Primary mike lee?

SAJ-99 said:
No? No what? McMullen wasn’t red enough. Lee is about the right shade of Red except on this one issue? Seems like a tough needle to thread. A core part of the problem is extremes start to take over the parties. You aren’t going to primary Mike Lee. Best hope is he gets nominated for another job by DJT because it is a reliably red state becoming even more red. Senate would confirm him just to get him out of the building.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head with the statement “extremes start to take over parties” because that is exactly what is going on with the Republican Party in Utah. The far far right are the ones vying for party leadership and any mention of federal government makes their blood boil. Lee is red, really red, unfortunately he is on the wrong side of the public lands argument.
 
BearLakeHunter said:
You hit the nail on the head with the statement “extremes start to take over parties” because that is exactly what is going on with the Republican Party in Utah. The far far right are the ones vying for party leadership and any mention of federal government makes their blood boil. Lee is red, really red, unfortunately he is on the wrong side of the public lands argument.
Click to expand...
It’s happening in way more places than utah unfortunately
 
Sure has taken over in my state too. We have had some very strong republicans on conservation in the past. I have voted for several and my family has been involved in their campaigns as well. These days they have almost all been drummed out of the party at the primary stage--including some very popular long term legislators that likely would have continued to run and win in the generals. Some real kooks are the only choice we have if we lean conservative in many elections.

But on public land sales and many others we can't paint it as an us them issue, we are all "US". And furthermore if people like Lee can lose power with recognition of a strong backlash to such proposals it helps (at least for awhile) dissuade similar efforts.
 
I think there are some within the public lands advocacy sphere that have, incorrectly, tried to assert that the public land fight is a left vs right issue.

I can only speculate as to why, but regardless, this assertion has only given unneeded credence to the “green decoys” criticism.

I think what has become apparent through this most recent fight is that this is a hugely bipartisan issue.
IMG_3989.jpeg
This isn’t an excuse for the GOP allowing Mike Lee to push this.

That said hunters, collectively, are no dummies. They also, like it or not, lean to the right and care about other issues besides public land. While many may not love guys like Mike Lee who push this crap, many made a reasonable “lesser of two evils” choice last fall, and felt they had a better chance fighting the GOP on selling public land than they had fighting the DNC on predator hunting bans and draconian gun control.

My point is this. There is a clear majority of the GOP electorate that is opposed to public land sales. I think it’s clear that the best approach moving forward for hunters is to make this issue a 3rd rail within a GOP primary. The polling says it is, the advocacy groups just need to highlight it.

Trying to fight this issue from the left is a suicide pact.
 
Forkyfinder said:
Sat on a lot of planes recently - met a few people from Utah that cringed when i asked them about what they thought about Mike Lee.

Universally - they seemed to dislike the guy and all of them mentioned public land. I hope they and every other Utahn participates in the primaries and take the trash out.

The most disappointing point for me - i think Lee sold a lot Utahns on "State Transfer" but he actually thinks he has the political capital to just skip to his true intent and skip to sale. What a deceptive trick - wonder what else he's been dishonest about?

Anyway - as someone who votes more conservative - im now committed to following primaries more.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your post. Sometimes seems like greed is taking over. I'm doing a lot of work right now to let Senators know that I do not support the sale of Public Land. I live in New Mexico and love the wild places here. Wild animals in healthy ecosystems can live and sustain herds that support hunting. Mike Lee is working hard to get at least a few million acres of OUR PUBLIC LAND sold. Please take action if you're able.
 
Bonasababy said:
Sure has taken over in my state too. We have had some very strong republicans on conservation in the past. I have voted for several and my family has been involved in their campaigns as well. These days they have almost all been drummed out of the party at the primary stage--including some very popular long term legislators that likely would have continued to run and win in the generals. Some real kooks are the only choice we have if we lean conservative in many elections.

But on public land sales and many others we can't paint it as an us them issue, we are all "US". And furthermore if people like Lee can lose power with recognition of a strong backlash to such proposals it helps (at least for awhile) dissuade similar efforts.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much. I live in New Mexico and have lately become very active in working to stop the sale of OUR PUBLIC LAND. We're beyond the D versus R in our country now. Let's bombard the "powers that be" with strong messages that no, do not sell OUR LAND.
 
Treeshark said:
To most of the people whom Mike Lee represents, he’s probably viewed as doing a great job on this issue.
Click to expand...

In a two party system, separated by a variety of gigantic divides this is a courageous assumption.

He’s a Republican, who beat a Democrat. Some voted based simply on party affiliation. ✔️ Some voted for him because of his parties stance on abortion. ✔️ I could go on and on. A few people did vote for him based on his beliefs around land ownership, but how many?
 
Hammsolo said:
In a two party system, separated by a variety of gigantic divides this is a courageous assumption.

He’s a Republican, who beat a Democrat. Some voted based simply on party affiliation. ✔️ Some voted for him because of his parties stance on abortion. ✔️ I could go on and on. A few people did vote for him based on his beliefs around land ownership, but how many?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what @Treeshark means by “people he represents”. If you mean the monied interests that fund him, then I agree with his statement. If you mean the voters of Utah, then I agree with @Hammsolo - folks vote for him for reasons other than public lands. I’d wager > 50% don’t agree with him on it. Remember, the state did a massive propaganda campaign to drum up support for their SCOTUS lawsuit. And spent millions of taxpayer dollars on it. They wouldn’t do that if they already had the support of voters on the issue.
 
Hammsolo said:
In a two party system, separated by a variety of gigantic divides this is a courageous assumption.

He’s a Republican, who beat a Democrat. Some voted based simply on party affiliation. ✔️ Some voted for him because of his parties stance on abortion. ✔️ I could go on and on. A few people did vote for him based on his beliefs around land ownership, but how many?
Click to expand...

You could certainly be right. As much as he has put himself out there on this issue, the next election will give that answer.
 
Wildabeest said:
I guess it depends on what @Treeshark means by “people he represents”. If you mean the monied interests that fund him, then I agree with his statement. If you mean the voters of Utah, then I agree with @Hammsolo - folks vote for him for reasons other than public lands. I’d wager > 50% don’t agree with him on it. Remember, the state did a massive propaganda campaign to drum up support for their SCOTUS lawsuit. And spent millions of taxpayer dollars on it. They wouldn’t do that if they already had the support of voters on the issue.
Click to expand...
Not directly familiar but much of the time on these issues they work hard through broad misinformation campaigns...with the aid of right leaning media programming focused more on agendas than accurate reporting....to build support for issues that people would not support if they understood real factual info on the matter.

So they may have had support, but it's rooted in belief that what they listen to is accurate.
 
As someone from Utah. Blake Moore is my ideal person to primary him. While Moore hasn’t ever came out opposed to Lee’s amendment, public land sells/transfer are not a primary goal of his political career. You need a well known R in the state to run against him. Name recognition, Moore has it. He’s in his 3rd or 4th election cycle winning and representing District 1 in Utah. He’s not perfect for me as far as public lands, but he’s got it as way less of a focal point than Lee as part of his career, and it would also prove a point for Lee to lose over this. He also won his House race I believe by the largest margin in the state during his primary and general.

If I had to hand pick someone I think can have a fair chance at beating him with the name recognition needed, it’s Blake Moore. After this and a few other things I think he could do it. The leftist and liberal shots will also bounce off. He’s a 3 or 4 time elected Republican congressman in the state who most people know. The trick is getting him to actually primary him.
 
Oneye said:
As someone from Utah. Blake Moore is my ideal person to primary him. While Moore hasn’t ever came out opposed to Lee’s amendment, public land sells/transfer are not a primary goal of his political career. You need a well known R in the state to run against him. Name recognition, Moore has it. He’s in his 3rd or 4th election cycle winning and representing District 1 in Utah. He’s not perfect for me as far as public lands, but he’s got it as way less of a focal point than Lee as part of his career, and it would also prove a point for Lee to lose over this. He also won his House race I believe by the largest margin in the state during his primary and general.

If I had to hand pick someone I think can have a fair chance at beating him with the name recognition needed, it’s Blake Moore. After this and a few other things I think he could do it. The leftist and liberal shots will also bounce off. He’s a 3 or 4 time elected Republican congressman in the state who most people know. The trick is getting him to actually primary him.
Click to expand...
John Curtis isn't any better. Primary him too.
 
SAJ-99 said:
John Curtis isn't any better. Primary him too.
Click to expand...
Curtis is more popular than Trump/Cox or anyone in the state tbh. He does a good job of playing the nice quiet guy who doesn’t do or say the nutty things Lee does, while essentially voting the same way. Curtis is about what you’ll get here tbh. I agree Curtis has his issues, Curtis wouldn’t introduce this amendment though imo, and neither would Moore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Utah, it's time to oust Mr. Anti-Public lands Mike Lee
6 7 8
Replies
147
Views
19K
Oneye
O
6mm Remington
Ovis Outfitters - Wasilla Alaska - outfitter review
2
Replies
22
Views
7K
Steelsearchin
S
Ben Lamb
Utah continues push to eliminate public land
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
21K
BWALKER77
B
OhHeyThereBen
Lee Breach Lock Challenger Kit Review
Replies
6
Views
6K
Brian in Montana
Brian in Montana
MtnRambler
An overdue story: 3 hours of hunting (and 7 days of scouting)
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
IAhawks84
IAhawks84
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
117,353
Messages
2,154,652
Members
38,191
Latest member
CWBUCKHUNTER

Share this page

Back
Top