Default to incumbent

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 6, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    Your opinion. Not shared.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    April 5, 2012 4:56 p.m.

    In a strange way, I am with LDS Liberal here.

    I support Hatch not because I think there isn't a good alternative for Hatch, but rather that of the options available to me as a voter, he is the best candidate.

    There is a distinction.

    We ousted Bob Bennett in a "anybody but Bennett" movement. I do not believe my support should go for that.

    I am not an "Anybody but " person. Rather, lets send the best choice we have back to Washington DC.

    I believe that Senator Hatch is our best choice and am disappointed that we don't have a better one. (Yes, I have vetted the other candidates)

    If I truly believed that President Obama was the best choice for president, I would vote for him over a Republican candidate. (Fortunately that is not the case)

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 4, 2012 2:09 p.m.

    No it is not a fact that most banks have paod back the money with interest... it the opposite.. out of the over 500 banks that recieved bailout money ONLY 32 have paid the governemnt back according to the NY times.

    I love how people make "Facts" out of "fiction".

    As far as I know the only auto maker that is doing "fine" is Ford (which did not accept bailout money the second time).

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 4, 2012 10:08 a.m.

    Here is what really cracks me up with people like Mike Richards.....

    He complains and moans about how Hatach should not have voted our "Tax Paying Dollars" for TARP..... That is not what the constitution says...blah blah blah...

    What would have happened if TARP did not happen? if in the end there was a major depression and our financial community colapsed and thousand upon thousands lost their jobs... Would Mike Richards being singing the same tune?

    Sometimes we must do things that we don't neccesarily like but is important for the stability of the ecomony.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    April 4, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    here's some facts,, Tarp was started by Bush. Continued by Obama. Most of the money givin to the banks has been paid back with intrest, The government made money on the deal. The Auto industry and hundreds of thousands of jobs were saved. Now the Auto industries are doing just fine. As far as Hatch is concerned he ran against Frnk Moss in 1976 saying 18 years was enough for Moss. He was right then, and I am right now. Hatch has been there too long. He has supervised the decline of our nation and the piling on of debt for the last 35 years. He is part of the problem. The only president who didnt pile on more debt was Clinton, and Hatch opposed him every step of the way. Time to go home Hatch. To Pennsylvania.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2012 10:50 p.m.

    Re: Mike Richards and J Thompson: You're right that, especially in the crisis our nation is facing, it's better to vote for an imperfect Republican than a Democrat. But that's not the current issue -- the issue at the moment is which Republican the state delegates should choose as the senate candidate. This time, there are better choices than Senator Hatch.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2012 10:40 p.m.

    By the way, Steve, great letter! We have some excellent senate candidates. Hatch is desperate to hang on to power, and tries to convince us that we can't get along without him.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 3, 2012 5:36 p.m.

    Some people would pretend that if we vote for Senator Hatch, even though he is the fourth or fifth best candidate, that we are voting for the wrong man. That would be true if we only compared him to other Republican candidates, but when we compare his ideals against the ideals of the Democrats, it is to see that he is still the best choice.

    Mr. Hatch, by some of the votes he has cast, has forever forfeited the right to be my first choice; but, as Mike Richards pointed out, when the choice comes between voting for a candidate who has made some errors or voting for a candidate whose party embraces a woman's "right" to end the life of her unborn baby - for any reason, without remembering that the Constitution protects our right to life - the choice is obvious; we vote for the candidate who respects the life of the unborn.

    Yes, abortion is the law of the land, but that does not make it right. That does not make it any more right than President Obama's demand that the government be allowed to force us to buy insurance.

    Innocent life wins - every time.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 3, 2012 4:11 p.m.

    What is the higher crime? Is it better to vote for someone who has cast a few wrong votes, or is it better to vote for someone whose party calls for abortion without regard to the rights of the unborn?

    Is it better to vote for someone who cast a few wrong votes or is it better to vote for someone whose party calls for government expansion in all things, as if the Constitution were just another pieces of paper?

    Is it better to vote for someone who mostly tries to do the right thing or is it better to vote for someone who has chosen a party that promotes everything that would destroy this nation?

    We vote for the man, but when the party twists arms when votes are needed, do we ignore the Party?

    Look at the voting record of Jim Matheson and compare it to the voting record of Orrin Hatch. Even though they are members of different parts of Congress, it is easy to see how often both of them marched lock step with their party.

    When perfection is not possible, we compromise and vote for the best man running.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 3, 2012 3:10 p.m.

    MY point is Mike, and you keep missing it – is quite simple ---
    If you don’t like him, don’t support him, and don’t think he is doing a good job – why on earth do you keep electing him?

    I do care about Government,
    I do expect my Representatives to represent me.
    I do hold them accountable.
    And when they don’t, they no longer have my vote, period.
    It’s that simple.

    Your ranting and then seceding and voting for them anyway is not only hypocritical and ironic, but shows a lack of integrity to one’s core beliefs and values, that’s all.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 3, 2012 1:47 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    Do you care about honesty in government?

    Do you care whether elected officials uphold their sacred duties?

    Do you realize that the election process allows us to replace "poor performers".

    Do you realize that instead of attacking the voters, you could expend some effort in getting good people elected?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 3, 2012 1:24 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    9:20 a.m. April 3, 2012

    Did TARP help or hurt? Does it matter?

    One of the most sacred duties that every Senator has is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

    Senator Hatch has forgotten that primary responsibility. Instead of focusing on the PEOPLE, he has focused on those who pay for his re-election. Instead of upholding the Constitution, he has looked at the polls to see where he could find some votes.


    Question for Mike….

    So then, why DO you vote for him each and every time?
    Follow-on question;
    Why WILL you vote for him again once he wins the nomination?

    Burn me once, shame on you –
    Burn me twice, 3, 4, 5, 6 times….shame on me, [times 6].

    My guess, Orrin Hatch depends on blind lemmings Republicans who will vote for him no matter what he does and no matter how mad they get.

    BTW – That’s what really matters.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 3, 2012 12:55 p.m.

    With the stimulus, the unemployment will not rise above 8% - BO, early 2009

    It is not the responsibility of the federal government or within its prescribed powers to help STATES retain teachers and first responders. Whether doing such is a good thing or not does not enter into the equation. Why should I pay more in federal taxes due to the porkulus because CA or NY has made unsustainable promises to its public employees?

    As far as tax cuts, isn’t the left always SCREAMING for the repeal of the bush tax cuts? So the purported tax cuts in the porkulus are good but all others are bad? On a percentage of income basis, the lower tax brackets benefited MUCH more from the bush tax cuts than did the upper income brackets.

    MASSIVE govt spending in the 1930s did not end the depression; MASSIVE government spending in 2009 did not end the recession. Slick willy proposed a stimulus package in early 1993 – that proposal was wisely rejected – and the economy improved. Porkuli do not work.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2012 12:04 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    There is no way at all that stimulus spending, which helped states retain teachers and first responders, as well as provided needed infrastructure construction jobs, as well as the fact that half the stimulus was tax cuts that is part of ANY republican plan to help the economy, delayed the recovery.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    Want to destroy the economy? Be someone who votes against the bank bailouts and watch the entire financial sector collapse (it'd be maybe over a decade before the remaining small banks could pick up that carnage).

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2012 10:45 a.m.

    Re: Furry1993: I disagree. Among those running against Hatch, there are some smart, energetic, capable, classy, likeable candidates -- people who really get it. They understand that we got into this mess because the federal government has strayed far outside its narrow Constitutional limits, and they have a solid focus on how to help return our country to greater prosperity and freedom. To me, that's a lot more important than "seniority." I'm very hopeful that we can replace Senator Hatch with the right candidate.

  • Jl Sandy, UT
    April 3, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    This was nothing more than mainstream Republicans taking back what they allowed to happen in 2010. They didn't want another Lee. However, it would still be in the common interests of all if Utahns opened both eyes rather than just the right. They would be voting in their own interests.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    April 3, 2012 9:48 a.m.

    As much as I don't like or want Hatch, the best supported candidates running against him are much, much worse. I'm going to vote for my dog.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    TARP was a very bad move, and Hatch was wrong to vote for it. It rescued and rewarded a lot of people for glaringly wrong decisions. It picked winners and losers. Without TARP, yes, some banks would have failed, but the market would have corrected itself and we would have come out healthier on the other side, and without having wasted hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Other banks would have picked up the slack and we would have been fine.

    Hatch has done some good things, but he's also done some bad ones. I think maybe it's time to give the newer guys a shot. Hatch talks about the importance of his seniority, but then he also praises Paul Ryan, who's fairly new in the House but has accomplished great things. Sometimes the freshmen, with their new ideas and fresh energy and no baggage, are the ones who can really get things done.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 3, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    Did TARP help or hurt? Does it matter?

    The question is whether Senator Hatch had any business voting OUR TAX MONEY to bail out any business. Those tax dollars were not the government's money. Those dollars belonged to the people to pay for the duties that they people delegated to the government. The people never delegated the duty to "bail out" any business to the government.

    At the very least, TARP represents the misappropriation of funds.

    One of the most sacred duties that every Senator has is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

    Senator Hatch has forgotten that primary responsibility. Instead of focusing on the PEOPLE, he has focused on those who pay for his re-election. Instead of upholding the Constitution, he has looked at the polls to see where he could find some votes.

    Has Mr. Hatch's votes promoted freedom and liberty, or has he voted to allow the government to eavesdrop on our conversations, to "probe" us before we can get on an airplane, and to allow the government to lock us up without the RIGHT to consult an attorney and without every going to trial?

  • metisophia Ogden, UT
    April 3, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    The best answer to the problem of sending Hatch or a candidate who is even farther right-wing is to elect a Democrat.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 3, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    I’ll bet my bottom dollar, the letter writer is a Republican – and if nominated [and most likely will be] he will quietly and bitterly re-elect 78 year old Orrin Hatch for a 7th and 42 year stint.

    Hint; YOU are part of the problem. YOU have no one else by yourself to blame.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 3, 2012 7:44 a.m.

    While I oppose Hatch’s renomination, I think your criticism of TARP may be a little misplaced.

    TARP DID stabilize the financial markets; and while there were a large number of banks that failed the vast majority of those that failed did not receive TARP funds. Of the banks that did receive TARP funds, they have repaid ALL TARP funds invested in banks with over $13 billion in profit to the treasury.

    No, TARP did MUCH more to stabilize the economy than BO’s porkulus. It was the porkulus and BO’s other policies that have delayed and weakened the recovery.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 3, 2012 7:32 a.m.

    I haven't ever read any credible source or economist that claims what this letter writer did.

    TARP extended the economic recession?

    Everyone I've read or seen, folks from both parties, claim that without TARP a full-blown depression would have followed.

    So we can either trust this armchair economist from some rural town in Utah, or actual economists that know what they're talking about.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    April 3, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    Although Hatch voted for the 1st bailout, he did not adminster it. Obama mishandled the funds giving large portions to corporations favorable to him. Knowing Solyndra was practically bankrupt Obama gave it huge sums of money. In turn, Solyndra contributed to Obama's campaign funds.