[Vision2020] MCA Debates

[Tom]

Thank you, Wayne.  Very Well put.

An open, unrehearsed debate is the purest way to put a candidate to the test.  
If a candidate refuses to confront his/her opponent and constituents how are we 
to establish faith, trust, and confidence in him/her when the going gets tough 
once (s)he is elected into office.

To me a debate is meant to be adversarial and it should be.  This is not 
supposed to be a quick two-minute "vote for me" speech followed by a group 
hug.  Let's see how these candidates respond when the temperature rises and 
tension builds.

Tom Hansen

> 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
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.net/