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?
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Dan Liljenquist: The economic impact of...
- Doug Robinson: Violence against women is...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act needs...
- In our opinion: Federal contracting executive...
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the...
- Capitalism and the common good: Fairness,...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 79
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 54
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 46
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- My view: A global warming solution to... 36
- Join the discussion: Is it impossible... 33