(Big) Deal or No (Big) Deal: Tierney Nixes Qs

OK, I'm going with "HesterPrynne"'s suggestion for what to name this new recurring blog feature, which I intend to do far more often. Today's topic: incumbent Democrat John Tierney insists on no debate questions about the gambling thing.

The question is: should this matter to voters?

The debate in question is being run by CommonWealth Magazine, and to my mind both the intent and the format suggest, to me, that it wouldn't be particularly appropriate to pose the question.

But that should be for the questioners to decide. And ultimately, in the course of the campaign, it's clearly reasonable to expect to see Tierney and Republican Richard Tisei talk face-to-face about the topic that, like it or not, is one of the major factors in whether voters will send Tierney back to Washington.

It's not clear from the Herald story whether Tierney is making a similar demand of the hosts of the two other scheduled debates -- and by the way, yes there should be more, and more visible ones -- or whether those hosts are going along with it. (I seriously doubt that Janet Wu agreed to it for the "On the Record" debate.)

I certainly don't think this qualifies as a big deal, but it's not no big deal either. I'd say it's a somewhat big deal.

What do you think?