« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why Sen. Bob Bennett Must Go

By: Aaron Gardner (Diary)  |  March 12th, 2010 at 08:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I was on a conference call earlier today.  A couple of the guests were Sen. Bob Bennett and Rep. Eric Cantor.  Sen. Bennett talked about the political chicanery taking place with the HCR bill currently dying a horrific death in the House.  Rep. Cantor also spoke on the HCR package.  In addition Rep. Cantor mentioned the unilateral earmark moratorium the House Republicans passed.

Sen. Bennett had a difficult time with the automated phone system, well to tell you the truth … the man got pwned.  

Completely and utterly.  

First the Senator was muted and the techs couldn’t get him on.  Then once Sen. Bennett was finally able to be heard, well, the automated system began it’s mockery.  The lovely voice coming from the machine kept talking over Sen. Bennett.  At one point I could tell the Senator was getting frustrated as he raised his voiced and then just conceded that he should quit listening to the voice in his ear.  Boy, if I had a nickel for everytime I have been told to not listen to the voices in my ear.

Anyway, after the awesome display of technological pwnage over Sen Bennett, he was still willing to take questions.  Unfortunately the first and only question would be from me.

I then introduced myself to Sen. Bennett and proceeded to ask my question.

“Senator, the House Republicans just took a pledge to not take any earmarks.  What are your thoughts on Senator Jim DeMint’s proposal in the Senate to do the same?”

Sen. Bennett responded, “I am on the other side of that particular issue; I think it is a constitutional issue.“

Sen. Bennett then went on to cite Republican’s as examples of the abuse of earmarks.   I am not sure why he did this if he is for retaining earmarks, and to go after a Republican while doing it?  I mean, come on Senator, we are in an election year here if you haven’t noticed.  But I digress.

In his defense Sen. Bennett made it clear that he thinks the earmark is a constitutional protection from a dictatorial executive, a safeguard to direct the people’s money responsibly.  To Bennett, the money will be spent no matter what.  The thought of challenging the spending in the first place never even crossed his mind.  And herein lays the real problem, which I will get to in a moment.

Bennett also extolled the importance of earmarking for Defense budgets and tried to throw in some red meat about NASA and the military and how without earmarks both would be in jeopardy.  I then presented Sen. Bennett with a follow up, one that would allow an easy recovery for any conservative, but also a trap for those who always talk the talk and never dare walk the walk.

I asked, “What if there was a compromise that would exclude things that are constitutionally the realm of the Federal Government?  Such as our defense and other enumerated powers.”

Bennett immediately began debating what is and isn’t Constitutional and how murky the waters are on this subject.  The moment I began to reiterate that the Constitution has enumerated powers listed specifically in order to clear these murky waters, the call was abruptly dropped.

Alas, the time Sen. Bennett and I shared together was as revealing as it was fleeting.  With nothing but two solid questions, I had Sen. Bennett exposing himself as unqualified for the job he currently possesses.

The opinion that earmarks are an essential tool granted by the constitution is absolutely defendable, but along with that acceptance comes a responsibility of the man using the tool to know when and how to use it.  This is the real problem that I referred to above.  From Sen. Bennett’s answer it appears that he doesn’t know what is enumerated in the constitution as being within the Federal governments’ purview.  Nor does the Senator understand that just because a president sends a bloated budget that doesn’t mean you can’t gut the thing.

This man does not deserve to represent the second most conservative State in the Nation as their Senator.  He is either ignorant of his duties, and therefore should be removed, or he is willfully abdicating his so called conservative principles.  In either case, the people of Utah need to send this slick D.C. politician packing.

Aaron B. Gardner

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Mary Beth

    All of these frauds need to be exposed and primaried/voted out. Good job.

  • lucretius

    First of all, good for Cantor. Hope he means it.

    Note: I’m a Democrat. Not sure I’m allowed to post here. I assume you’ll ban me if I’m not. Anyhoo, looking up the Daily Caller source it doesn’t sound quite as promising since it’s only a one-year pause instead of an outright ban.

    I want Democrats to go further on banning earmarks. It’s a basic corruption issue. The absence of strict party discipline in the US can make heroes out of individual legislators, but it can also make it way too easy to get away with quid-pro-quo schemes. It also allows fence-sitters like Nelson and Snowe to extort favors on any controversial legislation (though I’m only aware of the former doing it in this instance).

    There’s the added issue that I’m not inclined to trust Cantor, but if he’s willing to hold himself responsible for keeping his caucus’ behavior in check, all the best to him. Does anyone how easy it is for the minority party to get earmarks? I hope this isn’t just a cynical ploy to make the majority look bad, only to be scrapped once the tables are turned.

  • youthgrunt

    I have been of two minds on earmarks. Certainly the practical use of them has been to abuse and corrupt the budget. Not to mention buying votes.

    On the other hand, I am very frustrated at the level of discretion that Congress leaves to whichever administration (or worse yet, the bureaucracy) to direct spending and rule writing. I see this as an abdication of their responsibilities. In this sense and in the hands of a virtuous representative, the earmark process is the way that Congress can hold up its own responsibilities.

    I suppose from a practical point of view, rejecting earmarks is a good thing. But I am inclined to give those who disagree on that a bit of slack.

    But to your point of Bennett not understanding the real Constitutional authorizations: someone suggested on Fred Thompson’s radio program either today or yesterday suggested a NCLB program–No Congressman Left Behind. Let’s give them an annual test to see if they know the fundamentals of their Constitution. It would be kind of fun. I know of a few who wouldn’t have a clue.

  • makemyday

    So to go into the why on the banning of earmarks is a start in our opinion is it may lead to some responsibility on the part of our legislatures.

    Self discipline of the citizenry is fundamental to the success of our Republic. If we are incapable of disciplining ourselves without the help of government then we are doomed. This running to the government to fix every little problem that crops up is assinine.

    We need to cut the spending in Washington, reduce the money that is flowing into and out of that swamp and let the money stay in the respective states.

  • RedBeard

    …if the limited powers of the Constitution were honored.

  • smitch61

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202615_pf.html

  • acat

    I’m willing to cut an .. older guy .. like Bennett some slack on using teleconference gear. He ought to have had a tech-savvy guy helping him out – as the quote goes “Those who know why hire those who know how” – and as the Senator, Bennett ought to have known why.

    I’m not willing to cut him slack, and recommend the citizens of Utah cut bait, over the issue of what the correct size and role of government should be. The Constitution works not because it’s some unicorn-fart-powered “living document”, rather because it deliberately limits the size and scope of government to a point where the average schmuck isn’t oppressed and is able to go about his or her existence, making his or her own way in the world.

    If Bennett doesn’t get that government needs to get out of the way, then perhaps – hopefully – the people of Utah will get *Bennett* out of the way.

    Mew

  • cbs

    I think it is important that we play it straight when going after a relatively conservative member like Bennett. It does the conservative movement little credit when we make exaggerated, ticky-tack complaints to bring a man down when many of those same criticisms could be leveled against a number of Republicans we continue to support.

    I say that only to contrast Aaron’s fair, legitimate critique of Bennett with Erick’s rambling, misguided critique of Bennett from earlier today. In my mind, Aaron’s post represents the appropriate way to criticize a sitting Senator like Bennett. You give him a fair shake where appropriate, and yet still point out where he strays from conservative orthodoxy.

    Rather than trying to condemn the man for the perfectly legitimate actions of former staff (I daresay, even DeMint and Flake have former staff who now lobby), or for accepting campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie (which is something many, many Republicans have done) while serving as a senior Member of the Banking Committee, Aaron has provided us a good example of how to point out legitimate flaws in the sitting Senator.

    I much prefer this approach than some of the short, snarky, selective, and generally lacking in substance critiques of Bennett that we’ve seen elsewhere on this site.

  • youthgrunt

    .

  • antisocial

    I guess discussion is a good thing. BTW…. now that you are here read stuff. There is hope for you :-) I hope you like it here.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    The key points to staying in good graces with the RedState management (which I am not one of, but a long-time community member) are

    1) Remember that the purpose of this site is to advance conservative and Republican interests; and

    2) Post well-reasoned and respectiful commentary. Inflammatory writing (aka trolling) or mindlessly parroting talking points will get you shown the door very quickly.

    In contrast, what you wrote above is the kind of thoughtful commentary that I would hope receives comparable treatment-in-kind.

    And 3) Have a listening spirit. There are quite a few folks here with expertise and knowledge far beyond mine in industry and government. Quite a few folks here have crossed over from the other side.

    And two other things if you stay around: you need to have some thickness of skin and not take things too personally; RedState is known for vigorous controversy over ideas, but remember that most of the time, it’s not personal attack, just attack directed at ideas. To be sure, sometimes the ad hominem line is crossed, but then hopefully others will step in.

    Also, check out various threads and check out the archives on the hot button issues so that you know the topography and local customs the natives before you start commenting much.

    So welcome to RedState.

  • joayn

    But stuff like bike racks in Boston make my head explode. Sean Hannity’s show tonight was on earmarks from the stimulus bill and they are all so evil.

    It just drives me crazy that any of us should have to pay for some nat’s ass foolish project in a state where the Democrats have run the place into the ground, indulged their union buddies and over-taxed their citizenry.

    “… but along with that acceptance comes a responsibility of the man using the tool to know when and how to use it.” Beautifully said, Aaron.

  • Finrod

    Every federally elected official, all 537 of them, needs to be reminded as often as possible that our federal government is one of enumerated and limited powers.

  • http://whereswalden.com/ Jeff Walden

    I would rather see a couple posts like this a week, explained in detail with situational nuance captured, than a post a day of the sort Erick’s been posting lately. His posts usually[0] get you angry. This post gets you (less? hard to judge) angry, but equally important, it gives carefully reasoned ammunition to convince sympathetic bystanders who otherwise might have considered granting the benefit of a reasonable doubt over what might have been a one-off, cherry-picked instance.

    A small quibble with an excellent post: you buried the lede! The phone issues, while maybe amusing (although I think due benefit of the doubt requires more graciousness, even if your subsequent unfortunately demonstrated any imputed slight was minor), served only to distract from the real substance of the post. They delayed the story that matters, that can convince caucus members to advocate and donors to donate: that Bob Bennett does not have an instinctive tendency toward limited government. Focus only on that and you have a shorter piece more likely to be read fully, that omits at best a mere quibble over a temporary issue (politicians’ technical chops). Politicians’ technical skills will generally increase over time no matter who gets elected; their acceptance of limited government and proper delineation of responsibilities may not.

    0. This post is a very prominent exception. The front page routinely includes exhortations to donate to candidates who, presumably, aren’t from the states of most readers. Are candidates who accept those donations less acceptable than ones who don’t? Would Scott Brown have won without out-of-state donations? I don’t know and don’t care: the right person got elected. Even if that weren’t the case, locals have final say at the polls; the world can only attempt to convince them one way or another. The Citigroup (or corporate?) dig doesn’t sit well with me, either. Accepting donations from Citigroup as a private entity (public like Fannie Mae is different and was subject of a better post) is perfectly fine with me, so long as Bennett doesn’t respond with favoritism. Monetary votes of faith are permissible; it’s immoral accord with resultant influence that’s wrong.

  • penguin2

    he’ll be revealing more and more what he has been trying to hide on key issues. He is in the campaign mode, where everything is nuanced and made to sound like he is on the right side of issues or in agreement, and then once elected does the opposite. The establishment GOP, who got us into this fix and they don’t like having their cover blown.

    I bet he was mumbling after the question, Aaron, “who was that guy?”

    Great job.

  • mbecker908

    He’s a professional member of the Washington elite and represents the interests of the people of the Washington Beltway.

    As far as “he’s just doing what others have done”, that doesn’t fly. It didn’t work for my kids and shouldn’t work for a US Senator. In point of fact the “others” should be tossed out of office as well, but in most cases they either aren’t running or we don’t have a credible candidate (the case with Graham and McCain for two who shouldn’t be reelected either). In UT we’ve got credible opposition to Bennett. He should be beaten soundly in the primary and then barred from the Party as an embarrassment.

    The way you stop bad behavior is to punish it. And in Bennett’s case capital punishment is appropriate.

  • tnvolunteer

    I heard a Republican politician defend earmarks using Bennett’s reasoning, that the money will be spent regardless, so we (the pols) need to make sure it’s spent where it’s needed. The point that the government is *spending too much* seems to be entirely unthinkable to these types of people.

    My immediate response, which baffled said politician, was this: If your reasoning is sound, the EVERY LAST PENNY of the budget should be earmarked. His answer? “That would be impossible.”

    And so we’re back to the main point: It wouldn’t be impossible if the government weren’t spending too much in the first place!!!

  • cbs

    mbecker, I understand you don’t like Bennett, but that doesn’t mean you get to decide your own set of facts. He is pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, and pro-marriage. Plus, look at all the congressional rankings out there (National Journal, ATR, ACU, NTU) and you can’t honestly come away from that saying Bennett is not at least “relatively conservative.” Combine the scores and he’s about an 85%, or a B average.

    Don’t get me wrong, like you, I wish Bennett were more conservative, especially considering the state he represents. Utah, can and should have a conservative leader in the Senate and today, I don’t think either Hatch or Bennett fit that bill.

    What I object to is the overheated rhetoric that makes Bennett out to be worse than he really is. He has plenty of real flaws for which he can be criticized that we don’t need to pretend he is the second-coming of Woodrow Wilson to make our case.

  • mrjiblet

    Aware of his tenuous situation Bennett probably faked his own telephone issues. “I, I, can’t hear you. I’m going into a tunnel. Ca_ yo_ he_ _ me?”

    Penguin2 has it: The more Bennett talks, the more his oh-so-average, so established, politics come into view. Recently we had a debate here in Utah between Bennett, Price and Eager.

    Bennett’s response to virtually every question was the typical “if you were as smart as I, you would understand how nuanced and complex these issues really are. But since no one is as smart as I am, no one can really understand. Now go back to your homes and do something simple.”

    Bennett is an elitist through and through. His father was in Congress, therefore he deserves to be in Congress. Our job is to know our place and continue to vote him (and Orrin) in until we become a joke like West Virginia and Robert Byrd.

    I can hardly wait ’til he loses the primary.

  • mrjiblet

    I’m not sure why I wrote Price as a member of the debate panel. It was Mike Lee. Not sure where Price came from. Too much NyQuil before 10:00 am. Sorry to confuse.

  • arc_ut

    Congress spends our money. Do they do it by voting on a specific issue and deciding if it needs federal dollars, or to the take money that has been budgeted to a department away from that department and give it to their friends.

    It is time earmarks were no longer the return on investment for big money, incumbents re-election campaigns, or lobbyists.

    A city shouldn’t have to pay some lobbyist to donate to a campaign fund of someone back in DC to get the help they need from the federal government.
    _____________________________________________

    I believe that Cherilyn Eagar is the only one running who has supported and been active in fighting for conservative values for the last 30 years at the local, state, national and international level. [That includes Bennett]

    http://www.eagar4senate.com/
    http://twitter.com/CherilynEagar
    http://www.facebook.com/eagar4senate
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=83838688906

    Principles for a Change.

    Fiscal Restraint
    Limited Government
    Free Market Solutions
    Energy Independence
    Strong National Defense
    … not only abroad and along our borders, but within our communities and our families.

    Principled. Passionate. Persuasive. Prepared.

    For more information and to donate, go to
    http://www.eagar4senate.com/

    Authorized and Paid for By Friends of Cherilyn Eagar for U.S. Senate

  • lucretius

    but the devil is in the details, as always.

    The main thrust of economic behavioral studies such as Freakonomics is that people respond to incentives. In the case of congresspeople, the incentive is to use your power as a legislator to benefit your constituents and increase your popularity and reelection chances.

    I’m sure that if they could all do their job in a bubble, both liberals and conservatives would both be stingier and wiser with discretionary spending (big budget items such as defense vs. social program spending is a separate, more ideological issue). But there is currently not enough of a downside to pulling pork. I don’t believe trusting self-discipline is enough because:
    - The voters aren’t engaged enough to see the long-term harm of everyone inflating the budget a litte;
    - Incumbants need to point to accomplishments, no matter how trivial (think of yearly performance evaluations when your boss asks you what you did this year)
    - It feels good to do favors to the people around you, even if you know it’s bad policy.

    This suggest that some external incentive is necessary to incentivize members of Congress to be more self-disciplined. One of the ways to do that is strong party leadership and more enforcement mechanisms. Another way is by formal rules or statutes prohibiting the most excessive behavior. Unfortunately, the drawback to the former is less sensitivity to local issues and the risk of abuse by party leadership, and new rules complicate the process and always have unintended consequences.

    I would like to see appropriators such as Inhofe, Inoye or the late Murtha be grilled publicly on why dairy farmers in Vermont or janitors in Mississippi should have to pay their new highway onramp or indoor rainforest. Public embarassment could work where the legislative process has failed.

  • lucretius

    for the context. I like to engage with opposing points of view. I’ll try to avoid responding to ad-homs if I receive any.

    I hate reading talking points on either side of any issue. I never saw the point of repeating a line from some media personality or party strategist. You’ll get only original liberal perspective from me!

  • lucretius

    for the context. I like to engage with opposing points of view. I’ll try to avoid responding to ad-homs if I receive any.

    I hate reading talking points on either side of any issue. I never saw the point of repeating a line from some media personality or party strategist. You’ll get only original liberal perspective from me!

  • lucretius

    even though I only clicked once. Must have been a simultaneous refresh or something.

  • lucretius

    won’t like everything I read :)

    Your Krauthammer quote is funny, but doesn’t it raise the issue of total national commitment in war, which was lacking before Obama took office as well? I’m pretty sure a statement as bold as Churchill’s needs a draft, rationing, war taxes and mobilization to have any meaning. Also, defending your homeland against an organized militarily superior foe is not quite the same thing as tracking down terrorists and breaking up guerilla religious fanatics.

  • lucretius

    but as I recall one of them is “provide for the general welfare”. It’s possible to justify almost any earmark on that phrase alone. Which means I doubt appeals to constitutional principles are going to stop any congressperson intent on circumventing them.

  • lucretius

    but as I recall one of them is “provide for the general welfare”. It’s possible to justify almost any earmark on that phrase alone. Which means I doubt appeals to constitutional principles are going to stop any congressperson intent on circumventing them.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I know that may seem trivial, but it is not. Contrast this with the words used with regard to defense, “provide for the common defense”.

    You see, the preamble clearly sees the two duties as different. One is meant to be provided, and one is limited to merely being promoted.