Four candidates vie for the republican nomination to run for US Senate here in Utah. Going from left to right, Mike Lee, Tim Bridgewater, Bob Bennett (incumbent) and Cherilyn Eagar.
Or as I put it… 3 clones and a breath of fresh air. Consider, the typical Republican Senator:
It isn’t just that Cherilyn is a woman. Assuming Bennett is going to lose, we will lose seniority in the Senate. Who will get the plum assignments? Who will get on Fox News? Who will do better communicating what Utahans want both in the Senate and to the public?
I think Cherilyn Eagar will.
In a nutshell, although I agree 99% with the three candidates to replace Bennett, I think Cherilyn Eagar will be more effective, less prone to compromise/deal making, and more publically visible once there.
She won’t disappear into a sea of short hair, dark suits and mouths all spouting on about Ronald Reagan.
She also won’t stay long as she has imposed a self-term limit on herself.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am
That’s nice, but: Is Fox News the opinion source of the multitudes? Many limited term promising candidates find compelling reasons to extend their tenure once in office without any apparent penalty. Clout in the Senate requires either seniority or a national recognition before election. Ms Whatshername would be starting from scratch with just the inherent disproportionate strength of small states with two Senators. The I-hate-compromise Westerners in the empty quarter like that compromise.
May your candidate keep her foot out of her mouth for the next ten months. Is she up to it?
January 13th, 2010 at 9:58 am
If anybody is going to change things up, I think it’s Mr. Lee — after reviewing all the candidates, I think he stands the best chance at getting elected, remaining committed to the principle of liberty, and binding himself down by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. I’ve heard and read what others have said, including Ms. Eagar, but this patriot sees in Mr. Lee a far better chance and capacity as a Senator who strictly adheres to the Constitution.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Mike Lee knows and understands the Constitution, is better prepared to use its precepts, and more likely to find colleagues who will do likewise, than any candidate, by far. If we are to make an about face on the direction this nation is taking, it must be done on the floor of Congress, not in front of a TV camera. Mike knows how to do that, and will be the most effective individual we can elect to do what needs to be done. He is deeply rooted in the genius of the Constitution of the United States of America, and knows, without a doubt, that the only way we can return this nation to what it once was, is to follow its precepts.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Hi Publius2K…. I don’t see a big difference in Constitution adhering between any of them.
Jim… I just seem Lee fading into the blue suits of the Senate. Yes, he loves the Constitution, but so do all the Candidates.
And I DO NOT WANT ANOTHER LAWYER in Congress. Lawyers think different, rationalize differently, and are dangerous in groups.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Agree with Carl Nelson in that Fox News is not necessarily the font of all wisdom, nor do we necessarily need another media darling (Mr. Chaffetz is doing enough of that). What we really need is someone who WILL go in and DO what he/she promises in the here and now.
Will Ms. Eagar do so? Will Mike Lee do so?
Right now, those are my two front runners. As I score it, though, Mr. Lee has more fire and clout (along with party support via Hansen, Bangerter, Shurtleff et al. backing him). It’s going to be an interesting 1-2 race with these two.
Can’t wait to keep watching and forming my opinion.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:49 am
I’m sorry I mentioned Fox News… I meant “media” in general.
TFC Utah… I think both will keep their promises. I’m happy to have this abundance of choice. I think Lee, as a lawyer, is more prone to bad thinking/justification/rationalization. That is what they are trained to do. Also, I do not like his backing by career politicians. It may be a campaign advantage as he gets access to their machines, but I’ve had it with career politicians.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Mike Lee will be the only candidate that will be able to draw people to his ideas through his powers of persuasion and charm. Mike will make it appealing to consider Constitutional issues while debating legislation. My concern is that none of the others have that ability.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Utah Energy Idealists… D.C. is full of charming men with short hair, blue suits and power ties.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Don’t want another lawyer? Do you know how many of the Founders were lawyers? Just because there are plenty of bad ones does not mean that there are not good ones. Mike is a good one.
For a difference in the Constitution, may I humbly suggest that you ask each one where they stand on the “nanny state” issues: pornography, drugs, gambling, etc. From what I’ve been told by a friend, this should reveal a large difference between the two as to which is a strict constitutionalist.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:05 am
I’m saying we have enough lawyers. There are no “good” lawyers. There is your lawyer and there is the other guys lawyer.
What would you define as Constitutional wrt nanny state issues? For instance are you saying Mike Lee would support pornography on 1st amendment grounds, as many LAWYERs do? I’m just not sure what you want me to ask the candidates.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:15 am
BTW: 35 of 74 original delegates to the original Constitutional convention had been to law school – not sure how many were practicing lawyers. 13 were merchants. 17 were land or investment speculators. 12 owned plantations. Only 8 made their living as public office holders. 3 were retired. 3 doctors. one college president.
http://www.usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html has the occupations of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence. A lot of lawyers.
I’d maintain, however, that lawyers then, were a lot different than lawyers and law training now.
Currently about 60% of the US Senate has law degrees.
I think there is room, and need, for a grandmother activist…
January 13th, 2010 at 11:26 am
To my knowledge, Mike would not support pornography (and other vices) on free speech grounds, but on state’s rights. Or, rather, the Constitution. The federal government is given no authority to legislate in these matters, so it’s left up to each State to determine how it will handle them.
The tendency to manage everything at the federal level is one that afflicts both parties with their pet projects and policies. From what I’ve read, heard, and seen, Mike is the only contender that understands this and will abide by it.
As per the lawyer thing, it’s a red herring. It ultimately does not matter what one’s profession is. What matters is how they will vote and represent those who elect them. Yes, there are plenty of poor lawyers. But my mom is a lawyer — a principled, patriotic, intelligent individual who supports good principles. From all I’ve seen from Mike, he is the same — yes, a good lawyer who can effectively and persuasively advocate for the principle of liberty.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Cherilyn has not impressed me at all. She’s a power hungry social climber and a pushy broad who once she gets into office will forget all the promises made to her constituents and will be just another self-serving politician. Just look at how she runs her campaign, as well as the kinds of people she surrounds herself with in her campaign and you get a pretty good idea about what her principles really are.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
By Their Fruits: Instead of name calling, please provide concrete facts. Define pushy vs. aggressive. What past actions can you point to that prove she will forget her constituents? What has she done with the running of her campaign that you don’t like, specifically? Who is in her campaign that you don’t like and why?
If there’s no discernible difference in the candidates then we need any and all information to help in decision making. Please provide your backup to your evaluation of Eager or your comments smack of sexism.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
12… I agree we federalize too many things. It pained me, for instance, when Hatch – a proclaimed Constitutionalist, supported No Child Left Behind.
On lawyers… I just think we have enough of that view represented there.
13… you lost me at “pushy broad” (-:
14… quit being pushy (-: I love you dear!
January 13th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
My strong suggestion: go hear Mike Lee speak, then ask the hard questions. He has a refreshing approach (actually 200 years old), in that the precepts of the application of the Constitution is the only real solution to the morass of problems we face in this nation. He is a lawyer, that’s true. He is also a great man, a principled individual, and has his feet firmly planted on what’s right for America, and he knows how to sell that idea to others who will join with him to right the ship. Having been on the front line of the U.S. Supreme Court, he knows the ropes, understands the challenges, and is willing to give it his all.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
While I’m still sitting back and evaluating the candidates, I do lean toward Eager. Is it because she’s a woman? Probably. Is it because I don’t want yet another lawyer in Congress? Also probable. Could it be that I have a distaste of the business of politics that needs the support of other politicians? Very probably. What would be really great is another conservative, outspoken woman to really drive the liberals nuts, ala Michelle Bachmann. Will that be what Eager will be? I don’t know, I’m staying tuned.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
#15 Just another citizen asking for facts and trying to decide on facts.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
If you wouldn’t want lawyers repairing automobiles, why would you want mechanics designing laws?
BTW: a silver tongued campaign speaker isn’t necessarily an effective lawmaker which requires leadership and getting other lawmakers to see things your way. Speeches don’t do that very well. The legislative game is negotiating among a dozen different viewpoints, incentives, and interest groups. Constitutional principles are only a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. Standing rock-solid on your principles sounds noble, but laws aren’t made that way.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Lawyers can help write them on staff, as hired hands. The way they think is useful there. But not in representing us.
If less laws are made because principals are stuck to then we are better off. We need less laws, not more.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
How about this: Don’t elect a lawyer, but the representative who uses lawyers on staff to make sure the legislation has a chance at doing what he/she was elected by the people to do.
Commenter Carl: I agree that the skills to get elected aren’t the skills to get things done. I don’t necessarily want Congress getting things done. I want one with the skills to undo!
January 13th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
# 19 You are right about the silver-tongued campaigner as evidenced by the disaster in office now. Good point.
How did the Mike Lee campaign office find out about your blog and spam it?
January 13th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
#22… there are a # of readers around Utah, I surmise somebody passed it along. They were on talking points for sure.
But… I’ll take term limits, feisty non-careerist, not who the other insider politicians want, and not a lawyer as my talking points.
The inside game might work to get some delegates and maybe force a primary, but it isn’t clear to me who appeals more to the insiders – Bennett (incumbent) or Lee. I think they split that vote.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Maybe so, but I think #1 is right about your Eager’s term limits promise.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
at least she promised. And I’m not aware of Republicans putting up with broken term limit promises. I know I wouldn’t.
January 14th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
#19 I would take a mechanic over a lawyer designing laws in a heartbeat. The lawyers should be the mechanics of laws, building them to match a specification laid out by a broader-thinking architect/designer.
I think that the best possible lawmakers are Scientist Businessmen. Scientists not neccecarily in trade but in line of thinking. For instance, show me a lawyer who can follow If->Then->Else logic without equivocating in well-not-really terms. Businessmen so that they understand what it takes to build something in the society they help govern and they have something to lose if they f*** it up.
IF: the government gives money to someone
THEN: the government had to steal the money from someone else first
IF: you grant amnesty to illegal immigrants
THEN: more will come in the hope of amnesty
As far as compromise to make laws: that is where pork comes from. The federal government was not designed to have that much of a stake in each state, or individual’s life. It has no moral or legal right under the constitution to be doing what it is doing.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
It is convenient to blame the lawmakers when we don’t like the results of the government. We might take notice that over the 220 years we have a wide variety of men and women in the Congress, probably more lawyers than any other expertise. The resulting collection of laws and government roles has acccrued over those 220 years for a variety of reasons, but each exists because compromises were made among an ever growing panoply of competing interests and public demands. Electing yet another slate of Congresscritters, experienced or novice, is not going to change the process nor the results until the voters change their ways of thinking about government. Our lawmakers are us!
January 14th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
The American people are as much to blame as any other party. We produced the nitwits, we elected the nitwits, we realized that the nitwits were nitwits so we produced and elected different nitwits.
My argument against compromise is not absolute, but it is borne out of disgust. Senators and congressmen are BUYING each others’ votes. Tell me how that is a good thing? Tell me why I should accept bribery on a national scale when we abhor it so much on any smaller scale?
Excuse me if my statements seem to excessively blame the government and ignore our own culpability. However, many politicians, including the current fearless leader use demagogy to attain power. An uneducated populace doesn’t recognize the signs of someone manipulating them. We all say “those idiots in Washington” then vote for the same corrupt politicians all over gain.
Yes, as a nation we should be saying “Mea Culpa” but we need to stop “The New Deal” and “The Great Society” from getting us into worse trouble. We are quickly reaching a point described thusly: “A democracy only lasts as long as it takes the people to realize that they can vote themselves generous stipends from the public coffers.”
Believing as I do in the rule of law, the method we must use to stop the descent is this: show people what is going to happen if it doesn’t stop. Show them what California is on the brink of, and what history shows us of nations who voted for those who promised them whatever it took.
What we must fix in order to stop it all is the current “educational” system, which for all intents and purposes is turning out mindless drones:
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11141949
By the way, I don’t like government involvement even when the effect seems to be positive. There are numerous programs which have had a largely positive effect that I still believe are not the right of the federal government to run. Those are the kinds of programs I would fight *for* on a state level or a local level.
January 15th, 2010 at 8:12 am
For an education system fix to “fix” this it would have to bring each kid up to the founders level (or close) of education. Unlikely.
What we need to “fix” is the system that permits uneducated peope, and their agents, to reach into educated/productive people’s pockets.
That is the ultimate corruption. That the Senators are bring each other with other people’s money.
January 15th, 2010 at 10:45 am
I don’t think that everyone needs to be at the founder level of education. If we could get everyone in the habit of critical thinking, it might be enough. Much of modus operandi in politics is emotional appeals: “Don’t you feel bad for….” “Isn’t it a shame…” “That’s outrageous….” “Shouldn’t we help…”
If people were to understand the consequence to the actions we take as individuals and a nation I think that would be a huge step in the right direction. There was a speech by Ronald Regan in 1964 which is highly applicable to this conversation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
**replaced that link with a better one
January 15th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Great speech. I wish I liked Reagan more. I don’t adulate him like others do. I think he go rolled on immigration and taxes, paving the way for future democratic Presidents via the loss of California as a Republican and functional state.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
He had some serious flaws in practice and policy. But its a good speech.