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 30, 2010

Mike Lee Funds Bob Bennett

The following comment was made on redstate.com last week regarding Lee donating to the Bennett campaign:

Why did Mike Lee donate $500 to the Bob Bennett election committee October 25, 2008, just after Bennett brokered TARP? I don't know.
We fact-checked this assertion and found it to be true. Section "A" below is the actual donation found at the Federal Elections Commission website:

As for the assertion that Lee's Bennett donation came after TARP, the donation was received on the 25th of October while TARP passed on the 3rd of October, a three-week interval. While we reject the donation constitutes any evidence of a quid-pro-quo, the fact that plenty of time passed after the Bennett TARP vote means that in Lee's mind TARP wasn't a disqualifier for a substantial campaign contribution. The Wyden-Bennett health-scare scheme originated in 2007 and that, too failed to deter Lee's Bennett campaign contribution.

One additional perspective: Lee's Bennett donation didn't come after Bennett had won a Republican primary and was trying to coalesce around the nominee against a liberal Democrat: indeed it was quite the opposite. Lee's donation came at a time long before candidates normally start announcing their bids for a primary race: the effect was to say "Bailout Bob, I love you SO much for your 16 years of "conservative" dedication, socialized healthcare plans, bank bailouts and earmarks to Utah, I'm gonna give you $500 so that just in case someone decides to run against you in a primary, you have my support."

This donation makes Lee the only candidate in the Utah Senate race who has actually funded his or her opponent's campaign and makes for psychedelic politics as Lee has tried to distance himself from Bailout Bob based on Bob's inability to follow the Constitution.

5 comments:

Jim said...

WOW! Someone finally dug up some dirt on some guy, or entity named "Mike Lee" who donated enough cash to finance the Bennett effort to back large financeal institutions. Unfortunately, though, it fell far short of the $125,800 Bennett had already received from the banks that he voted to bail out.

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

This looks like a smear tactic to me and I have seen some conservatives at it like juveniles with spray cans. They dig for dirt and shout it from the rooftops before bothering to get an explanation from the person involved. I'm sure they are well-meaning, but here is the result I see:

In multiple meetings, conservative gatherings, social networking sites, etc. I have seen once united conservatives becoming more and more divided. Now I see comments like this one I read today: "When I began researching the three major candidates, I told myself they would all be good. Now the distance between the candidates stretches and I am hoping for my first candidate to make it through. It will be hard for me to be enthusiastic about the others."

With this attitude we will not succeed in getting Bennett out in convention. When candidates are so eager (no pun intended) to get elected that they start doing things that hurt the cause as a whole it is very damaging to themselves as well as their opponents.

I was alarmed by this news at first too, but instead of plastering it all over the internet as a knee-jerk reaction I contacted the campaign and got this response: "The timing needs to be put into context. This was two weeks after TARP but at the height of the election. The focus was on not letting Obama win, and many had to hold their noses with McCain. Mike was not aware of Bob’s role in TARP at that time or about the Healthy American’s Act. Mike was basically asked by a colleague to make the donation to fend off a Matheson run. So Mike did. Once the Presidential election was over and Mike was able to read up on TARP he realized how problematic that was. Matheson was considering riding the presidential wave into the Senate and Mike was asked to donate to help make sure that didn’t happen."

Take it for what it's worth. I, for one, am not going to spend my time tearing down other conservatives.

Federal Farmer said...

Let's be honest here. Mike Lee isn't a conservative messiah, he is a politician. If elected, he will most likely evolve into what Bob Bennett is now.

It sucks, but that's politics.

nacilbupera said...

Michelle & Federal Farmer:

We believe a public decision by Lee to support Bennett warrants a public comment by Lee. Mike Lee is welcome to explain his Bennett donation here or any public media of his choosing. The problem with a private conversation such as Michelle’s is the lack of verifiability and accountability to what has been claimed.

The fact that Lee doesn't explain himself publicly (same lack of public explanation happened when he pulled out of the Eagar/Lee debate) seems in our opinion to evidence Federal Farmer's assertion that Lee will evolve into Bennett. Perhaps Lee should be given more time to publicly explain his Bennett donation?

Assuming for the moment Michelle's explanation to be true, it is hardly comforting. The explanation of Lee's ignorance glares of inexperience and lack of preparation to be a United States Senator when he couldn’t identify a Conservative Republican from a moderate a mere 18 months ago. And who is this anonymous “colleague” he trusts so much? Lastly, the explanation of a $500 donation to fend off Matheson makes no sense when considering an incumbent Senator who has no problem in raising literally millions.

Nacilbupera rejects the premise to "not tearing down other conservatives" if "tearing down" is construed to mean hiding the truth…even if it’s not too pretty.