In case anyone has forgotten (or perhaps you simply missed this blip of news) Merrill Cook is running to replace Bob Bennett in the U.S. Senate. If you happen to be among the forgetful or uninformed you are hereby unequivocally forgiven based on the fact that Mr. Cook made his announcement (at the same time as James Williams abandoned his bid) and then promptly disappeared from the public eye.

If this is typical of his many previous campaigns it is a wonder that he was ever elected to anything and no wonder that he lost so many races he ran in. More importantly, if this is any indicaion of how he operates then he has no business being a legislative aid in Washington, let alone a senator. His rightful place in the capital could be nothing more than “tourist” if this disappearing act is any indicator. So far it appears that every single candidate is working harder than Mr. Cook despite the fact that every one of them had a headstart.

The funny thing about expectations is that they can serve to motivate our actions. I had held an expectation for myself that I would write daily (or almost daily) on all weekdays. It was hard at times to find things to write about and even harder to write anything of substance (as evidenced by some periods of very insubstantial posting). Once I decided that I should reset that expectation to only writing once or twice a week hiwever, I almost immediately stopped writing for more than two weeks. I consider that lack of discipline unacceptable.

I think this is especially disappointing to find such a lack of contribution in the middle of the legislative session—I could have at least commented on some bills such as the rainwater bill (which I favored) and the administrative subpoenas bill (which I opposed).

While I know that I am not able to maintain the daily posing schedule that I had previously expected I also know that my very thinking begins to atrophy if I give up posting altogether.

I have yet to find the proper balance but I am working on it and hope that I. will still have people interested in reading and responding to what I write by the time I find the proper balance.

Ben Horsley, a friend and candidate for House District 19 this year, put together a meet the candidates event as part of his campaign on Saturday at Bountiful City Hall. This was not a chance to meet the candidates for District 19 (where I don’t live anyway but if I did I’d be voting for him) but the candidates for U.S. Senate. It included all the Republican Candidates as well as other political figures in Utah (most prominently Rob Bishop and Mark Shurtleff). Although I have been interested in this race for over a year and thus have been closely studying the candidates for a long time I had not previously met Tim Bridgewater or James Williams – I could hardly pass up such a great opportunity right in my own back yard (so to speak). Thanks Ben!

Having studied the candidate previously I had some idea of my order of preference, but I really enjoyed this debate as it allowed me to really get things sorted out. Here’s my order of preference:

1. Mike Lee – I don’t think that surprises anyone considering I already publicly endorsed him but after hearing him with all the other candidates together I am that much more confident that he should be our Senator come next year.

2. Tim Bridgewater – I really like Tim overall. I think he’d make a decent senator – I just think that Mike would be better at filling the Constitutional duties of a senator.

3. (tie) Laura Bridgewater – she sat in for her husband for the first bit of the debate as he was running late and she had a good grasp of what our next senator should be and do – she’d be a great support to Tim if he were elected.

3. (tie) Sharon Lee – I’ve heard her speak before and believe she is a good support for Mike. I hadn’t thought to rank her among the candidates until I saw Mrs. Bridgewater in her husband’s place among the candidates but I think either of those two spouses would be better than the other candidates.

5. (tie) Bob Bennett – Despite his failings Bennett is not the worst choice available to us in this campaign. Like a typical Washington insider he is so busy viewing everything as “extremely complicated” that he seems to have lost sight of most of the simple facts that should be informing our complicated decisions.

5. (tie) James Williams – I had high hopes for James. I had heard really good things about him from people attending other debates, but after listening to him I am forced to conclude that he is a good and well-intentioned man who is out of his depth politically. Philosophically he has good principles, but I don’t believe that he would be an effective force at representing those principles or the people of Utah.

7. Cherilyn Eagar – I remember being excited about the possibilities when I started investigating her as a candidate, but seeing her in a debate showed her as combative, passionate, and disrespectful. If I wanted someone like that there must be 20 other states I could move to where I would have two such Senators in place already. She argues that having a conservative woman in the Senate would be a powerful thing – I’m sure that’s true, but I’ve already named two other conservative women from Utah who would make better senators.

I have been profoundly disappointed in my lack of opportunity to write here lately (combined with a drastic scaling back in my ability to comment elsewhere or participate in other related activities). I am forced to admit that this situation is likely to continue for an extended period of time and must reset my own expectations regarding my online participation in political dialog. Hopefully I will be able write something on a weekly basis (or I can still dream of twice in a week). As I write less I anticipate that comments will drop to a level that I can still manage (safe guess as they have already done so).

I sincerely hope that I can offer thoughts that others will find valuable even as I scale back the time and energy available for that purpose. At the least, those who are paying close enough attention to wonder at my relative silence will have an explanation – and may know what to expect going forward.

It’s interesting to watch as nothing turns into a news story. Here’s the roundup of one such process from this week.

Holly Richardson writes about Tim Bridgewater’s momentum. When she talks about his fund raising she doesn’t mention that over 80% of it was a loan to himself. Tim likes the coverage (naturally) and the next day he posts her article on his RedState diary. Tim gave all the proper attribution and everything – I’m not trying to accuse him of plagiarism. The day after that Thomas Burr writes that “Holly Richardson is boosting Tim Bridgewater’s campaign” over at RedState. Whether it was an oversight or a calculated move is open for speculation, but the fact is that Holly didn’t promote Tim over at RedState – unless she did so under Tim’s name. Finally, Tim gets to tweet about the article by Thomas Burr which declares how beneficial Holly’s support is.

So with a couple of nudges from Tim this little game of Chinese whispers has produced, with a little invented fact here (Holly promoting Tim on RedState) and a little omitted fact there (Tim providing almost all his own campaign funding), almost a week’s worth of positive coverage.

The point here is not to accuse Tim of anything untoward – it is to illustrate the cycle of coverage growing in a vacuum. Tim did nothing this week (at least nothing to garner more coverage in those articles) and yet he got a four days of positive news from a topic (fund raising numbers) that seemed to have died before Holly’s post.