Comments about ‘Letter: Don't be intimidated’

"In 2010 we were so disgusted with Washington that several emails circulated suggesting a new amendment to the Constitution which would require our representatives to be subject to the laws they make."

Excactly which laws don't apply to Congress?

I urge Utahns not to be intimidated into voting for Dan Liljenquist.From what I remember Sen. Hatch is not one of the senators that I want to see thrown out. He has always been a strong voice for conservative values yet still not a puppet of the far right wing on every issue.

It's funny the letter writer should invoke the year 2010. That's the year our state GOP replaced an effective senator with a cloutless obstructionist. Let's learn from those mistakes. When we replace Orrin Hatch this year, let's replace him with an effective leader with a proven track record of reaching across the aisle to accomplish good things for Utah. Scott Howell is the man for the job.

In 2010 Utahns elected Mike Lee, but in 2012 Utahns are sticking with Hatch? What are we, bi-polar?

Good letter. I agree. Sen. Hatch has done some good things in the past, but in various ways he's also become part of the problem in Washington, increasing the size, intrusiveness, and cost of the federal government. That's not what we need.

This is the first time Sen. Hatch has been pushed into a primary, and it's a new experience for him. So he's become a bit arrogant and is insisting that we can't make it without him.

Hatch's latest stunt is this week's announcement that he'll be a "special advisor" to Mitt Romney. Some political experts have questioned the timing, because it seems less like a move to help Romney and more like an effort to promote Hatch himself. It may also be an attempt to slip out of debates with his challenger, Dan Liljenquist ("Sorry, I'm too busy to debate - I have to help Mitt.").

To have a clear, valid comparison, Utah voters deserve to see a series of debates between Liljenquist and Hatch. We should demand no less. If Hatch is unwilling to debate, that's a good reason to vote against him.

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Even if we were to ignore the fact that Mr. Hatch has voted to take away our liberties, even if we were to ignore the fact that Mr. Hatch voted for TARP, even if we were to ignore the fact that Mr. Hatch voted to listen to our telephone conversations (Patriot Act), we would still have to admit that he has been completely ineffective in bringing about the changes that he campaigns for every election cycle.

That means that he either can't do the job or that the Senate isn't listening to his ideas.

The solution is to replace him. That way, we can easily see whether it is the man or the ideas that are faulty. We could be practicing insanity if we re-elect Mr. Hatch.

Dan Liljenquist is capable. Let's give Dan a chance to do the things that Mr. Hatch has been unable to do - for thirty-six years!

Moderate, this was found on a FOX news website:
While Congress is moving to explicitly apply insider trading laws to its members, lawmakers are exempt from provisions of other federal laws.

In 1995, the House and Senate passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which did apply many civil rights, labor and workplace safety statutes to the legislative branch.

Congress is still exempt from:

— The Freedom of Information Act.

— Investigatory subpoenas to obtain information for safety and health probes.

— Protections against retaliation for whistleblowers.

— Having to post notices of worker rights in offices.

— Prosecution for retaliating against employees who report safety and health hazards.

— Having to train employees about workplace rights and legal remedies.

— Record-keeping requirements for workplace injuries and illnesses.

This was found by Googling "Congress exempt"

They are also immune from arrest for anything while Congress is in session. They enjoy taxpayer provided health services. They are familiar with many tax and other legal loopholes that they may use to gain advantage over commoners.

The letter writer is spot on!

WestGRanger: do you consider TARP, Patriot Act, NDAA, increasing the debt ceiling 16+ times conservative values? I don't.

Time for Hatch to retire. He is so completely arrogant it's astounding. Bennett cried after he lost at the convention claiming that it was "his seat". If he thought that with half the time as Hatch in DC, just think where Orrin's head is....

Time for the non-Utahn Hatch to move back to PA.

If you don't like Orrin, you really won't like Dan. I checked out Dan's stand on the issues. This is a hard right-winger, folks, who wants to eliminate medicare and social security.

To goatesnotes 6:34 a.m. 5/5

In 2010 Utahns elected Mike Lee, but in 2012 Utahns are sticking with Hatch? What are we, bi-polar?

============================
More likely the voters of Utah realized what a horrendous mistake they made in 2010 when they sent someone to the Senate who was unqualified and a embarrassment to Utah and to the United States, and don't want to make that mistake again. I agree with them. That's why I plan on voting for Hatch in the primary election.

Re: Irony Guy: Liljenquist is a principled conservative, and conservatism is what Hatch has too often strayed from. Liljenquist doesn't want to eliminate medicare and social security - he wants to turn them around and make them sustainable. He's very good at that type of thing. Liljenquist's skills and his stand on the issues are exactly what are needed by an America in crisis.

Utahns deserve to see the clear contrast between Hatch and his Republican challenger, Liljenquist, through a series of debates. We should insist that Hatch participate and not hide or make excuses. If Hatch is unwilling to debate and give the voters a clear choice, that's an excellent reason to vote against him.

If some Republicans vote for Hatch again simply because they've voted for him in the past, that's not good enough. I myself have supported Hatch in the past, but he's helped increase the size, reach, and cost of the federal government, and this time Liljenquist is a better choice.

Furry, you keep whining about Lee but never provide any reason for the hatred towards him. Maybe you could enlighten everyone to why you hate the man so much???

"Even if we were to ignore the fact that Mr. Hatch has voted to take away our liberties, even if we were to ignore the fact that Mr. Hatch voted for TARP, even if we were to ignore the fact that Mr. Hatch voted to listen to our telephone conversations (Patriot Act),"

What in the world would make any thinking person assume that Liljinquist would have voted any different then the exact party line that Senator Hatch voted?

Re: Mark | 8:50 pm: You're suggesting that Liljenquist would have cast the same wrong votes as Hatch. Well, that's an empty argument, and there is no evidence to indicate that your claim is correct.

Liljenquist's track record shows just the opposite. He supports a return of power to the states, instead of Hatch's mistakes of expanding the scope and cost of the federal government. By returning the vast majority of power to the states, Liljenquist wants to make his upcoming office as senator less powerful. Hatch, on the other hand, is addicted to his power and is desperately trying anything to hold on to it.

After not sailing through the convention, one of Hatch's clever tricks was to claim that he's the "underdog" (even after the millions he has spent over the past year identifying and training Hatch-friendly delegates for the caucuses).

Well, peanut, seeing as the Patriot Act passed without one Republican voting against it, that's right, 100% of the Republican votes voted aye on the Patriot Act. Another way of saying that is that Senator Hatch voted for the Patriot Act, as did every single other Republican Senator. Only one Senator voted against it. A liberal Democrat, Russ Feingold. In the House only three (3) Republicans voted against the act. 66 Democrats voted against it.

No, I'm fairly. Certaine Dan would have followed the pack and voted for the act. Every single Republican voted for it. In fact all the conservative pundits in the conservative media were pushing for it. Strongly.

With TARP only 15 out of 49 republican Senators voted against it. And it's probably a good thing it passed, if the banks had collapsed the economic crisis would have been far worse.

Can't Utah voters REALLY see what this year's senatorial campaign is ALL about? It's NOT about seniority. It's NOT about voting for a Utah "institution". It's NOT about saving Hill AFB or the "supposed" chairmanship of a Senate committee. The 2012 election for US Senator is ALL about POWER! It is a super ego trip for Orrin Hatch! Why else has Hatch already spent 6 million dollars to date? It's ONLY May! Why else has Orrin come up with this charade that he is Mitt Romney's "special" advisor? Hatch finally realizes that a growing number of Utahans are dis-satisfied with his job performance and are looking for new ideas and the chance to chart a new course. Utahans, do you realize, that Dave Hansen, Hatch's senior aide, is handling most of the legislation that goes through Hatch's office? Do we want a "figure head" as one of our two Senators? Afterall, the man is 78 years old! Why doesn't he retire, and do what most other men his age are doing? The answer: POWER! Dan Liljenquist is the "man of the hour!" Good-bye, Senator Hatch. Welcome, Senator Liljenquist!