Desperation isn't pretty. Bennett's ad targeting Mike Lee on foreign policy
might be effective in a general election where the electorate can be more easily
"bought" but the delegates are already predisposed to discount his rants. Going
negative in a campaign, especially within the party isn't going to help Bennett.
Watch for the poll results in advance of the nominating convention confirm what
we all know -- Bennett's toast.
Charles,Mr. Bennett is not running for the Utah State Senate. He is
not involved with "message bills". You have totally misconstrued
his office. You have also totally misconstrued my comments about the
Constitution. I have NEVER claimed that there was anything wrong with the
Constitution. I claim that Congress has overstepped its Constitutional
authority. I believe that Utah is equal to every other State in the
Union. That's why we have two Senators representing our State, just like all of
the other States. Utah has every right to demand that the Federal Government
respect Utah's rights. Bowing down to a central government ended in 1776. Those
of you who look forward to the return of a king who dictates laws is not
acceptable to me. The Constitution deliberately and decisively
limits the authority of the Federal Government. It leaves to the States and to
the people all duties not enumerated in the Constitution.Those five
individuals in the Federal Government who represent our State and who represent
the people of this State must restrict themselves to only handle matters that
are authorized by the Constitution.
Does anyone know if Senator Bennett went to either BYU or Utah or Utah State?
That effects my decision on who to vote for.
Hey Mike R.What do you say when your Republican State Politicians
pass "message bills" that will not pass the constitution muster?This
state has lost many such bills in court, (to the tune of many millions & many
more millions to come) but you must be okay with that because they represent
your views that the Constitution is somehow wrong.
Sometimes elected officials remain in office so long they begin to think their
name is on the desk or the chair. When Sen. Kennedy died it seemed that some
supporters thought government would come to a screeching halt. As we all know,
things have continued just fine without him or a democratic replacement.
Sometimes people convince themselves they are irreplacable. Just stick your arm
in a bucket of water and then pull it out. The indentation left behind shows
about how much you will be missed in the grand schema of things. Politicians
fit in this category along with Hollywood stars, ministers, sports heroes etc.
@12:50,You're asserting that insurance companies are selling across
state lines. That is simply not true. As a former insurance agent, I can
verify that a large portion of the exam deals with that exact question. To imply that a health-insurance company is selling across state lines,
just because it has presence in more than one state ignores that fact that each
State in which that company has presence gives license to that company to ONLY
issue policies for that ONE state. That company cannot sell policies across
state lines. Now, I don't expect Mr. Bennett to just turn off the
lights in his office and walk quietly into the sunset, but I will not let him
vilify those who oppose him. The commercials that he has APPROVED against Mr.
Lee show Mr. Bennett to be someone that I cannot respect.If Mr.
Bennett truly feels that he is the only person in Utah qualified to serve as
Senator, that "feeling" disqualifies him for "service". Using mud-slinging
tactics and calling in all political favors to even get on the primary ballot
shows his desperation.
I've never thought much of Mitt Romney....so it won't bother me a bit when
Bennet drags him down too.
And back to my original point, according to the April 8th Rasmussen poll of
likely Republican voters, Senator Bennett would win a primary election, if held
today, by a 23% margin. That is why I say this delegate group does not represent
the will of the majority of Republican voters. A few years ago it
was much harder to come up with one candidate coming out of convention. Two
candidates would come out in a primary. That made more sense. I believe the
party made a mistake when it lowered the bar, closed the primary and moved it
back to June. I believe, although I don't have empirical evidence to prove it
that these changes were one important negative factor leading to the lowest
voter turn out in the nation for Utah voters.
Smith9294,You are correct given the current system. But when you say
that Bennett will buy votes in a primary you are suggesting those votes can be
bought.I respect your committment to your caucus. I prefer those
delegates who are willing to listen to the candidates first.I'd also
like to see the whole caucus/convention sytem scrapped for a primary only. The
biggest reason is the low voter participation the current system helps engender.
fire_rooster,That's exactly what I'm saying. The voters did decide
when they chose to (or chose not to) attend the Republican Caucus meeting and
elected people that would represent them.Again, you seem to really
enjoy assumptions. I'm not sure how you got the idea that I considered myself
smarter than the average voter. When I ran for state delegate I
made it clear that I would not vote for Bennett and that if the people in my
precinct wanted Bennett then they needed to appoint someone else. I was elected
overwhelmingly. For me to vote for him, despite his super-star endorsements,
would make me a liar.
Mike, I hate to be persistent here, but we had this discussion before. Congress
does have the right to regulate insurance. That is a matter of settled law. I
hope they never fully take over, because I think they can't do as good a job as
the states can on insurance regulation.Also, the fact that a company
is licensed in a particular state as a "domestic" company and is licensed as a
"foreign" insurer in another state, does not mean they are not engaged in
inter-state commerce under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court has already ruled on this, and I can't let you innocently or otherwise
misled the readers.If this were true than there would be no
interstate commerce, because any type of Company selling across state lines
could merely claim that they are only incorporated in Delaware or Nevada or
where ever, and just registered elsewhere. The key distinction here,
is they are selling a product accross state lines, not where they are
licensed.Having said that, let's hope the Congress has the sense it
did in 1945 and leaves insurance regulation largely in state hands.
@VSTA number of our Utah legislators (Dougall, Wimmer, and Frank are
three that I'm aware of) are on record stating that Bennett said both of those
things in context of defending his vote on TARP at a breakfast meeting at Mimi's
in Orem.But I've seen him say these types of things other times as
well. Google it or look on youtube. (It's too bad we can't provide internet
links in these comments)@facts_r_stubborn Perhaps you are right and
I'm always missing context when Bennett says things like that. But I feel like
Bennett is simply too apt to say 'em. I feel like if an aspect of
Constitutional law is truly "outdated" then you should use your political muscle
to clearly amend it instead of carelessly flouting it.Same for
budget problems. Bennett has voted for 132 of 133 appropriations bills (finally
found one he didn't like last year) he's voted on since 1993. Seems he *always*
is swayed that 'emergency' excess spending deserves justification.
@11:00,Your assertion that Congress can change the McCarran-Ferguson
Act of 1945 omits one big fact. Congress is restrained from repealing that act
because insurance companies are no longer involved in interstate commerce. Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce. Insurance is
licensed by each state. Each insurance company is regulated by the state in
which it is licensed to operate. Insurance companies comply with the law.
Congress has NO AUTHORITY to regulate insurance companies as long as they DO NOT
involve themselves in interstate commerce.Anyone in Congress who
tries to get around the Constitution to further his own interests or the
interests of those who helped him financially to get elected by ignoring the
seventeen authorized duties of Congress and then expanding those duties to
include duties left to the States or to the people, has no business representing
himself as a Senator for the State of Utah.
Again mike, sue. You will lose because you are wrong about the constitution. Its
that simple. Sue. Do it. Quit complaining. Quit pretending that you know
anything. You are barely qualified to interpret a menu at dennys. If
you are right then sue. You obviously must be a lawyer (because of your self
professed legal knowledge) so you wont have to pay one. What are you waiting
I apologize for the generalization. I'm sure every caucus meeting was different.
I'm only giving you my experience at my caucus meeting.My only point
is that some delegates feel they have the more informed view than the general
voter. That may or may not be true, but isn't it the same thing some accuse
Bennett of knowing more, which probably is true most of the time, because that't
the job of an elected representative.You said it yourself, "If
"Bailout Bob" doesn't make it to a primary where he can buy his election then it
will be the will of the Utah people."And yet you say you will not be
influenced by an endorsement, but you also seem to say the average primary voter
will be influenced by money spent on ads. So you are saying you are smarter than
the average voter, and represent the will of the people more than the people
themselves, who presumably can be influenced, right?Why not just
make it simple, and let the voters decide?
Mr. Richards,I read the Constitution and teach the Citizenship in
the Nation Merit Badge to scouts. I am not on Senator Bennett's payroll and have
no affilation with any campaign.I also study history, biology,
political science and insurance regulation, if you can believe that. Obviously,
I never read the letter Senator Bennett sent you, and had no idea what his
response was.If my post wss similar to what his response was,
perhaps that's because I've studied the issue, and presented the facts, as he
did.On a previous thread you challenged me to provide a cite for the
federal goverment's right to regulate insurance. I gave you the cites but I'm
not sure you ever got them.The Supreme Court Case affirming federal
juriscition over insurance is: United States vs. South Eastern Underwriter's
Association, (322 U.S. 533), in 1944. In response to this decision, Congress
passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945, which granted an exemption for federal
regulation of insurance, and returned that responsibility to the states, where
it had always been and still is today. Congress can change that at any time.
@ 10:41,You and Mr. Bennett can have any kind of tantrum that you
want about the Constitution. If YOU can read, then read Article 1, Section 8
where the AUTHORIZED DUTIES of Congress are enumerated. For the uneducated, an
enumeration is a LIST. It's all spelled out in words that an elementary school
student can understand. It's the contract that WE, THE PEOPLE have with the
Government. It RESTRICTS Congress, including Mr. Bennett.When YOU
have taken the time to read that section, perhaps YOU could tell Mr. Bennett to
read it also.Your attacks on a fellow citizen who encourages others
to READ the Constitution shows that you don't want people to know what is
written. YOU and Mr. Bennett want people to believe you, rather than their own
eyes.Mr. Bennett does not want limits placed on his authority as a
Congressman. Well, that's just too bad for him. He has proposed bills,
including his health-care bill that is NOT allowed by the Constitution. He now
knows that fact. Everyone who can read also knows that. He wants to hide that
fact. You want to hide that fact.WHY?
to mike r:Let me say this again for the thousandth day in a row. You
are NOT a constitutional expert except in your own mind. NONE of the people that
matter agree with your uneducated and imbecilic interpretation of the
constitution. Just because your favorite talking head agrees with you doesnt
make you or him right. If you were right then you would have a case you could
take to court but you dont. Go ahead, sue. You will lose.
fire_rooster,You sure are painting with a very broad brush. Your
labeling of those new comers as "not interested in facts" and somehow making
"newcomers" a bad thing is why so many people are angry. And since when is
being angry a bad thing?Most of the people I met, although new to
the process (myself included)knew the facts and were no more vocal than Bennett
supporters. As for representing you, I'm sure they don't. But with
your hyper-generalization of "new comers" I wouldn't be surprised if you spent
the time being angry yourself instead of listening to what they had to say.
@9:23 & 9:42,You have every right to agree with Mr. Bennett,
particularly if he signs your paychecks. Your response is almost exactly the
response that I received when I emailed Mr. Bennett and asked him how his
health-care bill was authorized by the Constitution.Whoever answered
that email did just as both of you have done: You ignored the Constitutionality
of the bill and focused on the fact that Mr. Bennett thought that he was helping
people.Let him help all that he wants, but as an Elected Senator, he
is bound, 100%, by the limits of the Constitution.Yes, Medicare is
NOT authorized by the Constitution. Has Mr. Bennett done anything in all of his
years in office to correct that problem? Of course not. He is afraid of the
people. He's not a leader. He's a follower of whatever is popular.No one respects a man who will not keep his oath of office - to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States.He has not learned to
be submissive and obedient to that document. He puts self above the
Constitution.I could never vote for Mr. Bennett.
Smith9294,Would those be the same caucus goers who didn't want
anyone to speak unless they were anti-Bennett? The same caucus goers
who had never been to a caucus before, and weren't interested in any facts, just
being angry and being anti?They certainly don't represent me.
DougB, I respect your more well reasoned and reasonable tone, and also your
right to support whoever you wish. I also am just a regular citizen and not
working on any candidate's campaign.I think you may be taking
Senator Bennett's comments out of context. First, the Constitution has been
amended 27 times. The last amendment was adopted in 1992. It was designed with a
mechanism to change itself. By design it is not easy to do, so as not to fall
victim to political whim, but it is possible. For example, I believe
in an amendment for congressional term limits. Others do not. The point is not
that the entire Constitution becomes outdated, but rather, it occassionally
needs to be amended to take into account a changing world.Second,
there are times which should only be temporary when a federal budget deficit is
acceptable, even necessary. For example, WWII. The question is how much and when
and how do you re-balance after surviving a crisis.I think that this
is a more fair assessment of what Senator Bennett was referring to, although I
don't pretend to speak for him.
I have noticed a sad trend over the last few years. I am sure a similar trend
can be found on the radical left. The list of those being purged from the
Republican Party is growing; a few of these casualties might included Jon
Huntsman, Mike Levitt, Bob Bennett and now Mitt Romney. It seems that anyone who
has real ideas to real problems is a RINO. That is why people who have been
strong supporters for years are now finding the Republican Party irrelevant.
fire_rooster,In all your complaining about delegates not
representing the people of Utah you seem to have forgotten that it was the
people of Utah who voted for the delegates. If "Bailout Bob" doesn't make it to
a primary where he can buy his election then it will be the will of the Utah
people, those same people that elected their delegates to represent them and
vote they way they did.
I'm a state delegate who supported Romney but will be voting for Lee. Romney's
appearance makes no difference to me. In fact, it makes me question my future
support for him.Bob's belief that simply having Romney speak will
sway voters shows how arrogant and out of touch he has become. Rather than
admit voter angst he chooses to believe that people against him are so stupid
and uncommitted to our own beliefs that we'll change at the sound of one
person's voice.Hey Bob, we're not that shallow.
re:CatsI didn't mean to distract from the core of my comment so much
with the aspersion "career politician" for Romney. I guess I simply meant that
for the past eight years I haven't seen him involved in a "day job" -- which,
really, at his age is probably fine. You're right. He worked hard at a
previous career, was successful, and now has embarked on a new career. Good on
him.I am not part of any of the candidate's campaigns -- volunteer
or otherwise -- though I am attracted to the campaigns of a couple of the
non-Bennett Senators and could see putting out a sign or getting involved in
other ways in the future. I'm not just spewing campaign rhetoric when I say
that Romney goes around garnering / repaying political favors for already
established Republican incumbents. It's pretty normal to do that. It simply
does not solve Bennett's negatives.Less than a year ago Bennett told
Utah legislators the Constitution was outdated. He also said we don't need to
balance the Federal budget. These are issues.That said, also
agreed: I strongly support Philpot over Matheson this election.
Correction: that is "loss cost" not "lost cost."
Just one clarification, so as not to be misleading. Insurers will go insolvent
without a mandate for payment of premiums, under any plan to expand coverage to
the uninsured. You can't expand benefits to 32 million uninsured without
collecting premiums from someone.Insurers may also feel substantial
cost pressures and solvency concerns because of tough federal lost cost
standards, 80% for small plans and 85% for large group plans. Federal mandates
on state rate regulation could be severe for some insurers, who need to increase
claims payments and expenses without the ability to increase rates.Unfortunately, many of these same costs already exist in the system, and we
you have insurance, you are paying the bill. We already have near universal
coverage since no one is denied medical care just because they don't have
insurance and can't pay out of pocket.Those costs and the shortfalls
in Medicare and Medicaid payments are made up by increased private group plan
rates on the rest of us.Obama Care did nothing to address the real
cost drivers of health care cost increases. Until we do that, we are just
playing a shell game with the costs.
Is Bennett willing to take this risk. Romney will come out and say what he
things the audience wants to hear. He may zig and zag. in the course of his
speech, he may support Bennett, then support Lee, the support the others, then
come back to Bennett. It will be tortuous to watch.
JMW, what do you mean by "way beyond constitutional limits?" Have
you heard of the insurance terms, "moral hazard" and "adverse selection?" Fact
is, by guaranteeing issue and eliminating pre-existing conditions, you will also
be eliminating health insurers by making them insolvent! I'm convinced that is
part of the ultra liberals' plan, because then the federal government steps in
as the single payer. Goodbye private delivery system, good bye state control.
Get it? That's why if you move people out of charity care, which we now all pay
for, and insure them, you must have them pay premiums for it. Nothing could be
more market based.Bennett's bill was vastly superior to Obama Care,
though not perfect. In fact, it never had a chance of passage, and was merely a
starting point for alternatives, and meaningful discussion on how to reign in HC
costs. One of its problems, I agree with you on this, is it relied
too much on federal regulation of the health insurance industry rather than
state regulation, which is closer to the people and can be tailored to meet
Can't wait for May 8th -- I'll be on my way home from the convention with Bob
Bennett in my rear view mirror forever. . . the future vision includes Mike
Lee's leadership in Washington D.C., and the first order of business among the
freshman class will be to dismantle the flawed seniority system in the Congress
that furnishes us with career politicians like Bennett and Hatch. "I will NEVER
become a career politician." -- Bob Bennett when he ran the first time. That's
the only promise we asked you to keep Senator, and because you couldn't keep it
yourself, we will keep it for you.
To facts_r-stubborn and ground_it:You can sugar coat the Bennett
health care all you want, but it would have taken Congress WAY WAY out beyond
its Constitutional limits. Period. I refuse to vote for any would
be congress person who has such flagrant disregard for the principles of limited
federal government. We must clean house of such politicians. That is why
Bennett has to go.
Romney has the same problem Bennett does: Both have lost the moral high ground
to repeal Obama Care, because both are tainted with their own socialized health
care legislation. At least Romney did it at the state level, where the
constitutional authority to do so resides. Bennett sponsored a federal health
care bill with a mandate, which is beyond the legislative authority given to
Congress by the Constitution.We need a Senator who isn't saddled
with his own unconstitutional health care legislative history, in order to carry
the moral high ground for arguing to repeal the most devastating Obama Care
Mike R.What do you think Medicare is, a private plan? We are forced
to pay into it if we have job or a business.Government paid
healthcare already represents 50% of total health care costs. We are forced to
comply. You sound worried that the Bennett bill would have cut Medicare. Isn't
this a bit of a double standard. By your standard, Medicare and Medicaid are
unconstitutional. Aren't we all forced to pay for it? Aren't we forced to by a
government service that could be provided by the private sector.What
Mr. Richards,The Bennett/Wyden bill was intended to be a starting
point for discussion on alternatives to the Democratic health care reform bill
that passed. Elements of the Bennett/Wyden bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support,
unlike Obamacare.One key provision was the elimination of the tax
advantage for employer provided health insurance. Thus an individual purchasing
health insurance on their own would be also be able to take a tax deduction. The
conservative Heritage Foundation said of this provision, "The reform repealing
the unlimited tax exclusion for employer-based coverage is a bold step in the
right direction..." "Senator's Wyden and Bennett and their co-sponsors should be
commended for their willingness to forth a comprehensive proposal to address
shortfalls in the current system..."The report went on to suggest
important changes to the bill which I completely agree with. For example, even
more individual choice and competition, less Federal regulation, and improving
existing state regulation of insurers. And of course looking at other drivers of
health care costs other than only insurance.The point is, Senator
Bennett should be praised for being willing to put his neck on the line with
reasonable alternatives to Obamacare.
Mr. Bennett co-sponsored a federal health care plan with Oregon's Senator, Ron
Wyden, Democrat. The plan would force all Americans to pay for health insurance
as part of their federal tax liability. It would also force employers to pay
their employees the equivalent of the health insurance premium. It would force
employers to pay an additional tax of 3% to 26%. It would phase out some of the
people from Medicare.Utah does not need a Senator that does not know
how to read the Constitution. Unless Mr. Bennett has a special health-care
version of the Constitution, he has no Constitutional authority to force any
American to buy health-insurance. He has no Constitutional authority to tax any
business 3% to 26% for health-insurance. He has no Constitutional authority to
force employers to pay one cent additional to their employees.Mr.
Bennett and Mr. Wyden showed that they are two Senators who deserve to be
retired at the earliest possible moment.We need a Senator who does
NOT take pot shots at his opponents, i.e. radio commercials against Mike Lee.If Mr. Bennett had a leg to stand on, he wouldn't need Romney.
I'm disappointed Mr. Bennett would allow a big liberal like Romney to introduce
him. I think Bennett is a trueblue conservative while Romney is a
big-government liberal.If you look at Bennett's voting record, he's
almost always on the right side, like voting against health care. Unlike Romney
who supports huge-government health care plans.
What a disappointment, Bennett is so clearly out of touch with Utah and what is
going on in the country it is pathetic. Now Mitt is going to throw himself under
the bus for the guy. WOW! Endorsing McCain is also a big mistake, these two
relics need both need to go. These two RINOS have pushed illegal alien amnesty
every chance they get and that is against the will of 80% of the American
public. A major battle is looming on this issue and those on the wrong side are
going to regret it. Mitt what are you thinking?
I no longer support Romney. First he endorses McCain and now Bennett....Both of
those senators represent what is wrong with Washington....and Romney is all for
them?! Mitt must think Mormons will vote for him anyway no matter what he says
or who he endorses. Not this time Mitt!
Oh my heavens. Watching this Republican cat fight is more fun than watching a
mule eat cactus. I love it, I dearly love it. Grrr, spit. hiss!
Nate, if you look at the total situation you would be able to make some clear
distinctions. First, it really does matter that MA is a state based plan
designed to fit MA. The same plan would be an absolute disaster in UT. Why?Because Utah has the lowest healthcare costs and is one of the most
conservative states in the nation, while MA has among the highest healthcare
costs and is one of the most liberal states in the nation.The
details are complex, the fundamentals simple. MA needed a plan to cover everyone
because their non-insured HC costs were already bankrupting the state. Romney
was also working with a liberal legislature, and had to compromise.The mandate actually does not require one to become insured, it merely says
that if you are not insured you have to help pay the unfunced medical costs of
the uninsured, since no one is denied care. That is actually a conservative
principle. You must pay for what you get. Not to many people opt to
die if they don't have health insurance and can't pay the high costs of major
medical care. So who pays? We all do.
So -- one dishonest political panderer is going to introduce another dishonest
political panderer. Sounds like politics as usual to me. Personally, I don't
see anyone supported by either of thge majority parties who is worth anything.
Does anyone know of any good third party candidates?
Dear Doug B: Romney is NOT a career politican. He served ONE term in office.
That's all. President is NOT an entry level position. You need someone with
some executive experience. Hiring a "community organiser" who had NO executive
experience is one of the reasons we got in the mess we are in today.I reiterate--it is clear that many of these bloggers are from the senate
campaign staffs. I get it. As a former campaign staffer I've done it. But, it
doesn't help. I wish everyone would quit worrying so much about
Bennett and start putting their efforts to where they might actually make a
difference. That is in getting rid of Jim Matheson. A vote for
Matheson is a vote for Pelosi. The ONLY thing we, here in Utah, can do this
year that will make ANY difference WHATSOEVER is to vote out Jim Matheson.
Wow...great move for Senator Bennett!!! Who can the others get that might pale
this nomination? Cherilyn: Joe the Plumber; Bridgewater: his wife Laura; Mike
Lee: Dick Armey (who???); Merrill Cook: his mother-in-law (if she is
First mandatory insurance for Massachusetts, and now cozying up to Bailout Bob.
I'm questioning Romney's judgment more and more all the time.
DN subscriber,How is it that an endorsement from Jake Garn makes
Bennett a creature of Washington? Last time I checked Jake Garn voluntarily
retired from the Senate in 1992. He has been a regular citizen living in Utah
for 18 years, after three terms in the Senate.He was the strongest
of advocates for balanced budgets and was consistently rated number one or two
most conservative Senators throughout his career. Check it out.You,
DN subscriber, are the one who appears to be twisting the truth to suit your
purposes. If anyone was not a part of the Washington D.C. beltway mind set it
was Jake Garn.
The fact that 90% of the bloggers here are anti-Bennett and anti-Romney, only
shows how out of touch they are with what the majority of Utah Republicans
believe. Many delegate bloggers have cited Senator Bennett's lack of
listening to the concerns of Utah citizens as one reason they will not be voting
for him. Isn't it ironic that they only believe "they" should be listened to,
forget about the majority of Utah Republican voters who are not delegates.If these folks were really worried about what the citizens of Utah
thought, they wouldn't be so afraid of a primary election, and so intent on
knocking Senator Bennett out in convention.An April 8th Rasmussen
poll shows that if a primary poll were held today this would be the result:Senator Bennett: 37%Lee: 14%Bridgewater: 14%Cook:
6%Eagar: 4%A 23% victory for Bennett.Now, we see
just how much these delegates would listen to Utah citizens if they were the
Senator from Utah, not!Utah, don't confuse them with the facts,
their minds are made up!
Bennett's attack on on Mike Lee is just one more example of his career
politician skill of taking Lee's comments TOTALLY out of context and twisting it
to suit his needs. His "backup chorus" of Jake Garn just reinforces how much he
has become a creature of Washington, not of Utah.Romney's
introduction will not help.
This is a very bad move for Mitt. He needs to distance himself from the old
establishment to further his campaign for the presidency. I would urge Mitt not
to do this. The state is heavily divided on keeping Bob Bennett and Romney's
support will insure the wrath of the tea parties. For your own good, Mitt, stay
away from Bennett. It's doubtful you will help him and he will surely hurt you.
"Bailout Bob" thinks if he makes enough "press releases" and brings in enough
Republican "big names", oh, and SPENDS ENOUGH that Utah voters can forget and
forgive.Please don't forget "Bailout Bob" voted FOR AMNESTY for
illegals!Too bad he doesn't just contribute his extra lobbyist money
to the homeless shelter or some other deserving charity rather than dumping the
funds into his losing campaign!Chris Cannon didn't think amnesty
mattered to Utahns either, so "Bailout Bob" can join former Congressman Cannon
Bob knows his days in DC are numbered. This morning I heard an advertisement
from him on the radio attacking Mike Lee's position on the war in Afghanistan.
WE ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN RIGHT NOW.Bob should
have started fighting runaway federal spending a long time ago.He's
a day late and a dollar short.Bye bye Bob.
If Utah voters were honest, they would realize they voted for Romney in the
primary (90%+) because of his RELIGION.He certainly does not fit
with many of the principles that dominate Utah political discussions (especially
fiscally, and he flip-flopped on many other ideals). I thought it was just as
embarrassing as seeing people vote for somebody because of skin color.I don't think he will help Bennett enough. Too many delegates are sick of the
same old politicians. Throw the bums out does not make exceptions for your
I'm a state delegate and Romney introducing Bennett simply doesn't help. Romney
is a career politician -- one that has shown again and again his predilection
for pushing incumbent party members over any pesky principle.There
are eight choices for GOP State Convention delegates to consider for U.S.
Senator. At least five of them have impressed me as being better prepared,
better suited for the job, and more likely to be effective than Bob Bennett.Romney could have the best hair day ever the morning of the convention
and it wouldn't solve any of that.
Just one politician returning the favor of another. Nothing new or surprising.
Mitt just returns favors. Bob Bennett seems like a nice man, but nothing about
him excites me as a voter. I really wish Jason Chaffetz would have run against
him. We need someone with ambition who represents our best interests
Romney got the presidential votes from utah becasue he's LDS. Is this going to
change because he's pitching for bennet, don't think it will sway that much.
But I do think we're smart enough to see through Mit's marketing.
Republicans supporting republicans, nothing new here. My question would be
if I would vote for Bennett. Romney does not want a local seat to represent
you. I would then ask why Bennett was first in line to ask for $151.3
million dollars in earmarked "pork" spending in appropriations bills. (04/14/10
- Utah No. 13 in federal pork-barrel spending - DSNews) Or how Bennett
supports spending $50 million per year on helping libraries preserve records?
(DSNews - Hatch wants to create grants to preserve records for genealogists -
04/19/10) During one of the worst economies America has seen? Also
amongst cries that the federal government should stop 'meddling?' If that
was the case, why ask the federal government for money? And if
Bennett’s record was above reproach why attack the record of Lee? All questions you must ask yourself.
I was already having doubts about Romney, but this alleged appearance just
convinced me that Republicans need to find a Presidential candidate other than
Romney for 2012.No more good old boy big government cronies are
needed anywhere within 100 miles of Washington, DC.Bennett is
notepad you have to be a staffer ... 18 yrs of bennett traveling around the
world on lobby money .. where in utah is that lobby money ??did
bennett move the FBI fingerprint facility from DC to utah .. no byrd did to west
virginia .. did bennett build an airport like murtha no he didnt did bennett
build a bridge likes stevens no he didnt .. what did bennett do, he
voted for the banking deregulation bills which lead to the world wide meltdown
.. and what influence and expertise does bennett sitting on the finance
committee mean .. oh, yea world wide meltdown .. banking lobby money in his back
pocket and of course the bailout because of his YES vote on banking deregulation
.. just what utah wants to be known for .. keeping the starter of
the world wide meltdown in public office .. so he can do it again and again and
again .. utah is angry and mad and has had enough .. way to go utah
.. it's about time just stay this mad for another two years to so we
can remove hatch from his lobby interest group post
Mitt is out of step with Utah. Bennett is running far behind Mike Lee and for
good reason - people in Utah don't want any more "good ole boys" in Washington
who cozy up to the democrats. Mitt ought not to side with Bennett just because
Bennett is backing him.
hey myturn ... apparently you dont do your research? hatch and bennett both
voted YES to the banking deregulation bills that lead to the world wide meltdown
.. how else would these guys vote other then to bailout their $$$ bags ?? the reason bennett is quiet is because he votes for the lobby and
interest groups .. not utah .. if you think bennett has influence
how come he didnt get utah in on the student loan takeover by the president ??
doesnt get oil prices down when production is 7% higher and no place to store
the oil and yet prices keep going up .. no influence in keeping the fed's from
taking 80% of state of utah land keeping utah from commerical endevors ..
bennett couldnt get one democrat to swing sides on the healthcare (and couldnt
get his own to go anywhere )get the picture here .. bennett is using
utah for his own (his lobby groups) interests .. bennett be gone
(hopefully in the May convention)time for utah citizens to do some
research and see bennett's true aliances ... quiet cause he doesnt want utah to
hear or see what he really does do for others
Romney will introduce Bennett... if he does not FLIP-FLOP between now and then!!
I believe Bob Bennett and Mitt Romney are cousins, aren't they? A lot of
politics and other organizational activities in Utah are dominated by extended
family relationships.I'll be voting for a Republican opponent.
spend, spend , spend .. bring on anybody you think is supposed to make you out
to be a worthwhile re-elect ... you lied, said two terms, now trying
for 4 terms, you voted for the world wide meltdown for banking deregulation
(because banking gave you all that money) ...you have no influence on anybody or
anything .. you belong in the pockets of lobby and interest groups
(your voting shows that) and the best thing going .. utah citizens have finally
awakened and will personally knock you out of office just to get anybody else in
there .. pretty sad to think anybody will do to replace you keep
spending all that lobby group money .. it isnt yours so keep spending .. the sad thing is that a lobby group will hire you for 6 figures when
utah throws you away .. DC business as usual i just hope utah can be
this angry for two more years to get hatch out as well (you know, the other two
term guy who is finishing up his 6th term)glad to see utah waking up
and voting the incumbents out ... good luck to us all
Speaking for myself, I have no affiliation with any of the campaigns and am just
speaking as a concerned citizen. Based on the ungrounded and wild accusations of
many of these bloggers, I certainly hope none of them are campaign staffers, (as
one blogger asserted without proof or grounding.) If that is true, I
would never vote for someone who makes arrogant, unsubtantiated claims about
other candidates. Good leaders, educate themselves and make principled decisions
based on study, talking with experts in specific domains and walks of life, hard
work and research. They don't just have opinions, and blert out assertions
without knowing the facts and taking them in context!Many of these
outside special interest groups are guilty of the same arrogance and
demagoguery. For example, the Club for Growth web site suggesting something is
wrong with the fact that Senator Bennett talked to President Obama (about health
care reform), on the phone which was handed to him by Senator Dodd. Apparently,
this somehow proves Bennett is a liberal or that he agrees with the HC reform
bill that passed. You get what you pay for. Is it any surprise then
that blogs are free, and anonymous?
While there are many who always take the cynical view, I believe both Bennett
and Romney serve and run for public office for the best of motives. Neither one
needed a career in public office to be successful personally.Senator
Bennett does his research, (so does Romney), and is generally quiet but
effective behind the scenes. He gets the job done for Utah. He is an expert on
issues affecting Utah, especially on Utah/Federal land issues. He is in line if
the Repubs take over this year to be the Chair of the Senate Banking
Committee.While I would have preferred a different approach to
stabilize financial markets, similar to the resolution trust corporation during
the savings and loan crisis, or financial guarantees of troubled assets, rather
than direct capital infusions, it now looks like the financial institution
portion of TARP will return 100% to taxpayers with interest.I don't
agree with Bennett on every issue, but neither do I with any elected official. I
generally agree with this effective and conservative Senator and he has done a
great job for Utah.
Well, it's obvious that all the senate campaign staffers have gotten on the
blogs as fast as possible.Mitt is a loyal person who is
reciprocating for the support Bob Bennet gave him in his presidential bid.
That's as it should be.I think all the attacks back and forth
between the senate campaigns are getting a little ridiculous. Having spent a
lot of time on campaigns, I totally understand it, but it doesn't really work.
So, why don't you guys just cool it and let the delegates decide who they
want.I respect Senator Bennett. I also met Mike Lee a number of
years ago and he is a really outstanding guy. So, let's just have a little
class and let the delegates decide.OKAY?
Am I reading the comments wrong, or is notepad saying to dump the way we do
things because it might go against his chosen candidate?Let's have
some perspective. If you wanted to save Bennett's job you should have gone to
the caucus. It is too late now. From all I am seeing, he is toast.From my dealings with his office, it is about time, too. I have never had
worse answers from a senator in my life.
Bennett is good for Utah. The out of state organization Club For Growth loaded
the caucuses to get Bennett out of office, while the majority of the state
supports him. Hope the delegates pull it together and understand the Mitt is
trying to re-unit the party. I pray the delegates will be smart
enough to see through all the rhetoric and allow Bennett to face a challenger in
the primary.Let ALL the voters decide or are we no longer in favor
of the popular vote? Say no to Utah’s Republican Electoral
College(convention/delegate) and encourage delegates to take it to the primary.
Yup, let's restore the Republicans to the White House. They did a great job
during the Bush Administration.
Wont help him enough, but will hurt Romney
Bob could be introduced by Mitt Romney, President Monson, Donny Osmond, Ryan
Seacrest, Steve Young, and Sarah Palin. It doesn't change the fact
that he helped accelerate our advance toward national bankruptcy by spending his
little heart out while in office.I'm looking forward to his speedy
return to this great state.
With Romney have 90% Republican support in Utah, this could really help Bennett.
Romney is smart, capable and knows about the U.S. and Congress.Plus,
between Mike Lee, who doesn't seem to know what's going on at all, and McCain
lovin' Bridgewater, Bennett is the only good choice.
Bob Bennett's son Jim "Permanently Daddy's Employee" Bennett promises more
surprises in the future of the race for his father's Senate seat.Jimmy,
here's a surprise from Utah voters: your pa has had a good run, but it's over.
Maybe you can get a job with his political consulting partners next January.Mitt can't change it, and he's wasting political capital even trying.