The Deseret News has an article about the 3rd District GOP primary race between Jason Chaffetz and Chris Cannon. Now I'm not a part of the 3rd District, so I can't vote in this race, however, I want to offer some of my comments about the race or at least about this article.
The article talks about the up-hill battle that Chaffetz obviously has to beat an incumbent. That being said, I think that Jason has a better chance at winning then the other people before him who have tried to beat Cannon. I think right now several citizens are not happy with the way they see things going in Washington D.C. Several people want change. In the article, Cannon is quoted as saying, "I'm the conservative in the race. And I'm an agent for change — as I have been before." If he's the agent for change, why haven't things changed in D.C.? I personally don't feel like somebody who has been in D.C. for over 12 years could be an agent for change. That's just my opinion and yours may differ.
Another thing that bothered me in the article was the following:
"Cannon has good name ID in his district and a good old Mormon name to go with it. (Joe Cannon, Chris' older brother, is the editor of the Deseret News.) Chaffetz is not as well known in the district and in fact is a convert to the LDS Church and the Republican Party."
Now it's true that Cannon may have more name ID, but to call it "a good old Mormon name?" Good grief. Are some people so blind as to say that because somebody is "a convert to the LDS Church" that they are less qualified or less likely to be elected? I would rather vote for somebody who is a convert to the LDS Church as that usually means that they have studied out their faith. How many times are we told by leaders of the LDS Church that all members of the Church need to become converted? I believe there are many LDS members who have grown up in the Church and have never become converted to their faith. Those who haven't become converted, in my opinion, are less qualified to represent me in Congress.