Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm really baffled by the stand of some of the candidates--that they won't talk to the press unless they can completely control the process. I understand why they're doing it--that they're afraid of missteps in a more open atmosphere, but what do the voters in those districts feel about it? Why would you want to vote for someone who's afraid to openly and honestly answer questions? And then, to try to make a citizens arrest of a reporter showing up to an event at a school? Handcuffing the guy? It's almost like bad fiction--so bad that it's completely unbelievable, but here we are.
"Freedom of speech" is only protected against intrusion from the FEDERAL GOVT. There is no such right for people wanting to "speak" to candidates.
You are absolutely right, no one is required to answer questions posed by a journalist but the press or anyone else for that matter have a right to ask without threat of arrest of intimidation.
The race appears to be getting fairly close, perhaps even a three way. Debate took place earlier tonight between Murkoski and McAdams, Miller declined the debate invitation citing "Schedule conflicts".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
