Chaffetz voted No on Boehner Bill - Another reason to support him over Hatch in 2012

[DeadheadForPaul]

While he is certainly not perfect, Chaffetz would be a radical improvement over Hatch.

He has already openly stated that he will challenge Hatch in the Utah primary.

Mike Lee was able to defeat another establishment incumbent last year, and Chaffetz would provide another liberty ally in the Senate

He was the first politician after Ron to challenge the TSA porno scanners, has called for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and has stood for balancing the budget (in good company with Amash and Ron).

I know we can find things to dislike about him, but he is the kind of guy we need to have Rand's back

I personally intend to donate to his campaign, and I hope some Utah folk can be boots on the ground for him

[daviddee]

...

[wormyguy]

We can do better, he's not even the best member of the Utah house delegation.

[Brian4Liberty]

Why all the hatin' on Chaffetz?

[jct74]

Chaffetz will destroy Hatch, and I will gladly support him.

[daviddee]

...

[Aratus]

utah's two senators voted with rand a few hours ago in the senate.
the politics of this is gettin' curiouser & curiouser as time goes along.

[jct74]

Chaffetz would still be one of the best in the senate. We need some more good people in the senate, because that is really where you can really tear some shit up, as Rand is showing us. That is where the power is, as compared to the House where you are practically invisible. We need a few more good ones in the senate to complement Rand.

[Brian4Liberty]

He is a climber who says whatever is necessary to ensure his ascent on whoever's back is most expedient.

-He was a Democrat who then switched to the Republican party (co-chair for Dukakis)
-He was Jewish and then became a Mormon (to assist him at BYU)

He has a long track record of being a chameleon to serve his own agenda.

He was for the Patriot Act before he was against it.
He was for the war spending before he was against it.
He was for the TSA before he was against it.
He was for the military industrial complex before he was against it.

As to the Military - Check out his district. He votes for boondoggle military spending because it helps the military contractors where he is at.

Banking and other lobbyists - Check out his donors.

Whatever it takes with this guy... He will change and change and change whenever it suits his end game.

If you want politics as usual with some douchebag "climber" he is a fine choice.

If you want someone who is principled and will not change with the wind... he is not a fine choice.

He plays off that he "sleeps in his office". Awesome. Stinky, go get an apartment and stop describing your greed as "fiscal conservatism".

Before he was a politician (whore) he was an MLM (multi-level marketer).

The best judge of a person is their history/track record leading up to current day. He has a long track record... I find none of it to be indicative of a unwavering defender of liberty... unless it is convenient or provides some value to his end game.

Lol! Did you write his Wikipedia page? What you say is all there, in a rather negative way.

Hmmm. Never knew he was a Democrat...

[daviddee]

...

[Guitarzan]

Hmmm...Chaffetz has been good so far. No reason to doubt him until I see a reason to.


I like the guy.

[wormyguy]

Actually, he was for the PATRIOT Act before he was against it before he was for it.

And he endorsed Romney this year.

[erowe1]

And he endorsed Romney this year.

I didn't believe it. So I checked. Yep, he did. I have liked him overall so far, but I admit that's another red flag.

[Guitarzan]

Actually, he was for the PATRIOT Act before he was against it before he was for it.

And he endorsed Romney this year.


Eww...he endorsed Romney?

I think that there was some nuance involved in the PATRIOT Act vote...not just a "yes I support the act" type vote. I'll have to look it up.

But...really, he endorsed Romney?

[Maximus]

He is infinitely better than Hatch. Not perfect but it's not like he would be a Rubio.

[jbuttell]

Eww...he endorsed Romney?

I think that there was some nuance involved in the PATRIOT Act vote...not just a "yes I support the act" type vote. I'll have to look it up.

But...really, he endorsed Romney?

I hear there was some nuance to his reason for voting Romney.

[daviddee]

...

[daviddee]

...

[Brian4Liberty]

Actions (and votes) speak louder than words. He is on our side right now. His past changes of position means that he needs to be scrutinized. When he deviates from the Tea Party position, let us know.

[Koz]

Chaffets blows in whatever direction the winds are changing. He is no friend of liberty.

[TCE]

Actions (and votes) speak louder than words. He is on our side right now. His past changes of position means that he needs to be scrutinized. When he deviates from the Tea Party position, let us know.

PATRIOT Act, anyone? Yeah, he's better than Hatch, but that's not saying much. It's fine to support him, but he will not be seeing a penny of my money and I suggest all members of this forum save their money for some legitimate liberty candidates, namely Gunny. Mike Lee makes this guy look like Lindsey Graham.

[erowe1]

PATRIOT Act, anyone?

I'm more bothered by endorsing Romney than I am by that.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Why all the hatin' on Chaffetz?Chaffetz is a Chameleon and Populist, who's quite good at capitalizing on the moments. Last week on Fox Business he disagreed with Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann on the national budget and deficit plans.

He stated something like, I really like Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, but their severe cutting with no revenue increases are not good for the economy right now... we have to do this incrementally..."

We already know the backroom deals Chaffetz has made for the Hatch senate seat 2012. <RP Thread sited>

[Slutter McGee]

Yay. more attacking potential allies. How much fun this is. This is why our movement will be sucessful.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[TCE]

Yay. more attacking potential allies. How much fun this is. This is why our movement will be sucessful.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

He's not a potential ally and it's not like our attacking him is going to radically change him. We are calling out what he is. We don't bash people like Walter Jones. We haven't bashed Mike Lee, either. I guarantee you, if the Republicans were to ever gain control of the White House, Chaffetz's voting record would look very similar to John McCain's and any other Republican. On the one vote he was good on, this one, he voted the same way as Orrin Hatch. Fantastic. There is no reason to support Chaffetz when there are legitimate liberty candidates out there with legitimate shots at winning.

[erowe1]

He's not a potential ally and it's not like our attacking him is going to radically change him. We are calling out what he is. We don't bash people like Walter Jones. We haven't bashed Mike Lee, either. I guarantee you, if the Republicans were to ever gain control of the White House, Chaffetz's voting record would look very similar to John McCain's and any other Republican. On the one vote he was good on, this one, he voted the same way as Orrin Hatch. Fantastic. There is no reason to support Chaffetz when there are legitimate liberty candidates out there with legitimate shots at winning.

Are there really better allies with better shots of winning a US Senate seat? Who?

[eduardo89]

Are there really better allies with better shots of winning a US Senate seat? Who?

+1

We have to be realistic about who our allies can be. Chaffetz, although far from perfect and not a true liberty candidate is better than 90% of the GOP caucus. Same goes with Flake. At least we'll see a slight improvement in two winnable races.

[TCE]

Are there really better allies with better shots of winning a US Senate seat? Who?

Not the U.S. Senate, but there are always good U.S. House candidates along with candidates in the state legislatures. Why throw money at a candidate who is good, on most days of the week, when there are great candidates out there?

[TCE]

+1

We have to be realistic about who our allies can be. Chaffetz, although far from perfect and not a true liberty candidate is better than 90% of the GOP caucus. Same goes with Flake. At least we'll see a slight improvement in two winnable races.

I agree with the general sentiment, which is "he'll be better than his predecessor," and that is obviously true, but calling these people "liberty candidates" and actively supporting them with money, that's what I am not a fan of.

[eduardo89]

Not the U.S. Senate, but there are always good U.S. House candidates along with candidates in the state legislatures. Why throw money at a candidate who is good, on most days of the week, when there are great candidates out there?

Because how many great Senators have their been in the last 15 years? 2! and they were both elected less than a year ago!

[HOLLYWOOD]

Not the U.S. Senate, but there are always good U.S. House candidates along with candidates in the state legislatures. Why throw money at a candidate who is good, on most days of the week, when there are great candidates out there?

Utah's US Senate seat will be won in the GOP primary election where conservative/constitutional candidates have the chance, by the General election it's Republican that has held the US Senate seats for 34 years and a commanding 2/3's of recent election votes have gone to the US senate republican candidates in conservative Utah.

Here's the previous RPF Chaffetz thread... Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz endorses Romney over former boss Huntsman in 2012 race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?301969-Utah-Rep.-Jason-Chaffetz-endorses-Romney-over-former-boss-Huntsman-in-2012-race)


POLITICO article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58353.html

[TCE]

Utah's US Senate seat will be won in the GOP primary election where conservative/constitutional candidates have the chance, by the General election it's Republican that has held the US Senate seats for 34 years and a commanding 2/3's of recent election votes have gone to the US senate republican candidates in conservative Utah.

Here's the previous RPF Chaffetz thread... Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz endorses Romney over former boss Huntsman in 2012 race (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?301969-Utah-Rep.-Jason-Chaffetz-endorses-Romney-over-former-boss-Huntsman-in-2012-race)


POLITICO article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58353.html

That's a good point, so he shouldn't need any money anyway. I remember Bennett had a ton of money on hand, but in the convention it didn't matter so he didn't spend it.

[Slutter McGee]

Stop being purist idiots. Question. If John Hostettler had beaten Coats would the senate be better? Would our views be better represented? This isn't a battle we can win overnight. We need to get the best "possible" people into office to win in the long run. And this kind of bullshit does not help. The questions are simple. Would Chaffetz be better than Hatch? Yes. Is there anybody other than Chaffetz that has a legitimate shot at winning? No.

So what are we fucking arguing about. We know these people aren't Ron or Rand or Amash or even Lee. We know they aren't the end goal of our movement. But they are a change in the right direction. Would you rather have 50 Jim Demints, or 50 Lindsay Grahams? Which is more conducive to us making inroads? Which option is the best for the growth of liberty?

Because the Libertarian Party has done such a swell job getting "pure" candidates elected.

Thats what I fucking thought.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

It's up to each person to decide where they set the ideological bar for who gets their donations. I can't fault anyone for wherever they decide it is for them.

I could probably justify donating something to Chaffetz and Flake depending on my finances (as it is with RP running for POTUS, it's unlikely that I will this time). I'm not quite sure where I'd rank them in prioritization of all the races going on at the time. But I definitely would give more leeway in choosing someone to support for U.S. Senate than I would for the House.

[Slutter McGee]

It's up to each person to decide where they set the ideological bar for who gets their donations. I can't fault anyone for wherever they decide it is for them.

I could probably justify donating something to Chaffetz and Flake depending on my finances (as it is with RP running for POTUS, it's unlikely that I will this time). I'm not quite sure where I'd rank them in prioritization of all the races going on at the time. But I definitely would give more leeway in choosing someone to support for U.S. Senate than I would for the House.

Exactly. I don't pretend to argue that our movement as a whole should start supporting Flake, Chaffetz, Cruz etc. The candidates our movement supports should be with us on all three major issues, not just one or two. Civil Liberties including the Patriot Act, Foreign Intervention and unjustified undeclared wars, and Domestic Spending and the size of government. But A person who is with us on even one or two or those issues is better than someone who is against all three.

So I don't really understand all the ridiculous bullshit fucking hate spewed out of the keyboards of some of our members.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Stop being purist idiots. Question. If John Hostettler had beaten Coats would the senate be better? Would our views be better represented? This isn't a battle we can win overnight. We need to get the best "possible" people into office to win in the long run. And this kind of bullshit does not help. The questions are simple. Would Chaffetz be better than Hatch? Yes. Is there anybody other than Chaffetz that has a legitimate shot at winning? No.

So what are we fucking arguing about. We know these people aren't Ron or Rand or Amash or even Lee. We know they aren't the end goal of our movement. But they are a change in the right direction. Would you rather have 50 Jim Demints, or 50 Lindsay Grahams? Which is more conducive to us making inroads? Which option is the best for the growth of liberty?

Because the Libertarian Party has done such a swell job getting "pure" candidates elected.

Thats what I fucking thought.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Agreed!

[HOLLYWOOD]

It's up to each person to decide where they set the ideological bar for who gets their donations. I can't fault anyone for wherever they decide it is for them.

I could probably justify donating something to Chaffetz and Flake depending on my finances (as it is with RP running for POTUS, it's unlikely that I will this time). I'm not quite sure where I'd rank them in prioritization of all the races going on at the time. But I definitely would give more leeway in choosing someone to support for U.S. Senate than I would for the House. True, and this is why we can indivually donate for both the PRIMARY and GENERAL elections. ($2500 each) so you can back your grassroots/TP candidate in the Primary, but if he fails to get the party win, you have the choice of lesser choice politicians in the general election to support/donate/etc, if that's your choice.

[TCE]

Exactly. I don't pretend to argue that our movement as a whole should start supporting Flake, Chaffetz, Cruz etc. The candidates our movement supports should be with us on all three major issues, not just one or two. Civil Liberties including the Patriot Act, Foreign Intervention and unjustified undeclared wars, and Domestic Spending and the size of government. But A person who is with us on even one or two or those issues is better than someone who is against all three.

So I don't really understand all the ridiculous bullshit fucking hate spewed out of the keyboards of some of our members.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I +Rep'd your previous post, but I should've +Rep'd this one. I completely agree with your sentiment that we need to have a gradual movement. Since I've already mentioned the money issue, I'll note the other one. I am sick of seeing post after post after post of "Look how awesome the GOP is! The Republicans will save us!" That, coupled with the "we're liek totally going to beat the establishment on the debt ceiling! Yay!" movement has led to my frustration. I remember using the very argument you are using when there was an Anti-Rand movement during 2010. They claimed he wasn't a purist, blah blah blah and some still hate on him.

Summary: I completely agree with your premise. I just want to warn against the seduction that these "liberty" candidates can create. We see Chaffetz in the Senate and automatically he's the best thing since sliced bread. And naturally, Flake>Kyl and Chaffetz>Hatch.

[tsai3904]

Hatch has voted with Rand Paul 89% of the time, compared to Lee voting with Paul 96% of the time and McCain voting with Paul 75% of the time.

Because of the upcoming election Hatch has turned into an ally of Paul and Lee. The problem is no one knows how he's going to vote after he gets reelected. That's why as of today, it's hard to say who would be better.

[Brian4Liberty]

True, and this is why we can indivually donate for both the PRIMARY and GENERAL elections. ($2500 each) so you can back your grassroots/TP candidate in the Primary, but if he fails to get the party win, you have the choice of lesser choice politicians in the general election to support/donate/etc, if that's your choice.

But which Primary? Seriously, in places like California, we need to support libertarian leaning Democrats. In most of our districts, the Democrat Primary is where the real decision is made. The GOP has zero chance in the General.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'd take the criticism of Chaffetz more seriously if half of this forum didn't say the same bullshit about Rand

10 months ago, if you had listened to the General Politics forum, you would have thought that Rand himself was going to push the button to nuke Iran as he simultaneously water-boarded people at Gitmo

From what I've seen of Chaffetz since day 1, he's imperfect but he's definitely of the same mind as Mike Lee and Jim Demint. These types are not the ideal liberty candidates but they are a MAJOR step in the right direction.

Many here questioned Rand's unholy alliance with Sarah Palin and the Christian Right but the fact is that he co-opted them - not vice-versa. If Chaffetz wants any hope of getting elected in Utah, he has to play ball with Mormons - that means Romney and Huntsman. He can endorse Mitt Romney till the cows come home for all I care as long as he maintains his record

This is a man whom sleeps on a cot in his Washington office rather than paying a few grand on an apartment. This is because he sees it as a waste of money which his family could better use on other things. That's the kind of person with the integrity and fiscal sanity that I want in the Senate

When I started this thread, I was well aware that some were not going to like it. Some of the criticism is legitimate and some of it is the typical purist drivel. Well some of the critics here were the same ones that shit all over Rand for an entire year as they bitched and moaned that he is not Ron. Meanwhile, the rest of us got the most pro-liberty senator in decades into office. Ask yourself which side you want to be on and whether you want to take this government in a pro-liberty direction or not

[TCE]

But which Primary? Seriously, in places like California, we need to support libertarian leaning Democrats. In most of our districts, the Democrat Primary is where the real decision is made. The GOP has zero chance in the General.

Totally agree with this. We, as a movement, have been seduced by the allure of the Republican Party. In deep blue states, the Democratic Party is where we need to be. We can even play it off as a challenge from the left if we wanted or if the district is more moderate, perfect. Seriously, we are not using our resources to the fullest by only using the Republican Party.

[jct74]

I'd take the criticism of Chaffetz more seriously if half of this forum didn't say the same bullshit about Rand

10 months ago, if you had listened to the General Politics forum, you would have thought that Rand himself was going to push the button to nuke Iran as he simultaneously water-boarded people at Gitmo

From what I've seen of Chaffetz since day 1, he's imperfect but he's definitely of the same mind as Mike Lee and Jim Demint. These types are not the ideal liberty candidates but they are a MAJOR step in the right direction.

Many here questioned Rand's unholy alliance with Sarah Palin and the Christian Right but the fact is that he co-opted them - not vice-versa. If Chaffetz wants any hope of getting elected in Utah, he has to play ball with Mormons - that means Romney and Huntsman. He can endorse Mitt Romney till the cows come home for all I care as long as he maintains his record

This is a man whom sleeps on a cot in his Washington office rather than paying a few grand on an apartment. This is because he sees it as a waste of money which his family could better use on other things. That's the kind of person with the integrity and fiscal sanity that I want in the Senate

When I started this thread, I was well aware that some were not going to like it. Some of the criticism is legitimate and some of it is the typical purist drivel. Well some of the critics here were the same ones that shit all over Rand for an entire year as they bitched and moaned that he is not Ron. Meanwhile, the rest of us got the most pro-liberty senator in decades into office. Ask yourself which side you want to be on and whether you want to take this government in a pro-liberty direction or not

Good post Deadhead. I'll take a closer look at Chaffetz if he decides to run but what I have seen so far is pretty good. The Romney thing is disappointing but I think there is a lot of political calculation in that. Even the good doctor is not immune to that; didn't he endorse some Texas RINO a year or so ago? Rand has also pretty much said he supports Mitch McConnell for majority leader. Its gross, but I don't think its a huge deal; I'm more concerned about his votes and his statements like you are.

[tsai3904]

Chaffetz won't challenge Hatch:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0811/Chaffetz_wont_challenge_Hatch.html