After reading countless online comments on why Sen. Orrin Hatch should or should not agree to multiple debates, I'm saddened.
For me the issue is not about the two candidates and what strategies will ensure that one or the other wins the nomination. It is about the voters, the constituents, the people these candidates will serve and what the candidates can do to help us make a good decision.
I believe candidates have a moral obligation to help ensure we, the voters, make the most informed decision possible. Some supporters seem to feel that it is about money, name recognition, not helping the other guy, etc. Their attitude seems to say, "We need to win at all costs."
Win what? The right to represent the very voters you have done a disservice to by minimizing their interactions with your candidate? I say let the candidates stand side-by-side and answer the same questions. Let us watch their interactions and include this information in our decision making process. Then let the best person win.
After all, this is about finding the best representative for Utah. Or is it?
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet
- 20 of the most influential and innovative...
- Charles Krauthammer: Solution to inversion is...
- School fees: Is Utah really family friendly?
- Letter: Society puzzles
- Equality in family life does not mean sameness
- Jay Evensen: Utahns support Common Core, even...
- Michael Gerson: State of Israel: History...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb:... 82
- Letter: Police brutality 62
- School fees: Is Utah really family... 48
- Mary Barker: Our economic discourse... 43
- Richard Davis: The State Board can do... 42
- In our opinion: A slippery 'immoral' Tweet 39
- Constitutional commitments trump tribal... 35
- Letter: Society puzzles 32