+++++++++++++++
Posted on 11/22/2009 1:06:58 PM PST by markomalley
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said Sunday that he will vote for landmark health care reform legislation even if it means he will be defeated at the polls next November.
"If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform, and every piece of evidence tells you, if you support that bill, you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job? " CNN's John King asked Bennet on the "State of the Union" program.
"Yes," said Bennet, a former Denver public schools chief who was appointed to the Senate by Colorado's governor when President Barack Obama tapped Ken Salazar to be interior secretary.
King warned Bennet that the video of his vow would be sequestered in the event he is voted out next year.
"All right. That tape will be held -- I hate to tell you that, but that tape will be held right now," the CNN host said.
Jane Norton, former Republican Leutenant Governor.
He is also facing a primary from Andrew Romanoff, former Colorado House Speaker. Obama has already thrown his weight behind Bennet in the primary, which has made many Colorado dems upset.
You’re probably right. Everyone wants to hit Obama’s “stimulus” and “TARP” slush funds before all the big bucks are gone.
Sounds good. Maybe the Dems can get ozero to come out and campaign for Bennet then our margins will skyrocket.
Yes, the voters have to follow through in kicking the bums out.
But the less talked about part of the story is that, the way Washington works now, Congresscritters are increasingly more afraid of their party leadership than of the wrath of their constituents.
The ONLY sway the people have over these critters is the power to *fire* them. But that is NOTHING compared to the power of the party bosses, who have the power to *hire* them --- that is, to see that, in the event they do get fired by the people, they get hired by think tanks, commissions, panels and so on.
So a member can vote in a way that represents his constituents --- and get told by party bosses, "You'll never work in this town again." IOW, forget about ANY lucrative post-Congressional opportunities.
Or he can vote against his constituents, take his chances on re-election, and if he gets defeated, the party bosses say, "Don't worry, we'll make sure you get appointed to a lucrative position on a commission, etc."
The people truly are the "little people" in this scenario. Because members no longer care if they get re-elected or not. They have big-time POST-CONGRESSIONAL JOB SECURITY so long as they stay in favor with the party bosses.
Again, their post-Congressional job opportunities often are MUCH more lucrative than simply being in Congress --- and, hey, it beats being unemployed --- but those opportunities are controlled by the Pelosis of the world. So of course they end up bowing to her rather than representing their districts.
Voting the bums out only has an impact on a member's vote when the prospect of losing his seat bothers him. Which it doesn't if Pelosi has said, "You'll get a nice lifetime job at the FCC if you lose your seat. But if you vote against me, you're finished."
Was it Juan McShame ? Is she a conservative ? Who pre-selected her for Coloradans ?
Hint: it's not altruistic "for the good of the cause" crapola.
"Sacrificial" voting gets rewarded with post-congressional job security. Voting with your constituents may help you keep your seat, but it ruins your career prospects once you leave Congress. So, big whoop, from the member's point of view.
It's like "Ooohhh, hurt me by voting me out --- Nancy will make sure I land a lifetime cushy job somewhere in Washington and I won't even have to run for reelection ever again!"
Jane Norton is a RINO. Unless Ken Buck gets some help, the GOP elite will force us once again to hold our nose when we vote....
Isnt former secretary of the interior Norton running for this seat?
I'm betting there is also a fair amount of self-interest involved.
These guys get promised big-time opportunities to soothe the potential loss of their congressional seat. OTOH, if they vote against the party, and then lose their seat, they've also given up those "open doors."
I’ll send you an email.
Five, Bennet, Burris, Gillebrand, Kaufman and the one who replaced Kenedy. Funny as hell if they lost all of them!!!
thanks Buddy
Please elaborate why you think she deserves the label RINO.
Do you just like Ken Buck better or are there stances on issues that make her a closet democrat (after all, isn’t that what RINO means?)
Thanks in advance for the information.
Then it is very clear that Bennet doesn’t represent his constituents if he votes against their desires. That is a fundamental keystone of our representative republic - you are there to represent those who elected you - not some socialistic moron who prefers to play golf instead of getting the country working again.
Here's her stance on the issues. You decide:
http://janenortonforcolorado.com/issues
And that is my greatest worry.
"If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform, and every piece of evidence tells you, if you support that bill, you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job? " CNN's John King asked Bennet on the "State of the Union" program. "Yes," said Bennet
Well, this has been my point since Obama won the election. He and the Democrat controlled House and Senate will pass healthcare no matter what, even if Obama's approval rate falls to 20%.
The Democrats have the votes they need to pass anything they want. The so called blue dogs lined up with the Democrat liberal leadership without blinking an eye, notwithstanding their claims that they are moderates and centrists. This debate should have been stopped yesterday, but they managed to get the 60 votes they needed with a little bit of dealing. All these Senate procedures are meaningless if the Democrats reliably have 60 votes, considering they only need 51 to pass the bill.
Of course the rats want to wrap up this monstrosity before the 2010 elections since some of them might be replaced by Republicans, changing their game plan to destroy the country. The Democrats are good at talking and the blue dogs make it sound like they might vote against it, but all they are doing is looking to be bought off for the highest amount possible, i.e Landrieu and the $100 million 'incentive' for her vote.
ThanksI see she believes in murdering innocent babies however.
bump
Ah, you paint with a very broad brush. She is not pro-abortion.
From her website:
•I am pro-life and believe abortion should be outlawed except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
•I opposed all federal funding of abortion.
Ken Buck on abortion:
The other leading Senate contender, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, supports traditional marriage and opposes abortion except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger.
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_13480455
So, in essence, both are pretty much the same. It’s not perfect, but it’s by far better than the outright pro-abortion stance of the dems.
In other words: To hell with what my constituents want.
+++++++++++++++
This seems to be happening all over the place with our ‘public servants’ (how laughable is that?) badgering and buffeting us and calling us terrorists and the like.
2010 is coming.
You must live on the big rock candy mountain or in one of the more popular parts of the land of Oz.
I hope we can do better than Norton.
A traitor to our country! Call him what he is!
++++++++++++++++
Problem is, we have darn close to 60 traitors in the Senate, right now. We can only hope 1 or 2 heroic figures emerge from among them to aid in the resistance and stem the tide against the socialist onslaught.
He also tells me Bennet is very unpopular. So yes, Bennet will vote for the 0bama-Pelosi-Ried Care bill as one final way to stick it to the people.
++++++++++++++
Nice, huh?
Very good identification of God. We all should do that religiously. Enough of this, we all have the same God. NO, we don’t!
Our son’s middle name is Elijah and it means; Jehovah is God!
We will help him with the second part of that plan - the part about being voted out of office.
This should be a good election cycle for the pubs in 2010. The governor is very unpopular and should loose handily unless the republicans totally screw it up. Bennett is little known and also quite vulnerable, particularly in an overall election hostile to the dems.
Hopefully we can find a better candidate to run for gov than Norton - another RINO retread. If we can get a good candidate for either race, it should generate some excitement this coming year. Hopefully we will find a good candidate for BOTH races....
There are some promising names on the horizon if the party does not choose to go with the same old same old.
Bennett is on his way out anyway. There is little chance he could win a statewide election.
If it doesn’t go into effect in 2014 what happens to all the “TAX” money collected from now till them ??? Will we get a rebate ??
++++++++++++++
That really is a dream!
I’ve often wished that conservatives had the same devotion to their cause as marxists do.
+++++++++++++++
I think we’ve been awoken.
Who do you have in mind? Time is running short. I don’t see Buck being able to pull it off.
Dont count out Hickenlooper. He is the dark horse on the D side, and could parlay his popularity in Denver proper to do some damage. I’m not sure he won’t challenge Ritter is a primary for the gov race this year, but could also have his eye on the senate.
He could potentially give us more trouble than Romanoff, although I don’t see a dem winning either the senate or gov this year unless something big happens between now and then to totally change the picture
(Or unless the pubs run a tired old RINO like Norton)
I have an idea.
A simple idea which should destroy this thing once and for all.
SINGLE-PAYER LEGAL CARE
That’s it. Apply the principles of single payer to lawyers.
Rewrite the 2000 page bill by crossing out “doctors” and writing in “lawyers”.
Mandate the maximum amount lawyers can receive for their services.
See how they like it.
+++++++++++++
Beautiful. Are you really Amish?
More of a tired old RINO retread
We can do much better than Norton.
You have four appointed Senators: this clown, Gillebrand ,Burris, and the one who replaced Kennedy who could be the deciding factor in jamming this down our throats.
+++++++++++++
Goes to show you why the governor’s races are important.
>> You have four appointed Senators <<
I’d say there are at least five, since Al Franken was “appointed” by ACORN!
Ken Buck >opposes abortion except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger.
kir>So, in essence, both are pretty much the same. It’s not perfect, but it’s by far better than the outright pro-abortion stance of the dems.
And not to YHvH, the creator of the universe. Not to those murdered.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I can’t give you a definitive read on what King/CNN was saying to Bennet.
But here are my two takes:
1. By “sequester”, King may have been saying basically the same thing
as Rush says when he says “FLAG THE TAPE!!!”...in other words, that
is an audio clip that must be held onto for future replay.
OR
2. By “sequester”, King may have been giving Bennet “a wink and a
knod”...as in “We here at CNN will NOT release the audio/video
of your appearance today. Lest somebody like Limbaugh might play it
again and again and again when you and a sh-tload of your fellow
“bomb-belt” Democrats are looking for a job on the day after the first
Tuesday of November 2010.”
Which one of my parsings (or some other alternative) is correct...
I’ll leave that to the experts on the political “NewSpeak” that gushes
forth every second of the day from Washington, D.C.
I fear that Kind was implying #2. Otherwise, he would have said something like “you know, this tape isn’t going anywhere. It will still be in our files come election day.”
But he didn’t say that. He used the weird (for this case) word “sequester”... which makes me think the worst.
We can do much better than Norton.
Guilt by association. If my memory serves me,
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
I believe that Juan McShame blew into town and anointed her.
Which is why the gop(they deserve lower case) in Mass. rolling over for the rule change is all the more infuriating. The Dems cheated to get to the point where they can hoodwink the US citizens with a bribe-laden bill forced through over the weekend.
This a-hole was appointed but preaches like he was anointed.
He’s talking s**t. Nothing matters to these jackals more than staying in office.
Sounds good to me, the guy is a loser and it should help us to get rid of him next year when he will need more than the only one vote he got from Gov Ritter.
“Bennet, a former Denver public schools chief “
that explains a lot!!!
Bennet is toast. I’m plugging in the toaster right here in Colorado Springs. It is going to be so much fun to drive this idiot’s numbers below 40%.
In the polls, he’s behind everyone, including names nobody knows.
Bennett is just pandering as he will soon have a tough primary fight. He wants to appear spunky.
Yes, Norton is conservative, perhaps not conservative enough for uber purist Doug Bruce, in that she tends to be polite in communication (think Dana Perrino), but no RINO.
I was supporting Frazier before he backed out in favor of unseating Ed Perlmutter in CD-7.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.