Why I voted 'present' instead of 'no'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    March 28, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    Mr. Hatch frequently refers to "the Democrats" doing this or that.

    Fine. We get that ours is a two party political system, for better or for worse. You work out your political ideology and "platform" in the context of and with the support of an association of fellow citizens and we call it a "party".

    But once you are elected, you no longer represent ONLY your political party. You represent ALL citizens of your State, District, etc. Partisanship should disappear, at best, and fade into the background at least, so that you can get about the business of doing the State's or the Nation's business - doing what is in the best interests of ALL Americans, NOT just advancing the interests of YOUR PARTY!

    Thanks for the convoluted explanation of your "present" votes, Mr. Hatch. I'm sure your PARTY is pleased.

    When are you going to start representing ALL citizens and stop the Partisanship?

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    Votes are binary, yes or no. Most issues are more nuanced than yes or no and your present vote illustrated that. For the far left who monitor the DN, anything that disrupts their lemming-like rush toward a European style US is considered inconsistent, immoral, radical or obstructionist. Hang in there, Senator.

  • really? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 27, 2013 9:58 a.m.


    Sen. Hatch is only part of the problem, people like you are a much bigger problem. Why must you always demonize the other side? I don't think Republicans are evil when I totally and completely disagree with their actions and the motives behind such actions. I understand what they want and how they intend to get it. I don't want what they want but I understand their position. Why are liberals, and by extension Democrats evil? Because we disagree with you? Because we want different things for our country and its citizens? Pres. Obama isn't trying to destroy America, his goals and visions for the future are different than yours. I disagreed with virtually everything the previous president said and did but I never accused him of wanting to destroy our country. He is a patriot who saw the world differently than I do. Why can't you understand that? Until you do, we will never achieve anything together as a country.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 26, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    Re: "We have political grid lock."

    Thank goodness for that! Every time politicians undertake to "fix" something, they make it worse.

    But, it DOES matter to Mr. Hatch's explanation of his actions that the changes to which he was required to adapt were forced on him, and weren't his doing. And, it certainly does matter to address the disingenuous blather of other posters.

    We can all agree that in some future ideal world, blame and credit won't matter. Just results. But, we're not there yet.

    I've gotta insist though, since liberals have embraced unwarranted attack, misdirected blame, obfuscation, and sophistry as their primary tactics, it remains important to confront and refute their lies, lest they succeed in convincing low-information voters to support their evil aims.

    And, that IS important. Their agenda is not just wrong or misguided -- it's evil.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 26, 2013 3:37 p.m.

    "Except when necessary to address disingenuous attacks based on cynical mischaracterizations of the Senator's motives by unscrupulous operatives of that other side."

    Honestly, this encapsulates just about everything wrong with American politics - or most politics in general. We will spend endless hours and cycles trying to prove to the other side that they are the ones who are wrong. Literally millions of man house have been wasted on an effort that forward a solution not one bit.

    It doesn't matter who said if first. It doesn't matter that I am rubber, and you are glue.

    Your in a car accident. One car is leaking gas. Politicians would spend all their time arguing over who caused the accident, not spending time getting the injured out of the car.

    We have political grid lock. Finding out who started it isn't going to change the solution one bit. Lets start with where we agree first. If the appointee is objectionable, work on finding one TOGETHER that satisfies both. Who fired the first shot just doesn't matter when you have people being hurt on both sides.

    IIt's like watching bratty teens argue who said what first.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 26, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    "If you choose not to decide,
    You still have made a choice."

    ~ "Freewill"
    by RUSH
    lyrics - Neil Peart
    Permanent Waves album

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 26, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    Hatch has his history totally backwards. Until the '70s, the Senate required a 2/3 majority to achieve cloture. Then the Democrat-dominated Senate actually reduced it to 3/5, or 60, to make it easier -- not harder -- to achieve cloture. It's been that way ever since the Honorable Mr. Hatch was elected. Talk about a weird, wonderful world of prevarication...

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    March 26, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    The truth, that Mr. Hatch says one thing and does another, is still true no matter who raises it.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 26, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    Re: "Pointing fingers is a complete and total waste of time."

    Except when necessary to address disingenuous attacks based on cynical mischaracterizations of the Senator's motives by unscrupulous operatives of that other side.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 26, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal - point is I really could care less whose fault it is. That is grammar school. I have never seen a coin with only one side, there is always two sides in everything, including political debates..

    All I care about is what are you going to do about it.

    Pointing fingers is a complete and total waste of time.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    Re: ". . . politicians, on either side, have a common response.... 'it was the other side[']s fault'."

    Yeah -- but in this case, it really WAS the other side's fault.

    And it really DID place Mr. Hatch into a moral quandary.

    And he really DID handle it with the class so conspicuously absent in both the disingenuous letter he was responding to and the snarky comments here.

    Thanks, Mr. Hatch.

  • really? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    Wouldn't it be refreshing if he just simply voted "no" and then explained why the candidate was not qualified for the position?
    Orrin Hatch is exactly what is wrong with Washington. The worst part about the garbage that he just wrote is that he actually thinks that it makes sense. It highlights just how completely out of touch he really is. Pathetic is the only word that even remotely begins to describe this despicable excuse for a public servant.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Nice try, Orrin. Voting "present" is still a spineless vote. Nevertheless, I'd take you over Mike Lee every day of the week. What a statement that is about our senators. Argh.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    March 26, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Figures he'd fall back on his tired old "You poor average people just can't understand what I do" argument. What a joke.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    The senior senator is proof that term limits is a good idea. He is gifted at parsing words, and going along to get along. It appears to me that he is more interested in getting along, and not rocking the senate boat rather than standing up and representing the state of Utah. Thirty-six years, and counting, in Washington makes him an insider, and part of the problem. This explanation is "Utah Values"? I fear we may yet see the senior senator wheeled into the senates chambers as was Robert Byrd to scold the young 'uns on how the senate "should" be run. The Republic is in peril from incompetence and inaction by its governing elite and we see little or nothing from "Utah's time to lead" man. How sad.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 26, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Funny, I understood the logic here. You can't vote for a person you don't approve of, and you can't vote no, which would be using the political technique you don't approve of. Now he could have simply not taken part of the vote... which would have achieve the same end result.

    But really, what he is describing here is not too hard to understand.

    What I don't appreciate is the "blame the other side" mentality. We have seen enough of that already.

    My takeaways from this..... some people are just anti what ever and don't care to look deeper into the rational... they just want to be anti something.

    And the other is politicians, on either side, have a common response.... "it was the other sides fault".

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Come on people, this is Orrin Hatch we're talking about. A career politican, who's become a millionaire at the same time he was a public servant. He's been full of double standards his whole career. You could say a few other things about him as well but they probably would not make it past the DN censure.

  • sigmund5 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    This prevarication and method of reasoning shows he was very well trained in his religious tradition. He sure paid attention

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    So, in other words, the editorial you are writing in response to was absolutely correct and you are displeased that the truth about you is not flattering....

    Perhaps the solution would be to change your behaviors instead of making yourself look even worse by shining about it?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    March 26, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    Wow. I would have received an "F" in school if I provided that answer. I'm embarrassed for Senator Hatch.

    He said he was against the *filibuster* process and how nominees were not even allowed to be voted upon.

    If he was truly honest, and true to his stated values, he would vote for cloture (ending the debate process, avoiding a filibuster), then vote against the nominee on the confirmation vote.

    Filibuster/Cloture. Confirmation. These are two entirely different votes, Senator. Maybe you think you can play the Utah public for fools because we're voted you in so many times.

    I learned about this, Senator, back when I was in Jr. High School, when you were first in the Senate. I'm now in my 50s.

    Do you really think this explanation suffices? Please tell me you don't.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 26, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    If you don't like a nominee, why don't you simply vote "NO" instead of "PRESENT?"

    Is it because you can come home (well, your adopted home) and tell people you aren't the problem because you didn't vote "NO?" Is it so you can attempt to straddle both sides of the fence by not making a decision?

    I'm sorry, but I see a "PRESENT" vote as a cowardly vote. You earn a paycheck to make tough decisions and have your vote counted and be held responsible for that vote by your constituents. I thought you were going to provide "real leadership."

    I also love the "he did it first" analogy. Shows some real maturity.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    March 26, 2013 12:52 a.m.

    When you were a small child and did something wrong, did your mother let you off the hook if you cried that your sibling did it first? Of course not. Senator Hatch's argument, that the Democrats did it first so it is okay for him to abandon his stated principles and do it, is transparent and childish.

    I suppose the only proper response to the Senator is to ask him: 'if the Democrats jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff too?'