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.

California's Special Election & Economic Disaster

Politics in California has particular meaning to Nacilbupera as we lived there before our present abode. Indeed, we abashedly reveal our vote for Schwarzenegger back in the days of the 2003 Special Election (regrettably, we wish we had voted for Tom McClintock!!) to rid ourselves of Gray Davis.

California for the past few decades has been and is a blue state. The Democrats control everything, especially the legislature where they have 60/40 majorities. Occasionally a Republican will pop into a statewide elected office. Schwarzenegger is a liberal Republican.

Californians have been voting themselves into debt for years. It seems as though nearly every proposed bond or spending bill that was proposed to the voters was passed. Spend, spend, spend. Raise taxes and spend. Pay for healthcare and schooling of illegal aliens so more will cross the border! Of course, most of the Propositions were put on the ballot by the Democratically-controlled legislature. Of all the blame to be doled out, the Democrats in the legislature need to be held most accountable--who else is there to blame?? It becomes the goal of every astute voter in California to throw out as many Democrats as possible and replace them with McClintock-like Republicans who actually care about spending wisely.

The budget deficit is so bad now in California they are voting tomorrow whether to raise taxes to pay for all the spending mess they are in. The Propositions are a shame except for the "slap on the wrist" 1F which forbids raises on government officials during budget shortfalls. Yet Californians are beginning to wise up. A recent poll showed all the Propositions failing except 1F (graphic, Sacbee.com). Californians realize that giving more money to a Democratically controlled legislature will NOT solve the problem; cutting social programs will.

The Special Election Californians REALLY need is a 2003-style Special Election, but instead of the Governor, throw out the liberals in the legislature. Call it a "California Tea Party" if you will. And there is seemingly widespread support to do so. In a recent Field Poll study a mere 14% of California voters approved of their state legislature while a massive 74% disapprove--the lowest in Field Poll recorded history. That's even lower ratings than the 24% approval rating Gray Davis had before we voters threw him out in our 2003 Special Election.

What Nacilbupera vigorously opposes is a so-called "California Bailout." Such a bailout would be better-termed an "Illegal Alien Bailout" in honor of such "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco (though SF is just the tip of the blame game as the whole state is guilty). Nacilbupera is strongly opposed to any bailout as we way, way, way overdid the bailout thing and are getting our whole country messed up. Mitt Romney was right: we should have never bailed out the automakers, but rather let them file Chapter 11 and emerge leaner and stronger. Nacilbupera rejects the notion we should have to pay for unwise social program spending of others--besides, frankly, we don't even have the money for a California Bailout should we even desire one.

California won't fail because at this 11th hour the voters are beginning to take back their state.