Letter: Midterms are coming

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 21, 2017 8:01 a.m.

    I like the Bill of Rights. Especially the 10th Amendment which has been much abused lately by the courts.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 19, 2017 10:10 a.m.

    Republicans hold both houses and the presidency and have done nothing in the first 100 days and are really not showing signs of doing anything other than launch a few rockets and bombs and talk. Time to vote out any incumbent from either party.

  • libs think what??? Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2017 10:06 p.m.

    big interests from outside Utah - not the same thing as federal spending. your comparison is off base.

    But then, in another post you said if the GOP nominates chaffetz, you'll vote for his opponent, who is getting most of her funding from---- out of state. So - out of state funding for GOP = bad, out of state funding for those with whom you agree = good. OK , I get it

    more dems have been in favor of taking big money out of politics. hahaha. yeah, how much did hilary outraise, outspend trump by? $1.2B for hilary and $646MM for trump, according to bloomberg, almost 2-1 for hilary. BO also outspent Romney. dems want to take big money out, yeah, riiight.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 18, 2017 4:49 p.m.

    @2bits. Everyone knows every politician are bought and paid for.

    The specific issue of this letter really shouldn't be partisan. This one is on republicans. Other times it has been on democrats.

    However, didn't you defend citizens united recently? At least more democrats have been in favor of taking big money out of politics.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 18, 2017 3:27 p.m.

    RE: " I refer not to the voters, of course, but to the special interests who own these so-called public servants"...

    I wonder if you (or anybody) thinks Democrats are any not "owned" by special interests?

    Could you point out a single politician (of any party) who doesn't accept money from special interest groups?

    I doubt you can. So then it becomes a matter of degree.

    It's not black-or-white.

    It's not one is white as the driven snow, and the other is black as coal.

    ALL Politicians accept funds from special interests (every Democrat included).

    So I hope Democrats aren't pretending to be on some high-horse when it comes to collecting funds for campaigns. Especially if you were a Hillary Clinton fan. I mean you know about the Clinton Foundation... right?

    So Clinton was also owned by special interests. Maybe different special interests, but special interests just the same. People, corporations, even foreign governments and foreign people who gave money to her campaign and her foundation. Is she now "owned" by them? Or does this "bought and owned" dogma only work when you talk about Republicans accepting $$ for their campaigns?

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 18, 2017 2:47 p.m.

    The President's party usually looses seats in Congress in the mid-term election. It happened to Barack Obama. Don't see it being different for Trump. The question is... how many seats will his party lose? If he loses the majority... will he be able to get anything on his agenda done?

    We as voters seem to love a dysfunctional government. We vote for it.

    I for one think it's a good thing for the President's party to not have the majority in Congress. Keeps him in check (kinda what our founding fathers intended when they designed a government full of checks on power).

    I think it's interesting that we vote for it to be that way almost every time, and then we complain.

    President and Congress being controlled by different party's... is actually usually good for America. Slows things down, and makes sure there has to be some "win" in it for both sides for things to pass (which is a good thing). Encourages compromise and debate, instead of strong arm tactics we get when one party controls Executive and Legislative branches of government.

    Judicial branch should be different. (Notice I said "SHOULD"). Theoretically they are neither party.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 18, 2017 12:13 p.m.

    Utah's GOP politicians are always railing about "Federal Overreach" and "State's Rights". The kicker is that they are mostly funded by big interests from outside of Utah. The only Utahn's they are concerned about is themselves and their cronies.