More about chairs, and the people who want to fill them

One that spins ...

Keating Refuses to debate on conservative's show is the headline on page A6 in today's Standard Times.  I got to tell you the stated reason as to why Keating will not debate Sam Sutter is classic spin doctor material.

The article notes:

In a letter sent to Sutter's campaign Monday, Keating said it would not be wise for the two Democrats to debate the issues on a show hosted by Phil Paleologos, who has a radio show on WBSM in Fairhaven and is chairman of the New Bedford Republican City Committee. 

"Having him moderate a debate between us makes no sense," Keating wrote. "More importantly, doing such would be to turn a blind eye to all principles in which I — and my fellow Democrats — believe. I simply will not do that."

Seriously?  

I am neither a Keating or Sutter supporter.  I think I signed the nomination papers for both of them.  I have a philosophy that you should have a pretty strong reason to turn down signing a potential candidates papers.  For me that is an extremely short list of reasons, and one that I have used no more than two or three times since turning 18.  

Now I realize that for someone soon to turn only 39 for the 15th time, one might consider that a lot, but given the number of nomination papers I have signed, I guess it is well less than a 1% refusal rate.

But I digress.

Only the bluest of the blue democrat can buy into that excuse.  First of all, I have listened to Mr. Paleogos' show when he is moderating, or conducting interviews.  Whether he is a republican or democrat is irrelevant.  The question is and always should be whether he can do his job.  The answer is yes.

How does a debate between two democrats with a republican moderator violate the principals of a democrat?  How does turning down an opportunity to allow your fellow democrats to hear you constitute turning a blind eye to them?  If there is a bluer than New Bedford, and a listening area bluer than what WBSM has, let me know.  

People in this area vote more often than not simply based on the letter that follows the name.  

Are we now going to only have debates hosted and moderated by "acceptable" card carrying party faithful?  Wouldn't those be insightful?

We are talking about two candidates from the same party here.  If between them they couldn't defend the principals of the democratic party than maybe people should change their color spectrum from blue to red.

But I got to ask, just what principals would you be turning a blind eye on?

Seems like Thursday Sam Sutter will be debating an empty chair spinning wildly.

Filled Chairs ...

In all honesty, while the temptation is great to go on with the discussion of several matters pending before the three selectmen, the desire to do it isn't there today.  Absent the unexpected popping up over the next week, or a change in the weather, I will give them a rest for a day or two.

Other Notes ...

If you a traveling to Middleboro, make sure you watch your language.  I would hate to be the Town of Middleboro when the legal bill comes in for the first challenge to that by-law.  There is an article in the S-T about it, and it seems that enforcement isn't going to be a priority.  Quite frankly, it should be non-existent.  Not that I condone profanity in public, just that somebody is going to grab onto the "civil rights" "free speech" argument and run with it.  

Thought about doing something on the rent control matter in Acushnet.  Someone asked me about it, whether Fairhaven should look into it, and became a bit upset over my response. Want to see what rent control will do in a small town?  If the Acushnet by-law stands after A.G. review, you will find out in 5 to 10 years maximum.  Want to guess how many trailer parks will remain in Acushnet after that time span?