Hatch Wants to be Hired Without an Interview

In a letter to the editor recently published in the Deseret news, entitled “Defending Sen. Orrin Hatch,” Ron R. writes, "In the end, Hatch refuses to debate Liljenquist, which upsets me not at all." Why does it not upset him? There can only be one answer--he does not believe Hatch should have to apply for his job again as the Constitution requires.

Last time I checked, whenever an employee is up for a promotion (or raise or whatever), a performance review of some kind is done--usually by their boss.  In the case of a promotion, there is often competition and all the finalists must be interviewed so each can share why he/she feel they should chosen to fill the position.

The fact that Senator Hatch and so many of his supporters think he should get a job without an interview (i.e. debate) is telling.  What it tells me is that he and his supporters thinks he "deserves" the job—no interview, no competition.  In my view, only crown princes and dictators think they “deserve” a high position.  However, our Constitution says otherwise. It specifically establishes that Senators are “elected by the people.”

In this situation, the people of this state are Senator Hatch's boss.  He works for us.  And I think it would be very foolish of us not to vet all the candidates for this job, including looking at past accomplishments and failures, before making our decision.  And this process should include interviews—i.e. debates. Can you imagine what you would think if you invited someone to an interview and that person refused to come? No job interview? No job!

I have no interest in voting for someone who thinks he “deserves” anything.  We live in a Republican Democracy, not a small kingdom.