Orrin Hatch destroys Dan

[PearlWatson]

Seniority in Congress is bad, because it leads to terrible people having too much power and staying in office too long.

I agree.

 

[babe]

There is this thing called CSpan where you can see our congressman opening their mouths and saying things.
Based on first hand observation, Orin Hatch is terrible.
Seniority in Congress is bad, because it leads to terrible people having too much power and staying in office too long.

good or bad are relative terms, subject to the view you hold. If you are one who believes in representative government or human rights, Hatch is bad. If you believe the US Constitution is divinely inspired, or a blessing to mankind whether coming as a result of divine providence or an extraodinary human struggle for human rights/human liberty. . . . Hatch has always pooped on you and your pathetic delusions.

If, on the other hand, Hatch had believed that the liberties, human rights, or original intents of our founders were relevant to current events, and more important than the special interests of the higher movers and shakers, I'd vote him when he's 92 or 98 over the wannabe progressive shill selling us out to progressive new world order UN governance that simply is not democracy in any real way, nor representative government responsive to the will of the people.

Hatch has always been that shill, and that's why I say Mormons who think he is a conservative are seriously deceived. But there are quite a few worse senators, too. maybe about 85 of them.

Seniority in Congress is only bad when bad people have it. . . . Ron Paul is my example of someone who has done better.

 

[PearlWatson]

Seniority in Congress is only bad when bad people have it. . . . Ron Paul is my example of someone who has done better.

It seems the longer they are in there the more they are willing to let their inner tyrant out.
The freshmen are excited to get things going but the old farts are immovable.

 

[northeast]

Seniority in Congress is only bad when bad people have it. . . . .

Let me put it another way.
Seniority is antidemocratic.
We can try to vote in representatives who promise to work for change we want, but the power will reside with seniority blocking the voter agenda.

 

[babe]

Let me put it another way.
Seniority is antidemocratic.
We can try to vote in representatives who promise to work for change we want, but the power will reside with seniority blocking the voter agenda.

I have to admit I see your point. A lot of things are antidemocratic. . . . including a constitutional representative republic. . . . some might say just having elected officials can be antidemocratic. I want some protection from the excesses of democracy inherent in mob rule or majority rule, like inalienable individual rights. . . . .

I would have to admit I think the two-party system has failed us, and could point to early warnings against party politics being applied in our government, from some of our founders/contributors to our birth as a nation and our constitution. The party power now dominating american politics is far far worse than one or two demagogues with seniority. It is a form of systemic "seniority" that occludes people from have any real say in their government.

 

[green]

I am 100% for term limits, and I think Hatch has been in office too long. That being said, he has done a lot of good for Utahns, and some bad as well. BUT, if you want me to vote for you over him, you have to tell me what you are going to do better than what Hatch is doing. "He's been there a long time" isn't good enough.

I KNOW what I am going to get out of Hatch, because he has been there so long. Dan? All I know about him is he is against career politicians. Not good enough.