The Nacilbupera Guzzle

Whoever examines with attention the history of the dearths and famines … will find, I believe, that a dearth never has arisen from any combination among the inland dealers in corn, nor from any other cause but a real scarcity, occasioned sometimes perhaps, and in some particular places, by the waste of war, but in by far the greatest number of cases by the fault of the seasons; and that a famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconveniences of a dearth. (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations IV.5.44)

Friday, January 8, 2010

Eagar bests Lee II; Both Trump Bennett II

A lesson learned for us through our tea party activism is we cannot have a strong Republic without our personal, active participation. We must push on in our efforts even sacrificing some pleasures in life and remain active in our quest for a return to Constitutional principles. Being an informed voter and voting every year or two simply will not satisfy the needs of our Republic to have a politically active, educated, and informed citizenry.

For far too many years we have allowed ourselves to lean on the stature and endorsements of others and to allow political despotism through nepotism. We remember past thoughts: Reagan was a great Conservative, therefore his vice-president must be one too. Bush was good so Bush Jr. must be good. That there leader is a Mormon so he must be against abortion/gay marriage/ripping the Constitution to shreds. Although this is a simplistic summary and our analysis has always more profound, we confess the past presence of such thoughts.

But our mentality has done a "360." Now when we look upon Bushs, Kennedys, Romneys & Reids or to localize it for Utah--Cannons, Bennetts, and Mathesons--we now look upon the dynasties with much disdain; and acutely so to the second generation who follow on the coattails of their fathers. Like watching a bad movie sequel, the second generation of politicians seem to get a electoral boost because of their genetics. Surely, our democracy is strong enough to not require nepotism. Indeed, it is a call for the opposite: it is for us the common citizen to rise to our obligation for public service.

This is not to say that because one happens to be the posterity of a famous politician one should be denied an opportunity to serve nor will Nacilbupera disqualify and exempt such from our vote and approval; nevertheless it does count as a negative mark. Truly, Bailout Bob Bennett (aka Bennett II or Bennett the bad movie sequel) should have prompted such a warning back in 1992 before elected. The problem then was it was a choice between Bennett II and Cannon III! Yikes! Is there no other patriot in Utah who isn't a re-tread?

But this is precisely how we feel about Mike Lee who announced his candidacy this week after months of intensive campaigning from Eagar and Williams who patriotically declared their candidacy early on. If you didn't know Lee before this election cycle (few did, ourselves included) he is the son of late BYU President and US Solicitor General Rex Lee. (We have to digress: at BYU we were once invited to lunch with President Lee and found him admirable!) But herein lies the problem--he's riding Daddy's coattails--and our biggest fear: will we go through all these efforts and sacrifices to replace Bennett II with a simple namechange to Lee II? We hope not. This is a fight to put in principled, Conservative candidates. Of course Lee II could turn out to be a wonderful Senator if elected--after all Mike can't help that his Dad is Rex (although he touts it). Yet based solely on the results of other political dynasties, we would have to put the odds low of Lee II sticking to principled Conservatism.

The second thing that disturbed us about Lee II is his campaign announcement. He brought together a bunch of seasoned Utah politicians to endorse him, even to the point of letting former Congressman Jim Hansen introduce him. Hansen, the former 22-year Congressman from Utah's First District? Yep. 22-year veteran Hansen was the lead hitter. So why in the world if Lee II is so adamant about amending the Constitution to put a 12-year cap on Congressional terms--why in the world would you even want Hansen to endorse you? It simply makes no sense unless--unless you are committed to old-style politics over principles. And top off the whole announcement with an endorsement from Shurtleff who is weak on immigration?

Lee II talks the talk. We share values with him. Our problem, understandably after being betrayed so many times by politicians (we're still waiting to see the healthcare debates Obama promised us on C-Span) we are skeptical of promises. And Lee II really has nothing to offer of substance: no voting record and no activism other than these Constitution speeches he's been giving for the past year: just words.

So... you say you want us to trust a political heir who gives Constitution speeches for a year and chooses as his firstmost endorser a politician who violates his principles of term limits and his crowning endorser a politician who violates his principles of being strong against illegal immigration--and you want us to trust this person as a reliable Conservative??? No. That is just too much to ask. Not when we have Cherilyn Eagar who has been a dedicated Conservative for 30 years.

We acknowledge some leftist, progressive, liberal readers to this blog so let's put Lee II in perspective: we would take Lee II day or night over Bennett II. Why? Because Bailout Burns has let us down, he has violated the Constitution by proposing Wyden-Bennett healthcare sham for starters. With Lee II, there remains if nothing else hope he will be true to principles. And that hope places him leagues above Bennett II and leagues below Cherilyn Eagar.


Anonymous said...

Good Points.

Don't forget that Lee is wanting term limits - 12 years of each house - so unlike EVERYONE else that wants term limits - Lee is just fine with 24 years. What is up with that?

nacilbupera said...

A: Thanks. You are correct: Lee supports 12 years for each house.

When we said "a 12-year cap on Congressional terms" we meant a 12 year cap on the House, or our choice of words "Congressional"--as opposed to the Senate--in pointing out the bitter irony of a Hansen endorsement.

Lee II can't have it both ways: either you are set against those who serve more than 12 years in the House and lead by example or you become a Bennett II and start believing that you can justify 24 years in a single branch (as Bennett II did so on the Doug Wright Show this week) because you aren't going to run in the other branch.

This is the problem we see time after time: great men succumb to the "Potomac Poison" after they have been there too long and begin believing in compromise of principles to pass murky legislation.

In Mormon theology the “Potomac Poison” philosophy is demonstrated by this scripture from Joseph Smith: “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

Susan said...

Excellent analysis, with which I wholeheartedly agree! You brought up very valid points, all the way around.

nacilbupera said...

Susan: Comment Appreciated! We try to be fair while presenting our viewpoint and feelings.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever listened to Mike speak? Have you sat down and talked to him and asked him to answer your questions and concerns? If you have I believe you would think very differently. Lee has my vote, and all the negative campaigning by the Eagar camp and her supporters places Bridgewater as my second choice, with Eagar a distant third.

Anonymous said...

In all fairness, Lee may tout his father's name, but Eagar is quick to mention her parents' connection with the Reagans. Personally, I wish all these "connections" were dropped completely. As you have pointed out, they mean nothing.

I have yet to hear any of the candidates willing to sign a pledge to limit their stay in congress. Twenty-four years in either or both houses is at least 12 years too long....for anyone.

nacilbupera said...

A2: Yes we have heard Mike Lee speak and find his Constitutional speeches inspiring. We found Lee not as approachable as Eagar: he talks, well, like a lawyer. Not that lawyers are evil, indeed we revere the profession when embarked upon nobly as Lee certainly has; it's just that lawyers tend to make better judges than state or citizen representatives.

We have no idea what you're talking about your accusation of "negative campaigning by the Eagar camp." Could you cite one example plz? Nacilbupera has tried hard to present our feelings and passions fairly as we sort through a plethora of similarly like-minded Conservative candidates. We feel it is great so many Conservatives have risen to the task and do welcome them in the race (excepting Bridgewater because we feel he's broken FEC laws). If you're implying we as Nacilbupera are guilty of such negative attacks, by all means, say so and point out specifically where we've gone astray.

Nacilbupera understands we all have fav candidates, but we all must in a few months come together around a great Conservative if we are to defeat a powerful incumbent in Bennett II.

Our best wishes to you in your support of your candidate.

A3: Fair enough on Eagar's parents. However, in our opinion the use of Eagar in citing her parents was to demonstrate her story in which she learned about the evils of Socialism as her father, a physician, decried Medicare as being the beginning of the end of quality medical care in America. Honestly we don't feel that she was touting the Reagan connection any more that we touted our personal connection by mentioning our lunch with Rex Lee while at BYU in this blog posting. It is normal for us humans to remember inspiring, famous people we meet in life. Someday if you'd like we'll blog about Nacilbupera's childhood meeting of George Romney or maybe our getting to meet Joe-the-Plumber at Eagar's open house!

As far as term limits, we know Eagar has verbally committed to two terms if elected and we think it would not be difficult to procure a written commitment to 12 years.

Thank you A2/A3 for stopping by. Keep coming back...and don't be shy!

Anonymous said...

If we are going to be principled here, we need to examine the man, or woman for that matter, not by family or employment or amount of wealth, but by the content of character and by their beliefs.

In saying that, I have examined all of the candidates, spoken to them personally, and after really digging in, I have found Mike Lee's character to be sound and his beliefs to be firm and rooted in Constitutional principles. He has my vote as a state delegate

Anonymous said...

Mike Lee loves the Constitution but he wants to change it?

Mike says that all we need to do to fix our current problems is to return to the Constitution. And how are we going to do that? By changing the Constitution (specifically with term limit and balanced budget amendments). Mike wants to have his cake and eat it too, and no one on the right is calling him on it because they are desperate for some sort of savior candidate (think Fred Thompson in the 2008 Republican primary--at first Republicans didn't care who he was just so long as he wasn't one of the candidates they already knew).

Whenever Mike gets called out on these issues, he turns incredibly vague or just starts citing random legal cases like the good lawyer that he is. I don't trust this man to be our next US Senator despite all the lovefest currently surrounding him. The honeymoon ain't gonna last.

nacilbupera said...

A: Excellent points. This actually echoes the thoughts of Utah radio commentator Bob Lonsberry make these as well. Nacilbupera want to see all our politicians commit to a term in office so that we can hold them accountable to their words.

We also favor the "fixed pie" budget proposed by Eagar and the Independence Caucus.

Jen said...

I understand Lee's endorsements--he is in a heated battle and must garner support that will give him a leg up. If former representatives trust him, then surely he must have similar positive qualifications within leadership. (skepticism intended)

The second thing I'd like to address is the comment that attorneys are better suited in the judiciary. I have to disagree. Attorneys with significant judicial background are wonderful candidates because they understand the law, the constitution, and most importantly, they have the natural ability to argue all sides of an issue effectively. It is this qualification that is quite desirable as a voter. I want someone who is going to understand how to come to a general consensus and compromise that is sufficient to the needs of those that they represent. Some argue that this allows for undesirable policy to gain some desirable policy, but as a bipartisan country, we must be willing to compromise for the benefit of ALL citizens and for our future growth.

This ability is not singular to attorneys as a profession, but they spend 3 arduous years of law school and more time in clerkships learning how to effectively understand all implications in arguments, an invaluable asset.

I say this only because criticism of Lee needs to come not in ad hominems, but in his record in public policy. It is far more effective, especially if my mom is the most conservative candidate (and I believe that she is).

I think the far more interesting debate lies not in lawyers vs. businessmen and women but in what our founding fathers intended in constitutionalism. This will either strengthen his qualifications, or weaken them amongst the conservative constituency in Utah.

It may not be a secret that I am not actually a Republican (proud Independent), but it's because my mom raised me to analyze all sides of an issue and espouse each ideology that best exemplifies my core beliefs. Unfortunately, no party achieves this, in my opinion. I need more than "he or she has strict conservative values," because the spectrum of conservatism (and liberalism) is vast and expansive. So continue speaking about my mom's beliefs--if the people of Utah truly want a strict conservative voice in the senate, then she will surely come out on top :)

nacilbupera said...


(1) You spoke admirably and the fact that you didn't hide behind an ANONYMOUS posting shows courage. (Granted, there are times very public people need a cover in order to speak freely; we just wish we could differentiate between multiple ANONYMOUS and a single A blog spammer).

(2) We find it difficult to judge Lee on "public policy" because to us it is non-existant. We have looked at some of the cases he has defended, but these were sides chosen for him to represent as an employee (yes, he could have resigned) rather than being his preferred stance on an issue. Therefore, we judge Lee the best we can on his character, his background, and his actions in running for this race.

(3) So Jen... here's the big question: do you as a independent thinker personally want a "strict conservative" for the US Senate, that is, do you personally endorse your ma, Cherilyn Eagar?

Thanks for stopping by!

ALL: Great debate, folks! We are proud to be surrounded by such outstanding thinkers who don't dismiss people as being "dumb as a rock." We predict multiple good things will happen with such positive, objective energy funneled into this race! Keep it up and we'll do the same!

Anonymous said...

In regards to the commenter who states that Mike loves the constitution so much that he wants to change it. Yes, he wants to change it just like the Founders allows. The Founders could never have foreseen the amount of influence that money and lobbyists would have. And with that, the only way to counteract the corruption is to limit the amount of time to corrupt.

Now as to your argument that Cherilyn is going to "limit herself" to 2 terms, are you joking? Bob Bennett said the very same thing when he ran. And I don't care if she is going to sign a piece of paper, once someone gets elected, they always find a way to wiggle out of it. Sorry, I would like it imposed on them so that there is no way to get out of it.

And as for getting vague on his answers, the event that I went to, he did question and answer time for over 2 hours and did not get vague on anything. So I have no idea where you are getting your info from.

Michelle said...

I believe that criticisms of Mike Lee for coming in the race late while Williams and Eagar got started early and were working hard are not credible. For me, the length of time someone has been running a campaign has nothing to do with weather or not they will be a good senator.

Consider this: Eagar and Williams both have no children at home. Eagar is not a primary breadwinner and does not have to worry about providing for her family. Williams(due to a tragic incidence and my heart goes out to him)has no children and home either and so his wife is able to help with his business.

Lee, on the other hand has a wife with young children at home and has to consider them when deciding when and how to run a campaign--knowing full well that Bennett is going to try to hit hard as soon as he goes public (I presume Bennett had something to do with previous dropouts although I have no solid proof).

So while it is nice that Williams and Eagar are blessed to have had such a long time to tell people about themselves, Lee had to consider a few more things than they did and I simply cannot give any credit to the argument that others have been in the race longer, therefore they would be the best choice for the Senate seat.

Randy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"All the negative coming from the Lee camp leaves Bridgewater 2nd and Lee a distant 3rd.."

That isn't true generally, Most, with the exception of one key campaign staff member and the candidate, have been very nice from the Lee camp.

Anonymous said...

I tend to agree with this blogger that in the United States we do not need to resort to nepotism to find intelligent people who will honor their oath of office to uphold the constitution. Generally speaking the examples we have in the nation, the next generation have been horrible at upholding their oaths. Examples such as Bush I and Bush II, Bennett I, and Bennett II, Cannon etc... So from the examples we have in Utah politics I say we dump the nepotism and find a candidate who will stay true to their oath. I have yet to commit to any candidate in this race. However I was there when "Bailout Bob" made his pledge back in 1992 to serve only two terms. Anybody but Bennett for the Republican nomination.