U.S. Senate candidate from Utah, Tim Bridgewater, offered to pay Cherilyn Eagar’s campaign debt. This happened at the Utah State GOP Convention, after Cherilyn was eliminated, and it appears to have been offered in exchange for an endorsement. These kinds of backroom deals are what’s wrong with politics. That shows a lot of integrity on Cherilyn Eagar’s part for not taking the bribe.
This news came out this morning on the Bob Lonsberry show on 105.7 KNRS. Lonsberry was interviewing Cherilyn when he started asking her whether or not any of the other candidates had approached her to get her support. Here is the exchange:
Bob: Did the campaigns approach you?
Cherilyn: Yeah, absolutely. Senator Bennett was first, and then Tim Bridgewater, and I dealt with them.
Bob: When they made these requests, did they offer you anything?
Cherilyn: Well, Senator Bennett, no. Mr. Bridgewater was very, very complimentary of me, and certainly he would have loved to have had me be a spokesperson, and so.. but, you know what…
Bob: Did anybody offer to cover any campaign expenses or debts?
Cherilyn: You know, that’s kind of typical, and it’s very cordial for them to offer to do that… and yes, Tim would have been willing to do that, and in an appropriate way, to.. down the road, have me be participating in such a way that that could have happened.
Bob: Did he offer.. just so I’m understanding.. but did he offer to pay your campaign’s debts?
Cherilyn: Yes, but again, in an appropriate way. It was in no way sort of a bribe or anything. It was just very cordial, very kind thing for him to be concerned about.
Here is the audio:
Other bloggers:
Tim Bridgewater’s Bribe – RedState.com
Bridgewater Tries to Buy Eagar’s Vote – StopBridgewater.com
Comments on: "Tim Bridgewater, U.S. Senate Candidate, Attempted Backroom Campaign Deal to Pay Cherilyn Eagar’s Debt" (25)
What evidence do we have that she didn’t take it. This is the same Cherilyn Eagar who was adamant about how abhorrent backroom deals are saying that Tim made this offer in an appropriate way – as if there was an appropriate way to do that – and saying that it was an offer for something “down the road.” we’re not down the road yet so we have to wait before we can declare that she rejected the offer, especialli in light of such an uncharacteristically conciliatory tone.
David: presumption of innocence until guilty, or presumption of guilt because of association? Are you looking for a target?
What’s the difference between a “bribe” and a “cordial bribe”? Thank you Mrs. Eagar for having the integrity to turn him down on the spot. I hope you hold the line. Knowing that you campaigned against “backroom deals”, I hope you recognize this was an attempt at one and speak out against it.
She’s a classy lady, and I think her tone is just an avoidance of trashing other candidates. That’s just how she expresses her self – stick to the point and don’t point fingers. I love the way she leaves it to us (a respect of our intelligence as I see it) to draw our own conclusions. Sorry she’s not in the race. I was there for the votes and many were so concerned about eliminating Bennett, that they chose not to cast their votes in support of her because they did not believe she had enough support from others. The 15% of delegate votes she did receive might indicate that had delegates been voting for the one they supported most rather that strategically trying to guarantee Bennett’s elimination, she might have made it to Primary instead of Bridgewater.
Angel, I agree that the dynamics of this race could be a reason that Mrs. Eagar did not get more votes. She was probably the most conservative candidate in the race, and her 30 years of activist experience was a plus. There are other races ahead for her, and hopefully she’ll find just the right niche. In the meantime, I’m sure she’ll stay engaged politically.
http://www.redstate.com/cherilyneagar/2010/05/12/cherilyn-eagar-statement-on-tim-bridgewater-meeting/
The fact that Cherilyn Eager mentioned it indicates she wasn’t comfortable with it but none the less was gracious about it not wanting to make a fuss over it. This to me means that Lee and Eager could be trusted to mean it when they say they want to go to Washington to change the way things are done. Sadly Bridgewater shows himself to be willing to make deals, his business dealings were in part as a lobbyist for his clients so nothing new for him. Is that what we want to send to Washington? Some would say yes, I would say a resounding NO.
Fred -
Thanks for posting Eagar’s response.
What I heard from what Mrs. Eagar said in the interview with Bob Lonsberry was that Mr. Bridgewater had “cordially” offered to help her with her campaign expenses. She did not say “future” campaign expenses, nor did she make any comment about his encouraging her to run for another office for which he would help with her campaign expenses. I have high regard for Mrs. Eagar, but this sounds like backpedalling to me.
I hope you plan on posting a follow up blog:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700032085/Eagar-writes-to-praise-Bridgewater.html
“Our campaign enjoyed working alongside the Bridgewater team. Their entire campaign ran a clean and honest race, and although this is not an endorsement, if he were to win this election he would make an excellent senator for Utah,” she said in the statement, released Wednesday night.
I hope you legitimately want to vet Utah’s Representatives and future representatives.
It should be noted that this website isn’t much more than an anti-Bridgewater propaganda machine. Note the number of articles attacking Tim here.
“It should be noted that this website isn’t much more than an anti-Bridgewater propaganda machine.”
It took an awful lot of work to remove Senator Bob Bennett, and I’m going to do my best to make sure we don’t send someone in the same mold. Bridgewater’s business and government background are an indication of what we can expect from him as a Senator. Bennett talked like a conservative too. Utahns have been fooled far too many times.
Funny how I got the opposite impression: here’s a patriot blogger trying their best to vet a candidate while an apparent Bridgewater supporter calls any representation of fact or opinion which may or may not shed negative light on Bridgewater “propaganda.” Doesn’t Bridgewater have a big enough lead coming out of the convention that he can let someone speak their opinion when they have done a superior job in trying to base it in fact?
I would allow you to uncontestedly claim this blog is “propaganda” if you could point to how this blog is indeed not an independent representation of the author’s thoughts. For example, were you to be able to prove the blog author is being compensated by the Lee campaign for time or expenses–or indeed any remuneration–I’ll be your first convert in the propaganda-labeling choir.
@Nacilbupera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.
Eager has made it clear that this very post is misconstrued and misleading. This article and the article on his so called “business corruption” are laughable. Tim is a venture capitalist and the most important part of his job is to secure financing for start ups. He works frequently with alternative energies.
@Intelligent conservatism:
Please show me where I’m wrong. I’ve included links so people can verify the information themselves.
Show me the laws he broke and I will agree with you, but all I read are veiled accusations that have no weight on their own.
IC:
Point #1: I think you left out critical parts of (lol I could say “propagandized”) the wikipedia definition of that word (read the whole article). If that one sentence were the definition, surely the Bible and the Book of Mormon and every piece of political opinion could be categorized under the propaganda umbrella as they all seek to influence attitudes toward causes.
While there are examples of UtahsRepresentatives engaging in propaganda if you will (I consider it satire) as in the Let go of the ring Bennett video, this article was not in itself propaganda. UR presented the facts as they presented themselves at the time and drew logical opinions based on those facts. There were no critical missing pieces of fact (ie lying by omission–by the wikipedia definition you cite a frequent symptom of propaganda) nor such an overriding emotional appeal as to drown out the facts.
Point #2: Although Eagar (pardon your misspelling) has made reference to “negative campaigning against Bridgewater” I didn’t see where she “made it clear that this very post is misconstrued and misleading” (your words, emphasis mine). If you could show me where she pointed the finger directly at UR, I’ll withdraw the point. Otherwise you could have phrased it differently so as to say it is your opinion that Eagar was referring to this post (at least in part) when she spoke–and avoided in engaging yourself in propaganda by distorting what Eagar said.
Point #3: To be clear, I believe the facts have changed since this original post and UR posted the Eagar announcement. This is not the sure sign of a propagandist but labeling someone a propagandist lacking sufficient evidence is itself propaganda. Again, submit evidence UR was propagandizing the facts as they presented themselves to this article and I’ll withdraw the point.
“Show me the laws he broke and I will agree with you, but all I read are veiled accusations that have no weight on their own.”
Wait… why does he have to break laws in order to be a bad politician? Lots of politicians do not break any laws and are still bad for our country/state.
And second, how are they “veiled” accusations? The accusations are coming from the writer of the blog who has posted who he is and what he stands for – and he includes the links to the information he talks about… what more could he do?
He’s allowed to look at information and have an opinion like everyone else.
The Host of the Radio show Cherilyn was on when she revealed some backroom dealing had occured has a followup on his blog, what is Lonsberry now saying happened behind the scenes where Cherilyn changed her mind about coming out on stage???? Can you clarify?
http://lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4
On my facebook page Fred from her campaign answered this to my query: “I wasn’t back there. I was voting at the time.
I can only guess. It is likely that Cherilyn had not decided and Bridgewater ran out of time. Do I believe Bridgewater was hoping to walk out on stage with both Bennett and Cherilyn, yes. Do I think he had that wrapped up, no.”
So it is clear to me that Mr. Bridgwater is the type that would play political games and partake in backroom dealings, which is exactly the type of politician I thought we wanted to purge out of Washington. My sincere admiration and compliments goes out to Eager for resisting the temptation presented to her, she was close to loosing her soul and my respect. Charm is sometimes harder to resist than threats.
Im sure someone has already posted this but here it is again. Lets not get all riled up over wishy washy facts unless we know the whole story
http://www.redstate.com/cherilyneagar/2010/05/12/cherilyn-eagar-statement-on-tim-bridgewater-meeting/
It is hard to “misconstrue” Mrs. Eagar’s words in the Lonsberry interview. I thought it was pretty straightforward, though spoken reluctantly.
[...] at noon, Cherilyn Eagar announced she was endorsing Tim Bridgewater for Senate. This came as no surprise to some, especially after her comments on the Bob Lonsberry radio program a few weeks ago. I [...]
[...] 6. Tim Bridgewater has a habit of purchasing endorsements. (Source and Source) [...]
[...] http://utahsrepresentatives.com/2010/05/12/tim-bridgewater-u-s-senate-candidate-attempted-backroom-c… [...]
Hmmmm, I have not seen utah politics this nasty and negative since…..John Swallow and Tim Bridgewater!
mmm a coincidence?