Summary of US Senate Candidate Debate @ UVU

I attended the US Senate candidate debate today at UVU. All Republican candidates attended as well as the Constitution Party's nominee (Scott Bradley) and one of two democratic candidates Chris Stout.

The format used in the "debate" was that each candidate was given 2 minutes to introduce themselves. Then each candidate was asked one preselected question and given 2 minutes to respond the other candidates were allowed 1 minute each to "rebut" the response. The debate ended with a 30 second close by each candidate.

The questions ranged from; "What are your thoughts regarding the bill signed by governor Herbert authorizing the use of eminent domain to seize federally controlled land" to "what would you do with respect to the federal health care bill which was just signed into law".

The responses from the republican candidates were generally quite similar so I focused my attention on trying to look past the words and try and discern who really knew what they were talking about, were they passionate, why were they running ... .

Below is a summary of my thoughts with respect to each republican candidate. I think they are all honorable people and my hats off to them for making the effort to run:

• Robert Bennett: Bob seemed a little on the defensive but did show a lot of knowledge of US history when discussing the history of varied interpretations of constitutional issues. When ear marks were discussed he defended them and said that it would be unwise to give up this privilege and defer all such decisions to the executive branch.
  
• Tim Bridgewater: Tim showed passion and drive. His views lined up with the rest of the conservative candidates. He highlighted his business background and his contributions to the party in various party offices. I like the idea that he has a history of contributing on a volunteer basis prior to running for office.
• David Chui: He was one of the younger candidates and used his ethnic background as a differentiator. That is to say because he has grandparents that fought communism in China as well as ancestors that go back to the founding of the country he is in a unique position to take a stand on some issues (immigration, defense of freedom ...). He general spoke slower and with less passion than the others. Personally, I feel like he is the weakest of the candidates in terms of experience and the ability to express ideas well.
• Merrill Cook: He was passionate and frequently discussed his past service and an indicator of what his future performance would be. He served for 4 years in the US House of Representatives and his record shows that he is a strong conservative. He is very much concerned with spending, the federal reserve, and the erosion of our liberties. He did a good job and I think that many would put him in their top 3 list. He showed a good understanding of the US Constitution.
  
• Cherilyn Eagar: She was very passionate and at times it seemed like she was at a rally. She was well informed on the issues and did I say that her responses were passionate. One of her messages is that we need a conservative women in the Senate to neutralize the liberal ones and who can fight for some issues toe to toe with the opposition without having back down because of being a man (e.g. abortion ...). While it is a point a lot of people seemed put off by that. She has a long history of activism on a variety of issues that most conservatives would support and has demonstrated tenacity. Some might find her brash and perhaps a bit pushy. About a month ago I spoke with her in person for about an hour and afterwards I did feel that she was pushy but she did admit that she had made some mistakes in the past, regarding strategies she took in fighting for family related issues in Washington. That showed some humility. She is a hard worker and did spend a number of years as a single mom with kids (that is a hard job even when the former spouse is supportive).
  
• Leonard Fabiano: I really liked him. He was the grandfather of group. A successful business man who wants to give back. If he were to be elected he would not take a salary and would not take advantage of any retirement benefits. He quoted King Benjamin in the regard without mentioning the King Benjamin's name. He showed a good understanding of the issues and was kind to the other candidates, clapping when he agreed with a point.
• Jeremy Friedbaum: I also liked Jeremy. He added humor on occasion and seemed quite comfortable and easy going. He had opinions on all the issues, backed them up and was not shy about saying that one of his priorities if he got into office would be to hold hearings on Obama's eligibility to be president. Not necessarily because of questions surrounding his birth certificate but because of the possibility that he might also have Indonesian citizenship. A public hearing could be a good thing just so the air would get cleared. This is controversial and the fact that he would be open about his thoughts on the matter is a good thing from from my perspective. However, I didn't see what I would call "fire in the belly" which is sometimes required to persist when times get hard. Jeremy also said that he would be a 1 term Senator. He pointed out that up to 70% of a sitting Senators time is spent raising money for reelection. He would not have that problem.
  
• Mike Lee: Mike was also very passionate. He is a very good speaker and can clearly articulate his views on issues. He has a great command of the history surrounding the Constitution. If I had to score the candidates on clarity and conciseness he probably would have been the winner. I spoke with him after the meeting and he was very direct in his responses to questions and pointed out that since an early age he has been interested in the Constitution and concerned about the expanding power of the federal government. He has a young and committed campaign team. A concern I have about him is "life experience" as compared with the other candidates. As I get older I can see the value of certain experiences that come only with age. I'm not sure how big deal this is but nonetheless there it is.
  

Bottom line for me is as follows. I think all of the candidates except David Chui would be good representatives for us. Personally, I've written off Bennett if only because he proposed a health care bill that expanded the role of the federal government. Regardless of details, my view is the that the federal government should have a very limited role in health care (perhaps safety related) if any. There are other issues but for me that was a deal breaker.

My top three in no particular order would be Tim Bridgewater, Cherilyn Eagar and Mike Lee. They were the ones (along with Cook) that had the most passion and drive. As I said the challengers pretty much had the same views on all the major issues. I suspect the ones I named will be the three who get shortlisted at the convention. My understanding of the convention process is that the field will get narrowed down from the current list to 3 candidates and then 2.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the candidates. Also, let me know what questions you would want me to ask of the candidates.

Publish Post

I'd like to make one final point which I noticed as I was writing this. There seems to be a lack of diversity amongst our candidates and a clear bias against the higher letters of the alphabets. Their last names stop at L. As an M letter person should I be offended? Surely there could have been a Nydegger, Olson or Siegel in the bunch. Maybe next time :)

Rod Mann