Utah Congressional Candidate Chris Stewart Pulls Out Nomination Win as Rivals Unite to Oppose Him
- Posted on April 22, 2012 at 1:43pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
Utah congressional candidate Chris Stewart pulled out a win for the Republican nomination Saturday even as his former rivals united to oppose him.
(Related: ‘Historic Upset’: Orrin Hatch Forced Into Primary Fight After Failing to Secure GOP Nomination)
The small business owner and former Air Force pilot, whom Glenn Beck called a “decent and honorable man” last week, beat out Utah ex-House Speaker David Clark in the Republican race for the state’s second district, the Salt Lake Tribune reported:
Eureka Mayor Milt Hanks alleged right before delegates began casting ballots that four contenders had conspired to drop negative information about Stewart — charges that those candidates denied and claimed was foul play by Stewart’s camp.
“Chris Stewart is a bald-faced liar whether you like it or not,” candidate Chuck Williams later alleged at the podium, prompting party officials to temporarily cut his microphone. Williams then withdrew and backed Clark.
Up next, Howard Wallack said that Hanks was a Stewart surrogate and throwing out allegations to gin up support for his friend.
“I know of only one campaign that made negative attacks on any candidates,” Wallack said. “We have to take a long look at a candidate who never buys a booth, never makes a sign and all of sudden comes out with a vile attack.”
Hanks said after that Clark, Williams, Wallack and another candidate tried to include him in a plan to hit Stewart with negative attacks, the Tribune reported. Afterward, an unsigned note note was circulated among voting delegates tying Stewart to a two-year-old controversial “temple mailer” that attacked ex-Sen. Bob Bennett by linking him to Washington and then-candidate Mike Lee to the Church of Latter-Day Saints. The same note also alleged that Stewart was embellishing his military record.
“It’s the same stuff I shoveled off the floor of the chicken coup,” Hanks said, according to the newspaper. “Are we back to the hog trough of backroom deals and backstabbing politics?”
For his part, Stewart called the charges in the note offensive and degrading to the political process, saying, “It’s just not true.”
Despite the attacks, Stewart secured more than 60 percent of the vote, earning him a face-off against Democrat Jay Seegmiller in November.
Watch Beck’s discussion with Stewart below:
Comments (63)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 590 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
adamgalelds
Posted on May 1, 2012 at 12:33amhttp://wearegeorgewashington.blogspot.com/2012/04/evil-dark-politics-or-my-trip-to-state.html
My take on the convention as I witnessed it first hand.
http://wearegeorgewashington.blogspot.com/2012/04/bullies-and-thugs-or-how-candidates-are.html
The response from Cherilyn Eagar attempting to intimidate, bully me, and her weak attempts to use the LDS religion (I am a Mormon) to manipulate me. These kind of politics should be shunned in Utah, and WE THE PEOPLE need to rise up, and voice our opposition to Washington as Usual politics.
Report Post »dwh320
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 8:28pmRegardless of any dirty tricks played on either side the simple truth is Chris is the Republican nominee. Put it all behind you and line up for the fight to defeat the Democrat. At lest that is all I hear from the Romney supports so it must also apply here. You all can either “Eat You Own” or you can unite, fight, and send a Republican to Washington.
Report Post »Angry House Wife
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 6:57pmI know Glenn has a man crush on Stewart but he needs to get his facts straight before he goes on the air and alleges every candidate was trying to bring Stewart down! First of all I know many of the candidates ran clean non-mud slinging campaigns. Second of all, at the convention almost no one had even heard of Milton Hanks until his speech. He had no table, no signs, had not campaigned at all. For all we know he may have been planning this all along. Finally, there is going to be an investigation into what went on with the fliers so maybe Glenn should keep mouth shut until we know for sure what REALLY happened! There were a lot of things that didn’t add up. I was there, Glenn was not. For someone who is so determined to find the truth he sure had no problem running his mouth off today before he had all the facts.
Report Post »pops289
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 10:29pmThe theory that Chris Stewart orchestrated a self-smear and put Milt Hanks up to the task of blaming someone else for it is absurd. The responses of Williams, Eagar, Wallack, and Clark were in no way consistent with how an innocent person would respond to a blind-side accusation of that nature. Williams went first and called Chris a liar, apparently in defense of the anonymous letter. Well, that kind of blew their cover, didn’t it? That‘s why Cherilyn couldn’t figure out what to say and couldn’t even decide whether she was still in the race. She knew her plausible deniability had just been vaporized by Williams.
A normal person, if innocent, would have denied the Hanks accusation and would not have speculated as to Hanks’ motives unless they had some kind of evidence. That didn’t happen. A courageous and honest person would also have condemned the anonymous smear letter. That didn’t happen. QED.
Report Post »pops289
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 10:36pmBy the way, it wasn’t “every candidate” trying to bring Stewart down with the anonymous letter and the collusion. It was just the four of them. The other guys were engaged in honest campaigning, trying to beat Chris the old-fashioned way.
Can you share any details on the bit about “there’s going to be an investigation”? If you’re referring to the inquiry by Chairman Wright, I’m not going to get my hopes up because one of his interests is to preserve party unity. If you’re talking about election authorities looking into it – I believe it would be a violation of election law if the anonymous mailer was sent by one of the other candidates – then that would be interesting. But it might be difficult to get to the bottom of it unless somebody who knows something does the right thing and comes forward.
Report Post »vampiric aristocracy
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 1:16pmThank god we have two really,really good senators here in GA.saxby chambliss,and johnny isakson.
Report Post »we have a ****** district in brooks county,where ole sanford bishop exists but soyth georgia folks in office are truly connected to the people,including governor deal.
PATRIOTMAMA
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 10:51amJust listened to the follow-up on Beck’s radio show and wow!! Good for the citizens of Utah for seeing through the dirty politics and cheers and blessings to Hanks for standing up and being a MAN!!! Thank you fellow patriot for standing up for the truth. Through the last few years and the years to come God will show us the true patriots in this nation. You will know them by their fruit. We will be able to see who they are and who we are. Maybe that is the purpose of all of this and if it is then Thank you Lord for the lessons you are teaching us and for the conviction it has brought us. God only disciplines those that He loves. Thank you.
Report Post »marthaW
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:05pmPatriotmama, It sounds like you were not at the convention. Those candidates who go emotional have never been seen like acting this. Others have even lost races in the past. When they were implicated in this “back-room deal” they were blown away. In shock! And, as a person who is pretty good at reading people’s emotions I think their emotions spoke truth.
I put myself in their shoes. If someone, who was not me, anonymously had sent smear flyers out about one candidte, and then another candidate stood up and implicated that I did it. I would be incredibly offended and emotional too. It would seem like the “back room deal” talk could just be another “back room deal.”
Is it possible that someone just knows the people crave truth expressed in a dynamic fashion and they created just such a moment to manipulate delegates? I think it could be. The news is washing the event under the carpet here in Utah. No one has interviewed any of the candidates besides Stewart. They are all just believing Hanks.
I know people who know Hanks, and they will tell you he should not always be believed.
So, why is no one interviewing the offended candidates? Now that would be a cool Glenn Beck show! What if he let them have freedom of speech about what happened on his show? I would like to see that.
We have only see one side of this election all along from Glenn; the Stewart side. So out of character for Glenn. Why?
Report Post »pops289
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:26pmI respectfully disagree with you, marthaw. The correct response by any of the four accused would have been, “I did not collude with anyone. I had nothing to do with the anonymous smear of Chris Stewart – in fact, I condemn it.” But that wasn’t their response.
Chuck Williams really stepped in it by attacking Chris instead of defending himself or simply denying the accusation. In fact, he appeared to be defending the anonymous smear letter.
Eagar spent her entire 60 seconds trying to figure out what to say. It looked more like she was trying to figure out what to say that would be believable, given that Chuck had just blown their shot at plausible deniability. Neither Wallack nor Clark condemned the anonymous letter, either.
Report Post »PATRIOTMAMA
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 9:35amLook. The truth will always come out into the light. I’m a Christian Conservative leaning Liberatarian. So for all intents and purposes, to the left, I’m an evil, stupid, racist,,,,,,Oh I could keep dropping the labels they try to use, but what I want to say is this; regardless of how the elections turn out, God’s will be done!!!! Trust in HIM and He will work all things for the good of those that love HIM and are called according to HIS purpose! Whether Stewart, Romney, or any other candidate that I support wins, God is in control and we have to trust HIM to get through this time in our nation. Whether it be the beginning of the end for this nation, the whole world or the beginning of a restoration of freedom and American excellence I put my faith and trust in Him. Having said that, Romney is hands down 100% better than Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday. He will get my vote, but then again, a can of dogfood would have gotten my vote.
ANYONE BUT OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »marthaW
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:09amFaith,
You said,
“Just think about it for a minute. Milt Hanks had no campaign to speak of. By his own admission he had spent less than $1500 during the entire campaign. Why on earth would the other candidates approach him to join them in the smear campaign? He had absolutely nothing to contribute to a smear campaign. The only thing they could have been asking him for would have been for him to join them in supporting the second place candidate at the convention. There is no other plausible reason for approaching another candidate in Mr Hanks’ situation. ”
I agree with you here. The whole idea that Milt suggests that the candidates wanted to conspire with him is ridiculous! They would have nothing to gain by it if they did. And, it is very regular practice for candidates to say talk to 100% of the delegates, which usually means the other candidates. So, the candidates, usually at the last minute, will say something like, “If things don’t go well for you in the race can I count on your vote?” I see nothing wrong with that. It is normal.
Report Post »marthaW
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:23amAbout Tim Stewart being a lobbyist. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2536959/posts
there are other such posts. This point was proven long ago after the Bennett race.
Report Post »marthaW
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:25amFaith,
I didn’t get a chance to interview Milt Hanks after the race, but I have interviewed multiple people from Eureka. Boy did I get a ear full. I hope they tell what they know. Milt has quite a history.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:46amI have no problem with any given candidate seeking potential support from any other given candidate should the other candidate not do well. In my view this went beyond that because the premise was “Anyone But Chris”. In other words, they weren’t seeking support from other candidates individually, but were instead agreeing to support whoever came in second, not because they necessarily supported that candidate, but because they wanted to defeat Chris Stewart at any cost and they were apparently soliciting all of the other candidates to join them in their strategy. Just because something regularly occurs doesn’t make it right. Some might classify that type of arrangement as a “secret combination” to gain power, but I digress.
Having said that, and admitting that these kinds of deals do occur (though I disagree with them on principle) IF in fact those candidates were aware of the pending smear letter and IF they did in fact solicit Milt’s support at the convention for the second place candidate, and IF you see nothing wrong with their actions, then would you agree that there is nothing wrong with Milt speaking up about it as a matter of principle?
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:17amAbout Tim Stewart being a lobbyist….
Personally I could not care less about Tim being a lobbyist. Our nation is broke and about to fall into a financial abyss, not to mention the moral abyss we’ve been sliding into for decades. We got here by abrogating our responsibility as citizens to
1) be educated about our own history,
2) to understand the nature of a representative republic,
3) understand the proper role of government (secure our inalienable rights, not guarantee equal stuff for everyone)
4) recognize that our constitution only works for a moral people
5) seek out and elect representatives with the moral courage to resist the temptation to abuse the limited power which we as citizens loan to them on our behalf.
When government is returned to it’s proper role, there will be no role for lobbyists because the federal government won‘t be in the business of handing out other people’s money.
The solution is in sending people to congress who will do what’s right for the country within the limits of their power as established by the constitution. There are people with the moral courage to do that. I happen to think Chris Stewart is one of them, so I don’t worry about what his brother or his mother or his father do for a living.
My goal is not to find someone who won’t abuse power because there are no obvious connections to others that might try to get them to abuse that power (ie a lobbyist in the family) but rather someone who won’t abuse p
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:24amAs to Milt Hanks’ history I have no knowledge. I can only relate my impression of his character and motivations based on what I observed at the convention.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 4:37amcontinued…
My goal is not to find someone who won’t abuse power because there are no obvious connections to others that might try to get them to abuse that power (ie a lobbyist in the family) but rather someone who won’t abuse power because they choose not to abuse that power regardless of the rationalization or temptation.
You will never get good government without good people with the self discipline to self regulate their use of the limited and temporary power to govern.
You don’t prevent someone from making an inappropriate deal with a lobbyist by only electing someone with no ties to any lobbyist. They will be inundated with lobbyists the moment they set foot in Washington. You prevent the inappropriate deals by electing someone who will choose not to make the deals because they are not in the best interest of the country or they are not within the scope of their limited power.
If you don’t elect such a person, then it is only a matter of time before they are corrupted regardless of who they may or may not be related to.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:04amAs Glenn said several years ago when he first began to figure things out, the founders put the solution to our problems in big bold letters. WE THE PEOPLE. We are endowed by our creator with the rights to life, liberty and property (the fruits of our labors, otherwise known as the pursuit of happiness).
We alone are responsible for the protection of those rights from those who would seek to deprive us of one or more of them. As a society of citizens we collectively hire a government to protect and secure our rights and we are responsible for hiring moral people to carry out that function.
If those we hire to protect our rights abuse the power that we have loaned to them and we do not fire them and replace them with someone better equipped for the job (as is our right) then we have only ourselves to blame for the results of their abuses.
The solution really is that simple, not easy, but simple.
So that’s the long answer to Tim Stewart being a lobbyist…
Report Post »marthaW
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 10:35pmSnowleopard, I agree with you. I will be watching. So Faith, you think that I am just putting up my opinion. Here are facts.
The delegate in my area said the post mark on the smear letter was 23 hours before the post mark on the Chris Stewart letter. You tell me how a letter gets to someone’s house, the person gets home from work, reads it, contacts Chris and he gets another letter written, envelopes addressed to every delegate and shipped in 23 hours. Seems pretty incredible.
You said that Milt said the whole group would unite behind Clark. That wasn’t in his speech at all. The news reported this, but it was inaccurate. Milt’s speech only mentioned that the candidates approached him and asked him if he would join them to smear Stewart. That points directly at the smear letter.
Cherily Eagar said that when she was interviewing campaign strategists she talked to many who said, “If you hire me, you will have to be okay with us sending out smear information about you at certain points to get sympathy votes.” (probably not word perfect, but closely quoted)
Chris’s brother, who is the lobbyist with Bob Bennett’s lobby firm, did the same kind of mailing to try to stop Mike Lee from winning the election in 2010. There is a pattern here.
Quite frankly a lot of us are really surprised that Glenn Beck would endorse a candidate like Stewart at all with his conflicts of interest and ties to Bennett. Brother as a lobbyist when you write the natio
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:11amMARTHAW said:
“So Faith, you think that I am just putting up my opinion.”
My response:
I didn’t say anything about your opinion. That was SBENARD.
MARTHAW said:
“You tell me how a letter gets to someone’s house, the person gets home from work, reads it, contacts Chris and he gets another letter written, envelopes addressed to every delegate and shipped in 23 hours. Seems pretty incredible.”
My response:
Printing and mailing out a response letter within 24 hours to 600 to 800 delegates is frequently and easily done. Campaigns do it all the time. A delegate friendly to the Stewart campaign could have received the smear letter in the mail at 11:00 in the morning and they could have easily sent out a response by the end of the day. A good campaign will be aware of everything sent to the delegates and will generally respond as quickly as possible.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:13amMARTHAW said:
“You said that Milt said the whole group would unite behind Clark. That wasn’t in his speech at all.”
My response:
You are correct, it was not in his speech that I recall. If you heard the speeches, you know that they had only 6 minutes and Hanks didn’t get to calling out the other 4 candidates until right towards the end of his speech and his comments were hurried and a bit confusing and mostly focused on the smear letter and on calling out the other 4 candidates by name and then he was out of time.
As I mentioned before in my earlier post, there were some delegates who actually took the time to come talk to Mr Hanks after his speech and ask him for the details (far fewer than I would have thought, but there were some). I watched and listened to these conversations up until they announced the results of the first round (maybe 15 minutes?). It was during those conversations that he had the time to tell the whole story to those few who approached him.
In my observation he came off as very credible, genuine, sincere and absolutely sure of the truth of what he was saying. He readily admitted that he knew some of the Stewart campaign staff and that he acted alone in deciding to speak out about the smear campaign and the collusion to support the second place candidate over Stewart.
continued…
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:14am…continued
Hanks also mentioned that he was a little distracted by the signs telling him he was about of time near the end of his speech and he didn’t get to say everything he wanted to say.
I haven’t seen the news report you referenced so I can’t speak to its accuracy.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:16amMARTHAW said:
“Cherilyn Eagar said that when she was interviewing campaign strategists she talked to many who said, “If you hire me, you will have to be okay with us sending out smear information about you at certain points to get sympathy votes.”“
My response:
I don’t know anything about Cherilyn Eager other than what I observed at the convention. Her speech was very polished and well delivered like a professional politician. The problem for me is that I don’t believe much of anything said by a professional politician, especially one in campaign mode, but that is just my opinion.
I did watch her come up alone to Milt Hanks several minutes after his speech and all she said to him was that she was “very disappointed”. No denial, no accusing Milt of lying, just that she was disappointed. She may have confronted Milt earlier, there was a group of them giving him a piece of their mind right after his speech and I only caught the tail end of it all and I don’t remember if she was there at that time or not.
I took the “disappointed” comments that I heard from her as meaning that she was “disappointed” that he would be so bold as to breach political decorum and reveal the back room dealings in broad daylight, but again, that’s just my opinion.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:17amMARTHAW said:
“Chris’s brother, who is the lobbyist with Bob Bennett’s lobby firm, did the same kind of mailing to try to stop Mike Lee from winning the election in 2010. There is a pattern here.”
I read part of the smear letter over someone else’s shoulder so I don’t know everything it said, but Milt did say that when he got the letter from a delegate he went to Chris and asked him straight up about the two allegations 1) that he was somehow connected to the “temple” letter from 2 years ago and 2) that he was lying about or embellishing his military record. Hanks said that Chris told him that he had nothing to do with the “temple” letter and then he (Chris) showed Hanks a letter signed by a 2 Star general congratulating Chris for the military accomplishment questioned in the smear letter.
With respect to Glenn Beck “endorsing” Chris Stewart, it would appear that you are not a regular listener/viewer of Glenn’s. He does not endorse candidates period. A fact that he makes abundantly clear whenever he speaks positively about any candidate. What he has said about Chris on multiple occasions is that Chris is the most honorable man he knows and that he was set to hire Chris until Chris decided to run for congress. He walked away from what would have no doubt been a very good job offer.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:18amI respect your right to your opinion and the conclusions you may draw from the facts as you see them, and I assume you respect my right to my opinion as well. There is no question that there was enough “drama” at the convention to write a mini series for television, and people will draw their own conclusions which will inevitably be influenced by our own biases.
I appreciate your passion for the other candidates in this race, I would just respectfully disagree with your assertions and conclusions, but I’ve enjoyed the back and forth and I wish you well in your endeavors.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:35amOK, just one more little point… really… then I’ll quit. At least for now…
MARTHAW said:
“You said that Milt said the whole group would unite behind Clark. That wasn’t in his speech at all. The news reported this, but it was inaccurate. Milt’s speech only mentioned that the candidates approached him and asked him if he would join them to smear Stewart. That points directly at the smear letter. ”
My response:
Just think about it for a minute. Milt Hanks had no campaign to speak of. By his own admission he had spent less than $1500 during the entire campaign. Why on earth would the other candidates approach him to join them in the smear campaign? He had absolutely nothing to contribute to a smear campaign. The only thing they could have been asking him for would have been for him to join them in supporting the second place candidate at the convention. There is no other plausible reason for approaching another candidate in Mr Hanks’ situation.
Again, just my opinion, and thanks for your indulgence.
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:08amOK, OK, I know I said I would quit, but I can’t help myself…
Just a thought about the assertion that Milt Hanks was a surrogate candidate planted in the campaign to help Chris Stewart. I may be wrong, but I think Hanks indicated in his speech that he was one of the first candidates to enter the race. If that is true, how evil would Christ Stewart have to be to have planted Hanks as his surrogate before Chris had even entered the race? Again, I’m not sure who entered the race when, but wow, if Hanks entered before Chris it would really point to Chris not only being pure evil, but brilliant at rigging elections. Sounds like the perfect candidate for congress. He’ll fit right in!
Full disclosure, the above comments are meant to be satire.
Report Post »marthaW
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 3:19amFaith, I also enjoy a good debate. It is fun. We obviously see this situation differently. And, I am pretty sure we view Milt differently. He showed poor character, and started attacking candidates. This was against the rules. His microphone should have been turned off too. I think they left us in that room for a free-for-all. Everyone else behaved except for Milt though.
I do know Beck has been adamant about not endorsing candidates. This is why I am so surprised. At this point I hope Glenn is right about Chris. But, I have done enough research on the lives of all these candidates before and now after the convention that I fear Glenn has been fooled. I don’t think he has ever claimed to be perfect yet.
I do watch Glenn’s show and admire him greatly, but his involvement in this smear thing is unfortunate. He even went on the show about it. If it turns out to be a scam and breach of campaign rules or something Glenn is going to get dragged through the mud too.
Glenn is a blessing for our country. I would hate to see this endorsement cause him problems. I now know why he has always been firm about not endorsing in the past. I would do the same.
Report Post »pops289
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 5:57amI got the smear letter, but never received Chris’ response to it except by email, so I can’t weigh in on the “postmark” issue. The smear letter was fluff and spin, so it didn’t bother me a lot. What bothered me was that it was anonymous and dropped right before the convention. Well, there’s also the irony that a last-second anonymous smear mailer would accuse Chris of sending last-second anonymous smear mailers in the previous convention.
The anonymous self-smear theory is altogether too clever – if Chris is really that clever and daring, then maybe he’s better qualified to go to Washington than the others. :-)
The reason I ended up voting for Stewart is because Clark, Wallack, Eagar, and Williams all acted like little kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar – see my other comment on the subject.
I sat next to Chris’ wife at one of the debates. She was civil and polite and applauded all the other candidates. Afterwards, I stupidly remarked that I wished we could send them all to Washington. She raised an eyebrow and said, “If you really knew these candidates, you wouldn’t say that”. But she refused to elaborate – she said Chris wouldn’t stand for it. The Stewart campaign got high marks from me for that.
Report Post »red barchetta
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 9:08pmThe TEA party put Bob Bennett away and hopefully Hatch will be next. Funny listening to Hatch’s radio ads, how “he’s fighting left wingers”, give me a break, we hear that kind of rhetoric every 5 years from his campain but Hatch would never utter something like “left wingers”. I don’t think he even lives in Utah anymore. He’s so conservitive he cast the vote killing the BBA. Thanks, jerk.
Report Post »As for Jim Matheson, the legislature made his cushy district, unfriendly, and probably will lose to Mia Love, a young and strong conservitive. So long Matheson and your phoney “Utah values”. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Mutiny
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 9:37pmHatch voted for the NDAA. Anybody who voted for that rights killer cannot with any honestly call themselves conservatives or tea party members.
Report Post »LameLiberals
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:20amAllen West voted for NDAA. Pathetic that a military man would vote against the Constitution.
Report Post »thinknotrepeat
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 7:55pmHE”S ANTI A.I.P.A.C. no wonder the republican base wanted to destroy him
Report Post »Delores at CH WV
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 4:38pmGreat Job, a run off is a great idea! Hope Utah voters makes the right decisions. They must all be informed about how this country is failing because old, old, men are selling them out!
Report Post »Bum thrower
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 6:55pmYou are corrrect; Utah Senator Orin Hatch cast the ‘no’ vote in 1995 that defeated the “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the US constitution. Had he voted ‘yes’, it would have gone to the states for ratification.
Throw the BUM OUT!!!!
Report Post »marthaW
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 4:21pmI was at this convention. I was also standing right by the candidates as they decided what to do when they were attacked by Hanks. They were in shock, they were hurt, angry, they felt that a huge manipulation had happened. After a short time they all looked at David Clark and told him they would support him in hopes of righting a great wrong. It is interesting to me that Milt Hanks, the Eureka mayor and supposed back room deal exposer, is from Eureka, when it is known that Stewart’s campaign manager is also from Eureka. Eureka only has a few hundred residents I think.
It is also interesting that the anonymous smear letter was only post marked 23 hours before the Chris Stewart letter discussing the issue.
I have also been informed by other candidates that when they were interviewing campaign strategists, some of those strategists said that their way of campaigning was to do a self-smear at the end of a campaign for mercy votes. It sure does look like this is what happened.
I know the other lead candidates to be courageous and principled people who were trying to“save the soul of America” just like Mr. Stewart said he was trying to do. They were people of character too.
I am proud of the other front runners for trying to take a stand against the Stewart campaign’s dirty campaigning and possible plant candidate, Milt Hanks. They smelt a rat and took a stand. It took courage. It was obviously not planned. All the candidates, even Clark were obvi
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 5:59pmWhat Hanks actually charged was that Clark, Williams, Wallack, and Eagar had asked him if he (Hanks) was going to join the ABC club. (Anyone but Chris club). The conversation allegedly occurred at last weeks Davis County convention while the candidates were waiting off stage together. When Hanks asked them what the “ABC” club was, they explained to him that they were aware of negative information on Christ Stewart that was going to be dropped just prior to the state convention so that Stewart would not have time to respond to it, and that at the state convention, they were all going to line up behind whoever placed second in the first round of voting and try to persuade the delegates to throw all of their combined support behind the second place candidate in an effort to get the 60% vote needed to eliminate Chris Stewart without going to a primary. (The negative info on Stewart was apparently the “unsigned note” referenced above in this article which, according to Hanks, was given to him by a delegate who had received it in the past few days.)
Hanks was the last of the 11 candidates to speak and had many delegates on their feet applauding him for his willingness to speak up and decry the backroom deals and backstabbing politics. Within minutes, I personally watched the firestorm of denials and attacks on Hanks from the 4 candidates (or their surrogates) which had been called out by Hanks in his speech. continued…
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 6:04pmcontinued…
Shortly after that, they began accusing the Stewart campaign of fabricating the whole thing.
I watched as several delegates came up and spoke with Hanks and asked him to explain exactly what it was that he was claiming. Which he did. He further indicated that not only was he offended by the collusion of these candidates against Stewart (while simultaneously putting on a show of civility among all the candidates at their various campaign events), he was doubly offended that they all thought that he (Hanks) would be remotely interested in joining them in their ABC club.
Amazingly, after vehemently denying any such conversation ever took place, Clark finished second to Stewart in the first round and on cue, Williams, Wallack and Eagar all withdrew from the race and lined up behind Clark on stage just like Hanks said they would.
I’ll leave you to conclude who was telling the truth, but for me, kudos to Hanks for daring to defend Stewart against the false “unsigned note” attacks and for having the courage of his convictions to shine a light on the backroom dealing that all too often plays a role in politics. It’s just a role that many choose to ignore or pretend does not exist.
I was encouraged by those who came up and thanked Mr. Hanks for his speech or who were honestly seeking clarification from him, but I was also disappointed that their numbers were relatively few.
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 6:36pmAs a Utahn and a resident of the 2nd District, this whole story has interested me over the past 24 hours. MarthaW, your ideas are based upon your opinion, innuendo, and claims. The other story here is based upon eye-witness accounts.
Report Post »For example, you claim that something nefarious is at foot just because two people happen to live in the same city? That’s not credible. It’s guilt by association!
It seems silly to me that anyone would plant a false story about themselves just to get a sympathy vote, when they were already overwhelmingly ahead in the polls. There would have be a very high probability of being caught and seeing a backlash instead of a sympathy vote. Why would Chris Stewart do that, when he was already the favorite? That would be truly foolish indeed.
For this Utah vote, Faith and Hope has credibility. You don’t!
Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 6:45pmin reply to MARTHAW who said:
“It is also interesting that the anonymous smear letter was only post marked 23 hours before the Chris Stewart letter discussing the issue.”
Post marks may show a date (but not always) but to my knowledge, they never include a time. I also know for a fact that the Stewart response letter did not contain a post mark because it was mailed under a mailing permit. Just wondering where the “23 hour” idea was coming from?
You also said:
“I was also standing right by the candidates as they decided what to do when they were attacked by Hanks. They were in shock, they were hurt, angry, they felt that a huge manipulation had happened. After a short time they all looked at David Clark and told him they would support him in hopes of righting a great wrong.”
I heard this from another delegate as well and it appears that this must have happened in plain sight of some of the delegates. It would seem to me that if you had just been “attacked” by Hanks with supposedly false accusations, you wouldn’t discuss your response strategy in the open when there was a large restricted area behind the stage where they could have discussed the issue in private first? Unless they were just putting on a show of feigned outrage for the delegates to see in an attempt to salvage their now exposed ABC club strategy?
Report Post »Faith Hope Charity and Truth
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 7:13pmOK, one more question for MARTHAW…
If Milt Hanks was lying about Clark, Wallack, Eager and Williams inviting him to join the “Anyone But Chris” club, how come none of them called Milt Hanks a liar during their withdrawal speeches? Why not deny from the pulpit in front of all the delegates that they had approached Milt Hanks about ganging up on Chris Stewart? Instead they call Chris Stewart a bald faced liar?
Perhaps they were afraid to be too public in their denials in case someone else at last week‘s Davis County convention were to corroborate Milt Hank’s version of the facts? According to Hanks, there were other candidates standing nearby when the conversation about the ABC club took place. Maybe they overheard? I also heard that at least 2 other candidates had been approached separately about ABC and declined to get involved.
It was obvious that they were all shocked, upset and angry, but it seemed to me they were angry at being exposed, not at being falsely accused. Their reactions spoke volumes and many of the delegates apparently saw it for what it was, backroom dealing politics exposed by the light of truth. Which I hear has no agenda.
Just my observations…
Report Post »pops289
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 6:40am“They were in shock, they were hurt, angry, they felt that a huge manipulation had happened.”
We delegates were placed in the unenviable position of having to judge whether they were angry at having been dishonestly attacked or angry at having been exposed. The natural response to a false accusation would have been to call Hanks a liar. Instead, Chuck Williams called Chris a liar. He appeared to be defending the smear letter rather than defending himself. It gave them away. Neither Eagar nor Wallack could come up with a plausible defense after Chuck stepped in it. In addition, they did exactly what they were alleged to have agreed to do – they lined up behind David Clark.
Clark had one last chance to salvage something. He could have repudiated the three who had withdrawn, he could have declared it to be a race between himself and Stewart. Instead he seemed OK with the idea that it was a race between Stewart and the Gang of Four, the ABC club. Fail.
My favorite convention moment was when a delegate stepped up to the microphone and said, “Mister Chairman, I’d like to raise a point of what the hell just happened here.”
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 3:49pmCondratulations Mr Stewart, just remember that if you make it into office the people will be keeping an massive eye on your actions. 2014 or an recall election is not that far away.
Report Post »mils
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 5:04pmtrue….
Report Post »trueamerican40
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 3:41pmAll Dims as well. Cheaters…may they all go to hell—I guess we’re all gonna need a picture ID…sounds really good to me now.
Report Post »wwwjr
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 3:17pmYet, these same people who criticize corruption in the Utah race will wholeheartedly support Mitt Romney, the most corrupt of ALL the candidates for president this year.
Report Post »paulnashtn
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 7:12pmEither you are giving your(rather biased) opinion concerning the republican primary opponents or your delusional — NO ONE is more corrupt than the current occupant of the white house
Report Post »asybot12
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 10:53pmWWWJR does that stand for wee willy whacko? Jr to boot?
Report Post »pops289
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 6:44amRomney corrupt? That’s libel.
Report Post »IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:58pmI am glad for his win and wish him the very best in the next election. Whoever wins should be honest, have integrity, know and follow the ten commandments along with knowledge of what Government should be about (for the people).
Report Post »republic2011
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:47pmI love seeing this. While the establishment on both sides would like to see the American people focus solely on the Presidential race, we are effecting real change in Congress. It won’t take much for freedom loving Amercians to take over the Senate and the House. That is a good strategy the provides some safeguards against whatever the Presidential outcome is. God Bless America and give us the strength to regain and preserve our freedoms. We have a lot of work to do and it won’t end with this one election in 2012. If anything, it is just the beginning. We have a lot of progressive law to overturn so we can return to our beloved Constitution.
Report Post »vehoae
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 3:57pmIt’s really too late to “return to our beloved Constitution;” or, for that matter, to being a Republic. The liberal jurists sitting on the Supreme Court are there for life; their ilk are in control of lower courts. International globalization strategists (including Republicans, Democrats, Progressives/Communists, & Socialists running this country since the 1880′s) are calling all the shots now. We have been a post-Republic for quite a while. People see it now because of those in the Executive & Legislative branches of our government who obviously were put there for a reason. In return for doing the globalization strategists’ bidding, the Obamas & their ilk are being allowed to publicly activate their hatred for non-muslims and non-blacks. For 30 years, Jimmy Carter’s legacy – the Dept of Education – has been hard (& deviously) at work anesthetizing parents, building up teachers’ unions, changing up curricula, & brainwashing students. Thirty-year-olds-plus are banging at the front gate now, eager to step in as my babyboom generation (& older) die, or become incapacitated through elderly-age maladies. Election of a “RINO” in November won’t help one bit … hasn’t before, and won’t now. This country is ruled by globalization strategists, most of whom live outside our borders and/or work behind the scenes.
When more than 45% of eligible voters vote, maybe the picture will change.
Lord, come quickly.
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on April 23, 2012 at 2:08amvehoae, you are wise. There is much work; almost too much. Marxism and Islam are two daunting enemies with sympathizers numerically among us. The answers are tough to see. The youth are quite polluted. I think we just must let it all rock and roll to sort it out while there are enough good guys.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:44pmThe TEA Party is rising in spite of the MSM’s attempts to demonetize, marginalize, and now ignore us. First we boot the RINOS to the curb then run the Communists back to Cuba.
Take OUR country back!
Report Post »Sicboy
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:43pmGo Chris Go. Reelect know one.
Report Post »FloridaFarmGirl
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:17pmGreat! No Democrats 2012!!
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:42pmHummm, 80 communist?
Report Post »abbygirl1994
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:07pmI wish we had a man like Stewart running to take Jim Matheson’s place.. He to is not what he professes to be! He is suppose to be a Blue Dog Deocrat, but when you look at te way he votes you find out he is in fact a liberal two face! He did not vote for the healthcare, but the moment i passed he was on board for anything pertaining to it! He told me Social Security was good for thirty years.. Another lie! I urge Utahn‘s to oust those who don’t tow the line.. and vote out the old and bring in the new! Its time to send the powerful and corrupted home!
Report Post »Got2bRoni
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:02pmEvery state will have a tough fight. It is time to support real change. The establishment is running scared. We must fight to the bitter end.
Report Post »sly643
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 1:57pmAwesome glad he Won
Report Post »Saywhatonemoretime
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 1:54pmA nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Statesman, philosopher and orator (42 B.C).
Nevada Election Fraud Proof In 5 minutes, Nevada GOP Caucus Fraud Voter Rights Violated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_egrN_ateQ
every dam state…voter dam fraud.
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 2:41pmIn about a half-hour 3:00 EST on Fox, there will be a program on voter-fraud in America. I will be watching….1:00 MST.
Report Post »Saywhatonemoretime
Posted on April 22, 2012 at 3:05pmthanks for info
Report Post »