Tag: Bob Bennett

State

The Race for Second

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

Within hours after I wrote about how far Bennett is from winning this senate race Bennett himself essentially confirms my position by bringing out some friendly generals and shooting himself in the foot while taking aim at Mike Lee. All except possibly his most ardent supporters will rightly recognize that taking that shot is a sign that the Senator knows how dire his position is and who is in place to win the Convention vote. Even those who agree with Bennett’s position must recognize how much that shot can hurt him in the race and consequently how dire his position is to have him taking the chance.

What has been really interesting to me was not that Bennett recognized how slim his chances are right now (I’ve never thought that he was as ignorant and disconnected from that reality as the necessarily optimistic tone of his campaight might make him appear) but that the commentary from all quarters since he took the shot seems to converge on the fact that not only is Mike Lee the clear frontrunner of all the candidates, but Senator Bennett is probably not even his closest challenger. In the race for second place it appears that Tim Bridgewater is currently in the lead.

Right now as Bennett tries to peel some support away from Lee it may be Bridgewater who is the primary beneficiary instead of Bennett. At the same time, Mike Lee is working his hardest to make sure the race for the Republican nomination ends on May 8th. I’m confident that Mike understands that he can’t count on that result although his position seems very safe to be among the top two if there is a primary.

Tags 2010. Senate, Bob Bennett, Mike Lee, Tim Bridgewater, Utah

State

Bennett’s Magic Number

With polls coming out surveying actual state delegates we are beginning to get our first picture of where Bob Bennett’s chances really stand. Of course we should never implicitly trust a first picture but it’s better than all the guesswork before the delegates had even been selected and more grounded in reality than straw polls or surveys of likely primary voters.

The Bennett campaign continues to say publicly that they think they have a decent shot and that they are making headway among the delegates. We should expect that kind of public statement from the campaign because any serious candidate must be at least publicly optimistic about their chances or else they have no reason to stay in the race. Consider that, like the Bennett campaign, the official line from the Lee and Bridgewater campaigns is that they are making headway among the delegates. I’m sure if you added all their optimism up it would add to well over 100% of all delegates – and that doesn’t count the optimism from any of the other five candidates.

Along with polls come public discussions such as this one of what the polls actually mean and how the convention will play out. Of course all such discussions are nothing more than guesswork but there are a few facts that can tell us a lot about how long Bennett will hold a seat in the Senate. The first fact is that he needs to receive votes from 40% of the delegates to even land in a primary. Also, all the rhetoric from the various campaigns and the delegate poll seems to be remarkably consistent in placing Bennett-supporting delagates somewhere in the low 20% range right now. There is also strong consensus that Bennett is highly unlikely to be the second choice for many delegates because a large portion (easily over 40%, almost certainly over 50%, and quite possibly over 60%) will vote for anyone except Bob Bennett this year. Because of this I feel very confident in saying that Bennett’s magic number at the convention in first round voting is 30% of the votes.

Even if Bennett were the top vote getter in the first round, if he only received 29.5% of the votes in that first round I am very confident that he would not be able to pick up enough votes in later rounds to reach the 40% plateau no matter which of his challengers were left in the top three. (I am not limiting that possibility to Lee and Bridgewater even if they are the only challengers I have mentioned in the post.) Even if he were to receive the most votes in the second round, say 36% (that is my wildest imagination if the first round generated only 29.5% for him), the third round would see virtually every delegate who had not already voted for him voting for whoever was left of his challengers and there would be no primary.

If Bob Bennett currently has the support of 22% of the state delegates, as this poll has indicated, that would mean he needs to convince another 8% to support him in the first round. That is approximately 300 delegates he will need to sway in this highly anti-incumbent atmosphere to have any chance of surviving into a primary.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, Mike Lee, senate, Utah

Local State

Tasks for State Delegates

Post author By David
Post date March 19, 2010
No Comments on Tasks for State Delegates

Heading into the last few days before the precinct caucus meetings I feel that it is important to acknowledge that state delegates have more to do than simply vote for the senate candidate of their choice at the convention. I know that my focus here has been on that race and it seems that many other people focus primarily there. I can honstly say that only the various senate campaigns seem to be making a large push to get their supporters to run as delegates.

At the caucus meetings it is important for those running for state delegate positions (and those who are voting for delegates), regardless of which senate candidate they may favor, to keep in mind that delegates have more to do than pick and support a senate candidate. For example, in my precinct there are three offices that have intra-party challenges (assuming nobody files to run for the Republican nomination against Rob Bishop today):

Governor — Gary Herbert, Richard Martin, and “SuperDell” Schanze
U.S. Senate — Bob Bennett, Tim Bridgewater, David Chiu, Cherilyn Eagar, Leonard Fabiano, and Mike Lee
House District 20 — Becky Edwards, Chet Loftis, and D J Schanz

Interestingly the incumbent is alphabetically first in each of those races.

All caucus attendees need to keep in mind that a state delegate must attend to each of the races, not just the one they are most interested in. We may give more weight to the race that we are most concerned with but we must realize that the position encompasses all the races.

Tags 2010, Becky Edwards, Bob Bennett, Cherilyn Eagar, Davis County, Gary Herbert, House 20, Mike Lee, senate, state delegate, Tim Bridgewater, Utah

State

Meet the Candidates

Ben Horsley, a friend and candidate for House District 19 this year, put together a meet the candidates event as part of his campaign on Saturday at Bountiful City Hall. This was not a chance to meet the candidates for District 19 (where I don’t live anyway but if I did I’d be voting for him) but the candidates for U.S. Senate. It included all the Republican Candidates as well as other political figures in Utah (most prominently Rob Bishop and Mark Shurtleff). Although I have been interested in this race for over a year and thus have been closely studying the candidates for a long time I had not previously met Tim Bridgewater or James Williams – I could hardly pass up such a great opportunity right in my own back yard (so to speak). Thanks Ben!

Having studied the candidate previously I had some idea of my order of preference, but I really enjoyed this debate as it allowed me to really get things sorted out. Here’s my order of preference:

1. Mike Lee – I don’t think that surprises anyone considering I already publicly endorsed him but after hearing him with all the other candidates together I am that much more confident that he should be our Senator come next year.

2. Tim Bridgewater – I really like Tim overall. I think he’d make a decent senator – I just think that Mike would be better at filling the Constitutional duties of a senator.

3. (tie) Laura Bridgewater – she sat in for her husband for the first bit of the debate as he was running late and she had a good grasp of what our next senator should be and do – she’d be a great support to Tim if he were elected.

3. (tie) Sharon Lee – I’ve heard her speak before and believe she is a good support for Mike. I hadn’t thought to rank her among the candidates until I saw Mrs. Bridgewater in her husband’s place among the candidates but I think either of those two spouses would be better than the other candidates.

5. (tie) Bob Bennett – Despite his failings Bennett is not the worst choice available to us in this campaign. Like a typical Washington insider he is so busy viewing everything as “extremely complicated” that he seems to have lost sight of most of the simple facts that should be informing our complicated decisions.

5. (tie) James Williams – I had high hopes for James. I had heard really good things about him from people attending other debates, but after listening to him I am forced to conclude that he is a good and well-intentioned man who is out of his depth politically. Philosophically he has good principles, but I don’t believe that he would be an effective force at representing those principles or the people of Utah.

7. Cherilyn Eagar – I remember being excited about the possibilities when I started investigating her as a candidate, but seeing her in a debate showed her as combative, passionate, and disrespectful. If I wanted someone like that there must be 20 other states I could move to where I would have two such Senators in place already. She argues that having a conservative woman in the Senate would be a powerful thing – I’m sure that’s true, but I’ve already named two other conservative women from Utah who would make better senators.

Tags 2010, Ben Horsley, Bob Bennett, campaigns, Cherilyn Eagar, House 19, James Williams, Mike Lee, senate, Tim Bridgewater

State

Endorsing Mike Lee

Last night I finally got to meet Mike Lee in person. I had been looking forward to the opportunity for a number of reasons. As long as I have been interested in this Senate race I have been carefully looking at the many candidates (past and present). Even before Mike entered the race I had met almost every candidate seeking this seat and, despite how promising a few of them initially looked, I had found many that I could not endorse and none that I was comfortable endorsing. In fact, by the time Mike announced his intention to run I was almost ready to support him by default (there was only one other candidate I had not completely ruled out by then).

After meeting Mike last night and talking to him, asking a few questions and listening as he answered the questions of a few other people, I came away knowing that this was a candidate I could endorse as completely and freely as I would endorse myself if I were a candidate for some office. Mike Lee is the right candidate for this position. He has the knowledge and the capacity to fill this office well and he is in the race for the right reasons. In fact, as I talked to him I discovered that he is in the race for the exact same reason that I have been so interested in this race for so long.

My plan now is to go out and do everything I can to make sure that I don’t have to try making another endorsement as the field of candidates is whittled down. I plan to still be cheering Mike on in December.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, candidates, Mike Lee, senate

Local National

Marionette Bob Bennett

photo credit: © Giorgio

While candidate Mike Lee acted like a senator on the issue of confirming Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Bob Bennett acted like a marionette under the control of the mystical wizard of Washington D.C. With a short press release and a predictable vote, our “Senator” Bob Bennett plainly demonstrated the cancerous logic that is rampant among Washington insiders. Here is how he justified his vote to confirm Ben Bernanke:

I reluctantly cast a vote in favor of Ben Bernanke because I do not want to give President Obama the opportunity to put someone who shares his leftist views in charge of the Federal Reserve. I am aware of the mistakes that have been made at the Fed while Chairman Bernanke has been there, but I fear an alternative would be worse for the country’s economic future.

So our elected Marionette is simply trying to save us from having the president nominate someone else. Cute. Perhaps he should have engaged his brain and realized two simple facts – first, if Bernanke was not confirmed by the senate there is little chance that President Obama would have name a more extreme nominee (the natural reaction would be to nominate a safer pick); second, considering the makeup of the Senate (not to mention the final vote tally) opposing Bernanke would have been unlikely to prevent his confirmation but at least it would not have demonstrated approval for his performance (a vote to confirm sends that message more strongly than any press release about your supposed reluctance to cast the vote).

Tags 2010, Ben Bernanke, Bob Bennett, Elevated, Mike Lee, money, senate

General

2074 Pages of Loopholes

With Thanksgiving weekend behind us all politically interested people can look forward to the Senate opening work on the healthcare bill. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

. . . senators {will} work on weekends if necessary to hammer out compromises on thorny issues like a government-run insurance plan, abortion coverage and holding down costs.

“The next few weeks will tell us a lot about whether senators are more committed to solving problems or creating them,” Reid said.

I make no pretense that I have abandoned my day job and any semblance of a life to read through the entire 2074 pages of H.R. 3590 but I have read through the entire 13 page index of the bill and looked up a number of sections that either looked interesting or concerning to me. Of course my first question is how will this affect my health insurance situation (that may give some insight into the 12 sections I reviewed). The real question in this debate is whether there will be anyone who takes the time in the coming weeks (according to the story linked above we may expect up to 3 weeks of debate) to read the entire bill and break down what it actually means for consumers and the nation – going beyond the party-line soundbites that we will no doubt be subjected to constantly through the media for as long as the debate lasts.

After reading through my chosen sections I found seven that were interesting enough for me to write about them. (For anyone who is curious, there are approximately 350 sections to the bill – 50 times what I am doing today.) I will review them in the order they appear in the bill.

Tags Bob Bennett, Harry Reid, health care, issues, legislation, Orrin Hatch, reactions, senate

General

Stretching Our TARP

photo credit: wolfheadfilms

When the TARP bill was first being discussed I made a statement that I would like to repeat about the TARP money:

[T]his should not be used as a windfall by Congress to fund some pet projects.

We have come to the point now where Congress is faced with the question of whether to extend the program past the initial time of authorization. From the earliest versions of the bill (not including the 3 page version written by Sec. Paulson) to the final version the program was authorized only until 2009 with the option for Congress to extend it as far as two years from the day it was enacted (October 10, 2010 being that two year mark). Faced with the reality of this first deadline there are people who are absolutely opposed to those members of Congress who have indicated a desire to not extend the program.

I stand by my response to what I called “my favorite section” of that first version of the bill:

Of course I won’t hold my breath that it will die in two years or less.

Indeed, Sec. Geithner testified before Congress yesterday that:

he would not support a permanent extension of the program, but . . .

(emphasis added)

Tags bailout, Bob Bennett, Elevated, money

State technology

Constituent Communication Can Innoculate Against Insiderism

Post author By David
Post date November 6, 2009
4 Comments on Constituent Communication Can Innoculate Against Insiderism

When I wrote about a legislator’s role as an information analyst the comments initially centered on Sen. Bob Bennett because of a quote I had used despite my desire to not single anyone out. Later in the comments on that post I made this statement that deserves to be elevated to its own post here:

In my opinion, the best defense against staying too long and becoming part of the problem is to maintain communication with constituents that is open enough for the constituents to indicate when the officeholder is compromising too much (or not enough in some rare cases) and the integrity to step aside when the officeholder finds that they consistently cannot act in accordance with the feedback they are receiving from constituents in good conscience.

Now that Senator Bennett has demonstrated a refusal to maintain open communication with constituents I am singling him out and exposing his refusal to communicate openly.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, civic participation, connections, discourse, Orrin Hatch, reactions, senate, twitter

National State

Fundraising Tells Us a Story

Post author By David
Post date October 16, 2009
No Comments on Fundraising Tells Us a Story

The third quarter just ended which means its time that the public can start learning how candidates have done on fundraising for the last quarter. The fundraising reports are pretty dry and generally boring. They always result in reports about which opponents in any given race are getting the most cash such as Bennett outpaces Shurtleff in fundraising, but the fundraising reports also tell us stories about the state of politics in general and specific races in particular.

The big race in Utah right now is the 2010 race for the senate seat currently held by Bennett. The story on that particular race is that Bennett is raising more money than Shurtleff or any of his other challengers. This should hardly surprise anyone because of his incumbency. Money spent on a challenger is a sign of support and hopes for what that challenger will do in the future if they win. It might also be a bit of a statement against the incumbent, but disappointment with the incumbent does not tend to appear as a large campaign donation to a challenger this early in the race. Money spent on an incumbent is support for the future and an opportunity in the present to weigh in on the issues between now and election day next year – that extra year of getting an actual legislator to listen to you is bound to attract more cash.

Bennett’s only Democratic challenger raised “about $19,600 in the third quarter” demonstrating that Utah is still solidly Republican and few people are even looking to the Democrats for serious consideration.

Another story in that particular rage is this:

A shotgun shooting event raised $88,600 for the Shurtleff Joint Fund. That total includes $25,000 from Provo-based company Success Multimedia, $20,000 from Nu Skin, and $10,000 each from EnergySolutions and USANA Health Sciences.

The fact that Shurtleff raises large chunks of cash from a few organizations for individual events tells us that Shurtleff is almost guaranteed to be the same type of politician as Bennett no matter how different he claims to be on the campaign trail. Some people will like that, others will not, but that’s the story told by the money. Hopefully nobody expects more than cosmetic change if Shurtleff succeeds in replacing Bennett.

It was a later portion of the article that tells the story of the state of politics generally:

The Hatch campaign traded in an old Cadillac for a newer, but still used, Cadillac, spending $36,900 at Young Chevrolet. The senator will use the car when he is in the state.

I doubt that there is anything unusual about this for a sitting member of Congress – which is what irks me. Do I have any reason to complain about how Hatch spends money that is not taken from taxpayers by force? No, but the story this tells is instructive.

I have no problem with Hatch buying a Cadillac. I have no problem with him spending more on a used car that I have spent on cars in the whole of my life. (I’ve purchased 3 cars myself and if you added those prices together plus all my repairs and gas purchased for the last 10 years it still probably comes out to less than $36K.) The thing I have a problem with is that we pay this man $180,000 a year – which should be enough to afford a car for D.C. and a car for Utah – and on top of that salary he still gets to use his campaign fundraising money as a permanent expense account. If he’s getting a $600,000 per year expense account (notice that his election is 3 years away right now and he’s still taking in over half a million per year) why are we paying him another $180,000? Is it any wonder that sitting members of Congress can so easily get completely out of touch with reality when we pay them that much and still allow them to take many of their basic expenses out of a completely separate fund?

If I believed that was an honest way to make a living I would start permanently campaigning for high profile offices as soon as I believed that I could attract even a fraction of the donations that Hatch receives in perpetuity.

The moral of the story about politics generally is that freeloading is alive and well at all levels of society – we give our leaders precisely what many people in society wish they had.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, Mark Shurtleff, money, Orrin Hatch, Salt Lake Tribune, senate