The Rev is at it again apparently this time concerning debates. There is no question I have agreed to debate anytime anywhere with no caveats. For me Incumbent Democrat Charlie Miller does not have to be there. His choice not mine.
You can read the Rev's stance below:
Because we desire to serve the best interests of District 28 in Southwest Louisville,we would happily agree to a debate that met the minimum following four conditions:
1) any debate must be conducted in the 28th district and open to the constituents of the district
2) any debate must be conducted face to face
3) questions must be submitted by registered voters of the 28th district
4) all eligible, major party candidates must be present for any debate......
Interesting to note the Rev feels he can demand conditions or anything else for that matter. The Rev has not scheduled a date for any debate, since he is the one making demands perhaps he should start there first. Set a date and time I will happily oblige.
According to Brewer the debate MUST meet HIS conditions before he would debate.
I have always freely participated in debates WITH NO CONDITIONS demanded on my part.
Check with debate organizers for the 2006 Mayoral race and ask them what my demands were. They were zero.
While Abramson had demands for the debates, I myself had none. Absolutely zero and that has always been my stance.
The problem with the Rev and his demands are simple.
For starters there should be no demands on any debate or open dialogue with the people you purport to represent. We have that problem now and one reason why I am running is to change that mindset. Elected leaders choosing who they want to listen to when they are elected to represent ALL fairly and equally is wrong at any level. All voices should be heard. That is their job.
Secondly, it is known that incumbent Democrat Charlie Miller would not debate in 2006 in the General election so why in the world would he choose to debate now in a REPUBLICAN primary race?
Since the Rev Brewer is fairly confident his 4th "minimum condition" would not be met it allows him to use that as an excuse NOT to debate or meet "face to face." You have to love the spin. I always thought "men of God" were truthful. Guess I was wrong again.
This is a REPUBLICAN primary race and incumbent Democrat Miller has no opposition in his primary race. Why would anyone agree to debate in another person's race that does not include you?
Who has the right to demand EVERYONE should attend or it does not happen? If 2 show up you have the "debate" period. To think that anyone believes they have the power to control the intent of another is beyond me.
Brewer knows this and yet he still makes Miller being there one of his "conditions."
The next step will be to "preach" to the masses about how he is the only one who reached out yet in essence knowing full well it just isn't gonna happen with the 4th condition included. I cannot speak for Charlie Miller but he has proven time and again he does not like debates.
Reverend I suggest instead of being deceitful, or trying to spin like politicians do (or Reverend's apparently) as we have come to expect, do yourself a favor and read this carefully.
I will debate anytime anywhere UNCONDITIONALLY as I have always said. Set it up I will make it there. I could care less about any "conditions" as I have never had to set conditions on anything when it comes to speaking with the people. I am the "unconditional" candidate for ALL we seek to represent equally and fairly.
I would suggest you remember one thing though.
I AM your competition until May.
I have stated publicly and emphatically anytime anywhere.
If you truly want a "face to face" debate then quit allowing yourself an out by setting a condition you know will not happen by including Mr. Miller who is not a candidate in this REPUBLICAN PRIMARY race at all.
Before making demands you should perhaps think about what you are demanding. Here is a freebie.
The type of face to face meeting you are proposing is a FORUM not a debate. Set up a forum if that is what you seek. I will be there. That is the venue open to ALL the candidates for our race in District 28. I would not set up any conditions that Mr. Miller must attend though because chances are he will not.
As a matter of fact forums would require no "conditions" be met as it would create a true opportunity for open dialogue with the people we seek to represent.
Perhaps you would prefer a face to face "town hall" type meeting. This meeting would allow the actual attendees to directly be involved in questioning with no caveats. I will be there as well if you choose this path.
Of course this would be an unconditional type arrangement thereby eliminating any excuses by your "conditions" and allow you a way out of the "face to face" you keep harping on. I will be at a forum, debate, or town hall your choice. Let me know when and where.
I will even make it easy for you. Here is my cell, the one your friend James Young already has since he has called it a few times, (502)417-5383. Just let me know where to be at least 30 minutes prior so I have time to get there.
But really. A debate debate?
Some of us don't have to caveat speaking with the people in any type forum by hiding behind "conditions." I for one am ready to oblige.........
The Metro removal hearing case against Dan Johnson ended about the way it began. With many in disbelief. I could not understand how the &q...
Ford has recently settled a harassment and discrimination case in Chicago. The Chicago Assembly and Stamping plants settled for $10.1 milli...
(Correction: This article has been updated to correct the lobby spending by Quinn. Total lobby spending during the years mentioned includes ...
Local developer and activist Chris Thieneman has filed a lawsuit against the City of Louisville, LMPD Officers, and County Attorney Ingrid...