Hatch's debating 'issue' is manufactured

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    May 28, 2012 4:40 p.m.

    I'm with Fitness Freak. Any one who's been paying attention over the last 36 years knows that Senator Hatch has undergone a "born-again" experience in the last two years after the wake-up call of seeing Senator Bennett lose. He is suddenly responsive to his constituents and has been conspicuously "conservative", even to the extent of hiring token "tea-partyers" for his staff.

    As Fitness Freak pointed out, once he's re-elected for another SIX YEARS, he is free to return to his non-responsive, decidedly non-conservative ways...that is until he's up for re-election again. Huh? You mean you believe the senator when he says he'll retire after this next term. Yeah, I believed him, too, back in 1976 when he said he'd retire after eighteen years. As they say, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME!!

    Time to thank the senator for his service and call him home!

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    Re: J Vaughn well thought out response. But, remember the issue is: Why should the US taxpayer bailout poorly run private institutions? Further, why should it be done with no requirements for the use of the money and no required public oversight? And, Why when it does should there not be a requirement to help the borrower retain their assets and credit rating. TARP money may have been paid back, but we the taxpayer have no idea what the money was used for. To me, those representing the people who voted for it should never be allowed to continue in office. They abrogated their constitutional responsibility for oversight in a raid on taxpayer funds to support their largest contributors. Send all of them home either to retirement or to endlessly peddle their poor thinking in the local media.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2012 7:12 a.m.

    If we keep sending the same representatives and Senators BACK to D.C., how can we expect any different results?

    Should we just change the constitution so our elected representatives don't need to bother to explain themselves or run for re-election? Should we just elect them for LIFE, as egomaniacal individuals prefer?

    EXACTLY WHAT is in D.C. that makes it so Hatch won't leave?

    BTW - IF Hatch is re-elected, what makes anyone think he will vote the will of Utahns now?
    Why would he be motivated to do anything different if, in fact, he plans to retire after THIS term?

  • Vaughn J Kearns, UT
    May 26, 2012 11:07 p.m.

    I keep seeing comments about Hatch's record with respect to TARP and the raising of the debt ceiling. I think that those individuals are using buzz words to drive people to their ay of thinking and their desires.

    TARP was originally budgeted at about $700 billion dollars. Only about $400B was used. About 50% of the institutions that received funds (the biggest institutions) have repaid and left the TARP program. The remaining are smaller banks that are community based; such as Zions Bankcorp.

    If TARP had not been authorized, or if the debt ceiling limits been raised, what might the economic conditions be. Look what the impact of similar problems in Greece, Spain, and Europe do to the value of the numerous companies that employ American citizens, and the value to individuals retirement plans from the economic problem that are occurring. If the financial system had collapsed, as was occurring, then the current Unemployment rate and value of companies and retirement account would likely be less than at that time.

    Today the TARP program has only about $25B outstanding, with organization that the government has ownership with in stocks. Raising the debt prevented Social security/Unemployment funds being disbursed.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 26, 2012 9:39 p.m.

    Let's have the debates so thinking people may have an opportunity to see why none of us should vote for either Hatch or Liljenquist.

    Scott Howell is the man we should be voting for.

  • Grant Rees Logan, UT
    May 26, 2012 6:57 p.m.

    Senator Hatch is running scared and is using endorsements rather than public dialog for his campaign strategy. You would think that a senior senator would be willing to debate anyone. His TV Ads purports to balance the nation’s budget with a flawed proposed amendment (S. J. Res. 10, 112th Congress, 1st Session) It has many loopholes with phrases such as “Congress may waive”, “unless”, “except”, “estimates”; the amendment is not enforceable, does not reduce the national debt principal, allows for debt increase, and does not take effect until five years after ratification!  We should not re-elect Senator Hatch who has dazzled his peers and the voters for 30 years with the good sounding words: "a balanced budget amendment".

    Also Senator Hatch introduced an unconstitutional bill to give the District of Columbia a voting member in the House of Representatives, and voted for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 that allowed banks to merge and led this nation to the brink of financial disaster.

    It is now time to vote for Dan Liljenquist who can win in November.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    May 26, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    @ David King, in Utah how would you know, either way?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 26, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    Nothing wrong with the Patriot Act, unless you are a terrorist. Otherwise you don't have anything to worry about if you are an upright, law abiding citizen.

  • Binder Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2012 9:58 a.m.

    Hatch should debate Liljenquist.

    On prime time TV.

    Hatch's refusal only makes him appear arrogant and out of touch with the voters of Utah.

  • David King Layton, UT
    May 26, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    @ Esquire

    Would the Democrat oppose the indefinite detention of American citizens? Would he or she oppose taxpayer money going to poorly run companies in the form of bailouts or taxpayer money to profitable companies in the form of subsidies? Would this person work to repeal the Patriot Act and restore civil liberties? Would they agree to not send our kids to war without a vote for a declaration of war by Congress? Would they make solving our debt crisis a priority? Would they hold up the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, even the parts they disagree with? If so, that person will have my vote. If not, then I see no reason to vote for change for the sake of change.

  • swede1952 Smithfield, UT
    May 26, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    As a child, I was taught, "Two wrongs don't make a right!" Why would someone vote for Hatch to get revenge on what happened in 2010 to former Senator Bennett? That's two years ago! Instead of seeking revenge for Bennett, how about investigating Senator Hatch's record for the past 12 years? If you do, you will find Hatch's vote to pass TARP, several votes to confirm raising the debt ceiling, several failed attempts to pass his so-called "balance budget" amendment, etc. Orrin Hatch has changed since first going to Washington. He no longer listens to his constituents, he believes "he knows better than the voters of Utah", and he represents NO ONE, but himself.

    The Utah primary election is one month away. Utah voters deserve the opportunity of hearing views of both Hatch and Liljenquist before the election. KSL-TV and The Deseret News have called for these debates, a majority of Utahns want these debates. An informed electorate is preferable to an ignorant one. I hope Utah's senior Senator will re-consider and allow a free flow of speech to take place and the issues to be discussed. Let's have some debates!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 26, 2012 7:40 a.m.

    So the writer's motivation is to get back at the Tea Party for what they did to Bennett? I'm sorry, but the conservatives/right wingers are truly messed up. Let's try a Democrat for a change. It's past time. The GOP is just in-fighting now. For them, it's about power, not public service.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2012 2:57 a.m.

    No debates have been held between just Hatch and Liljenquist. The two pre-convention debates involved THREE candidates, but it's a very different situation when there are only TWO candidates.

    Debates are important, because they give the voters a much more honest education, through live back-and-forth interaction, as to who the two candidates really are. That's something you usually can't get through carefully worded mailers, sound bites, and web sites.

    Sorry, but these debates are not a manufactured issue. Instead, what are REALLY 'manufactured' are Senator Hatch's EXCUSES for not debating Liljenquist on TV. After all, it was Hatch himself in 1976 who stated that TV debates were very important between the two primary opponents. If they were important then, why are they suddenly not important now?

    Also, experience can be a very good thing, but not if it leads a senator to eventually stray from the Constitution and help cause our nation's fiscal crisis.