Reader comments
3rd District foes trade blows

Clearly Decided | 9:03 a.m. May 4, 2008

I was there last night. This article doesn't come close to portraying the feeling of the room throughout the evening. Bottom-line this race is about fixing the problems in Washington DC and getting rid of Cannon. The delegates are becoming less impressed with Cannonï¿½s excuses. After twelve years you would think Cannon could come up with something better to say than "I'm working on it."

Chaffetz is beating the same drum as John Jacob and Matt Throckmorton from the past two elections. Shallow cheap shots and rehearsed one liners is exactly the tone we donï¿½t need in Washington. At the end of the day he brings nothing to the table. Snide comments and childish smirks are found at the core of the problem in DC. Chaffetz would be another embarrassment for Utah.

Leavitt was clearly the most articulate and clear thinking candidate on the stage. I like a candidate who has the ability to explain in clear terms where he stands and why. I attended one of his meetings last week and he stayed late to answer every last question delegates had. That is the kind of leader we need and that is why I am supporting him this year.

Anonymous | 10:55 a.m. May 4, 2008

Nice spin, Leavitt shill. Chaffetz won, hands down. He says it like it is, has more meat behind the statements (yep, he actually sends details about the issues to delegates) and then a couple of weeks later Leavitt starts repeating Chafetz. It's not fooling anyone. I'm looking forward to having Jason as our rep.

SL County Delegate | 5:24 p.m. May 4, 2008

I wasn't at the debate last night, but I was at the Salt Lake County Convention. Cannon, Chaffetz, and Fergeson all left early and Leavitt was the only one to stay to give his speech before going down to Provo for the debate. If Leavitt could stay, why not the rest of them? That means a lot that a candidate made the effort to treat everybody in the district equally instead of just pandering to Utah County. I'm just a county delegate, so I hope I get the chance to vote for Leavitt in the primary or in November.

Comments continue below

a delegate | 5:30 p.m. May 4, 2008

I also attended the debate, undecided, but left knowing I won't be voting for Chaffetz. His shallowness and immaturity were shown by his pandering to the prejudices many Utah County people don't want to admit they have. Cannon and Leavitt had reasoned responses. Chaffetz's canned one-liners seemed to be aimed at pushing people's buttons and entertaining his groupies. It seemed he wanted to lecture, not thoughtfully discuss. His sophomoric responses left me unimpressed.

No Question | 7:14 p.m. May 4, 2008

The biggest difference I have seen between Chaffetz and Leavitt is that Chaffetz actually knows what he's talking about. He doesn't speak in platitudinous generalities and condescending sanctimony the way Leavitt does. Chaffetz's positions are clear and well-detailed - which I appreciate. I'm looking for a leader with passion and drive, who is principled and right on the issues. That person is clearly Jason Chaffetz.

IM | 7:22 p.m. May 4, 2008

I was also there and still don't think that Leavitt has answered anything. And Chaffetz's canned one liners were just as Cannon said - snarky. There's only one guy to vote for here and his name is Chris Cannon.

D. Johnson | 4:26 a.m. May 5, 2008

Why can't politicians ever go back to their day jobs? Congressman does not pay that well. Why can't these guys ever leave?

rkps | 8:41 a.m. May 5, 2008

I attended the debate along with multiple other events for each candidate. I feel that Cannon has the brains. Leavitt has the persona. Chaffetz doesn't posses either. He just has slams and applause lines. Arrogant and ignorant are the two words that come to mind. Not a bad man, just not suited for the job. I am hoping for, and expecting a primary between Leavitt and Cannon. Let the people decide between the two better candidates. Both seem to be good, honest, smart men able to do the job.

W.P. | 10:45 a.m. May 5, 2008

I really enjoyed the debate. Unfortunately, this article doesn't describe it well.
Cannon did okay and got a little worked up--as he always does. I didn't have anything against him personally. But it's clear he's had his time to work and replacement is necessary.
Jason Chaffetz was full of cheap shots and rhetoric--nothing of substance.
Joe Ferguson is hilarious--but obviously not prepared to be in Congress.
David Leavitt seemed to win this debate. While his answers weren't perfect, he seemed to state it as it is and call his opponents out in a civil manner. He said there aren't many differences between the candidates concerning the issues, and I agree. The big difference I noticed at the debate is Leavitt's style, statesmanship, and experience.
I really would have liked to read a different article about the debate because this one seems to miss the mark.

I'll take Brains | 1:17 p.m. May 5, 2008

I agree with "rkps" when he (or she) says, "Cannon has the brains. Leavitt has the persona. Chaffetz doesn't posses either."

I will be voting for the brains...and seniority. I actually like Leavitt, but it was clear from their responses that Cannon does have a lot more detailed knowlege of issues and a realistic idea of what it will take to get things done.

As for guys like Fergusson - I wish they wouldn't waste delegate time by running.

its not all about Utah | 1:49 p.m. May 5, 2008

The delegates act (and some candidates speak) like it's all about what we think in Utah. this is the US House, folks. There are 435 representatives, and one measley rep from Utah (especially a new one) has about no influence unless they build some seniority. Granted, Cannon isn't the prettiest congressman--but he's a damn good policy wonk and he works the house as well as anyone else on the hill.

I'm a delegate and not a Cannon staffer, just an observer with Washington experience. If it was Leavitt running for an empty seat or against a Dem--sure, I'd probably vote for him. But to toss Cannon out is plain stupid for a state with as little representation in the House as Utah has.

Come on folks, use your brains! Quit being so myopic and egocentric. These ridiculous comments should be reserved for the silly state legislators, not for our congressman. If you're not happy with the results now, just wait until a freshman takes several terms to find his feet.

Z | 2:45 p.m. May 5, 2008

Leavitt won. Easy.

Listen Up! | 3:50 p.m. May 5, 2008

You know, when someone proclaims himself to be a Statesman it should make everybody run for the hills! Leavitt sure has a high opinion of himself to intone that he is the "Statesman" who will bring civility to Washington. Remember the last person who droned on and on about civility in DC? It was Nancy Pelosi!!

Wondering | 4:52 p.m. May 6, 2008

I agree 100% with rkps. Cannon is bright but does not explain things well to the normal joe. Leavitt is a great speaker and is bright as well, but is not quite there with Cannon. Chaffetz makes me feel like I am in the circus (Big Tent Party). He is not civil and is full of one line promises that he will never keep and if he does they will not be good for Utah. Ferguson is a great guy, but he has lost a few of his marbles. I really with Ferguson and Jason would look for those marbles so we can better see the candidates that are up to par to actually be our representatives. I also hope this goes to primary. I feel strongly that Cannon is the better candidate, but the more I get to know Leavitt the more I like him.

paid to be here? | 7:09 a.m. May 7, 2008

wow we may finally be seeing where all that money from the candidates is being spent...y'all are good at the spin. Nice positioning on Leavitt...a soft blow, and then nail the guy getting the applause lines with things like "circus". Did you read the book about winning the "blog wars" while you charged your client thousands of dollars?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.