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!

KNRS US Senate Straw Poll Results (Corrected)

Today after 7 rounds of single-candidate-elimination online voting stretching over the past month, the KNRS straw poll winner was named: Cherilyn Eagar with almost 54% of the vote over runner-up Mike Lee.

Of unknown influence was KNRS' Bob Lonsberry, the major Utah conservative talk show host, endorsement this week of Bridgewater with a note that he had very much grown to respect Ms. Eagar and had concerns about Lee's inability to get out of debt as LDS church leaders counsel while grossing $600K last year.

In the rounds leading up to this announcement, in an April 23rd editorial to the Deseret News, Greg A. Henderson of Alpine, UT, noted that Bennett had not been able to get a seat in the top three candidates and that Lee had a substantial lead over second place Eagar and third place Bridgewater.

We draw a couple of noteworthy observations from this poll. First, Lee who has polled well over a long period of time seems to have taken a measureable downturn of support over the last week due at least in part to his late filing / personal finance revelations. Just how much remains to be seen but the turncoat endorsement by respected blogger Holly On The Hill from Lee to Bridgewater is having huge reverberations. Second, supporters of Eagar and Bridgewater seem to have the other as their second choices so that if one drops out there could be enough support to propel the other over strong Lee support in the convention: it took the Bridgewater supporters in the straw poll to push Eagar past Lee's first choice advantage.

What the poll really doesn't show is how Bennett supporters will vote if Bennett is knocked out because Bennett supporters are more likely aligned with the KSL viewpoint rather than KNRS viewpoint and were less likely to be represented in the straw poll. We feel Bennett's media attack on Lee's Libertarian-ish national defense stances signals to them also to vote for someone other than Lee.

All said, this should be a convention to be remembered tomorrow. If we were to predict an outcome it would be a primary runoff between two of the following: Eagar, Bridgewater, and Lee although we feel it's anybody's guess as to who actually comes out on top. We don't place too much confidence in the Dan Jones poll of delegates because the landscape seems to have changed in the weeks since the poll with (in our opinion) particularly Eagar and Bridgewater catching up with Lee. While we hope Eagar does well as she has been the most stalwart to principle, but we'd also like to find places for service for Bridgewater and Lee while sending Bennett back to private life with a heartful thanks for his service to our great state.

Bridgewater and Eagar Debate: Who won?

After listening now thrice to the Utah U.S. Senatorial debates on Wednesday's Lonsberry Show (debate during show's final hour), we have had enough thought and time to form our opinions. Here our our results in four areas:

1. KNOWLEDGE, ARTICULATE: Both candidates represented themselves well. We felt both candidates knew the issues well enough to speak thoroughly on the subject and neither came across like a "deer in headlights": either would measure up to the job of representing Utah knowledgeably. Result: TIE
   
   
2. PERSONALITY: Bridgewater approached the questions more like a diplomat trying to preserve good relations as a second-choice for those delegates who might not pick him as a first. Eagar was a General Patton out to defend, protect, and ready to take on the Commies once the war with the Fascists was over. These personalities are true to the personalities they exhibit elsewhere on the trail. Many would argue we need diplomats and view disagreement among allies as counter-productive. Our view is we need both though when push comes to shove, we'll keep Patton. Measuring against the 3,500 delegates whose opinions may or may not be the same as ours, the result is: TIE
   
   
3. MODERATION: We were delighted Mr. Lonsberry arranged this debate and our kudos to him. Lonsberry's lack of professional moderation came through when he digressed into addressing initial questions to Mrs. Eagar as "Ma'am" during the middle part of the debate while not equally applying the term "Sir" to Mr. Bridgewater. Mr. Lonsberry deserves some forbearance for serving in the military and having the "Sir" and "Ma'am" terms ingrained into him. We thought Eagar showed good restraint in not pointing out this relatively-minor inequality and thus garnished some points with the listeners unlike Bully Boxer of California:
   
   
   
   Lonsberry exhibited other minor biases by (1) during the debate pointing out in complimentary fashion a photo he had seen on Mr. Bridgewater's website while lacking a compliment to Mrs. Eagar (2) his interruption of Mrs. Eagar mid-sentence using the term "Ma'am" thrice to redirect her discussion of debt was distracting as well and (3) he directed a complex three-questions-in-one to Eagar but not to Bridgewater. We could find no instances of biases against Bridgewater towards Eagar. As such, Lonsberry came across moderately biased towards Bridgewater although we have no reason to believe that he actually is, doubt he meant to come across this way, and recognize the biases were relatively minor-to-moderate. The overall moderator score: NOT BAD.
   
   
4. BEST QUOTE: Many times debates are won over memorable one-liners. The winning quote in our mind was this humorous quote by Eagar nearer the conclusion of the debate:
   

   We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s--and right now Government thinks it’s God.

So who won overall? Perhaps Eagar for the best quote, but really we'd have to pick all three: Eagar, Bridgewater, and Lonsberry all came across as genuine Patriots fighting in the cause for principled constitutionalism as the opinion of each was raised in Nacilbupera's mind.

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.

The Dirt on the Cherilyn Eagar Dirt Diggers

On today's Bob Lonsberry Show, Bob became the first media outlet to publicly discuss an interesting incident a decade ago in US Senate Candidate Cherilyn Eagar's past. Briefly, it was during a time when Eagar was campaigning for Pat Buchanan in Connecticut and had, under advice from the campaign lawyer, signed off on petitions to have Buchanan be on the ballot. Apparently Eagar (and three others) inadvertently overlooked some legal procedure and which resulted in Eagar being assessed a fine of $6000. Eagar paid the fine, and things were cleared up and most anyone in Utah could probably have cared less about this situation as it seemed both in the way it happened to Eagar and her honest approach to the situation seem to if anything point to Eagar's character in appropriately handling an oversight.

That is, no one cared until someone emailed Lonsberry a copy of the CT verdict on the eve of Eagar's inaugural interview with Lonsberry yesterday. Lonsberry had both the keenness and integrity to know that someone was attempting to use him to smear Eagar and refrained from discussion on the matter during yesterday's interview. During today's broadcast he spent ample time pondering who might have sent such a letter including the thoughts of it being from one of the campaigns. Nacilbupera will not participate in speculation as to where it might have come from (no, it didn't come from us: Nacilbupera is a big enough microphone for us.)

But this incident prompted us to do our own digging on how this story no one cared about even arose in the first place and discovered some very interesting things!

The CT petition story first appeared on Cherilyn Eagar's Wikipedia page on Jan 1st of this year submitted by user "Sunpoppi". Of course, Nacilbupera wondered who the heck Sunpoppi was especially since the user hadn't taken advantage of creating a user page which the user can write about themselves. In further research, we found that Sunpoppi had indeed written
a fair amount about themselves during using a mobile wiki site which we republish here:

Just want to clarify that I do not know Mrs. Eagar, do not live in the State of Utah and have no affiliation with either side of this campaign. I only became aware of Mrs. Eagar after reading her letter to the editor in a Bay Area magazine in January of 2009. She was commenting on a vote that had taken place in my home state of California. Because of her letter, and her involvement in campaigning for a vote that took place outside of her home state, I was interested in finding out exactly who Cherilyn Eagar was and what she stood for. It was surprising to find that she was running for local office in her home state. Intrigued, further digging found that it was not possible to find actual publications for all of the citations for which she claimed authorship. Further research uncovered people who knew her from her time in Connecticut and from performing in a local theater group. There is no doubt that she is a very dynamic woman with many interesting stories. Although there were many so-called "stories" relayed to me, the only submissions that I have cited are those of her involvement with the Buchanan and Draschil campaigns. As such, the incidents referenced in the update of Mrs. Eagar's Wikipedia pages, are only those that can be referenced in accordance with the current Wikipedia guidelines. Feel free to let me know if there is additional information that is needed in referencing this article. Sunpoppi (talk)

Although Nacilbupera does not claim to know the exact magazine Sunpoppi refers to, it is quite obvious that this "vote" was none other than Proposition 8 which occurred in November 2008. Eagar--who was a huge Prop 8 supporter--had enough "mojo" to opine in MoJo magazine online in Feb 2009 on the topic of Prop 8 donors. Prop 8 has spurred a strong backlash movement to "out", pressure, and persecute donors to the cause of traditional marriage including the ironically-named hate organization Californians Against Hate (they can hate you but you can't hate them.)

As a person obviously upset at the outcome of Prop 8, Sunpoppi started digging up dirt on this Cherilyn Eagar. Sunpoppi began talking to local Bay Area actors who knew Cherilyn back in CT: "Further research uncovered people who knew her from her time in Connecticut and from performing in a local theater group." These local actors surely included some of the "Fifty percent of my NYC-based company employees were gay" Eagar referred to in the aforementioned MoJo article.

The extent of anything above gossip-level that this dirt-digger Sunpoppi could find on Eagar was the CT petitions incident and an even smaller issue on one particular Micron-comment which Sunpoppi also posted to wikipedia. That that is the best Sunpoppi could come up with in 30 years of being politically active is a testimony to Eagar's character. It represents a poor attempt by Sunpoppi to negatively impact opinion about Eagar.

There is one more footnote to this Sunpoppi character of interest. User Sunpoppi first appears in wikipedia history on Jan 1st, 2010. Interestingly, on the uber-left-wing Huffington Post there is a user "Sunpoppy" who alone was writing very critical entries on Cherilyn Eagar including Eagar's involvement in the CT petitions (posted Nov 15 2008) and the Micron-comments...posted on DECEMBER 30TH 2009...just 2 days before Sunpoppi's Wikipedia entry! This left no doubt that "Sunpoppi" of Wikipedia equalled "Sunpoppy" of Huffington Post.

You can read all of Sunpoppy of Huffington Post's comments here. Highlights from these Sunpoppy entries include:

• Slandering Eagar by claiming she had "multiple divorces" (she has been through a sole divorce) and "multiple marriages" (technically OK, since she's been married two times--but that's a pretty low standard for the term)
• Gossiped about non-specific "allegations of very unseemly behavior" (isn't gossip unseemly behavior too, Sunpoppy?)
• Insinuated identity-hiding since Eagar has had multiple surnames due to prior marriages. (What? Really???)
• Investigated her children (see also Sunpoppi Wikipedia talk)

Conclusion
To reiterate, we have no idea who sent Lonsberry the CT petition dirt neither are we trying to implicate nor exonerate Sunpoppi from doing so; it could have been anyone. But what is clear is that an anti-Proposition 8, anti-traditional marriage California radical nicknamed Sunpoppi or Sunpoppy has attempted to sway voters in our state by throwing out dirt and slandering a candidate who would uphold our Constitution and defend our lives, liberties, and freedoms. Yet Sunpoppi has failed in their quest as Nacilbupera has full confidence in our delegates being smart enough to see through the smoke, to know what the issues are and to remain focused on what is important: defeating Bob Bennett and electing a candidate who will uphold our Constitution including considering Cherilyn Eagar. Finally, a word of thanks to Bob Lonsberry for his roll in being first to see through the smoke.

Mike Lee's "Free Trade" vs. Cherilyn Eagar's "Fair Trade"

In the 2o1o Utah Senate race there has been a lot of questioning among those of us opposing Bailout Bob Bennett on how the candidates contrast in their political views. While there is a ton that unites them, the two leaders in the race have taken diametrically opposite views over trade during their recent Bob Lonsberry (105.7 KNRS) interviews.

Nacilbupera became a "free trader" during a Economics 101 course at BYU. We understood and embraced the theory we were taught: two countries each specialized in a an activity will produce greater goods through specialization and thus both can benefit from free trade of those goods.

As the years went by, the application of the theory left something to be desired. Although our markets were opening up through GATT, NAFTA, and such it didn't seem to produce the promised benefits and we seemed to be starting to lose control or sovereignty over our trade. We wondered why in the world do we grant Most Favored Nation (MFN) status (now called Permanent Normal Trade Relations) to China? To a country which runs its citizens over with tanks? To a country which puts lead and cadmium in its toys for our children to get sick and die? To a country which uses slave labor to produce its goods? To a country which has no concern for world pollution? To a country which launches daily, sophisticated computer attacks on our systems?

Our American jobs have disappeared due to free trade and as we lower tariffs we have to raise taxes to provide compensatory revenue. It puts us into agreements we don't want to be in. Somehow the theory of Free Trade has gone the way of manmade Global Warming: it just isn't what it's purported to be. We're not opposed to having some lower tariffs with our close allies, but we need to protect America first.

Nacilbupera has moved on from our "free trade" position: it simply doesn't work. We are a "fair trader" now. If you are going to restrict US companies from polluting with fines and penalties then why allow the companies to uproot and move to Mexico or anywhere and pollute there? We're just hurting our own selves by outsourcing our "dirty work" so we can feel good. Penalty-high tariffs are needed to prevent this from happening and we need to become as self-sufficient as we can be so in times of war, we are beholden to none. Take for example the role oil has played in our foreign policy because the Obama administration prohibits us from drilling in ANWAR, Utah, offshore, anywhere. Why not raise the tariff on foreign oil while opening up our own God-given natural resources? Now there's a job-creating plan for you America!

First from UtahPatriot the audio excerpt on the Feb 9th Lonsberry Show interview with Mike Lee. UtahPatriot has done an excellent job with the video and comments:



Cherilyn Eagar responded today during her questioning with Mike Lee which Nacilbupera made the following clip (sorry no fancy comments like UtahPatriot):



Nacilbupera praises our hopeful future Senator Eagar for her courageous and informed position on Fair Trade.

Treason by Earmark and Debt

We're not sure exactly when it happened, but somewhere along the past several months reducing our massive Federal debt has supplanted terrorism as being our top national priority in Nacilbupera's mind. Perhaps we feel that Al-Qaeda terrorists are using our economy to wreak destruction upon our country. Perhaps we want to vomit when Obama proposed higher taxes while claiming we have had our taxes cut. Perhaps we feel Obama's proposed budget deficit of $1.5T--more than tripling the worst "W" year--is a act of treason in itself.

Life under Hyperinflation
Nacilbupera was a financial clerk in Argentina during 1989 when that country experienced hyperinflation: it totalled 5000% that year and was devastating. Imagine prices on chalkboards at the grocery store that could change (increase) while you were shopping. Imagine losing in a single day over 60% of your currency's value vs. the world. Imagine 1-day and 1-week Certificates of Deposits (CD's). Imagine unannounced, prolonged bank closures and then when they open having a maximum withdrawal of $100 per account. Imagine having to fly out of the country to obtain currency because there simply isn't enough printed. Imagine no one paying a bill until the hour it was due because were you pay a week before, you would be paying significantly more. Imagine holding a new 10,000 denomination bill in your hand and realizing you really had US$20. In hyperinflation, these are no mirages but rather realities. Hyperinflation has a huge negative impact on productivity and output: it would be similar to having to file your taxes every day.

The bottom line is that with an unmanageable Federal debt and huge spike in the money supply as we monetize our national debt, as a country we are risking future hyperinflation. Surely, the road to hyperinflation is a treasonous one! Although earmarks account for a small portion of the debt, they frequently contain frivolous, if not scandalous wastes of money and point to corruption in the elected officials that proposed them.

Utahns on Earmarks
KNRS radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry really spelled out the problem for us in Utah on his radio show today; so much so that we made the following clip:



Meanwhile, Matt Canham over at the Salt Lake Tribune had an article today on this same subject of earmarks. While all four of Bennett's contenders are anti-earmark, Canham confirmed what Nacilbupera has seen from Cherilyn Eagar's position: not only a die-hard stance against them, but an unabashed critic of those who involuntarily seek treasonous acts by proposing such out-of-control earmark spending.

Eagar is the only Senate candidate who has attacked Bennett directly on the issue, calling him "addicted to earmarks." She has said big spending bills loaded with thousands of pet projects "smacks of cronyism and corruption."

Canham further cited Eagar as saying that earmarks "must show a legitimate federal tie-in"--a position Nacilbupera feels is dead-on correct.

The time has come for us to make a stand. Be like Lonsberry and call out treason when you see it. It doesn't matter if someone is a grandson of a Mormon prophet; evil is evil. The prophets have told us to "get out of debt" and they didn't mean for everyone to get out of debt except for Bailout Bob's pet projects and the rest of the massive Federal socialistic bureaucracy.

I Don't Know Cherilyn. Whatever.

Really. We're not trying to go after every radio talk show host in Utah. We have lots of great talk show hosts, including Doug Wright a fellow Republican on KSL radio--we believe Utah's largest radio station measured in listener-ship.

We typically listen to Rush Limbaugh on another station at the same time Doug Wright is so we're kind-of torn here: do we hear a Utah perspective or a national perspective? Hmmm, tough choice. Maybe we favor the national because our state is heaven compared to the problems the federal has created for itself. At any rate, we didn't catch this show until more recently so the show is a bit dated.

But our point doesn't seem dated. Though it is hard to follow a show without published transcripts as Utah radio shows tend to be, we have yet to uncover any newer discussions on the Senate race than found in this video we created on Doug's Sept. 15th show:

We're at a real dilemma now with one radio show host (Bob Lonsberry) that feels that Cherilyn Eagar "isn't bright" without an iota of supporting evidence and another (Doug Wright) that promotes "3 good MEN" one of whom really isn't running at all (Tim Bridgewater). We are beginning to feel like their might be some sexism going on here. Why didn't Wright say "3 good Republican candidates"? That would have abated the thoughts. But he said "3 good MEN" knowing their was a female candidate in the race he "didn't know personally." We are not accusing anyone of being sexist--after all we have had women in statewide offices including former Republican governor Olene S. Walker--and certainly there is a lack of evidence to do any sort of accusation. We also think highly enough of Wright and Lonsberry to dismiss the ideas of sexism--yet it wouldn't hurt for them to clarify their remarks either. Maybe it's a bummer having people pay close attention to what you say when you're on air.

We're not vying for endorsements from either. Wright probably endorses Bennett; Lonsberry endorses Shurtleff (or Chaffetz who isn't running at this point). But we think it important to treat the frontrunner in the race with more respect than just "whatever," "not bright," or to shirk on your responsibility as a media member by dismissing with an "I don't know her." Be fair like you preach to your audience; be Responsible Republicans yourselves.

One of the things we have learned through much research and applicable to our out-of-state like-minded readers is to study and follow your own officials. Campaign slogans such as Bennett's "Utah's Conservative Choice" can be more propaganda than descriptive--"Utah's Middleman" or "Utah's Compromiser" are more apropos in his case.

Cherilyn Eagar Scores Big Twice!

Cherilyn Eagar, whom we believe to be the unseen frontrunner candidate in Utah's 2010 US Senate Elections and a true conservative champion, had a double scoop of great news today.

First we were somewhat pleasantly surprised to hear Bob Lonsberry actually talk about Eagar on his show Thursday morning after really an unfair treatment in the beginning of her campaign. Although we do not expect an endorsement let alone an apology for this unfair treatment, Lonsberry--who twice reiterated his disinclination for Eagar--showed some genuine admiration for the tenacity for those of us who have rallied around Cherilyn:

I am noticing right now if there is a campaign going on the only one who seems to be engaged in it is Cherilyn Eagar...and I respect people who make an effort (full program here or watch clip below)

We welcome Lonsberry's praise albeit limited; at least we are ignored no longer.

Even better was today's announcement that Joseph Wurzelbacher better known as "Joe the Plumber" will be touring our state next month with Cherilyn. Watch the announcement below.

Cherilyn Eagar Ignored, Then Falsely Accused

Bob Lonsberry is a wonderful conservative talk-show host in Utah on 105.7 KNRS and Nacilbupera enjoys listening to his wisdom in regards to many local and national political topics.

Bob has endorsed Jason Chaffetz for Senate both in writing and on his radio show. Nacilbupera shares Lonsberry's admiration for Chaffetz but instead of seeing Chaffetz run in 2010 against Bennett, would love to see Chaffetz go up in 2012 against Hatch (presuming Hatch foolishly decides to run again). Additionally, Chaffetz has given no indication of running against Bennett but wisely--more of of not to be tied to one's words rather than seriously debating a run--he has not ruled out running.

In an Aug 29th straw poll (yes, straw polls aren't necessarily the most reliable but they're what we've got), both Cherilyn Eagar and Mark Shurtleff garnished more votes than the incumbent Bennett. This was a newsworthy item published throughout the state media and picked up by the political sections in the national media as well. However, on Lonsberry's very next show held on Monday, Aug. 31th, Lonsberry began the show never mentioning Cherilyn Eagar's name or the significant percentage of vote she received in the poll.

On that Monday, Lonsberry described for his listeners the 2010 Senate race in the Republican Party as between incumbent Bennett and Mark Shurtleff both of whom Lonsberry mentioned he would like to get on the air to be heard. Everyone else (including Cherilyn Eagar) got this stinging rebuke:

To be honest with you not one of them has a snowball's chance in Elko of getting anywhere near the general election. All of them in the convention and primary system will be cyphers; they will be non-entities...(archived program here).

Lonsberry further indicated that everyone outside of his estimation of the two serious contenders were doing "ego-exercise" and were "gum[ming] up the works." Pretty harsh words for citizens trying to do their patriotic duty and serve the country.

Although Lonsberry is entitled to his opinions, it seemed unfair and disingenuous to (1) omit the used of Eagar's name completely from discussion of the race and (2) omit the fact of the straw poll the broadcast-day after its occurrence. Perhaps Lonsberry was constrained by his employer not to mention Eagar's name as she has substituted for a competing talk radio show. We sent Lonsberry a nice email (click on image to read) which he never did respond to. (Lonsberry, you're still welcome to respond to our email or this post.)

Fast forward to 8am this morning when Lonsberry hosted a "Who do you back for Senate in 2010?" call-in where viewers could discuss the "prominent contest between Bennett and Shurtleff" or Jason Chaffetz, Lonsberry's pick (show archived here; discussion begins at 1:48:50). Again no mention of Cherilyn Eagar. Then came the tidalwave flood of Eagar calls into the station; sincere citizens pointing to the alignment of Eagar's values to theirs. (Interesting sideline: Eagar also compares herself ideologically to Chaffetz.)

Lonsberry, obviously dismayed by the plethora of pro-Eagar calls, began reading from an Action Alert (copy of Alert published by blogger True Politics USA) he had received the previous night from the Eagar campaign encouraging supporters to call in. Instead of acquiescing that Eagar has large and growing support in Utah, he made it seem that all the callers were from out of state since the Action Alert had mentioned 8am mountain time show topic broadcast time and if Eagar wanted in-state supporters she would have omitted the time zone in the Action Alert.

Lonsberry is flawed in his attacking Eagar's use of the words mountain time for two reasons: (1) a time zone is giving for convenience of listeners of the program who are Utah voters who may be temporarily out-of-state on business or vacation. We know all of Utah is mountain time, but it is easy to get distracted with time zones when you are out of state. (2) Lonsberry should have tracked the area codes of the callers if he felt the callers were out-of-state--after all, we only have two Utah issued area codes and Lonsberry could have screened callers with only the 801- and 435- prefixes were he to be so flooded with out-of-state calls. Indeed, Lonsberry failed to mention a single example of anyone who called in being from out-of-state.

Lonsberry also accused Eagar of being dishonest and "trying to create a false public perception" by requesting supporters to call in. Wrong! Lonsberry had multiple public announcements on his program prior to the phone-in event and all candidates could have, should have, or perhaps actually did encourage their supporters to phone in just as Eagar did. How does Lonsberry know that Action Alerts weren't also sent out by other campaigns? Lonsberry discounted the idea that perhaps Eagar supporters are more vocal because we were slided from your mention earlier and wanted to have our voice heard (for the record: Nacilbupera did not call the Lonsberry show today). Lonsberry: how were we to voice our opinion as you asked us to do without trying to "create a false impression." We could either call in or not call in. Ironically if these noble souls hadn't called in, then you could have accused Eagar of "creating a false public perception" by hiding true existing public support for a leading candidate.

The only reason Lonsberry gave for his dismissal of Cherilyn Eagar was as follows:

I just don't believe she's competent to be United States Senator...I believe this is an exercise in vanity.

Lonsberry failed to have a serious discussion of her business experience or experience as a conservative activist. He also failed to reason with the audience what it is that he feels makes her "incompetent." If you label someone, then you need to discuss the supporting facts for that label. Perhaps Lonsberry feels that prior political office is requisite; we answer give us someone with principles and integrity and they will be a thousand times better public servant than an established, polished politician.

Nacilbupera feels Lonsberry has pre-emptively dismissed Eagar. In the end, we Eagar supporters need to prove to Lonsberry he misjudged Eagar. We need to get her through the convention and show that she is for real. Lonsberry seems rather set in his ways but we always hope that someone we respect so much in so many other discussions will at last come to the table of reason and respect for the principles Eagar stands for and the great Senator she will be for our state. We don't need Lonsberry support to win our case with the good people of Utah, but it sure might be nice if Lonsberry were to be honest about the facts with his listeners, quit the labeling, and show some common decency for our candidate and campaign.