Incumbent GOP senator loses bid for nomination

Cutlass

The Man Who Wasn't There.
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
48,259
Location
US of A
Tea party wins victory in Utah as incumbent GOP senator loses bid for nomination
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 9, 2010


The national "tea party" movement toppled its first incumbent Saturday as long-serving Sen. Robert F. Bennett was defeated at the Utah Republican Party's nominating convention, the most powerful demonstration yet of the anti-Washington tide that is altering the nation's political landscape.

Bennett, seeking a fourth term after 18 years in office, became the first sitting senator to fall in the ideological battle being waged in his party. Although he has long been viewed as a reliable conservative with deep Mormon roots, Republicans rallied behind two other candidates -- neither of whom has held political office -- who will compete for the nomination at a June primary.

National tea party organizers embraced the victory as a major first step toward returning the Republican Party to its conservative foundations of limited government and low taxes. At the Salt Palace Convention Center in Salt Lake City, tea party activists cheered and celebrated after Bennett lost.

"This is a symbol that the tea party movement and the broader limited-government agenda is huge," said Brendan Steinhauser, grass-roots director for the national tea party organization FreedomWorks, which set up a booth at the convention to herald Bennett's defeat. "It's the center of American politics. It's everything that we've been saying it is. It's not just a protest movement; it's a political force."

Steinhauser said Bennett's defeat represents a critical first win that will help build momentum in other contests across the nation. Next up is Kentucky, where tea party candidate Rand Paul is running hard in a GOP primary battle against Trey Grayson, the handpicked candidate of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Some tea party activists suggested they may seek to oust Utah's other senator, Orrin G. Hatch (R), whose term expires in 2012.

Until this year, Bennett faced few challenges in this reliably Republican state. In 2004, no one opposed him for the Republican nomination, and his general election victory was so assured that he didn't spend a penny on television ads. In 2006, he earned a 93 percent approval rating among Republican primary voters.

But Bennett came under fire from conservative activists for voting for then-President George W. Bush's bank bailout measure in 2008 and, more recently, for working with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on a health-care overhaul bill. Bennett has also taken heat for reneging on his campaign promise in 1992 to serve just two terms. He is also a close adviser to McConnell, and he sits on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, which opened him to blame for ballooning government spending.

And it was not just the tea party that criticized him; the Washington-based Club for Growth, a long-standing advocate for fiscal conservatism, began running television ads against Bennett in March -- and set up a booth, alongside FreedomWorks, at the convention on Saturday.

"The political atmosphere, obviously, has been toxic, and it's very clear some of the votes that I have cast have added to the toxic environment," Bennett told reporters after the defeat. Choking up, he added, "Looking back on them, with one or two very minor exceptions, I wouldn't have cast them any differently even if I'd known at the time it would cost me my career."

Indeed, Bennett's critics have been harsh and unequivocal. One of them posted this comment on Twitter during the convention: "Bob Bennett fails to even mention the Constitution once during his speech before the delegates." Others chanted "TARP! TARP! TARP!" as he spoke, a reference to his vote for the bank bailout, the Troubled Assets Relief Program.

Bennett lost in the second of three ballots under Utah's complicated nominating system. He did so despite an introduction from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is enormously popular in Utah. Attendees applauded more vigorously for a video of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), supporting one of Bennett's rivals, than they did for Romney, who won 89 percent of the vote in Utah's 2008 presidential primary.

"You're seeing the rise of a new group of conservative leaders," said Rob Jordan, vice president of state and federal campaigns for FreedomWorks. "Maybe guys like Romney are fading a bit, even in Utah. We're going to build on the momentum from this race."

The two remaining candidates -- lawyer Mike Lee and businessman Tim Bridgewater, both of whom courted tea party voters -- faced off in a third ballot. Because neither won 60 percent of the vote, they will compete again in a June 22 primary election. Either way , Utah is all but sure to elect a candidate in the fall with significant tea party support.

In some states, however, the tea party's influence could produce Republican candidates who are so conservative they face difficulty against Democrats in the fall elections. In New York last year, a tea party candidate forced a more moderate Republican to withdraw from a congressional race, and then lost to Democrat Bill Owens.

The Democratic Party is hoping for something similar in Kentucky, a conservative state where Democrats are regularly elected to statewide office. One view holds that the Democratic nominee -- to be chosen May 18, just like the Republican nominee -- would have a better shot at taking the Senate seat in a matchup with Paul precisely because of his tea party credentials.

"That the Tea Party would consider Bob Bennett -- one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate -- too liberal just goes to show how extreme the Tea Party is," Timothy M. Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. "This is just the latest battle in the corrosive Republican intra-party civil war . . . If there was any question before, there should now be no doubt that the Republican leadership has handed the reins to the Tea Party."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050803430.html


So now even conservative GOP elected officials are at risk for losing their jobs to ultra-conservatives. In Utah this might not cost the Republicans the seats in Congress. But it will in other places. How do you see this changing the landscape?
 
Weep Not for Bob Bennett


Conservative critics of Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican finishing his third term, may deprive him of his party’s nomination at a convention on Saturday. Some center-right columnists are appalled. He is one of “the good ones,” writes one of them, “widely respected in Washington.” (The columnist may consider these terms of praise synonymous.) If Bennett loses “because of his willingness to co-sponsor a centrist (in a good way!) health care reform bill,” writes another, “it will be fair to say that the Tea Partiers have hurt their party, and cost the country a good senator.”

Bennett’s defenders note, correctly, that he has voted with conservatives most of the time. But since his rivals would do the same, his voting record does not provide a reason to prefer him to them. Nor does his proven electability: Nobody doubts that his rivals could win a general election in Utah. The case for Bennett is that he reached across the aisle to promote what his defenders consider creative, market-driven health-care legislation.

So the question before Utah Republicans is, in part, whether that legislation reflects well or poorly on the senator’s judgment. On this point we disagree with his fans. Bennett’s bill was not superior to Obamacare. It was worse than it in some respects, but in the crucial respects it was simply identical. Obamacare’s three main elements are regulations that block insurance companies from accurately pricing risk, a requirement that all people buy this irrationally priced product, and subsidies to help some of them do that. Bennett’s legislation featured all three elements.


His legislation would have resulted in lower health spending than Obamacare, and more people would have purchased insurance for themselves rather than through their employers. But the lower spending would largely have been generated by pushing people into HMOs rather than by freeing them to make their own cost-quality trade-offs. And the solution to a decades-long federal policy of encouraging employer provision of health insurance is not a sudden move to a federal policy of prohibiting it.


Bennett’s legislation never received widespread public attention, but if it had it is safe to say that it would have been at least as unpopular as Obamacare proved — and probably less popular. The notion that it could have been a vehicle for heading off Obamacare is a fantasy.

On the most important political issue of the last two years, Bennett was mistaken; and he has not changed his mind (although he did, bizarrely, vote to declare Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional while remaining the co-sponsor of his own mandate-including bill). Perhaps this record does not obligate Utah Republicans to pick someone else. But if they do it should be no occasion for sadness beyond the circle of his friends and family.
http://article.nationalreview.com/433718/weep-not-for-bob-bennett/the-editors

:) :b:
 

A highly unpersuasive article from the perspective of anyone but a doctrinaire conservative. "He'll quit all that evil bipartisanship' isn't really a pitch I can cheer for. Of course, even from that rather limited perspective, is still wrong on the merits of Wyden-Bennett, a sadly overlooked piece of legislation.

And of course, none of Bennett's supposed sins are any different from the majority of the Republican Senate caucus, which I might note that the NRO is not hoping to see primaried. The exception to this of course is his support of a plan that would have been market based and actually abolished Medicaid, but would technically have been "healthcare reform", if not one in the same mold as Obama's plans.

Now of course, there is some merit to the argument that because Utah can feasibly support a much more conservative senator, it's a partisan waste to elect a mainstream conservative such as Bennett. This isn't inaccurate, of course, and I've noted in the past that both parties have legislators that could easily be replaced by superior ones. However, you also have to take into account legislative ability when making such calculations. And Wyden has that in bucketfuls.

Finally, extrapolating this is silly. Bennett couldn't get the nomination because he had to go through a nomination process with a bottleneck of a few thousand conservative activists, and he couldn't quite squeeze through. While primaries are inevitably dominated by their activist base, this really didn't speak for the opinions of the rank and file Republicans of Utah. The NRO, fearful of being outflanked on it's right, is just making post hoc justifications for a random event.

Basically, your article is intellectual comfort food for conservatives trying to expel the nagging voice of reason in the back of their heads. Forgive me if I don't take it as the commonsense explanation of events you seem to be offering it as.
 
Intreastingly its possible the same thing is happening with the Democrats, Specter is losing ground to Sestak and he has as good a chance or possibly even slightly better chance than Specter to win and is a more reliably liberal vote.
 
Intreastingly its possible the same thing is happening with the Democrats, Specter is losing ground to Sestak and he has as good a chance or possibly even slightly better chance than Specter to win and is a more reliably liberal vote.

...Sounds like the Senate's going to get even more polarised. Short of that, either a split vote for the Republicans, or an even more conservative Republican caucus.

...and this isn't even counting the House, which is far more partisan. I can only imagine how many Tea Partiers will get power there.

Does anyone here think that the Tea Partiers are an argument against PR? Across countless districts, their power is diluted... but in a state-wide district or large multi-member districts...
 
Does anyone here think that the Tea Partiers are an argument against PR? Across countless districts, their power is diluted... but in a state-wide district or large multi-member districts...
I'm not convinced that the possibility of people I disagree with attaining political representation is an argument against anything. If it was, I'd be for all for scrapping democracy entirely and inviting Karalysia to rule us with an iron fist, something which I'm still sort of 50-50 on.

Reactionary idiots are as entitled to their views as anyone else, and so entitled to have those views represented democratically. If anything, it's preferable that this is the case, as it may serve as a moderating influence, forcing them to behave themselves, and will give an accurate, and, I think, telling measure of the actual level of support they enjoy. It's easy to claim that a few thousand people milling about in front of the White House are the people risen, but harder to say the same of a tiny minority of the electorate.
 
Intreastingly its possible the same thing is happening with the Democrats, Specter is losing ground to Sestak and he has as good a chance or possibly even slightly better chance than Specter to win and is a more reliably liberal vote.

But the Democrats never really wanted Specter, just Specter's seat. It's a bit of a misfortune that Specter's seat happened to come with Specter in it.
 
I'm not convinced that the possibility of people I disagree with attaining political representation is an argument against anything. If it was, I'd be for all for scrapping democracy entirely and inviting Karalysia to rule us with an iron fist, something which I'm still sort of 50-50 on.

Reactionary idiots are as entitled to their views as anyone else, and so entitled to have those views represented democratically. If anything, it's preferable that this is the case, as it may serve as a moderating influence, forcing them to behave themselves, and will give an accurate, and, I think, telling measure of the actual level of support they enjoy. It's easy to claim that a few thousand people milling about in front of the White House are the people risen, but harder to say the same of a tiny minority of the electorate.

You may live in the UK, but in the US there is no democracy. America is a Republic.

And, yes, the conservatives take power and this is good.
 
This isn't Civilisation 3. The two are not mutually exclusive; indeed, the truest form of either demands the other.

Democracy-Rule by Majority

Republic- Rule by Law

In Democracy, for example, if the entire forum except you voted to ban you, even if you broke no rule, you'd be banned. As opposed to a Republic, you'd be safe because you broke no law.

Democracy is what they had in Athens (Don't know what the UK's got) the US is a Republican Government. In the words of James Madison

"We are a republican government, true liberty can never be found in despotism OR IN THE EXTREMES OF DEMOCRACY."

Democracy leads to

A: Republic (If coming out of something else, it can lead to a Republic, which is the correct path)

B: Authoritarianism

C: Anarchy (And then to A or B)

Democracy is a transition, it is mob rule.
 
"He'll quit all that evil bipartisanship' isn't really a pitch I can cheer for.
If his efforts at bipartisanship (the bailout votes, his health care proposal, etc) demonstrate poor judgement in the opinion of his party, what is lost in replacing a solid conservative vote with a solid conservative vote especially when there is no danger at all of loosing the seat?
 
"That the Tea Party would consider Bob Bennett -- one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate -- too liberal just goes to show how extreme the Tea Party is," Timothy M. Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. - Article

HA! Where's ziggy and his binary thinking comments now? If you don't support healthcare reform and back a bills that funnel hundreds of billions into failing companies you are suddenly conservative. And if you don't back those things ideologically you're an extremist. What a douchey comment.
 
Democracy-Rule by Majority

Republic- Rule by Law

A "Rule by Majority" is a "Direct Democracy. There are many different types of Democracy, and "Rule by Majority" is merely the "purest" form.

A Republic is not "Rule by Law." A Republic is a form of Democracy where the people are represented by elected officials.

The USA is actually a Constitutional Republic, which means that the people are represented by elected officials who govern the citizens according to a set of laws (ie. the Constitution).
 
The US is actually a monarchy.

If it was, I'd be for all for scrapping democracy entirely and inviting Karalysia to rule us with an iron fist, something which I'm still sort of 50-50 on.

It's good that people are coming around to the logic of Liberal Stalinism.
 
The US is actually a monarchy.
But... there is more than one lawmaker.

Wouldn't it be closer to an oligarchy, since highly-coveted positions in the legislature/executive branch can run in families(Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, Roosevelts, etc.) with larger groups having most of the power?

Not that I'm actually saying the U.S. is an oligarchy, but it seems closer to one than a monarchy.
 
The sent of anti incombancies are in the air. Even the tea party is starting to want to kick out GOP senators and representatives.
 
National tea party organizers embraced the victory as a major first step toward returning the Republican Party to its conservative foundations of limited government and low taxes.

Side question: low taxes? Aren't taxes really really low in the U.S. already?

How low do they want to go?
 
Hopefully he runs as a Independent.
 
Back
Top Bottom