|
Aug
25
2006
|
Editorial: Civil Campaigning |
|
|
|
by Dan Veaner
|
|
Friday, 25 August 2006 |
 One of the challenges of editing a small town newspaper is keeping it focussed on the town. People from all over hear of it and send news and announcements that are outside the scope of the paper's mission. Except in very slow news weeks, those items don't make it into the Star. Over the summer I have been finding more and more political press releases, especially from the Arcuri and Meier campaigns. Some of those have been appearing on the Elections page (click News, then click Elections).
As a reporter I've had the privilege of meeting both candidates. Ray Meier (Republican) is running against Michael Arcuri (Democrat) for the U.S. Congress seat that Sherwood Boehlert is retiring from at the end of this year. Arcuri visited Lansing in February (click here for story), and Meier was here earlier this month (click here for story). Arcuri is currently the Oneida County District Attorney, and Meier, also an attorney, is a New York State Senator. My first impression of each was positive. Arcuri is a bit of the young buck, perhaps Spitzeresque in his clear and firm approach to his DA job. Meier struck me as thoughtful, perhaps less prone to spouting the party line. Both are clearly intelligent, motivated candidates. On the up and up.
So far I can say that about the candidates, but not necessarily about the campaigns. Or perhaps it is just the mailing lists I have ended up on. The Meier campaign found the Star later than the Arcuri campaign did, and about 85% of the material I have received has been from the Democrats. The Meier releases so far focus on the candidate, what he is doing, how he stands on issues, who endorses him. That sort of thing.
The press releases that come directly from the Arcuri campaign are generally about the same, but there have also been several from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee which are filled with name calling, misinterpretation and hyperbole. I don't find those useful, so I have not been publishing them. Actually I find them offensive, because in my opinion they challenge my intelligence, as if I'm going to choose a candidate based on what someone else calls him.
I don't have enough of a handle on this race to know whether this is true, but it makes Arcuri appear desperate, which I can't imagine is actually helping. The tactic of having the attacks appear to not be coming from the candidate by filtering them through the national committee is fairly transparent at this point, and makes me wonder how much of it is approved by the candidate. They contain the usual disclaimer saying that the release isn't authorized by the candidate, but who knows what to believe on that score in modern politics? If it is, that speaks to the candidate's character. If it isn't it speaks to who is actually controlling his campaign. Either way it has got to be hurting him as a candidate. That's how it strikes me.
It also reminds me of something Meier said when I spoke to him about the tone of the campaign so far: "I think people will agree that one problem that overlays other problems is the lack of civility in American politics and government," Meier said. "And it is that lack of civility at the governmental level that prevents people from discussing a problem with a view toward finding a solution, moving to the middle, finding a workable solution and getting on with it. I think people for the most part find the rat-a-tat-tat of modern American government and politics to be offensive."
That really struck a chord with me, because what I am interested in when I consider who to vote for is 1) what a candidate believes, not just the party talking points, 2) how he stands on issues that matter to me and other voters, 3) how effective he will be in working with allies and opponents to achieve what he thinks is the right thing to do.
I am more interested in hearing from a candidate what he has done and will do, not his characterization of the other candidate. And not the typical party line, unless he also demonstrates that he has thought it through and believes those things personally for his own reasons.
I'm not endorsing a candidate in this editorial, or even suggesting that running a hard-ball or negative campaign necessarily means that the candidate wouldn't be the best choice for the district. What I'm saying is that I didn't like name calling when I was a kid, and I don't like it now. I also don't like outside agitators telling me what to think. I would really like to learn about issues without having them obscured by hype. I want to hear it from the source. To have actual facts to base my decision on in November.
----
v2i32 |
|
|
Archive Opinions 
