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)

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

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 Nacilbupera 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?

Nacilbupera 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.


Brad Caldwell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brad Caldwell said...

I have been in on the air debates before on KSL. The moderator has way too much power and generally has an agenda going in. Bob Lonsberry is no different. On the air Lonsberry seems to be anti Mike Lee.
Mike Lee is a great man who will make a great Senator. He does not want to tear down his fellow republicans. Cheryl seems to want to poke holes in everyone whereas she has been nothing but a career service worker and behind the scenes politician. Read her resume. The things she has done are wonderful but they are all establishment items. MIke is a fresh face. He is a man of integrity. He is meeting with people who will more than likely be delegates. I have met with him several times and will again tonight. He is nothing short of impressive, honest and what we need in a Senator. Let's get down to business and put the right man in office. Mike Lee is that m

Jim said...

Trust me, folks, Mike Lee is not "scared" to debate anyone, anywhere, any time. I am sure he felt that a "debate" should be held with all the candidates, not just any one. Mike debates for a living, and does it far better than most, so he is not afraid to debate any of the candidates, but why not do it when they are all able to participate? Anyway, he had a legitimate scheduling conflict.

stanard said...

I do agree that the lead candidates, Lee and Bridgewater I would say, I don't think Eager is a lead candidate anymore, should be very careful to not be attacking each other at this point in time. Discuss/Debate issues, sure, but keep personal stuff out of it, which is not happening by the Eager group. They have gone personal, and it has hurt them in my opinion.

I've heard too much from eager and her group, myself, to have turned me off from her for good. She would now be my last place vote. I wasn't that way before, I was really torn between all of them in the begging. But Eager seems to be on the offensive, trying to tear others down.

Why just this weekend, I was at an event with all three. I do not hide the fact that I'm an open Mike Lee supporter. I still talked to Tim Bridgewater, his kids, and some others who were there briefly. He is nice and cordial. I watched Tim and Mike speak together, and Mike even asked for a "Bridgewater" t-shirt.

Cherilyn would not even make eye contact with me. I tried to say hi, but she did not acknowledge me. I even tried to help her campaign with something (just moving something) and she was very "cold" about it. Eager's hostility is turning people away.

We need a true Statesman, like Mike Lee. Mike Lee is fearless and unwavering in his defense of the constitution and what is right, but he also can be cordial and work with the "other side" just fine. I do not think he will give in to the other side, but he can get along with them and work with them. I do not have that faith in Eager after my own experiences.

Utah needs Mike Lee.

Tim said...

Lonsberry is not the forum for finding out truth. He is all about stirring people up to improve his ratings. He chose to pick on the front runner because there are more people backing Mike Lee than any of the other candidates.
Here is a great idea watch the candidate that spends more time talking about what their campaign is about. Which candidate knows the constitution inside and out? Which candidate has the know how to legally hold Washington accountable for their actions?
Then look for the candidate that spends most of their time talking about what the other candidate believes and thinks. Sorry … that one is not for me. If I want to learn to swim I am not going to go to a track coach.
If I want to learn about a candidate I will go talk with them. I will read their website. I have spoken to each candidate personally. Mike Lee is getting my vote.

nacilbupera said...

Enjoyed reading your comments all; now that the debates are over and hopefully you had a chance to listen to them, we'd be curious as you your opinions.

Here's our take: Bridgewater and Eagar Debate: Who won?

Stanard: Your personal experience with Eagar not being cordial seems so out of place with the Eagar we have witnessed. We have seen her many times being gracious to people of all walks of life including the other candidates and have never seen her exhibit this type of behavior.

Rod said...


for being against Eagar for being "getting personal" seems like a thin argument after seeing how "personal" your remarks are.

I get tired of people calling it mudslinging when points of record and historical fact are brought up. This is a far cry from name calling and slander as you seem to alledge here.

I get frustrated by this play nice attitude. The information needs to get out to the people to help them decide what is right.

Lt. Amazing said...

So, to get this straight, we are making character judgement of Mike Lee based on the comment from an anonymous person who "was told" something by Mike Lee? Well if that's how things work: Bridgewater and Bennett told me that they are communists secretly trying to deceive the conservatives into voting them into office by pretending to agree with them.

Now in reality, of course they didn't say that. But perhaps we should be getting our information from the candidates themselves instead of taking my word for it or "Mr. Anonymous" here. It seems like a universal concern as to whether or not we can trust political candidates themselves, but apparently there is no issue at all in accepting anonymous accounts of second hand information as gospel truth. The press already has a hay-day twisting and distorting direct quotes and now we're reading into the wording that SOMEBODY CLAIMS to have SUPPOSEDLY PARAPHRASED??????

I can't believe I'm reading this.

I Vote for Mike Lee based on where he stands and what he believes. I vote for Mike Lee because I believe he is the most equipped to properly defend and re-establish the constitution as it was originally intended for the best interest of our country as a whole as well as all of the individuals who live in it.

If you want to bash him, why don't you find some legitimate facts as the basis of your argument. I'm not aware of any that would help you in that effort right now, but if you manage to produce some, I look forward to talking with Mr. Lee about them directly and in person before I make a decision about them.