Skip to comments.Hatch ready to rule Tuesday’s primary in Utah, but will other incumbents follow?
Posted on 06/26/2012 9:37:35 AM PDT by QT3.14
Across the country, Republicans are fighting off tea party threats while Democrats are dragged down by anti-incumbent sentiment and a president who remains unpopular in many competitive states.
But on Tuesday, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch is expected to defy those trends and win re-election handily, with experience and a novice challenger helping to boost his odds. Similarly, Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel certainly has years of congressional service on his side--41 to be exact--and faces lesser-known opponents, but redistricting changes could thwart the Congressman's chances of winning.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Hatch wins for 1 reason, Gov Sarah Palin! No other reason, so folks that want to say Sarah is irrelevant, you better do a reality check.
Now I know the Sarah haters here (quite a few) will scoff at what I said, but you are only lying to yourselves.
When Sarah says jump, they say how high.
Really? No thanks to Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, or the Tea Party Express or the NRA?
If you think for one minute Mark Levin takes marching orders from Mrs. Palin, you're the one lying to yourself.
So what you are saying is, Mrs. Palin takes marching orders from Levin?
Why would you jump to such a ridiculous conclusion as that?
Bennett was the whiny squish defeated last election cycle by cozying up to illegals, giving the finger to the TEA party and refusing to support Mike Lee when he got beaten fair and square.
I'm old enough to remember when Orrin was first elected. He was a solid conservative and even corralled wavering Democrats to cooperate in filibusters when the GOP was a small minority. The years in the senate and friendship with the Chappaquiddick kid only caused him to drift further away from his conservative moorings.
But he showed an old dog is capable of learning new tricks. The TEA party still won by forcing him to drift back to his moorings.
This is probably going to be Orrin's last term, so we will see just how long the lesson lasts. The winner of today's primary is an automatic re-election in the fall. Even Utah Democrats, what few remain, want little or nothing to do with Obama. There is quite a small handful of states remaining which you can say that about.
Term limits are very popular with voters. What they don’t realize is that no legislature anywhere would ever cut its own political throat by voting in term limits; it is up to the VOTER to enforce the concept.
The idea of the founders, as expressed in the Federalist Papers, was that a truly exceptional representative might be returned to office .....ONCE. Anybody else would be replaced each election by the voters.
OK, Utah, let’s see if you get it.
Yeah, thanks for the Dream Act, Orrin Bastard! Barack’s implementing all your ideas by fiat. Bet you’ll screw us all once you’re safely reelected to you final term.
Palin and others screwed this up Hatch is a cancer who needs to go.
“The Clinton administration brought antitrust charges against Microsoft after the Windows 95 operating system came preloaded with Microsoft’s browser, Internet Explorer. Though the case was in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission and the courts, Hatch brought Microsoft CEO Bill Gates before his Senate Judiciary Committee in 1998, and gave him a good dressing down, ostensibly for being a monopolist.
But it grated on Hatch and other senators that Gates didn’t want to want to play the Washington game. Former Microsoft employee Michael Kinsley, a liberal, wrote of Gates: “He didn’t want anything special from the government, except the freedom to build and sell software. If the government would leave him alone, he would leave the government alone.”
This was a mistake. One lobbyist fumed about Gates to author Gary Rivlin: “You look at a guy like Gates, who’s been arrogant and cheap and incredibly naive about politics. He genuinely believed that because he was creating jobs or whatever, that’d be enough.”
Gates was “cheap” because Microsoft spent only $2 million on lobbying in 1997, and its PAC contributed less than $50,000 during the 1996 election cycle.
“You can’t say, ‘We’re better than that,’ “ a Microsoft lobbyist told me on Friday. “At some point, you get too big, and you can’t just ignore Washington.”
“You can sit there and say, ‘We despise Washington and we don’t want to have anything to do with them,’ “ the lobbyist said. “But guess what? We’re going to have hearings about the [stuff] you do.”
It’s no shocker that lobbyists think companies should hire lobbyists. But so does Capitol Hill — Orrin Hatch included.
In a 2000 speech to technology companies, Hatch called Microsoft “knuckle-headed and hard-nosed,” according to Wired magazine. “I have given [Microsoft] advice, and they don’t pay any attention to it.” In that same speech, Hatch warned: “If you want to get involved in business, you should get involved in politics.”
“The industry had an attitude that government should do what it needs to do but leave us alone,” one Hill technology staffer complained to Business Week at the time. “Their hands-off approach to Washington will come back to haunt them.”
After the Hatch hearings, Microsoft complied. Its PAC increased spending fivefold in each of the next two elections. In the 2010 elections, Microsoft’s PAC contributed $2.3 million to House and Senate candidates. The PAC has contributed the maximum $10,000 to each of Hatch’s last two campaigns.
I've already gone and voted for his challenger. Hubby will on his way home from work. Hatch needs to GO!
I’m just trying to get somebody to explain the relationship between the Palin and Levin. Since you seem to be in the know, why don’t you explain it?
You are the one who got your panties all in a wad because of Friendofgeorge saying Mrs. Palin is the dominant partner in the relationship.
For any of you motivated enough to stay up, here’s a link to the Utah Senate primary vote tally page at Utah’s SOS’ site.
Unfortunately, I expect it will be Hatch in a cake walk.
And Mark Levin adores Gov Palin. You are right that others also endorsed, other good folks for sure.
Your hostility towards Gov Palin is very apparent, coming out of your ears...if you could only hear yourself.
Palin was the endorsement Hatch was after, he said it himself recently
If you're so obsessed, perhaps you should start a thread. Sheesh.
Since you seem to be in the know, why dont you explain it? You are the one who got your panties all in a wad because of Friendofgeorge saying Mrs. Palin is the dominant partner in the relationship.
"Dominant partner"? "Relationship"? What kind of nonsense is that? Maybe you should lay off the erotica and/or mind-altering chemicals for a few days.
When Friendofgeorge wrote, "When Sarah says jump, they say how high," I brought up Levin as one who doesn't. It's as simple as that. No panties, no wad. Had you taken a moment to read what I replied to, you might have connected those dots yourself instead of posting such gibberish.
So many Palin fanatics are comically paranoid about their delusions of her grandeur.
Much as I hate to disappoint you, I have no hostility for Gov. Palin. I like her politics and her patriotism. I'd like to have her family over for dinner. I just don't believe she's all you and your kind make her out to be, that's all.
You are one strange geezer.
All I was talking about was the political alliance and coordination that seems evident between the two. Remember when Palin announced she was not running on Levin’s show instead of on Fox, to the consternation and chagrin of FoxNews? And Palin has backed all tea-party challengers to the political establishment, EXCEPT for Liljenquist against Hatch. Why? Levin is the one who came out way early for Hatch. Why? If it doesn’t make sense, doesn’t it make you wonder?
In politics, my FRiend, nothing is as simple as that.
Maybe because Liljenquist is a johnny-come-lately opportunist who claims the "Tea Party" label and laughably hopes to compare Hatch to Lugar (RINO, Indiana).
Levin is the one who came out way early for Hatch. Why?
Since I presume you're familiar with Levin's résumé, I won't go into that aspect of it. With that in mind, here's why he endorsed Hatch.
Mark Levins full explanation of why he supports Orrin Hatch for US Senate
Mark Levin spent his full first hour today explaining the reasons he believes we must support Orrin Hatch. In short, Levin isnt suggesting he agrees with everything Hatch has voted for but says there is a bigger context surrounding Orrin Hatch and that in taking the full measure of the man and his career, including Hatchs defense of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, he believes Hatch is a fighter and someone we need on our side, especially in these perilous times.
Heres the audio from his first full hour.
If it doesnt make sense, doesnt it make you wonder?
What doesn't make sense? Levin's endorsement is completely sensible.
Nothing laughable at all about comparing Ted Kennedy’s BFF Hatch to Lugar. You have anything to back up your accusations about Liljenquist?
I have no idea what you are referring to about Levin’s resume and that aspect of it you don’t want to explain. Levin and Hatch buddy up during the Reagan administration 30 years ago or something?
Oh, so “he believes Hatch is a fighter and someone we need on our side, especially in these perilous times.”
Oh, that explains everything.
No, Levin’s endorsement is completely inexplicable and inconsistent with his and Palin’s other endorsements.
There is something missing here, and neither you or I will be allowed to know what behind this incongruous backing of Senator “What do you call a Senator whos served in office for 18 years? You call him home.” Hatch - who is shooting for 42 years in office himself!
I trust Levin et. al.
Levins endorsement is completely inexplicable and inconsistent with his and Palins other endorsements.
Did you hear him explain his endorsement? (The link is above.) If so, I don't know what else to tell you.
So, you have nothing to back up your accusations against Liljenquist.
I do not put my trust in lawyers.
Levin’s explanation was flimsy.
On the contrary, I have what Levin said. And, certainly in this instance, that's good enough for me. I've never known him to be one to pull such "accusations" out of thin air.
I do not put my trust in lawyers.
Wow, implying I "put my (entire) trust in lawyers." Sure, Levin happens to be a (damn good constitutional) lawyer. But, silly me, that means his opinion cannot be trusted. I can't possibly compete against such brilliant reasoning.
Levins explanation was flimsy.
Oh, well, your opinion is golden.
Have fun chasing your conspiracy theories. I look forward to the full exposé once you uncover the details of that relationship between Levin and Palin.
All you have is “What HE said”. And, HIS opinion is good enough for me, and HIS opinion can be trusted.
Hey, Mark, is that you?