Rep. John Scott of Groton, the Republican incumbent in the 40th District House race, refused to answer during a debate last week the simple question about whether he supports his party's nominee for president.

This stunning response, refusing to say whether he will vote for the candidate at the head of his party's ballot line, should be unacceptable to voters.

It's not a hard question. It can be as simple as a yes or no.

I couldn't really follow his excuse-as-answer, which rambled around all kinds of topics, from the economy of eastern Connecticut to the lack of advertising in The Day.

I think his main point was that the president of the United States has no impact on the government of Connecticut.

I think the representative ought to think a little harder about that, about the wide range of federal laws and regulations and, more important, funding that impact all of his constituents and their governments, state and local.

After all, isn't that the basic premise of Republican Party philosophy: government — federal, state and local — needs to get out of our lives and businesses, with fewer rules and regulations.

The federal government has enormous impact on state government, from rules, mandates and funding or lack of funding, for all kinds of things, transportation, education, the environment, clean energy and occupational health and safety.

I would remind him one of the region's most significant employers, based in his district, lives on federal contracts and a large proportion of Scott's constituents depend on federal contracts and payroll money making their way through the local economy.

And even if Scott thinks the federal government doesn't have an enormous impact on state government, which is laughably naïve, why is that a reason not to answer the question?

Why shouldn't you share your political philosophy, during an election, on one of the most closely watched races in a generation?

It's not like you were asked something personal, like your favorite flavor of ice cream.

Political officer holders and seekers giving or withholding endorsements, up and down the ticket, is as traditional and rudimentary in politics as lawn signs.

To Rep. Scott, I would suggest that, if you think, like I do, that Trump is a frightening, egotistical, thin-skinned, megalomaniac with a proven racist history who should not be allowed anywhere near the nuclear codes, especially when he is playing footsy with the enemy, then say so and repudiate him as your party's presidential candidate.

If you think he is a great agent of change who is going to make America great again, like many of your constituents no doubt do, then say so.

But gather a little strength of character and say something.

The other discouraging part of the representative's answer to the Trump question was the protracted whining in which he complained it was an easy question for his opponent, Democrat Christine Conley, to answer.

Too bad. She likes her party's nominee and is willing to say so.

I can't vote in the 40th but, if I could, I would find Scott's non-answer to a basic political question to be disqualifying, whether I was a Trump supporter or not.

I suppose the Trump voters should be the most insulted.

But the interesting debate also led to other topics that would give good reason not to send Rep. Scott back to Hartford.

One was the bill he introduced to make college students buy health insurance policies sold by his insurance company.

His opponent rightly called him out for introducing a "bill to make his business more profitable" as one of his first acts in the General Assembly.

The other sharp attack by Conley, a lawyer, was in response to his lack of clear support for a third casino by the two gambling tribes of eastern Connecticut.

Scott said, after voting against the first tribal casino bill, that he has a friend with a gambling problem. Sorry, but the two largest casinos in the world, that employ many of your constituents, are not going back in the box.

To his lament last week that Vegas gambling companies might sue over a new tribal casino, Conley boldly said let them.

I agree. Stop being intimidated by Vegas threats.

Conley, sounding more like the Republican, added that she is not going to stand in the way of a local business that wants to expand.

I wish I could vote for her.

This is the opinion of David Collins.

d.collins@theday.com