Vote for the candidate who owes fewer favors

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2012 10:40 a.m.

    Re: one old man Ogden, UT
    "Rifleboy, if you will check, the party's abortion stand is almost identical to that of the LDS church."

    You couldn't be more wrong. Abortion on demand, the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy or any reason, flies in the face of what the LDS Church teaches. Nice try, but no cigar.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    June 24, 2012 7:33 p.m.

    So who owes less favors? Hatch might "owe" favors to his donors, but Liljenquist has spent his own money to fund his campaign. So if elected, Liljenquist will need to recoup that money in a hurry. After all, he can't be expected to live on a measely $170,000 a year. So he will be bought by the highest bidder just like all the others.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 23, 2012 6:58 p.m.

    Rifleboy, if you will check, the party's abortion stand is almost identical to that of the LDS church.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 23, 2012 3:00 p.m.

    Re: one old man Ogden, UT
    "A vote for Scott Howell is a vote for America's best interests and not for special interests."

    If Hatch wins the Republican primary this coming Tuesday Mr. Howell doesn't have a ghost of a chance. Change your party's platform plank on abortion if you want Mr. Howell to finish the race in a respectible second place.

  • travelrus murray, UT
    June 23, 2012 2:56 p.m.

    It's the big GOP fundraiser in Deer Valley this weekend all the big names are coming town. I understand that Mia Love is getting about a million for her campaigne by way of Paul Ryan the tea-party poster boy. Lets see Mia Love just got bought! One thing you can say about Matheson is he does represent the majority of Utahns. I wish he was a little more to the left but I will vote for him anyway. He is willing to work with both sides of the aisle back in Washington which is more than you can say about a lot of those folks.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    June 23, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    Aaaaaa yes, the "big thought" of which candidate will have less favors to return if elected to the Senate. Will it be Sen. Orrin Hatch or Dan Liljenquist?. Collin R. Anderson of Bountiful has some common sense. Bureaucrats and politicians in Washington DC reminds me of "Elite Showdogs" that is an invitation-only e-mail list of long-time breeders, K Street and Wall Street exhibitors and judges that are judicial activist's. These politicians in Washington DC wear a GPS collar attachment to be found faster, so these K Street and Wall Street exhibitors can walk them around using a chain in circles until their dizzy enough to cave into them and give them what they want. Hatch loves subsidies for the Koch Brother's and their "Rich and Famous" friends. That's "welfare for the rich" government, subsidies to big business, pork-barrel Pentagon contracts to weapons makers, huge tax breaks for wealthy individuals, and most recently, colossal contracts for reconstruction to politically connected companies like Halliburton. It's a "no-brainer" here, "DUMP HATCH." Can anyone else in Utah see this?.

    Just remember, they "ALL" become corrupted and beholden to special interest in a year,

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    Orrin Hatch will be unable to help solve our nation's fiscal crisis, in spite of his ads claiming that he'll exercise "tough fiscal management." He helped CAUSE these problems in the first place. He has too much Washington political baggage and owes too many favors to too many people. He can't suddenly do a 180 and help solve these problems.

    Dan Liljenquist has the skills (financial and political), experience, principles, and fresh energy to be a serious force in resolving our nation's fiscal crisis.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 23, 2012 9:45 a.m.

    The one owed the least favors is Scott Howell.

    A vote for Scott Howell is a vote for America's best interests and not for special interests.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 23, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    It's funny for folks like these to recognize how money is giving Hatch an advantage but dismiss the fact that in Wisconsin so much money was raised and spent by the governor.

    We can see even with our local politics, ads and fliers made by those who have no party affiliation, residency, etc yet are paying for pro and anti x person.

    I grow tired of this. Superpacs, the corrupt money, etc.

    Instead of replacing Hatch with someone who will become corrupted and beholden to special interest in a few years, lets get rid of special interest. Citizens United needs to be overturned and strict limits and regulation on campaign donations. In fact, lets just have a rule. Each candidate has 100k to spend. Let them use it wisely because once it's gone it's gone!

    Level the playing field. That will help us base our decisions on research rather than merely being brainwashed by the onslaught of fliers, phone calls, and ads.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    Utahns have a chance this election to demonstrate to the rest of the nation that money CAN'T BUY the votes of Utah voters.

    Career politicians have massive spending war chests for which they owe many "favors".

    Lets give someone else besides Hatch a chance to "show what they can do"!!

    WHY NOT elect Dan Liljenquist?? At the least, he's NOT part of the current problem in D.C..

    Hatch helped make the mess in D.C. NOW he wants us to vote for him so he can solve it?

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2012 6:19 a.m.

    And the worst part is that Hatch's long service in the Senate has left him with quite deep pockets of his own, yet he, like his rich buddy Mitt, prefers to use someone else's money to stay in, or gain, power. I doubt that he has spent a nickle of his own money on this campaign.

    Why does this scenario remind me of Mephistopheles and Faust?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 23, 2012 4:21 a.m.

    pretty weak.

    So, we want the less "corrupt" candidate?

    How about we all work to get ALL the money out of politics. Lets work as R, D and I to get ALL corporate and union money out of our politics. And then we limit what individuals can give.

    All big money expects favors. And they usually get them.

    If free speech means that we can give unrestrained to affect our politics, then we need to change the definition of free speech as it relates to our political system