Senator Bennett loses nomination bid

myp · May 8, 2010

Senator Robert Bennett was the first incumbent to lose the nomination for his party this year. The Republican, who currently serves Utah finished third at the state GOP convention, which ends his chances of receiving the party's nomination.

I am really not surprised at this as I think it is going to be the first of many incumbents losing their seats in the coming election.

full story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...33475849608.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Thoughts?

Calvin · May 9, 2010

myp said:
Senator Robert Bennett was the first incumbent to lose the nomination for his party this year. The Republican, who currently serves Utah finished third at the state GOP convention, which ends his chances of receiving the party's nomination.

I am really not surprised at this as I think it is going to be the first of many incumbents losing their seats in the coming election.

full story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...33475849608.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Thoughts?

I would like to know whether there was any impropriety or allegations of impropriety involved? Its hard to understand why the party would not continue to endorse this person if he has done a reasonable job and not antagonized the party.

Or perhaps the Republican party is starting to use a broom to sweep out dead wood and make way for new blood, to make it better able to compete at the next presidential election?

myp · May 9, 2010

Calvin said:
I would like to know whether there was any impropriety or allegations of impropriety involved? Its hard to understand why the party would not continue to endorse this person if he has done a reasonable job and not antagonized the party.

Or perhaps the Republican party is starting to use a broom to sweep out dead wood and make way for new blood, to make it better able to compete at the next presidential election?

Utah has a pretty unique system of dwindling down the candidates before the primary. I wouldn't say he lost because of any huge impropriety as you described, but more likely due to pressure from the populist tea party movement. The great thing about that movement is that it is not about Democrat or Republican anymore- it is more about the issues and where the politicians stand on them. One of the things that probably put off a lot of people towards Bennett is that he voted for TARP.

David · May 9, 2010

myp said:
Utah has a pretty unique system of dwindling down the candidates before the primary. I wouldn't say he lost because of any huge impropriety as you described, but more likely due to pressure from the populist tea party movement. The great thing about that movement is that it is not about Democrat or Republican anymore- it is more about the issues and where the politicians stand on them. One of the things that probably put off a lot of people towards Bennett is that he voted for TARP.

TARP saved this country from depression. the way it was handled, imo, only delayed rather then prevent it but still. 1 of the better things Bush did and had he focused on the people it would have worked better. Giving everyone $1 million would of had a faster and longer lasting positive impact (even if someone blew it, it'd be cold hard cash, so no debt) and at only $300 million it would of been far cheaper. Another option that I heard (and the stock market rose while the guy was talking and fell whenever he wasn't :giggle

was that TARP could have been used to create new banks creating a bypass and allowing the 'too big to fail' banks to fail without killing the economy.

As it is, it lined a bunch of idiot's pockets and we'll be back at square 1 once the money runs out and gov't/personal debt takes hold once more. Better then mile long bread line, though.

myp · May 9, 2010

David said:
TARP saved this country from depression. the way it was handled, imo, only delayed rather then prevent it but still. 1 of the better things Bush did and had he focused on the people it would have worked better. Giving everyone $1 million would of had a faster and longer lasting positive impact (even if someone blew it, it'd be cold hard cash, so no debt) and at only $300 million it would of been far cheaper. Another option that I heard (and the stock market rose while the guy was talking and fell whenever he wasn't :giggle was that TARP could have been used to create new banks creating a bypass and allowing the 'too big to fail' banks to fail without killing the economy.

As it is, it lined a bunch of idiot's pockets and we'll be back at square 1 once the money runs out and gov't/personal debt takes hold once more. Better then mile long bread line, though.

I of course would have to respectfully, disagree

Giving everyone $1 million would cost $9 trillion, not $300 million ($300 million would be roughly a dollar to each person which wouldn't have done anything.)

Your last point is interesting (creating new banks) because that is what would have happened naturally. When companies go under and don't get bailed out, their non-toxic assets get sold off to investors, others banks, etc. through the bankruptcy process. All of the good assets would still have been existent as under a "new bank" solution. No need for the government to do it though, it would have happened naturally. That just leaves the toxic assets, which companies and people who had made bad decisions would have to pay for/hang on to until they appreciated. The bailouts just looked to take that burden off those who made bad decisions, which in my opinion isn't really fair to those of us who didn't invest in those assets.

irahat · May 13, 2010

After reading the Senator's responses, the word "incorrigible" comes to mind. For those who will not represent their contingencies should find other work. We'll make sure of it.

Senator Bennett loses nomination bid

myp

Calvin

myp

David

myp

irahat

Similar threads