Skip to content

McClung Backs Out of Debate

Ruth McClung has backed out of a debate with Raúl Grijalva that was scheduled for Monday. You may remember that she made a big show of coming to Grijalva’s office (complete with a television camera) to challenge Grijalva to this particular debate, and her campaign largely agreed to the conditions set by Grijalva’s campaign. The sticking point, in the end, was the time. McClung’s people did not want the debate at the same time as the one between Gabrielle Giffords and Jesse Kelly. The Grijalva people agreed to move the debate a bit later, but McClung’s people took their ball and went home.

Maybe this new found reticence is because of McClung’s performance last night. She may have discovered that repeating the word “boycott” over and over again is a poor substitute for knowledge of the needs of the district and public policy.

No word yet on whether the debate will take place anyway, there are two other candidates running. Should the debate go on, this humble blogger will leave it up to you, the reader, to decide what inanimate object would be an appropriate substitute for McClung.

CORRECTION: The original post had a link to an article about the debate earlier this week. That debate was organized by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, this second debate was scheduled to be organized by the League of Women Voters.

16 Comments

  1. Consensus wrote:

    I’m curious of a few things;
    First – your source. Because every publication I read concerning the debates indicated the debate was scheduled for last night, including the link you posted.
    Second – what inanimate object should the readers suggest substitute for a blogger who spreads misinformation.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
  2. Barry Bongwater wrote:

    Jan Brewer?

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 7:18 pm | Permalink
  3. Tedski wrote:

    Consensus-

    Yes, there was a debate last night (referenced in the post) a second debate was scheduled for Monday, which was even in the press (you can check the article linked above for that one.)

    If you are going to accuse me of spreading misinformation, you may want to make sure that you aren’t the one that is misinformed.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 7:34 pm | Permalink
  4. Barry Bongwater wrote:

    Um… Jan Lesher?

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
  5. AZMama wrote:

    WTF is up with these candidates and their inability to stand toe-to-toe with their opponents? They talk a good talk about kickin the snot out of Washington but this chronic cowardice has me thinking many of them aren’t even competent enough to wipe their own snotty noses. Just a bunch of puffed up struttin’ cocks who play an increasingly annoying game of chicken.

    That’s IT! I suggest the San Diego Chicken! Not so inanimate, but it beats the alternative…

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
  6. Consensus wrote:

    You are saying that there was a debate scheduled between Ruth McClung and Raul Grijalva on October 18th. I am copying and pasting the article you linked to. Feel free to point out that tidbit of information. All that is posted is that one debate was scheduled for October 18th.

    As far as I was able to infer, all of Grijalva’s requests were fulfilled with last nights debate:
    1. Holding the debate at a public venue (PCC)
    2. Inviting the other candidates (Meyer and Keane)
    3. Moderated by a non-partisan third party (Hispanic Chamber of Commerce).

    “U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva has agreed to debate Republican challenger Ruth McClung, but he’s asking some conditions be placed on the event.

    McClung’s campaign hand-delivered a request to Grijalva’s campaign Monday asking for a debate before the Nov. 2 election, saying the public deserves at least one, if not more, debates between the candidates.

    Grijalva’s campaign responded Friday saying he “is more than willing to engage in a rational discussion on the policies and issues,” the candidates support.

    However, he asked McClung to move the debate from her proposed location, Hotel Arizona, to a public facility within the district. He asked that a third-party, non-partisan organization sponsor and run the debate and suggested the League of Women Voters as an option. He also asked that all candidates for the district 7 House seat be invited.

    “We’re willing to largely agree to his conditions, we thought they were very reasonable,” said Sam Stone, McClung’s campaign spokesman.

    Stone said because Grijalva suggested the sponsor, McClung’s campaign will request the questions be submitted either by the campaigns, or by a panel made up of a Republican, a Democrat and an independent voter.

    The two campaigns are working to schedule the event, Stone said.

    UPDATE: A district 7 debate has been scheduled for Oct. 13 at the Pima Community College Desert Vista Campus, 5901 S. Calle Santa Cruz, beginning at 5 p.m.”

    What I DID find by researching both candidates website is they are holding a forum in Rio Rico next Wednesday night, October 20.

    From the McClung website: “Wednesday, October 20, Ruth will be at a forum with Rep. Grijalva and her other opponents from 5:30-7:30pm. The Forum will be at the Rio Rico High School, Cafeteria, 590 Camino Lito Galindo, Rio Rico.”

    From the Grijalva website: “District 7 Candidate forum October 20th, 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
    Rio Rico High School cafeteria
    590 Camino Lito Galindo, Rio Rico, AZ”

    Looks like they both have it penciled into their calendar.

    For the record, I think you are doing this to smear the McClung name.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 10:08 pm | Permalink
  7. Consensus wrote:

    Edit – first paragraph – last sentence should read “All that is posted is the one debate scheduled for October 13th”.

    Sorry for the misprint.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
  8. CD 7 Resident wrote:

    Ted isn’t trying to smear anything. The debate was scheduled for October 18 at PCC downtown, hosted by the League of Women Voters. Just as they were about to announce it, it was abruptly canceled.

    I find it curious that they demanded this agreement, the Grijalva Camp says ok, then they back out. Maybe they just couldn’t get enough of the extremely rude supporters from the other night to show, who knows.

    But really, no llores Ruth, no llores.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 10:40 pm | Permalink
  9. Jeff wrote:

    Grijalva is a dishonest, greasy slime ball. His puppets are ” lying tools” just as this writer is here. TED! Now just like last night…Censor my post and delete it. Good Bye GreaseHalva and your horrible WALRUS mustache…

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm | Permalink
  10. Tedski wrote:

    Jeff-

    You went and threw around the word “grease” while referring to a Hispanic…are you sure you don’t want me to delete it?

    Ted.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 4:22 am | Permalink
  11. Pamela wrote:

    It’s interesting that she doesn’t want to debate on the same night at the Kelly/Giffords debate. There was a lot of speculation in the comments sections of my stories that her old, white Tea Party supporters who disrupted this week’s debate actually live in CD8. This lends credence to that idea.

    Maybe the other 3 should debate without her? :)

    The stand-in should be a cardboard cutout of Sarah Palin with a loop tape of the Pledge to America. heh, heh, heh.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 7:03 am | Permalink
  12. Jeff R wrote:

    I think Pamela is right. There aren’t enough of the “old, white Tea Party supporters” to cover two debates at the same time. I suspect the same unruly group travels all over the state to disrupt otherwise orderly debates.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 8:51 am | Permalink
  13. Poopie10 wrote:

    Perhaps she bailed because she wasn’t given the questions IN ADVANCE like the candidates were given before the Hispanic Chamber forum. It was fairly obvious from that forum that she provides no real answers-even when she has time to research. That fact would have been obvious EVEN to her supporters after Monday’s debate.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
  14. Consensus wrote:

    Sorry – my opinion stands that if the debate was never announced then it was never officially scheduled. The Rio Rico debate has been up for a while. The CD8 debate has been scheduled for a while. It’s perfectly understandable that she wouldn’t want to put up a last-minute debate on the same night as that debate. Guarantee you if the debate had been penciled in on the night that city councilwoman Regina Romero was hosting a fundraiser for Grijalva that he would politely decline. The base of supporters cross districts for both parties.

    I personally did think the CD7 interruptions were rude – but it wasn’t only McClung supporters that were doing so.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
  15. Georgia wrote:

    Excuse me, but the “base of supporters” for CD8 and CD7 is an entirely different concept than the base of VOTERS in those two districts. Ergo, no conflict in scheduling at all. You don’t need cheerleaders, you need interested voters trying to decide based on what you say in the debate. This run and hide tactic being played across the nation by the Republicans is really disgusting and disrespectful toward the voters.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 8:46 pm | Permalink
  16. Walt Stephenson wrote:

    I am very surprised that Jeff Rogers as head of the PCDP would choose to use the words that he does.
    I didn’t realize racial profiling is now acceptable behavior in Democratic circles? I truly wish Rogers would call Hispanic Tea Party supporters and Independent voters “old, white tea party supporters” on TV and provide us with a true Kodak moment.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. [...] evening the Rum Romanism and Rebellion blog reported that McClung has backed out of Monday’s upcoming debate (October 18) with [...]