Manufactured debate ‘controversy’ illustrates Liljenquist campaign’s desperation
The recently manufactured ‘controversy’ regarding Orrin Hatch’s purported hesitancy to debate Dan Liljenquist again before the June 26th primary is a clear sign of desperation. In spite of the fact that Hatch has debated Liljenquist twice in the last month and the fact that Hatch campaign manager Dave Hansen indicated that more debates are likely, Liljenquist started a ‘sqeal’ campaign this week calling for a debate on every college campus in the Utah by June.
On April 24th, one week after Liljenquist last debated Orrin Hatch and only three days after the Utah Republican Party state convention that he survived by only 32 votes, Liljenquist kicked off his squeal campaign by posting on his website that he was “challenging” Orrin Hatch to no fewer than eight (8) debates in eight weeks, one on every college campus in the state. His justification for the exorbitant number of events was that he wanted “to bring the debate to the doorstep of the next generation because that’s what this is all about.”
Obviously exploding with self confidence after his first two encounters with Hatch, Dan Liljenquist told the Salt Lake Tribune in an April 25th article: ”It is our anticipation that they will probably not want to debate given Senator Hatch’s performance in the last debates.” Dave Hansen’s reply in the same Tribune article was measured, but not dismissive. The tribune reported that Hansen said there probably would be a few debates, and that “Some campaigns think that debates are the only way to communicate with voters. There are many ways. We’ll probably use them all. We’ll have some discussion about debates, but we have not made a decision on that yet,”
Immediately after the April 25th article was published, the Liljenquist campaign launched an online and social media offensive to take advantage of what they hoped voters would perceive as a ‘hesitancy’ on the part of the Hatch campaign to engage in further debates. Supporters plastered Facebook with posts feigning outrage at Orrin Hatch’s supposed reluctance to debate again, saying that ‘Utah voters deserved more [than the first two] debates.’ On May 1st, Liljenquist posted a new press release on his campaign website with the heading “Hatch Refuses to Answer Debate Challenge!” The campaign reached a fever pitch later the same day when supporters purchased a domain name “IS ORRIN HATCH MAN ENOUGH TO DEBATE DAN LILJENQUIST DOT COM.” Hours later a Salt Lake Tribune article was released in which Liljenquist is quoted as saying “I think it’s clear he doesn’t want to debate.”
Manufactured controversies like this one by the Liljenquist campaign team are a clear sign of desperation. It appears that Dan Liljenquist is convinced that the only way he can get in front of a group of more than a few voters is by standing on a bar stool behind Orrin Hatch while he’s giving a speech. As I write this, less than two weeks have passed since the state convention and only 18 days since the last primary debate between Dan Liljenquist and Orrin Hatch. Granted in previous encounters Dan Liljenquist was forced to share the spotlight with Chris Herrod who has a stronger record, but is it really so important for voters get to see Liljenquist on stage without a more conservative former colleague looking over his shoulder?
I happen to believe that another primary debate would be good for voters – perhaps even two. Demanding eight debates however and crying to the press when your opponent (who still has a day job) takes more than a few days to agree to them screams ‘desperation’ to me. The fact that this is the only way Dan Liljenquist’s campaign team can find to get his name into the press one week after the state convention betrays a fatal lack of creativity and perhaps even substance. With this week’s activities, Dan Liljenquist has displayed all the patience and decorum of a little boy who has to pee! Shouldn’t we expect more from the men and women we send to Washington?
Dan Liljenquist & FreedomWorks – birds of a feather…
A few observations about the relationship between FreedomWorks and Dan Liljenquist:
- In June 2011, as conservatives across the country geared up for the election a year and half away to oust President Barack Obama and his liberal allies from the U.S. Senate, Washington, DC-based FreedomWorks announced a costly campign to try and defeat conservative Republican Orrin Hatch. To date, Freedomworks has spent and incredible $800,000 attacking Hatch, and a mere $180,000 COMBINED to defeat President Obama and his big-government allies in the Senate.
- News organizations reported at this time that then-State Senator Dan Liljenquist, just two years into his first term in office and the commitment he made to his constituents, was considering joining FreedomWork’s efforts challenging Hatch.[1]
- Two months later, FreedomWorks announced it would protest Mitt Romney’s speech at a September 5, 2011 event sponsored by the Tea Party Express, a national Tea Party Organization.[2]
- One weekafter Freedomwork’s protested Romney’s speech, Romney endorsed Sen. Hatch, calling Hatch “a committed public servant who always puts the people of Utah first.”[3]
- Romney has since said that as President, he’ll “need Orrin Hatch as Senate Finance Chair to help… restore America as a land of opportunity and prosperity.”
- FreedomWorks holds FIVE meetings across Utah to try and gain support for their campaign to oust Hatch. Liljenquist attended several of these meetings, along with FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe, who’s called Romney a “political opportunist.”
- Despite FreedomWork’s repeated vehement opposition to Romney, Liljenquist met with the group in November to ask for their endorsement should he decide to enter the race against Hatch.
- At this November meeting, FreedomWorks gave Liljenquist an award which even the Salt Lake Tribune said was “attempted to coax Utah State Sen. Dan Liljenquist into the race.”[4]
- Two days after Romney won the Illinois GOP primary in March 2012 and effectively sealed his nomination as the Republican to run against President Obama, a FreedomWorks official says “We’re not backing Romney for president at all.”[5]
- A week before the Illinois primary, Romney recorded a TV ad for Hatch where he says “we can count on Sen. Orrin Hatch in the fight to lower taxes, to balance the budget and to repeal the federal government takeover of health care.”[6]
- On April 26, 2012, Freedomworks agreed to give Lilenquist the endorsement he wanted and officially endorsed him, approximately one year after Liljenquist first met with the organization.
[1] CBS, “Tea Party group targets Orrin Hatch for defeat,” Madison, June 16, 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20071665-503544.html
[2] Politico, “Freedomworks will protest Mitt Romney appearance,” Vogel, Aug. 31, 2011. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62380.html
[3] Deseret News, “Mitt Romney endorses Orrin Hatch in re-election bid,” Riley Roche, Sept. 12, 2011. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/12/romney-endorses-hatch-as-both-are-tormented-from-right/
[4] Salt Lake Tribune, “Tea party group snuggles up to to Liljenquist,” November 18, 2011. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/52945573-64/hatch-liljenquist-freedomworks-party.html.csp
[5] ABC, “Tea Party Still Isn’t Ready for Romney,” Negrin, March 22, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/tea-party-ready-romney/story?id=15974197
[6] Orrin Hatch campaign website, “Mitt Romney: Keep Orrin Hatch Fighting for Utah,” accessed May 1, 2012. http://www.orrinhatch.com/_blog/blog/post/NEW_VIDEO_Mitt_Romney_Keep_Orrin_Hatch_Fighting_For_Utah/
How conservative is Dan Liljenquist really?
GrassRoots Info:
UtahGrassRoots.org is committed to promoting the principles of limited government, constitution, representative government, participatory democracy, free market economy, separation of powers and family. This is a fairly accurate barometer of one’s conservatism.
- In 2009, Liljenquist’s GrassRoots rating was just 50%.
- He was the lowest ranking republican in the entire senate that year.
- Karen Mayne, a democrat, had a better GrassRoots score than Liljenquist. (Mayne was ranked #19 and Liljenquist was ranked #21.)
- In 2010, Liljenquist’s GrassRoots rating rose to 65%. This rose his lifetime score to 57%.
- In 2011, Liljenquist’s GrassRoots rating was 83% but he was absent during voting on almost a third (5/17) of the key votes that year.
- Even with his 83% rating in 2011, his lifetime GrassRoots score is still a dismal 63%. (Orrin Hatch has a lifetime conservative rating of 89%.)
- In 2009, Liljenquist voted FOR S.B. 43, which required insurance companies to provide autism insurance.
- In 2009, Liljenquist voted AGAINST SB 61, which would have allowed students who attended private school, or who were home-schooled, to participate in public school extra-curricular activities.
- In 2009, Liljenquist voted FOR S.B. 225. This bill appropriates $1.8 million in 2010 and beyond to expand CHIP coverage to children of legal immigrants; regardless of how long they have lived in the country. Liljenquist has argued that SCHIP is unconstitutional, and yet he voted to expand it! Liljenquist joined only six other republicans and ALL of the democrats, to vote for this bill.
- In 2009, Liljenquist voted FOR SCR 1. This bill asked Congress to grant Utah a waiver to start a guest worker program.
- In 2010, Liljenquist voted FOR HB 196, which levied a $43million tax on cigarettes.
- In 2010, Liljenquist voted AGAINST HB 234. This bill was proposed by Steve Sandstrom. It prohibited the state from participating in the federal Real ID program.
- In 2010, Liljenquist voted FOR SB 272, which authorized the Utah Transit Authority to participate in real estate development.
- In 2011, Liljenquist voted FOR HB 477, which amended the GRAMA law to exclude emails, text messages, instant message and voice messages.
Senate Ratings:
- In 2009, Liljenquist received a 40% rating from UFIRE (Utahans for Immigration Reform and Enforcement)—which is an F. Luz Robles—who is certainly not beloved among those at UFIRE—received a higher rating than Dan Liljenquist.
- In 2010, UTA (Utah Taxpayers Association) gave Liljenquist a rating of 67%.
- In 2010, UFIRE gave Liljenquist a rating of 70%.
- In 2009, Liljenquist’s CLI (Conservative/Liberal Index) was 64.8%. This index is tabulated by combining the scores of all of the groups together. Margaret Dayton received a CLI of 84.9%. Howard Stephenson’s CLI was 80.5%.
- In 2010, Liljenquist’s CLI was 71.5%.
- In 2011, Liljenquist’s CLI was 80.5%.
Who supports FreedomWorks?
FreedomWorks has said recently that they intend to double-down on the Utah Senate race in spite of exceptionally weak local support for their efforts. I thought it would be fun to quantify how weak local support for FreedomWorks really is.
Tracking total Utah individual contributions as a proxy for in-state sentiment, I pulled some rough numbers from the Federal Elections Commission:
- Orrin Hatch – $451,000
- Dan Liljenquist – $104,950
- FreedomWorks – $1,050
From a “money where your mouth is” perspective, that means Senator Hatch’s wallet-support in Utah is around 81% among Republicans, which is a bit higher than the polls show so far. Dan Liljenquist sits around 19%, which seems within striking range of recent polls. FreedomWorks by contrast lurks at an abysmal 0.19%…or basically no local support at all!
Digging deeper, the story gets even more bleak. It turns out that the $1,050 raised by the FreedomWorks Super PAC here in Utah came from four (4) people: Robert Blass, John Oberhansly, Thomas Powers, and of course their biggest contributor Paul Padgett who contributed a whopping $350!
With support so weak that you could fit their entire Utah contributor-base inside a sub-compact rental car, is any wonder reception to FreedomWorks’ over-reach in our state has been so negative?
FreedomWorks wants an apology…seriously?
Last month this blog broke a story about FreedomWorks attempts to manipulate Utah’s caucuses with mailers that encouraged supporters to break party rules in order to gain an advantage at local precinct meetings. I was outraged enough to call freedom Works in Washington, DC and to demand an apology from Matt Kibbe.
Instead of an apology, what I got was arrogance and misdirection. First FreedomWorks denied the fliers were theirs. Next they insisted that the party rules were finalized after the mailers had already been sent (later proven to have been false). Finally I got an excuse about FreedomWorks not being “affiliated with the Utah republican Party” and thus not being bound by our rules and an arrogant dismissal of my concerns because as a Utah voter they weren’t really accountable to me anyway.
Tomorrow, FreedomWorks will take to the state capital to pitch the following message:
During the interview, Sen. Hatch launched into a series of pejoratives and bully-like threats directed toward his opponents, who have raised serious questions about his voting record and conservative credentials. Sen. Hatch said, “Give me a break- these people are not conservatives… I despise these people and I’m not the type of guy you come in and dump on without getting punched in the mouth.”
“Orrin Hatch continually resorts to bullying his opponents and has failed to prove he is a true conservative,” said Russ Walker, national political director for FreedomWorks for America. The American people have shown time and again that they will no longer put up with Washington establishment bullies, and come May 8, neither will Utah voters.”
In short, after being caught red handed trying to manipulate our elections and being called out on the fact by our senior Senator, FreedomWorks demands an “apology.” Personally, I have a really hard time feeling sorry for these people.
FreedomWorks needs to go home. They lost their rights to Utah when they tried to use us like a pawn in their expensive bid to raise their national profile and to send a “message” to the national republican party leadership. It takes a lot of nerve for a group like this to fly in one more time after poisoning our election with their negative garbage and expect us to bend over for them one more time and apologize. No person who believes in our election system and loves our state can help but be outraged by what FreedomWorks has tried to do here, and no leader with any sense of duty can stand by quietly and watch it happen.
The only apology Matt Kibbe, Russ Walker and the FreedomWorks crew is likely to get from those of us in this state who know how damaging their negative campaigning has been to this state is a finger pointing the way back to Washington and a friendly word of advice never to return. We don’t need Washington insiders telling us how to vote any more than we need President Obama telling us what healthcare plan we should choose. If FreedomWorks has any self respect at all, they will leave us to do out state’s business in peace.
Candidate Notes: Sarah Nitta LD27
Overview
Sarah is a successful professional fundraiser and grassroots organizer. She sits on several boards including the President’s Leadership Council at BYU-Hawaii and The Academy for Creating Enterprise. She mentors merging small business owners around the world to help them start new and successful businesses. As a mother of 4 children in the public schools she believes in choice in education and localized control. As a Conservative she believes that limited government, will help the business sector and our economy grow. Sarah is married to Kent and their family lives in Highland.
Since 2006, Mrs. Nitta has been active in promoting Republican principles. Some of her recent accomplishments include:
- Helped raise more than $700,00 for the Utah Republican Party
- Worked on the Mike Lee for Senate Campaign
- Volunteered for the Utah County GOP
- Vice Chair of Legislative District 27 (2007-2011)
- Vice President of Professional Republican Women
- Chair of the UTGOP Women’s Leadership Initiative
Pros
- Proven Fighter for Republican and Conservative Causes
- Expert in collation building and finding solutions to major challenges
- Is a strong listener, and seek others input on policy issues.
- Flexible professional life which allows for time to be dedicated in public service as a Representative.
- Will stand strong to protect small business from government regulations.
- Advocate for Choice in Education and will defend parental choice.
- A natural leader that has gained the support of many elected officials and delegates within the area.
Cons
- Does not have a legal background
Liljenquist Campaign Focus Group Update
Last week I had the pleasure of speaking directly with the political consultant who moderated the Liljenquist focus group. I asked him to send me an email with his side of the story, but I’m so busy right now I haven’t had time to digest and re-write it in my own words. To void any further delay in getting this out, I decided to post his email as is. The consultant’s name has been removed at his request.
I am an independent government affairs/political/communication consultant out of Salt Lake City. The Liljenquist campaign, where I have many friends (as I do other places), asked me to moderate a couple of focus groups specifically because I have not been involved in their campaign. They obviously wanted an objective view. I am not a professional facilitator, but I have sat in on, and designed, dozens of focus groups here and around the country. Most have been political, but not all. I have moderated a few groups in the past. I agreed to do it as a favor, and I prepared all the materials for the groups.It is important to state that the Liljenquist campaign did not provide or influence any of these materials. It was left to me to use my experience and judgement. This included my own discussion guide (attached) as well as any questionnaires or answer sheets. I did not consult with the campaign on the specifics of any of these materials, and they did not specifically ask me to test “negative” messages. I simply regarded that as standard practice, and have seen such discussions provide valuable information in the past. The questions I asked to test negatives are fairly obvious. As I mentioned, I would expect Senator Hatch’s campaign people would have tested such messages themselves, but I do not know this to be true.
I composed 14 questions. Of those, I believe 13 are objective, publicly-known facts that may or may not reflect negatively on the Senator. Their positive or negative value would be in the “eye of the beholder,” which is the point. The question I have highlighted in the attached – also composed solely by me – is about an issue I believe to be factual, but not publicly known or available. As a matter of personal judgement, I did not ask that question of either group. The campaign did not have access to my guide prior to the actual group.
Finally, I have participated in focus groups in which there is full disclosure and some where there is not. It was never my intention to act deceitfully when I was asked at the end who had paid for the group, and I don’t believe I did. However, if a participant got that impression, I apologize. I saw no reason to withhold that information, and the campaign had not asked me to do so, so I disclosed.
Thanks for allowing me to tell my side of the story.
The consultant also sent the full list of questions asked during the focus group. I include that here for public scrutiny [Focus Group Questions]. Note: in my original post I said that there were 13 questions and that #12 was scratched out. The fact is there were 13 questions after #12 was scratched out. At the request of the moderator I have removed question #12 from the document. He apparently judged the original question to have been too slanted and inflammatory and decided not to use it. As it was not asked aloud in the focus group, I don’t think there’s any need to expose it here.
Who won the 1st U.S. Senate Debate on April 4th?
I think all three candidates won the debate last night, depending on how you define “winning.”
Hatch won by standing his ground in a dignified manner and defending his record while literally being attacked on both sides. The most disappointing moment for me as a Republican and as a Utah voter was when Liljenquist supporters broke out in laughter as Hatch announced that this would end the last term of his nearly four decades of public service. It was a solemn statement offered with dignity, but the reaction of some of Dan’s supporters was beneath us as a state.
Dan Liljenquist carried the night if you judge the event like a high school debate between candidates for class President. He went on the attack, was strong and articulate, he told the crowd what they came to hear, and delivered like a pro. He is a skilled orator and a he made some good arguments, but I think once again Dan missed the opportunity to broaden his appeal beyond Hatch-haters and already adoring fans. If you already knew about Dan’s pension reform bill, then you really didn’t learn much more about him last night.
If we judge the debate by it’s impact on this election, then I think the clear winner was Chris Herrod. Last night Chris was able to make his case for the job without appearing arrogant or undignified and without relying too much on a single accomplishment in his legislative career. I think delegates not yet firmly connected to one candidate or the other would have been impressed with how well Chris articulated his values. My favorite moment of the night was when Chris said his greatest legislative accomplishment was a bill allowing residents to grow their own food. It was creative, thoughtful, and demonstrated a depth that I think most undecideds would have found refreshing.
At the end of the day I think what we saw last night was a statesman in the twilight of his career, a leader coming into the spotlight, and a politician on the attack. All three candidates showed well, but the judgement of how well they did depends in large part on what you as a delegate thought it most important to display.
FreedomWorks Lied to Deseret News!
On March 14th 2012, Deseret News staff writer Jared Page published a story titled “Utah GOP battling efforts to manipulate party caucuses” in which he describes efforts by FreedomWorks to induce it’s followers to break Utah State Republican Party rules at local caucus meetings to increase their chances of becoming state delegates. The smoking gun was a mailer which FreedomWorks sent out to members urging them to, for example, skip the pledge of allegiance and prayer and to run for leadership positions they had no interest in serving for in order to raise their profiles at the meetings. The effort backfired and as most of you know FreedomWorks was demonized as a result (polls show 57% of state delegates have a negative impression of Freedom Works).
In the article Page states that Russ Walker told him that the whole mailer issue was a big misunderstanding. He writes:
Walker said the packets were sent out before the rules for the 2012 GOP caucuses were finalized, resulting in confusion.
When I confronted FreedomWorks officials in Washington, D.C. they backed up Russ Walker’s statement, claiming that the organization had no idea it was breaking state party rules before the mailers were sent out. At one point, they even denied the mailers were theirs.
FACT: Russ Walker lied to Deseret News!
The truth is that caucus rules were finalized at the last meeting of the Utah Republican Party State Central Committee on January 21st, 2012 – almost two months before the caucuses were held. The rules were posted online at the state party website on February 15th, a full month before the caucuses. The Freedom Works mailers which encouraged supporters to break those rules were sent out on March 8th 2012 and we have proof.
Please observe this scanned copy [PDF] of the now infamous ‘caucus manipulation mailer’ which FreedomWorks sent out to all it’s supporters. If you scroll down to the last page of the scanned document you will notice the postmark which clearly shows that this mailer was sent to Freedom Works supporters on March 8th, 2012. Again, that’s three weeks after the caucus rules were posted online, and more than a month and a half after the rules were finalized by the State Central Committee.
What do we as voters do when an out of state organization comes to Utah, tries to manipulate our election system, engages in deceptive polling practices, pollutes our media market with negative ads, and then lies to our local media outlets about it? Personally I think it’s time we ask Russ Walker, Matt Kibbe, and the rest of the FreedomWorks gang (and other out-of-state Nanny PACS like them) to pack their bags and go home! Join me in sending the message to Freedom Works in Washington D.C. that their brand of politics is not welcome in Utah, and it won’t be tolerated in our state anymore.
Call 1.888.564.6273 and tell them to STOP THE LIES!!!
Liljenquist Campaign tests Negative Ad Messaging on State Delegates
A reliable source reported this week that Dan Liljenquist’s Senate Campaign is now using State Delegates as guinea pigs to test negative ad messaging in preparation for a now unlikely primary fight against Senator Orrin Hatch.
Last week a State Delegate in Cedar Hills was contacted by Lighthouse Research, a marketing firm retained by the Liljenquist campaign, about participating in a political study. They promised to pay him $100 for his participation in the study. Once he arrived at the location, he observed that there were around ten other state delegates present, all of whom received the same offer. The study was stages in a room with a one-way glass mirror on one wall behind which those who commissioned the study could watch audience participation and gauge reaction to the various messages they would be exposed to.
The “study” began with a poll asking which Senate candidates the delegates would support. After thi, deletates were made to watch a commercial by Orrin Hatch and to provide feedback. The delegate reporting said that the moderator acted surprised when he said he rated the Hatch a 9 out of 10 stars (Note: this is NOT a best practice for focus group moderators because it tends to lead participants in one direction or another). After explaining his reasoning for the high score (he said Hatch “nailed it”), the “study” continued.
Next delegates were made to watch two commercials for Dan Liljenquist. the first showed Orrin Hatch a few decades ago talking about the evils of the huge national debt. Next it cut to a clip of Hatch more recently saying the same thing only with a bigger number. the commercial ended with “it’s time for a change.” When asked their opinions, the reporting delegate said he pointed out the obvious; that the ad focused exclusively on Hatch and didn’t say anything about who Liljenquist was.
The next ad was then played and although less negative and focusing more on Liljenquist as a candidate, the delegate reporting said it STILL didn’t explain who Dan Liljenquist was. In fact, he said, the entire tag-line of the video was wrong because “It’s Time” is still a subtle reference to Hatch and did not focus enough on who Liljenquist was.
Finally participants were made to listen to 12 negative statements about Hatch and to report whether each statement made them more or less likely to vote for Hatch, or whether they had no effect. There were actually 13 statements to be evaluated, but the reporting delegate said that question #12 was scratched out for some reason.
After the focus group was completed, the moderator told the group they could collect their money and go…not reportedly nobody stood up to leave. When the moderator asked why, they replied that they wanted to know who had commissioned the focus group. The moderator reportedly replied “would you be angry if we didn’t tell you?” to which the participants unanimously replied “YES WE WOULD!!!” It was then revealed that the group commissioning the study was in fact the Dan Liljenquist campaign.
Conclusions
I don’t have a problem with focus group testing as a general rule because I’ve used it and recommended it so many times in my career as a marketing analyst, but this particular test bothers me.
- First of all, I don’t think it’s proper or ethical to use active State Delegates in a focus group of this sort (one that tests negative messaging about an opponent) only three weeks before convention.
- Second, I think it’s questionable whether it is proper to pay state delegates for this kind of testing so close to convention, whether negative messaging is being tested or not.
- Finally, I think it’s disingenuous of the Liljenquist campaign to commission this kind of study only days after a now infamous “push-poll” was executed by an unknown party throughout the delegate community which Dan Liljenquist himself denied responsibility for. Dan has assured me personally that his campaign was not engaging in negative campaigning and I find it astonishing that only a few hours after I received those assurances form the candidate, that his campaign was found to be testing precisely the sort of messaging that he denied to me they were using.
I’m glad to see that the Liljenquist campaign has decided to start ‘testing’ their negative ads before they release them to the public, but I wish they wouldn’t use active state delegates in such testing. I think it hurts the election process as well as Dan Liljenquist’s credibility.