Why Glen Urquhart for Congress?
Jul 9th, 2010 by David Anderson
I support Glen Urquhart in his run for Congress for the most obvious of reasons. He is a principled, reliable, conservative who understands the issues and players. He is right on debt, spending, bailouts, the right to life, the second amendment, and the definition of marriage. He is strong on national security. He is a man of Christian character and charity.
If I stopped there it would be sufficient, but there is something special about the man. He is a person who has a unique grasp of the issues. He cares very deeply about the economy. With the exception of Rose Izzo and Scott Spencer, addressing the real issue of long term job creation seems to be off the table. Glen Urquhart found out that excessive debt kills. He restructured his business operations to minimize the debt he used and when he had to use it pay it off as quickly as he could. Why? He realized that prosperity does not come by paying interest to other people. It comes by generating income for yourself. Apply this to America. Prosperity does not come by borrowing huge sums for overseas and wasting it on Pelosi and Reid’s favorite programs. Very little of the stimulus money was used for long term gain even the minority of the money used for “infrastructure” had little to do with improving the technical and economic viability of America. We have spent trillions with little to show for it. The IMF is now warning the U. S. like it would a third world nation with socialist dictators who are running their country into the ground. The International Monetary Fund sees that our debt trends are moving to an unsustainable level and that could threaten the entire world. Addressing the debt crisis is not only important for ourselves and our children, but it is important for the poor people who are on the edge of survival worldwide. We need someone who understands this at his core. That person is Glen Urquhart.
Glen Urquhart is a Reagan Republican who was inspired by the man in his front row seat during the Reagan Revolution. He has not forgotten the values and virtues which turned America around from the last time we were in such a crisis. He understands that we can not tax our way into prosperity any more than we can leverage ourselves into it.
I love the fact that the man relates to everyone. He listens to everyone’s concerns whether or not he agrees he seeks to understand before seeking to be understood. He is perfect for a state that is as ethnically diverse as ours because he is comfortable with everyone. He is truly a natural in the crowds and on the stump (with one glaring exception). He has been around Washington long enough to understand it and have contacts. He has been away long enough that he thinks like you and I.
The man has convictions. You know were he stands. He does not change with the wind. His core beliefs are sound. We will not have to play guessing games to know where he will stand on the crucial issues of the day. He will lead the way not be waiting for the best deal three days before every vote. The enthusiasm he has generated among people is amazing. He will have an hundred people show up to a meet and greet anywhere in the state. People are ready to hear his message of tough truth. We have to deal with our debt crisis. We have to stop putting it off because it is killing jobs, depressing business investment, and destroying confidence in our institutions.
It is time to choose sides. Do you want to side with the future or the old way of corporate welfare and ducking entitlements and the tough issues? That is the choice in the Republican primary and hopefully the general election.
Does anyone have the scoop? Why does Greg Hastings have a restraining order against Urquhart?
Much of what you say about Urquhart can also be said about Rollins. They have much more in common than you (or other more insulting posters on this blog) would be willing to admit.
The real question, and, quite frankly, the only question that should matter, is whether Urquhart can win the general election. At the end of the day, even without his nazi quip, I submit that he can’t. While his views may be perfect for many of the posters on this blog, unfortunately we live in a state where the electorate is, dare I use the term, more moderate than many here. We need a candidate who can win the general election, not someone who is the best fit for the personal preferences of hard core conservatives.
The bottom line is that Urquhart can’t win a general election (heck, he couldn’t even win the Republican convention). Rollins can. Carney is a vote for Pelosi as speaker. Rollins isn’t.
I think at this point it is urgent to offer some counterpoints regarding Mr. Urquhart. David describes him as a ” principled, reliable, conservative who understands the issues and players.” Does a principled man hire the government official taked with overseeing his business to run his campaign? No. Do principled men have restraining orders issued against them? No.
David also believes that Glen Urquhart is a ” a person who has a unique grasp of the issues.” Yet if one compares what few concrete proposals he has made thus far, nearly all of them are boilerplated from earlier Kevin Wade speeches. In May he was speaking of “covenants”, four full months after Wade did. In April he began discussing “DOE” hunting, still four full months after Kevin Wade introduced the idea closing these failed federal bureaus. I’ve followed both men all around this state for four full months and heard it over and over and over again.
David next says that “Glen Urquhart is a Reagan Republican who was inspired by the man in his front row seat during the Reagan Revolution.” Glen Urquhart did not have a front row seat for the Reagan Revolution. He oversaw the planning of parks and open spaces. His principal qualification for that job was that he lived in Virginia. And remember the seat he had for Reagan, he also had and happily kept for Clinton as well. For two full years.
David further points out that “He has been around Washington long enough to understand it and have contacts.” Well just where has he been then for the past ten years? I thought he lived here now? Or is he still a Virginian? Which is it? Glen Urquhart’s tenure in Washington ended in 1995. Any “contacts” he may have had are long since gone stale.
Then there’s “He is truly a natural in the crowds and on the stump (with one glaring exception).” I can but wish it was one glaring exception. The “Hitler” moment (which was actually two gaffes) is but the best known. I have illustrated the repeated public plaigerizing of Wade positions. At the Newark, Hartley and RD 35 debates, he flooded the debates with his paid supporters. One wonders how many Abes he’s thrown around to get a hundred people to these “meet and greets.” Perhaps I’m being cyncial, but when you do the things he’s done already you invite cynicism. At the Newark debate, he repeatedly and aggressively refused to obey the time keeper, a fact documented on video and one he was called out on by Kevin Wade.
Because there is little in Washington with less power than a freshman Representative by himself, the most important thing a new member must be able to do is build consensus and work well together with like minded people. Mr. Urquhart’s business record and his campaign to date suggest that he cannot. And that alone makes him ill suited to this job.
For these reasons and more, I could not bring myself to vote for Urquhart after the first ballot at the convention. I abstained because I believed on May 15 that neither of the two candidates who survived the first ballot were appropriately qualified to serve in Congress. Neither Mr. Urquhart, nor Mrs. Rollins have done anything since that time to alter that belief.
I will give the Urquhart campaign due credit for presenting itself as the true conservative alternative and for recognizing the power of Reagan’s message, even though he was watching from the mezzanine, not the first row. Some say “unfortunately we live in a state where the electorate is, dare I use the term, more moderate than many here.” That argument held no water in 1980, when Ronald Reagan captured 44 states, including this one. It was not true in 1984, when Reagan won 49 states, including this one and a young(er) Michael Castle became our governor. When delivered with purity, passion and conviction, Reagan’s message of limited government and respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness remains the most powerful message in American politics. And Delawareans will vote for it if it is presented without liberal dilution.
If Urquhart is to win, he needs to spend a bit less time talking about himself. Talk more about what the visions of Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Gingrich and George W. Bush meant to our nation. Cut taxes, create jobs. Shrink government, grow the economy. All of these leaders did that. These are things Michele Rollins will not address, or has not. When Mrs. Rollins was asked how she might propose to reform the United States tax system, her answer was to complain about being in the fifty five percent tax bracket.
So sitting nine weeks out from the primary, despite Mr. Urquhart’s grave shortcomings, my vote is still there to be won. Neither candidate has demonstrated to my satisfaction yet that they are up to the job. And Mrs. Rollins is leaving a large hole for Urquhart to drive his Urq-mobile through. But sadly, if I had to vote right now, I would have to make a decision based not upon which candidate is best for the job, but upon which candidate would do the least amount of damage to Colin Bonini, Tom Wagner and others down ballot.
Right now, that candidate is Michele Rollins. Let’s see if Mr. Urquhart can change my mind.
Well thank you Mr. Borgia. That was a well presented piece.
Not sure if I agree with you but I’ll allow that I don’t know Mr. Urquhart all that well. I’m not at any point where I’d lean towards Michelle Rollins however.
And I’d sure like to know why there’s a restraining order against Urquhart by Greg Hastings. I like Greg and know him personally. He’s a very nice and gentle person. Such as restraining orders don’t seem like things he’d be involved in.
While you make some good arguments as to why you have doubts about Urquhart, along with good suggestions as to how he should go forward, you really mostly complained about Urquhart copying Kevin Wade.
What’s wrong with that? Wade’s outta the game. I liked Wade. So just on that I trend to like Urquhart even more.
Nothing wrong with copying someone’s ideas if they’re good ones. Don’t know if such a thing counts as some kind of plagiarism.
Copying is the most sincerest form of flattery.
Thank you anon for bringing that rumor up. The answer is that he doesn’t. I can not find any evidence that he ever did. Just in case, I did a background check on Mr. Urquhart searching court records before the convention. It cost me about $50. I asked him straight out about it. He denied it. The two had a business disagreement, but seem to have made up.
I asked him if he catagorically denied that he had a restraining order against him. He did. I searched it just in case. He was as clean as whistle.
As for Mike’s tired old tirade, maybe he should just by the entire general assembly to give him one three exclusive licenses to run a state lottery operation.
“…you really mostly complained about Urquhart copying Kevin Wade.”
Thanks for the kind words, Pat. But on the point above, only one of my eleven paragraphs were dedicated to Urquhart borrowing Wade ideas. Kevin is mentioned on other time (Newark debate).
For David, if your research is correct (and it usually is) where then does this persistent story about a restraining order come from? Even as Urquhart was entering the race in March, it seemed to be “common knowledge” that such an order existed. Getting to the bottom of this could be interesting.
No offense to Mr. Urquhart, but I wanted to make sure he wasn’t blowing smoke in my face. If I was going to associate with a candidate, I wanted to at least do due dilligence. People actually pay attention to what I say so I take that seriously. I do not know how the disagreement got blown into crazy man Glen going wild and needing to be served with a restraining order. If it exists neither he nor I know about it. I had another person check as well. I asked people to produce at least a docket number so I could find it and no one has. It is a rumor that seems to fall apart under investigation.
I know the good, the bad, and the indifferent and I am satisfied.
Rep. Hastings said to me that he has no interest in reopening the past. He and Mr. Urquhart have put aside any differences. Everyone should move on. He said I could quote him.
“Does anyone have the scoop? Why does Greg Hastings have a restraining order against Urquhart?”
I too have spoken to Greg Hastings. He was firm that he will not be discussing it. He has a vigorous campaign to run now and will not be involved in the Congressional primary.
David, great Urquhart endorsement! I am with you all the way on this one. We are living in a time of political lies, hype, and spin. Truth at times seems to be breathing it’s last. Such times call for political leadership, in the face of all the pragmatic arguments, to “do the right thing”, regardless of the political consequences. Glen so far has demonstrated that he is such a man.
Mr Urquhart’s hero – President Reagan NEVER to my knowledge equated Liberal’s to Nazis – that alone turned me off and I lean towards Rollins as well.
I too, personally know Mr. Urquhart and I do know this – He plays to whomever is his audience – there are no principals there – just hype and spin to get himself elected.
I will be clear here – I have never had anything but a cordial professional relationship with Mr. Urquhart. He has never delivered on anything he said he would do. The only thing I got from him back then were empty promises, rhetoric and excuses for no delivering . Seems this tiger has not changed his stripes.
He did not mis-speak on the Jefferson letters to the Danbury Baptists on Church and State – he gleefully put his foot in his mouth – so sure he aright and so willing to trash the opponent – that all he ended up doing is trash his own chances Now, he can only play to the radical right – they are the only one’s still willing to give him the time of day. But be careful – he will promise you the moon and deliver to you…nothing..
For the record I will support the winner of the Republican primary whether it be Mrs. Rollins or Mr. Urquhart.
I have met some professional associates of Mr. Urquhart and their assessment mirrors apo wichiapi above. David says Urquhart does not change his positions. From my vantage point, he is constantly changing his story. In fact it is difficult to get a straight answer out of Urquhart on just what he spent most of his life doing earning a living. In certain regional meetings he has told the assembled that he made most of his money as a PLanner in Northern Virginia. In the Seaford weekly Newspaper he is instead correctly identified as a Developer. This tends to mirror api widhiapi’s obervation that Urquhart is willing to say whatever to a particular audience.
Urquhart is constantly changing his tune. First he asks for a mulligan on his Nazi comment saying he is a rookie and within the last week he becomes proud of the very same remark. Which is it?
Urquhart’s verbal gaffes are not limited to his stating that the Concept of Separation of Church and State originated with the Nazis and Hitler. He displayed a total lack of class at the Hartly Debate by insulting his opponents at the Hartly Debate. Both Kevin Wade and Michelle Rollins behaved with dignity and class. Urquhart chose to behave as the symbol of the Democrat party with his unneccessary gratuitous insults of both of these fine Republicans. (By the way someone with class would have apologised at least privately for those remarks)
Urquhart says he is the candidate that can hit the ground running due to his Washington D. C. Insider experience. Yet hs is the one who causes questions regarding conflict of interest, makes dumb statements about Nazis, and can’t display class at forums with his opposition. His behavior does not match his self ascribed talking points.
“I too have spoken to Greg Hastings…(h)e has a vigorous campaign to run now..”
About as ‘vigorous’ as a 1915 Locomobile with a broken camshaft.
This story has been ~~linked to at http://www.thedelawarepatriot.com~~