Mike Lee's Praiseworthy Plans to Filibuster Raising the Debt Ceiling

Nacilbupera regulars know I had a knotty dilemma choosing between GOP primary candidates for US Senator for Utah in 2010. Though in the end I voted for Lee I remained critical, less on issues and more so on conduct. My vexation held merit: I believe a healthy dose of critical examination and accountability of our officials by our citizenry is vital to maintaining our republic; of little import, even destructive consequence lies rote adulation (Mmm mmm, mmm) of our pols. In counter to our probing, commendation is essential when politicians do right. Bible study today highlighted this to me:

A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight. (Proverbs 11:1)

When I watched Lee on liberal MSNBC (below), I was very impressed with his performance regarding a filibustering of raising the debt ceiling to focus our attention on cutting spending. Lee has it 100% correct: pending something huge like a tough Balanced Budget Amendment, we should not be raising the ceiling. Unlike O'Donnell, I have enough faith in Lee that when he says he's going to attempt a filibuster of raising the debt ceiling, I believe him.

Related articles: The Hill, KSL, CNN

Related topic: Mike Lee's Balanced Budget Amendment contrasted to Hatch's (25 minute blogger interview audio h/t Liberty Pundits); Acutal text (S. J. RES. 5) of Mike Lee's BBA

The Budget-Barfing, Hungry Power-Grab Act of 2010

On Thursday, the House voted 264-157 (mostly along party lines) to pass S. 3307, a 220-page, $4.5B monstrosity so-named "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010", the brainchild of Michelle Obama and last May's congressional conceiver, now lame-quack Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

The bill--expected shortly to be signed into law by Michelle's husband--is clearly unconstitutional as it expands grasp of federal government into the domain of the states through funding of school lunches. Nowhere in our Constitution is the federal branch of government granted the right to meddle with our kids' education; indeed the 10th Amendment allows these non-enumerated powers to be reserved to the States:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

S. 3307 was first passed in August by unanimous consent in the Senate rather than a floor vote. For Utah, this means that neither GOP Senators Hatch nor Bennett stood up to voice any objection to yet another unconstitutional power-grab by the federal government. While Bennett is scheduled in January to be replaced by Mike Lee ("I will not vote for a single piece of legislation that I can’t reconcile with the text and the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution," NBC quote / C-SPAN full video of speech), the consent vote certainly leaves Hatch open for just criticism as he prepares to run yet again in 2012.

Rep. John Kline (MN-02), Senior Republican on the House Committee on Education and Labor, took a courageous stance against S. 3307. One of the truths he points out in his widely-underreported Floor Statement was in debunking the myth that S. 3307 was "fully paid for" as touted by the media. While much of the money for S. 3307 comes from cuts in the Federal Food Stamp program, this was additional unused one-time monies coming from the Stimulus bill and will leave us long-term further indebted (emphasis mine below):

...The majority claims this bill is “paid for.” They want us to believe we can grow government with no cost or consequences. But the American people know that is just not true.

More spending is more spending, whether or not those dollars are offset elsewhere in the massive federal budget. But one offset in this bill is particularly questionable.

The truth is, at least some portion of the billions in new program costs is deficit spending. This money was borrowed from our children and grandchildren in 2009 when it was put in the stimulus; that borrowed money is simply being redirected today.

This bill – with its so-called “pay for” – is merely a stalling tactic. It obscures
government expansion in the short-term so this bill can become law and its spending can become permanent. So here we stand, playing a shell game with the federal budget and hoping the American people do not notice that government continues to grow, spending continues to expand, and our children continue to fall deeper and deeper into debt.

In his statement Rep. Kline further highlights that S. 3307:

• Nets opposition from local school leaders responsible for implementing these new requirements because of rigid mandates and higher costs
• Creates or expands 17 separate federal programs
• Implements dangerous federal price controls, as highlighted by the National Governors Association

Utah's Representatives fell in line as one would expect with Matheson voting along with the Democrats to expand government and indebtedness while Bishop and Chaffetz opposed.

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.

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.

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.

How Lee lost a 15-Point Lead with Delegates in the Last Week…and how he could Rally to Win June 22

The loss 15-point loss to Bridgewater in the third round of the state convention today sent shock waves through the Lee camp. They presumed they would be the next Glenn Beck show heroes by coronating their candidate with a majority of support and maybe even avoiding a primary. Saturday’s convention shocked them about as much as Bob Bennett and the Salt Lake Tribune, the latter incorrectly publishing an article showing Bennett & Lee in the third round (h/t SimpleUtahMormonPolitics). Scratching their heads, they sit and wonder: was it the temple mailer? the Joseph Smith video? Or the Hitler video? What did us in? It actually was none of these. One thing we have learned is that Utah delegates are incredibly smart and informed and nothing gets by the vast majority of them. Following are five reasons why Lee lost and how he can yet turn it around:

Reason #1: Lee supporters incorrectly presumed and in some cases demanded support from Eagar supporters while being dismissive of Eagar (couldn't bother to spell the surname right at least?) rather than humbly seeking an opportunity to make Lee a second-choice candidate. While Lee and Eagar are the most closely aligned politically, Eagar supporters were offended by Lee’s run in the first place after a verbal understanding from Lee he wouldn’t run: that brought into question Lee’s integrity which would again be put to test on multiple occasions. When Eagar-supporter blogger Jason the Patriot opined last week "Why I would support anyone but Bob Bennett and Mike Lee" we knew Bridgewater was the candidate of preference for Eagar supporters. When it came time to debate Eagar on KNRS, Lee ducked and yes, lied (or campaign staff lied) while Bridgewater who replaced Lee a week later was a gentleman and treated Ms. Eagar like a candidate for US Senate. In the end, the lack of outreach to Eagar voters by Lee caused the majority of them to go Bridgewater. We saw this coming when in the KNRS online poll Bridgewater supporters went to Eagar showing the flip side of what we predicted in a tweet what would happen in round 2 at the convention: Eagar voters would in droves go for Bridgewater vaulting him into first place despite Lee’s first place scoring in the first round. To correct this, Lee must identify and convert Eagar supporters as a key group Lee must win over if Lee is to win. They will all vote in the primary and tend to be quite vocal and passionate. Lee must convert them early on so they in turn will get others to see the light.

Reason #2: Lee suffered under relentless “meals-on-wheels for Afghanistan” soundbites from Bennett and must come out strong in national defense. Lee is essentially a Libertarian. Fine. Not quite Utah’s cup o’ tea but we do like Libertarians. The problem is we like being safe from terrorism more than we like liberty (why else would we stand in security lines at the airport?) Sometimes as an elected official you have to bend and accept the will of the people and Utahns will not stand for failure to eradicate Islamofascism in Afghanistan. Lee could overcome this by saying (and then showing to prove it) that these get-out-of-Afghanistan views are personal, but he will make sure we do whatever it takes to destroy terrorists and keep American safe (after all, that’s an enumerated power!) This will help in recruiting would-be Bennett voters who have now all but written Lee off as anti-military.

Reason #3: Lee needs to intently confess his sins and be a man and own up to them. He needs to say: “I filed my personal disclosure late and accept full responsibility” and “I owe debt to the Federal Government and was wrong to not pay my student loans off and to get out of debt like my church counsels and am making it a priority to have them paid off by [whenever]” and “I have not been transparent in my campaign and am committing to you than I will be to you I will always be the most transparent candidate and first to release records. In fact, here’s my personal income tax statements for the past three years just to show you I want to be transparent.” Utahns have seen the arrogant side of lawyer Lee; we want to see the trailer-park kid in Lee and confessing sins is great because we want to be a people of forgiveness but we don't want an arrogant son-of-a-Solicitor for Senator.

Reason #4: One thing really bothering the folks is Lee’s young age coupled with a lack of commitment to two terms. Frankly we’re skeptical from the likes of politicians like Hatch that once Lee is in there unless he sits in a hot tub with a minor we’re gonna be Lee-land for the next 40 years. If Lee would put into writing a commitment not to serve more than 2 terms like the Constitutional term-limit amendment he proposes, we bet his poll ratings would jump 5 points just on that one simple act alone.

Reason #5: Too many conservatives moved publicly towards Bridgewater and it became a feeding frenzy. The two biggest were Holly on the Hill and Bob Lonsberry. Lee needs both of these greatly admired conservatives back in the fold but could still make it with the return of just one. How does Lee get them to return? Resolve reasons 1-4 above and you're to third base. Focus on these two first without purging the sin within and Lee will strike out. And when you do seek these it needs to be as sugar-to-bees not lashings-to-mules: the latter having already failed. And finally don't focus on the Erik Ericksons and Jim DeMints: Lee needs Utahn base support to win.

There are plenty of Bridgewater faults and much to be concerned about; the problem is that if you blog something negative of Bridgewater, the Bridgewater folks all pat you on the head and think of you as their next convert. With the Lee blog trolls, you’d better get your armor on because the blows are coming. We have much concern about Bridgewater but quite frankly it isn't worth our time bringing it up if Bridgewater is so nice and Lee is unapologetically faultless.

We remain undecided in this race as we have been in our mind between any hypothetical Bridgewater/Lee matchup. Ideologically we’re with Lee, but from a human point of view we’re with Bridgewater. If Lee continues with the same stuff since January, he loses the primary and our vote. Should he evolve for the better, he just might pull off a great upset: thus the ball to victory is in Lee’s court, yet time is ticking with about 2 weeks before essentially any window of opportunity closes for him to transform and expand his base.

No Bailout for Bob Bennett in Utah Convention (Update 4)

In keeping with polls showing Utah's 3-term incumbent Senator Bob Bennett waning in support, GOP delegates at the state convention voted for Tim Bridgewater first, Mike Lee second, leaving Bob Bennett with a mere 27% percent of the vote in round two, thus stopping Bennett's advancement to a third round (2nd round results here).

Cherilyn Eagar polled a strong fourth in the first round of voting, but according to GOP convention rules, only the top 3 move on to a second round. Eagar and her supporters are strongly anti-Bennett and lean Bridgewater as evidenced by Bridgewater's removal of Lee from the top spot in the first round (first round results here). Eagar made no endorsement of either candidate.

During the convention, blogger/twitterer Frank Staheli pointed out an error in the online article by the Salt Lake Tribune incorrectly saying that Bennett had survived the second round to run against Lee.

In the third and final round, Bridgewater gained a lot of Bennett votes to advance his lead over Mike Lee by a 15-point margin (third round results here). As Bridgewater fell short of the 60% needed to avoid a primary, there will be a statewide runoff GOP primary to determine the nominee. Whatever the outcome, Bennett will not appear on the November ballot in Utah.

The ousting of Bennett is sure to send shock wave around the national politcal news as the removal of the incumbent Senator over his earmarking, vote for TARP, support of Wyden-Bennett healthcare, and violation of 2-term commitment was a major priority for teaparty and 9/12 grassroots organizations. It will also likely cause senior Senator Hatch--in office since 1977--to ponder retirement as teaparty groups begin planning his defeat as well in 2012.

Additionally, during the convention popular Governor Herbert coasted to an easy GOP November ballot place with over 70% of the vote in a sole round of voting.

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.

Mike Lee Funds Bob Bennett

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

Why did Mike Lee donate $500 to the Bob Bennett election committee October 25, 2008, just after Bennett brokered TARP? I don't know.

We fact-checked this assertion and found it to be true. Section "A" below is the actual donation found at the Federal Elections Commission website:

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

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

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

Salt Lake City Code Red Rally

Nacilbupera had the great honor of joining with like-minded patriots on the steps of our great state capitol in Salt Lake City in a last-minute-announced CODE RED rally against the abominable health-scare bill.

We had 200-300 Patriots gathered from all walks of life. We met a patriot (http://twitter.com/evorgsum) who made this fantastic sign (we overheard others commenting on it as well):

We exchanged thoughts and Nacilbupera quickly realized how likeminded and informed she was.

Another great patriot we met was Kathy (above) of Latterdaybanners.com who created this beautiful masterpiece flag just a few months ago. As way of explanation to our non-Mormon readers this flag is of particular symbolism to Mormons: 2,000 yrs ago Captain Moroni was a great military leader who when faced with a hostile takeover of his country by some people wanting to overthrow their judicial system and establish a king, tore his coat and wrote the above saying on it. Captain Moroni then further made everyone swear allegiance to the cause of freedom and a free government else be put to death. Think of Captain Moroni as a General Patton without the profanity: both were die-hard preservers of freedom and devoutly religious.

Speakers at the rally included: Jared Law of the 9/12 project, Diedre Henderson of the Jason Chaffetz campaign, Rep. Craig Frank of District #57 (Pleasant Grove), and Utah US Senate GOP candidates Mike Lee and Cherilyn Eagar. (US Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater was also present, but did not speak.) The speakers freely discussed neighboring issues such as state sovereignty and the crowd expressed opposition Bennett's reelection when solicited.

Jared Law urged us to call Governor Herbert and have him sign HB67 (sponsored by Carl Wimmer and co-sponsors including our Rep. Keith Grover): to have federal health-scare mandates passed after March 1, 2010, not apply to Utah and HB251: to have employers use E-Verify. HB67 has a growing number of states with similar legislation (see current map) across the country and is one Nacilbupera urges Gov. Herbert to sign. Jared also urged us to "fast and pray"--as our founding fathers did many times--that the bill be defeated.

Mike Lee quoted from James Madison's Federalist Paper #62 which was extremely appropriate considering the crypticness of an unwieldy, 2700-page health-scare bill before Congress:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.

Cherilyn Eagar spoke exclusively on health care, talking about the American Medical Association's (AMA) support for the bill and how the AMA only represents a mere 17% of physicians. She urged us to instead support the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and to sign the petition at http://www.takebackmedicine.com/ When Nacilbupera next seeks a physician, we will be looking for one that doesn't belong to the AMA and preferably belongs to the AAPS. Eagar also spoke about her father, a physician, coming home after Medicare first passed and saying: "today is the first day of the end of quality medicine in America." How true those words have turned out to be!

The protest carried over to Matheson's office a couple of miles south where, if we are not mistaken, there has been a protest going on virtually every day this week. Although we weren't able follow the protest, it seems we may have helped make an impact: Matheson formally announced his plans this afternoon to vote NO on Obamacare!

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.

Mike Lee's Questionable Endorsements

Recently, a reader asked our opinion of the FreedomWorks & Dick Armey's endorsement of Mike Lee. While FreedomWorks is a conservative organization, it is not one we would personally embrace due to its policy on promoting a Bush-esque "guest worker" illegal immigrant policy. Nacilbupera views a "guest worker" program as a form of amnesty: why should you be allowed to have a job if you are in violation of our immigration laws?

ALIPAC put together this video of Armey's encouragement of illegal aliens breaking the law comparing it to a misdemeanor traffic violation.


Were we to run for office, we would place Armey's endorsement as low priority; to us, it would bespeak our desperation for an endorsement were we to put it on the front page of our website as Lee has done. Sometimes you can't help who does endorse you and in such a case the candidate should be held guiltless (remember Obama denouncing Farrakhan's endorsement? Maybe this isn't a good example, but you get the picture.) Conversely, when you go soliciting endorsements from Shurleff et al as Lee did during his campaign announcement, you assume responsibility for those endorsements. We do not know if Lee solicited Armey's endorsement or not.

There remains one more responsibility candidates have: if you are endorsed by a group or person with questionable principles it is your responsibility to speak up and clarify (IE "hey Utah, we got a great endorsement from Armey; although we differ on our opinions about illegal immigration, Armey has done a great job in blah, blah, blah"). We have yet to see Lee clarify his endorsement from Armey and solicited AG Shurtleff endorsement (let us never forget Shurtleff's infamous 2006 speech to the illegals: "as the chief law enforcement of Utah I should be arresting you. [That's] not going to happen.") Therefore we conclude Mike Lee either (1) agrees with Armey and Shurtleff or (2) is too timid to speak his mind (or "wrestle a girl" as Lonsberry caller Lisa aptly expressed today.)

Either alternative is egregious. Eagar's positions are stated publicly and more profoundly than any candidate we can ever recall and her endorsements are from unquestionably reliable Conservative organizations. Indeed she is the only candidate scoring 100% on 80 Independence Caucus vetting questions. While Lee is good, we deserve better.

Surprise! Mike Lee Drops Out of Lonsberry Debate (Updated x2)

Giving no explanation, U.S. Senate candidate Mike Lee unexpectedly dropped out of a scheduled debate with fellow candidate Cherilyn Eagar on The Bob Lonsberry Show (KNRS 105.7 FM), Utah's premier Conservative Talk Radio Show. Below is today's excerpt dealing with the unexpected exit.



We feel this last-minute exit will not portend well for Lee whose Constitutional assertions are already being questioned by his actions as he has been endorsed by GOP elites and illegal-immigrant-advocates Shurtleff and Armey rather than Conservative, teaparty grassroots organizations.

Shunning a debate is typically an anathema to the candidate who refuses. Consider what happened to Coakley in Massachusetts after she initially brushed off a debate with Brown because she thought she was so far ahead. We doubt Utahns like their candidates closeted; indeed our experience shows us they enjoy engaging and listening to their candidates' ideas--and even more so in a hot political climate such as we have now before us. Utahns want brave, bold leadership; not hide-under-a-rock abdication.

By his withdrawal from the debates, Lee demonstrates a weakness we had not previously noted. Perhaps Lee's entry into the race so late lead to campaign disarray and contributed to this misstep.

+++ Update 3/4:
Nacilbupera's post captured the attention of veteran UPI newspaperman Glen Warchol of the Salt Lake Tribune in his post tonight "Staying Right with the Far Right". (We're honored, Glen!)In his post, Glen reveals a phone call to Lee yielded what we deem the first official "official" explanation as to why Lee declined the debate: Lee wanted all candidates to be represented at the debate.
Lee's answer, of course prompts a pair of followup questions: (1) Why did Lee not insist prior to agreeing to the debate with Eagar that all candidates be represented? That is, what prompted this sudden change of heart? (2) Why does Lee communicate through the Left-leaning Tribune and not directly to Conservative media including: his would-be generous host Bob Lonsberry, an email or comment to Nacilbupera, or even through a public announcement on his website? Conservatives await further elucidation...

+++ Update 3/5:

• Cherilyn posted her feelings on the Lee duck at Redstate.com today; her response was funny. She claimed "Lee had a sudden attack of the vapors and backed out" and chided him: “to stand up like a man and debate me.”
• Campaign spokesman Dan Hauser claimed on Twitter that Lee had debated Eagar (he's referring to the Utah County Republican Women event) while dodging our question of why Lee withdrew. Maybe Dan should "stand up like a man" and answer Nacilbupera's questions, too!

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.

URA Endorses Eagar, Philpot, & Herbert; Shear "Demonsheep"

The Utah Republican Assembly (URA) held their endorsement convention yesterday in Orem. The URA is the Utah branch of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) self- described as "nation’s oldest and largest conservative Republican grassroots volunteer organization." It is a group Nacilbupera much admires and one bound to conservative principles, but one we have yet to claim membership.

The Daily Herald covered the the event noting the comment by Brian Halladay about "demonsheep": those professing conservative values but failing to act so. Maybe Brian saw this great Fiorina campaign video (for the record we advocate DeVore not Fiorina) but which is hilarious especially towards the end when the demon sheep is seen crawling on all fours:



Laughter aside and to Brian's point: could one of those demon sheep POSSIBLY be self-labeled "Utah's Conservative Choice" Bailout Bob Bennett? Interesting enough Bennett himself is beginning to back down from that label replacing that label in his website header with "The Fight is Now"--alluding to the fact that although he won't publicly admit it Bailout Bob, a veteran campaigner himself, knows his political life is on the line! In fact, the only places we could now find "Utah's Conservative Choice" is when you actually go in to his website to make a donation:




...and on some of his ubiquitous internet advertising:

Morgan Philpot won the endorsement for the privilege to defeat Matheson II in the 2nd District while Governor Gary Herbert won an endorsement in what should be a solid victory against Democratic tax-raiser Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon.

The most interesting and contested fight--indeed what might be a presage to the state GOP convention in May--Cherilyn Eagar won 64% of the vote after a third round of balloting to garnish the endorsement, defeating Mike Lee in the final round. This was huge for the campaign because unlike an unscientific Doug Wright poll last month from supporters publicly confessing voting multiple times for their candidates and voters from outside the state, these folks are political activists many of whom will be delegates at the state convention. Additionally, the URA voting was patterned after the GOP convention--unlike straw polling or even primary elections where all the candidates compete once with each other. Finally, we note in 2008 the URA endorsement helped Jason Chaffetz get elected.

What does this important endorsement mean?
Nacilbupera feels that this cements much of the hard work that has been going on for months at the Eagar campaign and really helps point out that the race is between Eagar and Lee with Eagar continuing to hold her lead. The choice is laid between an articulate, unencumbered, principles-tried-and-tested Eagar and a principle-professor lawyerspeak Lee who is entangled with Energy Solutions but just might be as--or at least close to as--Constitutionally-minded as Eagar; though questionably so as he has chased endorsements from the political establishment who themselves are not so Constitutionally minded. At this point, Nacilbupera feels that Williams and Bridgewater are probably not going to receive the coveted Bailout Bob Knockout Award though they each have good things we could say about their professed positions; nevertheless, it wouldn't surprise us either if Bennett were knocked out before even a Williams or Bridgewater. Yes, Burnsfans wherever you are, your Bailout Bob candidate is that bad. Now go be happy and eat some Bennettporkburgers from all that taxpayer money he's spending to buy your vote.

+++ Updates 2/21:

• Our sources tell us Eagar nearly walked away from a four-way ticket with an endorsement in the first round, garnishing 55% of the vote, Lee 32% and Bridgewater 9%. Gubernatorial and house races were decided earlier due to smaller fields of opponents.
  
• The Daily Herald article cited on this is the lead print headline on the Sunday paper which has the largest circulation of any day of the week.
  
• Blogger No Sheeples Here has a fanastic photoshop today of the great Demonsheep himself, BO

Eagar bests Lee II; Both Trump Bennett II

A lesson learned for us through our tea party activism is we cannot have a strong Republic without our personal, active participation. We must push on in our efforts even sacrificing some pleasures in life and remain active in our quest for a return to Constitutional principles. Being an informed voter and voting every year or two simply will not satisfy the needs of our Republic to have a politically active, educated, and informed citizenry.

For far too many years we have allowed ourselves to lean on the stature and endorsements of others and to allow political despotism through nepotism. We remember past thoughts: Reagan was a great Conservative, therefore his vice-president must be one too. Bush was good so Bush Jr. must be good. That there leader is a Mormon so he must be against abortion/gay marriage/ripping the Constitution to shreds. Although this is a simplistic summary and our analysis has always more profound, we confess the past presence of such thoughts.

But our mentality has done a "360." Now when we look upon Bushs, Kennedys, Romneys & Reids or to localize it for Utah--Cannons, Bennetts, and Mathesons--we now look upon the dynasties with much disdain; and acutely so to the second generation who follow on the coattails of their fathers. Like watching a bad movie sequel, the second generation of politicians seem to get a electoral boost because of their genetics. Surely, our democracy is strong enough to not require nepotism. Indeed, it is a call for the opposite: it is for us the common citizen to rise to our obligation for public service.

This is not to say that because one happens to be the posterity of a famous politician one should be denied an opportunity to serve nor will Nacilbupera disqualify and exempt such from our vote and approval; nevertheless it does count as a negative mark. Truly, Bailout Bob Bennett (aka Bennett II or Bennett the bad movie sequel) should have prompted such a warning back in 1992 before elected. The problem then was it was a choice between Bennett II and Cannon III! Yikes! Is there no other patriot in Utah who isn't a re-tread?

But this is precisely how we feel about Mike Lee who announced his candidacy this week after months of intensive campaigning from Eagar and Williams who patriotically declared their candidacy early on. If you didn't know Lee before this election cycle (few did, ourselves included) he is the son of late BYU President and US Solicitor General Rex Lee. (We have to digress: at BYU we were once invited to lunch with President Lee and found him admirable!) But herein lies the problem--he's riding Daddy's coattails--and our biggest fear: will we go through all these efforts and sacrifices to replace Bennett II with a simple namechange to Lee II? We hope not. This is a fight to put in principled, Conservative candidates. Of course Lee II could turn out to be a wonderful Senator if elected--after all Mike can't help that his Dad is Rex (although he touts it). Yet based solely on the results of other political dynasties, we would have to put the odds low of Lee II sticking to principled Conservatism.

The second thing that disturbed us about Lee II is his campaign announcement. He brought together a bunch of seasoned Utah politicians to endorse him, even to the point of letting former Congressman Jim Hansen introduce him. Hansen, the former 22-year Congressman from Utah's First District? Yep. 22-year veteran Hansen was the lead hitter. So why in the world if Lee II is so adamant about amending the Constitution to put a 12-year cap on Congressional terms--why in the world would you even want Hansen to endorse you? It simply makes no sense unless--unless you are committed to old-style politics over principles. And top off the whole announcement with an endorsement from Shurtleff who is weak on immigration?

Lee II talks the talk. We share values with him. Our problem, understandably after being betrayed so many times by politicians (we're still waiting to see the healthcare debates Obama promised us on C-Span) we are skeptical of promises. And Lee II really has nothing to offer of substance: no voting record and no activism other than these Constitution speeches he's been giving for the past year: just words.

So... you say you want us to trust a political heir who gives Constitution speeches for a year and chooses as his firstmost endorser a politician who violates his principles of term limits and his crowning endorser a politician who violates his principles of being strong against illegal immigration--and you want us to trust this person as a reliable Conservative??? No. That is just too much to ask. Not when we have Cherilyn Eagar who has been a dedicated Conservative for 30 years.

We acknowledge some leftist, progressive, liberal readers to this blog so let's put Lee II in perspective: we would take Lee II day or night over Bennett II. Why? Because Bailout Burns has let us down, he has violated the Constitution by proposing Wyden-Bennett healthcare sham for starters. With Lee II, there remains if nothing else hope he will be true to principles. And that hope places him leagues above Bennett II and leagues below Cherilyn Eagar.