Mr. Hatch frequently refers to "the Democrats" doing this or that.Fine. We get that ours is a two party political system, for better or
for worse. You work out your political ideology and "platform" in the
context of and with the support of an association of fellow citizens and we call
it a "party".But once you are elected, you no longer
represent ONLY your political party. You represent ALL citizens of your State,
District, etc. Partisanship should disappear, at best, and fade into the
background at least, so that you can get about the business of doing the
State's or the Nation's business - doing what is in the best interests
of ALL Americans, NOT just advancing the interests of YOUR PARTY!Thanks for the convoluted explanation of your "present" votes, Mr.
Hatch. I'm sure your PARTY is pleased.When are you going to
start representing ALL citizens and stop the Partisanship?
Votes are binary, yes or no. Most issues are more nuanced than yes or no and
your present vote illustrated that. For the far left who monitor the DN,
anything that disrupts their lemming-like rush toward a European style US is
considered inconsistent, immoral, radical or obstructionist. Hang in there,
procuradorfiscal:Sen. Hatch is only part of the problem, people like
you are a much bigger problem. Why must you always demonize the other side? I
don't think Republicans are evil when I totally and completely disagree
with their actions and the motives behind such actions. I understand what they
want and how they intend to get it. I don't want what they want but I
understand their position. Why are liberals, and by extension Democrats evil?
Because we disagree with you? Because we want different things for our country
and its citizens? Pres. Obama isn't trying to destroy America, his goals
and visions for the future are different than yours. I disagreed with virtually
everything the previous president said and did but I never accused him of
wanting to destroy our country. He is a patriot who saw the world differently
than I do. Why can't you understand that? Until you do, we will never
achieve anything together as a country.
Re: "We have political grid lock."Thank goodness for that!
Every time politicians undertake to "fix" something, they make it
worse.But, it DOES matter to Mr. Hatch's explanation of his
actions that the changes to which he was required to adapt were forced on him,
and weren't his doing. And, it certainly does matter to address the
disingenuous blather of other posters.We can all agree that in some
future ideal world, blame and credit won't matter. Just results. But,
we're not there yet.I've gotta insist though, since
liberals have embraced unwarranted attack, misdirected blame, obfuscation, and
sophistry as their primary tactics, it remains important to confront and refute
their lies, lest they succeed in convincing low-information voters to support
their evil aims.And, that IS important. Their agenda is not just
wrong or misguided -- it's evil.
"Except when necessary to address disingenuous attacks based on cynical
mischaracterizations of the Senator's motives by unscrupulous operatives of
that other side."Honestly, this encapsulates just about
everything wrong with American politics - or most politics in general. We will
spend endless hours and cycles trying to prove to the other side that they are
the ones who are wrong. Literally millions of man house have been wasted on an
effort that forward a solution not one bit. It doesn't matter
who said if first. It doesn't matter that I am rubber, and you are
glue.Your in a car accident. One car is leaking gas. Politicians
would spend all their time arguing over who caused the accident, not spending
time getting the injured out of the car.We have political grid lock.
Finding out who started it isn't going to change the solution one bit.
Lets start with where we agree first. If the appointee is objectionable, work
on finding one TOGETHER that satisfies both. Who fired the first shot just
doesn't matter when you have people being hurt on both sides.IIt's like watching bratty teens argue who said what first.
"If you choose not to decide, You still have made a choice."~ "Freewill"by RUSHlyrics - Neil PeartPermanent Waves album
Hatch has his history totally backwards. Until the '70s, the Senate
required a 2/3 majority to achieve cloture. Then the Democrat-dominated Senate
actually reduced it to 3/5, or 60, to make it easier -- not harder -- to achieve
cloture. It's been that way ever since the Honorable Mr. Hatch was elected.
Talk about a weird, wonderful world of prevarication...
The truth, that Mr. Hatch says one thing and does another, is still true no
matter who raises it.
Re: "Pointing fingers is a complete and total waste of time."Except when necessary to address disingenuous attacks based on cynical
mischaracterizations of the Senator's motives by unscrupulous operatives of
that other side.
@procuradorfiscal - point is I really could care less whose fault it is. That
is grammar school. I have never seen a coin with only one side, there is
always two sides in everything, including political debates..All I
care about is what are you going to do about it. Pointing fingers
is a complete and total waste of time.
Re: ". . . politicians, on either side, have a common response.... 'it
was the other side[']s fault'."Yeah -- but in this
case, it really WAS the other side's fault.And it really DID
place Mr. Hatch into a moral quandary.And he really DID handle it
with the class so conspicuously absent in both the disingenuous letter he was
responding to and the snarky comments here.Thanks, Mr. Hatch.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if he just simply voted "no" and then
explained why the candidate was not qualified for the position? Orrin
Hatch is exactly what is wrong with Washington. The worst part about the
garbage that he just wrote is that he actually thinks that it makes sense. It
highlights just how completely out of touch he really is. Pathetic is the only
word that even remotely begins to describe this despicable excuse for a public
Nice try, Orrin. Voting "present" is still a spineless vote.
Nevertheless, I'd take you over Mike Lee every day of the week. What a
statement that is about our senators. Argh.
Figures he'd fall back on his tired old "You poor average people just
can't understand what I do" argument. What a joke.
The senior senator is proof that term limits is a good idea. He is gifted at
parsing words, and going along to get along. It appears to me that he is more
interested in getting along, and not rocking the senate boat rather than
standing up and representing the state of Utah. Thirty-six years, and counting,
in Washington makes him an insider, and part of the problem. This explanation
is "Utah Values"? I fear we may yet see the senior senator wheeled into
the senates chambers as was Robert Byrd to scold the young 'uns on how the
senate "should" be run. The Republic is in peril from incompetence and
inaction by its governing elite and we see little or nothing from
"Utah's time to lead" man. How sad.
Funny, I understood the logic here. You can't vote for a person you
don't approve of, and you can't vote no, which would be using the
political technique you don't approve of. Now he could have simply not
taken part of the vote... which would have achieve the same end result.But really, what he is describing here is not too hard to understand.What I don't appreciate is the "blame the other side" mentality.
We have seen enough of that already.My takeaways from this..... some
people are just anti what ever and don't care to look deeper into the
rational... they just want to be anti something.And the other is
politicians, on either side, have a common response.... "it was the other
Come on people, this is Orrin Hatch we're talking about. A career
politican, who's become a millionaire at the same time he was a public
servant. He's been full of double standards his whole career. You could
say a few other things about him as well but they probably would not make it
past the DN censure.
This prevarication and method of reasoning shows he was very well trained in his
religious tradition. He sure paid attention
So, in other words, the editorial you are writing in response to was absolutely
correct and you are displeased that the truth about you is not flattering....Perhaps the solution would be to change your behaviors instead of making
yourself look even worse by shining about it?
Wow. I would have received an "F" in school if I provided that answer.
I'm embarrassed for Senator Hatch.He said he was against the
*filibuster* process and how nominees were not even allowed to be voted upon.If he was truly honest, and true to his stated values, he would vote for
cloture (ending the debate process, avoiding a filibuster), then vote against
the nominee on the confirmation vote.Filibuster/Cloture.
Confirmation. These are two entirely different votes, Senator. Maybe you think
you can play the Utah public for fools because we're voted you in so many
times.I learned about this, Senator, back when I was in Jr. High
School, when you were first in the Senate. I'm now in my 50s. Do you really think this explanation suffices? Please tell me you don't.
If you don't like a nominee, why don't you simply vote "NO"
instead of "PRESENT?" Is it because you can come home
(well, your adopted home) and tell people you aren't the problem because
you didn't vote "NO?" Is it so you can attempt to straddle both
sides of the fence by not making a decision? I'm sorry, but I
see a "PRESENT" vote as a cowardly vote. You earn a paycheck to make
tough decisions and have your vote counted and be held responsible for that vote
by your constituents. I thought you were going to provide "real
leadership." I also love the "he did it first"
analogy. Shows some real maturity.
When you were a small child and did something wrong, did your mother let you off
the hook if you cried that your sibling did it first? Of course not. Senator
Hatch's argument, that the Democrats did it first so it is okay for him to
abandon his stated principles and do it, is transparent and childish. I suppose the only proper response to the Senator is to ask him: 'if the
Democrats jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff too?'