I went to a Mike Lee “Meet & Greet”

Seeing Mike Lee was going to do a “Meet & Greet” in Salt Lake City today, I went to see for myself what this Republican candidate for U.S. Senate was all about. I asked him several questions and got answers that I agreed and disagreed with. I would tell you more about our discussion of his endorsers, the 4th & 14th amendments, his desire for term limits but his repeated votes for Hatch and Bennett, and why our government is a “tyranny” in spite of the supremacy clause of the Constitution, but unfortunately his campaign wouldn’t allow me to record anything.

It’s the 21st century boys. Get used to being on camera. Trying to block people from recording what your candidate says doesn’t bode well for being transparent and accountable in Washington.

20 thoughts on “I went to a Mike Lee “Meet & Greet”

  1. Wow, what a joke. If you don’t have faith in the people who could be interested in electing you, how can they have faith in you?

    Maybe they only want to be able to spin things the way they want…

  2. Transparent and accountable? I thought it was all about the approved sound bites?

  3. I wish I had Bob Bennett on camera dodging my question about Yemen (the source of the Christmas day Bomb plot) and saying we can solve the whole terrorist threat by continuing the [undeclared] wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Bennett is guilty of putting out of context Mike Lee recordings on the radio, so I understand their concerns. The least they could have done was ask for contact info.

    Was that a private home? It’s it a lot easier to shut down recording at a cottage meeting as opposed to a debate, library, or restaurant where I’ve attended several meetings.

    Thanks for sharing this Pete. Wish you were in Washington instead of Hatch.

  4. That’s astounding. Thanks for trying, anyway – I appreciate all the information I can find out about the candidates.

  5. I support their right to decide what they allow or don’t allow and I think everyone should support their right and it seems that the author and the staff were both understanding of this point, good for both of them.

    Personally I think THEY SHOULD be more open to recording. They seem to record many of these events anyway themselves for people to view.
    They should have just stuck to the line of argument that their policy is that people need to ask before hand and figure out the reasons for the recording. And let that be good enough. And then on this case: “We’re sorry you didn’t know the terms, but we didn’t know you wanted to know the terms. Next time we would probably welcome you to record. And of course this is how we run things.”

    Misinformation happens just like people that choose to make a stink about this as a Mike Lee only situation.
    Probably the best bet is to ask before, when it’s a private location or private place they can dictate the terms of you being allowed there. (Just like any business or event)
    When it’s a public place then of course they can’t really dictate the terms you can take pictures and record to your heart’s content.

    All in all this was a pretty big non-issue occurrence in my book. Simply an issue of not knowing the terms of participation.
    However it does have the benefit of letting people know that people should ask first. Just like with my pictures, almost every time someone asks to use them I allow them, and when they don’t I don’t like it even if I would have given permission on asking.
    But now we know.

  6. Bennett used footage, taken completely out of context, in a negative ad against Lee. I would not allow cameras either.

  7. Personally if they did a totally open policy I would like that.
    But what they seem to have isn’t bad either. (Ask First)

  8. I liked that he said administrative subpoenas may be facially against the 4th amendment, but not the fact that he skipped over the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps, even though I asked about them as well. I don’t appreciate anyone who uses ad hominem regarding the President, no matter who the President is. He said Obama considers himself a king, then backed it up with nothing. I presume that was just red-meat for the crowd, but saying that about a democratically elected office holder has no bearing in fact and shows no respect for the office or the electorate.

    He said we should respect the Constitution, but he believes that naturalization by birth under the 14th amendment is wrong, and could be fixed with legislation. The 14th amendment is pretty clear to me, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” He seems to think “jurisdiction” is a loophole if you’re an illegal alien. I don’t think anyone believes illegal aliens aren’t subject to the law, so how they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States when they are in this country is a misinterpretation in my mind.

    I don’t like politicians who pick & choose what they like in the Constitution and interpret away what they don’t like. If you are going to accept the Constitution as written, then I believe you need to accept a broad interpretation of it, especially when it comes to individual liberty. If you believe that fixing Health Care for 30 million Americans is tyranny, then you also need to examine the Federal role in marriage. If you want everyone to be able to own a firearm, then you have to ask questions about the war on drugs. If you want a strong “common defense”, you should also be equally concerned about the “general welfare”. If he is a firm believer in term-limits, he shouldn’t have voted for Hatch and Bennett repeatedly and should hold himself to the standard he espouses. I think Lee is just spouting what he believes is popular for his party right now.

  9. Well I would love to get an answer to the warrentless wiretaps and Patriot Act stuff. Did you go up afterwards and ask more just in case he actually has positions on those… don’t give up just because he didn’t answer then.
    Maybe even just ask the staff for his official position on those two points.
    I would be interested as well.
    I would ask next time I see him but I believe you probably know more about the subject to ask the harder question.

    Don’t just give up, make it happen, don’t just complain he didn’t answer it in the time frame or way that you wanted.

    I do want to know what he thinks about the Patriot Act as well.
    I’ll skip the naturalization stuff because I don’t haven’t looked a lot into that yet.
    So your concerns so far are the naturalization thing and him voting for hatch and bennett?

  10. Pete – I am not sure the Lee is not correct on the anchor baby issue. the 14th amendment says:
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    Since it explicitly says “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as criteria, it seems logical that there are “persons born or naturalized in the United States” that are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

  11. Hi Pete,

    Long time supporter. Despite being active in the Republican party, I voted for you against Hatch (and would again).

    I’m a Republican State Delegate who is planning to support Mike Lee at the convention on Saturday and, most likely, on the ballot in November. Given my choices, he’s the candidate I like best.

    But I agree with you; despite some rather obnoxious (and fairly mitigatingly obvious imho) editing on the part of Bennett’s campaign and others, they really should allow recordings. If he gets elected, he can’t (and hopefully won’t try to!) control that kinda thing. Recording him now is a fair test of his ‘diplomatic’ skills, if you will.

    I actually think he’s pretty impressive on his feet. He’s much more likely to say something thoughtful and substantial when thrown a curveball than most politicians I’ve studied. Even when I might disagree with him. And that’s saying something. He should tout that strength, not cower from the challenge.

    That said, in this crazy week, I get where the campaign was coming from. I’m glad, however, that they’ve issued apologies so quickly.

    The thing I was most impressed about was how you handled getting your video shut down and that you actually stayed and asked the candidate questions despite all the hullabaloo. You rock!

    Best of luck.

    — Spanish Fork GOP Delegate

  12. Jarvie, I would put my concern squarely on the side of justifying partisan dissent by interpreting the Constitution in your favor. The way he looks at term limits is simple hypocrisy and isn’t as large as the other issue. I believe I have a good understanding of the Constitution, but I don’t pretend to be smarter than the Senate on it. The Constitution was drafted by many individuals who thoroughly debated its content. Amendments have been made through a similarly robust process, and yet mistakes (prohibition) have happened. I think it is pure arrogance to say, “My interpretation is more pure and correct than yours.” I’ve had enough of arrogant politicians who close their offices and believe they need to be sequestered from their constituency. I’d rather see more humility from a candidate for office.

    James, that begs the question, who exactly is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while in the United States? So much effort has been put into Guantanimo to specifically keep the detainees out of US jurisdiction (a practice I don’t agree with). Two cases have been brought to the Supreme Court on naturalized citizens through birth. In both cases, it was upheld that they were citizens.

  13. why wouldn’t he want his public meeting video? i agree with what pete said in the video, you’d think they would want his message out there for a larger audience (they are trying to win support here), and you can tell if a video has been edited. it seems that the message disconnect from a few events over the weekend that bennett quickly pounced on have brought on this new policy, so i understand the hesitation from the campaign in having statements recorded, but running for senate by not letting someone video what you’re saying to try and win support leads one to wonder at best if he’s ready for the public scrutiny that will come with a seat in the senate, and at worst what his campaign is expecting him to say that they don’t want on the internet.

  14. Huh? Did you mean to respond with that stuff to me? I was the one asking about primarily the patriot act stuff. Did you confuse me? Or did I not understand your response in the slightest (2am will do that)

    I think you should persist on asking him about the patriot act and write what you find, not just give up when he doesn’t answer in an open forum.
    “the fact that he skipped over the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps, even though I asked about them as well.”
    I’m pretty darn sure I already know his answer on the patriot act stuff but you seemed to want to know the answer, so if you really did use this chance, but perhaps you should ask him one on one if you’re worried about him giving an audience response. (Sounds like they’ll let you record it this time too)

  15. Pete – I am not sure who is not under the jurisdiction while in the US, but since the 14th amendment lists that as a criteria, I assume that the founders felt that some do not fall under the jurisdiction. Why else would it be listed as a criteria? It largely depends on what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. I am sure that there are different ways to interpret that phrase.

    I do not know enough about the 2 cases that went to the Supreme Court (or about constitutional law for that matter), to know why the cases were decided the way they were, whether it was proper application of law, or bench legislation.

Comments are closed.