We missed you, Norm – and we’re watching

Tom Foley was speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and facing an easy re-election.

But it was 1992 and the Democrat was presiding over a Congress facing a series of scandals that each pointed to an arrogant institution in need of reform. So I went to Spokane in hopes of watching him explain the situation to his constituents.

It wasn’t hard. In the few days I was there one of the most powerful men in the world faced off against his challenger a half-dozen times, accepting every invitation to appear before service clubs and senior centers and on radio stations.

Foley would go on to win that year 55 percent to 45 percent. It would be his last term in Congress, as he fell victim two years later to the Republican sweep. But I was impressed by how easily he handled the questions both from citizens and his longtime opponent, John Sonneland.

Foley didn’t have to debate Sonneland. The congressman could have run his campaign on TV and radio. He could have met alone with community groups and citizens. He was powerful enough to call the shots.

But he didn’t. Perhaps he felt he owed it to the voters of the 5th District. Perhaps he was comfortable enough in his abilities and his positions that he was willing – eager even – to engage.

This isn’t really about Foley, however. It is about a small dust-up last week over U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks’ decision to skip a candidates’ forum.

One Republican, one Green Party member and one other Democrat have filed for the job Dicks has held since 1977. The sponsor was the League of Women Voters and the setting was a room at the University of Puget Sound.

Dicks had reason to be wary of a forum that had all the makings of a game of three-on-one. A letter from one of the organizers beforehand stated that “Dicks has a record that certainly needs defending,” with issues such as the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance certain to have been raised.

The forum was held without Dicks after his campaign asserted that he has a long-standing policy of not debating opponents until after the primary. Frankly, however, Dicks has never done a lot of debating in his district.

Opponents have more often faced surrogates – campaign managers or advisers – than Dicks. While there must have been debates or forums where he’s appeared alongside an opponent, I can’t recall one, and I’ve covered his elections on and off for 22 years.

Clearly, Dicks isn’t comfortable with the format. Nor does he look forward to getting hammered for being too liberal and too conservative. This is a man who suffered through a state Democratic Party convention that adopted a resolution condemning him for supporting development of the MX missile and who conservatives term a big spender.

By skipping the forum last week he certainly disappointed some voters. But it’s likely that most were already disappointed in him and have been for years.

So what does he lose? Nothing politically. Campaign advice is that if you are leading, you only help your opponents by debating them. His is a district that not only seems to like him a lot but that has been drawn to his benefit. Only a few times in three decades has he been in a tough election fight. This isn’t one of those times.

But outside of whether such events advantage or disadvantage the incumbent politically, there’s plenty to be said for facing voters on their terms every now and then, for taking questions from critics as well as supporters, for having to explain tough decisions even when the answers probably won’t mollify those critics.

So we’ll wait for the primary and then look forward to Dicks fulfilling his promise to – according to a spokesman – schedule “a mutually agreed upon joint appearance with his opponent before the general election.”

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics