Utah's biggest election-night loser: Dan Jones

Typically, people who tell you "the polls are wrong" are usually wrong themselves. In Utah however we have statewide Dan Jones polling which has become so unreliable as to be ridiculous.

On their last poll for the 2nd District--released a day before early voting began--Dan Jones found with a 6% error margin Matheson to be beating Philpot by an astonishing 26 points! Yet Philpot ran a very close race tonight coming within 5 points of defeating Democrat Matheson. Keep in mind Philpot's narrow loss reversed increasing election victories including a Matheson's last 28 point victory in 2008. So how did Philpot move up 21 points in a single day before early voting? He didn't. Dan Jones was simply embarrassingly off.

And it isn't just this race Dan Jones got way off either: in Utah's other major race in the primary between Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater they showed Bridgewater with an 8 point lead with a margin of error of 4% just before voting. Lee won by 2 points.

With a track record like this, I really don't want to waste another minute reading another Dan Jones poll in my life.

Which brings me to Utah's biggest hero: the supporters of Morgan Philpot. From Alice Baker to people whose names you and I will never know--people stepped up to support a genuine patriot running in his first federal election. Morgan proved that Matheson is vulnerable and that while Morgan is a wonderful candidate, he isn't uniquely qualified to take down Matheson. Folks, we're just 24 short months away from getting rid of phantom Matheson and the lies he has used to get reelected.

So until victory in 2012, I took this snapshot earlier tonight on the New York Times election returns website with 65% reporting and Philpot in the lead to remind us all that together we can turn the 2nd District red.

A Sunday School Lesson Fit For an Election

Today in Sunday School, the lesson touched on Isaiah 65:21-22. For many Christian eschatologists and religions, these verses refer to a day when believers will have a better lot than they do now during a period of time called "The Millennium."

21. And they shall build houses, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and my elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. (KJV)

Early 19th-century Presbyterian Minister Albert Barnes offered this interpretation of these verses in his "Notes on the Bible":

The idea here is, that they would live to consume; that is, to enjoy the productions of their own labor. Their property should not be wrested from them by injurious taxation, or by plunder; but they would be permitted long to possess it, until they should wear it out, or until it should be consumed. (emphasis mine)

This idea that as citizens we should be able to keep the fruits of our labors was not lost upon our founders who viewed property rights as sacred.

Let us unite our voices in voting down property and income taxes. Let us vote for candidates who will continue the Bush tax cuts and slash budgets including transfer payments.

I've studied dozens of races across our nation and have yet to find a single race where the Democrat comes even close to the Republican in supporting fiscally soundness--and yes, WV Senate Republican Candidate John Raese beats Democrat Manchin hands down for fiscal conservatism! After Democrats voted en masse for stimuluses, Obamacare, Cap-n-tax, and financial regulation all the while producing nothing but an extended recession you can't go wrong in voting Republican this year.

One final point: these past two years we (the tea party and other ordinary citizens) have had tremendous energy in holding Republicans accountable to their promised fiscal conservatism. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AFTER THE ELECTION. This promised self-regulation of our party should give rise to Independents and open-minded Democrats to vote for the fiscally-conservative Republican. So let's unite and go start to turn this country around on Tuesday by voting out Democrats and voting in these fiscally-conservative Republicans at all levels of government!

Random Acts of Patriotism Preceding Mighty Miracles

There are so many noteworthy things happening out there across America as patriots begin their migrations to the polls. There are stories of election fraud, a beating, a church burning, rampant distortions of fact; and yet many good and praiseworthy things are happening. One of these noble acts which welled my eyes was the following video by a nearly octogenarian patriot in Utah's 2nd district:

The inspiring ad was reported by Holly on the Hill, SL Tribune, Rod Arquette Show, and by KSL the latter who I thought had the most thorough coverage of the story. It seems that although Alice is a citizen of above average import (being President of the prestigious, private Challenger School) it is clear she sought no recognition as such for the gift of tens of thousands of dollars in the form of radio ads to Morgan Philpot who hopes to join with other Republicans in restoring principle and fiscal responsibility to our country.

I regard this as a gift from Alice to us, the younger generations, that we might have hopes in growing up with a government that pays down its debts and balances it budgets. Alice could have bought another residence, travelled the world, or bequeathed the money to family or friends in a future inheritance. Instead she chose to perform a "random act of patriotism" in hopes of blessing us. I am indeed humbled.

In pondering the video, I thought to myself regardless of the actual vote count on Tuesday, we have won. We the people have won. We have won because people of all ages have awakened to the fact that their liberties have been destroyed and we are doing what we can to reverse course and return to our abandoned Constitution. We have won because we have monitored and held Matheson accountable for his votes and are now slowly reeling him in. I can't say yet if the time will be now or in a generation from now, but no matter how many times it takes, Matheson will be defeated. He will not stand. Alice has helped inspire us to move forward.

The odds are stacked so heavily against Philpot, neophyte to Federal elections. Heavy PAC and out-of-state money sustains namesake Matheson. And as the children of Israel pinned against the Red Sea, it will take a miracle for the seas to part for us to continue on to our divinely-appointed way. Yet we must go forward, polls not in our favor, and get our feet submersed before the miracle can happen. Are there enough Alices out there in the 2nd District who may not have money for a radio campaign, but will make a stand for our Republic and vote Philpot on Nov 2nd? I firmly believe there are more than plenty Utah Patriots out there to elect Philpot, IF the faith proceeds the miracle and the 2nd District as the Tolkein March of the Ents gets out and votes.

Utah Constitutional Amendment ABCD's

I'm not a huge fan of amending our Utah State Constitution, let alone FOUR TIMES as is the proposal before us on November 2nd. Like dude, what is this a Constitutional Convention or something? As with voter propositions, my default is set to NO unless you can prove its a great thing we really, really need. So I got out my voter pamphlet and put the Amendments to the smell test.

Amendment D: Creating a Legislative Ethics Commision

This creates a 5 person "independent" panel of "distinguished Utahns" (language in "Argument For" section) to review complaints of unethical legislative behavior. So, let me get this right, we are creating a non-elected oligarchy to pass judgement on the legislature? And what the fishwiskers makes someone a "distinguished Utahn"? This is an absurdity of an amendment.

Then I saw who was pushing this: David Clark, Speaker of the House. Oh. That makes sense now. The same guy who lead the standing ovation to Kevin Garn's hot tub-with-a-minor confession. (Holly on the Hill) Yep. This Amendment will decidedly vault Utah into a State of Enoch where distinguished panel members appointed by noble legislators will stand as 5 wise Solomons in executing perfect judgement. NOT!!!!

If there's one thing I've learned about a Republic is WE THE PEOPLE bear the burden of executing judgement and whenever we think to give up our power to someone else to do our job we suffer the consequences of their wrong decisions and encounter huge resistance in reigning back the power that is justly ours.

Chris Buttars, the sole Republican to have the wisdom to vote against this asp summed it up in the "Argument Against":

The current process places you, the citizen, in full control of ethics violations. In fact, you ARE the ethics committee, because YOU decide whether a candidate is allowed to serve.

Do not use ethics legislation as a feel-good crutch when the real problem is that too many citizens fail to properly scrutinize before they vote.

There are no short cuts to running a proper democratic republic.

It's quite the shame more Republicans couldn't grasp the vision of Senator Buttars. I believe, if passed, this panel will permit or create far more unethical behavior than it will ever solve. This is the worst of the four proposed Amendments and gets a NO! vote from me.

Amendment C: Specific Property Tax Exemptions

This Amendment provides some property tax exemptions for entities providing water and had no opposition. Here's my take: I can find no Federal Constitutional justification for Property Tax--that is, the governmental misappropriation of private property--so if we can give anyone any break on property tax let's do it and vote YES.

Amendment B: Eligibility for Legislative Office

The innocuous intent of this Amendment belies masking the debate on appropriate requirements for office. The Amendment seeks to normalize the requirements for office between elected and appointed officials. Fair enough so far.

Where I disagree is that it limits the citizens freedom to choose whomever they want to represent them. Having a 3-consecutive year citizenship in the state seems stringent in our mobile society. Suppose someone lived in Utah all their life, but moved away two years ago for a year for employment reasons. That person is ineligible for holding office. What if my citizen-legislator has to relocate across town and outside their district to care for an aging parent? They would not be able to serve.

If the citizens feel like someone is being a carpetbagger, then let the citizens have freedom through our competitive caucus system to elect someone else.

Until requirements are eased, there is no need for normalization which moves in the direction of stringency. We the People need fewer laws and more freedoms, so it's NO on B for me.

Amendment A: Further Definition of Utah's Secret Ballot

A bit of background: there is a growing national movement to do away with secret voting when it comes to forming a union (aka "card check"). I am strongly for keeping one's vote private when it comes to unionization because a public vote opens the door for intimidation and coercion of the workers in getting them to sign on to the union. It is easy to see through the fallacy of open union balloting by simply asking promoters to defend why then shouldn't all voting be public rather than secret?

Our Utah Constitution currently says that "all elections" should be by secret ballot so it seems like we should be protected from Federal intrusion into our state (IE feds: what part of "all elections" don't your understand?) and thus we shouldn't amend our Constitution whimsically.

The problem is we have seen the unchecked iron fist of the Federal government reach in and steal our lands we need to fund our schools, steal franchises from car dealers in our state, and force us into purchasing health insurance meeting their requirements. The 10th Amendment has been spit upon and "enumerated powers" has grown to a neverending Santa's list of wants.

If this small Amendment helps clarify our laws and keep the secret ballot for unionization we currently have--which I believe it does--then do I justify this Amendment with a YES vote.

Illegal Misoginistic Email Pins PACman Blumenthal (More)

CT Democrat Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal is literally punching himself out with disasters pouring in all seams.

In yesterday's blog, I reported on the denying of WWE fans the right to vote if they wear WWE apparel. What I neglected to report on was the other simultaneous unravelings by Blumenthal.

The Hungry PAC-man
At the beginning of his race Blumenthal boasted in an MSNBC interview: "I've never taken PAC money and I have rejected all special interest money because I have stood strong and taken legal action against many of those special interests." Yet Daniela Altimari in a Hartford Courant article Friday attests Blumenthal's latest FEC filings prove the exact opposite:

Blumenthal's latest filings with the Federal Election Commission show he's taken thousands of dollars in PAC money to fund his U.S. Senate run in the third-quarter of 2010 alone. Among those opening up their checkbooks are political action committees representing air traffic controllers, steel workers, wine and beer wholesalers and rural letter carriers.

Altimari continues naming names of PACs of all kinds including social, labor, insurance, and business PACs:

Most of the special interest money flowed from Washington, naturally....[including] a $1,370 donation this quarter from from the Planned Parenthood PAC, and $5,000 from NARAL Pro Choice America PAC....In addition to labor PACS, which were prominent on Blumenthal's donor list, he received money from the American Crystal Sugar PAC ($5,000), the New York Life Insurance PAC ($2,500) and the AFLAC PAC ($2,000)...

Someone ought to ask Blumenthal if there was any PAC contribution he turned down. At this point I'd rather put my trust in a Mexican coyote that this dishonest corruptible.


"Worst of WWE + women photos"
Perhaps the worst story of them all to break Friday was Ben Smith at the Politico who posted the following email from Blumenthal press staffer Marcy Stech to seven other Blumenthal aides and the State Democratic Party regarding trying to dig up misogynistic (or, women-hating; at least I spelled it right!) photos to hit "LM" (Linda McMahon):

Subject: Worst of WWE + women photos
Date:Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:50:
From: [Marcy Stech]
To: Catherine Algeri, Pat McHugh, Brian Farnkoff, Dan Morrocco, Jon Donnenberg, Ty Matsdorf, Kate Hansen

Hey all — Grossman is looking for mysoginistic photos of women and WWE. Planned Parenthood wants to hit LM hard on it.What do we got?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

With the liberal Hartford Courant calling this email which points to coordination between the Blumenthal campaign and Planned Parenthood (a Blumenthal PAC contributor noted above) "at the very least embarrassing and at very the worst, potentially illegal" it is a wonder the Courant chose to endorse this candidate who engages in potentially illegal acts. Keep in mind Blumenthal is the Attorney General of Connecticut or the state's top legal cop. If anyone should be held to the highest standards, it is Blumenthal.

Blumenthal is an embarrassment. He has no idea how to create a job. He lies. And now he engages in potentially illegal acts to win campaigns? How could anyone in their right mind vote for this crook? Didn't Connecticut learn its lesson from Dodd that there is a major corruption problem with the Democratic Party in Connecticut?

Come on, Nutmeggers: you deserve better than Blumenthal. Heck, the whole country deserves better than Blumenthal.

++++ More:

Similar to Blumenthal's PAC fib, Barney Frank (Dodd's House Counterpart) admits to breaking his pledge not to take money from banks receiving TARP funds. (Boston Herald, h/t Quickwit)

2010 Voter Intimidation Begins With a Smackdown (Updated)

With a little less than two weeks to go before polls open in Connecticut, voters are being warned by Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz¹ that the wearing of any apparel with reference to WWE could result in the denial of the right to vote. In a statement Friday, Bysiewicz spokesman Harris gave authority to have local officials deny the right to vote. (Washington Post)

If the local officials feel [wearing WWE apparel] is becoming an issue, they can tell someone to cover that up or come back wearing something else.

Apparently for the unique reason that WWE Chairman Vince McMahon has his wife Linda running against Bysiewicz's ally Blumenthal², that alone makes the wearing of WWE apparel a political advertisement for McMahon. And the uniqueness of singling out WWE apparel as opposed to purple SEIU tees or Obama "O"s as being a campaign statement is what I predict will get Bysiewicz into further trouble.

Vince appropriately stepped up and issued this rousing pro-WWE video:

I recommend on November 2nd, Nutmeggers be extra vigilant and be ready to stand their ground in their First Amendment right to free speech in wearing non-political WWE apparel.

At least in 2008, voter intimidation waited until the election day.

¹ This is the same Susan Bysiewicz who tried to run in the AG seat being vacated by Blumenthal but in a 7-0 CT Supreme Court decision was stopped because she lacked the 10 years of law experience for the position. Bysiewicz had tried to claim her time as Sec of State.(Wikipedia) She is obviously no legal expert when it comes to law.

²Not only are Bysiewicz and Blumenthal allied by party, but the first thing Bysiewicz did when her lack of experience for the AG position came up was to seek a favorable opinion from Blumenthal. Blumenthal would pass the grenade to the courts without offering an opinion on whether or not Bysiewicz was qualified.

++++ Update 10/24 7pm:

The clip below from Newsy.com points to a Politico story which covered more of the drama:

"It may be a thing where an 18-year-old kid walks in with a Smackdown T-shirt. If the moderator determines it's no big deal, it's fine," Harris said. "Forty people walking in when the Connecticut candidate for Senate is associated with the company, and her husband is the CEO — it's a celebrity type of CEO, it's not just a run-of-the-mill CEO of a company. This a well-known ubiquitous company."

Since when does poll worker's opinion surpass my right to vote? Are we a country of laws or are we subject to enforcement by arbitrary opinion? Does my right to vote cease to exist when I go to vote with likeminded individuals versus voting alone? Does my right to vote cease to exist if I'm a 40 year old wearing a WWE tee versus an 18 year old? Does my right to vote cease to exist if I'm wearing fatigues because a pro-military look might be viewed as a vote against Blumenthal who lied about his Vietnam service?

The executive branch of government--in this case the CT Sect of State--was designed to enforce established rules and laws--not interpret them through the eyes of thousands of differing poll worker's opinions. The situation in CT is totally out of control. Frankly, Bysiewicz should resign before she further embarrasses the Democratic Party and the whole state of Connecticut.

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

CT veteran journalist Don Pesci at Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State points out that really it is AG Blumenthal's responsibility to "put a quick stop to the abuse of the First Amendment by issuing one of his frequent advisories" and adds:

Someone surely will put the question [of wearing WWE apparel] to Blumenthal, hopefully before voters compelled to strip by poll watchers enter voting areas to exercise their franchise and their First Amendment rights in November.

WSJ Shows Democratic Bias in 2010 Senate Race Map

In the Wall Street Journal's reporting on the US Senate races, it was interesting to note a small tick entitled "60 Seat Majority" placed underneath a colored band of various Senate race likelihoods. See graphic below or online:



What the WSJ really means by a "60 Seat Majority" is of course a "Democratic 60 Seat Majority" as the tick is placed at the position to include 60 Democratic Senators. Noticeably absent was a corresponding "60 Seat Majority" tick drawn towards the blue side of the color band to represent the equivalent Republicans would need.

Democrats currently hold 57 seats plus 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. No political reporter is talking about anything close to the Democrats retaining seats; the big question is whether the Republicans can stretch to the 50-seat halfway mark (or perhaps beyond) with consensus building around a projection of 7 or 8 GOP pickups.

The position of the "60 Seat Majority" tick demonstrates biased Democratic thought by the WSJ in terms of measuring the 2010 Senate elections up to a irrelevant 60-seat Democratic Majority.

Carly Fiorina: A New Hope For California

I have been impressed with the way Carly Fiorina has carried herself in her crusade to restore economic life back to California--the state I left five years ago, now in shambles--with 2.2 million unemployed (equal to every man, woman, retiree and baby in the state of Utah) due to the neverending spend policies of Barbara Boxer and the Democrats who strangle the economic essence from the state.

Demonstrative of Carly's professional, but approachable character and business prowess is this impactful interview of Fiorina with CNBC:

Two take-home quotes from the video:

"Barabara Boxer believes every decision belongs in Washington and I think a lot of folks believe that people closest to the problems need to make the decision."

"The first thing that I will do is sit down with the Senior Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, and work on those things that we can do together to help bring relief to the people of California. And one of the first things we can do is get the water turned back on in our central valley and put people back to work."

Turning off the water for some trite minnow is an example of liberal policies wrecking havoc on the great California economy. Parts of the Central Valley once known as the "nation's salad bowl" have now become barren due to the lack of irrigation. Some of the hardest working legal immigrants in California have been devastated. If you can't figure out a way to save BOTH a minnow from annihilation and an economy from destruction, you don't deserve to be elected. It would be rather ironic if the minnow went extinct because hungry Californians caught it to use as fish-bait to feed hungry families on now-barren farms.

Thus the day of reckoning has arrived for the soon-to-be-septuagenarian Boxer to be held accountable for the devastation she has wrought upon California (not to mention the rest of the nation) for nearly three decades. How much longer does Boxer need in office to prove her unworthiness? Another six years? Twelve? Maybe some think she should just stay in office until like Byrd and Kennedy she just drops off. But I believe Californians deserve better. They deserve a change from 12%+ unemployment.

There remains no doubt in my mind that Carly have a measurable impact towards California economic prosperity while Boxer will continue to lead the once Golden State down the road of bankruptcy.

Bloomin'-thal Lies Again

Is Richard Blumenthal, candidate for CT Senate, capable of telling the truth just once?

I was listening to Monday's CTSEN debates made available online thanks to the Harford Courant. I was amazed at Blumenthal's reiteration over and over and over that McMahon wants to lower the minimum wage. The topic started when Laurie Perez of FoxCT played a Blumenthal ad attacking McMahon in part for "talking about lowering the minimum wage."


The ad quotes a 9/30/2010 news piece by political and opinion writer Ted Mann of TheDay.com. In this piece Mann writes:

Most notably, McMahon said she believed Congress should consider lowering the
federal minimum wage in times of economic distress for small businesses, such as
the current recession.

Note that Mann gives no quotes for the assertion meaning he is giving his interpretation of McMahon's words. In the article's very next paragraph he gives the quote upon which he has based his interpretation:

"The minimum wage now in our country, I think we've set that and a lot of people have benefited from it in our country, but I think we ought to review how much it ought to be, and whether or not we ought to have increases in the minimum wage," McMahon said.

Nowhere in this quote does McMahon talk about lowering the minimum wage, but rather on whether it should be increased or not. And it's not just lowly me who is the lone wolf crying foul on this misrepresentation. For contrast, look at the same story covered on the same day by CT's largest circulation newspaper, The Hartford Courant:

McMahon made a point of telling reporters that she does not favor a repeal of
the minimum wage — "Don't take away that I'm saying that we should scrap minimum wage," she said.

But by mid-afternoon, supporters of McMahon's Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, seized on her remarks, using them to reinforce their portrait of a wealthy self-funding Republican who is out of touch with the concerns of Connecticut's working folks.

"We were shocked to learn that Linda McMahon supports lowering the minimum wage," said Jon Green, executive director of the Working Families Party, which announced its endorsement of Blumenthal on Thursday.

The Courant aptly pointed out that it was Jon Green of the ultra-left WFP who claimed McMahon "supported lowering the minimum wage" not McMahon.

Blumenthal tacked on to this false claim laid by Ted Mann and Jon Green, through his issuing of a false attack ad, and upped the ante again on last night's debate.

Although I personally disagree with the positions of both Blumenthal and McMahon and feel that the minimum wage is best left to the states, one thing has been reiterated to me over and over: Blumenthal will distort the truth.

With the likes of Dodd, Nutmeggers cannot afford another dishonest politician in their state.

Fire Pelosi Bus Tour Coming to Utah (Updated)

This Saturday at 4:30pm at the RNC's "Fire Pelosi" Bus makes its scheduled stop at our Utah State Capitol Sandy City Hall, 10000 Centennial Parkway; the bus is visiting well over 100 cities in all 48 contiguous states. This will be a wonderful event to help support Morgan Philpot in overthrowing "lap dog" Democrat Pelosi who votes with Pelosi 93% of the time. (See my posts yesterday and Wednesday on a couple of those important votes.)

RNC Chairman Steele who has helped imbue our party with both enthusiasm and a return to our core values spoke with Greta Van Susteren on Friday's "On The Record" regarding the tour:



The Fire Pelosi Bus site also has a store where to can purchase a Fire Pelosi hat, stickers, pins, or my favorite: the Wee publican bib!

While John Dennis has raised nearly $2M to directly defeat Pelosi in San Francisco, the best way to fire Pelosi is for the Democratic incumbents to lose their majority in a big way. Particularly if you are unable to attend this Fire Pelosi tour, you may want to consider a donation now to the Philpot campaign. We are at the point now where to have the most "bang for the buck" your donation to any candidate needs to be received soon, as in the next week or two, as the campaigns need to have time to appropriately budget and spend your donation. This race is being tracked nationally by the likes of Real Clear Politics and by Dick Morris who recently claimed this may be Matheson's last term.

CTSen: Integrity of McMahon vs. Blumenthal Lies

I'm not a big Pro-Wrestling fan. Not that I have anything against Pro-Wrestling in general (although all forms of entertainment can be packaged in forms appropriate for different audiences, some not appropriate for children or myself). Suffice to say Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon's 30-year WWE experience from a purely wrestling perspective for me is neither a pro nor a con.

What I love about McMahon is her sense of taking her WWE business acumen to town for CT. She knows that the Obama philosophy of spending one's way out of debt is a bunch of horse-dung. And that Obama-touted candidate Blumenthal is a Chris Dodd re-tread with respect to this crucial area of fiscal responsibility. Haven't Nutmeggers borne enough of this fiscal nonsense and irresponsibility?

McMahon is largely self-financing with both her and her opponent Blumenthal vowing not to take PAC money. Knowing the deceitful history of CT politicians, I was quite skeptical about the Blumenthal vow (below).

A review of the Federal Elections Commission site for available donations from the first two quarters of 2010 (Jan-Jun) shows that Blumenthal has received nearly $500,000 in PAC money from 158 PACs including:

• A myriad of union groups including the Teamsters
• Several big businesses and insurance companies such as Comcast, General Dynamics, AFLAC, and Blue Shield of California
• Planned Parenthood

Surprisingly from a candidate that purports to have "never taken PAC money", less than 15% of Blumenthal's PAC donors were even based in Connecticut!

Not knowing McMahon, I was also somewhat skeptical about her promise to not take PAC money and to not take individual contributions over $100. I was very pleasantly surprised to see she had with honor kept true to her word. If you look at her page on the FEC site under the "Other Committees Contributions" line (this is where PAC money is listed) the line is $0. Furthermore, if you examine her FEC individual contributions list, no one has contributed over $100.

I have examined several FEC documents this season and McMahon's documents are impeccable and prominently stand out in a positive way. McMahon has proven to me, an out-of-stater, she is a candidate of integrity and will keep her promises of restoring fiscal discipline to our nation.

To further contrast the integrity of McMahon vs the apparent pathological lying of Blumental let us turn back our memories to the spring of this year when Blumenthal purported to have served in Vietnam. The story broke in the liberal New York Times and even progressive MSNBC covered Blumenthal's lie:

Although I don't share some of McMahon's moderate social values, she is against partial-birth abortion and hasn't taken money from Planned Parenthood which is a step in the right direction over Blumenthal. Thus in light of her strong commitment to restoring sanity to our financial house, I am pleased to announce that for Connecticut Senate in 2010 Linda McMahon earns a strong Nacilbupera endorsement.

Secondary Thoughts on the Primary

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.

Ousting the GOP "Cap n Tax 8" Part 2

This past Tuesday, 4 of the remaining 6 "Cap n Tax 8" held primaries; here are the results:

Cap N Tax Rep. Leonard Lance (NJ-07) won his primary with 56% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Christopher Smith (NJ-04) won his primary with 68% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) won his primary with 78% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) won her primary with 69% of the vote.

Case Study: NJ-02
Although none of the four "Cap n Tax 8" incumbents were defeated, we need to give the opposition candidates credit. Let's examine the LoBiondo race where the incumbent garnished the largest percent of victory to put things into perspective:

(1) The South Jersey Courier Post described this as a "second consecutive challenge" for LoBiondo meaning that the 8-term Congressman has betimes run unopposed. Thank you challengers Linda Biamonte and Donna Ward for running! Keep up the great work!
(2) Voters narrowed LoBiondo's margin of victory in the primary down from 89% in 2008 to 78% this year. Excellent progress!
(3) These results were achieved with a biased media who described Biamonte as the "LoBiondo Challenger" (Shore News Today) instead of properly using her real name. (SNT completely ignored the presence of Donna Ward in the race--who won 45% of the anti-LoBiondo vote.)
(4) LoBiondo got some national vetting exposure in April by Michelle Malkin about his ignorance on the U.S. Constitution.
(5) Keep in mind the reason why incumbents are so hard to defeat is the money donated to incumbents by PACs and businesses. In the last FEC report, LoBiondo had donated $375K to his own campaign, outraising his opponents combined fundraising by magnitudes. LoBiondo has bought himself another two years in Congress.

Having seen LoBiondo run on an issue-less platform (see the utter lack of issue positions on his website at http://lobiondoforcongress.com/ -- unless you count his dogs as an issue position) it is great to see these two courageous patriots--Biamonte and Ward--stand for principle and I remain excited about their success.

Looking forward
The two remaining GOP "Cap n Tax 8" primaries are: Cap n Tax Congressman Michael Castle (DE) against Christine O'Donnell for the DE Senate seat with primary elections on Sept 14th and Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber with an Aug 17th primary.

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 Nacilbupera-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:

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.

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.

++++ 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.

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) :

The Charoen Pokphand [Nacilbupera: 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.

"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."

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.

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.

Nacilbupera 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 any
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?

The 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.

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:

"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).

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!

A Speech To Remember from Utah's GOP Convention 2010 (Update)

The press attending Saturday's Utah GOP Convention have been extremely gracious in their praise of Cherilyn Eagar's address to the delegates.

Joe Pyrah, Daily Herald political reporter, reported on his blog Sausage Grinder:

"Eagar had the best delivery. By far.... Bridgewater and Bennett got about 5 percent more each than expected, as did Eagar who probably got them all on the back of her speech."

Josh Loftin of the Salt Lake City Weekly agreed and pointed out the warm cheer comparison:

"Cherilyn Eagar gives best speech of Senate candidates. It is enough to get her through? The U.S. Senate candidates wrapped up their speeches right before noon, closing out with a fiery speech from Eagar, who is considered the fourth place candidate....

As for Eagar's speech, she opened with a story about a boy carrying a globe around with him, which she used as a metaphor for the importance of caring for the world for the future. Believe it or not, it actually worked well. After that, she launched into a string of phrases that got the crowd fired up: a second Reagan revolution, stopping illegal immigration, and so forth. She got the most enthusiastic cheers, although
not an overwhelming number of standing delegates during her ovation."

We have always enjoyed Eagar's speeches. She speaks from the heart without telepromter; it is a core strength that helps her to connect to the people whom she would represent if so entrusted by voters in the future election.

Not only was Nacilbupera impressed, we would have to say it's the best speech we've ever heard from Eagar. Although the video below is a bit primitive, it shows her gestures and voice inflections as they complement her words. Not being too much into clothes ourselves, we were shocked when she appeared on stage in white with the obvious symbolism it carried when joined with the message. Eagar often wears red, we have noted, perhaps symbolic of the war going on to take our country back; thus in seeing her in white for the first time was a jaw-dropper.

Lastly, we transcribed the speech (text follows video link--click on pic--below) so it is easier to follow along during the hard-to-hear times; a couple of times I guessed at the word but it the transcription has to be pretty close to the real deal.

===== Text of Cherilyn Eagar's Address to the Utah GOP Delegates, 2010 =====

Thank you. I recently heard a story about a father who loved his little boy very much. He wanted to buy him something very special. So he went to the store and he bought his son a globe. His son loved that globe he took it school, he took it to scouts, and even tried to take it to church. And then one night when the father went to tuck his son in and give him a kiss he found his son asleep with his arms fast around the globe. As the father gently picked the globe up to place it on the dresser, his son rolled over and said, “Daddy, what are you doing with my world?”

What are we doing with our children’s world?

If our children and grandchildren are to enjoy the blessings of liberty, we must stand committed to restore what Ronald Reagan called that ‘shining city on a hill.’ My friends, it is time for Republicans to start standing up and acting like Republicans again, don’t you agree? It’s time for a second Reagan revolution. Let’s start by defunding and repealing this onerous Obamacare that has been forced down our throats. Then, lets fulfill Reagan’s dream to dismantle the Department of Education…followed by his desire to withdraw from the United Nations.

It’s time for our elected officials to start living like the rest of us. Let’s end their perks, automatic pay raises, and multi-billion dollar pension plans and that’s how we’ll start balancing the budget. Its time to audit the Federal Reserve and end those backroom deals and pork earmarks from campaign [video skip] to Congress. My vote cannot be bought, sold, traded, or gambled away in a Senatorial backroom deal.

And as for the 2nd Amendment, Washington are you listening? What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not get?

Arizona understands the difference between the word documented and undocumented and so do I. Our founders [?] the beautiful tapestry with God-fearing immigrants in the land of the free, but if the brave don’t show up to protect our borders from importing poverty, crime, drugs, and terrorism that tapestry will continue to unravel. And are we all not proud to be Americans!

If Reagan were here today, I imagine he would have a tear in his eye and he would repeat his words of warning: if we ever forget we are one nation under God, then we will be one nation gone under.

I will continue to fight for our religious liberty, for our moral foundation, for our family values. And I will champion the cause of the sanctity of life for the unborn and the elderly.

I have a vision for America. It’s a vision of an America no longer a debtor nation. No longer dependent upon her enemies for her resources and energy. It’s a vision of an America that’s industrious, strong, and independent with leaders who will not apologize to the world and bow down to our enemies but will stand up proudly and say: “We are America!” And our Constitution will not be trampled by the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, or any other global tribunal.

It’s not about health care. It’s about who controls health care. It’s about who controls our banks and businesses. It’s about who controls our land, our natural resources and our jobs. It’s about who controls our lives, and liberty, our faith, family, and freedom. It’s about “We the People” and “We the People” are here today to say: NO MORE BIG GOVERNMENT!

Senator Carl Schurz once said ‘my country right or wrong; when it’s right, keep it right; when it’s wrong, set it right.’ It’s time to set this little voice broke right. As the conservative choice in this race, as a successful businesswoman I’ve effectively defended Constitutional principles and limited government for over 30 years. I know how to stand and deliver not only in the court of public opinion but also on Senate floor. It’s not about personality it’s about principles…

++++ Update 5-11:

We couldn't figure out how to turn off the autoplay from the Ustream flash embedded video so we posted a picture link to the video instead.

++++ Update 5-26:

Cherilyn posted the text of her speech on her campaign website yesterday, effectively clarifying "the couple of guesses" of my transcription as well as providing the ending which was too hard to hear over the applause:

Your decision is not about personality. It’s about principle. A
wise man once said, “It is good to be liked, but better to be trusted.” This is
what I have stood for, and this is what I will stand for as your next U.S.
Senator for the great state of Utah. I am Cherilyn Eagar and I ask for your
vote! God bless you and God bless America!

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:

"@nacilbupera 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 Nacilbupera.

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 Nacilbupera, 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"