Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Thoughts on the need for a bit more thought’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 5 2014 8:45 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

Let’s see Bennett’s headline is: Thoughts on the need for a bit more thought

Of course these men mentioned should never have said what they said. However, how are we supposed to regulate thought? It certainly was a thought when the Clipper’s owner said it, or blogovich. Maybe not Bundy.
Then he tries to nail the Tea Party for the rest of his blog.
Not sure about the amount given to candidates, but I do know that Bennett does not like the Tea Party, never has, never will. We all understand why.
Maybe he should have saved that bit for another blog and he really could have gone after them. At one time I was a supporter of Bennett’s – but not when I saw how much time he spent travelling with harry reid.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What is Bob Bennett's "real" message? It seems to me that he will use his influence and his access to a newspaper to rail about those who disagree with him. He told us how much some people and some organizations keep when contributions are made. I wonder if he would be good enough to publish exactly how much HE paid each person on his campaign staff? I wonder if he could guarantee to those who contributed to HIS campaigns that every dollar donated went directly to the payment of advertising and that NOT ONE PENNY was spent on salaries or "overhead"?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Don't know where Bennett was going with this but the Sterling - Blagojevich comparison seemed especially lame.

What Mr Sterling did was not "illegal" in any way shape or form...
What Gov. Blagojevich did WAS "illegal" in every way...

And Mr Sterling got the equivalent of the death-penalty from the NBA... and Gov. Blagojevich got celebrity status and almost got off on ALL the charges! Seems a little ironic.

All because one touched what seems to be the last remaining taboo in America


I don't approve of what Sterling did... just SHOCKED at the outrage it produced in some people.

Had said that about Mormons, or white people... I don't think I would have reacted at all... Maybe thought he was not a good person, but not called for his head...

It's pretty obvious he's not a good person (in general)... but this time he touched the 3rd-rail of all American taboos....

He could be on crack (like the Detroit and Toronto mayors) and we would make him a celebrity. Involved in prostitution, drugs, and other crimes, and that's fine... but this non-crime requires the death penalty (for some people)...

All American
Herriman, UT

Re: Bundy episode:"In the end, there was no bloodshed but there were plenty of media types with egg on their faces." Bob Bennett, you missed the point of the upset by many Americans. It's not what Bundy said or what he allegedly has done or not done. The issue for us is, what if there had been bloodshed, perpetrated by the BLM "army"? Are you saying you are okay with all the Federal regulatory departments having their own armies and SWAT teams? The Federal govt has overstepped their purpose in arming these departments who are only supposed to "regulate" - meaning, paperwork and possible lawsuits - not guns and snipers. You know what happened during Janet Reno's reign of terror - you were there in DC. Were you okay with that? If so, glad you're not still there.

Far East USA, SC

As some have stated, Sterling broke no laws. And he was not prosecuted criminally.

If a McDonalds franchise owner decided to sell beer, that would not be illegal either. But I would bet that McDonalds would get involved and protect their brand. And that could well involve removing the franchisee.

As I understand it, California is a two party state, meaning both parties in a two party phone conversation must consent to being recorded. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

In the case of Bundy, he broke the law. That is undeniable.. We can argue all day about the fairness of the law. We can challenge the law in court.

Armed confrontation with those who are tasked with enforcing that law is wrong. It is a terrible precedent and it is a sad day that so many have defended and supported such tactics.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

What was that about in the Last Days that "secrets" will be brought forth into "light"?

For my fellow Mormons who are bent about secrets being brought forth into light,
you might want to check the name of our Church,
and ask yourselves when you think the Millienium starts....[is it a set day on a calendar like the 4th of July,
or is it a despensation or era?]

Salt Lake City, Utah

Interesting responses. Simple solution to all of them. Donald Sterling, don't be a racist. Realize that anything a public figure says is likely to hit the tv especially if it was stupid. Pretty much what Mr. Bennett said. Bundy, don't steal, that includes from the government. If you do somebody should arrest you, and bring whatever force they deem necessary based on the threat you present. Don't get how people can make excuses for these two people.

Last one Tea Party fund raising blaming Bennett for pointing out how much the person raising the funds is pocketing does not make him an angry loser. If you are Tea Party member and you are ok with half your money going to those who are raising the funds not the cause or candidate then say I am good with that, if you are not good with it, send your money else where. Don't blame the messenger. I think most republicans would be ok with what she is making because I am always reading on this board about the value of CEO's and how much they should be paid.

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

lds liberal: Really, what does that have to do with anything?

Virginia Beach, VA

Hey All American -

" . . . you are okay with all the Federal regulatory departments having their own armies and SWAT teams?"

"Federal regulatory departments" . . . Like the BLM?

Absolutely. The BLM is part of the Department of Interior, and the Department of Interior is part of the Executive Branch headed by President Obama. And it is the DUTY of the executive branch to ENFORCE THE LAW.

And obviously, law enforcement entails coercion when evil-doers like Cliven Bunch REFUSE to obey the law.

So there you go. Yes, the BLM has the right and the duty to enforce federal law pertaining to Federal lands.

I know, I know, Right Wing government-hating Anti-constitutionalists (who ironically call themselves Patriots and Constitutionalists) disagree with Federal Law and the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution, but that does not alter reality.

In reality the Constitution prevails over cherished Right Wing prejudices and false beliefs.

And it is the right and the duty of the executive branch of government to enforce the law.

Get used to it.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

So, is this any different than most other charities?

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

An unorganized mob of people armed with assault weapons is not what the Constitution allows.

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Ultra Bob,
Were the minute men, the Tea Party people (the real ones) the men who fired the first shots at Lexington Massachusetts "peaceably assembled, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"? No. They were there with guns, to tell the Government... we're tired of this abuse and we're not going to take it anymore.

Maybe the Founding Fathers were thinking of these people, not just hunting and sports... when they passed the 2nd Amendment... It's possible!


How do you know "a mob of people armed with assault weapons is not what the Constitution allows"???

Were the men in Lexington not a "mob of people armed with the assault weapons" of their day?

Getting Older
Riverton, UT

Bob Bennett should follow his own advice. Cliven Bundy did NOT say that we should go back to slavery or slavery was better. Bundy was decrying what was happening with the Blacks in Las Vegas with no jobs and their men being hauled off to jail. He was criticizing the government for what they have done to the Black community in North Las Vegas; making them dependent on the government with no hope for a better life. He used a poor analogy but he was just making the point that the Black community is struggling.

And, I, too, believe Bundy was breaking the law and don't support what he is doing. But, I did read his whole comment re: race.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

There is a lot of rhetoric about Bundy. At the root is the fact that the Federal Government cannot own land in any State (except for forts, magazines and federal buildings). The Federal Government is restricted to owning a DISTRICT. Article I, Section 8: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,"

The BLM is the government's agency to oversee land that it does not own legally. Get rid of the BLM and require the government to be governed by the Constitution.

If Clive Bundy had to own that land or to lease the right to graze cattle from the private owner of that land, he would have no case.

Bundy has the right to speak. He pointed out (somewhat carelessly) that able-bodied Blacks in his area receive welfare for not working. Had he railed about all able-bodied people who receive welfare, would he be criticised?

Phoenix, AZ

"The reason he (Bundy) didn’t pay the government, he said, is because he isn’t sure it exists."

He didn't pay the Federal government because he assumed to property was state land, not Federal land.

Further, Bundy's comment about Blacks was not racist. He was making the point that Blacks were better off as slaves because they had work to do rather than sitting home drawing government welfare checks... and were not aborting millions of babies. Both points were legit and well taken.

"Donald Sterling, don't be a racist."

How is it that you know Sterling is a racist? He merely stated to his female companion to not bring Black friends to the game. This coulda meant a dozen different things... none of which would have any semblance of racism.

Ultra Bob:
"An unorganized mob of people armed with assault weapons is not what the Constitution allows."

The Constitution provides for the keeping and bearing of arms (Amendment 2). It says nothing about whether a so-called mob can or cannot keep and bear arms.

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments