More details on my thoughts on the US Senate and US House races can be found on my earlier posts on these two races. Below are my quick thoughts on each office.
US Senate
I'm planning on voting for Tim Bridgewater. The two other candidates who I would also be able to support are Mike Lee and Cherilyn Eager. As for Senator Bennett, he lost my support when he proposed a federal health care initiative which in my view is not the role of the Federal government. I think he has bought into the notion that Washington is the answer to problems whereas my view is that the accumulation of power by the Federal government and the commensurate loss of power by the states.
I'm very much in favor of primary election for this race which does not include Bennett.
I'm very much in favor of primary election for this race which does not include Bennett.
US House
I'm strongly supporting Morgan Philpot for congress. He has a proven track record in state political office and in service to the party. I would hate to see a primary race for this office as I think our money should all go to beating Matheson.
Governor
I'm supporting Gov. Herbert. I don't see that any of the other candidates are particularly compelling and one (Richard Martin) lost my support when he spent 1/3 of the 1st email I got from he talking about the state should invest in gold so that we could benefit from the impending rise in the price of gold.
State Senate
I'm supporting Howard Stephenson. From my research I think he has done a good job representing his constituents and has been effective in office. His stands on taxation, education, and states rights are in line with where I think we ought to be. I've listened to his opponent and think he is a strong candidate and would be good choice as well but I'm support Stephenson but I think he is an effective Senator and would continue to be one.
Summary
These are my current views. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on the candidates. It would be very difficult, if not impossible for me to support Bennett or change my view on the US House race.
4 comments:
Thanks for doing this!
Thank you to the delegates for their time and their evaluations. All have made excellent comments.
My main concern is with specific issues where Sen. Bennett and I disagree. So, I am pleased that the 3 delegates will not be supporting him. Bennett does have conservative roots and does vote that way about 50% of the time. However, on issues like amnesty, TARP, BennettCare and confirming people like Eric Holder (2nd Amendment isn't an individual right) and Cass Sunstein(1st Amendment should be regulated by the government, huh?), I think they are a measure of the man, and I heartily disagree. I understand that amnesty and TARP were spearheaded by Pres. Bush and Bennett is a party man. But that's just the problem. In addition, we don't seem to traditionally hold our incumbents accountable. In my opinion, if you held the office and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, if you fail in that oath, you do not get the chance to do it again. Everyone else that hasn't violated that oath is better qualified.
I would really like to see a primary between Mr. Bridgewater and Mr. Lee. I would love to see a hybrid of the two of them. Both have strengths that compliment the weaknesses of the other. I think a primary challenge would be a great refinement for both of them. Having said that, if Sen. Bennett has a chance of being in the primary, I would like to see one of these two get 60% to avoid a primary.
My biggest concern with Mr. Bridgewater is that he is a party man and might go along like Sen. Bennett. I think he is discovering the power of the Constitution, but I would hope he would rely on the text and the oath he may take, to make all of his decisions. I have seen his practical experience, but worry that it may not be founded on the Constitutional basis. Without that basis, it can be swayed by individual arguments.
With Mr. Lee, I think it will be very easy to hold him accountable to the text of the Constitution, and I believe that is what he will do. I think that he hasn't had a lot of experience with campaigning and 'cheerleading' for a cause. I have seen great improvement overall in him in this area, but I do worry about that weakness. His age isn't a concern for me. If we show Sen. Bennett that we can term limit him, as we have with Congressman Cannon, we can change the tide of incumbents thinking that they have a free ride back. This is the time to show that.
I would also support Mrs. Eager, but I am concerned that she is an 'activist' before anything else. She has good credentials on conservative issues, but I am turned off by her 'gender issue'. She is trying to gain kudos by being a conservative woman. I would be very offended if any one of the other candidates touted his creditials as a conservative man.
I would really like to see someone ask these candidates about 'Advice and Consent'.
I agree on US Congress (Philpot) and Governor (Herbert). I have been very pleased with Gov. Herbert's leadership in this last session. He has shown a good understanding of Federalism and the concept that unalienable rights do not come from government, state or Federal, but from the Creator.
For State Senate, I think that an incumbant has an obligation to show that they have fulfilled their oaths and that they represent my view on the issues in a somewhat consistent way, e.g. if we agree 80% of the time or more, this is good. Having said that, Sen. Stephenson has done that. He and I agree on education issues most of the time. I disagree heartily with him on the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I have only talked with and heard Mr. Nielson a couple of times. He seems to represent most of what Sen. Stephenson does. My only concern with him would be that I have seen Sen. Stephenson in action. He is a Pit Bull for state power. That may be a problem, but at the same time, Madison talked about matching ambition with ambition between the states and the feds. I would want to know that Mr. Nielson would also be a Pit Bull in reclaiming power for the state from the Fed. Even if the motivation on the state level is to gain more state power, it is this tug-of-war that was initiated by design to protect individual rights by allowing the natural inclination of those in power to amass more power. Right now, that balance is hugely in favor of the Feds. So, hence, the need for a Pit Bull, regardless of motivation.
Thank you for your comments Highlander. Your message is well thoughtout and expressed
Post a Comment