Neil Walter
On Thursday April 1 I attended a Neil Walter event at the AF Library. After listening to him for about 40 minutes and asking a couple of questions I came to the conclusion that on most issues he and Morgan Philpot are on the same page. Neil is a supporter of the Constitution and thinks that the federal government has overstepped its bounds. He is passionate and articulate. According to Neil the primary differentiator between himself and Morgan is background. Neil has a finance background and was employed as a risk manager at ConocoPhillips on the natural gas and power trading floor for a couple of years. He returned home to help run the family business (real estate) and now teaches at Dixie College as well.
His view is that financial issues are at the heart of the nations problem and he is going back to Washington to help fix them. This point of view generally scares me. Whenever I here someone say that they are going to Washington to help fix things my first thought is oh no, not another federal program. However, when I listened to him talk, the way he feels that things need to be fixed in DC is to reduce federal regulation and control.
Neil mentioned that he has no political experience whatsoever but he feels that his business background gives him insights that will help him be effective in Washington. His view is that he can beat Matheson in a general election because his oil and gas experience plus being raised in Southern Utah can shift enough votes from Matheson from the southern and southeastern counties to win.
Morgan Philpot
I met Morgan list summer and am much more familiar with him on a personal level so I have a bit more information that I can share about him. He was elected to serve in the Utah House of Representative in 2000 at a fairly young age. He got involved in political after doing a White House internship in 1997. He was an anthropology / environmental policy major at the U of U (not something you would think would lead to conservative thinking).
After returning from the White House Morgan was very much disillusioned with the manner in which the federal government operated. He had seen first hand the contempt that bureaucrats and many elected official had for the constitution and the electorate. He knew the magnitude of the problem and upon his return decided to get involved. He called his precinct chair to find out the location of the upcoming caucus meetings and then found that the meeting would be held in his home. He and his wife were elected chair and vice chair respectively on a unanimous vote (his and his wife's -- they were the only attendees).
Later he was asked to run to fill an open seat in his state house district. He won using a grassroots campaign strategy and campaigned on conservative principles. After joining the house he helped form the conservative caucus to help promote sound legislation. One of his major achievements was drafting and passing the Carson Smith scholarship for special needs kids. He did this after one of his constituents called him to share a challenge she had in trying to get a good education for her special needs son. This is a successful voucher program.
He ran for a second term again as a conservative and won in spite of the fact the people told him he couldn't win as a conservative. Then he left Utah to get a law degree from Ave Marie Law School where he was taught by conservative faculty like Judge Robert Bork. He has since clerked for Attorney General Shurtleff and worked as in-house counsel for a local company.
Morgan's view is that the core problem we are facing today in Washington is that we have strayed from the Constitution. Only by returning to the limited government laid out by our founders can we address the problems we face today. I tend to agree that key issue of our time is a federal government whose power has vastly exceeded the bounds set in the Constitution. The financial crisis we are in is a symptom of this disease rather than the core problem.
Morgan has a proven conservative record and has demonstrated an ability to bring people together and pass conservative legislation. While in office he stayed true to his conservative principles and ran for a 2nd term as a staunch conservative when perhaps it would have been easier to back off a bit and run as a moderate. He has also served the Republican party in both at the local and state levels. To me he has the necessary experience to hit the ground running and tackle the tough issues that face us today.
Net/Net
Both candidates express conservative views and support the concept of a limited federal government bound by the constraints of the constitution. Neil would go to Washington and focus on economic issues while Morgan's approach would be one that would seek to restore constitutional limits to the federal government. Neil has an MBA and business background while Morgan has a law degree and a very good understanding of the Constitution. Additionally, Morgan has served in the Utah House of Representative and been involved in Utah Republican politics.
I think you can tell where my support lies. Let me know your views.
On Thursday April 1 I attended a Neil Walter event at the AF Library. After listening to him for about 40 minutes and asking a couple of questions I came to the conclusion that on most issues he and Morgan Philpot are on the same page. Neil is a supporter of the Constitution and thinks that the federal government has overstepped its bounds. He is passionate and articulate. According to Neil the primary differentiator between himself and Morgan is background. Neil has a finance background and was employed as a risk manager at ConocoPhillips on the natural gas and power trading floor for a couple of years. He returned home to help run the family business (real estate) and now teaches at Dixie College as well.
His view is that financial issues are at the heart of the nations problem and he is going back to Washington to help fix them. This point of view generally scares me. Whenever I here someone say that they are going to Washington to help fix things my first thought is oh no, not another federal program. However, when I listened to him talk, the way he feels that things need to be fixed in DC is to reduce federal regulation and control.
Neil mentioned that he has no political experience whatsoever but he feels that his business background gives him insights that will help him be effective in Washington. His view is that he can beat Matheson in a general election because his oil and gas experience plus being raised in Southern Utah can shift enough votes from Matheson from the southern and southeastern counties to win.
Morgan Philpot
I met Morgan list summer and am much more familiar with him on a personal level so I have a bit more information that I can share about him. He was elected to serve in the Utah House of Representative in 2000 at a fairly young age. He got involved in political after doing a White House internship in 1997. He was an anthropology / environmental policy major at the U of U (not something you would think would lead to conservative thinking).
After returning from the White House Morgan was very much disillusioned with the manner in which the federal government operated. He had seen first hand the contempt that bureaucrats and many elected official had for the constitution and the electorate. He knew the magnitude of the problem and upon his return decided to get involved. He called his precinct chair to find out the location of the upcoming caucus meetings and then found that the meeting would be held in his home. He and his wife were elected chair and vice chair respectively on a unanimous vote (his and his wife's -- they were the only attendees).
Later he was asked to run to fill an open seat in his state house district. He won using a grassroots campaign strategy and campaigned on conservative principles. After joining the house he helped form the conservative caucus to help promote sound legislation. One of his major achievements was drafting and passing the Carson Smith scholarship for special needs kids. He did this after one of his constituents called him to share a challenge she had in trying to get a good education for her special needs son. This is a successful voucher program.
He ran for a second term again as a conservative and won in spite of the fact the people told him he couldn't win as a conservative. Then he left Utah to get a law degree from Ave Marie Law School where he was taught by conservative faculty like Judge Robert Bork. He has since clerked for Attorney General Shurtleff and worked as in-house counsel for a local company.
Morgan's view is that the core problem we are facing today in Washington is that we have strayed from the Constitution. Only by returning to the limited government laid out by our founders can we address the problems we face today. I tend to agree that key issue of our time is a federal government whose power has vastly exceeded the bounds set in the Constitution. The financial crisis we are in is a symptom of this disease rather than the core problem.
Morgan has a proven conservative record and has demonstrated an ability to bring people together and pass conservative legislation. While in office he stayed true to his conservative principles and ran for a 2nd term as a staunch conservative when perhaps it would have been easier to back off a bit and run as a moderate. He has also served the Republican party in both at the local and state levels. To me he has the necessary experience to hit the ground running and tackle the tough issues that face us today.
Net/Net
Both candidates express conservative views and support the concept of a limited federal government bound by the constraints of the constitution. Neil would go to Washington and focus on economic issues while Morgan's approach would be one that would seek to restore constitutional limits to the federal government. Neil has an MBA and business background while Morgan has a law degree and a very good understanding of the Constitution. Additionally, Morgan has served in the Utah House of Representative and been involved in Utah Republican politics.
I think you can tell where my support lies. Let me know your views.
2 comments:
Thanks Rod, this is good information.
They are both great candidates. Philpot has a few very difficult obstacles that concern me. 1. He voted against the ammendment of the state constitution to ban gay marriage. 2. He has shown zero capability to raise money. 3. His record in the state legislature is sub par. He had very little success(Notice how he never talks about it-besides the one bill for the disabled). 4. Philpot has lost all momentum and is now trailing Walter. 5. Walter had a much better reception and had much more going for him at the SLC and Utah county conventions. Philpot has only a very basic understanding of the most pressing financial issues we face. Walter will stand up for the constitution as well, or better, than anyone, and that is not his only strength.
Post a Comment