Orrin Hatch Caught in Big LIE(s), Again. Role model for Utah’s Children?

Orrin Hatch Liar

Orrin Hatch Liar

Orrin Hatch is a liar. A Liar is a person who tells LIES. Orrin Hatch has been telling demostrable lies for as long as I have been paying attention. Sadly, Utah Republicans continue to re-elect this liar.  If Washington is broken, as much of the credit goes to Utah Republicans as the liar named Orrin Hatch himself.

I ask myself, do the Utahns who vote for Orrin Hatch hold him up to their children as a role model? Or do they have a different set of standards for politics?

Many will come to Orrin’s defense by saying that both parties lie, conveniently forgetting for the moment that there are different kinds of lies.  Anyone who has kids knows this.  “There are lies and there are damned lies.”  Good parents put some real thought into the subject in order to raise better, more honest kids.

So for those of you who would like to dismiss Orrin Hatch’s deliberate, unapologetic, and malicious lies with statements like; “all politicians lie,”  I challenge you to grow up, get real.  I ask you, did you VOTE for those other liars, or did you vote for Orrin Hatch the Liar?

Give me an example of where any Democratic Senator has perpetrated such a string of BIG lies as does Orrin Hatch, on the floor of the Senate or in print. And please use the same rules to evaluate lying as you might impart to your kids.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Orrin Hatch is a big fat liar and a disgrace to the US Senate, Utah Republicans and The State of Utah.

  1. #1 by Richard Warnick on March 3, 2010 - 9:06 am

    Rachel Maddow starts in on Senator Hatch at 2:45 in the 8 minute segment. Well worth watching.

  2. #2 by brewski on March 3, 2010 - 9:52 am

    Wow, Rachel Maddow doesn’t like Orrin Hatch. This really is news. Makes me wonder what Hugo Chavez thinks.

    Also, Rachel Maddow LIES by constantly referring to “health care reform”. There is no health care reform. There is nothing in any of this bills which reforms health care. All it does is expand insurance coverage. That is not health care reform. She LIES since she is a LIAR who LIES like I would send my child to time-out for LYING.

    Also, she LIES about the Bush tax cuts. When the Bush tax cut bill came out of conference for a final vote on the actual bill which became law, the bill passed the House by a vote of 240 to 154, with 28 Democrats and an independent joining all Republicans in voting yes. The Senate then passed it by a vote of 58 to 33. Twelve Democrats joined 46 Republicans in support of the bill in the Senate. But this is what LIARS do, they grab onto a grain or evidence and then mischarachterise what happened, ignore anything that doesn’t fit their LIE and hope you don’t go back and fact check, because they figure that since they have a TV show no one will go look.

  3. #3 by Jeremy Nicoll on March 3, 2010 - 11:45 am

    I’m not going to disagree with you that Orrin Hatch is a liar, but to say that all Republicans are liars is rather unfair – beyond the fact that we all lie at times, though some of us are much worse than others.

    In short, we should throw out all of the blatant liars, not just the Republicans.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on March 3, 2010 - 2:24 pm

    Majority rule is not unconstitutional. Senator Hatch may truly believe what he says (although he certainly did not prior to January 20, 2009). It’s a fact that majority rule is provided for in the Constitution and he’ll have to get used to it whether he likes it any more or not.

  5. #5 by Roy Meador on March 3, 2010 - 3:08 pm

    I lived in Utah from 1994 to 2000. I recall a news article where Orrin was quoted as referring to Democrats as the party of “queers and abortionists” at a political meeting in S. Utah. He denied making the statement but a sight-impaired reporter had taped him. Can anyone elaborate?

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on March 3, 2010 - 3:18 pm

    Here’s what Senator Hatch said about the Democratic Party at a 1988 fundraiser in St. George:

    “[T]hey are the party of homosexuals, they are the party of abortion, they’re they party that has fought school prayer every step of the way.”

    Hatch later clarified that he did not mean every single Democrat is a homosexual.

  7. #7 by james farmer on March 3, 2010 - 3:58 pm

    Also, brew LIES, repeatedly, by constantly referring to health care reform as not reform. This is a LIE, as anyone can see. This makes brew a LIAR, and a really big LIAR at that!

  8. #8 by cav on March 3, 2010 - 4:24 pm

    I’ve just got to bring this over here – and note that it was Orrins truthiness that inspired it. He pretty much hit this nail outa the park:

    Republicans can’t afford a demonstration that government under Democrats would actually work in meeting people’s needs. Indeed, they can’t afford a demonstration of government effectiveness at all. The former strikes against their pose as the sole competent party. The latter undercuts their entire philosophy, and drives a wedge between them and the Tea Partiers. And, were people to see a distinct improvement in health care, and attribute it to Obama and the Democrats achieving it despite implacable Republican opposition, it’d be a political disaster for them. Even if Obama somehow is able to credit the GOP with working with him to do it.

    They’ve painted themselves into such a corner here, that quite possibly the only way out is to bank on the gullibility of the masses, cognitive dissonance, and there own reputed rectitude (there’s still an intensive search underway – more later), to get them out.

    It’s rather sad, really.

  9. #9 by brewski on March 3, 2010 - 4:29 pm

    Both Olbermann and Howard Dean have called it “not reform”. Are they LIARS who LIE about LYING LIES too?

  10. #10 by Richard Warnick on March 3, 2010 - 4:40 pm

    I think what Howard Dean said was that the Senate bill (as opposed to the House bill) is insurance reform, not health care reform. If Rachel Maddow wants to call the overall issue “health care reform,” she can. It’s what people want. Doesn’t look like we’ll get it, though.

    Orrin Hatch is going around claiming that passing a bill by a simple majority vote in the Senate is prohibited by the Constitution. That’s not merely a lie, it’s an incredibly outrageous lie, and it’s coming from a senior senator who knows he is lying. Don’t forget, before he became a composer Hatch wanted to be a Supreme Court justice.

  11. #11 by brewski on March 3, 2010 - 8:37 pm

    Maddow repeatedly referred to is as “health care reform”. Period.
    This Bill Is Not Reform
    This bill is a step forward procedurally and it scored well but it is not reform

    – Dr. Howard Dean

    She LIED she she is a LYING LIAR who assumes people won’t fact check what she says. Ha! What a sorry excuse for a talking head. Only thing worse are people who use her as a source and post her videos on blogs. Ha!

    Where did Orrin say it “was prohibited by the Constitution”?

  12. #12 by brewski on March 3, 2010 - 8:39 pm

    Apparently I messed up my quote placement.

  13. #13 by Richard Warnick on March 3, 2010 - 9:45 pm


    The issue is health care reform. Unless we get it, the middle class in America is sunk. It’s not Rachel’s fault that the Senate bill only offers insurance “reform.”

    In Senator Hatch’s WaPo op-ed, he wrote:

    “[Reconciliation] is attractive to proponents because it sharply limits debate and amendments to a mere 20 hours and would allow passage with only 51 votes (as opposed to the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle). But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy.”

    I interpret that statement as Hatch saying that a simple majority vote in the Senate is unconstitutional. Which is absurd. Clever the way he describes Senate Republicans obstructing and filibustering every damn bill as “a procedural hurdle.”

    Senator Hatch voted for historic budget-busters like $1.8 trillion in Bush tax cuts and hundreds of billions more in war supplementals, all passed via reconciliation. He’s in no position to lecture anybody on fiscal responsibility.

  14. #14 by brewski on March 3, 2010 - 10:06 pm

    No, it is not Rachel’s fault that the bill is not health care reform. It is Rachels fault for LYING about it and calling it health care reform.

    So you are right, we need health care reform in a huge way. Why every Democrat member of Congress doesn’t seem to get that is beyond me. We need it desperately, and 14 months later we have no bill at all that addresses it.

    This phrase “Constitution intends” is a bit murky. However, it is a bit different to say “the Constitution intends” and “was prohibited by the Constitution”. To change what he actually said is sort of a Maddowesque technique.

    I think what he meant, I think he would agree with this, is that the constitution intends the Senate to be a more deliberative body where compromise and consensus is more likely than in the rabble of the House. Therefore, if there is a bill which is supported by a grand total of 35% of the people, and the majority party just wants to ram it through without deference to the Senate rules, that that kind of tactic for something so important is not what the Constitution intended for the Senate.

    Also, you are wrong about the Bush tax cuts. When the Bush tax cut bill came out of conference for a final vote on the actual bill which became law, the bill passed the House by a vote of 240 to 154, with 28 Democrats and an independent joining all Republicans in voting yes. The Senate then passed it by a vote of 58 to 33. Twelve Democrats joined 46 Republicans in support of the bill in the Senate.

    Don’t mean to get actual history in the way of a good story.

  15. #15 by GG on March 3, 2010 - 10:50 pm

    The issue is whether Hatch lied.

    So why are you going on and on about Maddow? Why are you splitting linguistic hairs? You’re way off topic. These are points best suited for your own, private blog– not as comments regarding Hatch’s integrity.

    Do you think Hatch lied, yes or no?

  16. #16 by graig westphal on March 3, 2010 - 11:25 pm

    30 years this guy has been in the Senate, aside from a few cheesy songs composed, a milk toast tenure on the Judiciary Committee, a strange bed fellows friendship with Ted Kennedy, and a failed flag amendment, what has this reality challenged prevaricator really done for the Great State of Utah??? certainly the the term public service is indicated here, do us all a public service MR. Hatch and retire, Maybe Obama will give you that Supreme Court Apointment you covet (right.)

  17. #17 by Larry Bergan on March 4, 2010 - 12:17 am

    Maddow certainly isn’t afraid of the “L” word here. It’s good to see. She wonders why Orrin thinks he can get away with this, but she should know that before her show and Olbermann’s show got permission to start telling the truth, there was not one program in the nation who would have called Hatch out.

    Hatch is a habitual liar and never had to worry about it before. He probably still doesn’t have to worry, because there aren’t that many people paying attention to anything but football and American Idol.

  18. #18 by Richard Warnick on March 4, 2010 - 6:58 am

    Last night, Rachel was somewhat bemused to hear that Orrin Hatch thought getting called out on his lies was a “badge of honor.”

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  19. #19 by Richard Warnick on March 4, 2010 - 7:10 am


    The Senate health care bill that you say is supported by only 35 percent of Americans passed the Senate with a 60-vote supermajority. Which even Senator Hatch must admit was allowed by the Constitution. Bush’s tax cuts did not have 60 votes– even though Republicans now tell us that nothing should be allowed to pass with less!

    BTW, where were all the right-wing constitutional experts like Hatch when President Bush called our Constitution a “goddamned piece of paper” and proceeded to act as if it didn’t exist?

    Let’s be clear, I think the lobbyist-written Senate bill is horrible. The House health care bill is also not good, but it at least has a watered-down public option in it.

  20. #20 by graig westphal on March 4, 2010 - 9:14 am

    “An effete corps of impudent snobs”‘ one of my favorite quotes from the tainted Nixon administration and its less than pristine standard bearer Dishonored Vice President Spiro Agnew, this aptly describes the Much less than pristine senior Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch……and his obstructionist pals….

  21. #21 by Uncle Rico on March 4, 2010 - 9:48 am

    “But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy.”

    –Orin Hatch, Strict Constructionist

  22. #22 by brewski on March 4, 2010 - 11:04 am

    I just want to make sure we are all on the same page here:
    Only 35% of people support this bill.
    The bill itself is packed with lies.
    Obama lies about the bill.
    Maddow lies about the Bush tax cut being bill being passed by Congress without bipartisan support.
    Cliff lies about Maddow, Obama, Hatch and the bill.
    And you guys are torqued up by Hatch’s use of the word “intends”?

    Glad we got our priorities straight.

  23. #23 by Richard Warnick on March 4, 2010 - 11:24 am

    Definition of “unconstitutional”:

    Not in accord with the principles set forth in the constitution of a nation or state.

    Senator Hatch claimed that passing a bill in the U.S. Senate by a simple majority vote is unconstitutional. Despite the fact that it has been done many, many times without objection from anyone.

  24. #24 by Uncle Rico on March 4, 2010 - 11:43 am

    Not “torqued up” by “intends” brew, but its almost laughable that Orin can make the statements he does with a straight face. He’s a strict constructionist unless being constitutionally “murky” is polictically advantagous. He was for reconciliation before he was against reconciliation. He’s for an up or down vote on judicial nominees unless, of course, he’s the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he can stuff judicial nominees in his desk drawer never to see the light of day.

    But you have you undies in a twist because Maddow “lies.”

    Glad you have your priorities straight.

  25. #25 by brewski on March 4, 2010 - 11:43 am

    Can you show me where Hatch said that passing this bill by simple majority would be “unconstitional”?

    Your previous quote did not use the word “unconstitutional”. I assume that sinc you so methodcially are quoting the deifinition of an actual word, that Hatch actually used that actual word.

  26. #26 by brewski on March 4, 2010 - 11:46 am

    I apologize for my spelling and typing before any of you can jump on that.

  27. #27 by brewski on March 4, 2010 - 11:50 am

    I am happy to defend my priorities. My priority is to get a good health care bill. It appears that most posters on this site as well as the entire Democrat party is more interested in passing a bad bill, passing a bill supported by 35% of the people, arguing with Orrin Hatch about the word “intends” and generally playing games with words and not spending their energy on coming up with a good bill.

    Where are your priorities and where is the good bill?

  28. #28 by james farmer on March 4, 2010 - 12:25 pm

    Can you show me where Hatch said that passing this bill by simple majority would be “unconstitional”?


    The WAPO opinion by Hatch is here. If you do not read this as opining unconstitutionality, then a reading primmer is in order for you.

  29. #29 by brewski on March 4, 2010 - 12:41 pm

    At no point does Hatch say it is “unconstitutional”. It is clear that his opinion is that to have a simple majority vote on a bill of this subject matter and scope is against what is intended for the Senate to do, and this is supported by the Byrd rule. A reading primer would be required of those who read what they wan’t to read, and not what the author actually wrote.

    Just out of curiosity, why do you want a bad bill supported by 35% of people to be passed anyway?

  30. #30 by Richard Warnick on March 4, 2010 - 1:17 pm

    Regarding the passage of legislation by a simple majority vote in the Senate, Senator Hatch said that “the Constitution intends the opposite process.” This is the same as saying, “Not in accord with the principles set forth in the Constitution.”

    Which is the definition of “unconstitutional.”

    Of course, Hatch has voted for 12 of the last 14 reconciliation bills since 1989.

    The Senate-passed health care bill is a bad lobbyist-written bill that cannot and should not pass the House of Representatives. The Senate bill is worse than doing nothing.

    The President’s proposal is to fix the bad Senate bill via reconciliation. The alternative is not getting any health care reform, or health insurance reform.

  31. #31 by Larry Bergan on March 4, 2010 - 3:24 pm


    The reason Maddow has a show is because of her integrity. That’s what shows on the left are looking for.

    Hatch is not only considering it “a badge of honor” to be called out by Maddow, he’s going to keep it in his resume’. The only other place I remember hearing that phrase is as somebody’s last statement before entering prison.

  32. #32 by brewski on March 4, 2010 - 8:36 pm

    The alternative is not getting no reform. The alternative is geting better reform. Both the House and Senate bills are embarrassments to their authors and should be scrapped. It is revealing that I have never heard any lefty say that these are good bills. Nor has anyone said than any of my serious criticisms about the bills are inaccurate. So the left is left with the position of supporting bills which they know are bad bills. This is too important to get wrong for the wrong reasons. So much for Change We Can Believe In.

    Larry, we already came to the conclusion that Maddow is a very articulate person who is a partisan hack and lies. That has already been documented. Integrity and agreeing with you are not the same thing.

  33. #33 by cav on March 4, 2010 - 10:20 pm

    “…we already came to the conclusion…”

    I don’t think ‘we’ means quite what you think it means.

  34. #34 by Richard Warnick on March 4, 2010 - 10:53 pm


    If the Republicans wanted health care reform, they had from 1995 to 2006 to do something about it. I’m forced to conclude that either the Dems will reform health care or nobody will.

  35. #35 by Larry Bergan on March 4, 2010 - 11:34 pm

    Orrin Hatch lies and Rachael Maddow calls him one when he does that. Nobody with a show on the right will do that because they’re a bunch of cowards who don’t respect the importance of good journalism.

    But keep lapping it up brewski. At-a-boy. Arf arf!

  36. #36 by brewski on March 5, 2010 - 8:37 am

    A. Yes, the GP did not pass health care reform.
    B. Yes, the Dams can pass health care reform now if they want.
    In no way does A and B excuse the Dems from passing “god awful” non-reform.

    I am very much in favor of reform for a long list of personal, moral and policy reasons. That does not mean I want a bad bill. Please try to separate the two in your mind.

    Larry, Maddow lied in her report. That is not good journalism.

  37. #37 by brewski on March 5, 2010 - 9:20 am

    Gee my typing is bad today.

  38. #38 by Cliff Lyon on March 5, 2010 - 9:28 am

    Brewski, Can you show us where Maddow has ever lied?

  39. #39 by cav on March 5, 2010 - 11:59 am

    She lied when she said she was Al queda! There.

  40. #40 by brewski on March 5, 2010 - 11:59 am

    Cliff, already did, see #14
    Try to keep up.

  41. #41 by Cliff Lyon on March 5, 2010 - 12:25 pm

    Brewski, Try to pull your head out of your ass. #14 is based on semantics if not opinion which is well established to be one that shifts with the wind and is never supported by anything that rises to the level of fact.

    As I said in the top post, there are lies, and there are damn lies. Whether or not you know the difference or are just playing dumb for the moment is difficult to say.

  42. #42 by Cliff Lyon on March 5, 2010 - 12:26 pm

    Oh yeah, I forgot, Brewski is the one who equated Clinton lying about a bj with Bush lying about WMD.

  43. #43 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 5, 2010 - 1:34 pm

    I’m forced to conclude that either the Dems will reform health care or nobody will.

    Scratch that. Either the Dems will reform health care over the heads of obstructing Republicans and their lack of integrity about Senate rules or nobody will. The sad fact of war is that, when you engage, the enemy either reacts or dies. When Republicans abuse the filibuster, Dems will be forced to either give up entirely or to abuse reconciliation. Sad but true.

    We all know, and you as well, Brewski, that the Repubs aren’t going to allow a bill to pass that isn’t a Republican bill, if ever. It will be a Republican bill with Republican ideals; it will be a dictatorship of the minority as surely as the Democrat bill will be a dictatorship of the majority, but that’s what the Senate Republicans have decided is superior to compromise.

    I’m struggling with the reality of this political debacle, because I’m a bit of an idealist. It seems to me that we should fix our system before we try to pass any of these huge bills, because of this very problem. Unfortunately, fixing the system kind of has to occur concurrently with governing. So we have a clash of pragmatism and idealism.

    Personally, I think it’s a good idea to pass the Senate bill and then fix it with reconciliation if the Dems actually follow through. I’m concerned about what will happen if they pass it and don’t follow through, or if they start over and give the Repubs long enough to acquire a congressional majority. What will Repubs do if they have health care reform impetus and power? “Nothing” would be the ideal answer, at that point.

    We’ll see.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  44. #44 by Richard Warnick on March 5, 2010 - 3:03 pm


    Ironically, 80 percent of the Senate health care bill is made up of Republican proposals. But not a single Republican voted for it.

  45. #45 by brewski on March 5, 2010 - 11:04 pm

    I am still waiting for anyone, and I mean anyone, Democrat, Republican, Communist, Fascist, Male, Female, Dog, Cat, Indian Chief who thinks either of these bills are any good. I have only heard them described by everyone, including those bills’ supporters on this site, describe them as god awful, really god awful, and terrible and piss poor.

    And this is what you want passed?

  46. #46 by Cliff Lyon on March 6, 2010 - 7:58 am

    Brewski, You seem not to understand the mechanics in this bill. There are many good things which once passed can be added upon.

    There is one really bad thing in the bill which was foisted upon us by your Republican friends which can be eliminated later.

    DO YOU know what those bad things are?

  47. #47 by Richard Warnick on March 6, 2010 - 9:28 am

    I want a single-payer, Medicare Part E (for everyone) bill that will take the place of private health insurance for average Americans.

    In 2008, the leading Democratic Party presidential candidates all said that single-payer was off the table. They offered a public option as a substitute. Progressives agreed to go along with that compromise.

    Now the Obama administration refuses to put the public option in their health care proposal, instead pushing for a mandate forcing people to buy private insurance. Progressives are on their own, trying to round up 51 votes for a public option in the Senate without help from the White House.

    Without a robust public option at least as good as the one that already passed the House, the health insurance mandate is worse than nothing.

    Hope this clarifies things for our friend brewski.

  48. #48 by cav on March 6, 2010 - 4:33 pm

    MARCIA ANGELL: Well, Senator Rockefeller made a wonderful comment at the summit last week. He referred to the private insurance companies as rapacious, and said, “Like sharks, they swim under the water, and you don’t know they’re there until you feel their teeth.” What this plan does is says, “This is a terrible industry, so let’s force people to buy their products. And let’s subsidize it and put a lot of money into it.”

    And what do you think they’re going to do? If you were an insurance company, you would say, “Well, thank you, Santa Claus. I’ve got all of these captive customers. Young ones are healthy. They probably won’t even use the insurance. There’s nothing to stop me from raising my premiums. I have all of these subsidies coming in.” Don’t you think that the prices would go up? I think it would be remarkable if they didn’t.

    When I look at the Senate bill and the President’s suggestions, almost every paragraph, there is a poison pill for someone. Let me give you one example. They allow for insurance companies to charge three times as much for older people as for younger people. So from the point of view of the insurance industry, this is a god-send because either way, they win. Either the 55-year-olds cough up three times the premiums, and that’s good. Or else they can’t, and that’s probably the more likely situation. They can’t, and then they’re fined. And the insurance companies don’t have to take care of people who might actually get sick. They’re left with all of the thirty-year-olds, who are less likely to get sick, but who are required to buy their products.

    It’s a gift for the insurance industry.


  49. #49 by brewski on March 6, 2010 - 6:47 pm

    Cliff, I can provide a long list of bad things in this bill. I already have more than once. None of my criticisms were ever refuted by anyone on this site. When I provided long lists of what is bad about this bill all I got was spitting venom about Palin, Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, Global Warming, WMD, Tom Delay and pretty much everything and everything other than the bad things in this bill. I took those to be confessions.

  50. #50 by Larry Bergan on March 6, 2010 - 11:40 pm


    It’s a good thing we’re going to be getting rid of that pesky Bill Moyers soon. 🙁


    I don’t think Maddow has ever made the case that this is a great bill. You’re not saying she’s trying to sway us into supporting it wholeheartedly, are you?

  51. #51 by cav on March 7, 2010 - 8:05 am

    Larry, his show is very informative, even while some of his guests aren’t always top level. And it’s in the format so many have found worthwhile – not netsnarky, Beckian or outright lies. Just straight talk on important and often overlooked issues.

    We’re going to miss it.

  52. #52 by cav on March 7, 2010 - 8:26 am

    Anyone interested in the Frontline 5 part program on health care in other countries, and how and why it works?



  53. #53 by brewski on March 7, 2010 - 10:50 pm

    As a moral question, we know that Obama does not care about the health and well being of Americans. If he did care one whit about our health, then he wouldn’t have supported the cash subsidies for 3 crops (corn, wheat and soy) which are the feedstock of almost all processed food.

    Politically it is certainly easy to understand why a young politician from Illinois (home of ADM) who wants to be president (the first caucus being in Iowa) would go with the flow and vote with his party for processed food subsidies.

    But as an ethical, moral and credibility issue, he loses. He is one who wags his finger (watch him, he does) about others caring more about money than health, or more about money than clean air, or more about money than good schools. But then he checks his morals at the door and votes for cash subsidies for processed food, which is directly associated with obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, etc.

    He has blood on his hands, the same hands which wags its fingers at others.


    • #54 by Cliff Lyon on March 8, 2010 - 9:36 am

      Brewski, Ten points for creativity!

  54. #55 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 8, 2010 - 8:57 am


    Check your source. According to it, Obama claims to have backed the subsidies in order to promote corn-based ethanol production. Considering that the Repubs were complaining that we were devoting food resources to ethanol production, and thus increasing the price of food and restricting access for the needy (whom they only seem to care about as a rhetorical device), subsiding corn was a good compromise–it promoted production of what Republicans implied was a precious, limited resource at the time. So he wasn’t “vot[ing] for cash subsidies for processed food” in intent, even if that was the ultimate result.

    But, whether you accept these reasons or not, we still don’t “know that Obama does not care about the health and well being of Americans.” You’re really reaching, Brewski, if you think that voting for corn subsidies indicates a total lack of concern for the health of the American citizens. If he had voted against the subsidies, he would have shown a lack of concern for those Americans which depend on corn for sustenance, or whose jobs are in the corn industry. One way or the other, you would have found some excuse based on your values (and the fact that Obama doesn’t have the same exact values as you do) to claim he doesn’t care “one whit about our health.” That’s your goal, and you will see your biases confirmed.

    In any case, is this supposed to be a moral issue? Must it be? Why not just an issue of efficiency. Healthy people are better workers than sick ones, right? Must Obama have integrity about a good idea before the good idea is used? If his criticisms of others are astute, who cares if he is guilty of them as well? Congress isn’t voting on Obama–it’s voting on health care reform.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  55. #56 by Larry Bergan on March 8, 2010 - 7:41 pm


    There is no way to replace Bill Moyers and his many years of experience in groundbreaking journalism. He always takes the time to research the people he interviews and always asks the right questions in an non-adversarial way.

    Right wingers never watched the show because it would have required us to strap them in a chair and pry their eyes open like that poor lout in “A Clockwork Orange.”

  56. #57 by brewski on March 10, 2010 - 10:35 am

    There is no creativity required to understand the logic that if you subsidize anything, you will induce more of it to be produced and for the price to be lower. It econ speak it is a shift to the right of the supply curve. A rightward shift in the supply curve results in a lower price and greater quantity. In this case, the cash subsidies do result in greater production and lower prices for corn, wheat and soy, most of which is genetically modified and used for processed food. Lower prices and greater production of processed food means that, in relative terms, it will be lower priced and be in greater quantities than non-processsed food than otherwise would have been the case without the subsidies. This releative change has contributed to how people shop and eat. This change contributes to obesity, type II diabetes, coronary heart disease and hypertension.

    I am sorry if you don’t understand that our own government is promoting a policy that hurts the health of Americans. But it is so.

  57. #58 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 10, 2010 - 1:56 pm


    I believe the creativity Cliff was referring to was your ability to turn subsidies for a raw product into subsidies for a processed food, as a matter of intent.

    I agree with you that “our own government is promoting a policy that hurts the health of Americans.” I just don’t agree that Obama doesn’t care about the health of Americans because he promoted what many would consider to be a foods and jobs bill.

    So argue that Obama’s choice was misguided, foolish, uninformed, or may have even been potentially diabolical–but don’t insist that it was intentionally diabolical. Some politicians probably have a hard time measuring the evils of producing cheap sugar (which people may choose whether or not to purchase) against the evils of putting people who are already underpaid out of work. I find it particularly difficult to condemn such politicians when promote higher minimum wage and expanding work benefits for the poor, etc.


  58. #59 by brewski on March 10, 2010 - 2:28 pm

    I think Obama knows that the cash subsidies for these crops is bad policy. He has hinted as much. But, he has had his moments when he has needed to make a decision. Do I vote for policies which help me get elected in Illinois, or do I vote for good policies? Do I vote for policies which help me win the Iowa caucus, or do I vote for good policy? So I am quite confident that Obama has made the conscious decision to worry about getting elected first, and to worry about changing bad policy down the road. But he won’t take that on just before the 2010 midterm elections, not wanting to rock the congressional boat. Then he won’t want to take that on before the 2012 presidential election, wanting to get re-elected himself. So the can is always kicked down the road, as it always has been.

    I don’t buy this difference between intent and result. Under that logic, one could say that GWB didn’t intend to cause the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. His intent was to rid the world of Saddam, install a democratic government, and get out. But that wasn’t the result was it? The result is what he is now held accountable for, not his intent.

    The best way to help farmers is not to subsidize crops, water and petro-fertilizers. Without all these direct and indirect subsidies the production of corn would be less, (farmers who now farm corn just for the subsidies could farm potatoes, spinach or just about anything else which is not subsidized) and the price for corn would be higher. The farmers would actually make a living by selling a crop with a higher price rather than making a living solely on the subsidies. What a concept.

    I recommend the Oscar-nominated documentary “Food, Inc.”

  59. #60 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 11, 2010 - 1:35 pm


    War carries with it an inevitable result: death. That is, as Donald Rumsfeld would have put it, a “known known.” What we measure when discussing Bush’s results was whether or not the other results outweigh the deaths. However, you might find it interesting that my perspective on Bush primarily regards intent, not result. Known, definite results must be included in any measurement of intent (if we consider that the one with the intent is aware of those known, definite results). But realistic variability (whatever that may be, from case to case, must be taken into account.

    You see, you further your opinion about “The best way to help farmers,” but maybe that opinion isn’t consistent with what the voters of the bill in question knew at the time. They had to make the decision, not you, and you have to take that partially into account. Deciding on a course of action as a political body is quite different than musing about a course of action with yourself, or on a public forum. Disagreement here is a matter of preference; there, it’s a matter of action or inaction.

    In any case, the side-effects of corn are many steps removed from the side-effects of starting a war. The corn issue can be dealt with effectively in other ways, and, as I said already, for all you know Obama was genuine when he said he wanted to promote ethanol development with corn production; in the context of the time he was in office, when ethanol production was being attributed with corn shortages worldwide (another freaky fabrication of the Republicans, of course), subsidizing the industry was a far wiser decision for much hotter heads.

    Your assertion that Obama won’t worry about the important things, but rather be considered with re-election defies facts. Republicans have cited time and again, and with great glee, how badly Obama’s poll numbers have dropped in his first year. Well, let me cite the same fact, with equally great glee, as proof that Obama doesn’t care about poll numbers and re-election as much as promoting what he thinks needs to get done.

    Aside from that, I agree with your conclusions about subsidizing crops. I just don’t think that Obama wants to kill Americans with heart disease in order to get re-elected any more than I believe that Republicans want to kill farmers with starvation by denying them subsidies–or that Bush wanted to kill American soldiers by sending them to Iraq. It’s not that clear-cut, that results may be directly equated to intent.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  60. #61 by brewski on March 11, 2010 - 5:27 pm

    Dwight, you are too forgiving.
    Of course Obama wants to support corn ethanol. Corn ethanol comes from companies in places like Illinois and Iowa. Nevermind that corn ethanol makes no sense from an environmental or economic point of view. Also, if one were to want to support ethanol then one could have subsidized ethanol production, rather than subsidizing all corn used for cattle feed, fish feed, chicken feed, pig feed, high fructose corn syrup, corn flakes, corn starch, etc. These corn subsidies have been around since the early 1970’s, so it’s not like Obama didn’t have time to evaluate the policy and evaluate the bill in order to make an informed decision. He knew what he was doing and he did what was politically expedient.

    Obama’s current position on health insurance non-reform is not evidence at all that he makes policy choices which are not popular because he believes they are right. His choice now is to try to pass a bill which only 35% of the people support and starting over. He has made the political determination that starting over would be even worse than trying to pass an unpopular bill. So it is the same calculus.

    I am sure he wishes he had the chance to do the last 14 months over again. If he did he would not make the mistake of sitting back and allowing Pelosi et al. to write the bill. The smartest thing Obama could have done would be to get the co-sponsorship of some Republican who has a track record of bucking his own party in order to get something passed. Gee, can we think of a Republican who has pissed off his own party in the past and crossed the aisle to get something done? Is it possible that that same Republican had some good ideas including ending the tax disparity between employer bought and self bought insurance? Hmmmm. Who could that have been? McCain.
    If he had gotten McCain he would have easily gotten Snowe, Collins, etc. Slam dunk, the bill would have been passed 6 months ago.

  61. #62 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 12, 2010 - 1:15 pm


    If I’m too forgiving, then you’re are too quick to condemn.

    Yes, one could subsidize ethanol only–if one could get support for it, or if one was writing the bill himself, or if one was a dictator. . .but in our imperfect world, you have to get support from people who disagree with you, so sometimes you have to back away from the primary intent and accept a broader solution. Sometimes political expediency is the best option.

    Doesn’t make it right. I still disagree with the corn subsidies, as a general rule.

    Interesting second paragraph. Basically, you’re saying that Obama is going to do a politically unpopular thing because the alternative is equally unpopular or even more popular, and that he’s therefore doing the politically unpopular thing (which will supposedly have even more unpopular results) in order to secure political popularity. At this point, he could be considered one of the most honest of politicians–he can’t win politically, so he has nothing to lose by promoting pure ideology.


  62. #63 by brewski on March 14, 2010 - 9:22 pm

    Tell me how this is not an Obama lie:

    From whitehouse.gov

    It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.

    But under the current bill which Obama is pushing “the premiums and cost sharing [e.g. copay] will be significantly more onerous” on Americans than for Federal employees, said John McDonough, former Democratic Senate health committee aide who helped draft the bill.

  63. #64 by james farmer on March 15, 2010 - 8:45 am


    Read your own comment, moron. I can go to several stores throughout the valley and buy the exact same product. Doesn’t mean I will pay the exact same price for it, though.

    Try and not sound like an idiot 100% of the time!

  64. #65 by brewski on March 15, 2010 - 8:58 am

    So if you and Harry Reid both had heart bypass surgery, and your out of pocket copay was $5,000 and Harry Reid’s out of pocket copay was $1,000, you would say that you and Harry Reid had “the exact same” plan?

    You are a true believer.

  65. #66 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 15, 2010 - 9:05 am


    In the context of our present discussion, your request for an explanation of Obama’s comments is irrelevant. Are you attempting to tangentialize the discussion because you’re losing? 😉

    But, to answer your question, this is an “Obama lie” in keeping with standard D.C. double-speak. The “insurance choices” will be exactly the same if costs are not taken into account, and costs may be ignored because the lower costs for federal employees largely exist because they are supplemented by employer contributions.

    What you and others are asking (and I’ve been saying this from the start) is that Congress give up its employer-based insurance, or else provide the same thing for everyone else. But the average insured American has employer-based insurance of varying degrees of quality; are we asking them all to give up theirs?

    Still, it is disingenuous to imply that people will have the same insurance as Congress. For some, it’s prohibitively expensive to purchase. Sure, they’ll have the freedom to purchase it, but they won’t have access to it due to circumstance. As I’ve argued before, availability isn’t the same as access, so it can’t be reasonably said that these Americans will have the “exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have.”

    Now, before you go all Glenn Beck on me and point out the contradiction that I said “he could be considered on of the most honest of politicians,” yet I admit that he’s been disingenuous on this issue, consider that I provided the qualifier “of politicians.” Furthermore, my statement was a response to your second paragraph. I don’t necessarily believe he is “one of the most honest of politicians”–I just think that your pragmatic argument implies that he is.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  66. #67 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 15, 2010 - 9:13 am

    Oh, Brewski, give it up. Everyone is a true believer in something. Calling someone a “true believer” is like calling them “human.” I’ll assume you knew that already, so stop wasting text. That’s my job.

  67. #68 by cav on March 15, 2010 - 9:23 am

    Dwight, pointing out that brewsa’s a losa, ain’t a waste of text.

  68. #69 by brewski on March 15, 2010 - 10:55 am

    It is pretty mild to call someone a true believer after James called me a moron even though I documented how Obama lied. I could have called him something worse than true believer, but I figured I’d be polite given his genetic limitations.

    If the best defense anyone can come up with that Obama didn’t lie is that we have to not speak English but rather speak DC double-talk, then the conversation is over. The whole “Change” thing is over.

  69. #70 by Uncle Rico on March 15, 2010 - 2:01 pm

    You’re a genetic light-weight james! I’m dangerous and scary.

  70. #71 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on March 16, 2010 - 11:58 am


    Supposing we all just said, “Yep, Brewski, the “Change” thing is over,” would you get over it and actually discuss the issue. Why do you linger so long on irrelevant things?

    Besides, we’re discussing the issue in the context of your argument, not mine, so it doesn’t matter whether Obama is a regular politician or not. You assume he is, so that’s the context of the discussion.

    So what’s your point? You want to demonize all politicians in everything they do to the extent that you can assume their motives on every issue to the degree that’s most convenient for your argument? Ok. Then we have nothing to discuss, because you’ve already self-defined your victory. I can’t reach you if I’m trying to inject potential variations into a closed perspective.


  71. #72 by brewski on March 16, 2010 - 8:02 pm

    The original post here was about whether Hatch lied or not.

    Maddow said he lied, Cliff said he lied and Richard said he lied.

    The two alleged lies relate to two statements Hatch made. One was when he said that the constitution “intended” for the Senate to be a deliberative body where consensus could be built. The other alleged lie was when he contended that reconciliation had never been used for a bill that was either not a budgetary bill, or a bill with bipartisan support.

    In order to prove that Hatch lied, Richard lied by saying that Hatch said a simple majority vote in the Senate is “unconstitutional”. In fact, Richard even put “unconstitutional” in quotation marks. In fact, Hatch never uttered the word “unconstitutional”. Hatch said it wasn’t what the constitution “intends”. Which may sound like semantics, but it is enough of a difference between lying, as was the original charge, and expressing an opinion on intent, which is not a lie.

    The second alleged example of Hatch’s lie was pointing to the 2003 tax cuts. It was alleged that this bill was passed using reconciliation and was not bi-partisan. In fact, Hatch did not like about this in two ways; 1) a tax bill is a budget bill, 2) it was passed in the Senate 58 to 33 with 12 Democrats joining 46 Republicans in support.

    So what have we documented? Hatch did not lie, but Maddow, Cliff and Richard all lied.

    That is on topic.

  72. #73 by Larry Bergan on March 16, 2010 - 9:39 pm


    I guess the point you’re trying to make is that when Republicans vote with a simple majority it IS constitutional, but when Democrats vote with a simple majority, it ISN”T constitutional; which is the exact horse pill Orrin Hatch wants you and the American people to swallow, and you did. Try not to choke on it.

  73. #74 by Larry Bergan on March 16, 2010 - 9:41 pm

    The Democrats ALWAYS try to be bi-partisan and I see it as a failing after all we’ve been through. The Republicans NEVER practice bi-partisanship and you defend them. What is your gig?

  74. #75 by Quentin on March 16, 2010 - 9:50 pm

    Democrats are stupid, and have to lie to get things accomplished. Then they forget themselves and start cooperating. Stupid is as stupid does.

    They are easily the dumbest political party in the history of politics that ever assumed power.

  75. #76 by James Farmer on March 16, 2010 - 10:36 pm


    Please be so kind as to articulate the current spate of lies.

  76. #77 by brewski on March 17, 2010 - 10:03 am

    I didn’t say that and Hatch didn’t say that.
    Please read it again.

  77. #78 by Quentin on March 17, 2010 - 10:05 am

    The troops are leaving Iraq, drone attacks don’t violate international law, Afghanistan is about freedom and democracy, we are not going escalate in Afghanistan, the health care reform plan will lower your insurance premiums, Obama doesn’t smoke or drink heavily, the stimulus is working, pelosi has never had plastic surgery, Guantanamo is going to get closed down, enemy combatants won’t be detained indefinitely without trial, the solidarity of the democrats will allow for a steamrolling of good enacted by the party, tea party activists are racists, anyone that isn’t with their program is a racist, the American people want this garbage…badly…..the deficit doesn’t matter…do I need to go on?

    I will if you want.

    Be prepared to be crushed as a party in 2010.

  78. #79 by Quentin on March 17, 2010 - 10:06 am

    Oh yeah, I forgot…it’s all bush’s fault.

  79. #80 by cav on March 18, 2010 - 7:47 am

    The Clinton impeachment has largely gone down the memory hole. Historically, it won’t. It was an unprecedented exercise in naked political power, on a scale not seen in this country since the Civil War. It delegitimized Congress, and, more specifically, Republican partisanship at the expense of governance. It lowered the bar to where it now stands, with Republicans embracing birthers and people who fly airplanes into federal buildings. It coarsened political discourse even further, enabling and legitimizing such as Limbaugh, Beck and Coulter.

    It, arguably, harmed the Republic and its polity more than any single action I’ve seen in my lifetime. Only the patently false casus belli for the Iraq war comes close.

  80. #81 by glenn on March 18, 2010 - 9:04 am

    …and it all hinged on a lawyer, brought forward upon his actions, and in his juvenile hubris committed perjury under Oath.

    Perjury is the most serious non violent felony as all law is based on precedence, to lie under Oath and have it believed brings the law forward based on a lie.

    As Monica might say, I takes two to Tango, and one to hide the dress.

    I see, republicans are embracing a felon that flew a plane into a building? How is that relationship made, and why do you attribute it to “republicans” ? It is a plain fact that Democrats embraced their own felon president under impeachment, though some saw his actions as the catalyst for the debacle.

    Was not Clinton disbarred as well? How can anyone support a man as leader who has such questionable moral, and legal judgment? Case closed, guy is gone, as is bush the same, as will soon be our next prevaricator in chief.

    Hey Cav, you are of Vietnam age. Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. That war’s escalation was based on a lie as well, Johnson’s, a Democrat. So you really imagine a war that killed 10 times as many American soldiers, and 3 million Vietnamese isn’t the source of the precedence of lying we see from our government in all pursuit of “war”?

    For that matter we can go back to the Spanish American war, and the wars with the Indians.

    The first casualty of war is the truth. Blaming it on one group or another given the bi-partisan nature of all our wars to me is disingenuous and self deluding.

  81. #82 by Larry Bergan on March 18, 2010 - 2:39 pm

    I believe the Clinton impeachment also cleansed the media of many reporters not willing to play along with what was coming in the years after Clinton. Keith Olbermann, quit his comfortable job in the media over embarrassment at what he was being forced to cover on the air during that time. I’m sure he now thinks that was the best move he ever made.

  82. #83 by glenn on March 18, 2010 - 5:55 pm

    Olbermann is about to get canned Larry. His ratings are so low, the commercials on his show have more viewers.

  83. #84 by Larry Bergan on March 20, 2010 - 9:44 pm


    I doubt Olbermann’s going anywhere unless Comcast gets a hold of NBC, but I don’t understand your glee at a great journalist getting canned.

  84. #86 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2010 - 7:25 am


    Thank you for not letting me miss that link!

    That is the most bombastic piece of literature EVER written. A must read, in fact!


    And so the fat lady is not just singing for Olbermann and MS-NBC: Rather, she is belting out an aria that rushes Katrina-like past the designer finery of Old Media grandees in the audience of Manhattan’s Metropolitan Opera, rattles the Swarovski crystal chandeliers above their heads, hurtles across Central Park, and pierces the floor-to-ceiling windows of Olbermann’s $4.2-million 40th-floor Trump Palace roost.

    I guess Olbermann should have spent the night in a cardboard box.

    By the way, I just saw Orrin Hatch, (the subject of this post), walking into a private gathering of very high profile television news celebrities and it looked like he was accompanied by a very lovely young woman, (or possibly a very lovely young woman trying to embarrass his majesty), but he looked extremely uncomfortable to me. It was obvious that nobody knew C-span would be there.

    I have no idea!

  85. #87 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2010 - 7:32 am

    Hannity, whom I doubt was at the affair in my last comment, should have slept in the sewer.

  86. #88 by glenn on March 21, 2010 - 9:05 am

    Either way and from any perspective, Olbermann doesn’t matter, and heee’s gone!

    I’m sure he has enough capitalistic shekels rounded up for it to really not matter to him in any consequential way either.

  87. #89 by Gramj on October 11, 2010 - 2:39 pm

    I always feel bad for people who are well known and constantly get their pictures taken. There are some good photos, and then there are some horrendous photos like what is posted in this article. The whole impression from that picture is to hurry and recommend some plastic surgery if he is going to continue being in the limelight, but you also know, that photo was probably chosen from hundreds of decent looking options and meant to sway opinions.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: