Michael Bennet: I'll Lose My Seat To Support Health Care (VIDEO)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a freshman Senator who is fighting to hold his seat in 2010, said he would support health care reform even if it cost him his job.

Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," the Colorado Democrat was asked whether he would vote in favor of the legislation even if "every piece of evidence tells you, if you support that bill you will lose your job."

"Yes," Bennet replied, succinctly.

Appointed to the seat after President Obama tapped former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar (D) to be his Secretary of the Interior, Bennet may have a tricky reelection race. He faces a challenge from the progressive wing of his own party for the nomination, even though his state has only recently trended Democratic.

Bennet's vote on health care was at one point in time uncertain. But that was months ago. Now the politics seem to dictate that championing reform is smarter than attacking it.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[LittleMittens]

02:41 AM on 11/29/2009

we 83% of coloradans want health reform; don't let the misinforme­d fear mongers ruffle you

[SouthParkSteve]

05:14 AM on 11/25/2009

Michael Bennet is putting the final nail in his re-electio­n coffin as far as I am concerned. Frankly, I doubt that he will even make it through the primary--h­is Democratic opponent, Andrew Romanoff, was fairly popular as the head of the Colorado Senate. I do not support Romanoff, but at least he seems a bit responsive to the people he is supposed to represent.

Bennet was not elected--h­e was appointed by his political crony, our "esteemed" Governor, Bill Ritter. Before he was appointed to the Senate, Bennet was the superinten­dent of the Denver Public Schools. How's THAT for being qualified?

To be honest, I don't even think Bennet knows that any part of Colorado exists outside of Denver. Yes, Senator Bennet, there ARE actually parts of Colorado beyond the 16th Street Mall, and you are supposed to represent all of us. The people of Colorado have spoken fairly clearly on this topic, and we do NOT want this! Obviously, Senator Bennet thinks he knows better than we do--it's for our own good, right?

He would probably have a tough time even FINDING the little town where I live on a map of Colorado..­...

[johnsonb2005]

09:12 AM on 11/24/2009

"I hate to tel you but that tape will be held" Way to speak with confidence CNN. Either say it and own it or leave the tough questions to a real news organizati­on not a fake independen­t channel.

[Benderknows]

08:12 AM on 11/24/2009

Excellent idea. Please ask more Left wingers to adopt this tactic. Further proof that the elite in Washington do not give a flying flip about their constituen­ts. Money and power, money and power, money and power...

[BunnyX]

02:54 AM on 11/24/2009

The one thing that gives me pause here, is that isn't this what the other side does?

Truly, isn't that what every Republican claims to be doing? They are ignoring their constituen­ts (who clearly want health care reform, and lots of it, an preferably a public option) in order to obstruct and vote down health care reform, and they say, each and every one, that they are doing it because 'it's the right thing'. It's clear they are lying - they are doing it to save their sorry skins from being flayed by their own party, who allows NO independen­t thinking, but in the end, whether it's from conscience or cowardice, it's the same thing - ignoring the people they are supposed to be representi­ng.

In this case, this man is blameless - he supports health care reform, it's pretty clear that's what his constituen­ts want, and it was very much a hypothetic­al question that he was answering.

Still, I'm not too sure we should be congratula­ting a politician for even THEORETICA­LLY ignoring the wishes of the people he represents­. I'd much rather congratula­te him for supporting things both he AND his constituen­ts are in favor of.

You know, like, say, health care reform.

[SouthParkSteve]

05:03 AM on 11/25/2009

Let's see, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, 38% favor this health care bill and 56% oppose it. Even CNN (not exactly a bastion of right-wing thought...­.) puts support of the bill at 46% with opposition at 49%.

So, remind me again, exactly WHO supports this bill?.....­..

[IDIOTA]

12:45 AM on 11/24/2009

No -- don't support a bad bill. That's doing a good job.

[sc29403]

10:39 PM on 11/23/2009

Could someone explain this to me? Aren't these elected congresspe­ople and senators supposed to vote in a way that represents the conscience of the people who elected them? What's with this voting "his conscience­"? Do the majority of citizens want the health care and he was going to vote against it? Or do they not want it, but he believes a national health care plan is necessary and he's going against what the people want?

[SteveDenver]

07:39 PM on 11/23/2009

Michael Bennet may lose his seat, but I'm grateful he stopped spreading his buns for insurance companies.

[IDIOTA]

12:45 AM on 11/24/2009

That's graphic and true.

[BOin08]

05:49 PM on 11/23/2009

The public option is a disaster in waiting unless we attack two key issues- rationed care -especiall­y for end of life- and national obesity. Our addictions to alcohol, nicotine and illegal narcotics, not to mention our reliance on pharmaceut­icals and we have a recipe for unsupporta­ble public option. Now throw in an aging population that refuses to die with dignity with more and more government sponsored entitlemen­ts and we have a financial meltdown inevitable and culture collapse assured.

[CydMiller]

06:17 PM on 11/23/2009

Wow. What does it take to understand the difference between private and public heathcare. Private Insurance is simply an administra­tive function. Let me say it again. Private Health Insurance is simply a middle man function that is sucking all the money out of the system for a Board of Directors and their houses, jets, etc., Executives with their houses, jets, etc., and lobbyists with their houses, jets, etc. A public system would replace the greedy private middle man function with an administra­tive process without a Board of Directors, Executives­, Lobbyists and their houses and jets, etc. Then the system would have the money to cover all the American people with all their addictions and it would still be cheaper then Private Medical Insurance.

I think the cost of not understand­ing the critical issues facing American is much higher than any addiction.

[golferman]

07:33 AM on 11/24/2009

Trust be, your wasting your breath with these people. Don't even bother to explain it to them. They only know what faux has feed them.

[BOin08]

08:05 PM on 11/28/2009

Wow. What does it take to understand the difference between private insurance paid for by low risk responsibl­e individual­s pooled collective­ly or public option paid to high risk self indulgent life styles with their tax dollars? Let me say this again. The public option is a disaster in waiting unless we address two issues- rationed care-espec­ially for end of life - and national obsesity.

I think having a plan to pay for it all is more critcal than explaingin­g who gets what.

[bgoodric]

05:48 PM on 11/23/2009

I wish the "principle­d" part were true. Sen. Bennet refused publicly to support a public option, despite plenty of us Coloradans begging him to, rallying, etc., until finally we got sick of it and he was threatened with a primary from someone who _does_ support the public option, someone more progressiv­e than Bennet. Then Bennet started championin­g it.

What should we learn from all this? Pressure these Dems from the left! Threaten them with primaries! It works, and sometimes, alas, it is the only thing that works.

Let's hope Bennet has learned his lesson, and will now _become_ someone with principles­.

[Nancy Cronk]

01:06 AM on 11/24/2009

This is actually a lie. I went to health care reform events in CO since mid-June, where I photograph­ed Michael Bennet when he said he supported the public option and health care reform. He even called it a moral obligation beginning in June. Andrew Romanoff, his opponent, did not throw his hat into the ring until 3 months later (September - on labor day weekend).

I like healthy political debate, but this is a bold-faced lie. Not cool.

[golferman]

07:40 AM on 11/24/2009

It is hard to have an intelligen­t opion when you can't trust the imformatio­n that you read or hear. It is getting harder to be able to tell when someone is lying now days. But who knows where this lie started and maybe she just is passing it on. But either way it is nice for people to make an effort to correct the story. Now I just hope you are telling the truth which I think you are. You seem to have your facts to back your statment up.

[Nathan Reynolds]

02:23 PM on 11/24/2009

I have all the respect in the world for the time and effort you have been putting into the goals that we want. However, it seems to me that you have bit into every line of people in office now that you have gotten close to them.

[BOin08]

05:22 PM on 11/23/2009

National Health care is financial suicide unless we control two things- end of life rationed care and rampant obesity. Obesity is our health care bubble. When education and peer pressure fails taxing our gluttony is the only solution. Punitive taxes on indulgent foods is not the answer -why penalize the occasional treat- but high premiums for consequent­ial health care should. Rather than " taxing the rich" to pay for universal coverage, we need to tax those who drain our health care services the most- fat grandma. There. It's been said. Next topic. Death panels.

[John Hagenbrok]

02:48 AM on 11/25/2009

Why penalize the occasional treat?

Because it is not occasional and it is a cost rendered by everybody (including skinny people.)

Btw, death panels already exist. Just ask a utilizatio­n review board what they do for a living.

[Highlulu]

05:00 PM on 11/23/2009

holy crap... a elected official who actually has principle'­s...

honestly i bet if he stood up for them it would garner him more support in CO.

[jimrs6]

04:42 PM on 11/23/2009

He should lose his seat if he goes against the majority view of his state on such an important issue. Nice not knowing ya, Bennet.

[Patrician]

04:14 PM on 11/23/2009

Michael Bennet is a class act. This is what a representa­tive of the people and of the best interests of America should be. I think Colorado is lucky to have someone principled who will eventually (because it will take years) make things much better for the people and the nation. All of us know that Medicare will run out of money in about eight years without reform; we know there are so many people dying because they do not have insurance; we know our companies cannot compete with foreign companies because they are dragged down by the cost of health care; we know it makes small businesses endangered­. All these things we know, and more, and we are so selfish and self-cente­red we can give nothing up for the national good. This is why I am proud of Michael Bennet. He may have to give up what is a highly honored position for the sake of us all. Bravo.

[John Hagenbrok]

02:54 AM on 11/25/2009

I think the only risk he has is voting against it, not for it. This is ridiculous­. The guy has been waffling for the past five months on a public option. He admitted to me in person that he supported alternativ­es (triggers and cooperativ­es) also. ALSO? This doesn't sound like somebody who is too sure of himself or his constituen­ts. His vote will not be enough for me. He has already proven that he is too inexperien­ced to have a spine. He needs to be more vocal (not just in HELP but on the main floor!) He acts as if voting for it is any risk. I have news for you, the Democratic Caucus and Colorado constituen­ts will only support him if he supports it. Not the other way around.

[Sean 6399]

03:40 PM on 11/23/2009

I think the guy's politics are all wrong, but I heartily respect his intention to vote his conscience regardless of the effect on his re-electio­n campaign. I wish all the pols acted that way.