Quantcast
Utah

GOP Senate opponents Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee struggle to differentiate

Comments

Return To Article
  • rpkeel
    June 20, 2010 11:48 p.m.

    Both men are good guys. One has a businessman's view to politics and one has a constitutional lawyer's views. In my opinion Businessman should stay in business. Bob Bennett consistently voted for bigger government. I helped retire him in the convention and I am not ready to replace him with a younger version of himself.

    Mike Lee is not a Washington based lawyer. He has spent his life preparing himself to defend the constitution. Tim cannot say the same.

    I believe that the constitution is a gift from God and I want someone who has spent a lifetime learning about it and spent his a good chunk of his life defending it.

    I've met both. Both are good men. Lee is the only sensible option. I'll vote for Lee on Tuesday.

  • Samantha187
    June 21, 2010 12:44 a.m.

    With so few people decided in the race, it really is about getting out the vote. I am a supporter of Mike Lee because he understands what it will take to put this country on the right path.

    Go Mike!

  • afraidofstupidity
    June 21, 2010 2:11 a.m.

    Mike Lee

    Yeah, I don't get why Bridgewater has acted like being a "businessman" is enough of a qualification. I think it's all about drive, intelligence, and ability to form a cooperative group to help turn the government into what it was truly meant to be.

    Mike Lee is qualified in all these regards. He has excellent drive that led him to one of the most prestigious and respected posts in the legal field, clerking for a Supreme Court Justice. If you listen to him and look to his track-record, you can clearly see that he possesses the intelligence we need in the Senate. He also has a specific plan laid out of how he'll fit into this new young Senate of ours, and who he'll work with to make a difference.

    Mike Lee has my vote already.

  • Esquire
    June 21, 2010 6:21 a.m.

    Let's see who can out-extreme the other. We are doomed to being relegated to the bottom of the barrel in having Utah's interests effectively represented. We do we keep picking the craziest ones to send to DC? As I think about it, Lee is the worst of the pair, unless you agree with his hypocrisy. He claims to be conservative, yet wants to overthrow the principle of "stare decisis" to return back to his views which are based in 1787. This does not make sense, logically.

  • James T.
    June 21, 2010 6:55 a.m.

    In addition to asking himself if something is constitutional, I wish Mike Lee would ask himself a couple additional questions, like:

    1. Is this moral?
    2. Do the majority of the people I will represent strongly oppose this?

    Maybe then he wouldn't have been over-advocating for Energy Solutions "constitutional" right to bring nuclear waste to our state.

    The Constitution is obviously given to interpretation and is silent on many, many things. So I would also like to know that Mr. Lee can get off his "constitutional" soap box and listen to his people.

    I voted for Bridgewater. And I am still waiting for someone to tell me what Mr. Lee would do with his Senate votes that would differ from Mr. Bridgewater. To me there seems to be no difference, and all the "constitution" rhetoric seems like a marketing ploy more than anything.

  • Demisana
    June 21, 2010 7:26 a.m.

    Looks like Lee's supporters got here first :-).

    I've been leaning Bridgewater - enough lawyers already. I don't want nuclear waste imported to Utah, either. Lee would support it, Bridgewater would oppose it.

    Besides, there's always my favorite quote from Shakespeare - "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

  • Cameron
    June 21, 2010 7:51 a.m.

    @James T. | 6:55 a.m

    "And I am still waiting for someone to tell me what Mr. Lee would do with his Senate votes that would differ from Mr. Bridgewater"

    There are two votes that immediately spring to mind: No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Part D, which could also easily be named, Unfunded Mandate and Trillion Dollar Debt. Bridgewater supported both, Lee didn't.

  • nick
    June 21, 2010 7:54 a.m.

    Demisana

    Of the 55 members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, 34 were lawyers. It depends on what TYPE of lawyer you elect.

  • nick
    June 21, 2010 7:58 a.m.

    Tim Stewart has been very clever in deflecting questions about the dirty trick Temple mailer against Mike Lee. He said that none of the campaigns was involved.

    He refuses to say if any of Bridgewater's key supporters were involved. After the FEC investigation on this matter is concluded, I predict the FEC will find that the people who created the mailer where key Bennett AND Bridgewater supporters.

  • Al
    June 21, 2010 8:04 a.m.

    I was in the undecided category but leaning to Bridgewater. Now I am definately in the Bridgewater camp because of the extremely negative campaigning I have received from those supporting Lee. From being 'push polled', which does nothing but offend me, to the advertisements calling him Tim 'bridge to no where' Bridgewater, I have seen the actions of a desperate man. While I know that Lee did not sponser the 'bridge to no where' ads, he has allowed them to stand.

    In a close race among two candidates with almost identical platforms, the negative campaigning can be the deciding factor. How is this person going to behave under pressure? I think that Mike Lee has answered that question.

    If I would have been him, I would have run a competitive campaign without the bad-mouthing of a fellow conservative republican. Then if I lost, I would have left a positive taste in the mouths of the voters and would have the name recognition to win the next time around. As it is now, there is no good taste in my mouth because of the name-calling and push-polling.

  • leer
    June 21, 2010 8:08 a.m.

    Tim Bridgewater is the right, mature and more pragmatic person for the job...no question.

  • NGA
    June 21, 2010 8:14 a.m.

    I thought Lee and Bridgewater were very similar until I learned about Lee's ties to EnergySolutions. Lee has sold out the state's interests before and can't be trusted--all in the name of constitutional law. If you Google: "lee playing energysolutions" you'll see what I'm talking about.

    Go Bridgewater!

  • praxis
    June 21, 2010 8:19 a.m.

    When Energy Solutions went to court arguing that they should be allowed to accept foreign nuclear waste, they took Mike Lee as their lawyer. Lee aggressively argued on behalf of ES and against the wishes of the people of the State of Utah.

    Energy Solutions will eventually walk away from the Clive Facility and leave it to Utah taxpayers to maintain. That is in their business plan - they will walk away and leave all liability to Utah residents.

    Lee says he is for change, but his actions clearly show that he is status quo. He didn't listen to the wishes of the people of Utah regarding ES and foreign nuclear waste, what makes you think he would be any different in elected office?

  • Demisana
    June 21, 2010 8:22 a.m.

    Well, whichever one wins, we can always kick out Hatch in two years and put in the other one. Then we'll have two that are much more conservative than the ones we've had the last few terms.

  • Cats
    June 21, 2010 8:28 a.m.

    Senator Hatch is probably the leading Constitutional expert in the Senate. Soooo....we already have a constitutional expert in the Senate.

    Tim Bridgewater's business experience would be a good complement to Senator Hatch's Constitutional expertise.

    Having said that, the most important thing we can do here in Utah is to deny Nancy Pelosi a House seat by defeating Jim Matheson.

    I encourage all Republicans in the second district to cross ticket and vote for Claudia Wright. She'll be a lot easier to beat in November. Beating Mathson is the only thing Utahns can do to take Pelosi out.

    Either senate candidate will be a great representative for Utah. BEATING MATHESON IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO THIS YEAR.

  • Cameron
    June 21, 2010 8:41 a.m.

    @Al | 8:04 a.m

    "In a close race among two candidates with almost identical platforms, the negative campaigning can be the deciding factor. How is this person going to behave under pressure?"

    Do you mean to tell me that as a Bridewater supporter you haven't been getting the Tim Bridewater robo calls and negative mailers? Really?

  • Lane Myer
    June 21, 2010 8:53 a.m.

    Cats: "I encourage all Republicans in the second district to cross ticket and vote for Claudia Wright. She'll be a lot easier to beat in November. Beating Mathson is the only thing Utahns can do to take Pelosi out. "

    I thought your ethics were better than that. Can you do this? Yes. SHOULD you do this because it will be an easier path for a republican? No. If they are not strong enough to beat Matheson, they should not be in the House. Period.

  • Al
    June 21, 2010 9:03 a.m.

    RE: Cameron

    I live outside the Wasatch Front (thank heavens) and have received two robo-calls from the Bridgewater camp. Neither one of them put down Mike Lee, both mentioned the reasons why I should vote for Bridgewater and tried to counter the lies that are being perpetuated about him. I have also heard one radio commercial to deny accusations made against him.

    On the other hand I have been push-polled several times from the Lee camp. I have also heard many radio commercials favoring Lee which did not mention Mike Lee even one time, they just name-called and spread lies about Bridgewater.

    I have not heard the Bridgewater campaign say anything like "Mike 'how do you say nuclear waste in Italian' Lee; or Mike 'let's make it a super-majority of lawyers' Lee.

  • praxis
    June 21, 2010 9:16 a.m.

    When Energy Solutions went to court to argue that they should be allowed to accept foreign nuclear waste, they took Mike Lee as their lawyer. Lee aggressively argued on behalf of ES and against the wishes of the people of the State of Utah.

    Energy Solutions will eventually walk away from the Clive Facility and leave it to Utah taxpayers to maintain. That is in their business plan - they will walk away and leave all liability to Utah residents.

    Lee says he is for change, but his actions clearly show that he is status quo. He didn't listen to the wishes of the people of Utah regarding ES and foreign nuclear waste, what makes you think he would be any different in elected office?

  • Kickit023
    June 21, 2010 9:21 a.m.

    I am one of those guys on the fence. I've been leaning towards Lee, but I would like to know, "How do you go from being against nuclear waste, to fighting for it?" Was there something, a point in time, that you you changed your opinion? For Bridgewater, alleviate my concerns that you or companies you work with used government money in their businesses but you want to eliminate government spending. Bennett said he would rather it be spent in Utah than some place else, I would like to see it stopped completely and everywhere.

  • Cameron
    June 21, 2010 9:24 a.m.

    @Al | 9:03 a.m.

    It's happened. Mike Lee has received the brunt of negative, and downright dirty, attacks since before the convention. So it boggles my mind to hear people give their support to other candidates solely based on negative campaigning. Bridewater's hands are most certainly not clean.

  • Kickit023
    June 21, 2010 9:52 a.m.

    I will say the California Tea Party ad didn't do any favors for Lee. On the other hand though, I could have done without the phone call from Lonesberry the day he was fired implying that he was fired because he supported Bridgewater.

  • Evets
    June 21, 2010 10:06 a.m.

    Last Friday I received two mailers from Bridgewater and endorsed by him. One mailer said he would not be involved in negative campaigning in any form. The other, again from and endorsed by Bridgewater, was nothing but negative trash talk about Mike Lee. So my question is, is Bridgewater that "two faced" or does his campaign staff not know what they are doing??

  • Wasatch Al
    June 21, 2010 10:22 a.m.

    Lee, Bridgewater, Philpot ... ugh! Is the best republicans can come up with?

  • Seriously?
    June 21, 2010 10:24 a.m.

    There is NO argument on any side that trumps the fact that Lee is an Energy Solutions attorney. Nothing. He has PROVEN that he will violate his espoused principles when money is concerned. He needs money. If he can't live on $600,000 per year he most certainly won't survive on a Senator's salary. Lee is bought an paid for- the citizens of Utah need to stand up to the outside special interests that own Mike Lee and say "NO!"

  • Hanksboy
    June 21, 2010 10:48 a.m.

    Vote Bridgewater on Tuesday. He's the only candidate who has the maturity and common sense to make a difference for Utah. Mike Lee is an egotistical, lightweight opportunist who would only embarrass the state with his arrogance and piety. Bridgewater is a savvy, seasoned businessman who will bring instant credibility to the office.

  • jotab
    June 21, 2010 10:53 a.m.

    Easy answer, vote GRANATO!

  • Elcapitan
    June 21, 2010 11:08 a.m.

    This will be A CLIFF hanger...our country is in real trouble. Better follow your spiritual guidance if indeed you are connected. Pray about it and vote.

  • Mc
    June 21, 2010 11:10 a.m.

    $600,000 was what Lee made as his salary for the whole year from the law firm he works for. The Bridgewater campaign has misrepresented the facts, saying that $600,000 is what Lee received from Energy Solutions. Lee worked on one case for ES and he wasn't paid $600,000. Even the Deseret News has misconstrued Lee's statement on the bill that would allow Utah to reject foreign nuclear waste being stored here. He didn't say that he would support the bill if Energy Solutions was exempted. He said he would support the bill if ES was given time to build a facility outside the country to store the foreign waste they have already legally contracted to dispose of. That is in keeping with his support for private business and opposition to government interfence in business.

    Demonizing Energy Solutions is ridiculous. Someone has to dispose of nuclear waste if we are going to have the benefits of nuclear power and nuclear medicine. The next time a doctor has you undergo a test using radioactive dye to diagnose whatever problem you may have, thank Energy Solutions for safely disposing of the container, gloves, and other materials used.

  • cdcoleman
    June 21, 2010 11:35 a.m.

    It looks like the stupidity of the Utah electorate is coming to the forefront based upon the comments. Their is a fundamental difference between Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater that the article fails to address. The difference is clear: Mike Lee will use the constitution as the basis for how he will vote, Tim Bridgewater will determine his vote by what deal he can make with both Democrats and Republicans. Mike Lee is principle-based while Tim Bridgewater is deal-based on his voting. With the Constitution literally hanging by a thread, we have not the luxury of voting in someone who feels the Constitution has little relevance to today's political atmosphere like Tim Bridgewater. All across the country, there are constitutional conservatives being nominated and Utah of all states needs to be a part of this movement. If we vote for Tim Bridgewater, our vote in the Senate will be irrelevant. That is what is at stake in this election. For all those who love freedom and the principles embodied in the Constitution, Mike Lee is the obvious choice. It will show the character of the State as to who we choose tomorrow.

  • Furry1993
    June 21, 2010 11:55 a.m.

    To Cats | 8:28 a.m. June 21, 2010

    ***I encourage all Republicans in the second district to cross ticket and vote for Claudia Wright. She'll be a lot easier to beat in November. Beating Mathson is the only thing Utahns can do to take Pelosi out.***

    I'm sorry that you're so ethically lacking. Your advocating sleezy politics is disgusting, and does not speak well for you.

  • 2 bits
    June 21, 2010 12:25 p.m.

    Wait a minute... If you "differentiate" that just enables and almost requires people to "discriminate". And isn't that against the law?

    Since making a CHOICE requires us to be able to DIFFERENTIATE (and then DISCRIMINATE for/against the candidates)... I think we should just have a random drawing to elect our leaders.

  • Kickit023
    June 21, 2010 2:12 p.m.

    @cdcoleman: what do you base your comments on? I know Lee is a Constitution lawyer and Bridgewater is a businessman, but neither one of them has a record to know how they would vote. I argue that Lee will vote on whoever gives him the most money, i.e. Energy Solutions. Do I believe that? I don't know, nor do I believe that Bridgewater will be based solely on business. Nice "Constitution hanging by a thread" thread reference. While I do agree with it and I'm tired of judges legislating from the bench, I don't think it has much relevance other than to reference a Mormon prophecy.

  • Furry1993
    June 21, 2010 2:19 p.m.

    To Kickit023 | 2:12 p.m. June 21, 2010

    One more thing. Given Lee's clear misunderstanding of the provisions of the 14th Amendment, I have no idea how he can claim to have any understanding of how the Constitution works, much less his claim that he is a "constitutioanl expert." From what I've seen, he isn't.

  • Blue
    June 21, 2010 2:23 p.m.

    cdcoleman: "With the Constitution literally hanging by a thread..."

    Really? Literally?

    What color is the thread? How long is it?

    Oh, I see. So... you're just misusing metaphors in order to make a political point, and don't know what words like "literally" mean. Got it.

    Par for the course with the ultra-cons.

    BTW - Everyone talks about Lee being a constitutional scholar, but there is no evidence of that scholarship to be found in any professional legal journal or law review.

    Sounds like Mr. Lee is a legend in his own mind.

  • Pagan
    June 21, 2010 2:32 p.m.

    'GOP Senate opponents Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee struggle to differentiate' - Title of article

    My question is, if both of these canidates are from the same party, and claim to adhere to the same values...

    and they are part of the same party that has been the majority in Utah for many years...

    what do you expect to be different?

  • WHAT NOW?
    June 21, 2010 3:09 p.m.

    LEE/Attorney.

    OBAMA/Attorney.

    Another Attorney?

    Tim Bridgewater has my vote!

  • UtahnForLiberty
    June 21, 2010 3:21 p.m.

    I just received my Campaign for Liberty 2010 federal candidate survey in the mail.

    Mike Lee gave a 100% response.

    Tim Bridgewater did not respond.

    According to the author of the letter, C4L's John Tate, "Usually, when candidates REFUSE to come clean on tough questions about their views, it's because they can't wait to join the tax and spend, 'politics-as-usual' crowd in Congress."

    This helps me understand why the corporate welfare types are endorsing Bridgewater and expect him to pick up where Bob Bennett leaves off.

    It also helps explain why I'll be voting for Lee.

  • Cameron
    June 21, 2010 3:28 p.m.

    Mike Lee clerked for a Supreme Court justice. Those questioning his qualifications as a lawyer and knowledge of the Constitution need to realize how prestigious that is.

  • Cameron
    June 21, 2010 3:30 p.m.

    @WHAT NOW? | 3:09 p.m

    You're comparing Mike Lee to Barack Obama because both are lawyers? Seriously?

  • Furry1993
    June 21, 2010 3:55 p.m.

    To Cameron | 3:28 p.m. June 21, 2010

    ***Mike Lee clerked for a Supreme Court justice. Those questioning his qualifications as a lawyer and knowledge of the Constitution need to realize how prestigious that is.***

    That may look good on a resume, but means nothing in the real world.

  • Mc
    June 21, 2010 4:02 p.m.

    WHAT NOW? "LEE/Attorney. OBAMA/Attorney."

    Some people are so simplistic and seem to love to show it. I wouldn't be too proud of that generality. It shows how willing you are to be an uninformed voter.

  • Cameron
    June 21, 2010 4:15 p.m.

    @Furry1993 | 3:55 p.m.

    "means nothing in the real world. "

    Reaching the near pinnacle of one's profession certainly means quite a lot. I'm sure you would have jumped at the chance to clerk for the Supreme Court.

  • James T.
    June 21, 2010 5:22 p.m.

    Cameron: If you think that clerking for a supreme court justice by Lee isn't tied in some way to his last name and his father you are crazy. Ask Scott Matheson. Or Mike Lee's own brother. I know people who actually clerked for Alito, and the feeling I got was not all of the clerks deserved to be there.

    I think the comment asking where Mike Lee's scholarly published legal articles on the Constitution are is absolutely right. My brother just got out of law school, and all the top students have as the ultimate success as a law student to be published in one of the prestigious law reviews. Did Mike get anything published while at BYU's law program?

  • Instereo
    June 21, 2010 6:25 p.m.

    I just love how they are both running negative campaigns against each other. That alone should say a lot about what kind of people they are.

    Getting rid of Bennett was the wrong thing to do for the state of Utah.

    Neither Bridgewater or Lee will fix any problem. They'll just add to the already contentious atmosphere we already have and accomplish nothing.

  • Okaythen
    June 21, 2010 6:28 p.m.

    @James T.: Now I'm curious to see what, if anything, Lee has actually written about the constitution that makes him a "constitutional expert." Maybe something like "The Constitutional Right to Force Nuclear Waste on Citizens who Don't Want It"?

  • familyofsix
    June 21, 2010 8:33 p.m.

    It's clear to me that Mike Lee is the better candidate, based on his thorough study and understanding of the law and the constitution. Frankly, I believe he can defend it better with more compelling arguments among his peers. Have a legal background these days is a very good thing, especially considering all of the secular progressive nonsense, and legal challenges to our American way of life. Bridgewater seems like a nice enough fellow, but can he defend us with his small business background? This one seems very clear to me, vote for Mike with his strong conservative views (like Tim), but with his added legislative and legal expertise. We can't afford inexperience, as we've seen where the White House has taken our country already.

  • uvbogden
    June 21, 2010 9:35 p.m.

    While Mike Lee’s work as an attorney, including his one case with EnergySolutions, has been to fight for less government intrusion on our constitutional rights, Bridgewater’s business is feasting off government pork and “stimulus” money.

    Lawyers are "small businessmen" involved in the usual business activities of personnel management, making payroll, etc.; can Bridgewater be classified as a true “fiscal conservative” or even a true "businessman" if his “business” is feeding off government pork? Senator Bennett did not make it out of convention this year, largely because of his affinity for earmarks and big-spending Washington pork. Isn’t Bridgewater just a younger Bennett? Doesn’t Bennett now support Bridgewater because he conforms more closely to Bennett’s establishment, neo-con views, and big-government tax & spend ways?

    We need a true fiscal conservative and constitutional expert in Washington to help us deal with our current economic and constitutional crises. Mike Lee has the background, experience and character best suited to helping us take back our country. Please join me in voting for Mike Lee for the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate on June 22.

  • James T.
    June 21, 2010 11:02 p.m.

    familyofsix: you invited the Obama comparison, but be careful. You say Bridgewater has no "experience" and that we need Lee, because look at what Obama has done (?). That makes no sense at all!

    Obama is, in his own words, a "constitutional scholar" who actually was a law professor at one of the very best law schools in the country- the University of Chicago. Obama's "experience" prior to the White House consisted of his legal upbringing. And although the conclusions he reaches as a "constitutional scholar" are different than Mike Lee's, the level and type of experience is the same.

    Why is the gulf of Mexico situation such a mess? Because Obama is all about legal "experience" with no actual executive experience doing anything- similar to Mike Lee. Bridgewater has experience being in charge and making a business work. Obama doesn't. Mike Lee doesn't. And that actually matters.

    Someone said on the radio today that Senator Hatch is regarded as the leading constitutional scholar and expert in the Senate. What does that tell you about how valuable that is???

    Vote for Tim Bridgewater!

  • Brother Brigham
    June 22, 2010 9:05 a.m.

    "Lee says he would support such a ban only if the EnergySolutions project is exempted"
    ....what a hypocrite!