Facebook Twitter



To the editor:

Dwight Epperson's letter (Forum, Oct. 5) raises a fundamental point in political campaigns that deserves further consideration. He states, "What kind of a husband or mother a candidate makes is regarded as irrelevant."One could argue it is most relevant during a campaign to know about the moral character of the candidate. If it is not known by the voters prior to the election, it may well become known to the voters after the election.

Take, for example, Sen. Ted Kennedy. Is his lifestyle relevant to whether he should be elected again as senator of Massachusetts or possibly president of the United States? If it is relevant, then why is it not relevant about local candidates for mayor, governor, senator, congressman?

The Utah media seem to bend over backward avoiding reference to details of a candidate's personal life. A candidate might be devastated at the sight of a dirt road in southern Utah and yet at the same time be abusive to his family. The electorate would know about his concern for the wilderness but never be aware of the weightier matters.

Should we not pay more attention to a person's standards, values and how he or she treats others (other than in an election year)? Are these questions not as relevant as a candidate's position on abortion, taxes or crime?

The voters should be allowed to make an informed decision based on all the information available. It would not seem to me to hurt the electoral process to have a bit more openness about the moral character of the candidate along with the political issues.

John Preston Creer

Salt Lake City