Let candidates air dirty laundry

Let me get one thing straight. I have no problem with a little mud slinging come election time provided the person who is slinging the mud stands up and takes credit for the slinging.

What? Duane doesn?t mind a little slinging? Nope, and I?ll tell you why. The main reason I support a little mudslinging is that I want to know everything I can about a candidate before I go to the polls. I want to know the qualifications and the plans of the person seeking office and a little of the background about who they are.

All these questions will generally be answered by the candidate, although I?ve seen a few who forgot to tell me why I should vote for them. A good candidate should not leave me guessing about their positive points. They should be pounded into my head during the election season so I clearly know their agenda.

However, while telling me their good points, most campaigns won?t fess up to the bad points of the candidate. And yes, these bad points can have as much impact on performance of duties as the person?s good points.

Look at it this way: Don?t you want someone to tell you the bad points of a car before you buy it? Sure, the salesman may tell you about the horsepower, the luxurious interior and gas mileage, but he may not tell you the clutch is slipping. It?s times like these you would like someone to point out the bad parts of the car. Hey, you may still buy the car and replace the clutch yourself if it?s a good deal, but it?s nice to know this negative before you buy the car.

And, there?s a big difference between car trouble and candidate trouble. If you buy a lemon you might could sue or at least trade in and upgrade, losing a little money. If you elect a bad candidate, you?re stuck with them anywhere from two to eight years, depending on the office, before you can vote them out. During that time you?re paying this person loads of money and basically offering them free reign where they can really upset the apple cart. And, it?s harder to get rid of an incumbent since there?s roots which form over the course of a term, so you could be stuck with a bad apple for many years.

I think folks call it ?slinging mud? because it makes them uncomfortable when their bad points are brought out for the public to see. Just because you don?t ?sling mud? doesn?t mean you?re a better person. It just means you?re failing to inform the public of something which may make your opponent a bad office holder.

With that said, it should be the candidate who steps to the plate and informs the masses. Having supporters do this in a way where there is deniability for the candidate is a cop out.

I?ve already written a column telling folks I won?t do stories where folks come out of the woodwork to bash a candidate at the last minute during election season. However, if candidates have issues with their opponents and come to me, that?s another story because I can also talk to the person the statement is being made about and present both sides instead of just publishing an attack. By candidates coming out on the issues, there is a type of the ?buck stops here? attitude. It makes me feel better about a candidate who airs positive and negative in the open instead of through cloak and dagger.

And, I certainly hope we will be looking closely at letters to the editor regarding the candidates. If I have anything to say about it, we won?t let people get free advertising for or against a candidate by writing a letter to the editor. Hey, it?s the candidates who are asking for our votes. Let them be the ones who air out issue, both positive and negative.

Duane Sherrill is a reporter for the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].