Comments about ‘Bennett getting help from Romney for his re-election quest’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 20 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Thomas Jefferson

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?

Mike Richards


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.



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 I feel like if an aspect of Constitutional law is truly "outdated" then you should use your political muscle to clearly amend it instead of carelessly flouting it.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, 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.



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.



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.


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.


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

Mike Richards


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.

utah state graduate

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.

Charles History

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.

Cosmo's Cousin

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

Mike Richards


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.


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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments