[Vision2020] MCA Debates

[Art Deco aka W. Fox]

Debbie, Dan, Tom, et al,

Mark Solomon has already politely answered the main issue of this thread.  But I 
will clumsily try to explain why I believe the failure of certain candidates to 
appear at the MCA forum is quite indicative of aspects of their real characters.

I have been to many, many political candidate forums in the past.  Except for 
the one I previously described in a recent V 2020 post, most were not very 
informative for a number of reasons:

1.    Most issues are sufficiently complex that a 2 - 3 minute response by a 
candidate is hardly enough time to demonstrate even a fundamental understanding 
of the many facets of and perspectives on the issue.  For example, how to 
structure a policy for high speed pursuits by law enforcement officers, or 
whether to or which dams to breach are issues that cannot be addressed by a few 
simple statements;  there are many possible scenarios that must be thought 
out/discussed/debated and many factors to consider.

2.    Part of being a public official, especially a law enforcement officer, 
commissioner, or congressperson, is dealing with hostility, opposing viewpoints, 
and the unexpected from citizens, each of which is entitled to have their views 
heard and considered.  If a candidate is afraid (read cowardly) to do that 
during the pre-election process in the open air of a well attended public forum, 
then you can bet they will not do it well if they are elected.

3.    Some candidates exaggerate or simply lie about their qualifications, past 
experience, and other personal factors.  An MCA type forum not only gives 
citizens a chance to possibly hear about such defalcations, but to observe the 
demeanor of the candidates under moderate fire, and possibly even witness a 
meaningful direct discussion/debate/confrontation between the opposing 
candidates, and with the focus on them and not on 10 - 20 others on the stage, 
some overtly/covertly doing things to attract/distract the audience's attention.

In my opinion, not appearing at the MCA forum is a tacit admission by a 
candidate that they are afraid that their views, background, qualifications, 
personalities, etc. will not bear up in the heat of a semi-searching public 
scrutiny.

I don't think even the MCA forum is open enough, but it is a great improvement 
over the other milk toast affairs.  At least the MCA forum is structured so that 
a lengthy debate can be held on selected issues and the candidate's mettle can 
be tested a little.

Because it opens candidates up to showing their ignorance, facing untruths they 
have uttered, and performing under some pressure, I think it cowardly of them 
not to attend the only real forum in the local political arena that offers such 
exposure to voters.  If you read the Schroeder column defending the boycott and 
the article about the no-shows in last night's DN, you may well think their 
position not only childish but arrogant for two reasons:

1.    The arguments they offer are so unbelievable, they insult our intelligence 
to even offer them (see the short post below that restarted this thread today);

2.    They do not think that the voters that might attend the MCA forum deserve 
their consideration and/or an opportunity to observe and to hear a more in-depth 
exposition and defense of their views/records/qualifications, etc.

[For a real revelation, read carefully the DN article again where the no-shows 
give their reasons for not attending.]

For reasons that will subsequently appear, I did not think that Wayne Rausch 
would have the courage to appear.

I was really disappointed that Jeff Harkins did not appear;  he has some ideas 
that, if refined, appear, when expressed in brief, to have merit.  I was looking 
forward to the kind of discussion that might further elucidate his ideas and, 
also perhaps, might show some of the problems they may have at this point.


I agree with Mark.  Until the MCA forum, there was little opportunity to witness 
a meaningful debate.  As a believer in the "marketplace of ideas" and the 
freedom and necessity of searching discussions as a method of 
progress/evaluation, I find the behavior of the no-shows to be a cowardly 
poke-in-the-eye to concerned and sincere voters.

I do not like to buy a pig-in-the poke.  Perhaps though, I am off-base in 
thinking that good citizenship means at least having a fundamental grasp of the 
main issues, knowing where candidates stand on the issues, their background, 
experience, and personal traits, and being able to assess the probability they 
can and will make good on their campaign assertions.  My hope is that all the 
local forums in the next election will follow the lead of the MCA so that we all 
may benefit.

Wayne

Wayne A. Fox
waf at moscow.com
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID 83843
208 882-7975

______________________________________________

All,

Re:  The MCA Debates:  a statement to voters about the woeful local GOP --a 
lunge from the heights of respectability to the depths of cowardice, arrogance, 
and childishness (except Jack Nelson!).



Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a democracy.  Statements by 
candidates about their qualifications/views and critical analyses thereof are an 
indispensable element of that expression.



The local GOP is boycotting the MCA forum, thus depriving deserving voters of a 
more searching look at their candidacies than other forums.



Their publicly expressed reasons:  fear of "planted" hostile questions, 
non-allowance of unopposed candidates, and fear of "personal attacks" (read: 
close scrutiny of claimed qualifications).



Lame.  Juvenile.



"Planted" hostile questions do not occur at other forums?  Yeah, right.  Would 
it alter election results if an unopposed candidate doesn't appear?  Is it a 
"personal attack" to show a candidate has egregiously lied about his 
qualifications?



The real GOP reason is the well-founded fear that two of their candidates, Tom 
Trail and sheriff wanna-be, Wayne Rausch, will fair poorly in a face-to-face 
debate.



And the GOP is correct about what would happen.  Mark Solomon has an articulate, 
prodigious grasp of the issues.  Sheriff Jeff Crouch's leadership has served us 
very well, including the successful solution of two difficult murder cases.



The public is also entitled to see how candidates react under pressure – 
pressure like what they may many times face as part of public office.  This is 
particularly true of a candidate for sheriff.



The local GOP behavior is anti-democratic, dishonest, and cowardly.  Childish 
scaredy-cats who boycott the MCA forum are unworthy of our votes.



I am particularly appalled at Rausch's craven attitude.  The least desirable 
traits of a potential sheriff are puerility, lack of partisan independence, and 
cowardice.





/s/ Wayne A. Fox



Wayne A. Fox

1009 Karen Lane

P.O. Box 9421

Moscow, ID  83843



(208) 882-7975

waf at moscow.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20041027/b2db08bc/attachment-0001.htm