Utah has the rare distinction of having given Ross Perot a second place finish in the 1992 presidential election.  It also gave third-party/independent presidential candidates a percentage total higher than the national average in 1996.  It is an obvious target for the centrist reform movement.  It has a reputation as a state where conservative Republicanism rules the roost.  This is true but only part of the story.  Just as liberal Massachusetts has an active thriving centrist reform constituency, as its presidential voting and William Welds' success demonstrates, so Utah is seeing a strong undercurrent of maverick populist thinking that doesn't fit with traditional GOP thinking.

    Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch is a fairly traditional conservative Republican.  Much has been made of his anti-tobacco stance, where he not only is at odds with his Republican leaders but where he has acted on that stance, working with Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein on an unsuccessful alternative tobacco bill after fellow Republican Senator John McCain's effort bit the dust.  Yet, for all his vaunted aggressiveness on that issue, on our issues, such as skepticism on tax cuts and support for campaign finance reform, Hatch shows little signs of independence.

    Hatch won his last bid for re-election in 94 with a crushing 69% of the vote.  Nevertheless I feel that in order to be consistent with our position, that Utah has strong pro-centrist reform sentiment, we need to plant the flag in this race in 2000.  Our goal should be to receive no less than 19% of the vote; this total will hold Bennett to less than a majority, assuming his 94 support holds firm.

    The junior Utah senator is Robert Bennett, conservative Republican.  He is an opponent of campaign finance reform and has scored only in the low twenties on fiscal votes in the past two years, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense.  There might be a tailor-made person for us to support as Bennett's opponent in 2004:  He is former Democratic Representative Bill Orton.  While Orton passed up a Senate race after careful thought in 1996, he no longer has congressional incumbency as a reason to pass on the opportunity.  I believe it would be worth our while to touch base with him.  He may very well be interested in re-entering political life.  The fact remains, however, that if he does choose to challenge Bennett in 2004 it would almost certainly be as a Republicrat.  Of course, for reasons described below, it probably makes more sense for him to run for some other office. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best option.
 

FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    The current incumbent, conservative Republican James Hansen, has fought for military pork hard in his district.  Among other items, he successfully threw a spanner at one point into the bipartisan base closing process which, at long last, had begun to force the Pentagon to live within its means.  True to conservative Utahan form, Hansen too is an implacable foe of tobacco, probably a result of the strong Mormon influence in this state.  However, where political and fiscal reform, Hansen is dismally conformist and predictable for a right-wing GOPer.

    However, Hansen is very powerful in this district, winning his last race with 68% of the vote, identical to his 96 total.  Nevertheless, this district, along with the rest of the state, is very sympathetic to third-party/independent presidential candidates, giving them a total of 12% in 96, and giving Perot a dramatic 28% of the vote in 92.  We owe it to ourselves to at least make an appearance here.  Our goal should be to win 18% of the vote, sufficient to hold Hansen to a majority if his current support holds.
 

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    My initial preference was that we should support the current incumbent, Republican Merrill Cook.  He has an independent anti-Republicrat history, and supports term limits, entitlement reform, and the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.  According to the Concord Coalition, he votes more often correctly than incorrectly where fiscal issues are concerned.  In other words, here's someone who would appear to have significant and definite Trojan horse potential.

    But there's a catch:  He apparently has severe personality problems.  He stormed into Republican headquarters recently just before his re-election literally screaming that they weren't doing enough to help him.  At one point, he accused some members of his own staff of conspiring against him.  Even after his successful re-election campaign, he was still talking to reporters as if in campaign mode, speaking of his erstwhile opponents in disparaging terms and attacking them.

    I would guess that this Representative is not long for the political world.  Which means that we have lost a good ally.  About the only thing we can do here, as I see it, is run our own candidate and plant the flag.  This district is very tightly balanced; Cook only won by 53% his last time around the hustings.  Which means that a very small showing, on the order of 5% to 10% should be enough to deprive the eventual Republicrat victor of a majority of the vote.  The race may be made more interesting, and more viable from our point of view, by the fact that there are now rumors not only of a strong Democratic challenge but of a challenge to Cook from within his own party.  Should we run our own candidate in such an atmosphere, we might find more fertile ground than would otherwise be the case.

    There is another catch also to this district, however.  The price of media is very expensive, so much so that ARP might be better advised to give this district a pass in the 2000 cycle.  Perhaps if we do well elsewhere in the year of the millenium, and find ourselves with fatter coffers as a result, this district should be on our 2001 hit list instead.
 

THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    We should challenge incumbent Christopher B. Cannon(R) in '00.  He won over Blue Dog Democrat Bill Orton by just 51% in '96, and is definitely vulnerable, particularly if we could run Bill Orton again, either as a Democrat with our endorsement, or as our very own official candidate.

    And thereby hangs a tale.  Despite the fact that the Dems under Orton were highly competitive in this district, that is no longer the case.  In fact, the Dems didn't even bother fielding a candidate against Cannon in 98.  This tells me that the Dems must have become very liberal and very small in numbers here or they wouldn't have taken a pass on this race.  Obviously, Cannon's opposition needs a strong centrist to galvanize a constituency and pose a realistic challenge.  Because the Dems are in such trouble here, it seems to me that there is a vacuum for a credible centrist to run an independent/third-party bid.  Indeed in 98 third-party/independent votes in the House race here drew a total of 23% of the vote.  Imagine what a credible centrist with a proven track record in this district, like Bill Orton, could win here if he ran a good campaign.  In my opinion, that should be our goal in this district, -- to revive Orton's interest in politics and run him as our very own candidate.  Our goal should be nothing short of victory.