CO Senator Bennet Knows best!!!

imported post

According to a Denver Post article (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13847762) Senator Michael Bennet flat out admits that he doesn't care what his constituency wants, so effectively stating that his constituency doesn't know what they want or that they just don't know what's best for them--but HE does!!

He MUST not be re-elected, no matter whether you agree with his stand on the healthcare reform or other issues. He is SUPPOSED to REPRESENT his constituency's wishes, not play "Daddy Knows Best." This is a perfect example of statism. Look it up if you don't know the definition.

imported post

Now tell me if i'm wrong, but I thought a senator was supposed to represent the people that elected him? How is voting the opposite of what they want doing that? I really, really detest politicians thet think what they personally want is the right thing.

imported post

He probably figures that if he dos'nt get re-elected, and shame on Coloradans if they do re-elect this swine, that his overlord Obama will reward him for his sacrifice and loyalty with a cushy appointment.

imported post

So, here on OCDO is writ small the demise of the Republic.

I am elected to very local public office. I believe that I was elected to represent my constituency by exercising my personal principles that they see that I uphold and not to sway to every political wind that blows. In the terms used above, I represent the best principles of my constituency as expressed at my election.

I soon face reelection, but only with equanimity. I will not violate my principles. If the whole town would act other than I would, that will not make me change my mind. My fellow board members can vote as they will. I am a conservative and believe in republicanism. If the electorate disagrees substantially then I believe that they deserve the government that they elect.

I believe in small government. I believe in minimal taxes. I believe in government providing only those services that private enterprise cannot, will not or does not and that are needed. I believe that all politics are local. I believe that we get the government that we deserve.

I believe that democracy panders to the LOWEST common denominator. I believe that this is well demonstrated in the recent election of the United States President of the LOWEST common denominators, greed, corruption, unprincipled and ignorant.

imported post

Carcharodon wrote:

Now tell me if i'm wrong, but I thought a senator was supposed to represent the people that elected him? How is voting the opposite of what they want doing that? I really, really detest politicians thet think what they personally want is the right thing.

Click to expand...

You presume that you know the will of the people, while I suggest that you know only the expressed will of your peers and social context.

Do you believe that the newspapers, the 'mass media' knows and expresses the desires of the people? It is this prostitution of politics that has led us to these dire straits.

imported post

scubabeme wrote:

According to a Denver Post article (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13847762) Senator Michael Bennet flat out admits that he doesn't care what his constituency wants, so effectively stating that his constituency doesn't know what they want or that they just don't know what's best for them--but HE does!!

Click to expand...

Tyrant

imported post

Bennett is a scumbag, but he wasn't elected. He was placed into office by Gov Ritter to replace Senator Ken Salazar who was tapped to be Sec of Interior by BHO. Before this gig, he was Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, go figure.

So technically, he doesn't represent anyone but Gov Ritter, who is an even bigger scumbag.

imported post

Doug tried to explain it, some of you guys just don't get it.

When you swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, you do just that.
You don't do what the majority of intentionally ignorant Amerikans would HAVE you do. NO. You maintain the high ground, despite the overwhelming stupidity of the people who elected you.

imported post

Carcharodon wrote:

Now tell me if i'm wrong, but I thought a senator was supposed to represent the people that elected him? How is voting the opposite of what they want doing that? I really, really detest politicians thet think what they personally want is the right thing.

Click to expand...

No representatives were supposed to represent the people.

Senators are supposed to represent their state. until the 17thA they were not elected by the people.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Carcharodon wrote:

Now tell me if i'm wrong, but I thought a senator was supposed to represent the people that elected him? How is voting the opposite of what they want doing that? I really, really detest politicians thet think what they personally want is the right thing.

Click to expand...

No representatives were supposed to represent the people.

Senators are supposed to represent their state. until the 17thA they were not elected by the people.

Click to expand...

And election by the people instead of the State legislature made the people lazy about watching who they elected to the State legislature. It also diluted the power of large urban areas filled with random socialists and other misfits. However in this case this Bennett fellow is just a political appointee warming a seat; but still armed with a full US Senate vote. When his term is up, then the voters can toss him out on his kiester. And in this case they should.

There is something, doubtless, to be said for Senator or a Congressman who stands his ground on his beliefs and principles; and if he is right the voters should retain him. Then again we have the appalling spectacle of Senator Mary Landrieu of LA who allowed herself to be bought off by the Ubamanistas for 300 + MILLION of construction contracts, most of which by the way will go through her family's construction firm. AND she had the chutzpaugh to actually stand in the well of the Senate and BOAST about it. There is something rotten, and it is a lot closer than Denmark.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Carcharodon wrote:

Now tell me if i'm wrong, but I thought a senator was supposed to represent the people that elected him? How is voting the opposite of what they want doing that? I really, really detest politicians thet think what they personally want is the right thing.

Click to expand...

No representatives were supposed to represent the people.

Senators are supposed to represent their state. until the 17thA they were not elected by the people.

Click to expand...

The 17th stood the Constitution on its head.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Snip.

I am elected to very local public office. I believe that I was elected to represent my constituency by exercising my personal principles that they see that I uphold and not to sway to every political wind that blows. In the terms used above, I represent the best principles of my constituency as expressed at my election.

I soon face reelection, but only with equanimity. I will not violate my principles. If the whole town would act other than I would, that will not make me change my mind. My fellow board members can vote as they will. I am a conservative and believe in republicanism. If the electorate disagrees substantially then I believe that they deserve the government that they elect.

I believe in small government. I believe in minimal taxes. I believe in government providing only those services that private enterprise cannot, will not or does not and that are needed. I believe that all politics are local. I believe that we get the government that we deserve.

I believe that democracy panders to the LOWEST common denominator. I believe that this is well demonstrated in the recent election of the United States President of the LOWEST common denominators, greed, corruption, unprincipled and ignorant.

Click to expand...

Doug,
Hey! I like the principles you espouse. So I would vote for you if I could. I would assume that, if elected, you would stick to your platform. If folks don't like you doing that, then they vote you out the next time (or impeach you). That's the way it should be. Now, I guess I need to contact my local Acorn office to find how to skirt the residency voting requirements for WI.:uhoh: (And I guess, to keep the issue "on forum", I should find out your position on Open Carry before I consider voting for you. :shock

imported post

4armed Architect wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Snip.

I am elected to very local public office. I believe that I was elected to represent my constituency by exercising my personal principles that they see that I uphold and not to sway to every political wind that blows. In the terms used above, I represent the best principles of my constituency as expressed at my election.

I soon face reelection, but only with equanimity. I will not violate my principles. If the whole town would act other than I would, that will not make me change my mind. My fellow board members can vote as they will. I am a conservative and believe in republicanism. If the electorate disagrees substantially then I believe that they deserve the government that they elect.

I believe in small government. I believe in minimal taxes. I believe in government providing only those services that private enterprise cannot, will not or does not and that are needed. I believe that all politics are local. I believe that we get the government that we deserve.

I believe that democracy panders to the LOWEST common denominator. I believe that this is well demonstrated in the recent election of the United States President of the LOWEST common denominators, greed, corruption, unprincipled and ignorant.

Click to expand...

Doug,
Hey! I like the principles you espouse. So I would vote for you if I could. I would assume that, if elected, you would stick to your platform. If folks don't like you doing that, then they vote you out the next time (or impeach you). That's the way it should be. Now, I guess I need to contact my local Acorn office to find how to skirt the residency voting requirements for WI.:uhoh: (And I guess, to keep the issue "on forum", I should find out your position on Open Carry before I consider voting for you. :shock

Click to expand...

Thank you. My motion for a resolution recognizing the RKABA and legitimizing OC should appear on the 09 DEC 2009 agenda here

http://www.washingtonisland-wi.gov/agendas_and_minutes.htm

over the protests of my Chairman (mayor). At the same URL you will see that I voted against a resolution supporting the 2010 Census.

imported post

While Master Dougenjoys the luxury of being in local politics where he need not follow the Constitution on most items that come before him, Sen. Bennett does not havesaid luxury.It is true thathe is not bound to follow the wishes of his constituency.He is a U.S. Senator that MUSTconsider and follow the Constitution on every vote.

That being said, where in the Constitution does it allow for TARP, stimulus packages, health care reform, Patriot Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, WIC, unemployment payments, education, EPA, National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,etc., etc., etc.? Where does it allow the Federal Government to steal my money and force me to give to the above CHARITIES?There is no provision for the gift of charity from the Federal treasury to any person, group of persons, or organization,as Davy Crockett found out when he voted for charity after a huge fire in D.C. Where does it give the Federal government the power to meddle in the affairs of the economy at all?

Please don't give me that general welfare crap because that ain't what it means. Patrick Henry warned of future congressesusing the general welfare clause to usurp the LIMITEDpowers given in Art. I, Sec. 8, and twisting it to mean that the Federal government had UNlimited powers.He did this during the Virginia ratification debates.

imported post

Dat be de fact, Rod; and just the other day I talked with one of these antis/libs and he quoted the General Welfare clause with a smug smirk on his face that said "checkmate". That is until I pulled out my copy of the Constitution and pointed out what he was leaving out. That clause states that these actions MUST be incompliance with the Constitution.

BTW the Clause should not be confused with the "promote the General Welfare" statement in the PREAMBLE; which is a statement of the ENDS to be achieved by the Government. The Supreme Law begins right after the words "Constitution of the United States of America" and NOT BEFORE.