Spokane7
40°
There have been no debates for one of the most contested primaries in Eastern Washington, the race for a state House seat representing the 6th District.
The one debate that was scheduled for incumbent Democrat John Driscoll and Republicans Shelly O’Quinn and John Ahern was cancelled after Driscoll and Ahern decided not to participate.
O’Quinn sent a news release criticizing both her opponents for not appearing at The League of Women Voters of the Spokane Area forum on July 13.
“While their reluctance is a testament to the momentum that this campaign has developed, it is unfortunate that the voters will not have the opportunity to see the candidates next to one another talking about the issues,” she said in her news release.
Ahern said he decided not to show up after he got word that Driscoll wasn’t going to be there. He said he questioned if O’Quinn would participate because O’Quinn earlier declined to participate in video interviews with The Spokesman-Review.
“She might just get scared and not even show up for the forum,” Ahern said. ”That definitely went through my head.”
He said he attended a campaign event in Spokane Valley instead.
“There was uncertainty whether she would show up or not,” Ahern said. ”I decided I got better things to do.”
Ann Murphy, president of the local chapter of the League of Women Voters, said Ahern had originally said he would appear but later cancelled. Driscoll never accepted an invitation, she said.
League rules don’t allow debates to be held with one candidate, so the forum for the 6th District House seat was cancelled, she said.
Driscoll said his campaign decided last fall not to participate in any forum or debate until after the pimary “when my final opponent has been chosen.”
“After we know the results of the primary, I am more than happy to debate my opponent anytime and anywhere,” Driscoll said. “And I’m actually looking forward to it.”
When 6th District candidates were interviewed by The Spokesman-Review in recent weeks, O’Quinn declined to be videotaped and would not allow her interview to be recorded unless the newspaper agreed not to post the recording on the Internet. The first of the campaign interviews with Driscoll and Ahern will appear on spokesman.com later this week.
O’Quinn said the League’s forum, which is replayed on City Cable 5, would have reached many more voters than videos on spokesman.com
“Our campaign has a rule that we don’t do video unless we own it,” O’Quinn said.
Jim Camden is a veteran political reporter for The Spokesman-Review.
Jonathan Brunt covers Spokane City Hall for The Spokesman-Review.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
GOPfan1776 on July 29 at 4:00 p.m.
John Ahern’s excuse is extremely disappointing. He should not blame his own cowardice on Shelly’s willingness to attend the forum. I was at the forum and SAW SHELLY THERE! She was willing to debate in an open forum when John and John were too chicken to show up. Where were you, John? Out campaigning in a part of town that isn’t even in your district? You should be ashamed.
Panorama on July 29 at 9:32 p.m.
Well, I would say the two John’s were unable to attend because they are actually running legitimate campaigns and had invites to other events.
Also, the League of Women Voters hold a forum, not a debate. And why would either Driscoll or Ahern go to a forum with a fringe candidate like O’Quinn.
And, why is O’Quinn ducking the Spokesman from recording her while Driscoll and Ahern had no problem with that.
Finally, how many people actually watch channel 5? Come on.
ultra_litigator on July 29 at 9:32 p.m.
She says she won’t consent to be video recorded unless she owns it, but was willing to to the League even though she obviously wouldn’t own that. Doesn’t seem to make sense.
Verbal on July 30 at 4:30 p.m.
IMO, Ahern didn’t show because he knew he had more to lose by being there and articulating his positions than staying at home and trying to coast on name recognition.
There’s a reason voters kicked him out of office once already. If he was there, he’d remind the voters why they did so.
js
ZagChuck on July 31 at 2:05 a.m.
This entire story is based on a false premise. It was a FORUM, not a DEBATE!
Why is the Spokesman using the O’Quinn Campaign Spin, rather than reporting the facts?
Even then, John Driscoll announced well in advance he would not be attending. Ahern decided instead to speak to a group of freedom loving, liberty minded individuals. Why not? The League of Women Voters already know where he stands on the issues, as do the residents of the 6th district, who have sent him back to Olympia several times already.
Perhaps Shelly, who also knew in advance, should have made alternate plans as well, instead of just complaining.
It seems she does a lot or that!
ZagChuck on July 31 at 2:11 a.m.
Finally this, from an earlier Spin control story :http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2010/jul/29/candidates-6th-have-no-debates/?c=176822&comments=1#c176822
“When 6th District candidates were interviewed by The Spokesman-Review in recent weeks, O’Quinn declined to be videotaped and would not allow her interview to be recorded unless the newspaper agreed not to post the recording on the Internet. The first of the campaign interviews with Driscoll and Ahern will appear on spokesman.com later this week”
Why is Shelly so concerned about being recorded? Is she afraid to take a stand? Is she scared she might be held accountable? Or is she afraid she may contradict earlier statements?
Verbal on July 31 at 8:52 a.m.
Wow! talk about spin!
Dazzeetrader11 on July 31 at 10:30 p.m.
Why is Shelly so concerned about being recorded? BECAUSE ITS ILLEGAL WITHOUT PERMISSION. Is she afraid to take a stand? NO Is she scared she might be held accountable?NO…SHE WANTS THAT. Or is she afraid she may contradict earlier statements? ON WHAT? Something in mind?
ZagChuck on July 31 at 11:09 p.m.
Daisy,
I think you meant for this post to go with the other story. I responded more complletely there, but here’s the short of it:
The facts are clear on the legality of the video being recorded. It wasn’t made in a private setting, such as a board room; it was made at a club event that is open to the public and free to attend. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this situation. No laws were violated.
She has refused to be recorded, even by the spokesman, as noted by Jonathon in this article.