Letter: Bucshon should accept invitation to debate Moss
There are important decisions to be made in this election cycle regarding the candidates who can best represent us in Congress in the 8th district. One valuable way to learn about what candidates intend to do to promote our values and aspirations embedded in their policies is to participate in debates. Debates reveal the character of the candidates. They can shine a bright light on revealing the qualities we expect our leaders to possess.
Being the establishment sellout that Congressman Bucshon has become, he clings to the status quo politics of refusing to debate his opponent, Dr. Richard Moss. Congressman Bucshon wants to avoid the scrutiny of a side-by-side comparison and revelations of his performance in office.
Congressman Bucshon has been a big disappointment for Conservatives. From the very beginning of his tenure, he carried water for the Republican establishment that enabled President Obama to further his Progressive agenda. He’s voted from the start of his career, again and again, to increase the National Debt from $10 Trillion to $19 Trillion. And this does not include his vote for the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Going along with the Republican establishment, the Obama administration, and the Progressive/liberal Democratic establishment, he opposed the changes in the direction of the country favored by people in Southern Indiana.
Congressman Bucshon stood on the opposite side of those who wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and transfer those funds to other healthcare providers serving women. He would not go along with those who opposed funding President Obama’s illegal amnesty programs. He would not stand up and fight against the EPA’s war on coal and electric consumers or its programs punishing agriculture that make life for farmers much more difficult.
Congressman Bucshon listens to the machine wed to the status quo, and ignores the voices of the people in the 8th district. Thus far, he’s refused to give his constituents a side-by-side comparison with Dr. Richard Moss by rejecting the City County Observer’s invitation to debate on March 30th at 6:00 pm, moderated by Ron Cosby at the Evansville Eykamp Scout Center 3501 East Lloyd Expressway.
Michael Lewinski
Dubois, Ind.
Agree he should, but you didn’t really explain why won’t he debate Moss…what does he give as his reason(s)?
He never adequately explains anything.
I would refer you to this link that offers possible explanations for Congressman Bucshon’s decision not to attend the planned debate.
http://city-countyobserver.com/breaking-news-bucshon-refuses-congressional-candidate-richard-moss-debate-challenge/
Linking to this article is suspect. The tone of the writer is not one that a congressional candidate should be embracing or aligning himself with. The writer implies that you will enjoy none of the perks of office, even practical and necessary ones like a staff, that Congressman Bucshon makes available to himself, is this true? If not, I would be careful about whom you are allowing to make implications on your behalf should you truly be serious about any political ambitions.
Raj is a mouthpiece for Progressive thinking and should be ignored as an advocate for the status quo destroying the country.
Raj,
Have you noticed how Mr. Lewinski has never expressed his opinion on Donald Trump? Trump’s name is a name utterly unmentioned. My suggestion is for the Wing Nuts to form their own party. Stake their claim to some echo chamber where they are most comfortable. It’s not unprecedented. The breakup of the Whigs in the 1850’s led to the formation of the Republican Party of Lincoln. But you’ll have to lower the bar — drastically. It’s highly doubtful whether these knuckle draggers could come up with anything remotely, and I mean remotely, comparable.
We will not publish a letter supporting Trump.
Scott,
Now you know Matt will not allow me to publish a letter supporting the unnamed conservative candidate. However, the outside Conservative forces are gathering steam for an assault on Progressives unlike none other than has ever been witnessed before. You will not get the transformation you bargained for. Instead we will witness a revolution restoring the republic which once made us great. This is the transformation before us. Your days are numbered.
Matt,
Congrats for maintaining some editorial integrity. This is what newspapers, virtual or otherwise, were intended to do.
Michael,
You surely must know that ALL OF OUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED.
Cheers, mates.
Scott,
So you call censorship of free speech “editorial integrity.” That speaks volumes about the Progressive mindset.
Free speech is a protection against government censorship not a protection against a private enterprise. You may not like that he didn’t print your letter but it does not rise to the level of “censorship of free speech.” Maybe if Matt said it violated his beliefs you would feel better about his decision.
Just goes to show all of us what perverse misunderstanding he has of the Constitution.
I had acknowledged to Matt he had a right to censor my letter to the editor, and removed the unnamed candidate’s name from it. However, it was an act of private censorship which prevented me from speaking my mind and stating an opinion.
I have a different standard. I allow people to say what they want, no matter how foolish or ignorant their thoughts may be. The answer to such speech is not a limiting of that speech, but rather a correction and answer to that speech.
Private censorship is not the equivalent of “censorship of free speech” as free speech is only a protection from government censorship. What you stated earlier would be the equivalent of a customer claiming a store owner violated his 2nd amendment rights by prohibiting guns in his store. It is ridiculous leap into hyperbole.
Even if you informed Matt that it is his right to not publish a letter from you it is not something you shared with the rest of us. So many times over the years, I have read “free speech is under attack” that I roll my eyes because nearly every complaint is against a private enterprise and does not apply. Saying it is simply a rally cry to the troops.
It is a shame that you feel the need to bad-mouth this publication by implying it lacks “editorial integrity” because it refused to publish your opinion. He has published a great many of your letters over the years. So many that I have heard it called a “tea party rag.” Given your lack of gratitude, I would not be surprised if Matt’s future editorial decisions become less generous.
As I have stated previously, the answer to free speech is not denying speech, but rather more speech.
But didn’t you just advocate for Raj to be ignored?
To claim you believe “more speech is better” while on same page telling others to “ignore this guy” because he supports different politics than you seems a bit disingenuous.
That certainly doesn’t sound like “a correction and answer to that speech.”
But you have a good rest of your weekend.
Michael,
That is a wonderful concept, and I agree with it absolutely in the constitutional context. But without wanting to play the lawyer card, Joe is correct. It is only a government entity that can abridge your free speech rights.
Let’s say I set up my soap box in your front yard and denounce all of your perverse right wing reactionary views. Are you going to throw me off your property, thereby violating my First Amendment right to free speech?
It’s called the “State Action” doctrine, and most eighth graders who pass civics understand it. It seems to be the right wingers who just can’t grasp it intellectually.
If you need case law citations, just let me know. I’ve got a million of them.
Still waiting for that debate….