[Vision2020] Fwd: MCA Debates

[Bill London]

Tom Trail:
I really had higher expectations of you.  Your repetition of the half-truths
and distortions advanced by Barrett Schroeder actually surprises me.  What
happened to your integrity and independence?
I have watched and participated in this process of the MCA debates.  The
Republican Party candidates all (yes, Tom, you too) all agreed to this
debate format, and then for some reason got worried and withdrew.  Then
Schroeder blindsided the MCA by going to the media first, instead of trying
to negotiate any possible issues.
Your concern about the MCA as a political group is misplaced.  The MCA is
not endorsing candidates etc in any of these races.  The only reason the MCA
got involved was to provide a real debate setting instead of the beauty
contest forums that are traditionally done around here.
Then the Republicans pulled Nathan Alford and the Daily News into this
tar-baby.  Nathan made it clear that all he was willing to do was to provide
a list of neutral moderators.  He did not want to get involved in this messy
situation.
And now you are saying the MCA attacked the Moscow Lion's Club.  Equally
bogus.  The point in the MCA editorial was that there is no reason to
boycott the Lions Club forum, just as there is no reason to boycott the MCA
forum.
I am truly disappointed in you.
Again, I repeat:  What happened to your integrity and independence?
BL

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Trail" <ttrail at moscow.com>
To: <vision2020 at whale2.fsr.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Fwd: MCA Debates


> >>Visionaries:   There has been a great deal of discussion concerning the
>
>    MCA debates.  This is my reply to Bruce Livingston.
>
> >>
> >>Bruce--It has been an trying time I believe for everyone involved in
trying
> >>to work out arrangements for the MCA debates.  We have the greatest
respect
> >>for MCA and it's goals.  However, it is the only organizing group
> >>with a specific political agenda.  MCA's charter clearly states
> >>that one of the
> >>organizations goals is to sponsor and endorse candidates.  All of the
other
> >>organizers of the other 15 other debates are non-political.
> >>
> >>Even the Presidential Debates are organized by non-political
> >>organizations with
> >>no political aims unlike MCA.  The Moscow League of Women Voters is a
good
> >>example.  Even with a non-political sponsor, the last Presidential
debates
> >>took considerable time and at least 30 pages of agreed upon protocol.
So one
> >>of our concerns was the "political" nature of MCA.  We recommended that
> >>Nathan Alford and the Daily News serve as the organizing sponsor of
> >>the It is my understanding that Mr. Alford and the Daily News
> >>accepted.
> >>This would have met our criterion of a truly "independent"
> >>sponsoring organization.  However, the criticism from MCA was that
> >>Mr. Alfred and the
> >>Daily News was "too independent."    I talked with Nancy Chaney, a
> >>MCA member over a week ago, and she said having Mr. Alford and the
> >>Daily News handlethe debate sounded like a good idea to her.
> >>
> >>The situation became complicated with MCA President Lois Blackburn
questioned
> >>the integrity of Jeff Harkins and the Moscow Lions Club for
> >>sponsoring two debates.  Jeff specifically asked Mark Boehen of the
> >>Moscow Lions Club to serveas the moderator to avoid any possible
> >>conflict that might have been perceivedas partisan.  I've been a
> >>member of the Moscow Rotary Club for 30 years and all
> >>of our service clubs are non-partisan.   Ms. Blackburn's response
> >>further mudded the waters.  Mr. Harkins integrity was questioned,
> >>and he has been
> >>threatened that he would lose votes if he didn't participate. I've also
> >>received several similar phone calls.  The last caller simply said, "If
you
> >>don't participate, we'll get you."  I will not be participating in the
debate
> >>because of the reasons outlined above, and with threats of punishment
for not
> >>attending.  Mr. Bennett will also not be attending.
> >>
> >>The entire affair has not been well managed and we have been unable to
agree
> >>upon the protocols which would allow us to participate in the debate.
Rules
> >>for debate format orginally conveyed to GOP candidates were
> >>changed.  Exclusion of unopposed candidates was also not acceptable
> >>since they as elected officialsaddress the same issues as
> >>candidates with opposition.  I hope we have learned a lesson from
> >>this experience.  Both Mr. Harkins and
>
>    I have continued to get harassing phone calls.
>
> >>
> >>Rep. Tom Trail
>
> -- 
> Dr. Tom Trail
> International Trails
> 1375 Mt. View Rd.
> Moscow, Id. 83843
> Tel:  (208) 882-6077
> Fax:  (208) 882-0896
> e mail ttrail at moscow.com
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>