Sound Politics: Justice "No Show" refuses to take questions from bloggers

October 30, 2006

Justice "No Show" refuses to take questions from bloggers

Justice Susan Owens has a new excuse for chickening out of last Monday's debate with challenger Stephen Johnson that I co-moderated. (An earlier excuse was exposed as disingenuous, here). In this weekend's online chat at The Olympian, Owens said:

I don't answer questions from bloggers, and that was apparently the moderator's only credentials ... I don't take questions from bloggers. I just don't blog and don't read them.

Since when does a voter need credentials to ask an elected official a question? My taxes help pay her salary. My rights are impacted by her decisions. I might have a case before the Court someday. And she refuses to answer my questions?

Read the chat transcript, and watch the video of Monday's debate and, er, judge the two candidates for yourself.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 30, 2006 11:11 AM | Email This

Comments

1. "I don't talk to the Little People either." (a-la Leona Helmsley). arrogant MIA (missing in attitude).

face the music. you want my vote? come out, come out wherever you are! what do you have to hide? you can sure dispense justice--now how about FACING some with dignity? what an empty shell. disappointing.

...what did Aesop say about pride?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 30, 2006 11:15 AM

2. She is on Dave Ross until 11 AM. You can ask her the question now.

Posted by: Fawn spady on October 30, 2006 11:21 AM

3. I feel for ya Stefan,

Today at college we were "honored" to have Governor Candidate of Minnesota Mike Hatch grace our presence.

He wouldn't take questions, just merely stopped by to schmooze with the Administration, and shake hands with the "peasants".

As if shaking my hand would get you my vote.

-Disenfranchised

Posted by: David Nick on October 30, 2006 11:36 AM

4. Translation: "She'll only talk to people who have been vetted by the Liberal media establishment and can be counted on to throw her softball questions and back up her claims of non-partisan balance in her decisions."

In the "Soviet Union" of Washington's tri-county area she simply feels that she can't lose and doesn't need to respond to anyone. She's probably right.

Posted by: MJC on October 30, 2006 11:56 AM

5. And she doesn't think anybody cares about the government taking people's property, either.

Posted by: Legast on October 30, 2006 01:45 PM

6. finger pointing at audience & waving in TV camera:
"I-did-not-have-civil-discourse-with-that-blogger."

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 30, 2006 02:07 PM

7. [Yawn] I just read that chat transcript. I need a nap now. If Johnson hadn't brought up the monorail case himself, it probably would never have been discussed. What a horrible moderator.

Posted by: Palouse on October 30, 2006 02:18 PM

8. Ha! Looks like Owens is trying to hide from bloggers and voters. Not to worry. After the election, no one will be looking for her any more.

Posted by: katomar on October 30, 2006 03:17 PM

9. She said she doesn't take questions from bloggers... during an online chat... Is it just me, or is the world just getting entirely too silly?

Posted by: TB on October 31, 2006 01:41 AM

10. Since when does being a voter make a blogger a journalist? Everyone's entitled to an opinion; the ability to post it online doesn't make it credible, correct, or necessarily informed. And it certainly isn't a guarantee of journalism.

Posted by: Laurence Ballard on October 31, 2006 08:57 AM

11. go ahead and get all the traction you can out of your sour grapes story sharkface. i'm sure it's not much. her decision while maybe a little whimpy is reasonable and hers to make. just because she would rather have an impartial moderator than allow a partial partisan blogger potentially spin her in the questions doesn't make her unacountable to voters.

Posted by: upchuck on October 31, 2006 06:25 PM