Why should they wake up?
According to Mr. Mero, they need to get elected delegates in party caucuses to overthrow the "mob" of anti-HB116 advocates.
They must do so in the name of "decency, mutual respect and sound thinking for the future of this great state."
The article ("Passion of HB116 activists could backfire," Deseret News, 7/5/11) can be accessed at:
The very odd thing about this call, in the name of decency and mutual respect, is that Mr. Mero seems to have forgotten to apply these same principles in his article.
For example, this is how he portrays the anti-HB116 people:
"...the delusions continue for many activists who oppose the reasonable idea of responsible reform."
"...these disgruntled patriots..."
"...Utah's enforcement-only crowd..."
"...it's difficult (even unwise) to discount the efforts of an angry mob."
"The more vocal and passionate these disgruntled patriots become, the more they run the risk of sounding increasingly unreasonable."
"...instead of getting its narrow-minded way about who represents Utah, the mob could get the very same boot it seeks to apply..."
I ask you, does this sound like "mutual respect?"
Does it sound civil?
Or does it sound like Paul Mero is trying to frame opponents in terms that make people, who are not awake, reject without reason the anti-HB116 viewpoint?
The problem for Paul Mero and the Sutherland Institute is that, when people do wake up and start to examine the issues surrounding illegal immigration, they move toward the anti-HB116 position.
Indeed, they need to wake up so that the legislature follows their lead and throws out the absurdity of HB116.
Paul Mero is making a good call for people to wake up - it just won't lead to his expected result.