Utah GOP delegates dump Sen. Bob Bennett at state convention; Bridgewater, Lee to battle in primary

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • homers
    May 11, 2010 10:11 p.m.

    Reynolds v. Sims; Baker v. Carr; Wesberry v. Sanders in reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."

  • homers
    May 11, 2010 9:59 p.m.

    If we follow your logic, only those who get a couple of hours of face time with the Presidential candidates should get to vote. We could narrow it down to say, 3500 people - let them choose the next president. Why are you so against letting a military man cast an absentee ballot in a caucus?

  • homers
    May 11, 2010 9:57 p.m.

    To Mt. Cicero - you still don't get it. You value the cheapness of the process over the correctness of the process. It is cheap, therefore it is better. Cheap does not make right. Anyway, you are apparently ready to sacrifice principle for expediency. All I am advocating, really, is to allow for the casting of absentee votes at the caucus - what would be so hard or expensive about that? Besides, the two party system is, defacto, a public process. Just look at Congress - 535 members 530 are either dems or GOP so you can call it private parties, closed clubs, but they do in fact, in reality, in truth govern the country. Some people are haughty enough to believe we should narrow the electorate by making it harder and harder to participate - some believe we should make it easier to allow the widest possible participation. You obviously don't want to put in the work to make the system better - it's fine the way it is. How can a missionary or a military man make an informed choice? It's called print media, it's called the internet, it's called e-mail.

  • Vanka
    May 11, 2010 5:12 p.m.

    To Anon808,

    You have the right idea! Maybe if everyone campaigns for Jesus for President, and we elect him to office, maybe he will actually show up and take charge!

    Have faith, people! Vote Jesus for President!

  • utahenergyideas
    May 11, 2010 7:51 a.m.

    I guess people forget that there were over 70,000 people that elected those 3500 state GOP delegates. That means for every delegate there were about 20 registered republican voters active enough to show up to a meeting for a couple of hours. Bob Bennett wasn't shown the door by 3/4 of the delegates, but 3/4 of the 70,000 caucus attendees.

  • UtahBlueDevil
    May 11, 2010 7:51 a.m.

    @ Charles..... whats the problem, too high on your mighty pulpit thinking your ideas are the only valid ones? Heaven forbid that someone should actually listen to both sides, ponder all arguments, and come up with a balanced solution.

    As to the constitution, perhaps you ought to read the whole thing... there is more in there than defending the borders buried in all those words. The entire constitution is based on not one side having total power. It is about political debate, and compromise. It is not winner take all. That my dear philosopher is one party rule, the Marxist plan... and the Republicans are diving head first into a desire to have absolute power with no balance.

    And if we want to dive down into Mr. Obama's previous friendships, then lets have an honest conversation about it. Lets discuss Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Mr. Bush's administration outing a CIA agent in retribution for not agreeing with bogus WMD justifications... all three of these resulted in criminal charges and prison terms. You pick. Odd former friends versus members of the administration that broke the law themselves.

    Is it only bad when a democrat does it?

  • Anon 808
    May 11, 2010 5:36 a.m.

    I would not go to a Caucus because i believe the Caucus is against the law.

    I will Write In whom I think should be in Office. I cannot count the Number of times I have Voted for jesus.

  • Anon 808
    May 11, 2010 5:30 a.m.

    I do not like your system of selecting who will run in the Primary and who the Voter will get to Vote for.

    It protects the Old Guard on both sides. Work against the little guy trying to make it on a shoe string.

    In the General Election I can see closing Ranks. However the Primary should be open to all comers.

    Tghe Rules limit the process and need to be challenged in Court and changed.

    A person should have a right to run in a Primary against all comers and be selected or not by all the Voters.

    Under this system good people do not get a chance to even try.

    In Hawaii any one can run either Repub or Dem in their own Primary. If the Voters chose the wrong person, or the wrong person is the only one running for the party. The Party does not support them and does not give them any money.

    So the Dem usually winds up running more or less alone. The media will sometimes even ignore the Rebub. If he/she is a Pro Life Right Winger they get nothing.

    About 25% of people Vote in Hawaii’s Primary.

  • dr
    May 11, 2010 12:04 a.m.

    mt_cicero raises a couple of questions that I would like to respond to.

    You object to the fact that 100% of the people don't get a chance to vote in the caucuses and yet you ignore the fact that in general elections 100% of the people never do vote nor do they want to vote. There are also people too sick to vote or blind, or suffering from other handicaps who might like to vote. What about all of those people? There is no perfect form of representation. Sorry but that's just the way it is, and for that matter the general elections are far worse than the caucuses, so why don't you fix them?

    You complain that people can't afford to campaign to everyone in a primary but do you believe campaign financing works well in the general elections? Does anyone believe that?

  • dr
    May 10, 2010 11:41 p.m.

    ldsgemini: Excellent comments! The primaries do work and they give us an orderly way to make our voices heard.

    Those who stay informed and involved go to their mass meetings to nominate and elect representatives. In my mass meeting we made sure the candidates stated their political views and how they felt about the candidates such as Bob Bennett. The vast majority of people there were sick of business as usual in Washington and wanted a change because they felt somebody ought to be able to do a better job than Bennett.

    There were a few there who thought Bennett did a good job even though he helped preside over the mortgage lending disaster of 2008 while serving on the Senate Banking committee. Bennett refused to admit there was anything wrong with lending industry and claimed our economy was sound. Its time to put somebody in office who have eyes to see and ears to hear!

  • mt_cicero
    May 10, 2010 11:14 p.m.

    re: Homers Perhaps the question you should ask is why are state funds being used to select private parties' nominees? The answer to your question is obvious...public funds pay for primaries, they don't pay for conventions. Nor should they. You've focused with laser like intensity on the fact that you have to attend your caucus and that precludes military personnel, missionaries, or a plethora of other individuals who are obstructed from attending their caucus. Fine. You obviously believe that moving to a primary system would be a better solution. How so? How exactly do you propose for a military man or missionary to make an informed decision for a primary vote? How do you propose a candidate who is not funded by outside interest groups to campaign to everyone in a primary? Do you really believe it's better to promote that kind of a race? Sounds more like a mile wide and an inch deep kind of campaign beholden to well funded special interest groups. Tough choices, granted, but not so easily black and white as you appear to believe.

  • ldsgemini
    May 10, 2010 8:33 p.m.

    I am hearing a lot about how the caucus meetings are fundamentally flawed - I ask, did you ever attend one? If so, then you would know that: 1. This is how your political party set it up within your state, 2. it is set up by total representation. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you don't like the candidates you see, then 1. become one yourself or 2. go to the meetings and become a delegate, or 3. know who your delegate is in your precinct.

    This is how representation works, and how you vote for someone you want to represent you.

  • dr
    May 10, 2010 7:58 p.m.

    One of Bob Bennett's huge failures was his refusal to admit that the housing bubble was unsustainable and needed to be addressed. For years most reputable financial analysts knew that the inflation in the housing market was heading over a cliff and the longer we waited the worse the fall would be. Bennett served on the Senate banking committee and as such it was his job to foresee economic problems and fight for solutions before it was too late. Bob Bennett failed in his most important job. He failed to even admit that there was a problem. Now we will be suffering from this failure for years to come. Bob Bennett is a failure along with other Republicans, and there are plenty of other good people who deserve a chance to serve. Thank you Utah for doing the right thing by replacing a failed Senator.

  • homers
    May 10, 2010 7:48 p.m.

    still no answer from all you shills for the caucus system

  • mmbear
    May 10, 2010 5:30 p.m.

    Bennett voted for TARP (taxpayer funds)(S.Amdt 5685 to H.R.1424)

    Bennett voted with Federal Government on Utah's Lands (H.R.146)

    Bennett voted with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform. (S.1639) [Bills located at www.senate.gov]

    Bennett had an individual and employer mandate on his Health Care proposal. (similar to Democrat bill) (www.factcheck.org)

    I talked with him personally. He's a nice guy but he sacrificed/compromised his values. This is why he was voted out.

    Please do some research before you vote in November. Please. If its Granato or anyone else make sure you know why you are voting for them.

  • Sally A
    May 10, 2010 1:04 p.m.

    I've been listening to comments about Bob Bennett, lamenting the fact that he was one of a few moderates willing to take the risk of reaching across the isle only to be defeated for doing so. Though I love and appreciate Bob Bennett for all that he has done in his service to our state, it may be the time in history where these kinds of changes are destined to happen. Reaching across the isle in theory sounds like a very nice thing, but in reality we are choosing up sides - the social, economic, and environmental conservatives, VS the liberal social, economic, and environmental activists. My generation may just need to move over and let the battle take place. No one is doing anything helpful or of any substance in compromise. Our differences are very stark. The liberals own California and New York and look what kind of condition they're in. People are waking up all over the country ready to instigate real changes. Most are anxious about the direction this new administration is taking us. Though I am sad at the state of politics today, it is what it is, and decisive action is needed. Sally Antonino

  • TruthRestored
    May 10, 2010 4:38 a.m.

    Too much Tea at the Republican Party.....

  • grasshopper
    May 9, 2010 11:52 p.m.

    I love how people talk about outside groups like Club for Growth and how they distort the views of the electorate of Utah. But not once do they mention the untold Millions that bob has raked in through fundraisers in other States. Isn't this the same outside money?

    Except this time it isn't influencing the electorate it is influencing the Senator.

  • Susan
    May 9, 2010 10:52 p.m.

    Health care for employees adds $1000 to the cost of a car built in the US. A car built in Germany does not have that cost. The trade deficit is another problem we should be looking at because we can't compete with goods made in other countries.

    And illegal immigration. Simple solution. They won't come here if they can't get jobs. It is that simple. Fine the employers who hire them. Make it a crime to hire an illegal and the problem goes away. A common misconception is that illegals get welfare but that is absolutely not true. Not one dime. Welfare and unemployment offices check to make sure they are legal, why can't employers?

  • JMT
    May 9, 2010 9:33 p.m.

    OK, less edge in this response.

    Your views of moderates...you completely underestimate the crew you are trying to work with. Yes, many Democrats simply have a failed understanding of the 20th Century and economics. Fine. Most Democrats like Matheson are NOT people like Nancy Pelosi, or our President. Their views are not about helping but about radical change of America. These are people that would ultimate change America into a full blown socialist state with resulting changes in freedom.

    I've posted in times past about the New American Exceptionalism, which is the end of democratic institutions. I'm not going into that now but it is a key cog in socialism. The catch phrase is "post partisanship" and involves the dismantling of representative government.

    How do you intend to "moderate" this?

    Example: Congress has not allowed the Feds to take over the Internet (legislative branch). A Federal court ruled the Feds cannot do it (judiciary branch). Yet, just three days ago a government agency under the authority of President Obama just declared the Internet a utility and, in blatant disregard of both the Legislative branch and the Judiciary, they are taking it over.

    Please "moderate" for us.

  • JMT
    May 9, 2010 9:24 p.m.

    You are applying a title to moderate that has little use with practice. I am sure this is how you view things but the reality and practice is not so kind. Moderates have been used by the radical left for a long time. Your desire to move things forward amounts to trying to make the most amount of people happy.

    How do you intend to moderate the next level of debt? So when Congress votes to raise the national debt limit to say $15 trillion, are you going to say No or simply ask them to take it to $14 trillion instead? How are you going to "find" another way? And if you do, as you have done for decades now, simply talk them into $14 trillion, no problem. They will "settle" for $14 trillion then ask for $16 trillion next year. Once again our wonderful "moderates" will "talk them down" to only $15 trillion. In the end, you are just being "useful" as they move their shell game forward.

    You give the term "moderate" such noble traits. Sadly, Lenin found a different way to describe it. Bob Bennett spent 18 years trying to "moderate" everything possible.

    Good riddance!

  • homers
    May 9, 2010 8:54 p.m.

    I couldn't vote at my caucus because I was unable to attend. My son in law is deployed in Afghanistan and could not vote at his caucus - someone explain to me how this is a defendable situation?

  • homers
    May 9, 2010 8:42 p.m.

    Mt. Cicero - election laws apply to a closed Republican or Democratic primary election even though they are not general elections - why then do we have no like protections for the caucus? No one will answer my question why we have no safeguards to allow a deployed member of the military to cast a ballot in the caucus - it cannot be defended and it is not fair or right and should be corrected. You may make an argument that they are legal (I would argue otherwise) but you cannot defend a system that disenfranchises people. Nobody has yet made an argument for the caucus that does anything but change the subject, make unfounded accusations about ALL people who did not attend the caucus (all lazy, all uninformed, all disinterested, etc.) the fact is that the caucus system has some fairly glaring inadequacies that would be very easy to fix if the parties were truly interested in engendering participation instead of throwing up roadblocks. Still waiting for someone to defend the system that disenfranchises deployed military personnel.

  • 2nd lantern
    May 9, 2010 7:32 p.m.

    I believe firmly in the Caucus system. This year I had great concerns for the direction of our president and his Congress and had hoped to have an influence ~ somehow. I studied the issues and the major candidates and felt prepared for Caucus night. I ran for state delegate because the only answer I could see is a restoration of what has been lost in our country. Our precinct attendees were 80%+ Bennett supporters. Of course I was not elected after I declared that I could no longer support Mr. Bennett. Since then, I have studied more, written letters, made countless calls, and spoken to delegates of other precincts around the state. Let there be no mistake, I guarantee that my voice WAS well represented yesterday. Those of you who criticize others for not choosing to think like you are protected by the very document that protectss and allows us to not think like you. "United we stand! Divided we fall."

  • @Charles
    May 9, 2010 7:32 p.m.

    @rw: how have political extremists delayed finding a cure for anything? Details please, not your usual hyperbole.

    So, according to you, no one but a moderate is respectful, understanding, agreeable?

    Sounds kind of self-centered to me.

    Would you mind listing all of your moderate beliefs so we can see what a moderate stance is? Again, specifics of what your principled stances are. Your answers will help us all know exactly what it means to be a moderate and understand your position.

  • Moderate Thinking
    May 9, 2010 7:31 p.m.

    @"the truth"

    You are confusing a "Moderate" with appeasers and apathetics.

    Think about the word as a verb. What does it mean to moderate? It means to help move all parties or groups who are supposed to be working together in a direction of progress and common good. A Moderate is therefore a true representative, because they recognize the equality of all.

    Feel free to complain about neutrals, apathetics, appeasers, fence-sitters, or flip-floppers. But don't misuse the label of Moderate in referring to such people. On behalf of Moderates everywhere, we find it offensive.

  • rw
    May 9, 2010 7:21 p.m.

    Forgive me for that last rant. But the acts of political extremists have delayed finding a cure for serious diseases that I and my family have, and they have driven us nearly into bankruptcy. They have also set a tone of discourse in our country that is destroying us. Being a moderate is not about backing down. It's not about giving up. It's not about denying your principles, your values. It's about showing respect for other people, being able to work with them, understanding that sometimes three steps forward and one step back is better than standing still.

  • @Charles
    May 9, 2010 7:14 p.m.

    @jmt: don't worry, you aren't the only one who is censored by the ever sensitive people who are the gatekeeper to the 1st Amendment at the DNews.

    What would the press say if Bill Ayers, bomber of the Pentagon, was a close friend of Bush and was in the White House quite often??

    Bennett was released because he is out of touch with those principles he was supposed to be fighting for. Hatch will go down next time if he doesn't retire before. The writing is on the wall and it's loud and clear --- stand up for conservative principles or be voted out.

    @Susan -- you want cuts? well start with all the entitlement programs created by Progressives which leads to the enslavement of the people. Then we would have enough money for the government to actually do what the Constitution tells it to which is secure the border and defend the country.

    The government isn't supposed to be your mommy and daddy taking care of you from cradle to grave. Sure, some people need assistance but that's what charities and churches are for.

  • rw
    May 9, 2010 6:48 p.m.

    Re: the truth

    There is nothing mealymouthed about my views. Anyone who knows me can't get me to shut up about them. But I also believe in the second great commandment. And in the Beatitudes. And I'm not egocentric enough to think that I have all the truth. And I recognize that we all live on this planet together, and we have to get along. And sometimes that involves compromise. Absolute unbendable ideologies lead to war. They are also impractical. They don't solve problems, they cause them. They don't attract adherents, they push away people. There is a big difference between a moderate and an apathetic. A moderate believes that our government is for all the people, not just for those who believe the way they do. The number one problem with our country is that the extremists on both sides are so sure that they are absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong that they will not talk to each other, and therefore get nothing done. And people die. Thank you very much.

  • JMT
    May 9, 2010 6:38 p.m.

    The moderators are out in force today. If I had to guess they object to the term "useful idiot."

    Maybe this is because they are in on the game. Maybe it is because they have no clue of history. Maybe they have no idea that this was a known strategy of Marxist forces.

    Lenin was famously quoted as saying that as they marched world socialism forward they would be assisted by weak politicians who simply wanted to be popular. He refered to these politicians as "useful idiots." They ultimately opposed world socialism yet, since they had no clue what they were doing they were useful. His words, not mine.

    With Obama we see people openly advocating for socialism and Marxism. For heaven sakes, one of your posters has chosen the screen name of "Marxist." We are no longer debating between the lines. We are now openly fighting those who openly advocating world socialism and marxism. No more hidden agendas. No more games or guessing. It is in the open.

    And in this game there remain those who don't have a clue. They are very useful for Lenin's great-grandchildren.

    Is reality too tough for the moderators?

  • Ex-Pat of Zion
    May 9, 2010 6:35 p.m.

    The return of the king men? While polishing your agendas for the 2010 revolution folks, remember what was promised. Just as an example (illegal immigration): "I will stir them up to be a scourge unto thy seed". Also, read Collected Works of Hugh Nibley vol 8. pp 328-379, 435-468 Excellent discourse. It wouldn't hurt to brush up on Jacob chapter 2, Mosiah 2-4 ... um ... actually read the entire Book of Mormon. Find the flaws in the reasoning or use the same sources to defend your argument.

  • Susan
    May 9, 2010 6:19 p.m.

    What would you cut? Show me. Exactly. "Cutting waste" is a cop out.

    If you are going to blame Clinton for 9/11 then blame Bush Sr. for the first World Trade Center bombing. If you make the argument that Clinton cut defense, remember he had a republican secretary of defense (Cohen) and a republican congress. So it was Republicans who made us vulnerable by cutting defense budgets. You can only pin 9/11 on Clinton if you ignore the facts.

    The debt was $1 Trillion when Reagan took office. It was $3 Trillion when he left and $4.2 Trillion when Bush Sr. left office. It was $5 Trillion when W took office and $10 Trillion when he left. Those are numbers. Facts. Republicans were on watch for the worst terrorist attack in our history, spent us into debt, and presided over the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression. Keep voting GOP if you want. (And Iraq? Got WMD? I know it must be awful to be a republican given the last 8 years but you'd do better to face reality. Your party is as bankrupt as it has left my country.)

  • @Charles
    May 9, 2010 6:08 p.m.

    @ the truth: thanks for speaking the truth about these so-called moderates.

    @ great plains saint: how had Bennett suffered? He was elected to office and now he wasn't elected to office. What suffering took place?

    Your ignorance is showing as Bennett can't run as an Independent once he declared and ran in a different party. What a beautiful law, isn't it?

    You hate the Tea Partiers, huh? Why? They believe in limited government, low taxes, personal property rights, the Constitution. What's so hateful about that?

    It sounds to me that you need to bone up on what is actually taking place in this nation and stand up and be counted are get run over by the conservative train that is coming through!

  • the truth
    May 9, 2010 5:35 p.m.

    RE: rw | 6:33 a.m

    YOu missed a big one,

    a moderate, is one has NO courage to take a stand for what he believes, stands for nothing,

    but is quite willing to compromise his principles, if they have any, and the country,

    they just want to please everyone,

    rather than doing the unpopuar but right thing,

    for evil to triumph all it takes is for good men to do nothing,

    fence sitters are dispicable.

    it is one theing to moderation in your diet,
    or moderation in drinking, moderation time watchng tv,

    it is one thing to comprimise on details, in order to get something done,

    it is quite another to compromise your values, principles, beliefs, and even the country.

    IF you do not stand for something,

    then you stand for nothing, and you permissively allow evil to flourish.

    This vote today shows the people want their repesentative or senator to stand for something,

    and not be mealymouthed on all the things that are effecting this country from bailouts (corporate welfare) and outrageous spending, to the total socialization and federal take over of ths once great country.

  • Uteology
    May 9, 2010 5:25 p.m.

    sandieg0b0y | 1:46 a.m. May 9, 2010

    Obama's radical policies are destroying the nation and Bennett sat around and played the fiddle.


    Yes, just like how unemployment rose from 4.6 to 7.7 before he took office to from 7.7 to 9.7 after he took office.

    Both parties spend the difference being Democrats want to pay for it with taxes while Republicans buy on credit.

    Under Regan we became a debtor nation for the first time in history. Clinton left a surplus, and Bush II left the mess for another Democrat to clean up.

  • David G Woolley
    May 9, 2010 5:12 p.m.

    Senator Bennett argues that he has seniority, which also means he understands who to work within the system. He is a manager. One who is acquainted with how Washington works.

    I want someone who is going to stand up everyday the sentate and explain where we have strayed from the constitution. I want a senator who when asked what he is going To DO in congress, answers that the reporter is asking the wrong question. The right question is what are we going to undo. A hundred years of moving from a republic to a democracy filled with legislation that has taken away all the decision-making from the states and given the federal government control. I want a senator who will restore the republic be repealing thousands of overreaching federal laws. I want a senator who will tear down all those federal buildings that house all those federal entitlement programs and turn them ALL BACK TO THE STATES. If New Jersey wants health care, let them have health care. If Utah wants freedom from government controlled health care, let them have it.

    We need a senator/teacher to teach us how to restore our republic. Bennet is not it.

  • Great Plains Saint
    May 9, 2010 5:09 p.m.

    I am saddened that a good family man with high values has suffered as a result of a group that does not represent this Saint or the Political party I was reared in. I hope Senator Bennett will run as an Independent. The Tea Hate Party has no place in my faith or in its destruction of the party of Lincoln and TR.

  • Anti Bush-Obama
    May 9, 2010 4:05 p.m.

    Re: Utahbluedevil

    Demonizing the founding fathers is the ultimate step towards the loss of freedom that will be soon coming to America.

    I'm not denying the fact that jefferson had his problems.

    But when people claim to fight communism with one hand and embrace it on the other hand, it is the same as not fighting it at all. No man can serve two masters.

    If we don't restore the government to it's proper size and it's proper role, we will have a police state. That has been the case with every government in history. We are revolting in the best way possible. I don't want to live in a police state, hopefully the general public feels the same.

    You tell me to remember history, look at the history of how government were overthrown, None of them were due to peacful revolution unless it was a tyrannical government that was being overthrown.

  • UtahBlueDevil
    May 9, 2010 3:49 p.m.

    Hey Anti Bush Obama,

    You also forget to mention that Jefferson also ended up a plantation slave holder who fathered a child with one of his slaves, who he himself couldn't balance a budget, ending his life broke and deeply in debt.

    His work in founding this country should never be ignored, discredited or diminished. But the reality of the man should not be ignored either. He was hardly a church going man, nor one that wasn't known to pursue his interest to his own financial harm.

    So lets balance history a little bit, and recognize that the world we live in today is hugely different that today, and that there were many gaping holes in the document these men crafted that have taken over 200 years to correct.

    Take off the rose colored glasses and very history as it really was, not the fairy sanitized version we are always fed.

    America is a great country, but it has had its rough spots, which people shed blood to fix. Lets us never forget that.

    Bennett deserved better. The right has taken a turn towards the cliff... it will be interesting to watch what comes next.

  • youngsterz
    May 9, 2010 3:31 p.m.

    Susan & Billy Bob: You've both missed one other critical point: Clinton helped balance the budget in large part because of heavy cuts in defense spending, which really opened the door to 9/11. Our economy was relatively strong, but our defense was weak, and we got caught with our pants down.

    It is extremely short-sighted to attribute a current economy to the actions of a single man (the president) currently in office, or the immediate past president. Things typically take far longer than that to fully impact what is going on. Social Security seemed like a fine idea 50 years ago, but now it is really a problem. It is every president's fault since for not reigning it in.

    We can't keep layering up the entitlement programs, and spending more and more money. Financial catastrophe is yet to really hit us, and the recent bubbles & busts are only a small part of the complete meltdown that is the inevitable result of overspending, overregulation, and government manipulation of markets, money, and economics.

    That is why we voted out Bennett yesterday. He is part of that overspending big government that is in the process of completely destroying us.

  • Anti Bush-Obama
    May 9, 2010 3:28 p.m.

    Re : Ajax 5:06 pm.

    "Under the guise of moral outrage extremism encourages intolerance and vengeance, emotions that feed on themselves to the detriment of everyone. It is often a precursor of ruinous group behavior that can later bring regret. So at odds with what we like to think of as the American way, conservative extremism, in my view, is the problem rather than any kind of solution."

    If the founding fathers had your mentality, we would still be controlled by the English.

    Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism."

  • homers
    May 9, 2010 3:22 p.m.

    brillo - I was out of town attending the delivery of my grandson - I would have loved to have voted for a state and county delegate by absentee ballot though. BTW - my son-in-law is in Afghanistan and he didn't get to go to the caucus either. Yea, I know, we are just lazy good for nothings who don't care. Now, that you essentially accused me of whining and that I really don't care - explain to me why my son-in-law doesn't get a chance to cast his vote even though he saves your fanny on a day to day basis.

  • @Charles
    May 9, 2010 1:51 p.m.

    @County Resident: You aren't being forbidden to do anything. Of your own free will and choice, you choose not to join a party to decide who the representative of that party will be.

    It's an easy concept to understand. Being that I'm not a member of your family, will you allow me to come in and vote on family decisions? Of course not. It's a ludicrous statement, right?

    If you don't want to take a stand and join a party that is your right. But don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you when those who do join a party, work hard within the party to make it better, meet with their neighbors for an hour every 2 years, elect delegates who will represent them and then said delegates vote in the convention.

    It's a great process; one that takes it directly to the neighborhoods! How much more grass roots can that be.

    What I find funny is the general public is really ignorant about the votes of incumbents but vote for them based on name recognition or soundbites.

    Voting apathy is also pathetic.

    You get to choose what you do.

  • Susan
    May 9, 2010 1:37 p.m.

    Billy Bob, Clinton left office with a 200B surplus. Bush 2 left office with a 1.3 trillion deficit. It wasn't the wars, it's that he refused to fund the wars and instead cut taxes and put it on your credit card. Clinton was on track to eliminate the debt, as he eliminated the deficit. You can give credit to the republicans in Congress or you can say Republican presidents have a harder time cleaning up after dems. But the facts don't support you. Your side says it is fiscally conservative but isn't.

    Which entitlement programs are you going to cut? Social Security? Welfare accounts for less than 2% of the budget. Foreign Aid, another 2%. Unless you are willing to cut social security, Medicare or defense, you've taken about 70% of the budget off the table. Good luck finding enough "waste" with the rest of it to pay off the Reagan/Bush Sr. (tripled it) and W (doubled it) debt. Especially with the job losses and bank failures W brought us. Luckily for all of us, the dems are back to fix it

  • B
    May 9, 2010 1:29 p.m.

    By reading some of the posts from Bennett supporters, I am wondering if the world even existed before he got to Washington. Surely it won't go on after he leaves. What ever will we do without his 'experience and influence' guiding the way in Washington? My guess is that the country will save money and Utah will be just fine.

  • @Charles
    May 9, 2010 1:25 p.m.

    Dear mark: the word is you're not your. It's a contraction for the words you are. When you actually learn English then I'll worry about YOUR criticisms.

    Duly elected delegate.

    Duly did my due diligence.

    Duly voted for who I think is the best candidate.

    Laugh at those who sit on the sidelines and don't get involved but whine about the system.

    I guess you didn't go to your caucus or weren't able to convince your neighbors to vote for you. Either one, it doesn't really matter.

    I have yet to hear anyone and I didn't hear it yesterday say that Bennett is a bad man. Bennett is a good and decent man. His time came up and people voted for a change. What is so difficult to understand about that? The way DC works? Not a good enough reason....Bennett was a freshman once and now he is retired. If he couldn't get it done in 18 years what would another 6 do.

    Hatch is next. Chaffetz will take him out in 2 years. Mark it down on your calendar!

    @mark --- waaaaaa! :)

  • goatesnotes
    May 9, 2010 1:11 p.m.

    The world of politics is complex. There are no simple answers.

    However, in the case of Senator Bennett, few realized had he been elected he would have been the OLDEST Senator EVER elected in Utah. Tall order.

    That issue about his age was simple.

    It's time to rebuild for the future, scrap the seniority system in Washington and restore sanity to fiscal policy. Ending entitlement programs is job one.

    It's complex, not easy to do. It will be an uphill battle from here on in.

    Is there anybody out there who really believes ousting Senator Bennett was the work of a radical, extremist, vocal minority, a conspiracy within the Republican party?

    Please, spare me the dramatics.

    This is time marching on. Senator Bennett's time was up. He served well.

    One race on one day in May isn't going to turn the world on its ear. . . but it's a pretty good start.

    Bridgewater hit it out of the park yesterday. Lee has some work to do.

    But don't misunderstand what happened.

    The outcome yesterday was mostly self-inflicted by Bennett. He forgot the seat belongs to THE PEOPLE.

    Not complex.

    It's simple.

    Move on.

  • mark
    May 9, 2010 1:06 p.m.

    @Charles|7:10 p.m. May 8, 2010
    oh the complaining about the caucus system...whaaaa

    Bob was released from his calling with a vote of thanks.

    Well, given that stance, let's just get rid of Congress and have every vote on every issue decided by the people.

    After all, many fools on these pages

    ....It's time to wake up from your nap people and get educated...


    Okay, this is what is wrong with the cacaus system. This person was elected a delegate.

    "waaaaaaaa" Really? I mean really? And your an adult?

  • Solomon Levi
    May 9, 2010 12:56 p.m.

    I predicted this right after the Republican caucuses when the Bennett supporters in a very conservative Republican precinct were soundly defeated.

    Too many politicians who spend their lives in Washington forget who they represent back home.

  • Not_Scared
    May 9, 2010 12:22 p.m.

    Billy Reagan run and ran from Beirut, had the most convictions within his administration than any president in American history, he trained Ben Ladan and others who are now terrorist and he sold arms to Iran.

    Under Bush the Taliban recaptured 90% of Afghanistan.

    It was republican senator Phil Gramm that pushed through the bills that created this recession.

  • County Resident
    May 9, 2010 12:18 p.m.

    To Samuel Adams:

    "The caucus process was open to all who wanted to participate. The delegates are regular Moms, Dads, workers, and students. They performed their authorized duty and the "Voice of the People" has spoken."

    Clarity (nice GOP word): The GOP caucus process is open only to select GOP delegates and it is NOT the "voice of the people." It is only the voice of a select few who first chose to pledge allegiance to a political party. Bob Bennett lost by delegates who are NOT in touch with the electorate of the state. Poll after poll showed Bennett was liked by the voters. This could bite the GOP come November.

    Lastly, I should be able to vote because I am an American...not a republican nor a democrat. I've voted for republicans and democrats but the Utah GOP seems to further alienate me from the process. I have to join the GOP party to be a delegate and join the GOP party to vote in the primary. Alas, this American is being forbidden to vote in the primary because I refuse to pledge allegiance to the GOP.

  • Moderate Thinking
    May 9, 2010 12:15 p.m.


    Well said on explaining what a Moderate is. Most people understand these things, and it is unfortunate that there are so many others feel that "standing up for their principles" can only be done at the expense of others.

    We Moderates want the same things as anyone. The only main difference is that we want it for everybody, and are willing to work with others whose views may differ from ours because they, after all, deserve the same say in the shaping of their society too.

    A Moderate primarily focuses on the methodology of how policies are made. Ideological beliefs are only secondary.

    I hope more Moderates will speak up in the political sphere. Let's not allow the extremists to dictate our future.

  • Billy Bob
    May 9, 2010 12:13 p.m.

    To Susan (continued)

    OK, I almost forgot something. You also have to take in to consideration what the Presidents had to work with. Reagan had the Cold War as well as Carter's mess to clean up... and still had an improving economy for most of his term. Bush had 9/11 and increasing America's defense against terrorism to deal with... oh, not to mention two huge economic bubbles being burst (internet and housing),the foundation of which were set in Clinton's term. Clinton, on the other hand, had a relative cake walk as President, and he still managed to be in office when the foundations for the housing bust and the internet bust were set.

    So, I guess I shot down your absurd claim in more then 200 words. But it was still fun.

  • DN Subscriber
    May 9, 2010 12:03 p.m.

    Good process.

    Good results.

    Bennett is a good guy, but proved himself unwilling to actually fight for what he said he believes in. That is why he was replaced.

    This was not an overnight Tea Party movement, but the outcome of several years where career Republicans lost their way, became big spenders, and chose to get along with their "colleagues" rather than stand up for smaller government, less spending, and more freedom.

    Chris Cannon got dumped in 2008. Bennett in 2010. Hatch will be next in 2012.

    Fiscal restraint must be restored to our country immediately if we are to save it from collapse due to unsustainable spending-- see Argentina and Greece as shining examples of what will happen if we do not turn things around.

    I hope Senators and Representatives from other states are paying close attention. Perhaps their voters are not as quick to act as Utahns, but this is a tide of reality which is sweeping the change (for the worse) away.

  • Billy Bob
    May 9, 2010 11:54 a.m.

    To Susan

    If you really think Clinton would have us out of debt right now, then you obviously don't know anything about economics. Likewise, if you think the national debt is attributable only to Reagan and the two Bushes, you obviously don't know anything about how the economy works. The President is not the only one who can effect the economy (or the national debt), not by a long shot. To place all the blame on 3 people is ignorant and shows your liberal bias.

    You also obviously need to brush up on your history. Most of Reagan's spending (that he was responsible for) was due to national defense/the Cold War. Much of Bush 2's spending was due to defense (but I really don't agree with much of his other spending). Also, Reagan had a mostly Democrat congress. Clinton had a mostly Republican congress. Yes, indeed, your bias is showing. But please keep making absurd claims. They are fun to shoot down in 200 words or less.

  • Billy Bob
    May 9, 2010 11:45 a.m.

    To ExAFvet

    You are right it is undemocratic, as it should be. We are a Republic, not a democracy. There is a difference.

  • facts_r_stubborn
    May 9, 2010 10:04 a.m.

    Congratulations to Mr. Bridgewater and Mr. Lee. Good luck in the coming primary.

    To those celebrating Senator Bennett's ouster, broad sweeping idealistic platitudes are quickly tempered by the school of hard knocks.

    Just like in life itself there is idealistic thinking and then there is actually doing. Once a new Senator is in place he will need to overcome determined and powerful opposition and make tough decisions based on reality. Passion is great, results are better.

    The T. Party folks will go back homes with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads. The new Senator will need to represent the interests of all Utahns not just the far right.

    Senator Bennett still has some important work to do in fighting for intelligent regulation of financial institutions. The Democrat bill in the Senate and House right now is a very flawed and over-reaching piece of legislation.

    Many Republicans also do not understand this issue, which is the key bill before the Senate right now. Senator Bennett does understand it, as I've talked with his top aide on this issue. Hopefully he will have some success in amending and improving the legislation, before he retires.

  • Susan
    May 9, 2010 9:52 a.m.

    The national debt is the result of 3 presidents: Reagan and the two Bushes. It went up a little under other presidents but it skyrocketed under those two. If it is the deficit that bothers you, re-elect Clinton. He left a surplus. We would be out of debt by now if he was still president.
    The US pays 16% of its GDP on medical care. Other Western countries pay 8%. The US pays more than any other country but ranks 37th in quality of care. If we don't do something about health care it will bankrupt us. Other countries with cheaper health care live an average of 4 years longer than we do. Look it up. These are all facts. Oh, and the rocket industry in Utah? 800 jobs lost making rockets for the space shuttle. You don't want to cut that? And the banking bail out? Has already made a profit. With Bennett gone we will lose far more than 800 jobs in Utah's Thrift/Banking industry. Facts. Stubborn things. Use them.

  • Thomas Jefferson
    May 9, 2010 9:42 a.m.

    Perhaps Utah will finally show the extreme reich that they know how to vote for a democrat for senate. Probably not but if the moderates want they will have the power to fundamental change the way GOP politicians pander. We need them pandering to the middle, not the extreme.

  • sergio
    May 9, 2010 9:13 a.m.

    Senator Bennett deserves a thank you for his service, but he has been in office beyond his usefullness. Career polititions are toxic to American democracy. There needs to be term limits to keep America's political system healthy.

  • dyc
    May 9, 2010 9:12 a.m.

    I find it truly sad that our state delegates (I won't say we because I didn't have the opportunity to vote on this) threw out a seasoned, powerful, and well-respected senator. It's time to change the caucus system in Utah. Caucuses are fine, up to a point, but all registered voters should be able to vote on the top three candidates in a primary.

    Sadly, the extremists are taking over our state and that scares me!

  • mt_cicero
    May 9, 2010 9:12 a.m.

    re Homers: I might be more sympathetic to your case about the caucus system being "unconstitutional" if political parties weren't private groups. If a group of like-minded individuals wanted to start the "Johnson" party of Utah and only allow people with the last name of "Johnson" and who live on one street in Salt Lake to either run or vote for who represents their group in the election, then more power to them. In my family the parents' votes count for more than the kids' votes when it comes to family decisions. My family is also a private group. So unless you're campaigning for the 1 man 1 vote premise to apply to my family, I suggest perhaps you consider just what the scope of the U.S. Constitution really is.

  • Mike G
    May 9, 2010 8:56 a.m.

    This is really foolish for Utah. As one who grew up in Utah and has been away for professional education for nearly a decade, I won't likely be back due to the ferocity of the "Republican" party. As a card carrying Republican, it's hard for me to understand this move. Senator Bennett has served Utah relentlessly for several years, now holds high-ranking positions in the Senate and you choose to let him go because he has been a helpful member of the Senate? Good luck with your candidate in November...I predict a Democrat will be elected and that will pour some salt into your wounds.

  • Patrick Henry
    May 9, 2010 8:42 a.m.


    even it bailout Bob had won another term it would have been his last. The option was to lose a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee now or in another 6 years. The tradeoff is getting someone who will actually vote the will of the people and not his own will. Of his voting record he said"Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career." And that is why he got canned. He didn't want to REPRESENT the people It is so shortsighted of you and everyone else to not realize that.

  • crazedc
    May 9, 2010 8:32 a.m.

    These delegates are doing a good job at making me want to vote for a Democrat senator for the first time. Wish tea-party people would join the Libertarian party instead, it seems to much better reflect their beliefs.

  • Esquire
    May 9, 2010 8:22 a.m.

    The tea party nuts will crow and take credit, saying that this helps return the GOP to whatever they think America should look like based on 1787 rather than 2010. However, this only shows they are marginalizing the party, not the country. It might work in Utah, but it won't work nationally. Utah's GOP is extreme right wing, and I wonder if Utahns will grow weary of it.

  • Bugi
    May 9, 2010 7:56 a.m.

    "Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn’t have cast any of [the votes] any differently, even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career."

    First elected at age 53 he promised to serve two terms only.

    At age 76 he is seeking a fourth term.

    There's the problem. He considered the job a career.

    Adios Bob-Oh. Get a dog. Go raise tomatoes.

  • Dixie Dan
    May 9, 2010 6:46 a.m.

    Great, now we have the opportunity to send someone to Congress to represent our state with zero political experience. With this lack of experience, he says he will cut taxes, restore our Constitution and eliminate the Federal government from our daily life. How unique that he is going to do this as a freshman Senator. Enjoy the show Utah, you deserve what you voted for.

  • rw
    May 9, 2010 6:33 a.m.

    What is a moderate?

    A moderate doesn't boo people they don't agree with.
    A moderate speaks respectfully of those with differing views.
    A moderate believes that people are more important than parties or ideologies.
    A moderate focuses on the 95% that they have in common with the other side, and builds on that.
    A moderate accepts the fact that they don't know everything.
    A moderate recognizes that those with differing opinions are also trying to do the right thing.
    A moderate is more interested in solving problems than proving who's right, and will recognize a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from.

  • Cats
    May 9, 2010 6:28 a.m.

    The claim is made that this was a Tea-Party event. The fact is that there is a little more to it than that.

    The far-right have been trying to take over the GOP for years. Even though they are a minority in the party, they get themselves elected as delegates and try to wreak havoc at the convention. This year they succeeded.

    Did I agree with Senator Bennett't TARP vote. NO I DID NOT! But, I think he should have been allowed to get to the primary where the maintstream of the party would have had a chance to make the decision.

    I will be supporting Mike Lee, who I think will make an excellent senator. But, I think it is terrible the way Senator Bennett has been treated.

  • DC
    May 9, 2010 6:25 a.m.

    The delegates must have little understanding on how DC works. If change is what they want, then change they will get. Less influence in DC, less ability to get anything done for Utah, and more partisanship. Not everyone thinks like Utah does, and Bennett's best attribute (similar to Hatch) is that he can reach out to the other side when needs be. And guess what, this needs be was this current Congress when Republicans were in the super minority until the Brown election in Mass. Bennett gets railed on for his partnering with Wyden on the HC bill - think what the health care bill would have looked like if it did have Republicans hands on it. If you know something is going to pass, you might as well try and make it a little more palatable.
    Congrats, Utah. You'll get what the delegates think you deserve - less representation in DC, at a time when you least can afford it.

  • rw
    May 9, 2010 6:24 a.m.

    Let's add a "none of the above" option for every office on the ballot. And if we don't like who the conventions have chosen, we can choose "none of the above" and the parties have to go back to the drawing board. New candidates, new election. Until they choose someone we can live with. It would cost more time and money, but not as much as having the wrong person in office.

  • Arnold
    May 9, 2010 6:22 a.m.

    This is a great opportunity for Utahns to reject the radical fringes that have dominated the Utah GOP.
    Hate to see such a price being paid.

  • mississippi
    May 9, 2010 6:21 a.m.

    I lived in Utah for over 30 years and was a state delegate and would have voted for Sen. Bennett, but I'm temporarily living in Mississippi. Several years ago I had the opportunity to meet with him in his Washington DC office for over 45 minutes about an issue near to my heart--he was extremely honest about the prospects of my issue and though it wasn't what I wanted to hear, I respected his candor and honesty. He is not a political hack as some would say--he's a statesmen and he deserves respect from the Republican Party. From what I read the convention attenders should be ashamed and some of the comments are atrocious. The caucus system is a disaster with the party hijacked by the extreme right and yes I have attended every caucus mtg since the 1970's. Most people play nice at the caucus mtgs. as they go to church and live with the attendees. Utah republicans desperately need a new system. Please Sen. Bennett consider a write-in campaign--the majority is there. Regardless, thanks for your service and good luck in the future.

  • rw
    May 9, 2010 6:15 a.m.

    We can counter the control of the electoral process by the extremists if we do one thing. Add a "none of the above" option to the candidates for every office. If "none of the above" wins, we have to start all over with that office, the original candidates can't run again. Yes, it will cost more time and money, but not as much as having the wrong candidate in office.

  • ExAFvet
    May 9, 2010 2:54 a.m.

    I think that Utah's system of nomination is completely undemocratic. ALL Republicans should have a say in who the nominee will be.

  • Sunny0927
    May 9, 2010 1:48 a.m.

    We've traded a ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee for a political unknown. As every "newbie" has found out, they count for nothing in Washington. How short-sighted!

  • sandieg0b0y
    May 9, 2010 1:46 a.m.

    Look, Bennett's a good guy and a decent politican, but he was kicked out not because of some extreme right wing conspiracy as the worried liberals are desperately trying to convince everyone, but simply because he abandoned his constituency at a time when his constituency needed him most.

    Obama's radical policies are destroying the nation and Bennett sat around and played the fiddle. This was his great sin and the reason so many regular Utahns are upset with him...and now he has paid the price for it.

    We need someone in place who we can trust will have our backs when the going gets tough. And it looks like it's going to be a tough few years...

    So I'm voting Bridgewater. (I don't think Lee knows what is going on. All he ever talks about is the constitution because it's all he knows. Everything else he says is pretty weak.)

    Here's to better times.

  • brillo
    May 9, 2010 1:29 a.m.

    I can't help wondering how many people whining about the caucus system bothered to attend their caucus. homers, did you go to yours?

  • Rational
    May 9, 2010 1:05 a.m.

    By all means, lets tilt at windmills. This was a stupid, stupid, stupid vote.

  • On the other hand
    May 9, 2010 12:39 a.m.

    The caucus system is fantastic. As other readers have pointed out, we are a republic, not a democracy. Rather than seek information and make decisions on our own, we elect informed people to make decisions on our behalf. It is such a great system, in fact, that I think we should take it even one or two steps further. Let's create a pre-caucus system, where we vote for people to attend the precinct caucuses, who will then vote for people to attend the county caucuses, who will then vote for people to attend the state caucuses. This way, we the people get lots of opportunities to delegate actual candidate selection to individuals who are progressively (or should I say conservatively) more informed than us, and then the masses can happily live in ignorance. Such are the luxuries of a republic.

    P.S. I believe China is a republic, too...

  • Nate
    May 8, 2010 11:46 p.m.

    Your turn, Arizona.

  • B
    May 8, 2010 11:36 p.m.

    Dear Al at 11:01 pm, the Democrats are irrelevant.
    Dear Not_Sacred at 10:38 pm, the Democrat Party is current presiding over 10% unemployment, huge deficits, and your Senate Majority leader is about to meet the same fate as Bennett. You cannot be serious.
    To all Bennett supporters, we fared okay before Bennett and we will be fine after Bennett. New blood is good.

  • alphus1
    May 8, 2010 11:33 p.m.

    Some, indeed most, have a superficial knowledge of politics, history, economics and particularly the general principles upon which this great nation was founded. Now we find ourselves on the brink of a great abyss and gratefully a majority of these party activist get that. They probably rejected Bennett somewhat reluctantly but he flat got too cozy with the foolish and the evil that now govern the nation. Bennett never really saw the light until he felt the heat and his great error was to propose a HC bill that was little better than Obama's. Ye that rue what happened today would have called the signers of The Declaration, nuts, radicals,etc - of that I have no doubt. The less one knows, the less one understands, the more apt you are to float in the mushy middle. I for one am glad that the stout of heart and incisive of mind won the day in 1776. If you don't get it after the last two years - God help you - you never will.

  • Haiku
    May 8, 2010 11:33 p.m.

    There was no relief
    For Bailout Bob, the bankers'
    Most troubled asset.

  • homers
    May 8, 2010 11:22 p.m.

    @Charles - get educated - who could possible defend as fair and good a system that disenfranchised our deploy military - can someone please address this and tell me it is fair and right?
    The 18 year old kid who had to work because the law does not mandate that employers allow their employees to attend the caucus - can someone address this and tell me it is fair and right? Why is there no mandated absentee ballots for the caucus system so that ALL CITIZENS have the right to participate? Can someone explain to me how this system if fair and right or even legal? Any municipal election that does not give ALL CITIZENS the opportunity to vote has been declared illegal. Any state election in any state that does not allow ALL CITIZENS to vote has been declared illegal. Any primary election in any state that does not allow ALL CITIZENS to vote has been declared illegal and yet we continue to not allow ALL CITIZENS to vote and justify it because we "are involved and anyone who wants to can make the sacrifice to go to their caucus and vote - it is simply not true!

  • Alex 1
    May 8, 2010 11:19 p.m.

    Not_Scared | 10:38 p.m. May 8, 2010:

    "Thanks. We democrats are looking better by the day!"

    Whose mirror are you looking in?

  • homers
    May 8, 2010 11:16 p.m.

    @Charles - get educated - who could possible defend as fair and good a system that disenfranchised our deploy military - can someone please address this and tell me it is fair and right?
    The 18 year old kid who had to work because the law does not mandate that employers allow their employees to attend the caucus - can someone address this and tell me it is fair and right? Why is there no mandated absentee ballots for the caucus system so that ALL CITIZENS have the right to participate? Can someone explain to me how this system if fair and right or even legal? Any municipal election that does not give ALL CITIZENS the opportunity to vote has been declared illegal. Any state election in any state that does not allow ALL CITIZENS to vote has been declared illegal. Any primary election in any state that does not allow ALL CITIZENS to vote has been declared illegal and yet we continue to not allow ALL CITIZENS to vote and justify it because we "are involved and anyone who wants to can make the sacrifice to go to their caucus and vote - it is simply not true!

  • Clint/Utah
    May 8, 2010 11:09 p.m.

    He is a good man and I didn't agree on everything. I hope and wish him well. we need to get Term limits and no more career Senators.Its too easy for those Lobby boys in ur pockets on bothsides of the isle...

    May 8, 2010 11:06 p.m.

    At least Jake Gibson (a Fox News writer) gets it. He summed it up this way:

    "The opposition to Bennett is specific, and can't be chalked up solely to a general anti-incumbency fervor. Neither of Utah's two Republican congressmen are at risk of losing their seats, and Republican Gov. Gary Herbert doesn't have any serious challengers.

    But Bennett's vote to bail out Wall Street left many Republicans feeling he had become too much of a Washington insider. He's also come under fire for co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill mandating health insurance coverage and for aggressively pursuing earmarks."

    May 8, 2010 11:05 p.m.

    At least Jake Gibson (a Fox News writer) gets it. He summed it up this way:

    "The opposition to Bennett is specific, and can't be chalked up solely to a general anti-incumbency fervor. Neither of Utah's two Republican congressmen are at risk of losing their seats, and Republican Gov. Gary Herbert doesn't have any serious challengers.

    But Bennett's vote to bail out Wall Street left many Republicans feeling he had become too much of a Washington insider. He's also come under fire for co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill mandating health insurance coverage and for aggressively pursuing earmarks."

    May 8, 2010 11:03 p.m.

    At least Jake Gibson (a Fox News writer) gets it. He summed it up this way:

    "The opposition to Bennett is specific, and can't be chalked up solely to a general anti-incumbency fervor. Neither of Utah's two Republican congressmen are at risk of losing their seats, and Republican Gov. Gary Herbert doesn't have any serious challengers.

    But Bennett's vote to bail out Wall Street left many Republicans feeling he had become too much of a Washington insider. He's also come under fire for co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill mandating health insurance coverage and for aggressively pursuing earmarks."

  • Alex 1
    May 8, 2010 11:01 p.m.

    I am just thrilled that Utah went ahead and got rid of him. Don't get me wrong. Bob Bennett is not a bad guy. The problem is that he has developed the all too common mindset that his Senate seat belongs to him. When that happens to anybody, it is high time for them to go home. Plus, the people of Utah need someone in there who is fresh for the fight.

    Bennett, you've done your time. Go home and spend time with your wife and grandkids. Oh, and by all means, be a gracious loser and back the Republican nominee.

  • Al
    May 8, 2010 11:01 p.m.

    The democrats have won! Not because of the failure of Bennett to get into a primary, but because they have the republicans fighting each other. All you have to do is read these comments. A few have been gracious and complimentary, most have been filled with contempt and anger at fellow conservatives.

    I will wager that we are in for a mudslinging, vicious primary if what I read from the commenters continues.

    Thank you Mike Richards for finally showing some civility. I hope that it is not just because you won. To now thank Bob Bennett for his service after the vicious and sometimes untrue attacks you have been making lately against him sounds more like gloating than civility. Would you have been so gracious had Bennett won? I hope so.

  • utah guy
    May 8, 2010 10:55 p.m.

    I listened to the "debate" between all four candidates on the Republican side yesterday on KNRS. I can't decide which was the biggest buffoon - Lee or Bridgewater. Neither could actually answer a question with specifics. Good luck, Republicans with your angry "cut" rhetoric. I hope you are ready to take your own medicine with those cuts start to have an effect on Utahns.

  • Clint/Utah
    May 8, 2010 10:51 p.m.

    I thought he was a good man. I didn't agree on some views but its time for a change. Now its for the Senate to have Term limits. No more Career boys. I'm sick of loyal lobbiest on both sides of the isle...

  • Not_Scared
    May 8, 2010 10:38 p.m.

    Thanks. We democrats are looking better by the day!

  • goatesnotes
    May 8, 2010 10:13 p.m.

    Momentum to Tim Bridgewater. He was great today. He connected.

    He outpolled Mike Lee, the frontrunner going into the convention, and Lee was lucky to garner enough support after three rounds of voting to finish a distant second and barely make the primary.

    Senator Bennett deserves the thanks of all Utahns. He has served us well. He did the best he knew.

    His biggest miscalculation: He couldn't read the tea leaves and step aside gracefully.

    Biggest misinterpretation: These were mainstream party faithfuls who ousted Bennett, not the wild-eyed radical wing nuts the media would have you believe.

    The message was simple: Bring on the next generation.

    Maybe Orrin will be wiser than Bob and step aside on his own. The greeting for Orrin today was decidedly cool and detached.

  • youngsterz
    May 8, 2010 9:59 p.m.

    I find it hilarious that because I believe in fiscal conservatism and getting government spending under control, this somehow makes me an uber crazy right wing racist lunatic. Wow, who'da thunk? I sure don't feel like a rabid crazy person. In fact, I feel pretty normal, and if a desire to reign in our government spending somehow makes me Satan's spawn, well . . . that just baffles me. But that is what I keep being told by anyone who disagrees with cutting Bennett loose, or anyone who thinks bigger and bigger government is the cure to all that ails us.

    I politely disagree.

    Kudos to the delegates who sent a message today, and chose to send more fiscally conservative candidates to a primary. Bennett may technically be a conservative, but he is a huge spender, and that is what people rejected today.

    I predict that a substantial majority of Utahns agree with me, and not with the vocal minority who are the true crazies of the blogosphere.

  • Franklin
    May 8, 2010 9:54 p.m.

    The voice of "We The People" of Utah has spoken, and Senator Bennett is retired. We will risk the Seniority System and the Earmark entitlements, to elect a Man of Principle and Integrity, either Tim Bridgewater or Mike Lee. We hope the rest of the Country sheds corruption and does the same. Any who accept less, accept corruption. Change starts now, and Utah will start it. The Second American Revolution begins after Scott Brown started it.

  • JMT
    May 8, 2010 9:43 p.m.

    Caucus system. It wasn't a problem for the last 18 years, or Hatch's 30+ years. Its only a problem when the establishment candidate doesn't win. Throw in that the establishment candidate wins most of them, you have no reasion to fear.

    And to all of my moderate, government is the answer to all the worlds problems, the dust will settle by 2012 and you will get Hatch for 40 years.

    What is a moderate anyway? What we are seeing is that they really don't believe in anything, other than being liked by the greatest number of people. For decades we have watched the Democrats encroach on freedoms and increase spending. Moderates always tried to split the baby. If the Dems wanted to raise some tax by X% moderates fight to cut it in half and consider it a victory. The Dems use moderates like Stalin's "Useful idiots." They know you will split every issue so they are patient, knowing that over time you will implement the entire Communist Manifesto for them.

    Seriously, what's a moderate? What do you believe in? What do you stand for? Other than giving the Liberals half victories.

  • CougarKeith
    May 8, 2010 9:32 p.m.

    No sir E "BOB"!!! Clean out your office buddy, we are sick of CAREER POLITICIANS! Hey Hatch, if you actually read your own State Papers, "YOU ARE NEXT!" Clean out every incumbent who has been in office more than 2 terms!!! It's that simple, we'll fix this country the right way, getting rid of all those in Washington until the representatives bring us back to our Roots! See you Bobby boy!!!

  • momfirst
    May 8, 2010 9:28 p.m.

    I ran for delegate in my precinct because I have seen in the past that those involved are to the extreme right. I am conservative, but I guess more moderate than many delegates. I would encourage any one who feels that the far right is taking over the party to get involved in the party and attend your caucus meetings and bring your friends, so that we can have more balance within the Utah Republican Party and among the delegates. That is what I did, and while my voice lost this time, it only takes a hundred or so other delegates like me to make a difference. I studied all of the candidates---spending hours reading, attending events and listening to town hall meetings. There were qualities I liked about all of the candidates, but none of them had the knowledge and solutions that I saw from Bennett---especially on entitlement reform. He is a good man and I am sorry that he was not given the opportunity to serve for another term. His experience and position would have been a blessing for Utah. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.

  • toddjsko
    May 8, 2010 8:57 p.m.

    What can I say - I am glad I moved out of Utah. Good luck with your choices.

  • Pagan
    May 8, 2010 8:57 p.m.

    'It just goes to show that one can't even be conservative in Utah, he must be rabid. So sad.' - 9:40 a.m.

    Couger Blue, well said!

    Though I disagreed on many points with Bennett, I wish him the best in the future.

  • Legalese
    May 8, 2010 8:53 p.m.

    Now send Hatch down the road.

  • SocialistPresident
    May 8, 2010 8:27 p.m.

    Out with the compromisers of principles, the back slapping politicians and those that vote like weather vanes! The American people will always vote with the right wing and against socialists, communists and the left wing.

  • @Charles
    May 8, 2010 8:18 p.m.

    oh the complaining about the caucus system...whaaaa

    Seriously, who is disenfranchised? I was voted in as a delegate but wasn't able to make the meeting.

    For all you Faux 'moderate' Republicans who bemoan conservatives, please post a detailed analysis of what makes you a moderate and those who you decry as extreme, extreme!

    Let's see the list of positions for each category!

    Bob was released from his calling with a vote of thanks.

    Let's move on Utah to analyze Lee and Bridgewater and vote for the best candidate.

    ps, the DNews has run a full-court press all week bemoaning the caucus system and how it disenfranchises people.

    Well, given that stance, let's just get rid of Congress and have every vote on every issue decided by the people. After all, many fools on these pages believe we live in a democracy and not a representative republic....It's time to wake up from your nap people and get educated...

  • CJ
    May 8, 2010 8:14 p.m.

    Great news. No more amnesty votes from Utah for illegal aliens. Now we need to continue the trend and get rid of all the amnesty hacks nationwide and start enforcing the law, fining employers, and sending them all HOME! Good riddance.

  • jhwalton
    May 8, 2010 8:02 p.m.

    It's too bad that a bunch of right-wing rhetoric has booted Bennett from office. He's a solid guy doing a bunch of good in Washington. These tea party movements just killed him...

  • Samuel Adams
    May 8, 2010 8:01 p.m.

    The caucus process was open to all who wanted to participate. The delegates are regular Moms, Dads, workers, and students. They performed their authorized duty and the "Voice of the People" has spoken.

  • Moderate Thinking
    May 8, 2010 7:52 p.m.

    To the 7:10pm poster:

    You asked for more information on the value of being a Moderate and the definitive definitions which separate them from Extremists.

    I would recommend a few sources.

    1st - Look at the website of the organization called "centermovement." This site brings together a variety of Centrist and Moderate sources.

    2nd - I have published a series of essays on the subject. Feel visit the archives of my site, entitled "Moderate Thinking."

  • hello? mcfly?
    May 8, 2010 7:51 p.m.

    Hatch, you are next. Buh Bye

  • B
    May 8, 2010 7:48 p.m.

    Why is it that those who are in government think that nobody else understands the issues? Bennett (and his supporters) badly misread the political climate. Those of us who were against him are not a bunch of 'right wing, conservative, extremist (add your favorite put down here.) We are people who don't usually get this politically involved. We are people who are usually okay with the weaknesses of our leaders and will give them a pass. But this guy lost his way. And for those of you who think we are going to miss his experience and cannot afford a freshman senator, well, we were going to have to replace him sometime. He's 76. Call it a career and help the new Senator, who ever it might be.

  • SocialistPresident
    May 8, 2010 7:43 p.m.

    Good riddance Bennett! Charlie Crist in Florida is next! Crist has taken the coward, sore loser route and running as Independent. But the revolution is just starting!

  • majmajor
    May 8, 2010 7:23 p.m.

    "No new taxes". The three words create the biggest lie of the current parties. Never in the history of the US has the Country fought a SINGLE war and not passed on the cost of that combat to its CURRENT population. The only ones that are paying the cost of our current wars are members of the Armed Forces (and their families), China and all of our children. For the most part, the US Citizen sees no cost of these wars.

    The media doesn't even report the supplemental funding for Iraq and OEF and they are $100 BILLION every 4-6 months (China resourced). This was supported by 8 years of Republican majority. The last 4 years (Republican AND Democratic) have been even worse.


    I propose that candidates be honest. "No new taxes", is the biggest lie of the current generation of politicians. The truthful comment should be, "We will pass all the costs on to your kids."

  • @Charles
    May 8, 2010 7:10 p.m.

    oh the complaining about the caucus system...whaaaa

    Seriously, who is disenfranchised? I was voted in as a delegate but wasn't able to make the meeting.

    For all you Faux 'moderate' Republicans who bemoan conservatives, please post a detailed analysis of what makes you a moderate and those who you decry as extreme, extreme!

    Let's see the list of positions for each category!

    Bob was released from his calling with a vote of thanks.

    Let's move on Utah to analyze Lee and Bridgewater and vote for the best candidate.

    ps, the DNews has run a full-court press all week bemoaning the caucus system and how it disenfranchises people.

    Well, given that stance, let's just get rid of Congress and have every vote on every issue decided by the people. After all, many fools on these pages believe we live in a democracy and not a representative republic....It's time to wake up from your nap people and get educated...

  • Justmythoughts
    May 8, 2010 7:09 p.m.

    Thank you Senator Bennett for your efforts in the Senate...I appreciate your service. I think you just got caught in the incumbent trap...thinking we couldn't do without you. I only wrote one letter to your office and didn't get any response. I called your office twice and was treated very rudely each time and I was just encouraging you to stand firm on your conservative values....People don't appreciate arrogant politicians.

  • Informed Voter
    May 8, 2010 7:05 p.m.

    Bennett's support of illegal immigrants costs him dearly. The people do not want amnesty; they want the border secured! Senator Bennett also was too much of an establishment senator, and he did not loudly proclaim the wrongs of the Obama agenda. They only way we can express our disgust with Washingotn is to vote out incumbents. Hopefully many more nationwide in November!

  • Plainly Undereducated
    May 8, 2010 7:02 p.m.

    Uh, Rod? Even in Michigan it's true that the system is set up so that only one senator at a time faces re-election battles. Our senior Senator is not up for re-election just now, but thanks for dropping by.

  • majmajor
    May 8, 2010 6:57 p.m.

    Ok. Now that the Parties have narrowed down their potential candidates (without a single deployed military vote) here are my questions:

    Both claim to want a balanced budget. How are they going to support a balanced budget?

    Neither claim to support a tax increase that must mean that they want to reduce services. The only other way would be to reduce services. What services? The only services that can save the U.S. Government REAL money is slash Defense or Social Security. What do they support and will they support killing Hill AFB, and the other smaller Utah bases?

    Who can convince 60 other Senators to risk their reelection chances to support slashing SS?

    I will place odds that in 6 years the winner of the General Election will have done nothing meaningful to stop the practice of making our unborn children pay for our Government.

  • Rod in Michigan
    May 8, 2010 6:31 p.m.

    What is wrong with Utah?
    You let your Good Senator go, Your Bad senator goes on You should of booted Hatch, not Bennett. Shame on Utah!

  • cynic
    May 8, 2010 5:56 p.m.

    Leave it to Utah to create a system where 3500 voters get to decide who goes to the Senate while hundreds of thousands are disenfranchised. What is horribly ironic is that the people who control this pathetically unconstitutional system are the same ones always screaming about how important the constitution is to them. Apparently, that's only true when it suits them. Hypocritical and very, very sad.

  • JBs
    May 8, 2010 5:53 p.m.

    Utah is a state with many voices. Unfortunately, only one type of voice is represented. Only one group has the say. Representatives are there to represent all of us, even those of a differing political party or persuasion. Some here say that the people of Utah are now being represented? The only question I have is, which ones. Every person is entitled to have a voice, and that is not possible in this state.

    While I did not always agree with Senator Bennett, at least I felt he tried to represent all of us. Just because someone belongs to the dominant party of this state does not make him or her God or all-knowing. Perhaps all powerful, but we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that is happening as we speak.

    This is a sad day for all of Utah and sets us back generations.

  • Patrick Henry
    May 8, 2010 5:44 p.m.

    Utah's Senator Bennett was thrown out as the Republican's party's choice for senator this upcoming Nov. He said about his voting record"Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently even if I had known at the time they were going to cost me my career." And that is why he got canned. He didn't want to REPRESENT the people.

  • Sal
    May 8, 2010 5:43 p.m.

    Bennett should run as an Independent. We moderate Republicans should protest this far-right vote by our delegates by not showing up for the Republican primary.

  • apache1
    May 8, 2010 5:41 p.m.

    Poor BoB...his ol' buddy Brother Romney could not save his tough old political hide in the end, and now it's time to get his office packed up back in Washington and head home back to Utah.

  • T. Party
    May 8, 2010 5:40 p.m.

    Hatch, you're next.

  • Redballhog
    May 8, 2010 5:36 p.m.

    I'm going to write in Bennett. I hope he considers running a write in campaign. Let's show the conventions what the voters want.

  • FargoUT
    May 8, 2010 5:34 p.m.

    If you read Bridgewater's or Lee's talking points, they sound very similar to Bennett's. What people forget is that as soon as a politician hit Washington, their stances begin changing. Heck, it happened with Obama, and I'm upset about that as a liberal.

    Bridgewater or Lee will fall victim to the same groupthink that occurs in Washington should they win. Nothing will change except that our Republican senator will have even less power than Bennett has had.

    It says something remarkable when someone like Bennett is considered "too moderate" for Utah. Yikes. Maybe it is time to move.

    May 8, 2010 5:20 p.m.

    Wow, as a proudly liberal observer I am struggling to understand why the GOP wold oust a man who has voted on the conservative side of the aisle 88% of the time. He is not conservative enough???

    The polarization that the tea-partiers and ultra-right conservatives advocate do not leave any room for political discourse and COMPROMISE. That is not liberty, that is closer to fascism than anything else. It's only going to get uglier in the political arena.

  • thebudmiller
    May 8, 2010 5:20 p.m.

    so the nutcases won and for the first time in my voting life I will cast a vote for Democrat this fall. It doesn't matter who the Republicans put on the ballot he won't get my vote. The delagates actions today prove that rhetoric matters to them far more than actions. After the elections the Democrats will still control both the Senate and the House. Net result for Utah will be a new Senator with ZERO clout and Zero ability to get anything done for Utah. Uathns for Utah is what the election is truly about.

  • Kearns_Dad
    May 8, 2010 5:15 p.m.

    By the way, this independent Utahn will now vote for Sam Granato for Senate. The Utah GOP (mainly the delegates) have gone looney and off the deep right end...and Bennett was a ranking member of the Appropriations committee. if Bennett were to run as a write-in, he could take votes away from the GOP candidate and would have a shot at winning since the VOTERS in this great state still like him. (He can't file as an Independent cuz it's too late to file.)

  • USA
    May 8, 2010 5:10 p.m.

    No good deed goes unpunished

  • optimus321
    May 8, 2010 5:07 p.m.

    STAND IN LINE AND THANK HIM? For what??! Bankrupting the country with his bailout vote? I'll thank him for the carts he'll be handing me at WALMART.

  • Ajax
    May 8, 2010 5:06 p.m.

    Why are so many conservative Utahns focused on political views that by most measures are considered to be extreme? Might all of this chest beating over the Constitution, the law and an impending socialist world order be just a self-serving pretext? Certainly it is a type of mythology that largely serves to rationalize the thinking of those who for whatever reason are drawn to black and white interpretations and conspiratorial intrigue. We see it in an exaggerated rejection of the government of President Obama. And closer to home it serves as justification for the demonization of undocumented immigrants. Under the guise of moral outrage extremism encourages intolerance and vengeance, emotions that feed on themselves to the detriment of everyone. It is often a precursor of ruinous group behavior that can later bring regret. So at odds with what we like to think of as the American way, conservative extremism, in my view, is the problem rather than any kind of solution.

    Mark my words, when extremists rule the people suffer. Shame on Utah.

  • JMT
    May 8, 2010 5:02 p.m.

    There is ZERO chance of the Democrat winning! Zero! A Democrat has a better shot of winning in Provo then state-wide. Who ever gets this nomination is the next US Senator from Utah. Period.

    I do find many comments lamenting the loss of Bob and how the GOP is crazy interesting. Many of these voices are the same ones who moaned the 6 years of Bush with GOP control of the House and Senate. Do you not understand that Bob Bennett was a complete rubber stamp for every crazy idea George W Bush ever had. If George Bush wanted it, Bob Bennett would fight to make it happen. In those 6 years I can think of only one vote where Bob defied "W." One!

    You whined about the George Bush years and now shed tears of the very Senator who enabled them. It doesn't make sense. Simply stupifying.

  • Sutton
    May 8, 2010 4:55 p.m.

    They are giving up a ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee in order to replace him with a freshman Senator. Talk about short-sighted!

  • Mike Richards
    May 8, 2010 4:50 p.m.

    Mr. Bennett has served Utah long and well. His eighteen years in the Senate have been years of service to the State of Utah and to the people of Utah.

    Every republican should stand in line to thank him for what he has done and for being an honest man at a time and in a place where honesty and personal integrity are hard to find.

    Best of luck to him and to his staff.

    Thanks, Bob, for your service.

  • Sutton
    May 8, 2010 4:40 p.m.

    "The GOP imploding from within. These fools guaranteed his Democrat opponent the victory.."

    you got that right...

    May 8, 2010 4:36 p.m.

    It's entertaining to see so many who supported Bennett posting comments about the "out of touch, rabid, fools, extremist, etc." people who supported someone else. Because apparently, it's not possible to disagree with Bennett and be a normal, sane person. Get a grip, people.

  • dave
    May 8, 2010 4:35 p.m.

    The GOP imploding from within. These fools guaranteed his Democrat opponent the victory..

  • Foss
    May 8, 2010 4:34 p.m.

    Now what is it again specifically that we don't like about Bennet? All I saw was someone drew blood and the hyenas piled on.

  • Older Reader
    May 8, 2010 4:34 p.m.

    When 4 candidates were interviewed on the radio last week Bennett had the worst responses to every question. He thought just because he has been there forever he can just keep going.

  • Big Hapa
    May 8, 2010 4:21 p.m.

    18 years and nothing to show for it other then real soft hands. This guy had to go the long years of talking about what shoulda, coulda, woulda been he Bob, compromised with the left and now is on the out side looking in.

    I hope the new senator will learn from Bob's folly and stick to the core values of conservatism and not get caught up with the suductive power of self importance as a US senator.

    Bob infated EGO's will always lead to distruction.

  • Kearns_Dad
    May 8, 2010 4:20 p.m.

    That's too bad. I liked Bennett's record. What is it with Utah's ultra right-wing rabid republicans? Or at least the delegates? Most Utah voters liked Bennett.

  • snsbl
    May 8, 2010 4:19 p.m.

    Oh My Gosh!!!
    This is downright scary.
    Who is controlling this state??
    Definitely not the people!!

    May 8, 2010 4:11 p.m.

    Funny thing. I don't remember Bennett or any of his supporters complaining about the delegate system the last 18 years that Bennett has been in office. What a pathetic excuse. Bennett lost because of his stands on the issues. Period. Lee or Bridgewater will be AWESOME!!!

  • just-commenting
    May 8, 2010 4:09 p.m.

    I am a life-long Republican who will be voting for Granato. The GOP has become the home for the loonies who are out of touch with reality.

  • Quetazlcoatl
    May 8, 2010 4:08 p.m.

    He has already remained in office longer than he promised - two terms and he stayed three. What this nation and state needs is term limits. Then we can avoid so much of the pork barrel projects for which the taxpayers have to continually pay. Let's throw out all the rascals

  • aljmac
    May 8, 2010 4:07 p.m.

    If my delegate was one of the fools who ousted Bennett today I'm going to pull my hair out. Nice job Utah GOP. Good freaking grief!

  • Furry1993
    May 8, 2010 3:57 p.m.

    I'm now trying to decide whether Bridgeater or Lee would be worse. This is NOT good for Utah.

  • Porter
    May 8, 2010 3:55 p.m.

    As a moderate Republican, I am very sad with today's happenings, although no one can be surprised given the extreme nature of the caucus delegates. Maybe the best thing to come out of this is to show how ridiculous the caucus system is in Utah. I went to my Republican caucus meeting and I thought an Eagle Forum meeting was taking place.
    I will not vote for Lee or Bridgewater. I will either write in Bennett or vote for Granato.

  • Viva la Migra
    May 8, 2010 3:46 p.m.

    While Bennett cannot run as an independent he is talking about trying a write-in campaign. Why can't he just face reality that his years of service are over. Enjoy retirement Bob, you probably don't have too many years left so you should spent the time with your family.

  • T. Party
    May 8, 2010 3:25 p.m.

    Let go of the ring, Gollum. Just let it go.

  • Not_Scared
    May 8, 2010 3:16 p.m.

    Ridding the senate of Bennett and this fear driven conservative extremism that has no basis in fact will help keep Obama in office and saving America from the damage caused by conservatives.

  • pozmo
    May 8, 2010 3:15 p.m.

    To all those who think he'll declare as an independent: Not possible in Utah. The J. Bracken Lee law.

    Utah law bans a candidate from being certified on the ballot as an independent after he already has been certified as a candidate by a political party. So, because Bennett filed for re-election as a Republican, he couldn't refile as an independent and be put on the ballot

    Welcome to Utah!

  • oldschool
    May 8, 2010 3:01 p.m.

    Bennett has been a fairly good Senator. But I think it's time to give somebody else a chance now. I often vote against incumbents because I think it's too easy for them to get accustomed to spending other people's money on things that the people would not want if they had a direct say. Let's get some fresh blood in there. Now is as good a time as any. I think any of the Republican candidates would have worked out well for Utah. We really should be spending our money and energy on is convincing people outside the state to get rid of the leftists who are now in charge of the gigantic and cancerous federal government.

  • Still Blue after all these years
    May 8, 2010 2:21 p.m.

    I do expect Bennett to run as independent if he gets bounced today. By doing so, he actually brings in the possibility of a Dem being elected. But Bennett does not care - it's all about Bob. That's the way these long term politicians are. All about them.

    BTW, I went to the caucus meeting. yes, they are corny, but they work. My only frustration was that our caucus elected representatives that did not know who the candidates were. But that's the world we live in.

  • JMT
    May 8, 2010 2:06 p.m.

    Delegates are fickle and offend easily. That being said it looks like a Primary between Lee and Bridgewater. If that happens I give the edge to Bridgewater.

    In any case, I'm holding me breath that both "Bailout" Bob Bennett and Jim Matheson are gone!

    The blog and twitter nation has some reports that Matheson may not receive 40% of the Democratic delegates. If so, he's gone as well!

  • Not_Scared
    May 8, 2010 2:05 p.m.

    What would have happened if we had followed the Limbaughian view and we had let our largest banks fail? No one would be able to buy a car without having the cash to pay for it. Read your history and see what happened when banks failed in the thirties. There was twenty-five percent unemployment.

  • homers
    May 8, 2010 1:41 p.m.

    David - even if everyone wanted to go to the caucus and vote they couldn't - that is the fatal flaw. That is why it is faulty because it does not allow for absentee balloting - if you can't make it you are barred from voting. That, my friend, should be illegal.

  • RickB
    May 8, 2010 1:39 p.m.

    Bennett needs to be sent home. I will vote for the Republican Candidate, but I hope it's not Bennett. He DOES NOT represent the voice of the people in Utah. Send him home and let's give one of the other Republicans a chance. Bennett has failed miserably and needs to go home!!!

  • JMT
    May 8, 2010 1:24 p.m.

    So sad?!?!

    How do you intend to pay for this massive spending? The debt is approaching $12 trillion. The much bigger bite is all of the promises that politicians like Bob Bennett have made. Those promises add up to approaching $110 trillion!

    How are you going to pay for that?

    And this is non-discretionary spending. That means it just flat out is paid for. At this point we are going to be borrowing money for generations to come with no end in sight. Are you happy for this? Is this how you run your household? Your business? Not even the State of Utah is run this way. In fact, only a few states are so pathetic, like California and New York. They have lost their ability to pay for the promises. California has been issuing IOUs to citizens for quite some time now.

    Are you paying attention? Or do you join the club where debt doesn't matter?

    Oh vey!

    "Bailout" Bob Bennett has got to go!

  • Carson
    May 8, 2010 12:39 p.m.

    I believe his support of the Illegals over American citizens has cost him a lot more than he ever thought it would!

  • Richie
    May 8, 2010 12:24 p.m.

    A little civility might be in order. Phony ads, dumb sponsors and plain old misinformation doesn't help. Whoever is selected must remember that Utah is the home of the Rocket Motor industry and this industry must be preserved. If it goes so does our national strength. Obama wants to kill it and make all the flower children happy.

  • apache1
    May 8, 2010 12:22 p.m.

    I am sorry that Utah is faced with the same problem we have here in Arizona, a senator who will not go away. Senator McCain is so full of himself he feel that he is "anointed" to lead this state and his war chest may prove him correct. The big money in this state will probably put him back in power where he will remain until he finally dies of old age in Washington, he is going to be buried with full homors in Arlington as a "national war hero". A hero indeed, my big toe is more of a hero...

  • David
    May 8, 2010 12:15 p.m.

    re: Homers

    Your last comment "I will consider any elected official that comes out of the caucus system as illegitimate until the problems are fixed" sounds similar to the sore losers of African nations...3rd world countries.

    The caucus system works well. Those who are interested will go to their precinct meetings and vote for delegates who represent them. It is not any fault of those who attend that not all do so.

    The caucus system allows special interest groups to hijack the convention, but only because there is such a poor attendance and large apathy in America for elections.

    A better solution (than eliminating caucuses) would be to have greater turnout at the caucuses.

  • mine
    May 8, 2010 12:01 p.m.

    Bennett as independent!

  • Wasatch Al
    May 8, 2010 11:56 a.m.

    Word's out that if Bennett loses today he will declare as an independent candidate for Senate on Monday.

  • Not_Scared
    May 8, 2010 11:13 a.m.

    "We can't just push back the Obama agenda, we must destroy it." Let's return to the Bush years.

    The facts measured numerically are that 28% won't win you a thing. You will whine and pout as Obama is reelected. Your extremism looks ugly to thinking Americans.

    You got your taxes cut only to whine about higher taxes. You claimed Obama was from outside the US. This was disproven making conservatives look stupid. Obama was going to take your guns. That was another miss that was way off target.

    By your fruit.

  • homers
    May 8, 2010 11:07 a.m.

    mt_cicero: we do live in a constitutional republic and the supreme court has repeatedly ruled that, constitutionally, we are required to honor the premise of one person one vote - the caucus system does harm to that principle and should be struck down as unconstitutional as currently operated. Now if the parties would make some provisions to enfranchise all those who are disenfranchised by the caucus system if could then go forward as constitutional. I find it fascinating that all these "constitution lovers" seem willing to ignore the faults of the caucus system in order to control the power of those "who show up." If you want me to cite numerous examples of how the caucus violates one person one vote I will give them to you as well as cite supreme court decisions that uphold the principle. This is a total shame and I will consider any elected official that comes out of the caucus system as illegitimate until the problems are fixed.

  • gb97
    May 8, 2010 11:04 a.m.

    It's sad to see what's happening in both parties lately. The Utah political system is messed up. Why do the extreme minorities within each party have so much influence over who gets nominated. I mean does anybody with half a brain really believe that if elected, Mike Lee would end entitlement programs? Of course not, but if he says that he can court the extreme right wing.

  • Atlas
    May 8, 2010 10:56 a.m.

    Cut taxes.
    Cut earmarks.
    Cut waste.
    Cut Bennett

  • mt_cicero
    May 8, 2010 10:45 a.m.

    re:NeilT We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. We elect representatives to study issues and vote. That's the premise of the caucus system...we elect representatives to study candidates, and party governance and vote.

    re: CougarBlue When we become subjected to cynicism and anger, we become the easiest people to be manipulated. Because we'll believe the worst about anyone and succumb to the most specious of arguments.

    re: freedomworks Are system is set up so we get what we deserve. If the delegates bounce Bob Bennett, then you're correct, that's freedom baby. That does not mean however that Senator Bennett deserves to be bounced. Just that we don't deserve him.

  • mine
    May 8, 2010 10:42 a.m.

    Unfortunately, Bennett is the best candidate at this time. Too bad it isn't Hatch in his place, he needs to go. At least Bennett works for solutions rather than the party purity. The country comes first, not the republican party.

  • cdcoleman
    May 8, 2010 10:15 a.m.

    Bob Bennett will likely end his political career today. What we need however, is a credible candidate because the Democrats will come full steam this November. The second American Revolution begins today in Utah. We can't just push back the Obama agenda, we must destroy it.

  • freedomworks
    May 8, 2010 10:12 a.m.

    The freedom-loving electorate in Utah has finally woken up and all you guys can do is criticize. Interesting.

  • NeilT
    May 8, 2010 9:58 a.m.

    The caucus system stinks to high heaven. A few anti government ideologes will decide our next senator. Shame Shame Shame on Utah. Whatever happened to democracy. This is not democracy.

  • one old man
    May 8, 2010 9:46 a.m.

    The CLUB FOR GROWTH. How rotten! While Utah's legislators rail loudly against any outside influence, this outside group that supports corporate greed comes in and starts meddling in something that should be left entirely to Utah's voters.

    This is just a small sample of the evils opened by the recent Supreme Court decision that calls corporations "persons" entitled to "free speech." (Which is only free if you're wealthy enough to buy it.)


  • Cougar Blue
    May 8, 2010 9:40 a.m.

    This must be a circus side show to end all side shows. It just goes to show that one can't even be conservative in Utah, he must be rabid. So sad.

  • JMT
    May 8, 2010 9:38 a.m.

    That one song comes to mind:

    Na, na, na, na na...

    hey, hey, hey...