Bennett, Matheson feeling some party backlash in Utah

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • randy13
    April 26, 2010 2:06 p.m.

    the facts .. the facts .. bennett voted for the banking deregulation .. meaning that the world wide meltdown was soon to follow (well actually some years but not for bennett and hatch voting for the banking deregulation we wouldnt have the world wide meltdown ..)

    the facts .. bennett and hatch had/have to vote for the TARP .. their banking lobby buddies said so and the money in bennett's and hatch's war chest proves it ..

    guess what else facts you know .. bennett and hatch let monsanto run normal soybean growers out of business (with former monsanto big whigs as the federal regualtors regulating that industry and even clarence thomas (yea supreme court judge) was former lawyer for monsanto and wrote the supreme court decision in favor of monsanto's GMO soybean takeover (early 90's) and decline to hear court case against monsanto (2006??) .. guess what else bennett and hatch dont push along kevin's law for ecoli reform and regulation to the beef industry (lobby money you know)

    facts .. bennett this year .. hatch in 2012 .. they arent for utah anymore .. just themselves under the gise of utah support

    incumbents out .. challengers in

  • goatesnotes
    April 26, 2010 12:29 p.m.

    It's simple. . . you're Bob Bennett, you know the system, you spend $500,000 in Q1 to buy delegates prior to the March 23 caucus, but oops, your own sister can't elected at a caucus because she supports you, then you find out your own son can't get elected as a state delegate because he supports you. Then you get the poll results, and you suspect what we all know -- the delegates aren't really out of step with the general electorate. You finally come to the inescapable conclusion that you, Senator Bennett, are out of step with EVERYONE. When you're eliminated from the ballot at the state convention, please don't tell us you were victimized by the very process you helped create because it once favored you. Sorry, nice try, here's your lovely parting gift. . .

  • Sabrecat
    April 26, 2010 9:31 a.m.


    Thank you for proving your just a shill for Mr. Bennet. You could have taken the time to prove why CJ was incorrect but you instead resort to name calling and insults.

  • John C. C.
    April 26, 2010 1:22 a.m.

    The biggest problem is that angry people attend caucuses more that the satisfied. The satisfied sit at home and lift the phone to tell pollsters what they think.

    When they see the coming partisanship havoc in politics, they will have themselves to blame. Time for a new silent majority to reclaim the center.

  • aceroinox
    April 26, 2010 1:20 a.m.

    I'll give you one good reason to not vote for Senator Bennett. Google Transatlantic Policy Network. Check out Senator Bennett's involvement with same (he was chairman for years). Read TPN's strategy and agenda documents, which is basically to work toward a "barrier-free" transatlantic market, an extension of the European Market concept, where trade decisions are made based on the good of the whole, not the interests of the individual nations.

    In fact, along with other Congressional and European Parliament members of TPN, Senator Bennett participated in an event co-sponsored by the Streit Council, entitled, "Creating a Barrier-Free Transatlantic Market". Senator Bennett's speech, published in the Streit Council's Freedom & Union publication is entitled "Institutionalizing a Barrier-Free Transatlantic Market".

    Why is this a bad thing? Under such an arrangement, we lose the ability to protect our own industries, even if they are strategic to our national defense or our economy. We begin to lose our national sovereignty. Even more alarming: the Streit Council is named for Clarence Streit, author of the 1939 book, Union Now, which calls for a one-world government. What kind of circles is Senator Bennett running in?

  • Elles
    April 26, 2010 12:58 a.m.

    I DO live in Matheson's district. I have lost all respect for him. He didn't vote for health care, but did vote to allow the Slaughter Solution. Sorry, but that was very cowardly in my book. He needs to go!

  • Doug10
    April 26, 2010 12:14 a.m.

    Tea party's are a result of too much Beck and Rush. Listening to them should cause a person to forgo voting PERIOD.

    Obama has not received local praise but he has received international acclamation for his financing bailouts. I have always voted GOP but what you are talking about is water under the bridge.

    Who and where is the federal alternative? Certainly Utahns can cause a stir in their teapot, but for what cause? How will that help Washington?

    Any new faces are junior senators who will not have a voice for the first 6-8 years in the capital thus robbing Utah of changes they could make.

    Better scenario is to inundate exiting senators with what you really want expressed at the capital. Write them, call them, demand feedback, demand information, they have offices and contact people so you can be heard.

    Our current raft of senators have done some things that defy reason but it seems they are doing them as reactive and not proactive.

    Make sure they vote the voice of the people not the party.

  • L
    April 25, 2010 11:34 p.m.

    I don't live in Matheson's district BUT based on all I know and others here I compare him with, I would vote for him, in fact I would trade 2 for him to represent me.

    I don't pretend to be a big-time politican ... in fact you couldn't pay me anough (UI havn't been offered a million yet) to take the job.

    If you can find me someone I agree with 100% of the time, be sure and let me know. I don't agree with everything Matheson has voted on but I do believe he is honest and interested in representing the best interests of Utah (not just loudmouths like I might classify some posters here.)

    The job of representing others is not an easy one and I don't know of anyone who has truly accomplished it, but I think Jim Matheson does an OK job and I don't know any better including Ms Wright !

  • CJ
    April 25, 2010 10:41 p.m.

    right, your comments are nonsense

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 25, 2010 9:47 p.m.


    True believers are never confused by the facts.

    Enjoy your Kool Aid

  • CJ
    April 25, 2010 7:30 p.m.

    To "facts",

    Now could you list their ten to one failures? After a lifetime as career politicians they couldn't statistically fail to have done at least one thing right. How about TARP? How about the bridge to nowhere Bennett voted for? How about Bennett Care (worse than Obama Care if that is possible) How about their votes for illegal alien amnesty that is destroying the country? How about their spending habits that are worse than a couple of drunken sailors? (my apologies to drunken sailors, they usually stop spending when the money is gone, these two don't) Matheson is just as bad, he would have been the deciding health care vote in favor if it had come down to it, luckily for him he was able to vote no for political cover. I stand by what I said, thank you.

  • johnjacobs99
    April 25, 2010 6:13 p.m.

    Change is not always better. Unless you think that Bennett is doing a terrible job, there is no guarantee that the next person will do better.
    It would be better to spend your energy to make sure that the tax and spend Democrats get voted out of office in other states.

  • Emjay
    April 25, 2010 6:08 p.m.

    Dear Not Scared: Having spent many years of my life on Capitol Hill in Washington, I can tell you that I have a VERY good idea about the way things work in there.

    Jim Matheson votes exactly the way Nancy Pelosi ALLOWS him to vote. He votes for rules and everything needed to get the bill to final passage and then Pelosi releases him to vote against final passage in order to protect his seat.

    Anyone who has spent time in Washington completely understands this. In addition, the very fact of Matheson being in Congress allows Nancy Pelosi to stay in power.

    Newt Gingrich is a brilliant man, a visionary and a patriot. Unfortunately, he has a VERY MESSY personal life. For this reason, I could not support him for president. However, he was a wonderful Speaker and is, in many ways, a great man.

    Pelosi in NO WAY represents the kind of values that we hold dear. Matheson keeps her in power and if Claudia Wright is a Democrat, she would do the same.

    Please, take it from someone who knows. We need to get rid of Matheson this year.

  • Jonesy
    April 25, 2010 4:25 p.m.

    Claudia Wright is the only viable candidate for US House of Representative in District 2. And don't let anyone kid you, she can beat Jim Matheson! Utah citizens are ready for a representative who is beholden to them rather than to Big Money. Clearly, Claudia is the only candidate who offers a real alternative. The ground swell of support for her campaign at yesterday's Salt Lake County Democratic Convention provides persuasive evidence of this fact. Her obvious integrity and thoughtful position on important issues are giving new hope to the people of Utah that it is possible to represent grass roots interests and win an election.

  • OneAmerican
    April 25, 2010 4:18 p.m.

    I called Senator Matheson's office asking what they intended to do about Obama's pro-gay agenda czar, who endorses grooming of minors. (If you're not familiar with him, Google it). They had no problem with the Obama czar. Any more questions why it's time for Matheson to come home?

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 25, 2010 1:31 p.m.

    Again, informed voter offers no evidence for his baseless rhetoric attacking Senator Bennett. Is it because you don't know, or aren't saying? Either way, it's nothing more than an ad-hominem attack.

    If it is "we the people", why are some so anxious to have Bennett eliminated in convention?

    Senator Bennett voted against Hillary care in the early 90's, he voted against Obama Care, against the Obama Budget, against the Obama TARP stimulus bill. He is fighting to repeal Obama care.

    Yes, he did vote for the original TARP stimulus bill under Bush. Stymied by Inactive financial markets, the administration, after the vote, could not effectively use troubled asset guarantees, or a resolution trust for bankrupt financial institutions similar to that used in the S&L crisis, instead using direct capital infusions. While not the best option it was the only viable one given the circumstances.

    It is important to note that this original TARP has already returned 75% of the original taxpayer investment, with an $8 billion profit on the sale of our 27% stake in Citigroup. Smaller regional banks will take more time but a 100% return is probable.

  • Informed Voter
    April 25, 2010 12:54 p.m.

    Bennett has not fought against the corruption terrible policies of the democrats and has even participated in them. Indeed, senators view themselves as a privileged class. This November they will be forced to listen to We The People!

    And as far as his seniority goes, I could not care less except to say long term congress people are a problem. We need new blood. Bye Bye Bob.

  • Abe Sarvis
    April 25, 2010 12:06 p.m.

    I think it's most interesting that every credible poll on the subject says that people think there is way too much partisanship in Washington - but in both of these races there is an attempt to find candidates whose votes and rhetoric would be more stridently partisan. Which, at the core, suggests to me that the reason America has such low voter turnouts is that in too many cases a awful lot of Americans just can't stand to vote for any of the candidates. Which should I choose - the knuckle-dragging buffoon or the stick-up-his-backside idiot? I think I'll stay home and pretend neither exists...

  • majmajor
    April 25, 2010 12:06 p.m.

    If either party selects a far-right or left candidate, it will find that it is doing the other party a favor.

    We need candidates that have the political courage to demand that government pay for itself. If you are involved in two wars or want to finance a big ticket social program (SS, Medicare, Healthcare...) be truthful in the costs. Those costs are higher taxes, reducing other services, or Bonds (demand unborn children to pay the cost)...

    Demand politicians honestly pay for the services that they promise. The politician that promises to do wonderful things without a cost associated with the action is a liar, and lacks political courage.

    The last honest presidents were Ford and Bush #1. They did what was right but not politically correct. Since Bush #1, neither party has demonstrated any courage and has been political cowards

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 25, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    CJ states, "The current group of politicians in this state and nation have gotten us in the mess we are in."

    Regarding the conservative and effective Senator's in this state, care to provide any proof for that assertion? Limited by space and time, I'll give you one example each for Bennett & Hatch of how they have been effective.

    Bennett, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, helped pass a Utah/federal land swap bill last year after four years of effort. This increased revenue to the School trust fund, protected sensitive lands and opened others to energy and other private uses. Bennett is an expert on land use issues and it would be a shame to lose his experience here.

    After pushing the Justice Department for months, Senator Hatch got the first immigration enforcement court in Utah history that has grown to two judges in five years. Since 1998 he has brought, quick response teams, field office director, enforcement, 287 G program allowing local law enforcement to work federal immigration agents, sharing of biometric information.

    Looks like Utah's Senators have been busy effectively addressing issues of great importance to Utahns.

  • facts_r_stubborn
    April 25, 2010 10:56 a.m.

    People should support the candidate of their choice, not use ad-hominem attacks without basis against a candidate. Apparently, many delegates made up their minds prior to the caucus meetings without even listening to the candidates first. Instead some appear to listen to outside special interest groups with ulterior motives, who use demagoguery and obfuscation to defeat strong Republican incumbents. A delegate has a unique opportunity for direct access to candidates.

    Take Jerry's "a list as long as my arm", but he doesn't list even one item except a general ungrounded assessment that Bennett has not upheld the Constitution. That is utter nonsense.

    Take C. Darwin's "elected leaders think they are a privileged class.." Care to give a specific example supporting your claim?

    One well grounded assessment here is gogosian2061, who said a closed Republican primary leaves out many independents who may want to vote for a Republican candidate in a primary.

    All the anti-Bennetts don't even want a primary period. As some have said they know better than the citizen who votes in a primary.

    Now who is the arrogant privileged class? Could it be the anti-incumbent delegates who never listen?

  • delroy
    April 25, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    Let me clarify my previous comment. If any other democrat can win in Utah except Matheson is what I meant.

  • delroy
    April 25, 2010 10:39 a.m.

    If the democrats think anyone but Matheson can win in Utah right now, they would be wise to think again.

  • Emjay
    April 25, 2010 10:24 a.m.

    Please, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bob Bennett has done a decent job and has a lot of seniority. When the Republican take back the Senate, his seniority will benefit Utah a great deal.

    Please, everyone stop worrying so much about Bob Bennett. The real problem is Matheson.

    We need to get rid of Matheson in order to make any difference in Washington. That's the ONLY thing we can do.

  • CJ
    April 25, 2010 10:18 a.m.

    Time for both of them to go, we need to clean house at all levels of government and start over. The current group of politicians in this state and nation have gotten us in the mess we are in. It's our country and we need to take it back from all of them. Put Hatch on the list too.They are all incompetent.

  • Not_Scared
    April 25, 2010 10:16 a.m.

    Cats, Nancy as done a better job and she as more morals than Newt ever had. If you read, you would know Matherson doesn't always vote the way Pelosi does. Spread you hatred. Its all you have in life, apparently.

  • Majority
    April 25, 2010 9:29 a.m.

    I think that there is not a pulling to the left and right, and I think that there is not a "not conservative enough, not liberal enough" thing happening so much as people are getting more engaged. They have had their ideals all along, and now they are fighting for them, so it appears to be splitting.

  • pianojazz
    April 25, 2010 9:16 a.m.

    all politicians need to eat a little humble pie once in a while. Senators in particular,they are way to cocky and comfortable in their positions.

  • Cats
    April 25, 2010 8:39 a.m.

    If you like Nancy Pelosi, by all means, vote for Jim Matheson.

    It's time to get rid of Pelosi by getting rid of Matheson. That's the ONLY thing we, here in Utah, can do to make a difference this year.

    A vote for Matheson is a vote for Pelosi.

  • Esquire
    April 25, 2010 8:24 a.m.

    The same people who cry about taxes are often the first in line to accept the benefits of the taxpayers. They want the programs, but don't ask them to pay for it.

  • Jerry
    April 25, 2010 7:51 a.m.

    I can make a list as long as my arm where Mr. Bennett has failed as a Senator. I will only say that he has failed to keep his oath of office to defend the Constitution. He is part of the problem. He said it was difficult to follow the Constitution because there were many interpretations of the Constitution. I'm sorry but the only interpretation that matters was that of the Founding Fathers and they are very clear. Salvage what honor you can and retire quietly, now.

  • C. Darwin
    April 25, 2010 6:57 a.m.

    The political climate has change in the U.S.A. Elected leaders think they are a priviledged class, above those who elected them to office. We are no longer united, we are divided and people are choosing which side they want to be on when the house falls.

  • The Utah Republican
    April 25, 2010 6:40 a.m.

    Here's information the article might have included:

    At the state convention the delegates will vote for the candidates. If someone wins a majority, they will be on the ballot in November. If not, the top two candidates will run in a primary to see who runs in November.

    Last night in the Utah County straw poll, Bennett ended up in third place, by a lot. If that's any indication, he's not going back to D.C.

    In the meantime the Democrats will do everything they can to keep their strongest players in the game.

  • gogosian2061
    April 25, 2010 6:09 a.m.

    UTAH's CLOSED PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM violates U.S. military war veterans' who are now registered as non-partisans or independents - national voting rights and many of our constitutional guarantees!

  • woodysworld
    April 25, 2010 1:45 a.m.

    We might see these incumbents spend their treasure chests earlier this year. It will be nice seeing them spend their money instead of ours.