You Got to Give Some to Get Some

Representative Curtis Bowers (R-10) decided not to show up for a meeting with the Statesman Editorial board about their endorsement decision:

Bowers canceled out, and made it clear he had no time to meet, and no interest in doing so. His prerogative, of course. However, it’s my prerogative to wonder if he makes some time for his constituents — even the ones who question his well-publicized guest opinion linking gay rights, environmentalism and feminism to old Communist Party principles.

Representative Steve Thayn, (R-11) who the Statesman also disdains showed up for his meeting. Richert writes:

But I’ll always have more respect for an elected official who is willing to meet with his or her critics. It’s always valuable for us to hear the other side of the debate; it challenges our editorial positions and forces us to think critically about where we stand.

Afterwards, Thayn confided that his wife didn’t understand why he would bother to meet with our editorial board, since we haven’t liked him in the past. He said he thought it was an important part of the process, and said he appreciated our willingness to meet with the candidates.

For my part, I always appreciate it when candidates meet with us. It says a lot about their approach to the job and their willingness to engage in discussion.

It was nice of Thayn to meet with the Board, but I can understand why Bowers didn’t from the perspective of a former candidate. I met with the Statesman board when I ran for the Legislature in 2004 along with my primary opponent, Tom LeClaire and we talked about many issues ranging from education to tax reform during a wide-ranging hour meeting. I wasn’t so much bothered that the Statesman endorsed my opponent, but that it dismissed my candidacy in one paragraph that explained I didn’t support the 2003 Sales Tax Increase, something the Statesman board could have learned by simply reading my response to their questionaire. While the two members of the Statesman board I met with were professional, I left feeling as if my time had been wasted.

I didn’t fear engagement and discussion with people I disagreed with. Indeed, the 2004 campaign was spent going door to door. I intentionally made it my goal to visit every precinct in my district, and I engaged in quite a few discussions when I knocked on 2,700 doors.

I wonder if the board considers what they owe candidates who take the time to show up and talk to them. It seems fair to expect some summary of the candidates, both positive and negative would be appropriate, and not dismissive paragraphs. Given the Statesman’s Ada County focus, their endorsement in Canyon County is likely to have little impact on the race anyway (the Idaho Press-Tribune is far more important in Canyon County.) So taking an hour (+drive time from Caldwell) for an interview with a paper that will endorse your opponent and not really give you a fair shake doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Should I run, I would probably meet with the Statesman because I do live in Ada County and they’re basically the only ones who do local election coverage (much to the detriment of our county,) but I understand Bowers decision, and from a campaign standpoint it makes a lot of sense.