Tim Bridgewater has gained a lot of momentum in Utah’s senate race. He has emerged as one of the front-runners in the effort to defeat incumbent Senator Bob Bennett. Many people admire him because of his business experience and they feel we need more people in Congress with that type of background. Here are the problems I see with Mr. Bridgewater:
- According to a press release from the Bridgewater campaign, Tim supported No Child Left Behind initially and later fought against it. This shows he is okay with the Federal Government being involved with education. The Constitution does not give Congress that authority, it belongs with the states. BRIDGEWATER IS NO DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
- When running against Jim Matheson in 2003-2004, Bridgewater told the Salt Lake Tribune that he would have voted for the Medicare part D legislation which added billions of dollars to the already unsustainable and unconstitutional Medicare program. BRIDGEWATER IS FOR BIG GOVERNMENT as long as it’s popular.
- Much of Bridgewater’s business experience is with his company Interlink Capital Strategies and their website says this about the company: “We access funding for international projects using government support from U.S., European, Asian, and Multilateral Developmental Institutions.”
After looking into the company, it seems it relies on government programs to do its business. Maybe that’s why Tim’s campaign has been vague on his business experience. BRIDGEWATER’s BUSINESS EXPERIENCE IS NOTHING TO BRAG ABOUT if you’re trying to appeal to conservatives.
I invite any supporters or campaign staff of Mr. Bridgewater to refute these 3 points. Please use sources when making your rebuttals.
Here’s another bloggers take on Tim Bridgewater
Advertisement
Comments on: "The Problem with Tim Bridgewater" (20)
This is a clear attack piece eerily reminiscent of Mike Lee’s talking points. As a voter, and one annoyed by illogical arguments, I feel compelled to comment on what has been writtten here.
First of all, the method of taking one detailed incident or comment from someone out of context and then translating that into a broad generalized statement about that person’s belief system or principles is clearly inappropriate and indicative of a weak argument.
The writer of this piece has clearly oversimplified much more complex statements, situations and belief systems. To present these bolded broad statements as facts are offensive to its readers as they are clearly not supported by the supposed facts, which in and of themselves may not be as rightly stated or as detailed as they should be. Here’s a few comments on the points written in this piece:
1. The piece mentions that Bridgewater supported and then fought against No Child Left Behind and uses this to prove he is not a defender of the Constitution? I’m still scratching my head on this one. Not only is it encouraging that Bridgewater actually did something about his change of mind rather than just give it lip service as so many politicians do when campaigning (Lee), but the author, while demanding sources be used when making rebuttals, offers no sources to prove that No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional.
2. The piece mentions that Bridgewater said he would have voted for Medicare part D legislation and uses this to prove he is for big government? Apparently the author is ignoring the first part of the statement in which Bridgewater said he is “running for Congress to support limited and more efficient government.” The contradiction between Bridgewater and the authoer of this piece exists because the comment was inappropriately taken out of context, another sign of a weak argument.
3. This piece mentions that Bridgewater’s business experience is nothing to brag about because “it seems” to rely on governments to do business? Not only does the author of this piece not clearly understand what Bridgewater’s business does, but what is there not to brag about having made yourself into a successful businessman by starting as an entrepreneur and working internationally with governments as many businesses do?
I invite the author of this piece to post this response and take a closer look at Bridgewater before passing weak and illogical judgements on him.
-Eric Johnson
Eric – I appreciate your response. Here’s my rebuttal:
1. Here’s my source that says No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional: Article I of the U.S. Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1 SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO MEDDLE IN PUBLIC EDUCATION. If Article I isn’t enough, check out the 10th Amendment or the 9th Amendment.
2. Medicare part D is the epitome of big government. Just because it’s the Republicans who passed it doesn’t mean it’s okay to pass an expensive entitlement program. It was popular back then, so maybe that’s why Mr. Bridgewater said he would have voted for it.
3. I admire Mr Bridgewater’s business success, but I do not want another Washington insider. His company uses private equity AND government programs to help their clients. I’m not saying this is a deal-breaker, but it’s something that has to be looked at, just like people wanted to know what Mike Lee’s ties to Energy Solutions were.
Good post. I encourage everybody to look at http://tpj.org/docs/pioneers/pioneers_view.jsp?id=220 and http://vickyward.com/wordpress/archives/45 for additional details about the government-connected and government-subsidized business experience.
So let me get this right- you are against Bridgewater because he took a stand for Medicare part D- mentioned it wasn’t perfect but that it did fix a giant problem with medicare (that the government covered senior’s hospital trips but not the medicine that could keep them from going into the hospital). But you fail to include the latter part of the trib article that mentions Tim’s gop opponent John Swallow (who coincidentally is also an attorney supporting Mike Lee) wouldn’t answer if he would have supported it or not. Which candidate would you prefer- the man who answers or the candidate who refuses to answer to a reporter.
Doesn’t it bother you a bit that Mike Lee takes a position on NOTHING- has no record and jumped in the race right after the fec deadline?
We are less than a month from the convention and we have no clue who is paying for mike’s campaign- and he won’t disclose early. I prefer a vetted candidate who has some actual experience in the private sector- and not private sector experience that includes arguing against state rights and for energy solution’s rights to dump waste in our backyard.
Alison,
Watch the videos from my next post. I wanted to ask Mr. Bridgewater myself about these problems I had with him. I was able to ask him about Interlink Capital and Medicare part D. I asked him a simple yes or no question: “If you would have been in Congress at the time, would you have voted for Medicare part D?” He didn’t answer the question, you can watch the video yourself. Someone else at the event asked him about full day kindergarten and he didn’t answer her question either.
I don’t know if he’s trying to hide his viewpoints or not, but I sure got that impression from the event in Alpine that I attended.
I have not yet expressed an opinion on Mike Lee, but from the events I’ve attended I’ve heard him take specific postions on issues and he has answered people’s questions directly. What I saw from Bridgewater is the typical political move of not answering tough questions.
Since when has Mike Lee, Bob Bennett, or ANY POLITICIAN given a yes or no answer on a tough question.
I have only been to one mike lee event- but he seemed to dodge and weave plenty.
Have you read mike lee’s stance on afghanistan on his web? It isn’t even a position just a paragraph of blabbering. He doesn’t answer the questions at all. When I tried to ask him what “nation building” meant to him, he turned it into a 10 minutes speech about the constitution.
Try to pin Mike Lee on giving himself term limits- he dodges that one too.
I will be honest I am supporting Mr. Bridgewater because I think he has SUBSTANCE and is less of a one trick pony. I am leery of Mike Lee because the first thing I heard of him was he is a champion of the constitution and states rights, but he himself fought against the state’s rights when he argued for energy solutions. THAT REALLY seems fake to me.
Allison, I just watched the videos. Not only does Tim not directly answer the questions, he completely ignores it and answers something else. Between that and what is coming out about his previous positions is making me think twice. I am not a state delegate, so I can’t vote in May for him, but I certainly am going to think twice if he is in a primary with Lee
I have met all the candidates, and they all have plenty of upside to offer Utah. THe only problem is that none of them,besides Scott Bradley who is running on the Constitution Party ticket, is a true Constitutionalist. Go to http://www.topreservethenation.com, or go to http://www.scottbradleyforsenate. Scott will be in Salt Lake on May 6 at the Utah State Extension Building on 21 South. He and the other candidates will be answering Constituionally based questions. In closing, if we continue to do what we have always done, how is anything going to change? Vote Scott Bradley, and you can help him take our Country back.
[...] The Problem with Tim Bridgewater [...]
[...] 1: Mike Lee 28.75%, Tim Bridgewater 26.84%, Bob Bennett 25.91%, Cherilyn Eagar [...]
An old saying, but so true; “Birds of a Feather Flock Together”. After reading about Tim Bridgewater and his past associates, it was easy to select who I would like to represent me and my neighbors in Congress in November. It is not like me to vote for someone who is already tarnished with questionable scruples. I am quite confident my choice will be on the winning side. I will cast my vote for Mike Lee, because he is educated on the value of working with the Constitution as our country’s blueprint. I like his clean untarnished thinking. He is a stand-up fellow that wants to make a difference right off the git-go. He has ‘fire in the belly’ and that is what it is going to take! Sorry Tim, I vote for Mike Lee!
I am searching for Bridgewater’s campaign of 2004, I am told it clearly states he is a progressive. So he isn’t running as a constitutionalist? He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Can anyone find his past campaign materials and substantiate this? If he is vague on questions and uses the politicians tool of evading and answering something unrelated, there is a reason!
Money buys bad politians seats in the senate and the house. Bridgewater is wealthy, Lee isn’t. Guess who will win if you respond to glitzy adds and the professional campaigns money buys. Lee has my vote, I hope he has yours.
to get rid of the need for campaign money, look at http://www.goooh.com. We can start in the house.
I’ve looked at Bennett’s voting record. Progressive. Bridgewater, who became wealthy via the things he is campaigning against is also progressive. I hope the voters aren’t just voting for ‘a businessman’. He is a lobbyist/consultant and has used big government to gain wealth. Now he is using it to buy a seat in the senate. Vote for Lee.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dm2hfxk_8cqfb7vhd
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dm2hfxk_8cqfb7vhd
a 2004 article, a little more of who Bridgewater is.
We may try a little hand at investing, once in a while, but if I had tried to run for Senate twice, and a race was coming up that I might try for, I certainly wouldn’t invest in a bank bailout, no matter how small. Thomas Burr’s article in Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14750017
“I am really concerned about what Lee and Bridgewater are reading and watching these days,” Marvelous told me this morning. “Why would you be concerned about what these guys are reading?” I exclaimed. “Because I think they are getting really bad ideas and it could ultimately harm their health in the long run,” Marvelous went on. “Our countries health and prosperity, although important, are not at issue here.”
Because the government trained me to think the way I do (and therefore I have a valid excuse) I wanted more details before agreeing or disagreeing with Marvelous’ assessment. Since the Captain had a prior engagement and didn’t have the patience or time to bring me up to speed, I let him off the hook and went to visit Uncle Tom who is a veritable font of wisdom and knowledge in our neighborhood.
Besides he doesn’t mind reading the paper to me because he knows I haven’t learned braille yet.
Uncle Tom runs a sort of general store with a big pickle barrel set up in the middle. Guys and gals gather around it all day and BS while UT attempts to work. I say attempts because, like the rest of us, he is easily distracted, and he often comments on our conversations as well as bringing up new and interesting things to talk about too. Much like a dog, my ears perk up when UT speaks.
“What do you want me to read you today Captain Bly?” UT asked as I walk into his shop with my Saturday’s Salt Lake Tribune clutched in my left hand. “I think something in the paper caught Captain Marvel’s eye and he’s concerned about Mike Lee and Tom Bridgewater’s health,” I said. “Mental health or physical health?” UT asked quickly (he’s a sharp as a tack). “Could be both I suppose, I didn’t ask,” I offered. “OK, let me see the paper,” Tom said.
“Wow, I think Captain Marvel is right,” Tom began after a moment of reading. “You should see the headlines on the front page, ‘Lee: Have states run Social Security and Senate> Bridgewater wants private accounts; both hopefuls support raising retirement age’,” Tom began to read aloud. “Utah’s Republican Senate candidates have outlined a vision for reforming Social Security that includes raising retirement ages, private accounts and, in Mike Lee’s case, taking the retirement safety net away from the federal government and letting states run it.”
“Are they insane?” I asked. “What bubble have they been living in the last 30-40 years?” “The pretty great state of denial bubble, I’m afraid,” Tom responded. “Hell, the one clown is not even 40 years old.”
Tom was skimming the article now and occasionally making comments. “Listen to this, Lee wants to raise the retirement age to 77 for workers who are 47 years old today.” “I needed both wrists fused the last few years because of my years of manual labor, where would that leave a fella like me?” I asked. “At the mercy of the market I suppose,” Tom answered. “That’s not very comforting,” I said. “I don’t know about you but what little money I have in stocks now wouldn’t help out much, I am living off of my social security now.”
“Where do these yokels get their ideas,” I asked. “I suspect at places like Human Events, Daily News, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck websites,” UT replied. “Just yesterday I read one Human Events email that “suggested” that with a 23 cent nutrient you could reverse 50 years of arterial plaque buildup, remove “rogue” calcium deposits, avoid a heart or brain event that could ruin your life and keep your arteries as clean as a whistle.” “The next email was once again all about how to make money out of thin air-how to cash in on the global sell off and tripling your money on call options every few weeks,” Tom stopped.
“I think I see Marvelous’s point, “ I began. “So if I bought the miracle drug they are shilling and “invested” in call options I wouldn’t have to worry about social security because I would live to be 100 and be filthy rich besides.” “Those ideas have been discredited for years,” I mused. “Had these things been true I wouldn’t have needed a double bypass last year and I could go on eating BBQ ribs and pork rinds the rest of my life in Happy Valley.”
These Lee and Bridgewater characters are like watching the “Honeymooners” on bad acid with the exception these guys are in living color (pink mostly). Is it possible that these right wing wacko sites they are getting their ideas from are using “subliminal” messaging much like the Beatles and Rolling Stones did back in the 60’s?
“Tweedle dee and twiddle dum, I fidget and I squirm around,” and once again these two clowns put their respective foot in their respective mouths. What a choice Utah voters have this year. You would think they would have learned from last week’s fiasco where they lobbied for the resumption of nuclear testing in Utah’s backyard.
Do you have a spam issue on this site; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; many of us have created some nice procedures and we are looking to trade solutions with others, be sure to shoot me an email if interested.