I enjoyed the April 4 debate among Republican Senate candidates but was disappointed it included only three of the 10 candidates. The debate was hosted by the Utah GOP, which is supposed to be impartial. By excluding the other seven Republican candidates, the party basically told the delegates, "Only these three have a chance of winning so ignore the others."
It is my right and duty to choose the winners, not yours. As a delegate I evaluate two areas about each candidate: 1) will they support and defend principles of good government?, and 2) do they understand current problems and have a plan to address them? Both areas are equally important. A candidate's voting record plays a vital role in judging area one. A candidate's knowledge of issues, past attempted fixes and alternate solutions are the key in judging area two.
I was especially disappointed the debate excluded Tim Aalders. Because he lacks a politician's background it is harder to judge Aalders in area one. However, Aalders' line of work gives him an in-depth knowledge about many current issues unmatched by the other candidates. Excluding him from the debate denied the delegates the opportunity to vet a candidate and denied everyone, including the "candidates with a chance of winning," the opportunity to learn about current problems and potential solutions.