Comments about ‘No quid pro quo for votes against Hilder’

I don't believe a word of they wrote.

Names for us to remember during the next election cycle: Waddoups, Killpack, Jenkins and Bell. Their opponents will be getting campaign donations from me.

What a rotten bunch.

You got it Tobias. It is possible that committee assignments were known the morning of the "debate" and vote, but these senators also know that votes on Hilder were decided no later than the day before the "debate" including Valentine's switch. Also to claim Hillyard as a vote for Hilder is cynical beyond description. he voted for Hilder, but smeared him in committee and probably voted for him for appearances with his lawyer buddies.

If we are to believe you, Michael Waddoups, why does it look like it does?

If you want to avoid the scrutiny, then don't make it look like it does to the rest of us.

You know what it looks like.

Michael Waddoups, you realise that nobody believes you. You realise that, don't you.

Nobody believes you because your words are too little too late.

We all saw what we saw, and you did what you did.

The governor was right. What you did gave the impression to everyone that you wanted the judge gone, and you manipulated votest to get it.

Michael Waddoups, if you really are above reproach, then act like it.

Governor Huntsman is primarily at fault for Judge Hilder's rejection. He nominated him, then did nothing for him during the confirmation process. As they say, he just let the judge hang in the wind.

In my view, this is just one more example of the weak leader Huntsman is now and has been throughout his first term.

These 4 should be voted out of the senate in their next election. Just because they ignored the facts does make what they did true or right.

You all act as though you were there. Hilder demands respect in his courtroom, yet he gave the senate none. He was arrogant beyond the pale. Valentine tried to guide him through the process and was knee dropped by Hilder. If Hilder can't figure out that he was the sole reason for his defeat, how can he figure out appeals. I'm all for the senate doing its job in confirming judges that have a clue and Hilder didn't

Ignoring the fact that Waddoups has less credibility than a broken clock, it appalls me that the senate would reject this wonderful candidate but then get all defensive over the idea that political strong-arming might have played a part.

If you're proud of your actions, act proud of them!

I don't believe a word they say. Your present actions and past actions are shouting too loud.

Why would you vote out all 4? Bell was for Hilder all the way and made passionate pleas for him on the Senate floor. Also read the article it says that.

Greg Bell: I don't know the rest of the the four, but I have known Greg Bell for decades and he is absolutely a man of high integrity and without peer in trustworthiness and competence. If he says there was no quid pro quo, then there was none. From other reports in this paper, Hilder sounded pretty problematic to me. In any case, you can count on Greg Bell's word.

I know all of the individuals who authored the editorial and can say without doubt there was no quid pro quo. Though nothing I or anyone else will say will quell the loathing of those who want to believe all politicians are crooks. I would guess that Utah Bill, tobiasrex, instereo and the others who automatically believe that the authors of the editorial are lying probably have never set foot in the Capitol during the legislative session nor have spent any time at all actually talking with the individuals they are condemning. So they get their information from their friends, news media, talk radio and other "credible" sources. That makes them experts on the integrity of all politician?

Mr. Waddoups et al have lost the people's trust. (People vote for them because they respect their parents' Republicanism, not because they respect or trust the candidates themselves.) The track record of lies and distortions is too long. This nasty Hilder business only adds to the smell.

What a collection! As Hamlet's mom said, "They do protest too much, methinks."

High-ranking individuals were speculating - somewhat irresponsibly, it appears. These guys wrote a letter to the editor to set the record straight for anyone who cares. Good for them.

Nonsense - Judge Hilder's nomination was overturned because he made a correct decision about the University of Utah having the right to prohibit concealed weapons on campus.
His decision was obviously correct since it took a seperate act of legislation to overturn it.

If our fine, upstanding, trustworthy state senators say there was no hanky-panky, I believe them hook, line, and sinker!


































Not!

Focus on the big SQUID PRO QUO for Hillary!

There are lots of liberals carping today against these State Senators. (Nor am I a fan of these Senators; one in particular has been grossly incompetent in his transportation work in greasing the way for UTA conartistry.)

However, these same carking/whining liberals were pleased as punch with Obama's BIG SQUID PRO QUO deal with Hillary. (A "squid pro quo is a deal that stinks like rotting fish)

It was unique in the history of campaigning in America that a vanquished presidential contestant would go all out to get her former opponent elected. Obviously, THEY HAD A DEAL!

Hillary, this morning, just got named as Secretary of State by Obama in the only quid pro quo deal worthy of the appellation.

You liberal Democrats swallow whales while choking on gnats.

What a bunch of cynics we have on this page. And Anonymous, ETB and others who usually blame Conservatives, Repugs, Neocons, Reds, (whatever name they are using that day) of being cyincal and negative.

These people think just based on the names that are involved that nothing they say should be trusted (no proof required, just their suspicions based on the names of the people or even more superficial... their party affiliation).

You should be ashamed of yourselvs. If you have some PROOF that something dishonest happened here... Put it out there. But don't just say, "I suspect since they said something there must be some hanky-panky going on", or "Considering who this is comming from, I don't believe a word they are saying".

If you have proof they are lying, put it out there. Otherwise we know this is just more partisan bickering (as usual).

And from the side that usually inisists they are the "live and let live, upbeat, optimistic and trying to bring people together... as opposed to the other side they characterize is angry, divisive and pesamistic about everything.

Personally, I don't know if they're lying, I just thought I'd point out-out-the-Democrat-supporters-are-the-ones-who-are-being-pesamistic-divisive-and-angry-(at-least-in-this-thread-today).