« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Beware of Bridgewater Part II

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 4th, 2010 at 07:09 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Utah GOP state convention is this Saturday, and 3,500 state delegates will decide whether to nominate the incumbent Senator Bob Bennett or one of seven challengers to represent the party in the general election. Several polls conducted among delegates have pointed to Mike Lee enjoying a clear lead, with Bennett and Tim Bridgewater competing for second place.

From all indications, Bennett doesn’t stand a chance at surviving convention. But Bridgewater being in second isn’t good onews, either.

I’ve talked about Bridgewater before. He supported No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D before he was against them.

Now a Salt Lake Tribune article details his use of government funding for either businesses that he has founded, currently owns, or consults with. Bridgewater claims he is the business man who knows how to make a payroll and slash expenses. Well, now we know how. He takes money from taxpayers’ wallets to do so. Here’s what we know about his business dealings:

  • Bridgewater paints himself as a businessman, when in reality he’s effectively a lobbyist hired to secure government funds for companies (think stimulus and bailouts). He’s the chairman of Interlink Capital Strategies, a company that says right on its website that it specializes in accessing “funding for international projects using government support from U.S., European, Asian, and Multilateral Developmental Institutions.” Interlink works in “green energy finance through various government programs, including the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program.”
  • As chairman of Interlink, Bridgewater has consulted for Raser Technologies, a company that won a $33 million Treasury grant in February to build a geothermal power plant. Just a few weeks ago, with Bridgewater’s help, Raser announced being awarded $1 million in Obama stimulus money for a geothermal study in Indonesia. In a press release, Bridgewater remarked that the federal money would “result in U.S. jobs”. He sounds a lot like President Obama.
  • Another company Bridgewater has owned is Ignite! Software with Neil Bush — George W.’s brother. Together, they both profited from the No Child Left Behind legislation by selling computer products that catered specifically to the requirements in that legislation.
  • Bridgewater also has links with Neil Bush to an organization called the CP Group. This is the same group that was tied to the Buddhist Temple fiasco with Al Gore and Bill Clinton and with influence peddling in Washington DC.

All of Bridgewater’s business operations that I’ve been able to review have received or arranged for government funding. All of them. He has expressed opposition to the stimulus while on the campaign trail, but in private he and his companies and clients have profited mightily from federal programs and our tax dollars.

And if these business dealings were not bad enough, Bridgewater was also the Western States Coordinator for John McCain’s presidential campaign in the primary. This isn’t the mark of a true conservative who is going to stand up for our values.
So, let’s go over what we know about this guy:

  1. Supported NCLB
  2. Supported Medicare Part D
  3. Uses government subsidies, grants, earmarks and loans for businesses he has dealings with.
  4. Was Western States Coordinator for John McCain in the 2008 Republican primary for president

Does this sound like a Senator who would work to correct the ills that Senator Bennett has left in his wake?

I hope the Republican delegates in Utah don’t fall for another Bennett in conservative clothing. We will just end up with more of the same.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Bill

    wanting to enhance his own pockets through government largess and scratching his clients’ backs as they steer him to further wealth and fortune. Sure would not be a wee bit of “conflict of interest there would it”? Does Mike Lee have such a complicated and intertwined background as this Bridgewater fellow. I’m not a resident of Utah, but, the good folks there need to know all the dirty laundry on Mike Lee too!

  • arc_ut

    There are 4 candidates that seem to have a chance of winning the GOP nominee for US Senate. Mike Lee, Cherilyn Eagar, Tim Bridgewater and Bob Bennett.

    As the pollsters learned 2 years ago when Jason Chaffetz won, trying to guess what will happen at convention is pretty tough.

    We do have two county delegate polls taken at Weber and Utah GOP County Conventions. Both had Cherilyn Eagar taking 2nd place over Bob Bennett and Tim Bridgewater. These two counties represent over 27% of the state delegates.
    [A recent 3rd county straw poll, with 1/2 of 1 percent of the state delegates, Bennett did edge out Eagar)

    With a 3 round ballot system, any of those that make it through the 1st round could win, even if they don’t get 1st place for round 1.

    I believe that Cherilyn Eagar is the only one running who has supported and been active in fighting for conservative values for the last 30 years at the local, state, national and international level.

  • arc_ut

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14987075

    Lets see, Mike Lee makes how much a month?

    How much is his credit card debt?

    He has almost no reported assets?

    His company has health insurance?

    He is saying he is a fiscal conservative?

    He was 3 weeks late before releasing his personal financial disclosure.

    How much will his fine be?

    He really expects us to believe he is a fiscal conservative?

    How is he going to live on less than 30% of that for 6 years, let alone the next 30 years? (Yes, I realize he is for term limits, but not for just him, and the likelihood of a term limit amendment taking effect in the next 30 years is ?

    He really expects us to believe he is a fiscal conservative?

  • mattmillburn

    Mike Lee says that there are more thugs in Utah County than in Afghanistan. Mike Lee doesn’t understand the seriousness of the situation in Afghanistan. Not sure why Lee decided not to file on time, it sure seems like he is trying to hide something. Some of Bridgewater’s past positions bother me, but Mike Lee’s naive view of the world bothers me more.

  • streiff

    but I hate her with a passion.

    Why?

    Because of your eternal trolling. You are just like the Rom-bots who contributed mightily to Mitt’s flame out. You’re just like the Paultards we ban on sight.

    After your candidate gets humiliated this weekend I hope to heaven you just shut up.

  • GuyInSD

    I’m more anti-Bennett than anything, but in fairness shall we take a look at Mike Lee?

    1. He is an attorney (do we really need more of those in DC?)
    2. As an attorney he represented a number of large companies and according to some was lobbying (while not registered to do so), according to this SLC article (http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_14994558).
    3. Among Lee’s clients are Schering-Plough and EnergySolutions. Are we to believe that he was not involved with seeking government favors (including funding for DOE funding and loan guarantees for EnergySolutions)? And it seems that Lee was handsomely rewarded — $600k in 2009. Is that any different from what Bridgewater did? At least Bridgewater has helped to build companies and incurred risk.
    4. To mattmilburn’s point, Lee is rather naive (if not outright arrogant) and was recently quoted as saying “he plans to go to Washington and “educate” the Senate on the true meaning of the Constitution.” (http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_15016069). There is not doubt of the need for an education, but one must worry that while Lee is on some quixotic adventure he will be otherwise ineffective at all.
    5. For a self-acclaimed constitutional expert, he seems unsure in the case of Kelo and property rights (http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2779&go=4): “For example, I asked him about the Kelo case that about destroyed private property rights in the name of eminent domain. A constitutionalist or conservative could have only one response: It is wrong. But Mike Lee, instead, kind of talked around it, acknowledging that eminent domain was an issue, no doubt about it, but he didn’t himself take a stand on it. ”
    6. In the same piece, he also suggested that he wants to amend the constitution to impose term limits and a balanced budget. At least bad legislation can be repealed.

  • joeinmo

    :I believe that Cherilyn Eagar is the only one running who has supported and been active in fighting for conservative values for the last 30 years at the local, state, national and international level.”

    Its like an article of faith….

    I will be grateful when I dont have to hear it again for two years after Saturday.

    Just the same that Mitt will find out, its no longer who turn is next in the Republican Party. Sorry, Cherilyn, you might get past the first round, but not the second.

  • joeinmo

    Thou Cheirilyn Eager lapdog.

    Heel.

  • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

    Interstellar Level also

  • utah_liberty

    Bridgewater has been tanking in many of the polls among state delegates lately. Mike Lee, as Erick notes, is soaring in the lead. At this point, I think Bridgewater will be lucky if he puulls Lee into a primary.

    These business connections are troubling to me. People criticize Bennett left and right for using earmarks to enrich businesses, but when Bridgewater does it, it’s okay? I don’t understand why people think he’s a fiscal conservative, or would change anything in Washington.

    You gotta know that his political connections (the people who have helped make him rich) are excited at the prospect of having “one of their own” in Congress. Doesn’t seem like much of a change to me.

    I’m glad, then, that most state delegates I talk to realize this conflict of interest and are seriously looking at (and affirming support for) Lee. The guy’s impressive, I’ll say that much — his campaign is the only one that hasn’t gone negative. People here in Utah are sick of the negativity and I know several people personally who have moved over to support Lee just because he was staying so positive and on message.

    This Saturday should be interesting.. either way, I think Mike Lee is clearly in the lead and stands a good chance at winning the 60% of the delegate vote.

  • mattmillburn

    Really? You say Lee hasn’t gone negative. What about when he engaged in personal attacks against Bridgewater because Bridgewater dared to mention some absurd statements that Lee made about Afghanistan. Lee just complained about his statements being “taken out of context.” Then he has to bring up Bridgewater’s previous unsuccessful campaigns. So let me get this straight, bringing up the policy positions of Mike Lee is considered a going negative, but bringing up Bridgewater’s 2002 and 2004 campaigns is not going negative. One of the most annoying things in politics is when a candidate deflects all criticism of his policy positions by just crying about how the one bringing up these criticisms are attacking him. Mike Lee has no need to address the criticism of course. He just engages in personal attacks against his political opponents while proclaiming that he is taking the high ground by not going negative.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xX84647QjJIJ:www.mikelee2010.com/docs/pr_041710.pdf+%22as+u.s.+senate+race+heats+up+Tim+Bridgewater+joins%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

  • arc_ut

    He will get mad if one or two words are off.
    He should clarify it, not rip the person trying to be accurate.

  • utah_1

    I am trying to figure out how the above article was about Mike Lee? Explain to me about Tim’s businesses all taking gov’t handouts? Explain to me John McCain. Explain to me NCLB and Medicare Pt D? Explain to me the how anyone who is the “Utah Guy” not actually already the “DC guy” with ties like the CP Group and Neil Bush as partners?

    It’s nice that you are trying to support your guy in Tim, but why not explain his positions because he certainly sounds a lot like Bennett without the seniority.

  • utah_1

    1) Wasn’t Bob Bennett the guy who ran on being a business man who was for limited government in 1992? How did that work out?
    2) Isn’t Interlinks business model COMPLETELY built on lobbying? Isn’t Bridgewaters main source of income from lobbying?
    3)Isn’t Bridgewater’s biz partners Neil Bush and the CP Group? Yep, no conflict of interest there. Hasn’t CP Group been known as the influence peddlers in DC?
    4)That actually was stated that he would bring the debate about the Constitution back to DC.
    5)Lonsberry of all people you are going to quote? What side of the Constitution is he coming down on today.
    6)Doesn’t Conservatives like Senator DeMint want a balanced budget? Wasn’t Bennett one of the main reasons why it failed before?

    Now, I asked these above and I will paste it here to see if you will answer.

    I am trying to figure out how the above article was about Mike Lee? Explain to me about Tim?s businesses all taking gov?t handouts? Explain to me John McCain. Explain to me NCLB and Medicare Pt D? Explain to me the how anyone who is the ?Utah Guy? not actually already the ?DC guy? with ties like the CP Group and Neil Bush as partners?

    It?s nice that you are trying to support your guy in Tim, but why not explain his positions because he certainly sounds a lot like Bennett without the seniority.

  • utah_1

    Really? Wasn’t Bridgewater the first to go negative? And Bridgewater holds the very same positions on Afgahnistan so I am curious about why Bridgewater decided to link himself with Bennett?

    And actually Lee didn’t cry about it. He issued his position statement to make sure people like Bennett and Bridgewater don’t twist his words, like they did.

  • GuyInSD

    Interesting retort.

    I will address your questions, but I think it is worth reviewing the title of my comment: “What do we know about Lee?” It was not intended at all to respond to Erickson’s specific points about Bridgewater. Rather is was simply to make a couple points about the endorsed Lee in an attempt to show the other side — in much the same fashion that Bridgewater was portrayed.

    Now, to your questions:

    1. There is a long list of people who go to DC supporting limited government (and a lot of other points) and fail, and clearly Bennett is one of those. I am predisposed to taking a business view of things over an attorney’s view, but there is no guarantee. As for how it’s working out, I think that Bennett is struggling for reelection is a good sign that Utahns have finally realized he isn’t working. After all, isn’t that what elections are about?

    2. Perhaps I’ve missed something, but is lobbying illegal? I’ve not reviewed Bridgewater’s financial statements (which were filed on time at least), but isn’t he involved with other companies as well?

    3. Ah, a Bush is involved so there is a conflict of interest. Any basis for that claim or is it simply easy pickings?

    4. Your point is not clear, but I gather it is based on my point 4 re Lee. If so, it’s really good that Lee is going to “bring the debate… back.” What does this really mean? Does he have some unique perspective that has never been debated? Certainly as an attorney and former Utah state official, he may well have a typical politicians view of the world.

    5. Think what you may about Lonsberry, but do you have reason to dispute his recall of Lee’s non-answer on something as clear (to many of us at least) as Kelo?

    6. A lot of conservatives want a balanced budget, but is this really something requiring amending the constitution? Grand claims of amendments are nice press fodder but are quite meaningless. In which of Lee’s two terms (assuming he lives within the two term limit he’s also suggesting be added to the constitution), will he succeed while others have failed?

    With regard to your challenge to answer:

    As I stated above, my comments were simply a counterpoint to the anti-Bridgewater statements of the article and to offer a bit of flavor of the same kind for Lee. You know, it’s a bit like Lee going to DC — trying to bring the debate here. Your own enumerated points cite Bennett quite a bit — what do these have to do with the article?

    I find it interesting that all of Bridgewater’s business is based on “gov’t handouts.” We can argue about the value of various programs but are these programs somehow welfare? Are there not many companies that pursue funding from government programs? Wouldn’t some of Mike Lee’s clients fall into this category as well? Is it illegal?

    Believe me, I have a hard time explaining John McCain… That said, there are a lot of Republicans who supported McCain and to single Bridgewater out seems weak. Is there a candidate you would have preferred him to support? Would that support have made a difference, really? Should he have supported Romney in the primaries? You know, the Romney that brought his own failing wildly version of Obamacare to Massachusetts.

    I do not like the NCLB or Medicare Pt D (and a very, very long list of other government programs) and think Bridgewater was wrong. He’s admitted that. One of those risks of taking a position — you’ll be wrong sometimes (see Romney, above). And it’s easy for those who have no record of a position to cast stones so how one deals with owning up to the mistake becomes the issue.

    “Utah Guy,” “DC guy,” “CP Group,” “Neil Bush” — any others you care to add? Explain what? Once Bennett is out at the convention, will any endorsements Lee may get from establishment Republicans somehow morph him into a “DC guy” as well?

    Oh, that’s right we are just to “Beware of Bridgewater.”

  • http://www.curlyandburlyventspot.blogspot.com mking

    My goodness, reading these comments you’d think we had a bunch of lying liberals running for office instead of several good people who–let’s face–have a great deal of similarities in their platforms and ideas. I see many people on this thread jumping to conclusions and making assumptions that are just not true. Just because someone has the OPPORTUNITY to be dishonest or do bad things doesn’t mean they will do it. We are not choosing between the lesser of evils here, but we get to choose between several goods. Many people are taking cheap shots at candidates. Ask yourself–if your favorite candidate had never entered the race, would you still be saying the things you are saying now? If no, then stop saying them.. This kind of negativity is what keeps many people from being involved in politics. I, for one, would like to see more people getting educated and involved. Let’s not turn them off.

  • mattmillburn

    I bring up Mike Lee, because Red State has endorsed him and acts as if he is flawless. The reason I support Bridgewater, is because he is the best one in the race. If there was somebody better, I would support them. Bridgewater’s business dealings don’t bother me. Do you really think Mike Lee would refuse to work for a company that got any government money? I disagree with Bridgewater supporting McCain, but that’s not enough of a reason to not vote for him. I also disagree with Mike Lee donating to Bob Bennett right after Bennett voted for TARP. I wish Bridgewater would have opposed NCLB and Medicare Pt D initially, but he did come to oppose them later. These are the things that bother me most about Bridgewater. Bridgewater is clearly more conservative than Bennett. Bridgewater would have never supported an individual mandate for health care. The reason I support Bridgewater over Mike Lee is that I don’t want my senator advocating the premature withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Mike Lee has made comments that show he does not understand the seriousness of the threat. Unfortunately, there are no perfect candidates, but Bridgewater looks to be the best of the bunch.

  • mattmillburn

    I don’t remember saying that Bridgewater didn’t go negative before Lee, I was just pointing out that it’s not true to say that Lee hasn’t gone negative. When you are leading in the polls and make the ridiculous statement that there are more thugs in Utah County than in Afghanistan, then of course your opponents will point that out. I don’t think that it’s a bad thing to point out. If nobody ever went negative too many people would never learn of the negative aspects of the candidates. I’ve never understood why there are so many people who think it is some how immoral to point out the weaknesses of your opponents. The public deserves to get that information. What bothers me is when Mike Lee does not even address the criticism he receives and instead just complains that his words were “taken out of context.” I wonder what the context was that made him say there were more thugs in Utah County than in Afghanistan. I wouldn’t know because Mike Lee refuses to say what the context was. Not sure how Lee’s position statement was supposed to clarify his views. He says he is a strong advocate of the military, he says soldiers are brave, I guess I should forget about his other comment because it was clearly taken out of context. His words were twisted of course. No need to explain how they were twisted or how he was taken out of context, we should just assume that Mike Lee is right.

  • speckk

    All of the candidates are generally good people who are somewhat conservative and honestly believe they have good policies for America.

    Bob Bennett of course is either deluded, senile and/or gullible about policy, but he honestly believes he can help Utah.

    Think the best of each candidate. Feel free to dig up and share all their conflicts of interest. Recognize that we all make mistakes, but like to see ourselves in the best light.