Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
Nobody with a political pulse in Utah could be surprised at the news that Sens. Bennett and Hatch plan to run again, especially considering that they both have their campaign websites up and running already (yes, even Hatch for 2012). I have often been discouraged by the assertions of a trusted friend that Hatch is unbeatable for as long as he chooses to run after being in the Senate for over 30 years. My hope that he is wrong got a boost from that Deseret News article.
Holly provides a good rundown against the "seniority is everything" argument of our two senators and we have the next 3 years to disprove Hatch’s assertion that "Sen. Bennett and I work as hard every day for Utahns as the first day we set foot in the U.S. Senate." (They undoubtedly work hard, but the more I look at their records the less I am convinced that either of them work for Utahns anymore like they did the first day they set foot in the Senate.) I would like to provide a proactive argument for why both of our senators should be replaced now even if you believe the seniority argument.
First of all, neither of our Senators is getting any younger so they will have to be replaced sooner than they would like to admit. While they would both like to be compared to the LDS apostles since few people among their voters would care to think of the apostles in a negative light, the fact is that there is a vast difference between the temporary election of a political officeholder and the permanent appointment of an ecclesiastical leader. We know going in that the apostles are there for life, not so with the senators.
Secondly, the Republican party is out of power right now (especially with Arlen Specter switching parties so that the Democrats will have the 60 vote margin to end any attempted filibuster) which diminishes the value of any seniority they have amassed in their decades in office. The Democrats may maintain the 60 seat majority in 2010, but even if they don’t they are virtually assured of maintaining control of the senate. That means that now is the time to elect some new senators so that they can start building their seniority in advance of 2014 (the earliest that Republicans have any real shot at regaining control) rather than waiting until 2016, 2018, or whenever one of our senators fails his immortality test.
8 replies on “Hoping History Holds”
On the other hand, we could keep Hatch in there so that he can continue to schmooze the Democrats and be a water carrier for their policies.
The sad truth is that Utah Republicans are not about to toss Hatch or Bennett. A super strong primary challenger would have to emerge. Shurtleff thinks he can pick off Bennett? That’s a laugh. Exactly how would he be different than Bennett? In age only, I guess.
Both Hatch and Bennett have the resources to pick off any would be challenger from the right and neither of them will ever again face a serious Democratic challenger as long as they live and continue to run. It’s a sad deal.
I completely agree that Hatch and Bennett are unlikely to ever face a serious challenge from a Democrat (although if Jim Matheson were to throw his hat in he might be able to make the race interesting). Any hope I have for removing them rests in the Republican convention and/or primary. I don’t have any significant confidence that Shurtleff could pull it off, but if he’s the only challenger I will definitely pull for him because at worse he would be more of the same.
I doubt Rep. Matheson could successfully compete in a statewide race in the current political climate. He would be in the same boat as other Democrats that have fared well in the 2nd congressional district. He would find scant support outside of his current district, even if he is a blue dog Democrat.
I would vote for Shurtleff at the convention and even in the primary, if he should get that far. I would do that just to give Bennett the understanding that some of us are ready for him to retire. But I doubt we’ll have an opportunity to vote for Shurtleff in November 2010. I wonder if he isn’t just trying to get a leg up on running for governor in 2012. (I doubt he’d vie for Hatch’s seat after losing to Bennett.)
I have to agree that Matheson is a much longer shot now than he might have been in 2006 – even then I doubt he would have won, just that he might have kept the race interesting. And I think you are absolutely right that Shurtleff would be unlikely to challenge Hatch after losing to Bennett. On the other hand I refuse to give up this early on the idea that Bennett can be ousted.
Hatch and Bennett currently claim that their tenure is their most valuable feature. Once the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the tenure of Republicans like Hatch and Bennett will be nearly useless, thus, marginalizing their supposed value.
This might provide a well organized challenger a better opportunity. What better time to switch than when the GOP is down and out?
Even then it could only happen if a lot — A LOT — of registered Republicans are unhappy with the current senators. A challenger would have two chances to oust a sitting senator in Utah: at the convention or in the primary. Let’s face it; whichever Republican makes it to the general election will get the office.
Anyone that wants to challenge Bennett (or Hatch) could learn a whole lot from studying Jason Chaffetz’s 2007-2008 methods. He concentrated on organizing in the precincts — at the lowest level. Long-timers don’t do that kind of thing because it takes a heck of a lot of work and they feel secure enough that they don’t want to bother. Cannon was stunned at the convention when Chaffetz nearly beat him there. It would be great to catch Bennett off guard and have someone take him down at the state convention without having to go to a primary. That would require 60.1% of the vote. But if that doesn’t happen, Bennett would have a lot of money to spend on a primary campaign, making it difficult for the challenger to beat him.
For this reason I say that a groundswell of Republicans would have to be unhappy with Bennett, just as many district 3 Republicans were unhappy with Cannon for quite some time before Chaffetz was able to take advantage of that sentiment. Frankly, I just don’t see that level of dissatisfaction with Bennett at this point, although, I’d love to see it.
I agree wholeheartedly. My first inclination was that we have more independents than registered Republicans and so you were wrong, but then I realized (even before I had read that far) that the only way to take these incumbents out is to do so in the convention or Republican primary so it has to be lots of disaffected Republicans. I agree that Chaffetz campaign provides the model and I can see your logic that longtime party officeholders might rely on a more traditional party-establishment approach (perhaps that’s why Steve Urquhart dropped out so early in 2006).
The one place I think you might be wrong is that I am hearing a lot of dissatisfaction among active registered Republicans aimed at both Hatch and Bennett. Whether it’s enough remains to be seen, but I think it’s out there more than you give it credit for.
If you want a whole lot of Utah Republicans to be upset with Bennett… Show them his voting record, most voters never really look at that.
First, nobody wants to review the votes of an 18 year senate career (or even a 6 year senate career) so you can’t show voters his voting record without cherrypicking and people either ignore you or already agree with you when you do that. Besides, I don’t care to make people upset with Bennett – I’d rather focus on the fact that with Republicans out of power (and likely to be so for a few more years) now is the perfect time to replace a 77 year old senator so that someone new can gain their experience and seniority before that time when the pendulum swings back and Republicans have significant influence again.