 |
Hey, VMA, just show up
Opinion: Editorials
By Editorial
We're unconvinced by the VMA slate's argument that a public election forum is too partisan for it to attend. The campaign's leaders put out the word over the weekend that its three candidates — Ray Johnson, Adam Salzman and Bob Tucker — would skip the event sponsored by Citizens for Community Conversations (CCC).
Yes, absolutely, the CCC is this year's weakened version of the VMA's traditional opposition. Yes, they might edit the videotape in unflattering ways. Yes, they would have "exclusive control over selection of the questions" that would be asked.
So what? If President Obama can sit down with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly for an interview before the Super Bowl, we're confident the VMA slate can withstand a possible trick question from the CCC.
Reader Comments
8 Comments - Add Your Comment
Note: This page requires you to login with Facebook to comment.
Facebook Connect
Quick Links
Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest. | |
    | |
| Subscribe | Classified |
| Multimedia | Contact us |
| Submit Letter To The Editor | |
| Place a Classified Ad | |
Latest Comments
There have been so many articles about this building...
By Jason Cohen
Posted: June 25th, 2017 8:26 PM
By Cara Bosse
Posted: June 25th, 2017 8:02 PM
I was involved with the Windmills for about 20 years....
By Marc Blesoff
Posted: June 25th, 2017 7:48 PM
Ray: Perhaps. As you know there is no First amendment...
By Bruce Kline
Posted: June 25th, 2017 12:39 PM
OP Resident
Posted: February 12th, 2011 12:47 PM
#2: Infrastucture. I think the candidates should be asked to address issues that relate conditions in our neighborhoods. The streets, alleys and sidewalks in many areas are crumbling. The current board has focused so much on the business districts;that issues and concerns in the residential areas have been ignored or pushed to the back burner. Funds have been cut& projects delayed. I am interested in hearing from a candidate with a real plan for improving conditions in Oak Park's neighborhoods.
john murtagh from oak park
Posted: February 11th, 2011 12:39 PM
Couldn't agree with Mr. Strong more. We do not need a further discussion or debate on Whitco. So if that was the only issue worth debating in Oak Park, then the VMA candidates while wrong about attending the forum, have a legitimate complaint that they don't want to participate in a history discussion. But there are other issues, aren't there? Maybe this comment page can build a list of OP issues that board candidate should debate. Here is #1 - MADISON AVENUE HOUSING PROPOSAL. Who has #2?
DJ
Posted: February 11th, 2011 4:52 AM
When you say things like it's going to be the "same questions," or that it's going to rehash Whiteco and other old issues, or that it is going to be an "attack" by the CCC, you cannot know that any of that is true. And you are selling short the voters who might attend and have questions of their own to which they would like all candidates to respond.
JMK from Oak Park
Posted: February 10th, 2011 9:26 AM
Maybe there could be a neutral forum sponsored by the WJ or the OL.
Bill Strong from Oak Park
Posted: February 9th, 2011 11:10 PM
Now come on, WJ. Your analogy is a bit off. Expecting the VMA-backed candidates to submit to interrogation by the CCC or VCA or whatever it calls itself is really more like saying that progressive congressional candidates should participate in a Tea Party forum. Do we really need to rehash Whiteco -- er,Trader Joe's -- or the Colt Building? I'm sure there are many other opportunities to hear from the VMA slate, Citizens for Accountable Leadership. How about a WJ forum?
john murtagh from Oak Park
Posted: February 9th, 2011 7:39 PM
Gutless!
JC
Posted: February 9th, 2011 4:14 PM
Fox News and Sarah Palin came up with a solution. Instead of being subjected to a real interview; they agreed to provide her with questions in advance.
James
Posted: February 8th, 2011 11:50 PM
Because it's the same questions day after day, week after week, year after year. They've answered them and it's not to their liking so you essentially want them to bang their head against the wall. So now you're endorsing head trauma?