Site search
sponsored by
News
Analyzing the record and performance of Colorado's appointed junior Sen. Michael Bennet is a remarkably easy task; for any given issue simply disregard basic economic principles, along with any consequences that extend beyond the immediate future, then apply an ideological mold to it, rearranging whatever inconvenient empirical data necessary to make it fit, and you are left with Bennet's position.
If it is wildly unpopular with the voters in the state he means to represent, so much the better. A more concise variant of this formula is to see what position Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are taking on the given issue, and then simple substitute “Bennet” for either name.
The job of a senator is to provide advice and consent on legislation, as a representative of the interests of his or her given state. Bennet, rather, seems to seek the advice and consent of the most liberal wing of his party, in the course of representing the ideological interests of that wing. A scrutiny of some of his more predominant political stances over the past year serves to illuminate.
The most obvious one was the protracted battle over health reform. Bennet was a staunch defender of the public option to the very end, bravely (if that's the term) fending off economic reasoning, common sense, and prudential logic at every turn. He even went so far as to publicly state, with a straight face no less, that he believes the CBO report on the bill renders it fiscally sound, calling into question either his mathematical intelligence, or his respect for anyone listening to him. His one health care-related statement that could reliably be deemed accurate was his assertion that he would lose his job to help pass Obamacare.
The picture does not get any rosier on the energy front. Positing himself to the left of even many Democrats, Bennet was one of only 22 Democratic senators to sign a letter to Harry Reid urging him to try, try again to bring forth a cap and tax bill, despite similar legislation being defeated last year, and in the face of mountains of evidence speaking to the economic cataclysm such legislation would bring. Not stopping there, the appointed senator obdurately refuses to sign on to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's resolution to block EPA regulations from usurping Congress's legislative powers, though he did sign a letter urging support of a bill to artificially create solar manufacturing jobs. Apparently Bennet, at the urging of Reid and company, feels the U.S. Senate, not the marketplace, is the final arbiter of what jobs and industries deserve to survive.
The list could continue ad nauseum, and include gems such as his strong support of Sen. Dodd's banking reforms, which would add layers more of the type of micromanagement and regulation that was the provenance of the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis — but the deduction is this: Bennet represents a running theme of over regulation, mandates, and big government interference in every conceivable sector of society and the economy, in order to provide a superficial solution to every conceivable problem in the human condition.
This, of course, is the purview of the ideologue, and is not only the approach to governing that created most of the problems now confronting us, but is also the manifesto of the current leadership cabal of the Democratic party. (His primary opponent Andrew Romanoff, by the way, wraps himself in the same cloak, and fly's right off the edge with it.)
It is little wonder, then, that the Republican frontrunner contending for the Senate seat, Jane Norton, is consistently transcending both Bennet and Romanoff in polls, with the latest Rasmussen poll showing Norton with a 46–41% lead on Bennet, and a staggering 11 point lead over Romanoff.
It is my estimate that Norton will win the GOP primary, regardless of which of the two methods at her disposal she chooses to employ to secure a place on the ballot. She is the Republican frontrunner not by chance, but because she possesses a much larger base of homegrown support and fundraising. If she stays on message, highlights the issues, accents the contrast between herself and her opponents on the left, and generally cements her reputation as the Margaret Thatcher of the Rockies, then she will bury Bennet in a general election.
Really, all she has to do to help him make good on his promise to lose his job is to hammer Bennet using his own words, record and ideological control strings. Relentlessly. Repeatedly. And ultimately, effectively.
Kelly Sloan is chairman of the Policy Watch group for the Western Slope Conservative Alliance, and director of the Mesa County Chapter of Americans For Prosperity, a national organization of grassroots volunteers committed to economic freedom and limited government. Opinions expressed in Sloan's column are those of his own and do not represent the views of WSCA or AFP.
If it is wildly unpopular with the voters in the state he means to represent, so much the better. A more concise variant of this formula is to see what position Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are taking on the given issue, and then simple substitute “Bennet” for either name.
The job of a senator is to provide advice and consent on legislation, as a representative of the interests of his or her given state. Bennet, rather, seems to seek the advice and consent of the most liberal wing of his party, in the course of representing the ideological interests of that wing. A scrutiny of some of his more predominant political stances over the past year serves to illuminate.
The most obvious one was the protracted battle over health reform. Bennet was a staunch defender of the public option to the very end, bravely (if that's the term) fending off economic reasoning, common sense, and prudential logic at every turn. He even went so far as to publicly state, with a straight face no less, that he believes the CBO report on the bill renders it fiscally sound, calling into question either his mathematical intelligence, or his respect for anyone listening to him. His one health care-related statement that could reliably be deemed accurate was his assertion that he would lose his job to help pass Obamacare.
The picture does not get any rosier on the energy front. Positing himself to the left of even many Democrats, Bennet was one of only 22 Democratic senators to sign a letter to Harry Reid urging him to try, try again to bring forth a cap and tax bill, despite similar legislation being defeated last year, and in the face of mountains of evidence speaking to the economic cataclysm such legislation would bring. Not stopping there, the appointed senator obdurately refuses to sign on to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's resolution to block EPA regulations from usurping Congress's legislative powers, though he did sign a letter urging support of a bill to artificially create solar manufacturing jobs. Apparently Bennet, at the urging of Reid and company, feels the U.S. Senate, not the marketplace, is the final arbiter of what jobs and industries deserve to survive.
The list could continue ad nauseum, and include gems such as his strong support of Sen. Dodd's banking reforms, which would add layers more of the type of micromanagement and regulation that was the provenance of the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis — but the deduction is this: Bennet represents a running theme of over regulation, mandates, and big government interference in every conceivable sector of society and the economy, in order to provide a superficial solution to every conceivable problem in the human condition.
This, of course, is the purview of the ideologue, and is not only the approach to governing that created most of the problems now confronting us, but is also the manifesto of the current leadership cabal of the Democratic party. (His primary opponent Andrew Romanoff, by the way, wraps himself in the same cloak, and fly's right off the edge with it.)
It is little wonder, then, that the Republican frontrunner contending for the Senate seat, Jane Norton, is consistently transcending both Bennet and Romanoff in polls, with the latest Rasmussen poll showing Norton with a 46–41% lead on Bennet, and a staggering 11 point lead over Romanoff.
It is my estimate that Norton will win the GOP primary, regardless of which of the two methods at her disposal she chooses to employ to secure a place on the ballot. She is the Republican frontrunner not by chance, but because she possesses a much larger base of homegrown support and fundraising. If she stays on message, highlights the issues, accents the contrast between herself and her opponents on the left, and generally cements her reputation as the Margaret Thatcher of the Rockies, then she will bury Bennet in a general election.
Really, all she has to do to help him make good on his promise to lose his job is to hammer Bennet using his own words, record and ideological control strings. Relentlessly. Repeatedly. And ultimately, effectively.
Kelly Sloan is chairman of the Policy Watch group for the Western Slope Conservative Alliance, and director of the Mesa County Chapter of Americans For Prosperity, a national organization of grassroots volunteers committed to economic freedom and limited government. Opinions expressed in Sloan's column are those of his own and do not represent the views of WSCA or AFP.
