Hi. This is Regina work. Sort of. I’m calling to set the record straight about my friend Mike Lee. The truth is the bikes the key part of all the clear waste out of Utah we work together. I’ve got her husband’s Council. He stopped it from being transferred across our highways ad for big story, it does West desert. You may not know but my ex father. Rex week passed away from cancer related to be there with her. So, if you might expect. Mike, please record his commitment to keeping you talk to say from high level nuclear waste a second not anybody who tells you otherwise. If it’s a resort. It’s a last minute mislead attack ads for the role personal game. That’s the truth. Again, I’m not sure of the calling to set the record straight, and I encourage you to join me support likely the upcoming primary election. Thank you. Goodbye just calling to pay for. I found it and I agree.

That’s right, the primary elections are here in Utah once again! Tuesday June 22 is election day so make sure you take the time to vote.  If you are registered to vote, you can find out the location where you should vote at the Utah State website.  The site will also tell you what party you are currently registered with and let you see samples of both the Ballot for your party and the non-partisan elections for your area.  Also check out Abigail Adams Project – UTAH for information about the candidates.

If the erroneously transcribed voice mail above was complete nonsense to you, then don’t worry, a lot of the information that has been published during this campaign has been just as messed up even when properly transcribed.

I’ve been participating in local Utah elections actively for the last six years, and every time the dirty politics, acrimony, and enmity is thoroughly discouraging.  For example, last Saturday I received the two campaign fliers in the mail from the Bridgewater campaign.  Here’s a photo:

The first flier reads (more or less):

No wonder D. C. Lawyer Mike Lee is running a negative, D. C. Style Campaign.  Mike Lee has distorted businessman Tim Bridgewater’s record.  Here are the facts about Time Bridgewater:

Tim Has A Plan.

Blah blah blah…

Tim Is A Proven Fighter.

Blah blah blah…

Tim is a solid Fiscal Conservative

Blah blah blah

A campaign based on issues, not negative attacks

Blah blah blah

Paid for by Bridgewater for Senate

The second flier reads

Do we really want to be the world’s dumping ground?

You should know D. C. Lawyer Mike Lee is directly tied to the nuclear waste industry…

[On the back it makes several statements about how Mike Lee is really a puppet of Energy Solutions and wants to dump nuclear waste in Utah]

Paid for by Bridgewater for Senate

Now the accusations here are not really that important.  It’s the irony, the cliché, and the pettiness. “Hey! I’m negatively attacking my opponent by pointing out his negative attacks!  So vote for me because I’m campaigning on the issues and not negative attacks….P.S. See the photo of my opponent looking angry?  I told you he was negative.  P.P.S. Did you notice that I’m not wearing a tie and have a blue shirt?  I’m cool like that. I’m anti-establishment. P.P.P.S. Did you know that my opponent is part of a conspiracy run by an evil organization owned by radioactive SATAN? So freak out and vote for me instead.”

Nice.

Mike Lee’s campaign hasn’t been much better when it comes to magnifying to distortion some of Bridgewater’s background. Here’s Bridgewater’s response to some of the Lee campaign’s claims.  Others have responded to Bridgewater’s Energy Solutions accusations against Lee.

And then there is the whole “fake flier that appears to be from Mike Lee but is really from an anonymous group against Mike Lee that was intended to trash his campaign by making it look as if Lee was leveraging religion to trash his opponents when he really wasn’t, which was facilitated by a former long-time Senator Bennett staffer.”  If that seems incomprehensibly convoluted to you that’s because it is.  It’s a reverse-psychology dirty-trick you see.

Does your brain hurt yet?

The sad thing is that both of these men would probably be good, solidly conservative senators, probably.

Mike Lee knows the Constitution inside and out, and he is very consistent in his support for following the Constitution, even when it means taking the side of Energy Solutions when it comes to international contracts because international contracts fall under the constitutional authority of the National and not the State governments.  He is a real constitutional scholar with practical experience in applying the constitution to real-world situations.

Tim Bridgewater is an experienced businessman who truly believes in the free market, and understands the real-world consequences of National interference in the economy, taxes, and health-insurance.  He truly believes in limited government and is a real fiscal conservative with practical experience.

I’ll be voting for Mike Lee.  Why?  Here are my reasons:

1. Outgoing Senator Bob Bennett endorsed Bridgewater.  I was against Bennett before the convention because I want to replace Establishment Republicans with new, conservative outsiders who are focused on the Constitution.  By endorsing Bridgewater, Bennett essentially gave the Establishment Stamp of Approval to Bridgewater.  Establishment endorsement  = vote for the other guy.

2. The reverse-psychology dirty trick mentioned above really makes me angry.  Using those kinds of tactics to defeat a candidate makes me think that he must be a threat to the establishment.  And the fact that it was facilitated by a middle-man who was a D.C. staffer for Senator Bennett for many years reinforces that perception.  Dirty tricks by Establishment Republicans = vote for their target

3. Bridgewater’s ironic “my campaign is based on issues not negative attacks…Mike Lee is an evil, radioactive corporate pawn” fliers were craptastic.  Good bye moral high ground.  I first heard the Energy Solutions/Nuclear Waste attack against Lee in my caucus meeting from people who were big Bob Bennett supporters. Contradictory moralizing = fail!

4. I was attracted to Lee early on because of his firm understanding of the Constitution.  However, I was honestly worried about his positions because of some of the more radical conservatives who were rabidly supporting him and even linked to his campaign.  I contacted the campaign with my concerns.  I received a personal call from Mr. Lee and he chatted with me about his views, and those of some of his supporters for a good half an hour.  He and I don’t agree on everything, but he isn’t a Birther, or a 9/11 Truther, or any other kind of crazy.  Serious constitutional conservative – the crazy = my vote.

5. While I find Bridgewater’s business experience appealing, Free Market principles and practical experience alone are not going to be enough to get us out of the mess we are in.  We need someone with a solid, comprehensive, personal understanding of constitutional principles.  Bridgewater may not like D.C. Lawyers, but since his experience is in business not constitutional law, he’s going to have to hire a bunch of them to advise him if he wins anyway.  I’d rather have a candidate with an expert knowledge of the Constitution himself, and experience in applying it.  Outsourced constitutional knowledge = Fail! (If Bridgewater does win, I hope he’ll hire Mike Lee to advise him and vise-versa. Lincoln-style Appointing rivals = Win!)

6. The Mike Lee Campaign’s Google Voice Transcribed Voice Message is AWESOME!  I needed a laugh.

Anyhow, visit the candidate’s websites and vote for whomever you think would be best.

Utah County Candidates

I also feel strongly that we need some changes in the Alpine School District.  Consider voting for the following candidates:

A1-Lehi/Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain

Paula Hill (http://paulahill4u.wordpress.com/)

Casey Voeks (http://www.caseyvoeks.com/)

A2-Highland/Alpine/Cedar Hills/Small segment of Northeast Lehi

Wendy Hart (http://wendyhart2010.com)

Zonda Perry (http://www.zonda.org)

A3-American Fork

Incumbent-Tim Osborn (http://www.electtimosborn.com/)

A5-Southwest Orem

Scott Bell (http://www.BELLforSchoolBoard.com)

Brad Thompson

…Hi, this is J. Max Wilson. Sort of. I found it and I agree.

———————————-

Dear delegates,

Thanks for reaching out to ask for my opinion and for all your work to represent us at the state convention.

You might remember me from our neighborhood caucus meeting.  I also ran to be a state delegate with the intention of replacing Mr.Bennett.  I realize that in our precinct, most of you expressed support for Mr.Bennett, and that professor Frederickson, in particular, is a personal friend for his (though she did emphasize, to her credit, that just because she is a friend does not mean that she agrees with him).  I hope you realize that I do not think he is a bad person.  He has done what he thinks is right, and that is admirable.  I do think, however, that what Mr. Bennett thinks is right and what I think is right are no longer aligned.

Yes, it is true that working within the current system Mr. Bennett would be able to leverage his seniority to direct federal monies to Utah, and to Orem.  At our caucus meeting, Mayor Billings repeatedly emphasized that Mr. Bennett had been instrumental in getting the funding for several programs that have greatly benefited our city.  And if our goal were to continue to work within the current scheme of things then Mr. Bennett would clearly be the right man for the job.  But our goal isn’t to get the most out of the current scheme.  We aren’t just looking to get the most advantage out of the status quo.  The system is broken. Federal monies come with federal strings attached which are used to wield undue influence well beyond the constitutional roles of the national government. We are tired of selling our independence in exchange for federal money earmarked for our state and city.  We don’t want to get the most out of the current scheme, we want to overhaul the scheme to return it to the principles of liberty, limited government, and individual natural rights.

Mr. Bennett is part of the era of Big Government Republicanism with which we have all become so disillusioned.  No matter how good his intentions, he has been in Washington too long and as a consequence his views of how government should work have become mired in the status quo. The kind of changes we need to make in Washington require fresh, energetic, even revolutionary thinking to re-found our nation on the principles of good government identified by the original founders.  Under our constitutional republic, revolutions are fought with ballots instead of bullets. We want a revolution at the ballot box. We want a new senator that represents the principles of our revolution.  That is why Mr. Bennett will not be reelected.

I encourage you to reject the current scheme of things in Washington and embrace the need for new representation by voting for Mike Lee or Cherilyn Eager for Senator at the Utah State Republican Convention on May 8th.

Thank you for considering my point of view,

J. Max Wilson
http://www.sixteensmallstones.org

Barack Obama has attempted to targeted this impulse for positive change with his rhetoric of “hope.” I have a number of friends and family members for whom this message is reasonably attractive. Obama has painted himself as a proponent of “new politics,” rising above the partisanship of the past.

I firmly believe, however, that this post-partisan visage is demonstrably a hypocritical mask, calculated to play upon the righteous sentiments of the people in a way to win votes, but offered completely insincerely. The mainstream media have been complicit in perpetuating this lie.

As part of this false post-partisan persona, Barack Obama has tried to paint his primary opponent as merely a continuation of the Bush administration, pointing out that John McCain has voted in-line with the Republican Party 95% of the time. But, according to non-partisan sources, Barack Obama has voted in line with his party 96% of the time (see this analysis from FactCheck.org)

For me, this fact is central to the presidential decision. While the slogan of voting for the man, not the party is a noble idea, it is ultimately a naive one. The reality is that, because of the way national politics works, when you vote for a man you are also voting for the party to which he is inextricably bound. Regardless of his post-partisan mantra, Obama has voted 96% of the time with his party. He has never taken a strong, public stand against his own party on any meaningful issue. He is a democratic partisan through and through. To believe otherwise is gullible in the extreme.

Obama’s partisanship is revealed in his scant record:

1. Barack Obama wants to recind the Defense of Marriage Act, which is what prevents states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages enacted in other states. His position on same-sex marriage has been purposefully obscured to attract supporters from both sides.

2. Obama repeatedly voted against laws designed to protect babies born in botched late-term, partial birth abortions from being killed or left to die because the laws might be used to restrict other kinds of abortions. Truly disgusting.

3. Obama is a ruthless partisan who won his seat in the Illinois senate by hiring a team of lawyers to crawl through the paperwork of his opponents and get every one of them thrown off the ballot on technicalities , so that he was the only choice. Is this a “new kind of politics?”

4. Obama has had long standing relationships with radical progressives and has systematically tried to white-wash his past to make himself more palatable to Americans, only distancing himself as it became prudent to win the election.

5. Obama purposefully obscures his socialist tax-credit system by falsely describing them as “tax-cuts.” The top 25% richest Americans already pay 83.88% of all the taxes. The lower 50% only pay 3%. That’s an even more progressive, socialist tax system than many European nations. And Obama wants to be even more socialist than that . We need less socialism, not more.

6. Obama has tried to blame the Bush Administration for the economic collapse caused by the housing and credit crisis. While it is true that Republicans repealed laws set up after the great depression to protect the country from another banking disaster, that repeal happened back in the late 90s’ and was signed into law by President Clinton. The problem was then exacerbated by affirmative-action style mortgage lending policies promoted by the Democrats . When the Republican’s proposed stronger controls on the industry to prevent the crisis, the Democrats blocked them. Worst of all, in only 4 years in the Senate, Barack Obama accepted more money from corrupt Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac than all but one other senator had in the last 20 years. See also: Planting Seeds of Disaster

7. Obama’s defeatism and opposition to the Surge in Iraq, which was not only an increase in troops, but a radical change in strategy, is unacceptable. Losing the war in Iraq is not an option. Retreating would have emboldened our enemies and lead to increased terrorist conflict. Contrary to Obama’s statements, the Surge has worked. Obama has no foreign policy experience and it shows. Even the President of France described his approach to foreign affairs as utterly immature . What do you do when you don’t have experience? You fall back on the party line, and that is what we can expect from Obama.

8. Obama has purposefully turned off security protections on his website donation pages so that he can accept illegal contributions from foreigners, people posting under fake names, and people using untraceable gift cards. This is a calculated move that some people estimate may account for close to 181 million dollars of his record breaking donations. This is down and dirty politics, not hope and change.

While it is true that the Bush Administration has an abysmal approval record, the current congress has been controlled mostly by democrats for the last two years, and in that time the approval rating of the congress has plummeted to the lowest in history.

And then there is the important concern for the Supreme Court. Four or eight years of Obama would be nothing, really, compared to the next 50 years of whatever liberal Supreme Court Justices he is sure to appoint. I have had enough of the “living-constitution” approach to the constitution, and while I am well aware of the problems with originalism, I want more conservative judicial review. (My favorite Justice is Clarance Thomas).

So, if what you are looking for is a post-partisan, moderate outsider, 96%-Democrat Obama is an ignis fatuus, a will-o’-the-whisp that will dazzle you as you follow him through the darkness, down unfamiliar paths to the edge of a partisan precipice where the illusion will vanish.

I cannot endorse such two-facedness. And while I empathize with the democratic impulse toward helping the poor and needy, and protecting the weak from calculating, predatory businesses , as a conservative I cannot support methods that the democratic party advocates to address these issues, nor can I support the the pro-abortion, pro-same-sex-marriage, anti-religious, big-government, socialist, fascist tendencies of the progressive movement.

I recommend that you vote against Barack Obama for president.

For more, check out this Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama .

But who do I endorse?

That is a harder question. There are many things I dislike about John McCain. And the Republicans in general appear in many instances to have abandoned principles for power. Personally, the things on which I have disagreed with the Bush administration have been in those matters when they have acted more like Big Government Democrats instead of Limited-Government Conservatives.

LDS Author, Orson Scott Card makes a pretty good case for voting for McCain and against Obama. Card is a conservative-leaning democrat.

To a certain extent, a quote from Tolkien’s the Lord of the Rings communicates my feelings on this decision. When the hobbits meet Aragorn, he seems an unruly, disagreeable type. When Merry asks why they should trust him, Frodo responds “I think a servant of the Enemy would look fairer, and feel fouler.”

There are many aspects of John McCain that look foul.

I voted against McCain not only in this election’s primaries, but also back in 2000. He has never been an appealing candidate for me. I dislike a number of his positions as well as parts of his personality and personal life.

But even though I disagree with him, I do believe that he is sincere in doing what he believes is right. I don’t believe he is fake. He is certainly a politician and plays the game. He can be temperamental and even downright nasty. But he does have a real record of bi-partisanship, and that says something. I think he knows that his party has been a poor steward and that he is sincere about trying to do things differently. I think he is what he says he is, even if I don’t like everything about what he is.

McCain looks foul and feels fair to me—well, at least fairer to me. Obama, on the other hand looks fair and feels foul.

So, I reluctantly endorse John McCain for president.

However, for those friends who cannot bring themselves to vote for McCain, either because they refuse to vote for a Republican this year out of protest, because of his policies and record, or because of his personal life, I recommend that you vote for a third party candidate that best matches the principles you believe in:

Consider:

Chuck Baldwin for the Constitution Party
Bob Barr for the Libertarian Party

Or write in Mitt Romney. Seriously.

But don’t vote for Obama. What you see is not what you will get.