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