The above BlueOregon post concerns Sen. Alan Bates and his possible challenge of Gordon Smith for his U.S. Senate seat. His people are saying he pledges not to go negative. Here's a snippet:
Former Ashland Mayor -- and Bates' campaign strategist -- Cathy Shaw commented in response (and quoted in the Daily Tidings) that a Bates campaign would stay positive and not engage Smith directly.
Cathy Shaw on a Bates candidacy:
Of Novick and Bates, they’re both great with each bringing different strengths and weaknesses. Although I do not know Steve well, I do know Bates and he will never go after a democrat in a race. How do I know that? Because, he won’t attack a republican opponent either; never has, never will. Before all of you roll your eyes and say that anyone refusing to go negative is an “amateur” or doesn’t know the game, I would suggest reading Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s book entitled: Everything You Think You Know About Politics…And Why You’re Wrong (A New Republic Book, 2000).
And in the Tidings:
As for running an aggressive race, Shaw said Bates "never has, and never will" run a negative campaign. "He just doesn't do that," Shaw said. "People say it wins elections, but it doesn't."
My take:
It all depends on what you mean by "negative campaigning". If a candidate refuses to aggressively point out flaws in their opponent's actions or positions, then they have no business running for public office. However, pointing out an opponent's bad policy decisions or faulty political ideas is not the same as attacking someone personally. I'd expect a candidate who is tough and courageous, but also principled and wise. The end is important, but it ultimately doesn't justify the means.
No comments:
Post a Comment