What’s worse—a candidate for governor refusing to debate his rival or that same candidate trying to rewrite history as to how he bailed on one debate in particular? The Shad thinks the latter and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ned Lamont is guilty of both.

As The Shad reported July 16th, the campaigns of Lamont and party-endorsed candidate Dan Malloy agreed to just about every detail—including invitations—for the proposed debate in New London. Yet in an interview with veteran reporter and editorial board member Ray Hackett of the Norwich Bulletin, Lamont says that’s not the case.

Hackett: A lots being made of the fact that with this New London debate you already been through the walkthrough, the numbers from the hat had already been drawn, the rules had been set, etc, the tickets had been printed… and then you cancelled your participation. Why not if you’d gone that far…

Lamont: Ray there’s just no truth to that. We said early on we’re probably gonna do 3 debates, we’re not inclined to do any more, we think that’s enough. I know the other team has been making those accusations but it’s really just not true. We said 3 debates is pretty good, it’s a lot more than we had 4 years ago.

Of course, Lamont now refuses to debate Malloy after just one forum.

Malloy campaign strategist Roy Occhiogrosso says Lamont’s account of what happened is “simply not true.” “Look—if Ned Lamont wants to duck debates, that’s his decision. We think it’s the wrong one and that it shortchanges voters, but it’s his decision nonetheless,” he said. “If he’s going to make that decision though, he should own it. Stop trying to wriggle out of it.”