(Notice the above picture, kinda funny how much POMP and CIRCUMSTANCE is in the debates now compared to what they were. Makes you wonder if it is not about who spends or looks the best as opposed to who has the best moral values.)
I attended a
debate held by UVU on Friday April 2nd, 2010. The debate was held in the
UVU Library. The room that the debate was located in had a very nice view of Utah Lake and I could even see the sub-division I live in on the west side of the lake. My eye sight was not good enough to actually see the street I live on, but you had a nice view of the south end of Saratoga Springs.
The debate had several non republican candidates there as well. And I will have to admit, after the State GOP convention, I am going to seriously look into Scott Bradley of the Constitution party. He deserves a closer look in my opinion. But back to the debate. There were 10 candidates there. 8 Republican, 1 Constitutional, and 1 Democrat. I am going to first give my views/impressions on the 8 Republican candidates, and then I will give my view on the non-republican candidates. There are several other write ups on this debate as well.
The Daily Herald has an article on it, as well as
KSL.com.
First, here is a list of those that attended. (Click on the name to visit their websites, if they have one.)
First, my take on the Republican candidates.
Bob Bennett
As the incumbent, Senator Bennett has a heavy challenge ahead of him. Almost all of the candidates at one time or another directly jabbed at the Senator. My feelings to wards Senator Bennett have not changed because of the debate, but I am going to look a little more into his view points. During the debate, he talked about Earmarks and how the Executive Branch (Obama Administration) could spend money that congress did not spend on earmarks. I have sent him an email asking him to clarify this statement.
One of the questions asked the candidates was what three things they would do for Utah when they got into office. Almost everyone mentioned items on the federal level. Mr. Bennett then spent his time reminding everyone of the questions, and that they should of talked about state issues, not federal, but then did not answer the question.
I am still opposed to Bob Bennett at this time, the biggest hurdle or problem I see with Senator Bennett is the fact that he voted on the first TARP or Bank Bailout. And in the process made the comment that he was going to go against what the majority of the people in his state were telling him. You can view more information about this at:
http://www.turdacrat.com/2010/03/bob-bennett-turdacrat/.
Tim Bridgewater
I am impressed with Tim Bridgewater. I am going to be following his platform more closely over the next few weeks. I was impressed with the way he handled himself and how hard he pushed the US Constitution in the debate. I have asked him some follow up questions via email and will post them when I receive an answer.
David Chiu
I will not be voting for David Chiu as a delegate, and here are the reasons. Almost every question in the debate he returned to his military son. Not every question needs to be answered with reference to the military and to current military conflicts. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate what the US Military has done, is doing, and will be doing. I just think that there needs to be more to a person than their view of the Military and that their son is a Marine.
Merrill Cook
I did not like Merrill when he was a member of Congress before. The entire debate was about Bob Bennett and also what he did in Washington before that needs to be fixed because he was not there again. (On a non debate side, he also lost my vote at a Meet the Candidate event held in Eagle Mountain on the 25th of March. During that event, he sat on the sidelines on his cell phone, while those delegates around him were struggling to hear. He even answered another call after he was asked by several people to please take it outside. He showed little or no consideration for anyone else at attendance.)
Leonard Fabiano
Mr. Fabiano is a good man, I like most of his viewpoints, but I personally don't think he has a loud enough voice to push for Utah. He is a good man, and believes in the Constitution, but I don't think he has what it will take to make the changes needed in the Congress.
Jeremy Freidbaum
I wanted to give Jeremy a running chance, I really did. He looks like the under dog in the race, and I wanted to give him all the support I could. I listened to him, and believe the he has a very strong understanding and knowledge of the Founding Fathers. During the debate, it came out that he is what is called "A Birther". The birthers are a group of people that believe that Obama should not be President because he is not a legal citizen of the US. To this I say, maybe he is, maybe he is not, but now that he is the President, and accepted by Congress, it is a mute point. If congress were to push for him to be removed because of this, it would split the country more than it is already split. I think that more attention needs to be made on actual things that can be changed, instead of chasing ghosts.
Cherilyn Eager
Call me a sexist, but if I hear her one more time tell me that what Washington needs is a Conservative Female, I am gong to scream. Anyone that tells me that I need to vote her into office because she is a female, has lost my vote. I believe that someone should be voted on because of their moral principles and what they are planning on doing for our country. I don't think that because someone is a female and is trying to protect her children and grandchildren make her any better of a candidate than a male trying to protect his children and grandchildren. I also believe that a male can fight the abortion fight as well as a female can. (I sent her an email about this, and she has responded to me. I will be posting it in the next few days.)
Mike Lee
Mike Lee did well at the debate. He made his points, and I think handled himself very well. I really like Mike Lee and his view on the constitution and other items. I do need to look more into this view on Free Trade, but that is for another post.
Now on to the non republican candidates.
Christopher Stout
Mr Stout was the only one in the debate that had people heckle him. I thought it was a credit to him to show up to the debate. He was outnumbered, and the majority of the people were republican delegates that were there to hear republicans. But the one comment he made that irritated everyone, including me was his stance on the Constitution. First, he claimed the document was out dated and a changing document. His logic was because the Amendments were added that the document was changing. Sorry, but I have a hard time swallowing that view point. The amendments don't change the constitution, then just help define it. The second point he made was that it is not Congress that should worry about if something is Constitutional, but it is for the Judicial branch to decide. So he pushed the viewpoint that Congress should pass laws with no consideration for the Constitution, and let the judges remove the laws if they are un-constitutional. Sorry, but this seems like a way to say, lets see what we can get away with.
Scott Bradley
I liked what Mr Bradley had to say. He is very constitutional minded, and is very knowledgeable about the constitution.
I have not made my final decision yet, but as it stands right now, I am leaning to wards Mike Lee or Tim Bridgewater.
Labels: 2010 Election, Politics, Senate, Utah SR03
