Bridgewater-Lee Race

Ahh, then, who to vote for in the premier race in Tuesday's election: Tim Bridgewater -- he of the Cherilyn Eagar, Bob Bennett, Bob Lonsberry and U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsements -- or Mike Lee -- he of the Norm Bangerter, Ron Paul and Tea Party Express endorsements?

Of course, lest I forget, I am a Democrat and will be voting in the Democratic Party Primary, not the Republican.

But this Bridgewater-Lee race is so inviting, to study and follow.

That KSL debate on Doug Wright's show . . . interesting what it revealed. At the end, they discussed Lee's ads portraying Bridgewater as benefiting from earmark and Obama stimulus money and sending federal money overseas.

You'll remember how the Bridewater ads responded. "I can't believe Mike Lee is attacking Tim Bridgewater for being a businessman." says a lady. (I may miss the exact wording, but that is close, if not exact.)

Well, then we got a little sorting out on Doug Wright's show. Bridgewater earns most of his money working for Rasor Technologies, and Rasor Technologies took $33 million in stimulus money, and $5 million in earmark money and $1 million to study a power plant in Indonesia. That per Lee.

My thought here is, is it fair to blame Bridgewater for that? He may be on the board of advisors, but was he involved in the decision to take the money? Just because you work for a company doesn't mean you agree with everything they do.

Bridgewater said Rasor sent a letter to the Lee campaign, saying he did not participate in or receive earmark or stimulus money. What does "participate in" mean? Does that mean he isn't an administrator of the company and therefore didn't participate in administering it? Or does it mean he wasn't involved in the decision to take the money? I wish the letter was more specific. What does the letter mean when it says he didn't receive any of the money? Does it mean none was sent specifically to him, but rather it went to Rasor? Or does it mean his income was not affected by the stimulus money, it didn't result in him getting any greater income?

Then, in the debate, Bridgewater counters with an attack of his own: The company Lee represents, EnergySolutions, received $7 million in stimulus money. Lee responds (I forget if this part is off or on the air, as I listened to the video on the KSL website and it offered off-air, after-the-debate discussion between the two) that that is different, because the money EnergySolutions took was for a service performed.

My thought on that is, where do you draw the line? You might view what your company did as a service, and suggest the money Rasor got was nothing but a handout, but Rasor did something, surely, in exchange for the money.

Well, the Bridgewater-Lee race has been more than the stimulus-money disagreement, but that has highlighted it. The Bridgewater endorsement from Cherilyn Eagar, who was in the race until eliminated in convention, drew some attention, as Bridgewater's campaign, though perhaps not Bridgewater himself, offered her an unpaid position in the campaign and help in paying campaign debts. A bribe? Some have suggested that. Brigewater could have put that claim to rest by telling her, No, regardless what the campaign worker said, you will not have help covering your campaign costs. That would be the right thing to do if you didn't really make the offer and did not, in fact, want to be part of it.

Then, there was the Lonsberry thing. Lonsberry was fired from being a talk show host by KNRS, and Bridgewater responded by dropping his ads on that radio station. Ratings were blamed for Lonsberry's firing, but it didn't go unnoticed that Lonsberry had not spoken well of EnergySolutions, and EnergySolutions is a big advertiser on KNRS.