It's that time of year again.
The time if year when it matters not what one has done -- it matters what the other guy has done worse. Or can be inferred to have done worse.
"Worse" being relative.
The necessity for smear campaigns or mud slinging doesn't seem to matter.
Senator (I think) Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is a good (or bad) example of this.
Now, I can only offer an outsider (Ohioan) point of view, but it seems that Mr. McConnell has been good for Kentucky. He does his job, which is more than can be said for the majority. He has weighed the options, made deals, voted for or against many policies and projects.
All he needs to do to campaign for re-election is say "Here is what I have done for you, my people."
Instead, he has chosen to attack his opponent, Allison Grimes.
And the grounds he is using as an attack platform are dubious, at best.
One attack was that she supported Obama.
Well, she's a member of the Democrat Party. I would be much, much more disturbed if she did NOT support the majority of her party's politics. I don't know about you, but I don't want to vote for someone who does not support her own support network. Who cannot be loyal to those she promised loyalty to.
Nope, I would not want to vote someone who stands for nothing.
Not even her own standing.
Her first ads that I saw represented facts about McConnell's attendance and voting record. His supporters immediately started screaming that she had her facts wrong and besides that, who was she to cite any such facts, when her record for another position may (or may not) be just as dubious.
Reminds me of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck arguing over Rabbit or Duck season.
Now, the 'scandal' of Ms. Grimes is that she won't say who she voted for.
The media is making a big deal of her refusal to answer.
Shouldn't they be making a big deal of the invasion of her civil right to a secret ballot -- an American institution, especially for presidential elections.
Besides that, who cares?
No one, it seems to me, except Mr. McConnell and his supporters, who are not in favor of voters having rights, apparently.
If she voted for Obama, she supported her party. Good for her.
If she voted for someone else, she voted her conscience, Good for her.
Why is this an issue?
Ms. Grimes has, for the most part, not dignified that issue with any comment. She certainly is not making it a campaign issue. Nor a publicity point.
For that, I would almost vote for her myself.
It should only be about who will do or has done a better job. Nothing more, nothing less.
The candidates that meet that criteria will be the ones who get my vote.
In any race.
In every race.
The time if year when it matters not what one has done -- it matters what the other guy has done worse. Or can be inferred to have done worse.
"Worse" being relative.
The necessity for smear campaigns or mud slinging doesn't seem to matter.
Senator (I think) Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is a good (or bad) example of this.
Now, I can only offer an outsider (Ohioan) point of view, but it seems that Mr. McConnell has been good for Kentucky. He does his job, which is more than can be said for the majority. He has weighed the options, made deals, voted for or against many policies and projects.
All he needs to do to campaign for re-election is say "Here is what I have done for you, my people."
Instead, he has chosen to attack his opponent, Allison Grimes.
And the grounds he is using as an attack platform are dubious, at best.
One attack was that she supported Obama.
Well, she's a member of the Democrat Party. I would be much, much more disturbed if she did NOT support the majority of her party's politics. I don't know about you, but I don't want to vote for someone who does not support her own support network. Who cannot be loyal to those she promised loyalty to.
Nope, I would not want to vote someone who stands for nothing.
Not even her own standing.
Her first ads that I saw represented facts about McConnell's attendance and voting record. His supporters immediately started screaming that she had her facts wrong and besides that, who was she to cite any such facts, when her record for another position may (or may not) be just as dubious.
Reminds me of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck arguing over Rabbit or Duck season.
Now, the 'scandal' of Ms. Grimes is that she won't say who she voted for.
The media is making a big deal of her refusal to answer.
Shouldn't they be making a big deal of the invasion of her civil right to a secret ballot -- an American institution, especially for presidential elections.
Besides that, who cares?
No one, it seems to me, except Mr. McConnell and his supporters, who are not in favor of voters having rights, apparently.
If she voted for Obama, she supported her party. Good for her.
If she voted for someone else, she voted her conscience, Good for her.
Why is this an issue?
Ms. Grimes has, for the most part, not dignified that issue with any comment. She certainly is not making it a campaign issue. Nor a publicity point.
For that, I would almost vote for her myself.
It should only be about who will do or has done a better job. Nothing more, nothing less.
The candidates that meet that criteria will be the ones who get my vote.
In any race.
In every race.
