Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Collegiality’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 15 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Sen. Lee's ideology, not his collegiality, is his primary obstacle in winning support from more Utah voters."

I think you miss the point. I have little doubt that Sen Lee will have no problem getting enough votes in Utah.

What we need is someone who can effectively lead in Washington. And that is where "Collegiality" comes in.

Having extreme right wing ideology and uncompromising positions is bad for the country, but plays perfectly with enough voters in Utah to give Mr Lee a lifelong career.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

In a legislative body, if you cannot get others to sign on with you and go along with your ideas, then you fail to advance your agenda. Period. That is the power of collegiality or having colleagues. You have friends you can go to to help you pass your legislation.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The primary job of Congress is to protect the Constitution from enemies inside and outside of government, which includes citizen who demand services from the Federal Government that the Federal Government is not authorized to provide. On that measurement, Mike Lee is doing an outstanding job.

The second most important duty of a Senator is to represent the State. Utah is the most conservative State in the Nation. Mike Lee is (probably) the most conservative Senator in the nation. On that measurement, Mike Lee is doing an outstanding job.

No Senator is elected to "get along" with those who rip and tear the Constitution. That is not part of the duties enumerated in the Constitution. No Senator is elected to ignore the wishes of the State that he represents.

59% of the People told their Representatives to not pass ObamaCare. The Democrats in the House ignored the people. A majority of the States told their Senators to not pass ObamaCare. The Democrats in the Senate ignored the wishes of the States. Not one Republican voted for ObamaCare, so the "mischief" that occurred must be acknowledged and accepted by those who did that "mischief" - the Democrats.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Yes, collegiality is important . . . ."

No, it's not.

What's important is representing the views of constituents, and doing what's best for the Nation. The word "collegiality" doesn't even appear in our founding documents.

Liberal schemes and political tactics make it so it's impossible to be collegial with them, unless you're willing to surrender your own values and support theirs.

So, collegiality -- at least with liberals -- is not just heavily overrated, it's a serious impediment to doing the right thing.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have it exactly right. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell [and, apparently Senator Hatch] have it exactly wrong. They're dinosaurs, so heavily invested in a failed "collegial" power structure, they can't even understand the Constitution and the will of the people, let alone implement it.

ECR
Burke, VA

Collegiality is important but it doesn't really help to say "My good friend Harry Reid...is the worst Majority Leader in the history of the nation." I prefer the dogfights that take place in the House of Parliament in the UK as seen on C-Span. At least they have honest debates and play by the existing rules.

Contrast that with the situation in the U.S. House. Under the Rules of the House, in the very particular parliamentary situation that now exists (i.e. disagreement between House and Senate amendments on the bill) ANY member of the House, as a matter of privilege, could have called up the Senate amendments for a vote (because the Rules were written to try to expedite the resolution of differences between the two houses when there was a majority of each house in favor of a particular resolution).

But, on October 1st, the Republicans passed a Rule to change the Standing Rules of the House so only Majority Leader Cantor or his designee could bring up Senate bill for a vote. They did this specifically to keep the government shut down. They changed the rules that have been used throughout our history.

Samson01
S. Jordan, UT

"...seem to be an attempt to recast himself"

Those of us who have been acquainted with Dan Liljenquist knew going into the elections what our choices were and who Dan was.

He is a fine man whose ideology has shifted to fit the circumstances. He has always been a compromiser. That is why when faced with the choice of Hatch or Liljenquist, I chose Hatch. He wasn't the best choice, he was the better of the two choices we had.

I didn't want someone to go back and fit in, I wanted a principled man who knew that the federal government has overstepped its bounds and to fight like h--- to correct the situation.

We all want change in Washington until we get it. In 2008, conservatives were so disgusted by the Republicans that the base stayed home. Maybe we were guilty of buying into the "Hope and Change" mantra. It certainly was a change, just not for the better.

Now we have a schism in the party because a few have caught the vision and the establishment wants no part of it. My hope is that others in the Republican party will catch the vision.

Go Mike Lee!

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

So the summary of the argument is:

Senator Lee is fighting for the fiscal solvency of the US and for adherence to the Constitution, and the liberal democrats are crying because he won't tell them that spending more than we will ever make is a good thing, and that they are violating the constitution, and that he isn't being nice enough in the way he says it.

He is being a lot nicer than those lying about his motives, values, and character.

cmbennett1
OGDEN, UT

Sen. Lee does NOT represent my views, and that is why I did NOT vote for him and I will NEVER vote for him.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments