I am writing in response to last week’s letter, authored by Scott M. Proto, who took umbrage with the Phoenix’s front-page article, headlined “Gablinske vs. Donovan, moderate vs. liberal.”

Mr. Proto thinks that Mr. Gablinske should further explain his position in defining Rep. Donovan as a progressive, liberal, extremist or socialist. He faulted the Phoenix for not pressing him on his allegations, calling the Phoenix article biased reporting. 

Clearly, the point Mr. Scott missed was that it was up to Rep. Donovan to clarify why she is or isn’t those things. Rep. Donovan chose not to do that. If anything, Mr. Gablinske complimented her by saying she owns up to being a progressive, by saying in the article, “My opponent is an avowed progressive … she doesn’t pretend otherwise. She believes in the policies she promotes.” 

Mr. Scott continued, “What is unfortunate of Mr. Gablinske’s statement, is that he was allowed to make such a bold declaration … without hearing from the other side.” Again, this was Rep. Donovan’s obligation to explain.

The voters have a right to know why she is an avowed progressive, what she stands for and what she is against and why. It is not up to Mr. Gablinske to do that or the Phoenix. Most voters don’t know what a progressive is, and it is incumbent on Rep. Donovan to explain it to them, so they can make an informed decision based on clarity of her positions.

I have not seen or heard of her accepting Mr. Gablinske’s offer to participate in a second debate, which would allow more time where she could expound on her progressive positions and why she supports them. A longer debate format offers her the perfect forum and opportunity to do so. Perhaps that is why she has not accepted the offer, because she doesn’t want the voters to really know what those labels mean.  

Vasco Castro III

Bristol