If the News & Messenger wishes to endorse a candidate over another candidate with whom the paper has issues, it should do so.
However, it should not continue the game of not letting facts stand in the way of opinion, particularly when you accuse someone of not getting the facts straight.
Though one could disagree with the inferences the Rishell campaign made from the sequence of events surrounding the scheduling of the debate, the facts are as follows: Over a month after being invited
to participate, the Miller campaign informed our committee chair that Mr. Miller could not attend.
When the chair asked about later dates, the campaign advised her on August 31 that Mr. Miller could not fit the forum into his schedule at all. After the Rishell press release, I received a missive from Mr.
Miller and spoke with him.
He expressed his concerns about what was being said and his regrets that he could not be available on October 17, and that he would look into whether he would be available at a later date.
I so advised several members of the press, including the News & Messenger and both candidates of those print and oral discussions and that we were still trying to sponsor a debate. To date only the
Rishell campaign has responded.
I will leave it to the candidates and their respective supporters to draw whatever inferences they may from the fact that we will not have a debate until each candidate can fit one in his or her schedule.
However, I will not stand by and have either candidate or the News & Messenger impugn the reputation of this organization or to attack the character of one of our members whose objective is simply to
provide an opportunity for the public to hear the candidates.
Debating whether “could not” can ever morph into “would not” and thus become “refuse” is simply a waste of everybody’s time.
The people of the 50th need to know the candidates’ position on the very important issues we face. That your paper has already made its endorsement does not change that fact.
RALPH SMITH
Advertisement