Loser RINO FORMER Senator Still Out Of Touch

HT Weasel Zippers

The Hill reports Republican Loser and former Senator from Utah Bob Bennett speaking a bunch of nonsense.

Republicans must “be careful” before nominating a presidential candidate identified with the Tea Party movement, a veteran former senator said Friday evening.

Bennett was ousted from the Senate after losing renomination at a state convention to a Tea Party candidate, Mike Lee, now the Republican senator from Utah. He said that many of those Tea Party nominees, though, in other Senate races cost the party a shot at the majority in the upper chamber.

That should serve as a “cautionary tale” to Republicans as they look to nominate a candidate for president, Bennett said.

Bob Bennett is clearly out of touch with reality.

Rasmussen September 1, 2009

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republican voters say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 18% of GOP voters believe their elected officials have done a good job representing the base.

A year and a half ago, the Republican base said DC Republicans were still out of touch. They didn’t become out of touch then, they had been out of touch for some time, moving ever leftward and leaving their base (the general public) behind.

Rasmussen October 22, 2009

73% of GOP Voters Say Congressional Republicans Have Lost Touch With Their Base

President Obama told an audience at a Democratic Party fundraiser Wednesday night that Republicans often “do what they’re told,” but GOP voters don’t think their legislators listen enough to them.

Still out of touch. Still too far left. Still unresponsive to their constituents.

Rasmussen January 8, 2010

75% of GOP Voters Still Think Their Legislators Out of Touch

President Obama and congressional Democrats may be suffering these days in the polls, but Republican voters are still unhappy with the job their legislators are doing in Washington, D.C.

Out of touch, too far left, unresponsive to their constituents.

Rasmussen June 16, 2010

72% of GOP Voters Say Republicans In Congress Out of Touch With Their Base

Republicans in Congress still haven’t convinced the party faithful that they have their best interests in mind.

Still out of touch, too far left, unresponsive to their constituents.

Republicans lost the majority in the Senate because of the TEA Party? Is he serious? That was the longest of long-shots. No serious person even predicted the Republicans would gain the majority in the Senate. The only reason the Republicans did so well across the nation in statewide federal races, district-level federal races, statewide state races, district-level state races, regional races was because of the TEA Party movement and despite the national Republican organization.

Bob Bennett was sent packing and he doesn’t know why he was sent packing, because he has lost touch with his constituents, if he was ever in touch with them in the first place. And he has done nothing to try to find out what’s going on across the nation.

Now for some more insight from the man who couldn’t even get out of his Primary in his attempt to keep his cushy seat in the Senate.

“The Republican nominee has almost always been closer to the center than the center of gravity in the Republican Party,” he explained.

That is true, going back at least to Gerald Ford. “Almost always” means there is an exception, and that exception is Ronaldus Maximus, the Gipper, Ronald Reagan. He was the Republican base. He was in touch with the Republican base. How did that electoral map turn out in 1984?

George H W Bush took the GOP to the left, and failed to win re-election. Bob Dole was clearly moderate and luke warm. He was neither hot nor cold and the nation spit him out of its mouth. George W Bush was clearly to the left of the Republican base and, yes, can be blamed for the Democrats retaking Congress in 2006. John McCain was a DIABLO. How’s President McCain doing right now? Oh, that’s right.

The reason Bob Bennett got voted out by his own constituents was because he was out of touch, too far left, too unresponsive. He has chosen to keep his head buried in the Patomic mud. His opinions aren’t worth a hill of beans until he buys a clue.

Maybe next time, I’ll tell you what I really think.

13 Comments

  1. The Tea Party is, like any other base-oriented movement, a mixed bag. Bennett’s right to suggest that the Tea Party hurt in the Senate – Castle/Lowden/Norton likely take their races where O’Donnell/Angle/Buck lost (however, the Tea Party gave them a great candidate in Wisconsin where the establishment guy would have lost, so it’s a net -2). The Tea Party, however, helped immensely with elections in the House (Ellmers, Webster, West, etc. won where traditional candidates might have struggled).

    But where Bennett misses the mark is in understanding what the role of the Tea Party is. Nomination errors notwithstanding, the Tea Party did a hell of a lot to shift the political landscape towards Republicans between ’08 and ’10. That alone means you have to regard the Tea Party as a net positive for Republicans.

    What I wonder about, though, is how closely the Tea Party wants to be associated with the religious right. Will they, like normal Republican base voters, be satisfied with nominal spending cuts if they get their culture-war bone thrown to them? That’s what Boehner et al. are trying now. We’ll see if it works – I honestly have no idea.

  2. John, I don’t know if you’re familiar with Bob Bennett’s background. Here’s a brief overview of some of the public elements. There’s much more below the surface.

    Bennett was born in 1933, in Salt Lake City. He was the son of Wallace Foster Bennett, a Senator from Utah, and the grandson of Mormon church president Heber J. Grant.

    In 1971 he purchased Robert R. Mullen & Co, a public relations company in Washington DC. His clients included the CIA and Howard Hughes. Actually, the company was a Central Intelligence Agency front organization. Shortly before Bennett bought the company, E. Howard Hunt retired from the CIA, his boss Richard Helms suggested he should go to work for the Mullen Co.

    July, 1971, Charles Colson and John Ehrlichman appointed Hunt to the White House staff. Working under Egil Krogh and Gordon Liddy. Hunt became a member of the Special Investigations Group (SIG). The group was informally known as “the Plumbers” because their job was ostensibely to stop leaks from Nixon’s administration, however, their real job was to eliminate any serious competition for Nixon’s reelection.

    However, Hunt continued to work for Bennett. In fact, Bennett was able to help Hunt with his work at the White House. This included telling Hunt that Hank Greenspun, had enough information on Edmund Muskie to “blow him out of the water.” A tip which many Watergate investigators believe led to the illegal break-in of Greenspun’s newspaper office in Las Vegas.

    In 1972 Gordon Liddy joined the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP). One of Liddy’s first tasks was to place electronic devices in the Democratic Party campaign offices in an apartment block called Watergate. Liddy wanted to wiretap the conversations of Larry O’Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

    For reasons not yet revealed, on 3rd July, 1972, “Plumbers” Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, Bernard L. Barker and James W. McCord were arrested in O’Brien’s office. (All were also suspected of having been in Dealey Plaza and involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.)

    E. Howard Hunt’s White House phone number was found in address books of two of the burglars. Reporters were able to link the break-in to the White House. Bob Woodward, a reporter working for the Washington Post was told by a friend (likely Bob Bennett) that senior aides of President Richard Nixon, had paid the burglars to obtain information about his political opponents.

    Bob Woodward phoned Bennett who confirmed that Hunt was working for Robert Mullen & Co. He also told him Hunt was employed by Charles Colson in the White House. Bennett added: “I guess it’s no secret that Howard was with the CIA.” Soon afterwards Bennett sacked Hunt.

    In 1974,Bennett became the public relations director for Summa Corporation, a company owned by Howard Hughes. Later that year he appeared before the House of Representatives Special Subcommittee on Intelligence. Chaired by Lucien Nedzi, the committee published a report titled Inquiry into the Alleged Involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Watergate and Ellsberg Matters.

    Bennett testified before the committee and admitted he knew that “Mullen & Co. had a contractual cover relationship with the CIA.” He also testified that he knew Charles Colson. Prior to the (highly unlikely) identification of Mark Felt as Deep Throat, the inside speculation centered on Bennett.

    Many reporters were convinced of it, an article published in 1976, J. Anthony Lukas, of the New York Times, identified Bennett as Deep Throat. In his book, In Search of Deep Throat, Leonard Garment argues that Bennett was probably trying to “distance the CIA, his sponsor and source of income, from the events of Watergate”.

  3. Jeff, I’d also suggest that it was the Senate nominations of Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Ken Buck which helped down-ticket, persuading Republicans and conservative independents who might have stayed home, even in other states, to go out to vote, because there were some not-business-as-usual candidates out there.

  4. What I wonder about, though, is how closely the Tea Party wants to be associated with the religious right.

    I’ve seen polling to show the TEA Party is by and large socially conservative. Aside from that, social conservatism is by and large fiscally conservative. Contrary to popular leftist opinion, “religious right” is not an albatross around the necks of conservatives. It’s a winning position.

  5. George H W Bush took the GOP to the left, and failed to win re-election. Bob Dole was clearly moderate and luke warm. He was neither hot nor cold and the nation spit him out of its mouth. George W Bush was clearly to the left of the Republican base and, yes, can be blamed for the Democrats retaking Congress in 2006. John McCain was a DIABLO. How’s President McCain doing right now? Oh, that’s right.

    Bwahahahahah.

    Let’s face it – if Palin was elected President in 2012, she’d comprehensively screw up and be thrown out in 2016. And in 2017, PB, dana et al would be complaining that she was too leftist, which is why she failed…

  6. The Phoenician wrote:

    Let’s face it – if Palin was elected President in 2012, she’d comprehensively screw up and be thrown out in 2016. And in 2017, PB, dana et al would be complaining that she was too leftist, which is why she failed…

    Could happen that way, but it’s a chance I’m willing to take.

  7. It’s a chance you *did* take, back when Palin was spelled “Bush”. We’ve seen how that worked out for your country.

    By all means, do it again. The rest of us could do with another good laaugh and further evidence that the American Right never learn.

    Speaking about never learning, check out this story:

    Report: U.S. Has Wasted Tens Of Billions Of Dollars On Contractors In Iraq And Afghanistan

    A new report from a bipartisan commission set up to scrutinize the unprecedented use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan concludes that the United States has wasted tens of billions of the nearly $177 billion that has been spent on those contracts and grants since 2002.

    followed by this story:

    The problem is that, as employers go, the federal government is in fact pretty exceptional. A corporation can shed workers and then revise its overall business strategy accordingly. A strapped city government can lay off a few street sweepers and then elect to sweep the streets less often. But federal agencies are governed by statutory requirements. Unless Congress changes those statutes, federal agencies’ mandates—their work assignments—stay the same, regardless of how many people are on hand to carry them out. Medicare checks still have to go out within thirty days of a claim, offshore oil wells still need to be inspected, soldiers in Afghanistan still need to be provisioned, Social Security databases still need to be maintained, and on and on. “It raises the hairs on my neck when I hear people say we’ve got to do more with less,” says John Palguta, a vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit focused on the government workforce. “The logical conclusion is we’re going to do more with nothing.”

    In practice, cutting civil servants often means either adding private contractors or—in areas where the government plays a regulatory function—resorting to the belief that industries have a deep capacity to police themselves. (This idea, of course, has taken some dings in recent years.) And though contractors can be enormously useful, they too have to be, well, governed. “You can cut and cut and cut and try to streamline the government workforce, but at some point you lose the ability to oversee the money that you’re spending, and that puts everything at greater risk,” says Don Kettl, dean of the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. “The opportunities for program failure and waste of public dollars grow exponentially.”

  8. Contrary to popular leftist opinion, “religious right” is not an albatross around the necks of conservatives. It’s a winning position.

    Depending on who turns out and where the election is held, that may or may not be true. By and large, though, public opinion is turning against the social conservatives. Socially conservative positions poll in the mid/high-40s at best and – abortion notwithstanding to some extent – there’s a sizeable generation gap at work there. So a younger-than-usual electorate like the one that turned out in 2008 spells doom for most social conservatives. That problem will only get worse for social conservatives as time goes by.

  9. I guess my point is this: 2010 wasn’t won by social conservatives. The same social conservatives that turned out with the Tea Party in 2010 turned out in 2008. The difference between the two cycles was that the Tea Party pulled a lot of people in on the basis of their fiscal conservatism – and while they may not make up the majority of the Tea Party as a whole, they swung the balance of the election. If the GOP keeps wasting political capital barking up the abortion tree, they lose enough voters to swing the electorate back to us.

    Or, put differently, if the GOP chooses to use its limited political capital to cut $1bn from Planned Parenthood instead of cutting $10bn from the defense budget, I’ll really be looking forward to 2012. :-)

  10. Or, put differently, if the GOP chooses to use its limited political capital to cut $1bn from Planned Parenthood instead of cutting $10bn from the defense budget, I’ll really be looking forward to 2012.

    Good luck with that. And why do liberals always look to cut defense first? And not the “social” planning garbage that shouldn’t exist in the first place?

  11. And why do liberals always look to cut defense first?

    Duhhhh – because it’s a fat, bloated piece of the American budget which consumes vast amounts of money, is not really needed in its current state for its primary goal of defending America, is run inefficiently with literally billions of dollars unaccounted for, and which seems to exist mainly to channel tax revenues to a few favoured companies?

  12. Because most of the waste – the spending that gets us nothing in return – is in the defense budget. Social spending generally goes to people who will actually be hurt by cuts, and should generally be the last place we look for cuts. It makes more sense to cut payouts to corporations and wealthier people than to cut payouts to poor people.

  13. Pingback: Beltway Republicans Attack … Conservatives « Common Sense Political Thought

Comments are closed.