Bennett getting help from Romney for his re-election quest


Return To Article
  • goatesnotes
    April 22, 2010 10:43 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    April 22, 2010 10:34 a.m.


    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.

  • Cosmo's Cousin
    April 21, 2010 9:23 p.m.

    Does anyone know if Senator Bennett went to either BYU or Utah or Utah State? That effects my decision on who to vote for.

  • Charles History
    April 21, 2010 5:35 p.m.

    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.

  • utah state graduate
    April 21, 2010 4:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    April 21, 2010 2:46 p.m.


    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.

  • LDS Mom
    April 21, 2010 2:19 p.m.

    I've never thought much of Mitt Romney....so it won't bother me a bit when Bennet drags him down too.

  • fire_rooster
    April 21, 2010 1:27 p.m.

    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.

  • fire_rooster
    April 21, 2010 1:11 p.m.


    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.

  • Smith9294
    April 21, 2010 12:58 p.m.


    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.

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 21, 2010 12:50 p.m.

    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.

  • DougB
    April 21, 2010 12:00 p.m.


    A 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.

  • Mike Richards
    April 21, 2010 11:50 a.m.


    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.

  • Thomas Jefferson
    April 21, 2010 11:46 a.m.

    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 for?

  • fire_rooster
    April 21, 2010 11:13 a.m.

    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?

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 21, 2010 11:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    April 21, 2010 10:56 a.m.

    @ 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.


  • Thomas Jefferson
    April 21, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Smith9294
    April 21, 2010 10:35 a.m.


    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.

  • Mike Richards
    April 21, 2010 9:56 a.m.

    @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.

  • fire_rooster
    April 21, 2010 9:25 a.m.


    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.

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 21, 2010 9:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Tom
    April 21, 2010 9:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Smith9294
    April 21, 2010 8:58 a.m.


    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.

  • Smith9294
    April 21, 2010 8:48 a.m.

    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.

  • DougB
    April 21, 2010 8:13 a.m.


    I 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.

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 21, 2010 8:08 a.m.

    Correction: that is "loss cost" not "lost cost."

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 21, 2010 8:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire
    April 21, 2010 7:01 a.m.

    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.

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 21, 2010 2:22 a.m.

    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 local needs.

  • goatesnotes
    April 20, 2010 10:46 p.m.

    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.

  • JMW
    April 20, 2010 10:27 p.m.

    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.

  • JMW
    April 20, 2010 10:13 p.m.

    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 legislation.

  • ground_it
    April 20, 2010 9:42 p.m.

    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 say you?

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 20, 2010 9:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    April 20, 2010 7:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Cosmo's Cousin
    April 20, 2010 7:15 p.m.

    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.

  • CJ
    April 20, 2010 6:54 p.m.

    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?

  • Informed Voter
    April 20, 2010 6:13 p.m.

    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!

  • Cougar Blue
    April 20, 2010 6:03 p.m.

    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!

  • myturn
    April 20, 2010 6:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993
    April 20, 2010 5:59 p.m.

    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?

  • Cats
    April 20, 2010 5:52 p.m.

    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.

  • kkodey
    April 20, 2010 5:48 p.m.

    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 willing)....

  • Nate
    April 20, 2010 5:31 p.m.

    First mandatory insurance for Massachusetts, and now cozying up to Bailout Bob. I'm questioning Romney's judgment more and more all the time.

  • fire_rooster
    April 20, 2010 5:26 p.m.

    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.

  • fire_rooster
    April 20, 2010 5:13 p.m.

    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!

  • DN Subscriber
    April 20, 2010 4:41 p.m.

    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.

  • cdcoleman
    April 20, 2010 4:32 p.m.

    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.

  • Fitness Freak
    April 20, 2010 4:28 p.m.

    "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 in retirement!

  • Fiscal Hawk
    April 20, 2010 4:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Madden
    April 20, 2010 4:19 p.m.

    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 "elder statesman."

  • DougB
    April 20, 2010 4:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Utahn
    April 20, 2010 4:04 p.m.

    Just one politician returning the favor of another. Nothing new or surprising.

  • DN Reader
    April 20, 2010 4:03 p.m.

    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

  • jtsummie
    April 20, 2010 3:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    April 20, 2010 3:43 p.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber
    April 20, 2010 3:36 p.m.

    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 worthless.

  • randy13
    April 20, 2010 3:34 p.m.

    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

  • patriot
    April 20, 2010 3:33 p.m.

    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.

  • randy13
    April 20, 2010 3:26 p.m.

    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

  • MenaceToSociety
    April 20, 2010 3:19 p.m.

    Romney will introduce Bennett... if he does not FLIP-FLOP between now and then!!

  • Conservative
    April 20, 2010 3:19 p.m.

    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.

  • randy13
    April 20, 2010 3:09 p.m.

    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

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 20, 2010 3:08 p.m.

    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?

  • myturn
    April 20, 2010 2:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Cats
    April 20, 2010 2:31 p.m.

    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.


  • davidjay
    April 20, 2010 2:26 p.m.

    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.

  • notepad
    April 20, 2010 2:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Dixie Dan
    April 20, 2010 1:38 p.m.

    Yup, let's restore the Republicans to the White House. They did a great job during the Bush Administration.

  • medicinalmike
    April 20, 2010 1:32 p.m.

    Wont help him enough, but will hurt Romney

  • Fiscal Hawk
    April 20, 2010 1:19 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahGirl89
    April 20, 2010 1:02 p.m.

    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.

  • 20/20
    April 20, 2010 12:34 p.m.

    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.