I find it interesting that Mrs. Eagar’s vernacular consists of taunts such as “stand up like a man”. I would expect more from a “conservative woman” running for the U.S. Senate.

I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to attend a couple debates already between the candidates, and Mike has performed extremely well in all. To inflate this “clash of titans” to create controversy where little exists shows how little substance the rest of Mrs. Eagar’s campaign really has.

It has become increasingly clear in recent weeks that Eagar’s campaign depends upon tearing Mike’s down. Mike is getting the national attention Eagar so desperately wants, and I’m told by one staffer that he is receiving donations, endorsements, and volunteer and delegate commitments from hundreds and hundreds of people. His campaign has momentum; Mrs. Eagar’s has leech-like dependency. Mike has one, two, sometimes three campaign events daily, drawing anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people; Mrs. Eagar depends heavily on “group events” to get a sizable crowd interested in attending. As I stand on the sideline and observe the candidates, their staff, and volunteer/supporters, I remain convinced that Mike Lee will be the only one able to unseat Bob Bennett.

The fact that Mrs. Eagar’s sights are set so heavily on Mike shows that she is concerned about his campaign and sees him as a political threat. Rightly so, in this commenter’s opinion.

I can’t tell if these words came from Bob Lonsberry or from Cherilyn Eagar but since this was posted by Cherilyn I’d like to ask her to clarify what was meant by:

“And, one answer that was given may have been for an event that, actually, upon verification, wasn’t taking place.”

If this verification has been done thenplease tell us what non-existent event Mike used to excuse himself – or is this a classic case of the angry underdog twisting the facts to suit herself.

This dominant confrontational tone from the Eagar campaign is one of the things that has made me like her less than Bennett.

I see so much more attack and negativity from the Eager campaign then from any other, and it is really starting to turn people off.

One thing I greatly appreciate about Mike Lee is his commitment to not try and tear down any other candidates. As he says, he does not call them opponents, he calls them colleagues. This of course does not include Senator Bennett.

Positivity will win over negativity, I am certain of that. Mike Lee is an incredible candidate. He has shown VERY strongly at every event I have seen all the candidates speak at (4 or 5 now). He can hold his own, quite well, and I am convinced he is the best candidate for the job.

I also agree with the sentiment that Mike Lee is the only candidate gaining national recognition and ground, and the other campaigns are fearful and jealous of that. That is why we see these types of comments.

Utah, and the United States NEEDS Mike Lee for the US Senate for 2010. If you have not seen Mike Lee speak, find out when he will be near you and go do it. Make up your own mind.

Why did this sound like an Eager Add?

Mike is very prepared. He has a confident voice. He is very informed. I spoke with Mike last night and asked him about this situation. It was pointed out that he debated with Eager several times already. His staff did give a full explanation of the schedule conflict but Lonsberry neglected that part. Lonsberry is famous for stirring up confrontations. He is about ratings and not searching for truth. Again partial truths were given. I would NOT listen to Lonsberry. I don’t have time to waste on half truths. I have too many important things to do with my time.

I find it interesting reading comments about how Cherilyn is on the “attack” or is “aggressive”. It seems to me that’s exactly who you want in Washington fighting for your issues and causes. What’s that old saying? “Nice guys finish last”.

Here’s another interesting set of facts with regard to why Mike Lee bowed out of this debate:

1. At first, he gave no reason
2. Then he said he had a prior engagement
3. Then that engagement was proven to be false
4. Then he’s now stated that he didn’t go on because he wanted to be “fair” and only debate with all the candidates. Right. If that was the case, wouldn’t it have been more credible to say it up front rather than go through all this humiliation?

Pick your excuse . . . none of them work for me. I don’t care if you like Lonsberry or not. It’s the principle that doesn’t impress me. I thought he was suppose to be this knight in shining armor. Hmmm. Guess not.

I want a fighter, a winner and someone who is not afraid of getting into the ring. I want someone that is willing to get dirty even if the fight isn’t “fair”. Mike, did you know that Congress doesn’t play “fair”?

I’m disappointed in the way Eagar’s campaign has been running. She spends too much time taking shots at other candidates and it makes her appear weak. She needs to stand upon her own merits rather than tear down others. Clear back when Shurtleff entered the race she was doing this. It strikes me as a selfish move. Other campaigns have avoided negativity because they all know that whoever ends up running against Bennett in a primary (a likely situation) will need all the help they can get. If the opponents tear each other down before the primary it will only help Bennett in the end. It seems to me that Eagar is more interested in being a Senator than in making real change. Lee probably backed out so as not to make her look foolish.

This is one of those “tempest in a teapot” things. Mike Lee agreed, on the spot when Lonsberry asked him to participate. At that time,Mike could not access his iPhone to look at the schedule to confirm, and made some assumptions. Later, when he found out he had a prior commitment, he called to cancel. Simple as that. Rest assured that Mike Lee is not afraid to debate Ms. Eager, or anyone else. Mr. Lee does that for a living, and does it very well. Ms. Eager ought to be the one grateful for the cancellation it seems to me. Then, of course, Lonsberry is right on the spot to make a bigger deal of it than it really was, in reality. A simple conflict of schedule. There will be plenty of times later to square off in a verbal debate. Count on it.

This article seems like very one-sided reporting. No response from Mike Lee’s campaign? No attempt to even contact them? Links to the Eagar campaign at the bottom. I think this belongs on the Eagar campaign, not masquerading as news.

On the flip side, I would love to see a Lee/Eagar debate as I have no doubt which would come out looking better. Lee is a very smart, Constitutionally sound candidate, and he presents himself that way. I’ve only hear Eagar speak a few times, but in my humble opinion she doesn’t come off very well.

Oh wait

Energy Solutions!

Eeeevil! Down with Cheney! er, Lee!

Eeevil!

Seriously, I have never had so much fun replying to comments on this website. I want to thank Lee’s people for giving me so much to work with.

Well, have a life, gotta’ get back to it.