Lynn Bartels wrote an article in Tuesday’s Denver Post, detailing how Scott McInnis is refusing to debate his Republican gubernatorial primary opponents, Josh Penry and Dan Maes.

As a debate producer, I feel it is exactly this strategy that makes people hate politics and politicians. I realize my bias as a producer, so let’s approach this issue as voters for a moment.

If somebody wants to be elected to public office, especially to the office of the Governor, they are asking voters for a job, a job that entails discussing and debating issues with people that do not agree with their point of view. As an elected official, it is your job to argue your points well enough to carry the day by convincing others to support your point of view. In other words, debating is a major element of any public office. 

So, if you would like voters to believe you are the best person for the position, wouldn’t you want to show them that you are a good debater?  Apparently, not everyone thinks so.

I understand the strategy being used by Scott McInnis is to basically declare himself the winner of the primary by urging the focus be put on Gov. Bill Ritter, and not the differences between him and his primary opponents. But by refusing to debate Penry, he is telling Republicans that they should just trust that he is the best guy for the job, and not force him to prove it.

As much as I hate this strategy, there is only one way to stop it.  Penry must take the lead in one of two important categories, fundraising or polling. If Penry can take the lead in either category, McInnis’ strategy will change very quickly, but until then McInnis will consider it good strategy.

That’s my biggest beef with this whole idea. As long as McInnis considers himself the favorite, avoiding his opponent will be an accepted campaign strategy. But does that make it fair?

Would the strategy be acceptable if the shoe was on the other foot?  What would happen if McInnis were to win the primary, but polls showed Ritter ahead, so Ritter decided it wasn’t necessary to debate McInnis? Would that be fair?

That’s my ultimate test of an acceptable strategy. It’s only fair to use against your opponent if you don’t mind it being used against you. 

In the end, this strategy cheats voters. This strategy tells voters that it is more important to make yourself less vulnerable to attack than it is to show voters that you deserve the job you seek. And until voters say this strategy is unacceptable, it will be used with impunity, regardless of fairness.