Dan Claitor, candidate for District 16’s senate seat, refuses to debate his opponent, Lee Domingue according to WAFB TV. In fact, Claitor has refused all invitations to discuss the issues of Senate District 16 in any public forum.
First, Claitor agreed to appear at the Jeffersonian community meeting – a harmless group of individuals who hold open forums for all candidates in their district. His consultant says they declined when they realized he agreed to debate his opponent, Lee Domingue. Unfortunately, this makes no sense as everyone in the political world already knows that the Jeffersonians’ invitation to two candidates have always been forum-debate oriented.
Claitor also refused to debate at the League of Women Voter’s forum, a group that has hosted debates for statewide and parish office seekers for years. The League is known for presenting a clearly defined debate with guest moderators from the media in an unbiased forum for candidates to freely speak on the issues of constituents.
This speaks volumes about Claitor.
For those who are unfamiliar with Claitor’s political consultant, Roy Fletcher, it seems his specialty is ‘hiding his political clients’ and dictating to them where they are allowed to appear, what they are allowed to say, or not say, with an agreement of full control of all political spin for his candidates. This allows him to work behind the scenes, to use various pawns to spin the campaign against his opponent.
This equates to Dan Claitor being a pawn of a political consultant. Apparently Claitor has chosen this day whom he will serve.
Why would a candidate refuse to debate his opponent?
Why would a candidate allow his political consultant to control him by not allowing him to be present at public discussions of the issues?
Does Claitor believe the voters are not interested in his stand on specific issues important to District 16?
Is the mandate of a political consultant more important than allowing the voters two unbiased forums where they can hear directly from the candidate?
I have made it clear in previous posts that I believe that Dan Claitor has been party to a woven web of deceit by allowing others to do his dirty work and spin this campaign against his opponent.
A candidate’s silence is an important as his speech. If a candidate is unwilling to speak in a forum while running for office, what will he do once elected?
Hiding is not a good strategy for Claitor. It sends a clear message to the voters of Senate District 16. I hope you are paying attention.
Until next time,
Red Stick Republican