On 26 Oct 96 at 9:04, Joel Hamilton wrote:
> This discussion is silly.
I agree.
I like and support candidate
> forums in
> principle, although I sometimes doubt that they sway many votes. On
> the other hand, such forums need to be organized with care. It is
> bad planning to organize a forum with no attention to candidates
> schedules, and then expect candidates to adjust and attend. It
> doesn't matter what the reason is, a candidate always has the right
> to keep prior commitments and not attend the forum. Voters have the
> right to evaluate non-attendance however they wish. Forum
> organizers, as supposed neutrals in the races, have the obligation
> to stay neutral. Tom's right, the schedule can get pretty hairy
> near the end of a campaign, and the candidates have to make
> judgements about how to effectively make use of limited time.
Again, I agree. Any candidate can just say no. "I just don't want
to do it" works for me.
> What I find most silly about this discussion is that there
> is a real
> forum going on right here under our noses and Tom is participating
> in it, but the questions being asked are inane. Why waste time
> arguing about what Tom's reasons were for not participating in the
> KUOI forum? Keep in mind that this Vision 2020 forum probably
> reaches as many real voters as any KUOI candidate program. Why not
> ask Tom what he stands for as a candidate? (I'm asking you Tom.)
Me too.
> What does Tom stand for that's different from his opponent? Believe
> it or not, there are some real issues in this election.
Who's arguing? I never asked in the first place. It was Tom who
brought up the subject. I just posted a schedule of candidates
forums. Tom brought up the reasons for his non-attendance. I have
to assume that is what he wanted to talk about. He could have just
as easily responded along the lines of "I can't attend but here is
what I would have liked to talk about:..." (Of course I could have
followed up his response with a question along those lines--my error
of irrelevance, sorry.) Or, he could have not responded at all, since
> Voters have the
> right to evaluate non-attendance however they wish.
(I think that is in the constitution somewhere.)
> I'm delighted that Tom is participating in the Vision 2020
> discussion list.
Me too.
I'm delighted that Sam Scripter seems to be about
> to join us. I'd like to hear about issues from both of them, and
> I'd like to have other candidates join in. In the spirit of the
> Vision 2020 list, I'd like to see the discussion focus on local
> government and local planning issues that pertain to the Palouse. I
> sincerely hope that if either Tom or Sam get elected, that they
> continue to actively participate in the Vision 2020 list. Can you
> imagine actually having a senator or representative in Boise that
> you could engage in open discussion about real legislative issues?
>
> We've got the beginnings of a real candidates forum here.
> Lets make
> it work.
Ditto.
matt 46.722438 N -117.005599 W