Let the mud slinging begin!
Earlier this year I decided that I was going to add a section to ChrisTruitt.com highlighting various races throughout not only Wisconsin but the country as a whole in an effort to help fellow conservatives win important seats in state and federal government. However, as of late, I’ve changed my mind and will not be including any pre-election information. Why? It’s simple, really – virtually all of the press releases and talking points I’ve received from campaigns across the country focus on what the opponent is doing wrong versus what the candidate plans to do right.
It’s not just limited to those of us in the media. Here in Wisconsin (as in most states) we’re now entering the general public media blitz before the November elections. Issue ads are becoming more and more frequent as are ads from the candidates themselves. What do all these ads have in common? They attack the opponent, highlighting what the candidate feels are bad decisions and actions, and attempt to scare off voters.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe elections should be about what the candidate can do for us – what he or she plans to do once elected – not what the incumbent has done wrong. There is only one exception to this rule as far as I’m concerned: criminal misconduct.
An example of criminal misconduct would be Wisconsin’s very own Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager. Here in Wisconsin our former Attorney General was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. This obviously falls under the category of criminal misconduct and is fair game as far as I’m concerned. As a side note – Wisconsin’s incumbent Attorney General Peg “One for the Road” Lautenschlager, lost in the Democratic primary. Another example of criminal misconduct would be the Wisconsin legislators convicted of using state employees to campaign on state time such as Chvala and Jensen.
If the incumbent has not been accused of, arrested for, or convicted of criminal misconduct there should be no reason to lambaste him or her in the media.
Now don’t get me wrong – I think that candidates should be able to point out differences. The incumbent should be able to point out the differences such as ‘the incumbent voted for stem cell research and I am against stem cell research’ or ‘the incumbent voted to raise taxes and I am for lowering taxes’. However, there is a fine line between those statements and ‘the incumbent will kick the elderly out of their homes by raising taxes to unbelievably high levels’. See the difference? The first examples simply point out difference and the second attempts to create fear and panic.
Many politicians start out their campaigns with pledges to keep their ads ‘above the belt’ so to speak; they’ve agreed not to create attack ads. However, someone on side or the other virtually always comes out with a borderline attack ad which their opponent must “address” or “answer” and the campaign is immediately thrown back into mud-slinging mode. Some politicians even sign ‘clean campaign pledges’ but, as is almost always the case, find their campaigns “responding to” attack ads with their own attack ads.
I challenge every politician in this year’s cycle to keep their campaigns clean. The American people are sick and tired of attack ads, fear mongering, and being treated as if we are too young or stupid to understand the good, old-fashioned platform. Tell us what you plan to do, not what your opponent did wrong, and then let the man or woman with the best plans win.
|