Senate Candidate Review April 10

I have now met with and spoken with each of what I perceive to be the three leading challengers to Bob Bennett. On a position basis I don't have major disagreements with any of them and could support any of them the Republican party nominee. What I also enjoy is that the only public remarks I've heard by these candidates regarding the others have been complimentary.

Below are my observations on each:

Tim Bridgewater

Tim has been actively involved in politics for a number years. From what I can tell he has used the time and money his business success has given him to give back to the community at large. In many instances these efforts have been behind the scenes and not benefited him in a public way. For example, when he saw an issue with public schools, he helped start a charter school. This takes a lot of time and effort and there is not much public glory that goes with it. He could have sent his kids to a private school but chose instead to try and do something that would benefit both his family and the community at large.

Tim seems to me to be a guy who is a problem solver and a hard worker. He doesn't just find problems and complain he works to fix them. If elected he seems willing to stand up and take principled stands without regard to personal cost. I like the idea that he has a history of trying to fix things and in some cases succeeding (sometimes the dragon wins). I also like that he has a long history of involvement in political issues both Republican Party and general policy.

When I asked Tim what he feelings were on the powers given to the Senate to provide Advise and Consent to presidential appointees he stated that he would oppose the appointment of any candidate no matter how qualified on paper that would take the country in a direction away from principles of limited government and free markets found in the Constitution.

Cherilyn Eager

Cherilyn has a lot of passion and drive and a long history of using that to try to and create change in a positive direction. She has done this on public issues and private. What I like about her is that she does not give up put persists. Persistence coupled with great passion is a wonderful trait as long as an individual is willing to make policy (not principle) changes when confronted when new information.

Cherilyn's passion has likely created friction with some people. As far as I can this is a natural side effect of a passionate personality and not an overt attempt to alienate others.

Mike Lee

Mike is articulate and concise in his expressions. His positions are well thought out and grounded in the Constitution, which he knows well. He is an orginalist and wants to see the federal government return to the limited form envisioned by the founders. He has been able to put together a team of young enthusiastic supporters. His experience compared to the others is limited, as a result of his age, so there is less history upon which to base a decision.

When I asked him if he could repeal only one amendment which one that would be and why his response was the 17th because it was the critical factor in reducing the power of the states, which has been a key factor in the problems we face today (e.g. the unfettered growth of the federal government and its powers).

Summary

There are good reasons to support each of these three candidates. The decision as to which one depends on what weight is put on factors such as experience, service, passion, constitutional knowledge, ... . It is a tough decision.