Skip to main content

Yep, if there's anything about Utah, it's one of the top five most conservative states in the U.S.  I also know this because my mother grew up in Ogden, Utah, one of the strongholds of the Mormon community which hasn't changed that much since my mom grew up in the 1950's and 1960's.  

I'm not blaming the Utah Democratic Party at all in this case of trying to defeat Orrin Hatch for re-election as they continue to have an uphill battle.  I am disappointed in the treatment of XMission CEO Pete Ashdown earlier this year at the Utah State Democratic Convention when he ran again as U.S. Senate candidate for the second time.  Ashdown is a major success story in Utah, a strong progressive and a key contact the Democratic Party nation wide could use as his expertise is in IT, computers and the issue of net neutrality.  Sure, Ashdown didn't beat Hatch in 2006 but he also got no support from a single grassroots campaign like Democracy for America and managed to have a strong showing against Hatch in that race considering Ashdown's considerably low campaign funds.  Ashdown is a geek, just like me, passionate about computers and also a film geek as well with very good tastes.

On the other hand, when you have a competitive race like Jim Matheson (the old Democrat serving in Congress in representing Utah) faced when he ran against Tea Party Glenn Beck-Mormon convert Mia Love and almost didn't win, it's apparent being a Democrat in Utah isn't always easy, even if you're a more traditional Mormon like Matheson is.

Then again, those in Utah need good representation.  No more Jason Chaffetz bozos who have the worst arguments in the world to back up their views on the issues.

And with Orrin Hatch, who has been a household name, his time is over.  He may have done some "difference" in his several decades as senior U.S. Senator for Utah but he's stuck in the 1980's.

Here's U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch doing the bidding of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in spewing propaganda just so that the GOP can pander to big business:

One day after House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, bluntly stated that Republicans and Democrats are "almost nowhere" in their scramble to strike a deal before reaching the so-called "fiscal cliff" at year's end, President Obama slammed the GOP for holding "middle class tax cuts hostage" and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,  charged that Mr. Obama's proposal is "a classic bait and switch."
Wow.  More Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate are warming up to the "fiscal cliff" deal now than in the summer of 2011 yet Orrin Hatch has the nerve to say the proposal is a "classic bait and switch."  

Seriously, Hatch may have been a good friend and partner with the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy but he's nothing otherwise.

But in remarks echoing Republicans' general consensus, Hatch argued lawmakers looking for a long-term solution to bringing down the nation's debt will "never get there with the unserious plan the president proposed this week." The "disastrous Thelma and Louise strategy" being promoted by the other side, Hatch said, is a "bait and switch" and "would take us over the cliff, putting millions of middle-class families, small businesses, and our already weak economy in further jeopardy."

"The president has said he wants a so-called balanced approach to solve this crisis," the Utah senator continued. "But what he proposed this week was a classic bait and switch on the American people - a tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign."

No, Hatch, this is not a so-called "balanced approach."  This is a REAL proposal that is going to solve the "fiscal cliff" BIG time, if not the entire debt problem all together.  Even Howard Dean himself has praised this proposal, especially considering he's a doctor.

A tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on?  
Billions of dollars in new stimulus pending?
Unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese?

Was Orrin Hatch on Mars during the 2012 Presidential campaign?

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign."
That's probably because you, Senator Hatch, are getting old and you're letting your age make you unfit to continue being the senior U.S. Senator representing Utah.
Mr. Obama's push to let the current tax rates expire for some Americans, Hatch said, would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and nearly a million businesses. It's also "a strange turn of events," he added, "considering that in 2010 the president and 40 Senate Democrats supported extending these very tax rates, citing our sluggish economy, which was even stronger then than it is today."

A more viable option, Hatch said, is focusing on shoring up Medicare and Medicaid in sweeping entitlement reforms. Democrats "want more and more of the American people's tax dollars to spend without putting in place any meaningful and responsible reforms to the biggest government programs on the books," he said. "That just doesn't make sense."

Ahhh, yes, entitlement reforms!  Spoken just like your fellow Mormon, Mitt Romney.  Not all Mormons, by the way, believe in this.  Only those who pander to big business do.

By the way, did Orrin Hatch just say the economy is sluggish?  Stronger in 2010 than it is today?

Get a load of this.  From the website of Utah's own Republican Governor Gary Herbert:

Utah Adds Jobs, Shrinks Unemployment in August

Sep 21 2012

SALT LAKE CITY, UT - The State of Utah's latest jobs report shows continued economic growth and a reduction in the unemployment rate for the month of August.

"Utah continues to add jobs even while many other state economies remain stagnant," Governor Gary R. Herbert said. "If you're looking for examples of wise economic stewardship and fiscal prudence - look to Utah."

Utah's unemployment rate dropped to 5.8% for the month of August, and the job count grew by 2% compared to August 2011. This equates to a 12-month job increase of 24,300 jobs. This data shows a stark contrast to the national job growth of 1.4% and unemployment rate of 8.1%

Utah's lowest job count in the aftermath of the recession was measured in February 2010, and since then Utah has added more than 60,000 jobs.

One company that exemplifies Utah's growth is Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards is a medical device technology producer that is a market leader in high-tech heart valves. Edwards is known for producing a device called a trans-catheter heart valve, which allows surgeons to replace a heart valve without performing open heart surgery.

Edwards is based in Irvine, California, but has a growing facility in Draper, Utah.

In the past two years Edwards has doubled the number of jobs at its Draper facility, and plans to reach 1,000 jobs in the next few years.

Sluggish economy eh Senator Hatch?  Edwards Lifesciences not adding enough jobs?  Did you read the words that were coming out of the mouth of the article?  Edwards Lifesciences plans on reaching 1,000 jobs in the next few years at its Draper, Utah facility?

Oh and isn't Utah's unemployment now dropping to being one of the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S.?

No happy dance Senator Hatch?

Wait, ahhhh, I get it, big businesses that are supporting you aren't adding enough jobs.  I get it.

They sure don't make brains like they used to!

Ok.  Now for some action, in case you have the time to fire up the phone lines and e-mail like crazy:


Office Contact Information:

Washington DC
104 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-5251
Fax: (202) 224-6331

Salt Lake City
8402 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Tel: (801) 524-4380
Fax: (801) 524-4379

51 S. University Ave.
Suite 320
Provo, UT 84601
Tel: (801) 375-7881
Fax: (801) 374-5005

St. George
Federal Building
196 East Tabernacle, Rm 14
St. George, UT 84770
Tel: (435) 634-1795
Fax: (435) 634-1796

1006 Federal Building
324 25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401
Tel: (801) 625-5672
Fax: (801) 394-4503

Cedar City
77 N. Main Street
Suite 112
Cedar City, UT 84720
Tel: (435) 586-8435
Fax: (435) 586-2147

Salute to Orrin Hatch!

And Utah Republicans are going crazy!

Utah Republicans Sing "Call Me Maybe" from Bryan Schott on Vimeo.

Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:04 AM PT: I'm taking a break from working on my 10-12 page IT research project due this coming Monday and relaxing at the Au Coquelet Cafe.

It appears we are having a good discussion here.  Keep up the good outside the box, practical thinking!  :)


What should we do to Orrin Hatch?

27%5 votes
22%4 votes
11%2 votes
27%5 votes
11%2 votes

| 18 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Entitlement Reform=Social Sec and Medicare Cuts (0+ / 0-)

    No one in either party should be allowed to get away with the "reform" word.   When you watch the annual sob stories about children in homeless shelters at Christmas remember that what you watching is "Welfare Reform".   Coming soon senior citizens in homeless shelters.

  •  Hatch is correct that it is different from (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    valion, VClib

    what the President campaigned on.  "Bait and Switch" is a biased characterization of that difference.  But there is no question that this part of Hatch's statement is correct:  

    a tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese. Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign."
    Look at the facts.  

    1.  The President campaigned on letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on households over $250,000.  That raises, depending on the growth assumptions you make, $800 billion over 10 years.  The President is now asking for $1.6 trillion over 10 years in increased taxes.  That's significantly different from his campaign position.  Characterizing it as "double" what he campaigned on is not wildly inaccurate.  

    2.  The President campaigned on a "balanced approach" that was $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 of additional tax revenue.  See here and here.  The President's proposal is for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue and a "promise to support" up to $400 billion in spending cuts (the proposal is not to cut spending in this bill that would increase taxes, but a promise to support trying to get there later).  Even if you assumed that the $400 cuts would change to be part of the same bill as the tax revenue increases, that's still a position of $1 in cuts for $4 in tax revenue, rather than $2.50 in cuts for $1 of tax revenue, which is what he campaigned on.  Moreover, the proposal is for $50 billion in new spending next year, which would make that $4 to $1 ratio even more weighted to taxes over cuts.  That is clearly different from his campaign position.

    3.  In my view, the most significant difference between this proposal and the President's campaign position is that he now says that he wants the Congress to get rid of the debt ceiling entirely ("unchecked authority to borrow"), allowing the government to borrow an unlimited amount without ever having to return to Congress for authorization, essentially meaning Congress would abdicate its authority under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.  There was no mention of that whatsoever during the campaign.  Frankly, in my personal opinion, that is a disturbing proposal -- after the years of presidents like George Bush shifting the balance of power to the executive, that would be a permanent shift of the balance of power even more to the executive.

    People on the partisan left will certainly like the position he is taking now better than the position he took during the campaign.  And had he taken this position during the campaign, they likely would have been even more enthusiastic about him.  But he also won with centrists and independents (and some who lean right).  And there is no question that Hatch is correct that it is a very very significant change from what he campaigned on.  

    •  When is a debt authorized? (0+ / 0-)

      When it is incurred or when it comes time to pay?

      Congress' Article I, Section 8 authority is very adequately exercised in the appropriations process.

      We are the principled ones, remember? We don't get to use the black hats' tricks even when it would benefit us. Political Compass: -6.88, -6.41

      by bmcphail on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:00:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your "Facts" are Wrong (0+ / 0-)

      1. Obama did campaign on a $1.6 trillion tax increase. The details of his tax proposal has not changed. See his proposal as described before the campaign

      2  There is at least $2.4 trillion in expenditure increases not $400 billion.  This includes $1.2 trillion already approved, savings on getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and savings on interests.  These were part of the revenue increases that Obama campaigned on.

      3. The Obama campaign was not specific about how they would deal with the debt ceiling limit.  Since there was no clear policy it is incorrect to say that Obama's negotiating position is a switch.

      •  My facts are correct (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        1.  I am talking about what he campaigned on.  You are looking at an analysis based on his FY 2013 budget submitted to Congress.  See the link that is footnoted at the bottom of the TPC link.  You remember, that's the budget that got zero votes in the House of Representatives.  He did not campaign on that budget.  He campaigned on -- as he said over and over and over -- a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction.   I remember his campaign saying to get rid of the "tax cuts for the rich." That's $800 billion.  He did not campaign on getting another $800 billion from raising taxes on top of getting rid of those tax cuts.

        Bottom line, the President did not campaign on that budget that was unanimously rejected by the House.   If you remember "I want to revive the Budget that got no votes in the House" as being part of his campaign, please point that out.   He may have INTENDED to do that all along.  But he didn't campaign on it -- he didn't tout it at campaign stops.  

        2.  I am talking about this proposal before Congress - it contains a "goal" of $400 billion in spending cuts.  Not spending money in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a part of this proposal, of course, since that was decided long ago.  (And of course it's not a "cut" -- that's like saying, I was going to spend $100,000 I don't have on a expensive car, but now I'm not, so I just cut my spending.)  How many years do you count that as  a "cut" in spending?   Do you say, forever, well I could still be in Iraq, so that's a cut in spending for FY 2013?  You can't count the "savings" from Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the president's proposal to get rid of the fiscal cliff.

        The $1.2 trillion already approved is the sequestration part of the "fiscal cliff" -- like the future real cuts to defense that would bring layoffs (remember the defense contractors wanting to send those layoff notices before the election?) that this proposal would defer.

        More importantly, even if you included all your numbers you still aren't near the $2.50 in cuts for every $1 of revenue -- the "balanced approach" he campaigned on.   So, Hatch is correct that this proposal is a change from what he campaigned on.  

        3.  Proposing that Congress abdicate any authority to vote on borrowing more money -- essentially surrendering one of its enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8, is a big, big, big deal as it is a big shift in the balance of power in favor of the President. Clearly, he didn't campaign on that.  

        Items one and two are small potatoes.  All budgets, the President's included, use numbers gimmicks.  Whatever way you look at it, the President's proposal now raises taxes more, and cuts spending less, than the "balanced approach" ($2.50 to $1) he campaigned on.  Frankly, that doesn't seem as significant to me -- it's a "puffing" or a fudging the numbers, or negotiating tactic, that both sides put out but don't expect to happen.  

        I am, however, disturbed by item 3.  And he gave no hint during the campaign that he was going to try to push Congress into making a permanent major concession of its constitutional power to the Executive Branch.  

        •  Did you Read his Campaign Website? (0+ / 0-)

          Obama had his explicit balanced approach on his campaign website.  He told people to read it.  It look like you didn't.
          Here is the information. This is what he continues to propose.

          On point 3, you have a very peculiar, and incorrect, interpretation of the constitution.   Article 1, Section 8 says nothing about a debt ceiling- only that Congress authorizes the payment of the debt.

          The Congress authorizes payment of the debt by the authority provided to the Department of Treasure, and it by approving the budget.  

          The problem with the debt ceiling is that Congress ends up approving two contradictory budgets-- one contained explicitly in the budget and the other implicit in the debt ceiling.

          This debt ceiling is stupid policy and some scholars argue, unconstitutional. Until 2011 increases in the debt ceiling were pro forma.  The big, big, deal in the balance of power occurred in 2011 when for the first time Congress used the debt ceiling as a tool to extract concessions from the President above and beyond what they had already approved in the budget.

    •  But a critical factor in negotiation is to seek (0+ / 0-)

      more than you will settle for.   If there is a restriction of positions to that previously outlined then we would be back to the President trying to offer a plan which anticipates the demands of the opposition and caters to them.  Not good negotiation.

      •  Absolutely true. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And Hatch is doing exactly the same thing by using the biased term, "bait and switch."

        All I'm saying is that Hatch  is factually correct that this is different from what the President campaigned on.  As I said, the left undoubtedly views that difference as a GOOD thing.  

    •  Kabuki (0+ / 0-)

      If you listen to insufferable insiders like Ed Rendell this is all Kabuki and Obama is going to accept much larger cuts.  Boy oh boy does Ed want to gut Medicare.

      You can't trust any of them and you sure can't trust any of them behind closed doors making a midnight deal.  

      I get the tactic of making the Republicans look bad but what do I care if I get screwed in the deal.  

      •  greenbell - any "cuts" that are beyond F2014 (0+ / 0-)

        are fiction so don't worry about them. No Congress has the power to force a future session of Congress to do anything. All people working on budget issues for the 114th Congress won't pay any attention to any deal in the lame duck 112th.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:37:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I respected Hatch as one who talked honestly and (0+ / 0-)

    openly, and as someone who could be friends with Kennedy despite politics.  Then Hatch spoke on the Senate floor to call attention, after YEARS, to the loss of Ms. Kopechne's life when she was with Kennedy.  With friends like Hatch one doesn't need enemies.

  •  Hatch is (0+ / 0-)

    just a creepy, unctuous douchenozzle.

  •  I can smell their... (0+ / 0-)

    desperation from here.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:19:35 PM PST

  •  orrin hatch needed in hell, not/senate (0+ / 0-)

    consider these terms: ocean rise, weather re-patterning, storm pathology, drout famine, acceptance of nature

    by renzo capetti on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 11:10:46 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site