Falchuk, McCormick should be in the debate
Gubernatorial candidates Evan Falchuk and Jeff McCormick have been uninvited from the televised October 27 debate in Worcester. This despite the fact that Falchuk, and to a lesser extent McCormick, have been outperforming the Republican and Democratic candidates in recent debates and forums.I've written to the organizers of the debates to share my views:
- James Normandin, Publisher of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette: (508) 793-9111 or james.normandin@telegram.com
- Mary Plansky, Managing Editor at NECN: (617) 630-5000 (press "0" for operator) or mplansky@necn.com
- Stuart Loosemore, Director of Government Affairs at Worcester Chamber of Commerce: (508) 753-2924 ext. 222 or sloosemore@worcesterchamber.org
Here's what I wrote:
Dear _________:
Earlier this year I interviewed all nine candidates for Governor about healthcare policy on the Health Business Blog. My objective was to encourage the candidates to address serious issues facing the Commonwealth, something that I feel was lacking in recent elections such as the Brown/Warren race. WBUR’s CommonHealth blog ran a story commending me for my efforts. http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2014/03/health-care-mass-governor
There are four serious candidates remaining in the race. (I don’t count Scott Lively.) Your upcoming debate in Worcester presents a great opportunity to showcase the different approaches to governing.
I understand that you have rescinded invitations to Evan Falchuk and Jeff McCormick, perhaps based on their low poll numbers. That’s a mistake and I urge you to reconsider. As you may have seen, Falchuk has jumped from 2% to 5.4% in the latest poll. His United Independent Party will qualify as an official party if he gets at least 3% —so his current level of support is meaningful and newsworthy. It’s also interesting to see how much he’s jumped now that more voters have seen him in action.
You’ll be doing the right thing for democracy by restoring your invitations to Falchuk and McCormick. Falchuk in particular has been eager to discuss important issues that Coakley and Baker ignore, such as the proposed Partners agreement.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss.
Regards,
David E. Williams