To suggest that seniority in the US Senate is not important is to be completely
ignorant of the facts. If you are the Chairman of a committee you get to set
the agenda, the legislation considered is the draft that you prepared and you
control the votes to pass things. Senator Hatch may become the Chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee and he will wield that gavel to protect the people of
Utah. Sen. Mike Crap will become the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee,
something he wants to do and that is why he strongly endorsed Sen. Hatch. I
find it amusing that those who lack seniority always deride it until they get
it. As a young man I always wondered why the old guy had the nice sports care,
that it was wasted on him and would be better put to use by a young man like
myself. Then I got a bit older and realized that he had in fact earned that car
with his hard work. To turn over both Utah Senators to very junior members at
this time would be foolhardy for the people of Utah.
"the opportunity Utahns have to defeat Obamacare and other socialist
programs"Wouldn't Medicare Part D be one of those
"socialist programs"?Didn't Hatch and the GOP vote soundly
for that program? Wasn't that a Bush Initiative? Wasn't that
the largest entitlement expansion program since medicare?How about
No Child Left Behind? Wouldn't that be considered a "Socialist
Program"?Wasn't that supported by Hatch and all but 6 of his GOP
counterparts?And Obamacare? Isn't the insurance mandate the
real issue here?That same mandate idea that was Hatched (pun intended) by
the Heritage Foundation (extremely conservative) and supported and championed by
Senator Hatch along with MOST Republicans?Look. The dems are no
picnic, but it is clear that the GOP, including Hatch, has pushed many of the
now described "socialist programs" that they claim to disdain. So, fine. Bash the Dems over "socialist programs" as they are
complicit. But it is dishonest and unsupportable to think that the GOP is not
Hatch touts the supposed benefits of seniority, but never mentions the
substantial and enhanced risks that accompany old age (he is, after all, 78):
dementia, senility, Alzheimers, decline in cognition and memory, fatigue,
failing physical health of many varieties, and death. Why in the world would
anyone want to elect someone who is subject to such risks, on the slim chance he
might head the Senate Finance Committee--a position of dubious and insubstantial
benefit to Utahns? As the writer points out, there are any number of
conservative senators who could ably fill that position in the unlikely event of
a Romney victory.
The thing I find most disturbing, is he runs on the fact he would chair the
committee, but has never said anything he would do, or accomplish. Balanced budget ammendment? (I hope not) good luck getting two thirds of both
houses on board with that. If it is crucial we balance the budget, pass a
balanced budget!I would like to see a quantifialbe, specific plan,
Mr. Senator. Otherwise, you are just a part of the problem in DC that needs to
The seniorty issue is not the only thing that Senator Hatch mentions. It
doesn't come default it comes from winning elections in the State a Senator
represents. People vote for the people they elect. Seventy-eight years is not
old. In the LDS Church alot of the General Authorities may serve for years
beyond that age and very reliably and honorably. Age doesn't stop people
for serving and Senator Hatch is choosing that task before him. Healthy
problems occur for many people but has not been sitting idly by while others
serve him. He has served our state well in the past and within his abilities,
he will serve us in the next six years tutoring our junior Senator who is still
learning his job. In the year and 3 months that Senator Lee has been serving
about half of that time is spent learning his job and how to do it well.
However, with two junior Senators representing us, I don't believe they
will have the ability to work with others as a senior Senator can.
Great letter. Well said. I'll take fresh leadership and conservative
principles over seniority.
As usual, those who make the rules tend to make them to benefit themselves. All
Senators and Representatives should have equal influence in the legislative
process within their respective houses. Instead, all the rules are written to
make it harder for the incumbent to be voted out.It's a shame
that voters should have to consider the seniority of their current Senator
instead of just voting for whoever has the best leadership skills and whose
policies are most in line with the electorate.Instead, Congress has
set up a system where the longer you stay, the more power you gain. The result
is...well you look at the national debt and draw your own conclusions.
Everyone one of these assumptions [Orrin Hatch or any other SENIOR Republican
chairing any Senate Committee] are based one simple and always forgotten FACT
– NO Republican will chair ANY committee unless the Republicans can
regain the Majority of the Senate in November….which is most likely not
going to happen.Deal with the facts.You are being used and
Very true. People like Hatch, Barney Frank, Reid and all of these other old
fossils have got to go. they will never change and will always do things exactly
the same way expecting positive results. But they don't do things the same
way out of ignorance, they do it because they are corrupt.
To "JoeBlow" let me tell you a secret. Bush is a Progressive, just like
Obama. What you show through your examples is how Obama and Bush have the same
policies. Conservatives didn't like it when Bush pushed the Progressive
policies, and they don't like it when Obama makes those same policies
bigger and more expensive.
"Conservatives didn't like it when Bush pushed the Progressive
policies"And WHO were those conservatives of which you speak?
Cause they darn sure were not GOP congressmen.Bush might have pushed
them, but virtually all of the GOP congress was happy to vote for them.How many of those same GOP Congressmen are still in office today? MOST.So, it was Bush who was progressive? Lets look at those socialist,
progressive programs I listed.How did the current GOP leadership feel
about those programs?Boehner? Voted FOR NCLBCanter? Voted
FOR NCLBMcConnell? Voted FOR NCLBBoehner? Voted FOR Medicare
Drug ProgramCanter? Voted FOR Medicare Drug ProgramMcConnell?
Voted FOR Medicare Drug Program I am unsure if they all supported
the Heritage foundations plan to mandate insurance.But, as a betting man,
I would give odds.So, Blame Bush and Obama if that makes you feel
better, but the facts indicate that replacing Obama with Romney will not address
the real issue.
"let me tell you a secret. Bush is a Progressive, just like Obama. What you
show through your examples is how Obama and Bush have the same policies.
Conservatives didn't like it when Bush pushed the Progressive
policies"They did? Really? Says who? Just because you now claim
that Bush was a Progressive doesn't mean that "Conservatives"
didn't like it. In fact, as JoeBlow proved, most of the Republicans in
office (still) voted for programs or policies that are now considered as
"progressive." Did things really change that much in just a few years?
Or are Conservatives really just playing partisan politics to regain power?
Would Medicare part D, NCLB, and even the individual mandate be considered
"socialist" or "progressive" if they were suggested by a
Republican right now? Or is it because the individual mandate was included in
the health care reform of a black demo is it now considered progressive?I think we all know the answer to this....Besides, I'll
let you in on a secret, being Conservative or Progressive is subjective. Right
now many policies that are deemed as "progressive" today would have been
described as "conservative" a decade or two ago.
@ RedshirtLet me tell you a secret, what you call is
"progressive" really is not. What you describe as "conservative"
is not. Wanting to run our country off a cliff is NOT conservative.
Playing games is NOT conservative. Plunging our country into default
is NOT conservative. Flip flopping on nearly every single issue such as
the insurance mandate and Dream Act is NOT conservative.Starting two
preemptive wars is NOT conservative. Saying NO to any tax increase EVEN IF
it is about closing loopholes is NOT conservative. Turning surpluses into
deficits is NOT conservative. Running roughshot over the Constitution and
declaring it a mere piece of paper is NOT conservative.Attacking Muslims
for wanting to build a rec center while also attacking the Mormon religion and
the religion of the President is NOT conservative.Wanting to privatize
everything is NOT conservative. The public sector and regulations certainly has
its place and role in our country.Wanting to rid the economy of safety
nets and regulation is NOT conservative. Continuing with subsidies to Big
Oil and Pharm is NOT conservative. Attacking women, minorities, or the
poor is NOT conservative. I remember a time when conservatism had
This will all be moot in a few hours (it's Saturday morning). My best guess
is the delegates will prevent a 60% majority for Hatch at convention. There are
enough disgruntled people in the precincts that the delegates, anxious to
represent their wishes, might decide to deny Hatch the outright nomination at
convention and give the voters a primary where their voices may be heard.Hatch faces a much tougher assignment in the general primary - and
Liljenquist will have an easier path to the nomination if he has a little more
time to make his case. I'm not a Hatch supporter, fair
disclosure. The reason is the unprecedented nature of his candidacy this time
around. He's had 36 years in the U.S. Senate. He is not indispensable,
irreplaceable nor immune from the ravages of old age. Never before in the
history of the state of Utah has anyone his age EVER been elected in a statewide
race, much less for a seventh six-year term in the Senate. It's
time to move on with new leadership, and Utah will be well-served by Dan
Liljenquist.The Republic will survive without Orrin Hatch.
Right on the mark Lauren. Our only hope is to get rid of the spendthrift
politicians and get someone in that will actually do what needs to be
done...STOP spending! The Chief Spender in Washington seems to have set the
tone for most government employees..party time. Does Las Vegas and Colombia
ring a bell?
Hatch is as much the problem as anyone in D.C.If he's so
influential, why are we in debt 15 trillion $$$?Why wait till THIS
term to use his "influence" that he claims to possess?If we
keep sending the same ones to D.C. over and over, - how can we expect different
I read with interest that some among us are of the bizarre notion that if Dan
Liljenquist unseats Orrin Hatch, Utah will NO long have a senior Senator.
Obviously, these mis-informed persons do NOT understand how seniority works.
Once again, ALL states at ALL times, have a senior and junior Senator. If Hatch
loses his seat, Mike Lee becomes Utah's new senior Senator, and Dan
Liljenquist becomes Utah junior Senator. That's how it works, folks! One
senior, one junior, at ALL times. If Dan wins,(and I hope he does) there will
NOT be two junior Senators representing Utah. Where that insane idea comes
from, I will NEVER know! Wise up, Utah! Read the Constitution, Article One! Thank goodness for a Primary for the Republican US Senate race. Now,
the people of Utah will MAKE the choice. Circle June 26th on your calendars!
Please make a concerted effort to vote. Orrin Hatch has served well and needs
to come home. Dan Liljenquist is intelligent, well-spoken, served outstandingly
in the Utah Senate, and will be a strong advocate for Utah. He is young,
robust, and will provide the energy to represent ALL of Utah's varied
Swede you tout our current do,nothing but obstruct,junior Senator Lee as an
example. Not an apt comparison. Garn as senior when Hatch was elected
hadn't done much himself, but he did have the respect of his fellow
senators. Lee doen't have that. We will have two innefective senators.
Not something we want at this time. Hatxh's clout does mean something and
we need it in Washington.
Flashback,I don't share your belief that Liljenquist will be
ineffective. I see him as young, energetic, and anxious to serve the people of
Utah. By the way, I heard Liljenquist speak at yesterday's Republican
state convention and he impressed me! Stand aside, Orrin! The people of Utah
and the "baby boomer" generation want one of our own in Utah's
Senate seat. Orrin, you've had your turn! "It's time" for a
change! GO DAN! The people of Utah will speak on June 26th! Again, GO DAN !
To "Henderson" you are right about what a conservative will not do. I
congratulate you on helping to show the liberals here that Bush was not a
conservative, but was indeed a Progressive, as I stated before.Conservativism makes a lot of sense, but when the Media gets involved, they
often confuse people about the differences between a Republican and a
Conservative.To "The Real Maverick" conservative does not
equal Republican. Just like communist does not equal Democrat.