Getting rid of him was the best thing that has happened to Utah since we ousted
Cannon. He voted like a Democrat for every spending bill he could find and for
the Dream act and all other illegal alien amnesties, he simply didn't represent
Utah. Most of all, he had a condescending attitude and totally ignored any
opinion but his own. Talking to him was like talking to a wall, he knew best and
everyone else was wrong. The only regret is that it didn't happen sooner. He
broke his own promise on length of service as well, It was the right decision
all the way.
The caucus system worked. Mr. Bennett did not appeal to those who participate in
politics in Utah. He may have thought that he represented Utah. He may have
thought that he was bigger than life, but the real fact is that Utah had had
enough of Mr. Bennett and his brand of politics.How long are his
supporters going to try to re-write history? Mr. Bennett served for eighteen
years. Everything that he did is on record. Every vote is on record. Whether
you agree or disagree with his voting record, it is what it is.We
have a caucus system in Utah that all of Mr. Bennett's influence and all of his
campaign money and all of his emails and all of his letters couldn't change.
He sent me email after email and letter after letter telling me how
important it was to convince people in my precinct to vote for him AFTER I had
repeatedly notified him and his campaign that I would be supporting Mr. Lee.His problem is that he didn't listen to anyone. He thought that
everyone was listening to him.
"...he...reached across the aisle to cooperate with Democrats to bring to
pass legislation that he felt might benefit the country and Utah. In other
words, he recognized that politics is "the art of the possible,..."
Ken - I think you hit the nail on the head in describing what a
statesman really is and does. Thanks for writing.
The tea party would have destroyed the Articles of Confederation, too. We would
have a continent with small nations, less powerful than the countries of the
Balkans today. Bennett got it, and now Utah has a new Senator who is in la-la
land and will actually contribute to the demise of the Constitution because he
thinks it should be viewed in the eyes of the world of 1787, which is a
misconception as well. What a mess.
Quinn Monson at BYU did a written survey of the delegates to the nominating
convention who "ousted" Bennett. The facts:23% attended
caucuses for the first time33.4% had attended more than six in the past50.7% were first time delegates72.5% went to get elected as delegates82% said there were no "straw polls" in their precinct66% said
they felt no obligation to vote for a particular candidate50.6% said they
stated their preference at the caucus90% opposed stimulus bills,
Obamacare, cap and trade98% felt the country was "pretty
seriously" off track42% described themselves as tea party
advocates42% did not advocate tea party positions15% had no
opinion75% reported they had given no money to the tea party movement62% wanted more policies reflective of the Constitution74% wanted less
government intervention95% used the Internet more than once a day75%
were males64% were over age 4562% considered themselves "strong
Republicans"36% were college graduates39% had post-graduate
degrees90% were Mormons92% were married79% made > $55,000
per yearBob Bennett was not "ousted" by tea party radicals
-- they were his own people.
Everyone is "appalled". A word only used in letters to the editor and
in the comment section.What was so laudable about Bennett's 18 years
in Congress?Do you have an issue with the reasons people vote?Do you have an issue with people disagreeing with the legislation that
Bennett "felt" would benefit Utah and the country?What
principles are you willing to compromise for your definition of progress?Has it ever occurred to you that maybe most in Utah don't agree with
your interpretation of progress?No one needs to brush up on history
regarding COTUS. What we have is what we have in COTUS is the most important
document for any country, ever. What is it that you don't like about COTUS that
makes you in favor of ignoring it?You are embarrassed in how Bennett
was ousted? Why? Because the political system worked and you didn't like the
outcome?Were you not able to convince your neighbors to elect you as
a delegate? I sent letter after letter advising Bennett that it
would be better for him to retire gracefully than to be ousted at convention.
His arrogance wouldn't allow that.
re: ECR | 7:23 a.m. Dec. 28, 2010 Heaven forbid politics be about
compromise and building a consensus.
Ken hit it right on the head! It was a big mistake ousting Bennett. My grandson
works in the office of a sitting Rep. Senator from another state. He says that
Bennett enjoyed a high reputation from both sides of the isle (the sky is
falling, the sky is falling) and the majority of the Senators feel like Utah has
made a serious blunder. So now it looks like the "chicken little
group" wants to go after Hatch! Great, we then will have Lee and probably
Chaffetz, I can't imagine a more sterling pair. Fric and Frac, Great!
I would like to see Bob Bennett run as an Independent against Orrin Hatch. I
believe he could do to the closed convention system in Utah what Lisa Murkowski
did in Alaska. Freed of needing to bend to the far right, he would be far more
attractive to voters in the middle.
@Ralph: "...the majority of the Senators feel like Utah has made a serious
blunder."You make a serious blunder in making your comment and
that is you think Utahns care what the other Senators in Congress think about
who we vote for. We don't!@Grover: still whining about a
"closed convention" system, eh? There are other states that are
probably more to your liking regarding politics. Maybe you should seek out one
of them so that you will be happier in life.Far right? Exactly what
is that?Middle? Exactly what is that?Murkowski is the
perfect example of what is wrong with Congress. She thinks she is entitled to
the seat. She got beat in the primary not a caucus. Then she got the state to
disregard its own laws so she could get elected to retain her power.If Bennett couldn't get all he thought he needed to do for the state done in
18 years, 6 more wouldn't have mattered. Hatch has been there 30+ and will be
ousted in 2012.There is nothing wrong with fresh meat now and then.
Afterall, Bennett was once a freshman too.
We shouldn't even be arguing about this...If only Bennett would have lived up to
his promise not to become a 'lifer' in congress. Term Limits!!!
"Bob Bennett had a condescending attitude, and ignored every opinion but
his own"In other words, Bob Bennett, a man of mature and
seasoned judgment, voted his conscience on the issues. He ignored outspoken
zealots (like most of the respondents here, in this forum). Quinn
Monson's survey shows how extreme caucus delegates were, how out of touch with
most Americans, how bizarrely partisan. 90% opposed stimulus bills, Obamacare,
cap and trade98% felt the country was "pretty seriously" off
track. Anyone opposed to the economic stimulus has just frankly not been paying
attention: the Bush/Obama stimulus bills saved our country. Cap and trade is a
conservative, market oriented approach to environmental issues. As for
'Obamacare,' those opposed to it generally oppose it based on provisions that
are just flat not in the bill. So what happened? A bunch of
ignorant, old, rich, white, Mormon men decided they didn't like Bennett based on
misinformation spread by Fox News, Glenn Beck, and tea party-generated viral
emails. As a result, we're stuck with Constitutional Scholar Mike Lee for the
next six years. Yippee.
If Bennett's ousting is "Wrong"... then the Constitution is
"Wrong". Because he was ousted using the exact procedure the
Constitution prescribed for selecting or ousting our representatives.If the will of the people (the vote)... is "Wrong"... then yes, I
guess you are right... it's wrong to respect the vote of the people.
Thanks for the letter. I returned home from the caucus meeting
having been "enlightened" about why Bennett needed to ousted, and as
such, anti-Bennett delegates were elected. It was weeks later that I
learned that many of the things preached at the caucus were simply not true, and
if I could turn back time, I would have been much more of a Bennett supporter.
Hopefully Lee will learn a few things from Bennett and try to work
to benefit everyone, and not just one party.
Brian the engineer | 12:41 p.m.If you are so uninformed that you
were open to being mislead by information at a caucus meeting... you should be
ashamed of yourself.You can NEVER disasociate yourself from your
responsibility to get information from MANY trusted sources to determine for
YOURSELF what the "facts" or the "Truth" is. You can never
divest yourself of the responsibility to get the facts for yourself. You can't
just conveniently blame someone at the caucus meeting!It's YOUR job
to get the facts... and not just believe everything you hear at a caucus
meeting, or on the TV, or on the radio.Find people (REAL PEOPLE you
can talk with at length and ask questions and share and discuss responses with)!
Don't just trust your caucus, or the nightly news, or a guy on talk radio.It's your own fault if you think a guy at your caucus mislead you into
thinking you wanted Bennett to go, when you realy didn't. Don't be such a
Re: @Charles..."You make a serious blunder in making your comment,and that
is you think Utahns care what other Senators in Congress think about who we vote
for. We Don't!"The arrogance of your statement says it all!The chicken little party lives in la la land and the voting sheep of Utah
follow blindly on! Oh did I forget to mention "The Sky Is Falling"
Bennett promised when he first ran he would only stay one term. He lied. His next greatist mistake is he actually said he knew more about what
was best for his constituants than they did. Bennett is an elitist
progressive. Next to go is Hatch that said he is to important not
to be re-elected, an elitist progressive.The movement is trying to
eliminate elitists from government.
One fact remains: His time was up and he was the last to admit it.
Utah isn't like Massachusetts that keeps a Senator for life (Kennedy). We are
totally able to do our own term limits. Senator Bennett had two personas, one
for East of the Mississippi and one when he was West of the Mississippi
especially when in UtahI became a state delegate because of the
unwillingness of Bennett's staff in Provo to listen to my concerns. Because I
differed from their position on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform,"
they refused to even listen to me. I don't care how much
"pork" Bennett was able to bring to Utah, his "behind the
scenes" methods were an affront to me, and many Utahns.
In a way it's sad we are ruled by a party-based political system. I
think it was a shame that Bennett was eliminated before he even got to a point
where we could ALL vote on it (he was defeated at the Republican Convention).If the best 2-3 candidates were allowed to be on the final ballot
(instead of requiring just ONE from the Republican Party and ONE from the
Democrat Party, etc)... I think we could have seen a different result.But opening up our electoral system like this COULD have the one result the
Party People could NEVER tolerate. A ballot with TWO Democrats with ideas the
people liked on the final ballot (and no Republican). Or TWO Republicans with
good ideas (but possibly no Democrat making the final ballot).I
think if Bennett and Lee had been the two choices Utahns had in the general
election... Bennett would have won. He's a moderate and appeals even to some
Democrats (Lee doesn't). So in a way... Bennett was done in by the political
convention system... and the elites in his party... not the people/voters of the
Bob's own arrogance cost him the Senate......Good Riddance to him
and others like him.....Its about time we elected someone who
respresents the majority of the people here in Utah...lets hope Lee understands
that, because Bennett never did?
Ralfly in west jordan"the sky is falling." Why, yes it is. Its
probably Bushes fault or global warming? You decide.Again, Bennett and
Hatch are poster children for why we need term limits.
Bennett's well deserved ouster was the result of no longer reflecting the will
of the voters. He may be a nice, guy, and beloved by other squishy RINO
senators and big-spending Democrats, but that does not guarantee him yet another
term in what he clearly considered to be his family birthright seat.The caucus system works, and works well, and Utah is better off because of
it.Orrin Hatch, are you paying attention? You are next!
If Utahs' caucus system is flawed, Bob Bennett and his supporters should have
brought that up back in '04 when he began his second term!The caucus
system only became "flawed" when Bob didn't get to keep his
"Senator for life" status. For at least the last 3-4 years of his
Senatorial life I couldn't even tell he was a Republican. He mostly
"reached across the aisle" to vote with Demos. anyway!I too,
tried writing to Bennett on several occassions, and only EVER got one response
(a form letter). I definitely AM NOT the most important of his constituents,
but when I take time to express myself personally to his office I think I
deserve at least some sort of reply!Bob Bennetts' ouster was a
perfect example of a system that WORKS WELL!If there WOULD HAVE been some
sort of "open voting" mechanism where everyone would have been able to
vote, Bob had REAL DEEP pockets full of cash to buy unlimited amounts of
advertising, making any newcomer totally helpless to match those kinds of
Senator Bennett was saddly a victim of political pureism.The LDS
General Authorities have warned repeated about the dangers of any and all
extreme-isms.I think this falls into that bucket.Meanwhile, the vigilantISM from a minority group calling themselves
"Tea-Partiers" will continue, much the same as the intolerant Missouri
Mobs did with our ancestors 160 years ago.Conform, or face the
Outdoor Charlie: Far Right: People who see conspiracy everywhere they look and
believe that they speak for the rest of America. Middle: Those who truly go
into an election undecided and never and I mean NEVER vote a straight party
@Grover: a little more for you to chew on. Are you really trying to tell
everyone that you aren't decided on any issue until you walk into the voting
booth?However, based on your definition I'm in the middle. I was
elected delegate without supporting anyone in the meeting. I hadn't looked at
any of the candidates at all. So I went to all of their meetings and learned who
I wanted to vote for.Is that really what it means to be in the
middle? So, you didn't give a definition of far-left. Would you be
the poster boy for that definition or would it be Esquire, LOL, LDS Lib?You might want to check where you stand on things and how pure your
motives are. Based on your comments there isn't much that you don't already have
an opinion on. Bennett got what was coming to him. He failed to
listen. The Dems in Congress failed to listen and got ousted. There will be more
of both parties who either retire or will get ousted in 2012.The
tidal wave of the Tea Party is here to stay.
@2 bitsYou're preaching to the choir, bud :)I agree with
most of the things you said, and I'm sorry if I inferred that I was ever
anti-Bennett at the caucus. I was open-minded at the time to the numerous
candidates available- I wasn't anti-anybody.That said, I would like
to clarify that for the caucus I attended, the delegates elected did not
represent the voters of that precinct. Most of my friends in the precinct hadn't
yet formed a solid opinion until after the caucus/convention.
Once again, I strongly suspect that many of those most upset about Bennett's
ouster in convention are many of the same people who are most vocal about the
corrosive influence of "big money" or "special interests" in
politics.Well, Utah's caucus/convention system does more to blunt
the effectiveness of special interests and big money than anything else I've
seen.Some 100,000 regular Utahns attend the GOP caucus meetings.
They elect 5,000 delegates to get to know the candidates and vote in
convention.Too many people involved in caucus for special interests
to hold sway. A small enough number of delegates that hard work and one-on-one
contact can overcome big money, fancy mailings, or expensive commercials.18 years ago, Bennett was selected as the nominee in convention. Did
his supporters condemn the system then? But they keep trying to argue the
system is broken when it denies him the nomination this year?Bennett
voted for the bailout. He has voted for amnesty for illegal aliens. His
constituents, his delegates, rightfully have retired him.It is
suppose to be about public SERVICE, not a lifetime career.
Maybe Utah should utilize the primary system rather than the current system
where a few people determine the candidate. Under the current system, only the
most extremely conservative candidate gets selected. Any candidate
who does not adhere to a Tea Party-like agenda is at risk even though the
majority of voters in a primary would not necessarily want someone from the
extreme edge of Republican politics as their candidate.Even though
the Tea Party people like to complain about "elites" when a candidate
not refecting their own views is selected, they do want to have the power
control the system and select their own kind of candidate as an
"elite" force in their own.
The LDS Church has recently preached, over and over again, against "the
politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that renders civil discussion
impossible." I can't think of a better description of the Lord-of-the-Flies
atmosphere at the GOP State Convention, or a better description of the Fox
News/Glenn Beck fearmongering that led up to it.The LDS Church
supported the Utah Compact and has preached, over and over again, for a more
compassionate and comprehensive approach to immigration reform that goes far
beyond simplistic "enforcement." Bennett seems to have been one of the
few Republicans in the state to take this counsel to heart; Sandstrom, Chaffetz,
Hatch, Lee--they all seem to be going in the exact opposite direction, the
direction of fear, xenophobia, cruelty, and pandering.So if, as some
of you insist, Bennett has been out of touch with Utah voters, it appears that
this is because Utahns are out of touch with the Church's counsel.
MormonDem | 11:34 p.m. Dec. 28, 2010 Provo, UT =========== Bravo MormonDem!!!Cut & Paste.to be used in our
You gotta love the duplicity of the posters with names like, "Liberal
LDS" and "Mormon Dem"... They denounce Mormons as weak minded
and only do what their leaders tell them to do, and they put down posters who
try to speak for the Church... Then THEY go and do the same thing (telling us
what the Church preaches we should do).They decry this practice
UNLESS you are posting something about LDS leaders telling the members of the
Church that DEMOCRATS get everything right, or post that LDS leaders are
encouraging the membership to support DEMOCRAT positions.... Then and ONLY
then... they want you to listen to your leaders and just do what your leaders
say.Weird how it's TERRIBLE to follow LDS Leaders MOST of the
time... but when these posters think they can convince you that your leaders
want you to support DEMOCRATS.. All of a suddenly they are, "Don't
question, just do what we told you your leaders preach"... advocates.Such inconsistency.
To: "LDS Liberal".The presidents and scriptures of the LDS
Church have taught the divinity of the U.S. Constitution, and that we should
vote for "good, wise and honest men", uphold the Constitution of the
land, and should oberve to do our business by the voice of the people.Bennett was not an honest man when he continued to seek re-election after
promising he would not do so, neither did he observe to do his business by the
voice of the people. Further, in any statement I have read by Mr
Bennett, I have never seen a clear statement that promotes or extols the
Constitution of the land, and I can vouch for the fact that he would never
address the Constitution at all with any member of my family but only suggested
that document was one which "evolved" and that he understood such
things, but the people did not, nor had they all the information".Never have I heard the LDS authorities speak in such a way,nor have they
spoken against the Tea Party Movement, nor characterised it as extreme. They
have, contrariwise, supported principles of freedom.
madison | 2:31 p.m. Dec. 29, 2010 Magna, UT To:
"madison".Never have I heard the LDS authorities speak in
such a way,nor have they spoken against the DEMOCRATIC Party Movement, nor
characterised it as extreme. They have, contrariwise, supported principles of
freedom. ========== See how that works.Furthermore, you might want to read more.The LDS General Authoriies are
VERY concerned about the imbalance of GOP power here in Utah.It thwarts
any balance in the political process which fuels political extremeism.Senator Bennett was "outted" due to political pureists extremeists
of a single party system.No balance.
@LDS Lib: Bennett was ousted by those who disagreed with his voting record;
nothing more, nothing less.Is it extreme to vote for someone who is
more in line with your politics or should we just continue to vote for the guy
in office?I think you are simplistic in your gospel knowledge and
politics. You say that the Tea Party is a bunch of vigilantes and equate them to
people who butchered, murdered, raped, stole from the early Mormons?And the censors at the Dnews published your comment? Maybe they didn't
understand what you were actually saying. @Gus: maybe we should all
all Americans to vote on every issue before Congress. Afterall, why should 535
people decide for over 300 million, right? Do we really have the right 535 in
office to make such huge decisions for all of us?@MormonDem: maybe
you should talk to Obama about the politics of fear and extremism. You should
also counsel, MSNBC, DailyKos, HuffPost, Moveon.org, Soros, Behar, Maher, all
the network news, NYT and a few others.The church also told people
to stay in their own countries and build them up from within. Cheers!
Uncle Charles | 3:46 p.m. Dec. 29, 2010 Where Freedom And Liberty Reign,
Utah @LDS Lib: Bennett was ousted by those who disagreed with his voting
record; nothing more, nothing less.Is it extreme to vote for someone
who is more in line with your politics or should we just continue to vote for
the guy in office?=========== No - I think that IF
Senator Bennett and Mike Lee had run against each other in a Primary election
with the PEOPLE, that Senator Bennett would have been shown to be the will of
the PEOPLE, not political clicks and minority interests within the Party.BTW - I'm not a Republican, just someone on the outside with a little
clearer view on reality.
@LDS Lib: It doesn't matter what you think about the PEOPLE voting for Lee and
Bennett on a ballot box. The only vote that mattered was the one that was cast
at the convention from the people who were duly elected to represent their
precincts to represent the Republican Party.Again, duly elected to
vote for the party nomination.Bennett used to be a huge fan of the
convention right up until it ousted him. There was nothing sinister about it.
There was nothing extreme about it just because you don't like the politics of
those who voted him out.I'd say from the many posts that I've seen
of yours, you are a Socialist/Communist and that's pretty extreme.Almost all of your posts are hateful, vile and with a nastiness to them that I
wonder about your heart rate.You hate everything Conservative,
Republican, AMRadio, Beck, etc etc.But what none of you Dems have
ever posted is what your beliefs are, what principles they stand on and why you
believe that way. For you LDS folks, you've never ever equated your Dem policies
with the gospel.
@LDS Lib claims, "The LDS General Authoriies are VERY concerned about the
imbalance of GOP power here in Utah."Do you have citation for
this VERY outrageous comment?But let's go with it...so, based on
what you state, they are VERY concerned about the imbalance of Donkey power in
the NorthEast, CA, IL, OR, New Orleans etc, right?I'm sure you have
support for those conclusions as well.Will look forward to reading
your documentation LDS Lib...
Wow. This is the level of respect fellow Republicans and many who are fellow
members treat someone they disagree with. It says mountains about the level of
respect these ommentors have for others. You can disagree, debate
points.... But you don't have to lower your standards how you treat your fellow
brothers and sisters. In a previous post someone pointed out you would know the
true church by it's fruits ( and members ). I must admit some of my fellow
church members here aren't helping their point much here with their comments.
I've known Senator Bennett for over fifty years and have followed his career
with interest. I haven't always agreed with him but I have found him to be a
gentleman always. He lost and that's part of being a politican. He'll get over
it and do very well in whatever he chooses to do next. What disturbs me is the
vicious and mean spirited way some people have personally attacked this fine
man. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Uncle Charles ( and @Charles I am assuming ), The Church's official
policy states,"The Church expects its members to engage in the
political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that
members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may
have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.""Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and
may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly
stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as
it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still
must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration
of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."If
the church practices this basic principle, why is it so many members choose to
stand in judgement of their fellow members?I personally think
members should not pledge to any party, rather vote for individuals and policies
that as you say are in agreement with gospel principles. No one party is right
on all issues - none.
Charles - Here is why I am independentI own many guns, but I am for
responsible ownership.I was adopted, I am anti-abortion. The main
argument should be in getting people to act responsibly in the first place.
Sometimes abortions are appropriate, and I for one don't want the responsibility
of deciding that for others.I travel the world a lot, and am aware
of the dangers out there. Therefor I am pro-defense. But I am against sweat
heart single source deals that Chaney's Haliburton got.I am
pro-enterprise. But I am also pro responsible business. I don't think having
rules of engagement makes business uncompetitive any more than rules in sports
make them uncompetitiveI don't like lying - from either side. And
there is plenty of spinning and selective fact presentation done on both sides.
Both sides create there own truth to support their agendas.I firmly
don't believe any party should have a litmus test or purity test. This country
was created on the idea of changing the status quo. I have no desire to return
to 1790 law and the rights it limited. Variety creates balance and
@Dukie: Look in the mirror pal. Do you not self reflect very often? You
should.And btw, you still never have put forward your beliefs,
eternal principles on which those beliefs are founded and how they should be
accepted by society. Just more condemnation from you about what you
don't like.@radically_unindependent closet_open_Democrat:I don't know of anyone who says any party is right on all issues: except the
Dems on these threads.So, thanks for posting the policy of politics
by the LDS church. Maybe you can take a stab at answering how the Dem policies
and platform are aligned with the gospel principles? None of your fellow LDS
Dems can do it. Then just keep telling us what they don't like....Are you up for it "radically_independent"?
Charles....really, I am Democrat.... good to know. I was wondering..... do
need to go back and change some of my votes then!To your
challenge.... lets start with"We believe that religion is
instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the
exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the
rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right
to interfere in prescribing rules of aworship to bind the consciences of men,
nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate
should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but
never suppress the freedom of the soul."Discussing issues with
someone as open minded as Uncle Chuck and his alter ego @Charles is as pointless
as talking to a wall. Totally pointless.I'm a democrat.
Who knew? And Bennett was too... good to know.When you are ready to
listen, yes I am ready to discuss this. But since your in the business of
telling everyone else what they believe, you already know everything so it would