Primarying Utah's Progressive Republican, 36-Year Senator Orrin Hatch

By the Left Coast Rebel

Orrin Hatch
Gage Skidmore


"He's been there a long time, and with that length in service comes a lengthy record of expanding the scope and size of government."

-- Russ Walker, FreedomWorks to NPR April 12, 2012

Senator Hatch’s record includes (hat-tip Club for Growth):
  • Voted YES on TARP (RCV #213, 2008)
  • Voted YES to increase the debt limit at least five times (RCV #354, 2007; RCV #54, 2006; RCV #213, 2004; RCV #202, 2003; RCV #148, 2002)
  • Voted YES to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (RCV #157, 2008)
  • Voted YES on SCHIP (RCV #353, 2007) • Voted NO on defunding the Bridge to Nowhere (RCV #262, 2005), and supported billions of dollars in other wasteful earmark spending.
  • Voted YES on the Medicare drug benefit (RCV #459, 2003)
  • Voted YES on No Child Left Behind (RCV #371, 2001)
In 2009 Hatch also called Obama's budget "reckless" yet he joined a dozen or so of the GOP's most liberal senators in voting for the corresponding Obama budget appropriation bills.

Yah, this guy deserves to be out of a job...
Orrin Hatch embodies the worst things the Republican party represents: cronyism and backdoor deals, big government just slightly to the right of the Democrat agenda, and -- perhaps the worst -- a feigning mentality of elitism and power entitlement. The guy's been in Congress for 36 years!

Utah: You did it right last round with RINO Bob Bennet -- It's time to primary progressive Republican senator Orrin Hatch at your May, 2012 state convention.

Hatch's chief primary challenger at this point (4/14/2012) is a fella named Dan Liljenquist. FreedomWorks is supporting him but beyond that, I know nothing about him although I found this morning that the lamestream press has been spreading a Liljenquist can't win meme for a while now. More on Liljenquist later.

Via Memeorandum.

5 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The distinguishing differences between the Dems and the Repubs has grown less and less over time. The true Classical Liberal principle on which our republic was founded seem barely understood in this, the age of Leviathan and entitlements.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We are going to be within one or two votes of retaking the Senate. This is not the time for amateur hour or infighting.

    Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell should have taught you a lesson in 2010.

    TARP and GSEs were tough votes. No one wanted to do it, but the financial system needed liquidity and capital to prevent systemic failure. It's easy to say, "I warned you." It's quite another to stand by and watch the nation sink.

    Raising the debt limit is even less controversial. Not raising the debt limit is equivalent to declaring immediate default on the debt. Anyone who thinks we should default on our debt is off their rocker. There is no question we raise the debt limit. The political wrangling decides who can gain the most support - the spending cutters or the tax raisers. Hatch is clearly the former.

    That's not to say we shouldn't cut the debt, but the debt limit debate is not the proper time and place for that - the budge negotiations are. People who think raising the debt limit is synonymous with getting us in more debt simply don't understand how our government budget works. They see "debt limit" and get confused. If it were properly named, it would be a vote on "debt default." The implications of debt default are a rapid increase in our interest rates, a massive increase in debt service payments (a larger deficit), and a double dip recession. It's economic suicide.

    I agree with you on SCHIP, Medicare Rx, NCLB.

    This is no time to be playing around with pipe dreams. Let's take back the Senate, take back the White House, keep the Supreme Court, and then fix the damned problems. Alienating the longest serving Republican senator, who will win easily, isn't a bright idea. How about channeling this energy against Democrats who are on shaky ground?

    ReplyDelete
  4. We are going to be within one or two votes of retaking the Senate. This is not the time for amateur hour or infighting.

    Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell should have taught you a lesson in 2010.

    TARP and GSEs were tough votes. No one wanted to do it, but the financial system needed liquidity and capital to prevent systemic failure. It's easy to say, "I warned you." It's quite another to stand by and watch the nation sink.

    Raising the debt limit is even less controversial. Not raising the debt limit is equivalent to declaring immediate default on the debt. Anyone who thinks we should default on our debt is off their rocker. There is no question we raise the debt limit. The political wrangling decides who can gain the most support - the spending cutters or the tax raisers. Hatch is clearly the former.

    That's not to say we shouldn't cut the debt, but the debt limit debate is not the proper time and place for that - the budge negotiations are. People who think raising the debt limit is synonymous with getting us in more debt simply don't understand how our government budget works. They see "debt limit" and get confused. If it were properly named, it would be a vote on "debt default." The implications of debt default are a rapid increase in our interest rates, a massive increase in debt service payments (a larger deficit), and a double dip recession. It's economic suicide.

    I agree with you on SCHIP, Medicare Rx, NCLB.

    This is no time to be playing around with pipe dreams. Let's take back the Senate, take back the White House, keep the Supreme Court, and then fix the damned problems. Alienating the longest serving Republican senator, who will win easily, isn't a bright idea. How about channeling this energy against Democrats who are on shaky ground?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We are going to be within one or two votes of retaking the Senate. This is not the time for amateur hour or infighting.

    Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell should have taught you a lesson in 2010.

    TARP and GSEs were tough votes. No one wanted to do it, but the financial system needed liquidity and capital to prevent systemic failure. It's easy to say, "I warned you." It's quite another to stand by and watch the nation sink.

    Raising the debt limit is even less controversial. Not raising the debt limit is equivalent to declaring immediate default on the debt. Anyone who thinks we should default on our debt is off their rocker. There is no question we raise the debt limit. The political wrangling decides who can gain the most support - the spending cutters or the tax raisers. Hatch is clearly the former.

    That's not to say we shouldn't cut the debt, but the debt limit debate is not the proper time and place for that - the budge negotiations are. People who think raising the debt limit is synonymous with getting us in more debt simply don't understand how our government budget works. They see "debt limit" and get confused. If it were properly named, it would be a vote on "debt default." The implications of debt default are a rapid increase in our interest rates, a massive increase in debt service payments (a larger deficit), and a double dip recession. It's economic suicide.

    I agree with you on SCHIP, Medicare Rx, NCLB.

    This is no time to be playing around with pipe dreams. Let's take back the Senate, take back the White House, keep the Supreme Court, and then fix the damned problems. Alienating the longest serving Republican senator, who will win easily, isn't a bright idea. How about channeling this energy against Democrats who are on shaky ground?

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.