I feel like I'm in a bag of mixed nuts with yesterday's outcome of the Utah Senate race. Logically, I should be satisfied with the Mike Lee win in the GOP Senate race--after all I voted for the man and felt comfortable with my vote.
I had planned to have my thoughts all neat and organized weeks before election day but instead found myself thinking, vetting, reading, and pondering on this decision. At one point in the process I was just about fed up enough to go write Jason Chaffetz' name down on the ballot and walk away. Instead, I looked at what Chaffetz had done in the race: he had made it clear he wasn't endorsing. I respected that decision a lot and began thinking about my own blog endorsements (the keen reader will notice some changes). In the end I decided I couldn't endorse either Lee or Bridgewater and even wondered if I should even say whom I was planning on voting for.
One nice consequence of not endorsing is that my mind remained unclouded so as to see the good and bad in both candidates. I saw many great patriots seem to become blinded to the bad in their own candidate. If you praised their candidate, you were a patriot. If you expressed any concern about their candidate you were ridiculed. I saw both the Bridgewater and Lee camps containing great and small modern-day patriots. I saw the sacrifices people were making to get what they deemed a great candidate elected to the Senate.
And then the election happened and Lee won by 2 points; I was secretly hoping it would be close although admittedly I thought Bridgewater would win. Post-election now follows with more ridicule by some of ridding of "blog trolls" and mocking patriots on the other side.
And yet I remain concerned, perhaps scared even. How will Lee (39) be as the youngest current Senator? Will he stick to his promises? Will he connect with the folks or be arrogant? I could ask the same questions were Bridgewater to be elected or anyone. The pro-Lee folks will tell you that you just don't know Lee well enough; OK, but if that's the case only God knows Mike Lee well enough. We don't have enough second chances left to get back to our Constitution for us to inadvertently send back the wrong person.
Bridgewater made the decision to vote for Lee easy for me by not responding to my email. I pretty much decided that when one candidate (Lee) would answer (yes, it took some prodding) and the other wouldn't or didn't, I wasn't interested in voting for a candidate who ignored me. I also became concerned that Bridgewater was more moderate in some of his views of wanting to do good government programs (Ex-Im Bank) rather than abolish them and cut wherever possible to downsize government and balance the government.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't this sleeper Lee guy all along as I'm sure I'll be accused now that I've announced my vote. Lee ducked more than one debate, donated to Bennett's campaign, and particularly in the beginning came off arrogant. While I thought the "Lee Lobbying Lenses" (as I like to title it in my mind) for 1-800 Contacts without registering was interesting, it didn't seem to make me want to bail when he had talked with the guy in charge beforehand. Finally, now that Lee is the probable winner come November, I don't want to see his brother Tom be on the State Supreme Court. Too many Lees for me. Let's not tie up all that power in one family when there are others out there.
Bridgewater wasn't my guy this time around. He may or may not be my guy another time around depending on my choices. But I wouldn't dare send anyone to Washington these days without keeping the strictest of watch over them. So congratulations Bridgewater and Lee you should both be proud of your great campaigns and desires to restore honor back to our country. I think highly of both of you. But Mr. Lee I have a special caution for you now: don't expect me to be letting you off the hook just because I voted for you. I'm ready to throw you under the bus at the first sign of you throwing my Constitution under the bus as has been done too many times before by predecessors. You will serve me and my fellow citizens of the state of Utah and we will hold you fully accountable before God in a judgement day even when God allows justice not to prevail for a time on earth. Should you come home in 6 or 12 years having kept your promises of repealing Obamacare, raising the Social Security retirement age, balancing the budget, and restoring honor to our Constitution, then will you have earned more than my vote: you will earned have my praise for a job well done.
Master Mr. Niceguy goes Postal
In my May 9th post, I coined the phrase "Master Mr. Niceguy" in describing Utah US Senate Candidate Tim Bridgewater. This week I received two pieces of campaign literature from the Bridgewater campaign (none from the Lee campaign) the back of one which shattered my image of Tim's Yoda-esque gentlemanliness:
Here was a great man tearing down his opponent as having "no plan." What?!? Does Tim think I'm stupid or something? As an avid follower of this race, I have felt all along Lee has a plan and actually has done an equally good job as Bridgewater in communicating it. So I went to the Lee campaign website to make sure Lee was still communicating a plan and there it was under his "issues" tab: a clearly defined plan called "Five Steps to a Return to Limited Government."
Continuing on the mailer, Bridgewater attacked Lee for "focusing on tearing down his opponent with negative attacks." Wait a minute Master Mr. Niceguy, you just got through a ripping of your fellow Republican candidate for not having a plan when you failed to provide one shred of evidence of this lack of a plan...and now you accuse him of negative attacks???? Can you not see the beam in your own eye?
Perhaps it was a poll released Thursday showing Lee with a small lead over Bridgewater that is now causing Bridgewater to start the negative attacks to reap the large percentage of undecideds in the state. Whatever the reason, it is clear Master Mr. Niceguy has gone postal.
The Meaning of Endorsements
This afternoon former themostsearched-endorsed Utah Senate candidate Cherilyn Eagar herself in turn endorsed current Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater (Deseret News).
Somewhere along the years, I deprecated endorsements of political candidates: that is, in casting my own vote I enjoy doing my own vetting process rather than subserviating to someone else's opinion. Nevertheless endorsements serve as interesting windows acutely into the endorser and as anchored starting points into political vetting.
As the race between Bridgewater and Lee enters its final days of maturation, Eagar's endorsement is hardly a starting vetting place for me; and as Eagar leaned toward Bridgewater during post-campaign remarks the endorsement came as little surprise. Thus for me, Eagar's endorsement does nothing to clear nor cloud my own analysis of this race. I hope to soon finalize my own thoughts on this race.
On Presidential Endorsements
Lately, I have been in preponderance that our President should decline to be leader of their respective political party. One of the things that appealed to voters voting for President Obama was his campaign communiques that he was "post-partisan." Obama has failed miserably on that account as acutely exampled in the ramming through of Obamacare in a most partisan way. I feel our Presidents should not be actively endorsing candidates A to Z of their respective parties, instead working on leading the country in solving the limited breadth of problems they are responsible to do.
In his 1792 farewell address Washington warned us on the dangers of political parties:
++++ Update 6/10:
It looks like Bennett is jumping on the endorse-Bridgewater bandwagon (SL Tribune). That is one endorsement I'd like to see Bridgewater decline but of course he won't because it is and has been politics as usual for Bridgewater.
Somewhere along the years, I deprecated endorsements of political candidates: that is, in casting my own vote I enjoy doing my own vetting process rather than subserviating to someone else's opinion. Nevertheless endorsements serve as interesting windows acutely into the endorser and as anchored starting points into political vetting.
As the race between Bridgewater and Lee enters its final days of maturation, Eagar's endorsement is hardly a starting vetting place for me; and as Eagar leaned toward Bridgewater during post-campaign remarks the endorsement came as little surprise. Thus for me, Eagar's endorsement does nothing to clear nor cloud my own analysis of this race. I hope to soon finalize my own thoughts on this race.
On Presidential Endorsements
Lately, I have been in preponderance that our President should decline to be leader of their respective political party. One of the things that appealed to voters voting for President Obama was his campaign communiques that he was "post-partisan." Obama has failed miserably on that account as acutely exampled in the ramming through of Obamacare in a most partisan way. I feel our Presidents should not be actively endorsing candidates A to Z of their respective parties, instead working on leading the country in solving the limited breadth of problems they are responsible to do.
In his 1792 farewell address Washington warned us on the dangers of political parties:
In my vision of "What would Washington do?" it would be exactly this on their first day in office: renounce being head of the Party. The Chief Executive, as our Supreme Court, should be above partisanship and the politicking of endorsement; and being the leader of a private political party does nothing to speak of representing the interests of ALL AMERICANS. While Washington might advocate the complete abolition of political parties, Executive declination of the leadership role while remaining part of the party would be a tremendous step in the right direction.The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the
spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful
despotism.
++++ Update 6/10:
It looks like Bennett is jumping on the endorse-Bridgewater bandwagon (SL Tribune). That is one endorsement I'd like to see Bridgewater decline but of course he won't because it is and has been politics as usual for Bridgewater.
Lee and Bridgewater: Sound of Silence (Update)
A week ago today I sent the following second request for a reply to a rather simple but pertinent question posed to both Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater (a similar second message sent to Lee):
The fact that it has been 10 days with neither candidate to respond is unacceptable. Here are two very good candidates yet neither is lifting a finger to earn my vote through their actions.
I have noted that some candidates are great about answering questions and some ignore you. I have first hand positive experience with response to email from a diverse collection of Utah elected officials including Provo Mayor John Curtis, Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy, and Utah Rep. Jim Matheson. While I don't necessarily agree with everything all three of these officials and there are many others I could name in a positive light, these three have responded in a timely manner to multiple emails sent them and have earned my respect--which serves as a prerequisite to my vote.
Team Bridgewater seemed to want to be open to discussion by the following tweet last month:
While the tweet is warm, it seems now in retrospect to carry little weight if my emails are going to be ignored.
The fact that it has been 10 days with neither candidate to respond is unacceptable. Here are two very good candidates yet neither is lifting a finger to earn my vote through their actions.
I have noted that some candidates are great about answering questions and some ignore you. I have first hand positive experience with response to email from a diverse collection of Utah elected officials including Provo Mayor John Curtis, Utah County Sheriff Jim Tracy, and Utah Rep. Jim Matheson. While I don't necessarily agree with everything all three of these officials and there are many others I could name in a positive light, these three have responded in a timely manner to multiple emails sent them and have earned my respect--which serves as a prerequisite to my vote.
Team Bridgewater seemed to want to be open to discussion by the following tweet last month:
While the tweet is warm, it seems now in retrospect to carry little weight if my emails are going to be ignored.So I have to ask myself: why? Are both campaigns so disorganized so as to have no volunteers with which to answer email questions? Am I blacklisted because I dare speak to factual concerns about them? Has this important race become a lifeless zombie staggering toward a finish three weeks from now with me the only undecided Republican left in the state of Utah? And the big granddaddy question and fear: when you get elected to the Senate, Mr. future senator, will you also ignore my emails then?
Some of you might recognize this verse from a classic pop song of yesteryear which sums it up:
"Fools," said I, "you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence
++++ Update 6/3 5:30pm:
I received the nicest email this morning from the Lee campaign in which an apology was issued for the delayed response. It rather took me by surprise that the Lee folks were so gracious. I am going to wait to reveal the specifics on the answer of the question in the hopes and fairness that Team Bridgewater will also step up to the plate and respond. I won't be waiting too long however, as early voting begins June 8th and I had hoped to have my mind made up by then as to which patriot to vote for so I can early vote as I please.
Tim Bridgewater Evades Paying Business Taxes (More)
Do you as a US citizen, support using off-shore tax shelters for the express purpose of avoiding payment of federal tax? Apparently Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater does.
As we began our own inquiry into Bridgewater's strongly-touted business background we came across an April 2004 article (google docs) by Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune during the time which Bridgewater was running for Congress (we have verified through Newsbank that the Gehrke article is indeed genuine) :
Futhermore, Bridgewater justifies his actions by basically saying: "Well, Ford and everybody else is doing it, so it's OK." This argument has never worked for us whether it came from the employees in our business or the kids being caught with hands in the proverbial cookie jar.
This issue is important to us because we have worked hard to put a principled candidate in office to replace Bennett, one whose actions are above reproach and who sets the standard for how our nation's business should be done--like Chaffetz who has defined a principle for the rather rare case of an appropriate earmark.
themostsearched condemns the use of off-shore tax shelters by businesses for the purpose of evading federal taxation. It would be interesting to see just how many millions of tax dollars Bridgewater has avoided paying by using Aleksin and Maze though such a computation is probably out of our grasp.
++++ More 5/23 11:00pm:
Earlier this year in an Independence Caucus 80-question highly detailed questionnaire (pdf; or see Indepenence Caucus of Cache Valley for html) of their endorsed candidates had Tim Bridgewater scoring 91% and Mike Lee 95%. Both these candidates support a National Sales Tax (NST) to replace the 16th Amendment which must be repealed (which means both candidates are really cool, imho!)
However, pertinent to this discussion on Bridgewater's business tax shelters was Bridgewater's response--reported by I-Caucus as listed either blank or "no"--to Question #68:
To us Question #68 points that when principle comes up against practice, Bridgewater is here to do what's best for Bridgewater International Group, LLC ("BIG") [BIG name reference citation here] in tax-avoidance strategies and loopholes, not what's best for Utah.
As we began our own inquiry into Bridgewater's strongly-touted business background we came across an April 2004 article (google docs) by Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune during the time which Bridgewater was running for Congress (we have verified through Newsbank that the Gehrke article is indeed genuine) :
The Charoen Pokphand [themostsearched: aka CP Group] executives channeled the money to Bridgewater through two offshore corporate shells, Aleksin and Maze Industrial, based in the British Virgin Islands, the SEC filings show. The islands are among the world's most attractive tax havens due to favorable banking and confidentiality laws.Bridgewater's comments are worth examining. He freely admits to using an off-shore company to shelter from paying taxes. Although not necessarily illegal, it certainly takes advantage of what many have described as a "loophole" in our tax code.
"They're tax shelters. I think it's pretty straightforward from a business
perspective," Bridgewater said of the companies. "It's a straightforward process
for everyone from Ford Motor Co. to Pittsburgh Paint and Glass, that companies
have holding companies for their foreign interests."
Futhermore, Bridgewater justifies his actions by basically saying: "Well, Ford and everybody else is doing it, so it's OK." This argument has never worked for us whether it came from the employees in our business or the kids being caught with hands in the proverbial cookie jar.
This issue is important to us because we have worked hard to put a principled candidate in office to replace Bennett, one whose actions are above reproach and who sets the standard for how our nation's business should be done--like Chaffetz who has defined a principle for the rather rare case of an appropriate earmark.
themostsearched condemns the use of off-shore tax shelters by businesses for the purpose of evading federal taxation. It would be interesting to see just how many millions of tax dollars Bridgewater has avoided paying by using Aleksin and Maze though such a computation is probably out of our grasp.
++++ More 5/23 11:00pm:
Earlier this year in an Independence Caucus 80-question highly detailed questionnaire (pdf; or see Indepenence Caucus of Cache Valley for html) of their endorsed candidates had Tim Bridgewater scoring 91% and Mike Lee 95%. Both these candidates support a National Sales Tax (NST) to replace the 16th Amendment which must be repealed (which means both candidates are really cool, imho!)
However, pertinent to this discussion on Bridgewater's business tax shelters was Bridgewater's response--reported by I-Caucus as listed either blank or "no"--to Question #68:
Do you agree that when money is being transferred out of the country for anyThe problem is lacking a strong affirmative "yes" creates a loophole bigger than a wall-less southern border for money to leave the US without ever being taxed. Corporations such as Bridgewater's Interlink Capital Strategies would have a heyday exporting capital, thus providing Bridgewater and his colleagues with untold fortunes at the demise of country and state.
reason, it should correctly be considered to be “consumed”; and that money
should be taxed (at the current NST rate) as it leaves the country?
To us Question #68 points that when principle comes up against practice, Bridgewater is here to do what's best for Bridgewater International Group, LLC ("BIG") [BIG name reference citation here] in tax-avoidance strategies and loopholes, not what's best for Utah.
The Bridgewater Buyout (Clarification & Update)
During her take-down-the-house rousing address at Saturday's GOP convention, Cherilyn Eagar fired up the crowd with this promise, one of many sweet melodies sung to the delagates' ears:
UtahsRepresentatives.com who has done a great job in collecting and revealing sundry information over the past many weeks on Bridgewater's business dealings had the best political analysis today on the incident including a video excerpt and transcript (he earned our follow). UtahsRepresentatives points out that Bridgewater offered to pay for Eagar's campaign debts in exchange for being a spokesperson for his campaign (in our own mind, we are thinking that this must have been phrased something like offering a her a job.)
In the Lonsberry interview, Eagar emphasized that the deal wasn't a bribe but that she must have realized that her principles had been put to test:
We find UtahRepresentatives' conclusion most interesting. Even though Eagar had done her best to communicate the appropriateness of the offer and specifically ruled it out being a bribe, UR obviously felt it was. Bribes are high on the frustration list and thus watchlist of the folks because of their rampant-ness and destructiveness in perpetuating evil. Gator-aid, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and even Utah's own Matheson Gavelgate affair have recently frustrated the folks to no end, wanting nothing but merit and integrity instead of votes and positions purchased with money.
This "Bridgewater Buyout" incident--all within legal bounds, yet smacking as a stealthy buyout of a poorer person's vote--has the potential to negatively influence some in the primary election against Bridgewater. Lonsberry, who openly endorsed Bridgewater before the convention did not have time to give his opinion on the show as to any influence that the revelation may have made in his endorsement. He did seem eager (overused pun) to prod the incident out of Eagar while she seemed to back away from the issue. We suppose you'll have to listen to Lonsberry tomorrow to find out what he thinks (wow! what a plug! Can I get free dinner with Bob tomorrow night for that plug? j/k).
As for ourselves, it is weighing pretty heavily as another Bridgewater turnoff, because it creates fear in us that Bridgewater, if elected, will end up backroom-door-dealing like too many others in the Senate.
++++ Update & Clarification 5/13:
We had some great comments to this post which have aided in a decision to formally clarify. After this incident began to take root in the blogosphere, Eagar released a clarification statement (thank you Arc) really denying any possibility of any wrongdoing on the part of the Bridgewater campaign. Our mood on this has significantly improved where we are no longer concerned about the incident (note strikethrough above) and a clarification is due. We don't regret the story as the collective buzz on this issue prompted further appropriate public action on the part of Eagar and commend her for so doing. We felt we gave the facts as they presented themselves at the time a fair representation as well as our opinion at the time. Furthermore, we feel it a very important part of the political process to discuss our concerns and as we pointed out backroom-door-dealing and anti-corruption is high on the list of ourselves and many others out there.
As a political neutral in this contest between Bridgewater and Lee to date, we deny posting the article with the hidden agenda of "us[ing] it for negative campaigning against Mr. Bridgewater" (Eagar statement with unclear direction). Thorough readers of this blog will find we have been critical betimes of both Bridgewater and Lee in our quest for truth. We don't intend to be overly critical of two great candidates for the Senate, we do feel it necessary to bring to light issues that concern us. During former employment as a retail manager, our security manager--a former police officer--once confided in us: "No offense to you, but I learned in this business not to trust anyone except myself." We have learned that advise is particularly apropos in today's political environment where even some of our most beloved statesmen have gone to Washington and returned home drunk with the Potomac Poison. Trust must be earned every day, every vote. We just expect of ourselves to remain civil while we debate these important issues.
Which brings us to one final item: although no one has called us out, we defensively responded to a comment to Cassandra in a mocking way and for that we apologize for violating our principle of "attempt[ing] to ride the high road of political debate". While we believe that mockery and satire are important tools in political debate, to mock a commenter as a controller of a blog really puts the commenter at an unfair disadvantage. We are a person of passion but not of persecution. Our response has been deleted and Cassandra--whomever you are--we are sorry and apologize for our comment. To our commenters: we will do better to respect you.
++++ Update #2 5/13:
Lee Davidson of the Deseret News picked up on this story today; we felt the analysis was quite reasonable & professional. That they did neglect to give UtahsRepresentatives credit for doing the hard work on the research & promotion of this story seems to point to how mass media typically ignore the volunteer media reporting work bloggers and twitters do, often long before they release their own stories. Bloggers on the other hand tend to hat-tip frequently and generously give credit. Hurrah for Bloggers! Hurrah for the First Amendment!
"My vote cannot be bought, sold, traded, or gambled away in a Senatorial backroom deal."Just minutes after this promise to the delegates--not a new promise, rather one Eagar had oft repeated during the campaign trail--she would learn of the decision of the delegates not to advance her to the second round and would end up being tested on that promise. In an interview with conservative talk show host Bob Lonsberry during the last half hour of the show today(archived in full at KNRS) she stunned the audience with the revelation of a proposed backroom deal by Tim Bridgewater.
UtahsRepresentatives.com who has done a great job in collecting and revealing sundry information over the past many weeks on Bridgewater's business dealings had the best political analysis today on the incident including a video excerpt and transcript (he earned our follow). UtahsRepresentatives points out that Bridgewater offered to pay for Eagar's campaign debts in exchange for being a spokesperson for his campaign (in our own mind, we are thinking that this must have been phrased something like offering a her a job.)
In the Lonsberry interview, Eagar emphasized that the deal wasn't a bribe but that she must have realized that her principles had been put to test:
"I realized that I just had to do what I felt was--what I had promised my campaign I would do and in my heart I knew was best."UtahsRepresentatives concluded:
"These kinds of backroom deals are what’s wrong with politics. That shows a lot of integrity on Cherilyn Eagar’s part for not taking the bribe."
We find UtahRepresentatives' conclusion most interesting. Even though Eagar had done her best to communicate the appropriateness of the offer and specifically ruled it out being a bribe, UR obviously felt it was. Bribes are high on the frustration list and thus watchlist of the folks because of their rampant-ness and destructiveness in perpetuating evil. Gator-aid, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and even Utah's own Matheson Gavelgate affair have recently frustrated the folks to no end, wanting nothing but merit and integrity instead of votes and positions purchased with money.
This "Bridgewater Buyout" incident--all within legal bounds, yet smacking as a stealthy buyout of a poorer person's vote--has the potential to negatively influence some in the primary election against Bridgewater. Lonsberry, who openly endorsed Bridgewater before the convention did not have time to give his opinion on the show as to any influence that the revelation may have made in his endorsement. He did seem eager (overused pun) to prod the incident out of Eagar while she seemed to back away from the issue. We suppose you'll have to listen to Lonsberry tomorrow to find out what he thinks (wow! what a plug! Can I get free dinner with Bob tomorrow night for that plug? j/k).
++++ Update & Clarification 5/13:
We had some great comments to this post which have aided in a decision to formally clarify. After this incident began to take root in the blogosphere, Eagar released a clarification statement (thank you Arc) really denying any possibility of any wrongdoing on the part of the Bridgewater campaign. Our mood on this has significantly improved where we are no longer concerned about the incident (note strikethrough above) and a clarification is due. We don't regret the story as the collective buzz on this issue prompted further appropriate public action on the part of Eagar and commend her for so doing. We felt we gave the facts as they presented themselves at the time a fair representation as well as our opinion at the time. Furthermore, we feel it a very important part of the political process to discuss our concerns and as we pointed out backroom-door-dealing and anti-corruption is high on the list of ourselves and many others out there.
As a political neutral in this contest between Bridgewater and Lee to date, we deny posting the article with the hidden agenda of "us[ing] it for negative campaigning against Mr. Bridgewater" (Eagar statement with unclear direction). Thorough readers of this blog will find we have been critical betimes of both Bridgewater and Lee in our quest for truth. We don't intend to be overly critical of two great candidates for the Senate, we do feel it necessary to bring to light issues that concern us. During former employment as a retail manager, our security manager--a former police officer--once confided in us: "No offense to you, but I learned in this business not to trust anyone except myself." We have learned that advise is particularly apropos in today's political environment where even some of our most beloved statesmen have gone to Washington and returned home drunk with the Potomac Poison. Trust must be earned every day, every vote. We just expect of ourselves to remain civil while we debate these important issues.
Which brings us to one final item: although no one has called us out, we defensively responded to a comment to Cassandra in a mocking way and for that we apologize for violating our principle of "attempt[ing] to ride the high road of political debate". While we believe that mockery and satire are important tools in political debate, to mock a commenter as a controller of a blog really puts the commenter at an unfair disadvantage. We are a person of passion but not of persecution. Our response has been deleted and Cassandra--whomever you are--we are sorry and apologize for our comment. To our commenters: we will do better to respect you.
++++ Update #2 5/13:
Lee Davidson of the Deseret News picked up on this story today; we felt the analysis was quite reasonable & professional. That they did neglect to give UtahsRepresentatives credit for doing the hard work on the research & promotion of this story seems to point to how mass media typically ignore the volunteer media reporting work bloggers and twitters do, often long before they release their own stories. Bloggers on the other hand tend to hat-tip frequently and generously give credit. Hurrah for Bloggers! Hurrah for the First Amendment!
Tim Bridgewater: Master Mr. Niceguy
In yesterday's post we concluded with the following:
"There are plenty of Bridgewater faults and much to be concerned about; the problem is that if you blog something negative of Bridgewater, the Bridgewater folks all pat you on the head and think of you as their next convert.... We remain undecided in this race [between Lee and Bridgewater] as we have been..."Tonight the Bridgewater camp tweeted the following:
"@themostsearched Thank you. I am honored to have earned your vote yesterday. Appreciate your support."
The problem with the message tweet is that we have never given our support to either candidate. Indeed if we do so in the future, we will do so first on this blog. Being quite undecided as to whom to vote for on June 22nd, on Saturday we decided to start following both Mr. Bridgewater and Mr. Lee's tweets; indeed the measured time lapsed between following both could be measured in seconds. Many media and citizens follow not necessarily because they support or endorse a candidate, but because they want to be kept informed as to what's going on; such was the case with themostsearched.
While we're confident it would be easy to get the tweet corrected, the campaign masters at the Bridgewater camp would likely fall over backwards in apology for their error making us feel even more generous towards the Bridgewater campaign.
As themostsearched, back in October on our own efforts we launched the first major campaign against Bridgewater pointing out his FEC rule violation which got us a plug in the Salt Lake City Weekly and national blogger Riehl World View (not that we give a hoot for fame but we're small enough that we knew it would take more than our efforts alone to bring this issue up--so we're grateful for the coverage). As it turns out, the FEC really looks the other way on this rule below a $5000 threshold and we were unable to find evidence of violation of that $5K mark. We are finding other candidates across the nation seemingly guilty of the same charge so we'll give Bridgewater a legal break although ethically it did convey to the voters you aren't as honest as Abe.
The reason we bring this up is not only to clarify the record, but to provide further evidence to our Master Mr. Niceguy label of Tim Bridgewater: the campaign never spoke a word about the incident. In political strategy, this is of course the correct thing to do when the source has a voice so small it's drowned out; but Bridgewater could have come out swinging and lambasted us with his ego aflame--yet he chose not to. This doesn't seem the same Bridgewater in "fiery, bare-knuckled campaigns" against Swallow for Utah's 2nd Congressional seat.
There are early signs that Lee is learning the Mr. Niceguy game, but in 2010 Bridgewater is the Master Yoda.
++++ Followup 6/12:
If you like this article, try my one today entitled "Master Mr. Niceguy Goes Postal"
How Lee lost a 15-Point Lead with Delegates in the Last Week…and how he could Rally to Win June 22
The loss 15-point loss to Bridgewater in the third round of the state convention today sent shock waves through the Lee camp. They presumed they would be the next Glenn Beck show heroes by coronating their candidate with a majority of support and maybe even avoiding a primary. Saturday’s convention shocked them about as much as Bob Bennett and the Salt Lake Tribune, the latter incorrectly publishing an article showing Bennett & Lee in the third round (h/t SimpleUtahMormonPolitics). Scratching their heads, they sit and wonder: was it the temple mailer? the Joseph Smith video? Or the Hitler video? What did us in? It actually was none of these. One thing we have learned is that Utah delegates are incredibly smart and informed and nothing gets by the vast majority of them. Following are five reasons why Lee lost and how he can yet turn it around:
Reason #1: Lee supporters incorrectly presumed and in some cases demanded support from Eagar supporters while being dismissive of Eagar (couldn't bother to spell the surname right at least?) rather than humbly seeking an opportunity to make Lee a second-choice candidate. While Lee and Eagar are the most closely aligned politically, Eagar supporters were offended by Lee’s run in the first place after a verbal understanding from Lee he wouldn’t run: that brought into question Lee’s integrity which would again be put to test on multiple occasions. When Eagar-supporter blogger Jason the Patriot opined last week "Why I would support anyone but Bob Bennett and Mike Lee" we knew Bridgewater was the candidate of preference for Eagar supporters. When it came time to debate Eagar on KNRS, Lee ducked and yes, lied (or campaign staff lied) while Bridgewater who replaced Lee a week later was a gentleman and treated Ms. Eagar like a candidate for US Senate. In the end, the lack of outreach to Eagar voters by Lee caused the majority of them to go Bridgewater. We saw this coming when in the KNRS online poll Bridgewater supporters went to Eagar showing the flip side of what we predicted in a tweet what would happen in round 2 at the convention: Eagar voters would in droves go for Bridgewater vaulting him into first place despite Lee’s first place scoring in the first round. To correct this, Lee must identify and convert Eagar supporters as a key group Lee must win over if Lee is to win. They will all vote in the primary and tend to be quite vocal and passionate. Lee must convert them early on so they in turn will get others to see the light.
Reason #2: Lee suffered under relentless “meals-on-wheels for Afghanistan” soundbites from Bennett and must come out strong in national defense. Lee is essentially a Libertarian. Fine. Not quite Utah’s cup o’ tea but we do like Libertarians. The problem is we like being safe from terrorism more than we like liberty (why else would we stand in security lines at the airport?) Sometimes as an elected official you have to bend and accept the will of the people and Utahns will not stand for failure to eradicate Islamofascism in Afghanistan. Lee could overcome this by saying (and then showing to prove it) that these get-out-of-Afghanistan views are personal, but he will make sure we do whatever it takes to destroy terrorists and keep American safe (after all, that’s an enumerated power!) This will help in recruiting would-be Bennett voters who have now all but written Lee off as anti-military.
Reason #3: Lee needs to intently confess his sins and be a man and own up to them. He needs to say: “I filed my personal disclosure late and accept full responsibility” and “I owe debt to the Federal Government and was wrong to not pay my student loans off and to get out of debt like my church counsels and am making it a priority to have them paid off by [whenever]” and “I have not been transparent in my campaign and am committing to you than I will be to you I will always be the most transparent candidate and first to release records. In fact, here’s my personal income tax statements for the past three years just to show you I want to be transparent.” Utahns have seen the arrogant side of lawyer Lee; we want to see the trailer-park kid in Lee and confessing sins is great because we want to be a people of forgiveness but we don't want an arrogant son-of-a-Solicitor for Senator.
Reason #4: One thing really bothering the folks is Lee’s young age coupled with a lack of commitment to two terms. Frankly we’re skeptical from the likes of politicians like Hatch that once Lee is in there unless he sits in a hot tub with a minor we’re gonna be Lee-land for the next 40 years. If Lee would put into writing a commitment not to serve more than 2 terms like the Constitutional term-limit amendment he proposes, we bet his poll ratings would jump 5 points just on that one simple act alone.
Reason #5: Too many conservatives moved publicly towards Bridgewater and it became a feeding frenzy. The two biggest were Holly on the Hill and Bob Lonsberry. Lee needs both of these greatly admired conservatives back in the fold but could still make it with the return of just one. How does Lee get them to return? Resolve reasons 1-4 above and you're to third base. Focus on these two first without purging the sin within and Lee will strike out. And when you do seek these it needs to be as sugar-to-bees not lashings-to-mules: the latter having already failed. And finally don't focus on the Erik Ericksons and Jim DeMints: Lee needs Utahn base support to win.
There are plenty of Bridgewater faults and much to be concerned about; the problem is that if you blog something negative of Bridgewater, the Bridgewater folks all pat you on the head and think of you as their next convert. With the Lee blog trolls, you’d better get your armor on because the blows are coming. We have much concern about Bridgewater but quite frankly it isn't worth our time bringing it up if Bridgewater is so nice and Lee is unapologetically faultless.
We remain undecided in this race as we have been in our mind between any hypothetical Bridgewater/Lee matchup. Ideologically we’re with Lee, but from a human point of view we’re with Bridgewater. If Lee continues with the same stuff since January, he loses the primary and our vote. Should he evolve for the better, he just might pull off a great upset: thus the ball to victory is in Lee’s court, yet time is ticking with about 2 weeks before essentially any window of opportunity closes for him to transform and expand his base.
Reason #1: Lee supporters incorrectly presumed and in some cases demanded support from Eagar supporters while being dismissive of Eagar (couldn't bother to spell the surname right at least?) rather than humbly seeking an opportunity to make Lee a second-choice candidate. While Lee and Eagar are the most closely aligned politically, Eagar supporters were offended by Lee’s run in the first place after a verbal understanding from Lee he wouldn’t run: that brought into question Lee’s integrity which would again be put to test on multiple occasions. When Eagar-supporter blogger Jason the Patriot opined last week "Why I would support anyone but Bob Bennett and Mike Lee" we knew Bridgewater was the candidate of preference for Eagar supporters. When it came time to debate Eagar on KNRS, Lee ducked and yes, lied (or campaign staff lied) while Bridgewater who replaced Lee a week later was a gentleman and treated Ms. Eagar like a candidate for US Senate. In the end, the lack of outreach to Eagar voters by Lee caused the majority of them to go Bridgewater. We saw this coming when in the KNRS online poll Bridgewater supporters went to Eagar showing the flip side of what we predicted in a tweet what would happen in round 2 at the convention: Eagar voters would in droves go for Bridgewater vaulting him into first place despite Lee’s first place scoring in the first round. To correct this, Lee must identify and convert Eagar supporters as a key group Lee must win over if Lee is to win. They will all vote in the primary and tend to be quite vocal and passionate. Lee must convert them early on so they in turn will get others to see the light.
Reason #2: Lee suffered under relentless “meals-on-wheels for Afghanistan” soundbites from Bennett and must come out strong in national defense. Lee is essentially a Libertarian. Fine. Not quite Utah’s cup o’ tea but we do like Libertarians. The problem is we like being safe from terrorism more than we like liberty (why else would we stand in security lines at the airport?) Sometimes as an elected official you have to bend and accept the will of the people and Utahns will not stand for failure to eradicate Islamofascism in Afghanistan. Lee could overcome this by saying (and then showing to prove it) that these get-out-of-Afghanistan views are personal, but he will make sure we do whatever it takes to destroy terrorists and keep American safe (after all, that’s an enumerated power!) This will help in recruiting would-be Bennett voters who have now all but written Lee off as anti-military.
Reason #3: Lee needs to intently confess his sins and be a man and own up to them. He needs to say: “I filed my personal disclosure late and accept full responsibility” and “I owe debt to the Federal Government and was wrong to not pay my student loans off and to get out of debt like my church counsels and am making it a priority to have them paid off by [whenever]” and “I have not been transparent in my campaign and am committing to you than I will be to you I will always be the most transparent candidate and first to release records. In fact, here’s my personal income tax statements for the past three years just to show you I want to be transparent.” Utahns have seen the arrogant side of lawyer Lee; we want to see the trailer-park kid in Lee and confessing sins is great because we want to be a people of forgiveness but we don't want an arrogant son-of-a-Solicitor for Senator.
Reason #4: One thing really bothering the folks is Lee’s young age coupled with a lack of commitment to two terms. Frankly we’re skeptical from the likes of politicians like Hatch that once Lee is in there unless he sits in a hot tub with a minor we’re gonna be Lee-land for the next 40 years. If Lee would put into writing a commitment not to serve more than 2 terms like the Constitutional term-limit amendment he proposes, we bet his poll ratings would jump 5 points just on that one simple act alone.
Reason #5: Too many conservatives moved publicly towards Bridgewater and it became a feeding frenzy. The two biggest were Holly on the Hill and Bob Lonsberry. Lee needs both of these greatly admired conservatives back in the fold but could still make it with the return of just one. How does Lee get them to return? Resolve reasons 1-4 above and you're to third base. Focus on these two first without purging the sin within and Lee will strike out. And when you do seek these it needs to be as sugar-to-bees not lashings-to-mules: the latter having already failed. And finally don't focus on the Erik Ericksons and Jim DeMints: Lee needs Utahn base support to win.
There are plenty of Bridgewater faults and much to be concerned about; the problem is that if you blog something negative of Bridgewater, the Bridgewater folks all pat you on the head and think of you as their next convert. With the Lee blog trolls, you’d better get your armor on because the blows are coming. We have much concern about Bridgewater but quite frankly it isn't worth our time bringing it up if Bridgewater is so nice and Lee is unapologetically faultless.
We remain undecided in this race as we have been in our mind between any hypothetical Bridgewater/Lee matchup. Ideologically we’re with Lee, but from a human point of view we’re with Bridgewater. If Lee continues with the same stuff since January, he loses the primary and our vote. Should he evolve for the better, he just might pull off a great upset: thus the ball to victory is in Lee’s court, yet time is ticking with about 2 weeks before essentially any window of opportunity closes for him to transform and expand his base.
No Bailout for Bob Bennett in Utah Convention (Update 4)
In keeping with polls showing Utah's 3-term incumbent Senator Bob Bennett waning in support, GOP delegates at the state convention voted for Tim Bridgewater first, Mike Lee second, leaving Bob Bennett with a mere 27% percent of the vote in round two, thus stopping Bennett's advancement to a third round (2nd round results here).
Cherilyn Eagar polled a strong fourth in the first round of voting, but according to GOP convention rules, only the top 3 move on to a second round. Eagar and her supporters are strongly anti-Bennett and lean Bridgewater as evidenced by Bridgewater's removal of Lee from the top spot in the first round (first round results here). Eagar made no endorsement of either candidate.
During the convention, blogger/twitterer Frank Staheli pointed out an error in the online article by the Salt Lake Tribune incorrectly saying that Bennett had survived the second round to run against Lee.
In the third and final round, Bridgewater gained a lot of Bennett votes to advance his lead over Mike Lee by a 15-point margin (third round results here). As Bridgewater fell short of the 60% needed to avoid a primary, there will be a statewide runoff GOP primary to determine the nominee. Whatever the outcome, Bennett will not appear on the November ballot in Utah.
The ousting of Bennett is sure to send shock wave around the national politcal news as the removal of the incumbent Senator over his earmarking, vote for TARP, support of Wyden-Bennett healthcare, and violation of 2-term commitment was a major priority for teaparty and 9/12 grassroots organizations. It will also likely cause senior Senator Hatch--in office since 1977--to ponder retirement as teaparty groups begin planning his defeat as well in 2012.
Additionally, during the convention popular Governor Herbert coasted to an easy GOP November ballot place with over 70% of the vote in a sole round of voting.
Cherilyn Eagar polled a strong fourth in the first round of voting, but according to GOP convention rules, only the top 3 move on to a second round. Eagar and her supporters are strongly anti-Bennett and lean Bridgewater as evidenced by Bridgewater's removal of Lee from the top spot in the first round (first round results here). Eagar made no endorsement of either candidate.
During the convention, blogger/twitterer Frank Staheli pointed out an error in the online article by the Salt Lake Tribune incorrectly saying that Bennett had survived the second round to run against Lee.
In the third and final round, Bridgewater gained a lot of Bennett votes to advance his lead over Mike Lee by a 15-point margin (third round results here). As Bridgewater fell short of the 60% needed to avoid a primary, there will be a statewide runoff GOP primary to determine the nominee. Whatever the outcome, Bennett will not appear on the November ballot in Utah.
The ousting of Bennett is sure to send shock wave around the national politcal news as the removal of the incumbent Senator over his earmarking, vote for TARP, support of Wyden-Bennett healthcare, and violation of 2-term commitment was a major priority for teaparty and 9/12 grassroots organizations. It will also likely cause senior Senator Hatch--in office since 1977--to ponder retirement as teaparty groups begin planning his defeat as well in 2012.
Additionally, during the convention popular Governor Herbert coasted to an easy GOP November ballot place with over 70% of the vote in a sole round of voting.
KNRS US Senate Straw Poll Results (Corrected)
Today after 7 rounds of single-candidate-elimination online voting stretching over the past month, the KNRS straw poll winner was named: Cherilyn Eagar with almost 54% of the vote over runner-up Mike Lee.
Of unknown influence was KNRS' Bob Lonsberry, the major Utah conservative talk show host, endorsement this week of Bridgewater with a note that he had very much grown to respect Ms. Eagar and had concerns about Lee's inability to get out of debt as LDS church leaders counsel while grossing $600K last year.
In the rounds leading up to this announcement, in an April 23rd editorial to the Deseret News, Greg A. Henderson of Alpine, UT, noted that Bennett had not been able to get a seat in the top three candidates and that Lee had a substantial lead over second place Eagar and third place Bridgewater.
We draw a couple of noteworthy observations from this poll. First, Lee who has polled well over a long period of time seems to have taken a measureable downturn of support over the last week due at least in part to his late filing / personal finance revelations. Just how much remains to be seen but the turncoat endorsement by respected blogger Holly On The Hill from Lee to Bridgewater is having huge reverberations. Second, supporters of Eagar and Bridgewater seem to have the other as their second choices so that if one drops out there could be enough support to propel the other over strong Lee support in the convention: it took the Bridgewater supporters in the straw poll to push Eagar past Lee's first choice advantage.
What the poll really doesn't show is how Bennett supporters will vote if Bennett is knocked out because Bennett supporters are more likely aligned with the KSL viewpoint rather than KNRS viewpoint and were less likely to be represented in the straw poll. We feel Bennett's media attack on Lee's Libertarian-ish national defense stances signals to them also to vote for someone other than Lee. All said, this should be a convention to be remembered tomorrow. If we were to predict an outcome it would be a primary runoff between two of the following: Eagar, Bridgewater, and Lee although we feel it's anybody's guess as to who actually comes out on top. We don't place too much confidence in the Dan Jones poll of delegates because the landscape seems to have changed in the weeks since the poll with (in our opinion) particularly Eagar and Bridgewater catching up with Lee. While we hope Eagar does well as she has been the most stalwart to principle, but we'd also like to find places for service for Bridgewater and Lee while sending Bennett back to private life with a heartful thanks for his service to our great state.
Salt Lake City Code Red Rally
themostsearched had the great honor of joining with like-minded patriots on the steps of our great state capitol in Salt Lake City in a last-minute-announced CODE RED rally against the abominable health-scare bill.
We exchanged thoughts and themostsearched quickly realized how likeminded and informed she was. 
Another great patriot we met was Kathy (above) of Latterdaybanners.com who created this beautiful masterpiece flag just a few months ago. As way of explanation to our non-Mormon readers this flag is of particular symbolism to Mormons: 2,000 yrs ago Captain Moroni was a great military leader who when faced with a hostile takeover of his country by some people wanting to overthrow their judicial system and establish a king, tore his coat and wrote the above saying on it. Captain Moroni then further made everyone swear allegiance to the cause of freedom and a free government else be put to death. Think of Captain Moroni as a General Patton without the profanity: both were die-hard preservers of freedom and devoutly religious.
Cherilyn Eagar spoke exclusively on health care, talking about the American Medical Association's (AMA) support for the bill and how the AMA only represents a mere 17% of physicians. She urged us to instead support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and to sign the petition at http://www.takebackmedicine.com/ When themostsearched next seeks a physician, we will be looking for one that doesn't belong to the AMA and preferably belongs to the AAPS. Eagar also spoke about her father, a physician, coming home after Medicare first passed and saying: "today is the first day of the end of quality medicine in America." How true those words have turned out to be!
We had 200-300 Patriots gathered from all walks of life. We met a patriot (http://twitter.com/evorgsum) who made this fantastic sign (we overheard others commenting on it as well):
We exchanged thoughts and themostsearched quickly realized how likeminded and informed she was. Another great patriot we met was Kathy (above) of Latterdaybanners.com who created this beautiful masterpiece flag just a few months ago. As way of explanation to our non-Mormon readers this flag is of particular symbolism to Mormons: 2,000 yrs ago Captain Moroni was a great military leader who when faced with a hostile takeover of his country by some people wanting to overthrow their judicial system and establish a king, tore his coat and wrote the above saying on it. Captain Moroni then further made everyone swear allegiance to the cause of freedom and a free government else be put to death. Think of Captain Moroni as a General Patton without the profanity: both were die-hard preservers of freedom and devoutly religious.Speakers at the rally included: Jared Law of the 9/12 project, Diedre Henderson of the Jason Chaffetz campaign, Rep. Craig Frank of District #57 (Pleasant Grove), and Utah US Senate GOP candidates Mike Lee and Cherilyn Eagar. (US Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater was also present, but did not speak.) The speakers freely discussed neighboring issues such as state sovereignty and the crowd expressed opposition Bennett's reelection when solicited.
Jared Law urged us to call Governor Herbert and have him sign HB67 (sponsored by Carl Wimmer and co-sponsors including our Rep. Keith Grover): to have federal health-scare mandates passed after March 1, 2010, not apply to Utah and HB251: to have employers use E-Verify. HB67 has a growing number of states with similar legislation (see current map) across the country and is one themostsearched urges Gov. Herbert to sign. Jared also urged us to "fast and pray"--as our founding fathers did many times--that the bill be defeated.
Mike Lee quoted from James Madison's Federalist Paper #62 which was extremely appropriate considering the crypticness of an unwieldy, 2700-page health-scare bill before Congress:
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.
Cherilyn Eagar spoke exclusively on health care, talking about the American Medical Association's (AMA) support for the bill and how the AMA only represents a mere 17% of physicians. She urged us to instead support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and to sign the petition at http://www.takebackmedicine.com/ When themostsearched next seeks a physician, we will be looking for one that doesn't belong to the AMA and preferably belongs to the AAPS. Eagar also spoke about her father, a physician, coming home after Medicare first passed and saying: "today is the first day of the end of quality medicine in America." How true those words have turned out to be!The protest carried over to Matheson's office a couple of miles south where, if we are not mistaken, there has been a protest going on virtually every day this week. Although we weren't able follow the protest, it seems we may have helped make an impact: Matheson formally announced his plans this afternoon to vote NO on Obamacare!
Bridgewater and Eagar Debate: Who won?
After listening now thrice to the Utah U.S. Senatorial debates on Wednesday's Lonsberry Show (debate during show's final hour), we have had enough thought and time to form our opinions. Here our our results in four areas:
- KNOWLEDGE, ARTICULATE: Both candidates represented themselves well. We felt both candidates knew the issues well enough to speak thoroughly on the subject and neither came across like a "deer in headlights": either would measure up to the job of representing Utah knowledgeably. Result: TIE
- PERSONALITY: Bridgewater approached the questions more like a diplomat trying to preserve good relations as a second-choice for those delegates who might not pick him as a first. Eagar was a General Patton out to defend, protect, and ready to take on the Commies once the war with the Fascists was over. These personalities are true to the personalities they exhibit elsewhere on the trail. Many would argue we need diplomats and view disagreement among allies as counter-productive. Our view is we need both though when push comes to shove, we'll keep Patton. Measuring against the 3,500 delegates whose opinions may or may not be the same as ours, the result is: TIE
- MODERATION: We were delighted Mr. Lonsberry arranged this debate and our kudos to him. Lonsberry's lack of professional moderation came through when he digressed into addressing initial questions to Mrs. Eagar as "Ma'am" during the middle part of the debate while not equally applying the term "Sir" to Mr. Bridgewater. Mr. Lonsberry deserves some forbearance for serving in the military and having the "Sir" and "Ma'am" terms ingrained into him. We thought Eagar showed good restraint in not pointing out this relatively-minor inequality and thus garnished some points with the listeners unlike Bully Boxer of California:
Lonsberry exhibited other minor biases by (1) during the debate pointing out in complimentary fashion a photo he had seen on Mr. Bridgewater's website while lacking a compliment to Mrs. Eagar (2) his interruption of Mrs. Eagar mid-sentence using the term "Ma'am" thrice to redirect her discussion of debt was distracting as well and (3) he directed a complex three-questions-in-one to Eagar but not to Bridgewater. We could find no instances of biases against Bridgewater towards Eagar. As such, Lonsberry came across moderately biased towards Bridgewater although we have no reason to believe that he actually is, doubt he meant to come across this way, and recognize the biases were relatively minor-to-moderate. The overall moderator score: NOT BAD. - BEST QUOTE: Many times debates are won over memorable one-liners. The winning quote in our mind was this humorous quote by Eagar nearer the conclusion of the debate:
We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s--and right now Government thinks it’s God.
So who won overall? Perhaps Eagar for the best quote, but really we'd have to pick all three: Eagar, Bridgewater, and Lonsberry all came across as genuine Patriots fighting in the cause for principled constitutionalism as the opinion of each was raised in themostsearched's mind.
Bridgewater and Eagar to Debate; Lee not so eager
With the strange phenomenon in Utah of candidate Mike Lee running from Conservative talk radio, Bob Lonsberry of KNRS radio has lined up a debate tomorrow morning between two leading candidates, Tim Bridgewater and Cherilyn Eagar. Lonsberry discusses below:
An anonymous email to the Lonsberry program (no, it wasn't themostsearched and no, we don't know who it is either though we were in attendance at the referenced GOP delegate training meeting) is read in the above clip:
themostsearched is reading Skousen's 5,000 Year Leap. In Part I under "Fundamental Principles" Skousen reveals some of the "fighting" our founders had:
An anonymous email to the Lonsberry program (no, it wasn't themostsearched and no, we don't know who it is either though we were in attendance at the referenced GOP delegate training meeting) is read in the above clip:
"I asked Mike Lee why he didn't show up to the debate on your radio show. He told me that he was scared to be seen as fighting amongst the candidates when the real goal was taking down Senator Bennett... He told me he's willing to debate anytime, but just not on the air."This statement still begs the question of why Lee agreed to last week's scheduled Eagar/Lee debate in the first place if he felt this way. Did someone say "flip-flop?" It is also interesting to note the words "scared" and "fighting." We wonder if a candidate is "scared" about debating fellow conservatives, will they not also be "scared" to debate liberals and progressives or worse "scared" to stand up for principle as Bailout Bob Bennett has so often been plagued with? If a candidate immediately thinks debates are about "fighting" is that because the candidate bears animosity towards his opponents? And if indeed it is so-called "fighting," is fighting about particulars necessarily a bad thing?
themostsearched is reading Skousen's 5,000 Year Leap. In Part I under "Fundamental Principles" Skousen reveals some of the "fighting" our founders had:
On particulars, of course, they [the founders] quarreled, but when discussing
fundamental precepts and ultimate objectives they seemed practically unanimous. They even had strong criticism of one another as individual personalities, yet admired each other as laborers in the common cause... One of George Washington's most vehement critics was Dr. Benjamin Rush, and yet that Pennsylvania physician boldly supported everything for which Washington worked and fought.
But what really muddies Lee's argument is that he would be willing to debate off-air. So...if we understand correctly: Lee is "scared to be seen as fighting" on air, but not "scared to be seen as fighting" off-air. Sorry, we don't get it. Maybe someone can explain it better since obviously we're not near as smart as the good Attorney.
URA Endorses Eagar, Philpot, & Herbert; Shear "Demonsheep"
The Utah Republican Assembly (URA) held their endorsement convention yesterday in Orem. The URA is the Utah branch of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) self- described as "nation’s oldest and largest conservative Republican grassroots volunteer organization." It is a group themostsearched much admires and one bound to conservative principles, but one we have yet to claim membership.
The Daily Herald covered the the event noting the comment by Brian Halladay about "demonsheep": those professing conservative values but failing to act so. Maybe Brian saw this great Fiorina campaign video (for the record we advocate DeVore not Fiorina) but which is hilarious especially towards the end when the demon sheep is seen crawling on all fours:
Laughter aside and to Brian's point: could one of those demon sheep POSSIBLY be self-labeled "Utah's Conservative Choice" Bailout Bob Bennett? Interesting enough Bennett himself is beginning to back down from that label replacing that label in his website header with "The Fight is Now"--alluding to the fact that although he won't publicly admit it Bailout Bob, a veteran campaigner himself, knows his political life is on the line! In fact, the only places we could now find "Utah's Conservative Choice" is when you actually go in to his website to make a donation:
...and on some of his ubiquitous internet advertising:
The Daily Herald covered the the event noting the comment by Brian Halladay about "demonsheep": those professing conservative values but failing to act so. Maybe Brian saw this great Fiorina campaign video (for the record we advocate DeVore not Fiorina) but which is hilarious especially towards the end when the demon sheep is seen crawling on all fours:
Laughter aside and to Brian's point: could one of those demon sheep POSSIBLY be self-labeled "Utah's Conservative Choice" Bailout Bob Bennett? Interesting enough Bennett himself is beginning to back down from that label replacing that label in his website header with "The Fight is Now"--alluding to the fact that although he won't publicly admit it Bailout Bob, a veteran campaigner himself, knows his political life is on the line! In fact, the only places we could now find "Utah's Conservative Choice" is when you actually go in to his website to make a donation:
...and on some of his ubiquitous internet advertising:
Morgan Philpot won the endorsement for the privilege to defeat Matheson II in the 2nd District while Governor Gary Herbert won an endorsement in what should be a solid victory against Democratic tax-raiser Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon.
The most interesting and contested fight--indeed what might be a presage to the state GOP convention in May--Cherilyn Eagar won 64% of the vote after a third round of balloting to garnish the endorsement, defeating Mike Lee in the final round. This was huge for the campaign because unlike an unscientific Doug Wright poll last month from supporters publicly confessing voting multiple times for their candidates and voters from outside the state, these folks are political activists many of whom will be delegates at the state convention. Additionally, the URA voting was patterned after the GOP convention--unlike straw polling or even primary elections where all the candidates compete once with each other. Finally, we note in 2008 the URA endorsement helped Jason Chaffetz get elected.
What does this important endorsement mean?
themostsearched feels that this cements much of the hard work that has been going on for months at the Eagar campaign and really helps point out that the race is between Eagar and Lee with Eagar continuing to hold her lead. The choice is laid between an articulate, unencumbered, principles-tried-and-tested Eagar and a principle-professor lawyerspeak Lee who is entangled with Energy Solutions but just might be as--or at least close to as--Constitutionally-minded as Eagar; though questionably so as he has chased endorsements from the political establishment who themselves are not so Constitutionally minded. At this point, themostsearched feels that Williams and Bridgewater are probably not going to receive the coveted Bailout Bob Knockout Award though they each have good things we could say about their professed positions; nevertheless, it wouldn't surprise us either if Bennett were knocked out before even a Williams or Bridgewater. Yes, Burnsfans wherever you are, your Bailout Bob candidate is that bad. Now go be happy and eat some Bennettporkburgers from all that taxpayer money he's spending to buy your vote.
+++ Updates 2/21:
- Our sources tell us Eagar nearly walked away from a four-way ticket with an endorsement in the first round, garnishing 55% of the vote, Lee 32% and Bridgewater 9%. Gubernatorial and house races were decided earlier due to smaller fields of opponents.
- The Daily Herald article cited on this is the lead print headline on the Sunday paper which has the largest circulation of any day of the week.
- Blogger No Sheeples Here has a fanastic photoshop today of the great Demonsheep himself, BO
Tim Bridgewater Violates FEC Law
Tim Bridgewater, Utah's newest entry into an already large field of GOP candidates (including solid conservatives) who have been campaigning for months, appears to us to have violated FEC rules. Watch our two-part video below for explanations:
Here are links to articles online:
(1) Salt Lake Tribune Article: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13611222?source=rss#
(2) FEC candidate brochure on testing waters: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml
(3) KSL GOP convention story and video http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=6810199
(4) Tim’s current facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=71608052128
(5) FEC candidate filing search: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norcansea.shtml
One might ask why we are pointing out the bad about a Conservative candidate. Believe us when we say in the hours of doing research and putting together these videos for you, we asked ourselves that question many times!! But the reality is that if any conservative candidate is to stand against a powerful incumbent senator, they are going to have to be solidly vetted. As we don't see any news organizations doing investigations into these obvious FEC violations, we felt it our duty to do so. Indeed we might just be saving Mr. Bridgewater a ton of his money on a race he isn't going to win when the truth gets out.
In the end, this is a stand for truth and principle rather than standing behind a businessman we like and share values with.
Here are links to articles online:
(1) Salt Lake Tribune Article: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13611222?source=rss#
(2) FEC candidate brochure on testing waters: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml
(3) KSL GOP convention story and video http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=6810199
(4) Tim’s current facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=71608052128
(5) FEC candidate filing search: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norcansea.shtml
One might ask why we are pointing out the bad about a Conservative candidate. Believe us when we say in the hours of doing research and putting together these videos for you, we asked ourselves that question many times!! But the reality is that if any conservative candidate is to stand against a powerful incumbent senator, they are going to have to be solidly vetted. As we don't see any news organizations doing investigations into these obvious FEC violations, we felt it our duty to do so. Indeed we might just be saving Mr. Bridgewater a ton of his money on a race he isn't going to win when the truth gets out.
In the end, this is a stand for truth and principle rather than standing behind a businessman we like and share values with.
