Senate candidate Tim Bridgewater seems to be picking up steam in Utah’s Senate race. With three months still to go until convention, Bridgewater is well-positioned in the crowd.
He is doing well at the debates, using humor frequently and coming across as comfortable, relaxed and confident. He is also creating buzz, with his fundraising (over a quarter of a million dollars), and growing grassroots network, headed by some key volunteers from the Chaffetz campaign. (Interestingly, the Chaffetz camp has split among Bridgewater, Eagar and Lee as the most likely to be able to take out Senator Bennett.)
He has also taken the high road when it comes to the other candidates in the race. His focus is on Bob Bennett, not the other three Republican contenders, earning him a growing respect among delegates.
He has support from a number of legislators on Utah’s Capitol Hill who are impressed with the professionalism he brings to the campaign.
As he announced his official entry into the race, he kicked off a “29 Counties in 29 Days” tour that was well-received. He plans to do another soon and is now in the middle of going to Lincoln Day dinners across the state. He is one of the potential candidates that Club for Growth is eyeing in their “Anybody but Bennett” campaign. In fact, Club for Growth had a booth at the Utah County Lincoln Day dinner on Saturday, their first open display aimed at GOP faithful.
Bridgewater has been considered the dark horse in the race but with his steady approach to this campaign, he may end up doing very well come May 8th. Certainly, the race is a fun one to watch.
February 9, 2010 at 8:55 am
Tim seems to be outworking all other candidates and stays positive. I like that he seems to be the frontrunner of the ABB’s, but is still the nice guy in the race but. I hope it stays that way and the others don’t go after him like they have each other. I was originally supporting another candidate, but I don’t like how they’ve become so bitter and nasty toward the others in the race. Tim has impressed me enough to win my support. Great blog posting.
February 9, 2010 at 10:44 am
John (Jack) Hansen
I was wondering who is being bitter and nasty in the race?
The candidates have been getting along as of late.
Campaigns have generally been focusing on issues, possible conflict of interests, experience, records, etc.
February 9, 2010 at 11:03 am
I’ve seen a bit of picking at other candidates from the Eagar campaign (not much) and a fair amount of negativity towards other candidates from the Bennett campaign – but aside from those the race from all the republican challengers has been pretty issue oriented and positive. I’ve talked to almost all the candidates and none of them focus their attention on other challengers (I have not talked to Bennett since he started taking the challenges seriously).
February 9, 2010 at 11:22 am
Yeah, there is a fair amount of negativity regarding Bennet, but I have not seen too much from the actual candidates myself, outside of a bit from Eager. However, Bennet’s criticism is deserved in my opinion.
Outside of that, from what I’ve seen, all the candidates have seemed to be very positive of each other.
February 9, 2010 at 11:40 am
There have been comments made about being born into privilege or with silver spoon in hand on one side. Others saying certain candidates lack an understanding of the constitution of aren’t as passionate about it, or lack real world experience. I know it is politics and you have to point out differences, I guess I just prefer a candidate that doesn’t get involved in all of that and instead focuses on themselves and the issues. That being said, I think all of the anybody but Bennett’s would be better than what we have.
February 9, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The thing that gets me about Bridgewater is that he seems like a real viable candidate. He’s not angry or mean, he’s not elite or smarter-than-thou, and he’s not a right wing nut. But he’s still conservative, he’s still true to the values the Founders espoused, and he’s someone who would be a great representative of the people. I think he’s the best choice we have to beat Bennett by 60% at convention.
February 9, 2010 at 1:08 pm
When I watched the candidates debate several months ago (Lee was still sitting it out at the time, so I can’t speak for him), I was struck by Bridgewater’s sincerity.
Eager was a bit entitled (as if the Eagle Forum support assured her the position already), Granato was unprepared, Shurtleff was an oily car salesman, and I don’t remember if Williams even said a word (or was even there? lol). Bridgewater, though a little too “out there without a policy of any kind” for my taste, was the only one that seemed to be really himself on the stage.
That said, I still find all this wingnut hate for Bennett entertaining to watch.
February 9, 2010 at 1:33 pm
jasonthe,
The event you mentioned didn’t even have Bridgewater speaking.
As far as I know, Granato has only come to 2 events with the candidates:
1 in Logan and 2 in Bountiful.
In Logan, there was Williams, Eagar, Shurtleff, and Granato.
In Bountiful, there was Willaims, a rep for Lee, Bridgewater, Granato, the new democrat challenger, and Eagar.
Bridgewater has been at other events with Eagar. With Lee, I can remember Icaucus and Eagle Forum. Eagle Forum had Bennett as well.
The Bountiful event, Granato seemed better than Logan, the New democrat was anyone’s worst nightmare, Eagar was confident, and Bridgewater was comfortable. Based on Bountiful, I expect to see Eagar v Granato.
February 9, 2010 at 2:03 pm
“creating buzz, with his fundraising (over a quarter of a million dollars)”
How hard is fundraising to do when you write yourself a check? This makes it seem like he raised a ton of money from the grassroots, when he really only raised around $10 for others. He wrote himself a $276k check. That’s hardly “creating buzz”, unless you’re referring to the sound of his own checking account being drained.
February 9, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Here’s the story on the Bridgewater self-fundraising:
http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=11913235
February 9, 2010 at 2:12 pm
With all the focus being placed on the Constitution by all the various patriotic groups getting worked up and ready for the caucuses, I wonder if Bridgewater will be able to tread water (ha).. He doesn’t have much of a constitutional background and so usually focuses on his business background. But didn’t Bennett use a similar angle to get his way in?
As for me, I’d rather vote for somebody who is firm on the Constitution and will give a swift kick in the pants to all the programs and policies that shouldn’t even exist. If somebody is going to swear an oath to support the Constitution, it’s probably a good idea that they know what the heck the thing means… in detail!
February 9, 2010 at 3:33 pm
A couple of months ago, I spent a large amount of time researching all the candidates. I read all their sites, watched all their videos, and drove up from St. George to go to multiple events to watch them speak and make my own decisions (something I wish more people would do.)
At first, I was leaning towards Bridgewater. Shortly after though I changed my mind to support Mike Lee for a couple reasons.
1. He knows the constitution and can stand up for and defend it like NO ONE I have ever seen before. Right now, this country needs that. Someone who’s not afraid to stand up in the Senate (like Chaffetz does in the House) and tell both the republicans and democrats how off base they are, and how far away from the constitution they are.
2. We most all agree, Bennett must go. Of all the candidates, if anyone can do it, It’s Mike Lee, and no one else in my opinion. I’m not espousing to vote for the lesser of evils however, I think Mike Lee is who we need as well as being the only one able of pulling it off.
3. As mentioned earlier, Bridgewaters donations are mostly bogus, since the $276k was his own money, and he has less then $10k outside of that. We’ll see the next round of donations and see what comes up there.
And Bennett’s $400k, with only 1% coming from within Utah. Come on man, have a little integrity!
February 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm
I just saw on facebook that Carl Wimmer has now endorsed Mike Lee:
http://www.mikelee2010.com/patrick-henry-caucus-co-founder-and-utah-representative-carl-wimmer-endorses-mike-lee-for-u-s-senate/
With how influential Wimmer is with the state’s rights crowd here in Utah, that should be a nice feather in his cap, I would think.
February 9, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Tim is a very talented and experienced campaigner. No question. Well said Holly. I’ve noticed that Tim doesn’t really have to make an effort when he campaigns, he just does it naturally. And he seems to genuinely enjoy it. Tim reminds me of Reagan in that way. Tim seems at home with any group of people, rich or poor, well educated or not, powerful or just common folk. I think Tim can go into nearly any situation and become friends with every one in just a few minutes.
February 9, 2010 at 4:02 pm
I thought my wife’s initial impressions were interesting, about a couple of the candidates she saw at the Utah County Lincoln Day Dinner. She said Sen. Bennett looked, well, old. And that Eagar looked self satisfied and entitled. Just a novice’s superficial views, but interesting nonetheless. (And not influenced by me–I haven’t made up my mind yet on who I like for this race, incumbent or challengers.)
February 9, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Some good points. Bridgewater has been self funding. At least he has been involved with McCain, Bush, Huntsman, etc.
Lee comes across as a constitution professor that hasn’t done anything politically. Has he even been a state delegate?
Williams doesn’t seem ready.
Bennett doesn’t seem to listen, knows everything, and has been there too long.
I thought Eagar looked confident.
February 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm
I have heard all the candidates and read up on them as well and the three front runners all seem way ahead of Bennett as far as quality goes. I could support any of them. But I am really concerned about Mike Lee because although I don’t doubt that he knows the constitution (as does Obama), he nevertheless is influenced by the self interests of Energy Solutions. Just like Bennett, he doesn’t care about what commitment ES made, or what the people of Utah want. There is big $$$ in bringing foreign waste and spent fuel to Utah … and that is what matters, not the people of Utah.
February 9, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Jean,
Your characterization of Mike’s intentions regarding ES appear to be quite uninformed. Have you asked him about his position? One of his staff told me that Mike won’t be taking any ES campaign contributions, and that he’s only representing them (through his employer) on one single case that actually deals with their constitutional rights, not simply a corporate wish to bring in low level radioactive waste. I think it’s highly disingenuous to lump assumptions together as you have. “What the people of Utah want” is subject to contractual agreements already made.
February 9, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Just a couple of points of clarification: As for being a delegate, Mike Lee was a Utah Delegate to the National Convention, so yes, he has delegate experience. He is also former counsel to Governor Huntsman, and served as a law clerk to a Federal Judge who later became a Supreme Court Justice, and immediately called Mike Lee into action as one of his first clerks. Mike Lee has been around the political scene, and knows the problems very well, but also knows the solutions, and the solutions can be found in the text of the greatest political document ever written – the Constitution of the United States. He is bright, energetic, principled, and well versed. He can get the job done, for all the right reasons. Do not be concerned at all about his representation of a corporate law client. That client has zero influence over Mike Lee, and that client is treated as just that – a law client. Period.
February 9, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I remember Tim Bridgewater when he ran against Swallow. I didn’t like him then because he was for Medicare part d and for No Child Left Behind. So I voted for Swallow. My mind still hasn’t changed. His pitch is still the same as it was then. I grew up in trailer park, worked in the Reagan Admin…But being for those ridiculous programs is a deal breaker for me.
So, Tim is just more of a Bennett Jr. Why would I lose Bennett’s seniority to vote for a guy who will be just like Bob?
February 10, 2010 at 11:57 am
Jean,
It is my understanding that Mike Lee is only representing ES to bring foreign radioactive waste to Utah, saying that the Utah/Multi-State group doesn’t have the constitutional right to stop ES from doing so.
Obviously Utah doesn’t agree, and also wants ES to stick the agreement not to expand.
It is also true Lee has stated that he isn’t taking campaign donations from them, (like Bennett has), but we can’t verify that with the FEC as he wasn’t required to file with the FEC this last quarter.
It is Bennett that is sitting on the bill to ban the foreign radioactive that Jason Chaffetz signed and passed the house. I have not confirmed that Lee is also still opposed to the bill as he was 2 months ago.
It this a conflict of interest for Mike Lee? Good question. Some think so, others don’t. We will find out in May what most people think.
February 10, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Interesting post Holly. As a delegate Tim continues to impress me with his hard work and genuine interest in my concerns. I’m looking forward to an exciting election season, and learning more about all the candidates as convention nears.
February 10, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Umm . . . you don’t have to be a Constitutional professor in order to be a good member of Congress. I think we’ve got too many lawyers back there not too few.
Jason Chaffetz isn’t a lawyer and probably hasn’t memorized all of the Constitution like Mike Lee, but I don’t think anyone complains about the way he does his job? Mike Lee would make a great Supreme Court justice, but I’m not convinced he’s the guy to replace Bennett.
February 11, 2010 at 12:43 am
I’ve been watching this race for over a year, since the Eagle Forum last January. I have heard all the candidates, I have seen their websites and their positions, and the clear choice for me is Cherilyn Eagar.
First, I cannot fathom why people think she looks “entitled.” I, frankly, don’t know what “entitled” looks like. I know what confident and self-assured look like, I see it on Eagar’s face allthe time. She’s not a spoiled rich girl, she’s the daughter of a doctor who put her to work in his office as a teen. She’s been working ever since — sometimes in the professional workplace, many times as a volunteer in conservative causes. In fact, she’s been fighting for her communities since most of her opponents were in grade school. She’s doesn’t just walk the talk, she has run the marathon.
Second, she knows her stuff. She’s not a Constitutional scholar, she’s a former student of Cleon Skousen, and many others, with a doctorate in political activism from the school of hard knocks.
Third, she is smart. Her positions are well thought out, and, again, refined by years of studying the issues. She has examined all the facts, thrown in a good measure of patriotism and love of God and come up with proposals that work. Did you hear how she got the attention of the AMA after they sold us out on healthcare? Wow!
Fourth, I don’t know what people mean when they say she’s picking on other candidates, or being nasty or whatever. Telling people why you are a better choice than the other candidates is one of the two core principles fo campaigning (the other is telling people how you will represent their needs). She has never said a mean-spirited word about any of them, including Senator Bennett, in my presence. She’s pointed out their negatives, but turnabout is fair play: Plenty of people have been quick to point out her negatives, even when they are not based in fact.
Finally, for now, she’s not in this for herself. She has, if memory serves, five kids and ten grandkids. (I should know that after all the times I’ve heard her talk about them.) You know the old adage, “Do unto others”? Well, I think I could summarize her senatorial theme as “Do unto the children of others what you would have others do for your children.”
I wholeheartedly and without hesitation recommend Cherilyn Eagar for US Senate.
February 11, 2010 at 9:09 am
Funny when the campaign staff come out in swarms to defend their chosen candidates. Here’s Cherilyn flanked by arc and Phoenix:
February 11, 2010 at 10:04 am
Oh, yeah! Bridgewater’s doing great in fundraising! Of course, it’s very helpful when you write yourself a $250,000 check.
February 11, 2010 at 10:54 am
Since when does a person need a “background” in the Constitution? Last I checked, the only people who did have a background were all dead for two hundred years…further, I read it last week. Have YOU picked it up lately? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or a supreme court clerk, to understand what it means and how to interpret it.
Saying that one must have a “background” in the law is just another way of saying that we want “elites” to rule over us, people smarter than us, people who know better than us what is good for us.
Wrong.
We don’t need elites and “smarter than thou” lawyers: we need good, honest representatives who are willing and able to follow the constitution. You don’t need a legal background to do that; you just need to read it.
February 11, 2010 at 10:57 am
Steve:
Since when has Bridgewater ever been for Medicare? That’s misinformation if I ever heard it. It’s the same stuff that I heard Swallow’s people blame his loss to years ago. Get over it, folks!
And while Governor Huntsman’s man on education, Bridgewater actually lead the push back against the Department of Education and “No Child Left Behind.”
Check your facts before you post.
February 12, 2010 at 1:36 pm
[...] Richardson writes about Tim Bridgewater’s momentum. When she talks about his fund raising she doesn’t mention that over 80% of it was a loan to [...]
February 12, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Why does it matter that he loaned himself the money? Do we want to beat Bennett or do we want another six years of Bob?
February 13, 2010 at 12:39 pm
The reason that the loan to himself matters is that it is fake momentum. Smoke and mirrors. If he had momentum, he would have people willing to donate to him. He wouldn’t have to loan himself money. If he had momentum, he would have people have people lining up to give him money.
And to Publius, it is not misinformation that Bridgewater was for No Child Left behind or Medicare Part D. Now, he may have changed his mind later when his boss told him to (Huntsman), but how could he have ever been for it? Wasn’t it unconstitutional to begin with?
And to add to the fact that he is no real conservative but just like Bennett, wasn’t he the Western States coordinator to McCain’s campaign? And that was even before Romney got out.
February 14, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Actually, the money is not why I think he has momentum. It’s being out there and talking to people. More and more people are impressed with Tim. He is campaigning smart. He is working hard and he is not angering people who might support other candidates. And yes, I am aware he loaned his campaign a LOT of money.
February 16, 2010 at 10:23 am
Steve: after you posted, I checked. I can find no basis in the record that Bridgewater ever supported NCLB, nor that he supported Medicare.
I then called the campaign. Bridgewater has never supported either. Please stop spreading around misinformation.
February 24, 2010 at 10:15 am
Steve, just a follow up, since I haven’t heard anything regarding Tim Bridgewater’s stance on NCLB. I looked in the paper, because your accusations would squarely cut Bridgewater out of the race as a serious conservative candidate. Here’s what I found:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7713931/
SALT LAKE CITY – Gov. Jon Huntsman signed a measure Monday defying the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act despite a warning from the federal education secretary that it could cost $76 million in federal aid.
The bill represents the strongest stand against the federal law among 15 states considering anti-No Child Left Behind legislation this year. Utah is an overwhelmingly Republican state that strongly supported President Bush.
Huntsman’s education deputy said he doubted Utah’s stance would cost it any money.
“It empowers decision makers in the state education system, where there is conflict with federal law, to choose to follow the state objective first,” Tim Bridgewater said.
Then, looking further:
http://amsam.org/2005/05/utah-gov-defies-no-child-left-behind.html
Huntsman’s education deputy said he doubted Utah’s stance would cost it any money.
“It empowers decision makers in the state education system, where there is conflict with federal law, to choose to follow the state objective first,” Tim Bridgewater said.
So, again, Steve, please don’t spread lies.
May 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm
[...] Richardson writes about Tim Bridgewater’s momentum. When she talks about his fund raising she doesn’t mention that over 80% of it was a loan to [...]
May 17, 2010 at 7:43 am
Does it matter that a candidate donated it himself or had it given by someone else? Either way the result is the same: Greater ability to create name id.
May 17, 2010 at 8:04 am
I understand this is the republican party’s new PLEDGE.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the Separate States of America,
and to the Republic for which it falls, Fifty nations under God,
divisible by 50 State’s Rights, with Liberty and Justice for all of us White people, and not the gay and lesbians and the brown people, even though they are citizens and vote and pay taxes and own property in the United States of America.