Top ten reasons NOT to vote for Cherilyn Eagar (Update)

A discussion today in another forum prompted the idea for this post as well as garnishing the coveted top reason NOT to vote for Cherilyn Eagar. We have compiled a list of actual, mostly-sexist arguments made by different people over the past months why one shouldn't vote for Eagar. After the reason, we give our comment in italics which in some cases might be meant to be taken humorously. Enjoy.

TOP 10 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR CHERILYN EAGAR

(#10) She attacks other candidates on issues.

--Now Cheri, go be a good girl and give Mikey, Timmy, and Bobby a hug and tell ‘em you’re sorry and you’ll never ever say anything bad about their positions again!

(#9) She’s been engaged in undefined “very unseemly behavior.”

--How dare she! Say, btw, where's that "TheSugarBeet.com" bookmark anyhows?

(#8) She wears too much makeup.

--Don’t worry: NuSkin & Neways are picking up the tab and Bennett will teach Cherilyn how to slip them a big earmark.

(#7) She’s been married “multiple times” with “multiple divorces”

--Whoot! “Big Love” Sister!

(#6) She’s “dumb as a rock”

--Stupid Delicate Arch! Stop trying to act like so smart!

(#5) She is endorsed by an “egg club” and a plumber

--Yeah and what’s worse is the egg club doesn’t even produce Omega-3 brown eggs!

(#4) She spent time in jail for forging a bunch of voter registrations

--She bared her forearm tattoos, too, during a recent teaching moment at school!

(#3) She says you should vote for her because she is a woman

--And husbands, the wives say if you don’t vote for her, there might be a LDS missionary shortage in two decades.

(#2) A woman’s place is in the home / women don’t belong in politics

--Sorry, can’t comment. Too busy putting on the ‘ol wifebeater right now.

AND FINALLY....

(#1) A GOP website hyphenates her surname “Bacon-Eagar”

--Cherilyn’s true feminazi nature is at last revealed! Someone quick! Call Gayle Ruzicka and get the phone tree going—there’s a demonsheep about!

+++ Update 3/13:
The utgop.org website that had listed Cherilyn's surname as "Bacon-Eager" [sic] in reason #1 above has now correctly updated her surname to "Eagar." Someone got the message. Btw, no one has complained yet but to be clear in advance no negative is meant to be conveyed in the use of Ruzicka's name who is a true patriot and Nuskin/Neways who are huge employers in our county and provide a great tax revenue for our county. This is political satire, folks.

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 Stop Bennett War (Update)

The fiscally conservative Club for Growth has eyed picking off Bailout Bob Bennett for some time and has now put their resources behind it as well. They included their anti-Bennett targeting on the front page of their website (CFG article permalink here):

Jessica Taylor at the Politico reports Club for Growth is "buying everything that Fox News in Utah will let us buy." While we personally haven't seen the commerical(s) air, we might not be watching during airtimes that they are buying as the advertising is extremely targeted (Utah market). Here's the ad:



Club for Growth also started a website: http://www.stopbobbennett.com/ which encourages us to attend our caucus meetings on March 23rd and to vote for delegates who will:

1. Stay at the convention and vote in all ballot rounds for United States Senate,
2. Support only fiscally conservative challengers to Senator Bob Bennett, and
3. Not at any time cast a vote at convention for Senator Bob Bennett.

As not only having committed to attending our caucus, but also now a declared candidate for state delegate in our precinct, we unhesitatingly signed this petition and publicly commit to our precinct our unabated efforts to defeat Bailout Bob--which efforts the reader can examine for themselves going through the "Bennett" tags on Nacilbupera.

On Facebook, the Club for Growth started the "Stop Bob Bennett" group on Tuesday and a few minutes ago posted its announcement that its fans now outnumber Bob Bennetts:

STOP BOB BENNETT fans now outnumber Bennett fans! 1492 to 1489. It took just 5 days. Keep sharing and inviting your friends. We need to outnumber them on March 23rd at your caucus.

Nacilbupera predicted back in August that Bennett would not be elected Senator because we felt the mood overwhelmingly against him and that mood hasn't changed. We also predict that if state delegates are true to the words from their lips, Bennett will be defeated at the May 8th convention (rather than a primary).

+++ Update 3/11:

GOP Chair Dave Hansen rebukes CFG efforts. (Politico)

Videos of the Week: Obamafeld! (Update)

If this were on Youtube, our guess is it'd go viral. But if you have to register with PJTV (for free!) to view, it is well worth it!

As is, the video featured in Creative Minority Report, Sound Politics (WA), Instapundit, and the list keeps growing...

+++ Update 6pm:

Found this video on BigGovernment.com too which we love:

Nacilbupera has never really enjoyed rap that much--not for the rhythms, but for the explicit lyrics and progressive themes (comes to mind a particular Eminem song which tune we love but we can't bear to listen to because of the shamefully-awful lyrics.) We love the Wolverine's beat, the vid is great, and the lyrics are hilarious! If only rap were more like this...

OTP, Man!

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!

Utah's GOP Senators Support PAYGO

Maybe it's because it's an election year. Maybe it's because Bennett realizes that frankly, we've had it with his "demonsheep Conservatism" and passing off of principles for compromise...and Hatch knows he's next up to bat in 2012.

But whatever the reason, Bennett and Hatch were numbered among 19 lowly GOP senators who voted in support of Jim Bunning's (R-KY) brave stance in correctly pointing out that a $10B proposition to extend unemployment benefits (read: welfare subsidies now as these folks are long-term unemployed) should be paid for by the recently-passed PAYGO provisions. Brian Darling of the Foundry at Heritage.org summed it up this way:

Basically, liberals in Congress love the idea of PAYGO, yet they refuse to enforce the statutory requirements that all new spending be offset. They do this by designating all new spending as an “Emergency Designation.” This is feel good politics at its worst, because the left can claim they are for PAYGO, yet PAYGO has yet to restrain any spending. Furthermore, the vote on PAYGO in the House helped pave the way for a $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit. Therefore one can argue that PAYGO actually increased spending in the Congress.

Although we have been quite critical of Bennett on this blog (and quite justifiably so!) we do need to praise our elected officials when they do the right thing--and in this case, so it was. There are 79 Senators out there including every single Democrat and Obama who signed the bill who still has yet to get the teaparty message about reigning in spending.