managing their own lives.

    Once placed in power the attempt is always made to mold society into the image that they have concocted in their minds. Namely by force and coercion. Fortunately the US has a strong backbone against social engineering and the People regularly sweep the crazies out and the process begins again.

    Let’s hope that this process continues. The last 8 years has seen a basic destruction of state sponsored social engineering, and the recent decisions on firearms reinforces the Peoples rights and abilities to defend themselves from socialists gone wild. The history of “progressive socialism” nearly always ends in horror and madness, as the adherents promote the activity like religion, and of course never see the fascists coming until it to late.

    As a historical note no one went home after gassing Jews, the majority of concentration camps were not in Germany, but in Eastern Europe. The activity was as much out of site to most Germans as wiping out Indians was to Americans living on the East Coast of our country during that time in our history. To be sure there is a difference as the persecution of Jews lasted about 10 years, while slavery in the US lasted for 150 or more, was institutional, and has its roots in English crown colonialism. We just inherited it from them. You can call the allowance of it in our young country by England as a form of colonial child abuse.

    As for racism, Bill Cosbys’ for example, insistence that black problems belong to themselves now, and that blaming others for the rather obvious dis-functional state of American black society is not helping blacks. Does that make him a racist against his own people? Is he a self hating black?

  13. #13 by link on July 8, 2008 - 9:13 am

    Is Bill Cosby a racist, self hating black?

    Good point Paul, when we review the history of the 20th century and look at the horrors, they are mostly all attributable to socialists or communists, and people convinced that the State had the right to enforce social norms upon its people.

    Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, not much more to say. This century Islam appears to be the culprits, and then of course our own, can’t see the forest for the trees, progressives. No matter what any progressive thinks, there is terrible danger and basic immorality in the concept and belief (like a religion) that the credentialed and the State have the right to force social values upon people.

    Thankfully, the recent upholding of the meaning of the 2nd amendment gives the People in this country the “backstop” against the possibility of the wayward state, and socialists gone wild.

  14. #14 by link on July 8, 2008 - 9:18 am

    Cliff, up to your fascist ways again. Don’t like it when others show the world what hides behind the facade?

    No worries, those who needed to know, now know. Why is it Jim need not identify himself in the manner you, and your site idiot, Larry, are always carping about?

    Could it be a form of hypocrisy? Glad to see nothing has changed. cheers

    How was Maine? I was back east myself this early summer.

  15. #15 by Nephi on July 8, 2008 - 10:19 am

    What is your point, link?

    Whatever, I hope you are satisfied, because you just lost one of your biggest supporters in SLC!

  16. #16 by jdberger on July 8, 2008 - 11:36 am

    Cliff Lyon Says:

    July 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    I referenced the source of the fact of the campaign ad in 1990 during which time Paul was working with Helms. If you can disprove the FACT I referenced, well…good luck chief.

    Is that clear enough for you?

    No, Cliff. In fact, this is probably the most discombobulated sentence I’ve seen in a long while.

    You didn’t reference anything factual at all.

    Second, could you please explain the racist nature of the ad? Is opposition to racial quotas in hiring a racist position?

    … [I] guess it depends on how you characterize racial quotas. Do they give preference to one person over another based on the color of their skin? And if they do, how is that different from forcing someone in a particular racial catagory from sitting in the back of the bus- whatever their color.

    If it isn’t a preference based on the color of their skin, what is it? A reparation for past injustice? A method to balance the scales of justice? An amelioration of national guilt?

    Or, is it, as suggested by Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell, white liberal assertion that the “negro” can’t succeed without the support of the white establishment?

    As a reminder to you and our readers (and we have many thousands),

    Oh yeah…sure you do…I’m thinking it’s more like 10.

  17. #17 by Larry Bergan on July 8, 2008 - 3:18 pm


    That wasn’t nice. I feel sad now.

    Don’t be paranoid, all of us have our posts disappear into the spam filter. We all know what you said about Jim because your original post is still there. Cliff lets you post under different names although I wish he would ban you for not sticking with one like BradBlog does to it’s troublemakers. What is your beef?

  18. #18 by Larry Bergan on July 9, 2008 - 1:37 am

    I can’t help myself, I’ve got to ask Paul Mero a couple of questions he probably would rather not answer because he’s an intelligent man and there is a blackout on this sensitive issue.


    What do you think of our new secretly programmed voting machines. Lt. Governor Herbert won’t even know if somebody is tampering with them. Is this safe? Why do you think the Utah congressmen want to seal up the paper printouts and destroy them without anybody having a chance to see them?

  19. #19 by Cliff on July 9, 2008 - 6:47 am

    JD Berger,

    1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence.

    2. I did not write the quote. Who did?

    3. When we talk about racism and racists like Helms in the US, we refer to a long history of discrimination against African Americans and other minorities. You may squawk and holler about reverse discrimination all day long but you should not expect to be taken seriously except by other racist, Rush Limbaugh fans, and various others at the Berger Family reunion.

    I have a question for you (and Paul too); Are there more black men in prison or college today?

  20. #20 by Bob S. on July 9, 2008 - 7:34 am


    Your statement is factually correct, but very misleading. Here is some information that better explains it.

    Myth No. 3: There are more black men in prison than in college.

    This is an unfair comparison. According to a report issued Monday by the American Council on Education, 635,198 black men, the vast majority ages 18 to 24, attended higher education institutions in 2001, the last year for which this data is available. Of the 803,400 black men in the nation’s state and federal prisons and local jails in 2001, just 189,200 were 18 to 24 years old. Nearly 76% of these black inmates were 25 and older, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported.

    So the more accurate statement is this: There are more than three times as many college-age black men attending higher education institutions than are locked up in this nation’s jails and prisons.

    If Black History Month is to have any real value, it must debunk the myths about blacks in order to accurately tell our story.

    Or another citation just to be sure I’m not using only a single source

    According to 2005 Census Bureau statistics, the male African-American population of the United States aged between 18 and 24 numbered 1,896,000. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 106,000 African-Americans in this age group were in federal or state prisons at the end of 2005. See table 10 of this report. If you add the numbers in local jail (measured in mid-2006), you arrive at a grand total of 193,000 incarcerated young Black males, or slightly over 10 percent.

    According to the same census data, 530,000 of these African-American males, or twenty eight percent, were enrolled in colleges or universities (including two-year-colleges) in 2005. That is five times the number of young black men in federal and state prisons and two and a half times the total number incarcerated. If you expanded the age group to include African-American males up to thirty or thirty five, the college attendees would still outnumber the prisoners.

  21. #21 by link on July 9, 2008 - 9:38 am

    The beef is that you are an idiot Larry, or for the most part appear to be here. You don’t clue in very fast. I don’t know though for sure, never met you. That post was for Cliff, and was never meant to come here, as you see Larry, of low perception, my posts are moderated once Cliff dislikes what is said. So much for an open blog. Sometimes what is written is altered. Think that is ethical? Ban the post or leave it, to alter it is the mark of a scumbag.

    The post is left, but only after it was re-entered.

    C’mon Jim, what’s my point? You are smarter than that. You have been operating the same way and spewing dis-ingenuous BS for the last year under the assumed name, while we have Cliff re-arranging posts when things that are in them don’t suit him.

    Imagine my surprise Jim to discover for sure that the basic pablum you have been writing under the assumed name Alberto is in fact Jim Farmer, a person I had respect for and thought was reasonably intelligent. The revelation that he is you, brought on the statements made.

    Such support is not needed Jim, nor has it ever been asked for. What bothers most people about Cliff, is that he is a phony, or at least in the unreformed version in which I knew him. If this has changed so much the better, but it doesn’t look like it.

    Good God, the support base has been lost in SLC, whatever shall be done? Anyway, I thought you were in San Francisco Jim.

    That you have joined him in the manner of personal attacks, and grade school arguments, puerile name calling etc. etc., can be indicative of perhaps too much grog, or something like that.

    So what exactly Jim don’t you like what has been said now that your identity has been revealed? What specifically has your panties in a bunch?

  22. #22 by jdberger on July 9, 2008 - 9:54 am

    Ohhh…standard progressive pablum debunked again!

    Cliff? You sure toss that epithet around quite a bit.


    People who disagree with the mighty mind of Cliff Lyon on affirmative action are RACIST!

    Instead of illustrating your argument, defining it, refining it (isn’t that what forums are for?) – you back into your corner and scream epithets at any that would dare to question your liberal dogma.

    You are so blinded by shibboleths, that you’re unable to read the rest of the question and provide an answer that doesn’t conjure visions of a Tourrettes episode.

    So – Cliff – here’s a chance for you to put that IR credential to use. Answer the questions with humility and intelligence. Give it a shot.

    … [I] guess it depends on how you characterize racial quotas. Do they give preference to one person over another based on the color of their skin? And if they do, how is that different from forcing someone in a particular racial catagory from sitting in the back of the bus- whatever their color.

    If it isn’t a preference based on the color of their skin, what is it? A reparation for past injustice? A method to balance the scales of justice? An amelioration of national guilt?

    Or, is it, as suggested by Ward Connerly and Thomas Sowell, white liberal assertion that the “negro” can’t succeed without the support of the white establishment?

  23. #23 by Nephi on July 9, 2008 - 9:57 am

    As previously stated, link, you just lost your biggest fan in SLC.

  24. #24 by link on July 9, 2008 - 10:24 am

    C’mon Jim, don’t prove the point that the Ivy grads can’t play rough. I didn’t think you were so sensitive.

    Perhaps now you can get and feel the full measure of the kind of crap that Cliff regularly dishes out to those that disagree with him here. The implications of having real names brought forward have consequences that you had not anticipated?

    Is there any content you disliked Jim? Are there any points that would interfere with your support? Is it that people must always be within the sphere of of your perceptions of the rules to be a friend?…and the lot of you think tribalism is an issue that doesn’t affect you! Good humor buddy, if offended, apology offered.

    Meanwhile, answer the question, what is it that has you bugged? This is a game Jim, are you worried to lose? you are on the stand Jim, the judge demands that you answer the question.

  25. #25 by Paul Mero on July 9, 2008 - 10:38 am

    Cliff…to your answer…I don’t know. But I assume given you asked such an odd question, the answer is prison. My question: why is your question relevant to this conversation? Again, I assume your answer will be because America is a racist nation, or some variation on that theme.

    Cliff, even if this assumptive answer were “true,” proving it would be nearly impossible.

    If that is where you are headed with your question, I think it’s on pretty soft ground.

  26. #26 by link on July 9, 2008 - 10:42 am

    It is relevant Paul because Cliff is running the mop, and anything that can cloud the issues when he is found to be intellectually lacking, is slopped onto the floor.

    Careful Paul, don’t slip on the pool of dingy mop water!

  27. #27 by link on July 9, 2008 - 11:15 am

    Let’s shift gears, let’s talk about obamas’ support for FISA. Let’s talk about him warming up to maintaining troops in Iraq.

    Does anyone recall to bomb Pakistan if there is any “terror” sourced there?

    Brezinskis’ Boy has done well pulling the wool over progressives’ eyes. The farther into the campaign we go, the more obvious it will become that indeed, no matter which group herds the cattle, we are in Iraq to stay.

  28. #28 by Cliff Lyon on July 9, 2008 - 12:05 pm

    Wrong! There are more black men in college today than prison.

    Whats the point? You tell me.

  29. #29 by Paul Mero on July 9, 2008 - 1:04 pm

    The point? Ummmmmm…Maybe it’s that Senator Helms left his “racism” back in the 50s? 🙂

    You’ll have to tell me.

  30. #30 by Larry Bergan on July 9, 2008 - 1:34 pm


    Election fraud of all forms has everything to do with racism today.

    What do you think of our new secretly programmed voting machines. Lt. Governor Herbert won’t even know if somebody is tampering with them. Is this safe? Why do you think the Utah congressmen want to seal up the paper printouts and destroy them without anybody having a chance to see them?

  31. #31 by code on July 9, 2008 - 1:53 pm

    This is what I this link meant Larry, do actually believe what are you saying or is more of your clowning?

    …all this belief about a secret group undermining democracy in America using tricked out voting machines which will lead to the destruction of democracy and elimination of our Freedoms, and the lot of you are keen to ban the public from owning weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens, which would be about the only thing such a diabolical lot of cretins would have to fear.

    It is quite schitzoid, and at the same the time extremely funny! You should have your own public access TV show Larry. In a basement, with another goof like yourself.

    Larrys’ World, Larrys’ World…., FREAKED OUT!!…., Excellent!!

  32. #32 by Paul Mero on July 9, 2008 - 2:02 pm

    Larry…one at a time:

    Election fraud=racism…I don’t know that is true, let alone an established fact.

    Newly secret programmed voting machines…I don’t anything about this.

    Are they safe?…I guess you mean assuming they exist…I would say that secretly programmed voting machines, uh, wouldn’t be a good thing (they sound too sinister to be a good thing). As to their safety? I don’t about that.

    Utah congressmen keeping secrets? Probably to cover up their conspiracy. (Is that the right answer?)

  33. #33 by Larry Bergan on July 9, 2008 - 3:25 pm

    Yeah Paul, I’m a conspiracy theorist. Thanks!

    I thought I might get a reasonable answer to an honest question, but I was wrong.

    Fact is, as long as Republicans stay in power and can even push Democrats around when they are in power, they could care less if the machines are potentially rigged. I have plenty of scorn for all of the Democrats who don’t seem to care or who claim they “don’t know anything about this” either, but I guess if you’re an incumbent it’s all good.

    Stay comfortable and enjoy your freedom. You have more then I do.

  34. #34 by Paul Mero on July 9, 2008 - 3:30 pm

    Ah, come on, Larry…don’t have to get testy with me. You asked me questions that either A) I do not carry the same assumptions as you, or B) are impossible for me to answer.

    For instance, “secret” programmed voting machines…wouldn’t be much of a secret if we knew about it, would it?

    I’m not trying to be a pain. Just ask me something I know about!!

  35. #35 by Larry Bergan on July 9, 2008 - 3:43 pm

    The secrecy of the machines is not in question, the voting machine corporations fight for the right to keep it secret in court. Why would they do that?

    Please find out more about this and help me. You have so much more clout then I do. You must believe in free and fair elections. Like I said, even Lt. Governor Herbert wouldn’t know if they were being hacked, and it’s been proven.

    I’m off to work, but thanks for responding at all. I’ll take what I can get, I guess.

  36. #36 by jdberger on July 9, 2008 - 3:46 pm

    Mr. Mero –

    Larry’s just convinced that because the world doesn’t kow-tow to the obviousness of his delusions, there must be a conspiracy.

    Like Left Wing radio. Air America was a financial disaster in part because they alienated all the major advertisers that would otherwise provide them revenue. Therefore, it was clearly a CORPORATE CONSPIRACY. It couldn’t have been market forces at work.

    Like the 2006 elections. Dems PROMISED that they’d end the war. They didn’t because they were lying. It must be a REPUBLICAN CONSPIRACY. It couldn’t be that they fooled a bunch of blinkered voters into thinking that they were “different”.

    Like the 2004 elections. Bush took Ohio because folks in Ohio realized that a war protestor who reinvented himself as Rambo but reminded people of Herman Munster (though without the personality) was a horrible choice for President (unless, the entire country had sleep deficit problems). Of course, it had to be a DIEBOLD CONSPIRACY to steal the election (only in Ohio). It couldn’t have been that Kerry was a crappy ‘salutin’ choice. Nope.

    CSPAN is going digital – Republican Conspiracy.
    Obama votes for FISA – Damn Republicans
    Obama’s position on Iraq is suddenly “nuanced” – Damn that Karl Rove and his diablolical genius….

    What else, Larry?

    People ignore you? Not a Republican conspiracy. It’s because all your wild theories about being victimized are boring.

    Really – come out into the sunshine and embrace the fact that if people were really out to get you, you would have already been got….

    …and no one but the 10 or so people who read this blog would have ever missed you.

    (I’d miss you, Larry. I really would)

  37. #37 by Albert O. on July 9, 2008 - 4:07 pm

    Like the 2006 elections. Dems PROMISED that they’d end the war. They didn’t because they were lying.

    Or maybe the Dems couldn’t get enough of their chickenhawk repugliscum colleagues to join them in ending the war! But, then again, that was back when repugliscum across the nation still shared in the delusional folly that W was somehow good for the nation.

  38. #38 by jdberger on July 9, 2008 - 4:16 pm

    It’s a basic numbers game, Albert.

    Dems have a 2 person majority in the Senate.
    Dems have a 37 person majority in the House.

    So why do they need any “chickenhawk” republicans to help them?

    Since you’re so free with the word, “Chickenhawk” should I assume that you’ve voluntarily served in the military – in a COMBAT unit, Albert?

  39. #39 by Larry Bergan (Glenn Hoefer using my name) on July 9, 2008 - 4:25 pm

    I guess everybody better not comment on this blog, because glenn might use your name to write incoherent crap like this:
    I guess it is like Micheal Savage says, “Liberalism is a mental disorder”, that’s why I take my meds, they do the best they can considering the depths of my paranoia.

    Thanks Jim for giving the weight of your credentials to my paranoid reality, it is quite obvious that the majority in both houses in Congress have fallen to the Svengali in the White Houses’ voodoo.

  40. #40 by Jim Farmer on July 9, 2008 - 4:35 pm

    Yes, yes indeed I am, for the mockery is imbued of the reality of the opinions you hold, and the seriousness with which you actually hold them. It is well worth the laugh.

    Lighten up Larry. Oh and for sure, you don’t know the half of it. Stick your head back into the sand. It has only been this way since before you got here.

    Don’t you know Jim Farmer, Larry? Or are you being kept out of the loop? To be sure Larry, Jim uses those monikers. Haven’t you figure it out yet Larry? There are only about 8 people that post on this site…jd and Bob S…and you, are about as real as it gets.

    It is only of late that Cliff has adopted your religion of using a real name. This is a game Larry…don’t get played.

    You are malleable Larry, I could get you to believe just about anything. Stop and review.

    So now you are calling for Gods’ support? Beautiful. Usually happens when people are facing death, intellectual or otherwise.

    Quit begging for Gods’ sake Larry, it is pitiful. Stand up man!

    Note From Cliff: Anyone can post freely using any name on this blog. The above was written by Glenn Hoefer (“Link”, “Jilly”, “Rope”, “simple admonishment” etc.) using my Jim Farmer’s name erroneously. See tip below on determining the authenticity of users here. Cliff Lyon

  41. #41 by Cliff Lyon (Glenn Hoefer) on July 9, 2008 - 4:42 pm

    I would consider banning everyone that disagrees with all of us committed progressives, but then I wouldn’t be able to claim that this is an open site where the opinions of all are allowed and respected, no matter how much we disagree with them.

    I guess we are just going to have to deal with them, and that means you too Larry.

    We are the better people, it is only when I can’t stand it that I lose control that I Loose forth with invective of my personal attacks. I am not perfect, and sometimes, although typing keystrokes is a conscious act, I cannot help myself.

    And besides it is my blog, and I can do what I want for the 7 dollars a month that it takes to keep it running.

    Note From the Real Cliff: Anyone can post freely using any name on this blog. The above was written by Glenn Hoefer (“Link”, “Jilly”, “Rope”, “simple admonishment” etc.) using my name erroneously. See tip below on determining the authenticity of users here. Cliff Lyon

  42. #42 by Cliff Lyon on July 9, 2008 - 4:58 pm

    You can always be sure its the real Cliff (or any registered user) if the name is a hyperlink. Per the above post using my name erroneously.

    Take THAT Glenn. Full transparency is the only way to deal with troubled children like you.

  43. #43 by simple admonishment (Glenn Heofer) on July 9, 2008 - 5:01 pm

    Getting an idea yet of what it is like to screw with People Cliff? It isn’t much fun, is it.

    Keep your eye on the content of what is being written here, who writes it is completely irrelevant. No one is getting paid here after all.

    So with that it is done. Mind yourselves. You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

    Note to Users: I do my best to identify the tricky Glenn Hoefer. He doesn’t mean to be an ass. He can’t help it. – Cliff Lyon

  44. #44 by simple admonishment on July 9, 2008 - 5:08 pm

    Ah Cliff you are sooo clever, if that had any bearing there would hardly be a need for you to point it out.

    So again, then tell us who is Caveat, admit that Nephi and Alberto are Jim Farmer, let Larry in on the reality, anything less is total disrespect, at least I give my opinion of his idiocy to his face.

    People are allowed anonymity, if you don’t wish that, ban people who won’t use their names, don’t play it half way like a bitch. Don’t single out those that have anonymity that are revealed because their valid opinions are successful at making your own look weak.

    This isn’t a casino, or I guess it may be, that it is up to you. It is your character that is displayed here Cliff, as you are the maker of this site. If you intend to play as you have, don’t pretend that you wish this mop to be representative of the “ONE” you falsely imply.

  45. #45 by Jim or Cliff on July 9, 2008 - 5:11 pm

    It should be noted that Glenn Hoefer has two children living with their mother in Canada. She has convinced the Canadian Immigration that Glenn is crazy and so he is not allowed in the country and cannot see his children. Lisa checks this website regularly to support her case that Glenn’s behavior is less than optimal for raising children.

    It is unwise for Glenn to behave badly on this site.

  46. #46 by Cliff Lyon on July 9, 2008 - 5:14 pm

    For the record there are no banned users on this site and no comments have ever been moderated.

    The clearest evidence of this dear Reader, is that I could ban Glenn ( ”Link”, “Jilly”, “Rope”, “simple admonishment”) and yet I do not.

  47. #47 by simple admonishment (Glenn Hoefer) on July 9, 2008 - 5:18 pm

    However what happens here is protected free speech, and as such nothing here is provable, and any such aspersions are simple hearsay.

    This site has no bearing on my ability to raise children anymore than Cliffs’ drug dealing has any bearing on whether he gets to see his nieces and nephews. As you can see, they game of hearsay is a terrible thing, and as such, you can’t be here forever Cliff, and anything you would say against me, would be quite unprovable. You see Glenn does not write this, and anything you would say, could never be proven, any more than I can prove that Cliff deals drugs, unless of course his house is raided.

  48. #48 by simple admonishment on July 9, 2008 - 5:20 pm

    Wrong, Glenn has been banned. Then re-instated. Once again, the lies continue.

    Still wish to play Cliff?

    I suggest you clean up.

  49. #49 by simple admonishment on July 9, 2008 - 5:45 pm

    Well Cliff, the beauty of what is going on here, is that you are becoming well known as a liar. As you like to say the web is the record.

    You should clean up your act.

    Perhaps it is a good thing that no one reads this blog, except maybe the few…and Glenns’ completely crazy wife.

    If you are reading Lisa, much love from Glenn. Don’t pop a blood vessel.

    Done playing?

  50. #50 by Bob S. on July 9, 2008 - 7:28 pm


    You want see this often, but I have to support Cliff Lyon on his statement about comments being moderated. I have never had a comment fail to appear due to admin stopping it. Spam filter and mistakes yes, but even then Cliff and the other admins have pulled comments out.

    For this, I do commend Cliff for keeping the site open and the comments free of shenanigans.

    I can’t talk about people being banned or user names, but for the those using multiple names- grow up. It distracts from the discourse and is unneeded.

    Cliff, again thanks for keeping the site open and comments unmoderated.

  51. #51 by simple admonishment on July 9, 2008 - 7:40 pm

    Look Bob, you are a recent addition here, and have no idea what Cliff has done. Granted that Cliff behaves himself now, and then.

    As you know his rather vitupritive personal attacks on you come uninitiated, usually when you are right. He abuses that at his leisure.

    I don’t see any rules defining what people have to do here concerning their names, and anyway, the people who have used multiple names have supported your causes and at times not.

    Does it really matter to you? How does using multiple names detract from the discourse Bob? Be specific. Does knowing who you are talking to alter the opinion formed from their comments anymore than whether they have credentials or not?

  52. #52 by Bob S. on July 9, 2008 - 9:31 pm


    It distracts from the discourse on important topic in this very manner. We have to spend time talking about who said what, who’s posting under someone else’s name instead of focusing on the issues.

    It’s not a matter of knowing WHO I’m talking to but a matter of keeping the players straight. If either side is using multiple names to make it appear more people support a position, that’s wrong and unneeded. The information, facts and data should stand on their own. Having multiple user names detracts from that and causes people to focus on the poster instead of the post.

    I’m not talking about credentials, I’m not talking qualifications. I just saying that keep it simple, use the verified data and facts to make your points. Don’t give either side any ammunition to discount what is being said.

    As far as Cliff’s attacks, I don’t mind them. He tries to deflect the conversation, usually unsuccessfully. More importantly, every time he’s forced to personal attacks he shows the rest of the audience how shallow his argument is. Might not ever convince him or some of the regulars to change their opinions, but many people are on the fence.

    If you were undecided and reading the blog; who would you give greater weight to? The side that marshals logical, consistent fact supported arguments or the side that after a few refuted facts resorts to name calling and misdirection?

  53. #53 by simple admonishment on July 9, 2008 - 11:02 pm

    Then again if Cliff had not revealed who he thinks is writing thoughts, there would be no response, and you, nor anyone else would know…would they? So by logic, when the anonymity of People is respected, you get to read the thoughts. For the most part, use of real names can lead to simply ignoring what is written, and moving on to things of more interest. Thanks for helping me make the point.

    So if you wish to cast any looks, look towards they that run the site, but as you already well know Bob, that won’t make anything happen, you are stuck with the person who runs this site.

    Well, depends what you are here for doesn’t Bob? Wrecks and fights always attract a crowd, and rubbernecking, and that would fall under the category of entertainment.

  54. #54 by Larry Bergan on July 10, 2008 - 12:23 am


    You said:

    You can always be sure its the real Cliff (or any registered user) if the name is a hyperlink. Per the above post using my name erroneously.

    So does that mean if I just fill in the third field as a link to this site, a person impersonating me would show up in black instead of red. I guess that’s better then nothing, but how is anybody going to know that unless they read your explanation of that in this particular comment section.

    If there’s a way, I still think if somebody cannot use the same moniker every time, they should be banned. If I had come to this post to check out OneUtah, I would have never, ever considered coming back. I think this should be a serious blog with humor, not a farce.

    If I were Paul Mero, I would be afraid glenn would use MY name and never come back either. This is a crazy way to allow free speech!

  55. #55 by Bob S. on July 10, 2008 - 6:00 am


    I do focus on the words, the thoughts and ideas but too often the focus becomes on who is posting instead of what is being posted.

    I’ve stated many times that it doesn’t matter what a person’s name is, where they went to school, what credentials are; it matter what they have to say. Why give the other side any ammunition to discount what you have to say?

    Partly I come here for entertainment, mostly because Cliff does keep an open site and allows folks like me to influence the discussion. How many folks who normally read this site would have never even glanced at pro-2nd amendment right information if it wasn’t for folks like you, JD, Ken, and others?

    That is the ultimate goal in my opinion is to make sure that one side isn’t dominating the discussion and as so often seen with Cliff, posting outdated, false or misleading information without rebuttal.

    As far as I’m concerned you or anyone else can post under as many names as they like; I just don’t see how it helps.

  56. #56 by Paul Mero on July 10, 2008 - 9:44 am

    Here is my last word on this one (and thank you for such a dynamic conversation…I seem to have that effect on these blog sites!!).

    Here is a link to a Coulter article about Helms. I know! I know! You would rather get an incurable case of VD than read Ann Coulter. But I ask, politely, that you do so in this case.

    Here is the link: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27444

    Best to all, PTM

  57. #57 by Cliff Lyon on July 10, 2008 - 10:10 am

    You are right Paul. I choose integrity. She is a living disgrace to the planet. I’ll stop there.

    I would however be pleased to review any material you may find which source is even marginally higher than pond scum.

    For instance, if The Sutherland Institute is willing to endorse and republish Ann Coulter, I will go there to learn your “last word.”

    Oh, and I hope you will stick around. Its been fantastic to have you here and there’s much more to come.

    I will also repeat my invitation to have you become a contributing author to OneUtah. Just register and ping me back, and you may top post at will.

    We need your sense of humor around here as we liberals are feeling so dour these days. Seriously.

    Say yes? Cliff

  58. #58 by Paul Mero on July 10, 2008 - 10:44 am

    Okay, I accept (although I don’t remember the initial invitation). Are there strings, outside of understanding this is your blog and deserves the respect of a guest?

    And, while I can type it up with the best of them, you might need to tell me how to post something. (I post stuff on Amicus and that is pretty simple using Blogger.)

    You have my email.

    Thanks, PTM

  59. #59 by Cliff Lyon on July 10, 2008 - 11:36 am

    I insist that I be given no more respect than pig tracks in mud. I host this blog at minimal expense for the reasons state here.

    But Register first here.

    After I make you an author (or Richard or Glenn or Larry can too) then you’ll be able to choose “site admin” at the top of the sidebar below search…and the rest is easy.

  60. #60 by Cliff Lyon on July 10, 2008 - 11:45 am

    btw: Paul,

    I apologize for the idiotic banter with Glenn Hoefer. He’s pretty mad…angry too.

    Hey! Its just like in real life, you have to deal with crazies. Part of the charm of a truly open and transparent blog.

    Your participation adds a wonderful new dimension to process of becoming a true public square so thank you.

  61. #61 by Larry Bergan on July 10, 2008 - 1:23 pm

    It’s hard for me to read anything by Ann Coulter because I just can’t get that snotty voice of hers out of my head, and her column didn’t seem solemn enough for what I guess you could call a pop obituary. Hey, but anybody who ends such a serious reflection with a paraphrased quote from Dan Quale that invokes the title of this very post belongs here.

    As with Glen Beck, Ann has threatened the lives of liberals on the American airwaves, saying, (and I too paraphrase), “we should kill some liberals just to show them we can!”

    Again Paul, thanks for coming here and acknowledging our existence without threatening our lives like the people you respect.

  62. #62 by Larry Bergan on July 10, 2008 - 1:30 pm

    Sorry guys, I don’t want to be known as the name Nazi, but I actually come here because I think it could be a hope for positive social change. Entertainment would be a secondary concern.

  63. #64 by Who is watching the watchers? on July 12, 2008 - 3:32 pm

    Then again Larry, don’t you wander around town with a sign? You should get monetary sponsorship for each mile walked or hour protested. Then you could paste “sponsored by” or “brought to you by”…

    Crazy is entirely subjective no?

    When do I get to top post Cliff?

  64. #65 by Cliff Lyon on July 12, 2008 - 3:46 pm

    Glenn, You may top post anytime as I have told you many times, as long as you meet the criteria.

    You certainly don’t live in Utah do you? Have you?

    You must also have volunteered your time in some capacity

    You must also use your real name and send me a picture of you.

    Its been years you’ve been asking. Which part of the bar is too high?

  65. #66 by Who is watching the watchers? on July 12, 2008 - 7:33 pm

    I have lived in Utah. In Park City, and in Moab, all told at least 2 years.

    I have volunteered for the American Diabetes Association, and have donated my time to school illegal aliens in how to become legal, they are the only ones worth keeping.

    The name and pic no prob.

    Don’t be disingenuous, I have sent things I have written to you and have received no reply. It is quite obvious that people who post articles here must pass a political litmus test. I think Ray and Ken S. are about the only people who have posted here that don’t sling the mop, though I am waiting for Paul to write.

    I figure I had obama pegged from day one, it no surprise that liberals are dour, his “change” of plans would make any dem sour.

    Who has been threatening Larry? Is his shadow acting up again?

  66. #67 by John Provocative on October 15, 2008 - 12:07 pm

    Uncle Dobbin hooked that monster of a trout up in Wyoming and it pulled him down the creek almost to Utah!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: