Comments about ‘Letter: Vote for Hatch’

Just two words -- Scott Howell.

@ Bifftacular

That's a nice "conspiracy theory" that Hatch "stacked the caucuses with loyal supporters" but you are wrong.

My sister-in-law lives in that precinct and she attended with her husband. It was packed with local neighbors most of whom she knew. There were no shadowy figures paid millions by the Hatch campaign to sneak in and be delegates. All elected were normal Joe's from the neighborhood.

People just preferred Hatch. They did on vote #1, vote #2, and vote #3. I know that many of the vocal locals here on these boards like to make it sound like a huge majority want to retire Hatch, but in my own precinct meeting 50 miles away the same thing happened. Only pro-Hatch delegates made it through the voting process even though the most outspoken were the "retire Hatch" clan.

I have nothing against Liljenquist, I think he is probably a fine gentleman, but so is Hatch and he has seniority.

Either candidate is better than a democrat. We need someone who is willing to make the tough decisions and stand up to the in tolerate politically correct culture that we live in.
Hatch believes in maintaining the safety net that exists for the poor and needy and taking care of older people. This can be done without the massive overspending and waste we see in Congress today.

Hatch...Dream Act. Need I say more?

People who claim that Hatch's attempts to propose Constitutional amendments show he doesn't uphold the Constitution seem to have forgotten that the Constitution was made to be amended. If the Founding Fathers had heard that we'd only amended the document 17 times since 1791 they'd be incensed; they'd immediately and correctly infer that the Constitution is gathering dust rather than serving as the actual supreme law of the land.

It should be unheard of that ten years go by without any amendments being put to the people for a vote. The only reason it's been amended so little is because instead of building the broad consensus required to pass an amendment people pretend that it suffices to have a 50.01% majority and a "living document" re-reading of the Constitution to say whatever they want.

I would echo many of the facts that have been mentioned about Senator Hatch. Touting what he will do if elected to his Seventh Term, not what he has done. He has voted for most, if not all of the Debt Ceiling increases, voted for TARP and supported liberal judges. His voting has gotten a lot more conservative, since his sidekick, Bobby Bennett was defeated. In my opinion, he is intoxicated with being one of a hundred Senators and he is not willing to give that up without a fight. I also think that Utah is much better off with Mike Lee as one of its Senators than to have Bob Bennett still representing the state.

It amuses me that many of those advocating Senator Hatch's re-election write comments like, "he's endorsed by Mitt Romney", or "he's Utah's senior Senator, . . . we can't risk our future on a freshman Senator", or "Hatch will be more diligent as he serves in this, his last term". What foolish nonsense! Don't you think, if Orrin was going to be an effective Senator, it would have happened before now??? If Hatch is such an "imperative" to the Utah voter, why isn't he telling us what he's done in the past 36 years, instead of playing off of Romney's coattails? I see am aging politician groping to cling on to POWER! Has the 1976 election, that saw Hatch elected Senator, been completely forgotten??? Hatch wanted Moss gone after 3 terms because Moss had become stale. Well, some of us still remember, and as Mom used to say, "If it's good for one, than it's good for another!"

By the way, Andrew, I understand "tough, old birds" are not that digestible or easy to swallow. Just thought you'd like to know. I'm voting for DAN LILJENQUIST!

@deep in thought--Let's set the record straight: Liljenquist actually has quite a bit of support in his district, but due to a rule change by the Utah GOP each delegate was elected on a separate ballot. Thus if Hatch had only one more supporter in a precinct than the opposing candidates combined, no one else could elect a single delegate. The remaining 49% had no representation. The abundance of candidates compounded the problem, diluting the Hatch opposition. So, as Bifftacular pointed out, all the Hatch campaign needed to do was get a majority of attendees at a precinct and it's all over.

Former Senator Bob Bennett has pointed out that the LDS Church’s push to increase caucus attendance did Hatch a huge favor. Typically those first-time attendees were not among the politically aware, had never heard of Dan Liljenquist and were not aware of his herculean accomplishments in Utah entitlement reform and subsequent assistance to most of the country’s state legislatures to accomplish the same. For whom are they going to vote? Hatch the household name, of course.

That Liljenquist garnered enough delegates to force a primary is the real miracle.

I can understand the confusion some voters experience when their choice for president, Mitt Romney, endorses Senator Hatch. It's important to understand exactly what that means. It's already been pointed out that Romney's endorsement came before Dan Liljenquist entered the race, which is significant. But the whole endorsement process is actually pretty simple.

If you've ever opened the cover of a popular book, you'll find a page or two of endorsements by other authors, experts or celebrities. Those endorsements are often made without the endorser even reading the actual text of the book. In fact, some are not even written by the endorser, but by the author's publicist. Why do they endorse the book? There is usually a quid pro quo. Either a mention of the endorser's website in the book, or the author's endorsement on the endorser's next book or project, or some other benefit exchanged.

It's not much different in the political world. Senator Hatch was an enthusiastic supporter of Mitt Romney during the 2008 election cycle. As a result, Romney's endorsement of Hatch was a foregone conclusion. Simple as that.