Reading former Gov. Mike Leavitt's column regarding modifying the caucus system of electing candidates in Utah raised some issues ("A better nominating process," Jan. 8) I don't recall hearing much discussion about our process prior to Sen. Robert Bennett getting the boot.
I resent the position taken by most of those who feed at the public trough that that decision was made by a bunch of wild-eyed tea partiers. I attended the 2010 caucuses, and was there with my friends and neighbors who were very much alarmed at the course our country was on and the little efforts being made to correct it. Those people were not radicals. They made rational decisions.
Proposing to change our process just because we are different than other states doesn't hold much water. If you look at the condition of those states, you have to come to the conclusion that what they are doing isn't so hot. Making it easier for people to get to the primary may well carry with it the consequences of more involvement from out-of-state funded sources, including more influence from the unions, which have wrecked the economies of many other states.
Those who claim that changes would bring better participation in the selection process have no idea whether that is true or not. Such changes would certainly benefit the incumbents, which I suspect is the motive for all of this discussion.
Harry A. Haycock