ATTLEBORO —  State Rep. George Ross says he is too busy doing his job to debate his election rival Paul Heroux four times.

Heroux, the Democratic challenger, asked Ross to agree to one debate on general topics, and three more on specific issues — crime, the economy and values.

Ross, R-Attleboro, said he was rejecting the challenge and would agree to only one debate because he is hard at work.

“I’m a full-time legislator,” Ross said in declining more debates.

He said he intends to spend his time doing the job voters elected him to do and is concentrating on improving the economy.

The Legislature is out of session for the summer and fall, but Ross said he still has meetings at the Statehouse and issues to address.

Ross also said he would only participate in the one debate if Heroux kept the campaign clean. Ross has objected to Heroux’s criticism on some recent issues.

Heroux said it would be a service to the voters to hear the two candidates give their views in a series of debates.

He noted that the Republican candidates for president held 20 debates during the primaries and Republican Jeff Bailey has challenged state Sen. James Timilty to nine debates.

Ross, he said, should agree to the debates so he can explain some of his actions in office, such as claiming he got $349,000 in extra state aid for Attleboro.

 “In reality, the Legislature voted to disburse the state surplus funds to cities and towns, and Attleboro’s amount is the result of a local aid formula, not something that Ross was able to influence,” Heroux said.

Recommended for you

(1) comment


I would like to add:

I would like to thank Mr.Ross for his service to our district. I also would like to thank Mr. Ross for his military service.

2nd district constituents deserve to listen to debates.
The Ross v Herouix race got the green flag nearly a month ago. But. "Wheres' the debate?"
George Ross, told the Sun Chronicle he was too busy for debate against Paul Herouix.
I think the people of this district deserve to listen to debate.
As one represents, They represent.
I did not see too much outcry here on the debate topic. So, as November draws near, I thought I would bring up the subject again, and pose a few questions.
1, "Why would I vote for someone who refuses me, as a constituent, the opportunity to listen to debate between themselves and their challenger?"
For me, blanketly stating that they are too busy to perform a prerequsite task of nearly anyone who has ever held elected office, seems to me to be disserving.
Elections are almost innevitable as a Representative. Debate during elections are a staple. Which brings me to:
2, "What other reasons should I vote for someone who appears to think that debate, in the scheme of their campaign, and in the office upheld, warrants little or no attention, and that the topic of debate is to be ignored in a fashion where .'If you ignore a problem long enough, it goes away.?'"

That seems to be the order of the day every day on Beacon Hill, and that type of attitude on the hill, in my opinion, reflects directly with Mr. Ross' stand on debate. Which does not bode well with me, and may cause other voters to write in the challenger's name on their Republican ticket, instead of filling in the dot next to Ross' name on November 6th.

3, "Why would I vote for someone who dismisses the request for debates by a challenger, for a seat that represents us?"
If I were a resident less than two years recent in arrival to this district, I would naturally be wary of the incumbant. I would also check their vote record But, as a newcomer to this district, I would then pose:"What is the true reasons behind this Nixonian stance on debate?

We deserve answers. I. Like many, are concerned with our respective towns and cities.
I say, as an attleboro resident, there is too much invested here in Attleboro to allow representation by any person who appears to cut off discourse, bar challenge, or appear to be non-transparent when it comes to affairs that affect our district. Not to say the good incumbant has done such, but without a guage like debate, Who is to tell whether or not the incumbant is genuine in his efforts to represent, or if their time in office was just a disingenuous leap of fate fostered by the GOP to add "R's" to the roles in the house. I firmly believe in the former, but the latter is a possibility. (Given the GOP's heavily used, Rove method politics of trying to stuff seats with Neocon 'Yes' men in heavy Democratic houses).
....And of course, there are folks who do see the latter, and it would be unfortunate that their preconceived notions got in the way of fact as they vote.
That is why debate is important. Debate would rule out or highlight either the former or latter. (Again. My opinion.)
I feel very fortunate to make Attleboro my home. It's the only city I know of that has one of the strongest political pulses around.
I moved to Attleboro three years ago, and I know there are many other people who chose the Seekonk/Attleboro area as their home over the past two years.
Knowing who represents well on the hill is very important to me, and I am also sure to many who have moved to this district. That we, as residents, share that same view.
So where is the debate?
I don't mean a gloss over, one time debate that proves little. I want to see a follow-up. With our local issues. I want to know why 'such and such'was done before 'such and such' was fixed first, causing 'such and such' to be attended to again, causing such and such amount of money on would the challenger have handled it.
A good, clean debate. It is afterall a guage we, as constituents use to determine the mettle, demeanor, approachability and communication skills of both candidates. How do they think? Not what they think. (After all, it is politics). It don't matter to me what one thinks, because how one thinks, usually overrides what one thinks.
Without at least two debates, there is no telling.
So, I say 2 debates. 1 general debate. 1 local issue based debate, possibly a constituent Q&A section on the second meeting.
It could set a standard, and usher a revived sense importance in our political process.

If one who represents us, cares not enough to answer a challenge, why should anyone care who represents us at all?

I wish both candidates the best of their effort.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.