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)

Saturday, May 8, 2010

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.

9 comments:

John Potter said...

(Reason #2):
"......Sometimes as an elected official you have to bend and accept the will of the people....."
Pretty scary thought. I wonder the precise notion the writer is speaking about.

What do you mean by that portion of that paragraph?

nacilbupera said...

John: Great question!

In the phrase you cite, we were referring to the tug-of-war between Constitutional principle vs. listening to the will of the people when there is conflict between the two: it’s an endless debate as we feel both require satisfaction.

We were trying to offer Lee some ideas to provide a solution that is both Constitutional yet derived from the consent of the governed with the understanding that underlying this is the entire debate of whether or not the war is Constitutional: Libertarians say no, Conservatives say yes.

Perhaps we could have better stated the phrase this way: "Sometimes as an elected official you have to bend from a more immediate remedy towards Constitutional Principle and accept the will of the people in finding a reasonable or measured course towards reaching the goal of full Constitutional compliance."

Does this make more sense?

JHP said...

I was leaning toward Lee, but when I spoke with him one-on-one and heard his speech at the convention I was very turned off. He seems to have little personality and little diplomacy (and too much screaming in his speech). I think he'd be a pretty good professor or lawyer, but I just don't see him getting much done in the senate.

It also turned me off that many of his supporters on like Ron Paul supporters -- far too extreme in their exuberance for a candidate. To me, that's a sign of trouble, much like it was with Pres. Obama.

Mike Ridgway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Ridgway said...

Well, if you want to be turned off by the company Mike Lee keeps, I suggest you look up, not down. Curt Bramble? Mark Shurtleff? Norm Bangerter? Carl Wimmer? Not extreme. More like bullies and charlatans.

But then, Tim has his own problems in that regard. Do a little Googling on one of his key campaign staffers, Jeff Hartley. Or call me so I can go into detail about the hours I watched him perjuring himself on the witness stand in Salt Lake City Justice Court at the behest of Enid Greene and James Evans to take out a Republican whistleblower with lies.

Luckily that day, Jeff and James didn't do a good enough job of synchronizing their stories and the judge threw the book at them, figuratively speaking, instead of me. So I ended up acquitted of all three charges the liars at party headquarters dropped on me.

So I don't know. Judging the two remaining candidates by the company they keep is kind of a wash.

Mike Ridgway,
Ron Paul volunteer in three states, 1988
Not yet sold on Mike Lee or Tim Bridgewater

nacilbupera said...

JHP: Interesting observations. We think Lee could do much good in the Senate but first he has to connect with voters. Part of Bennett's failure and soon to be Hatch's is the failure to connect to We the People.

Mike Ridgway: Thanks for your insights. Btw, you get a Nacilbupera blog first if we are not mistaken: for the first candidate (but hopefully not the last) for a Utah statewide office to openly opine on this blog! We are flattered!

John Potter said...

Okay so since this is a logistics kind of blog.

I would like to lay this one out.

Which is more important on this issue of being in-line with the Constitution both Federal and State?

Would it be:

A: Following word for word literal meaning and original intent.

B: An emotional alphabet soup justifying violation of the "rule of law" and "oath of office."

(Which you might remember was referenced on more than one occasion by more than one elected official who took an oath off office to defend such)

American Patriot said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nacilbupera said...

American Patriot:

You asserted in your June 19, 2010 12:44 AM comment that another blogger was "a paid Tim Bridgewater supporter" and had "failed to properly disclose this fact to [their] blog readers."

So I asked this blogger today on their blog if this were the case:

'Someone claimed you were a paid supporter of Bridgewater. Could you please disclose or refute whether or not you are receiving any form of compensation or renumeration from the Bridgewater campaign? You have described your efforts as “volunteer” so I wanted to clarify.'

The blogger you accused responded:

'Sure. I have not received a dime from Tim. I approached him and offered my endorsement AND my volunteer help. He accepted. He did not ask me for my endorsement or even my volunteerism, but only my vote. There HAVE been some nasty claims about me, but they are false.
However, I also do not believe it is bad or wrong for candidates to hire staff.'

I have never known this blogger to lie. Furthermore, what you assert would be verifiable in FEC reports Bridgewater and all candidates must submit. However, such reports would not be released until long after the primary election on Tuesday. As is, you are an unnamed person lacking a verifiable source. Therefore, I am concluding you either unintentionally or maliciously spreading gossip about this blogger.

Either way, I must censure you to make sure you back up your facts before spreading falsehoods about a non-elected official in accordance with the Nacilbupera blog policy of no "unfounded ridicule."

I have not banned you from further comments, but I felt I had to delete your comment. If you feel my actions unjust, you may present evidence to me publicly or privately via email.

I want my readers to have a voice and encourage comments, yet I will not have Nacilbupera be the form for spreading gossip about non-elected officials.

This is the second time this year I have deleted a reader comment.