Ridin' Dirty
On January 15th I sat down and watched the Republican primary debate in the 14th district between state Senator Chris Lauzen and dairy magnate Jim Oberweis. I'd only been in Springfield for about a week at that point, but had already smelled the blood in the water. I had heard that the two candidates really didn't like each other, and that if anything it should be "entertaining to watch."
After seeing the two square off in what could only be compared to Mad Max's Thuderdome (two men enter, one man leaves) , I walked away utterly disgusted. In the first of the opening statements, something that I had always assumed was your time to tell the voters about yourself and highlight the important issues facing the constituency, Jim Oberweis spent the entire time flinging mud at his opponent. Sen. Lauzen's statement was closer to what I had previously described, but he ultimately dove into the mud later in the debate.
When it got to the point that Oberweis mocked his opponent for the shoes he wore, I decided that I could better spend my time by sticking a fork in an electrical socket; and decided to turn off my computer.
The primary was off to a good start, and has only gotten more "entertaining" since. I saw these two mailers Thursday on Bill Baar's blog:
I can understand if two opponents have legitimate policy differences, but at what point does it cross the line? This is the kind of campaigning that leaves voters disenchanted with the political process all together. If I was a voter registered in the IL- 14th primary I'd stay home.
3 comments:
Watch the undervote in the 14th, especially in the eastern part. There are a lot of other races that will get voters to the polls rather than the US Cong. race.
When I was driving through Kendall County the other day, I noticed WAAAY more signs for the county board races and the 50th state rep race than for either Milk Dud or Sen. Lousy.
While I'm not condoning "bad behavior" during an election, I believe it is important to remember that races are competitive, so we'll almost always see a bit of "slamming" your opponent to a certain degree.
As voters, it's obviously important to understand that and to try to judge as best as we can whether that type of behavior would, for example, carry over into government. Obviously while politics play into government, it is an entirely different ballgame than winning a race, and behaviors will change simply because the environment is different and a change in bad behavior will be required to become a good legislator.
As voters, we also need to challenge the media and pundits to take on a bit of that outlook as well, thereby helping us look behind those behaviors to a certain extent to identify those who would otherwise serve us well. If for no other reason than the candidates who are running are our only options at that point.
I don't represent anyone in this race and my comments are not intended to explain either candidate's behavior during the debate. I'm simply trying to raise an awareness that this is a tough competition that both candidates seem to be very determined to win.
On a personal note, I've seen some candidates where their reaction to a lost race ensures that I will never vote or support that candidates in any future race. For example, during one of our Senate races, one of the candidates absolutely refused to concede after losing the General election.
In the same race, one of the candidates who lost after fighting hard to win the Primary, woke up early the next morning, trudged downtown to party breakfast, and very publicly and genuinely endorsed the winner by handing him a very generous check.
To me, that says alot about a man's character even though I may not agree with him on all issues.
From a technical perspective, I have to say that while the choice of colors may have been used for no other reason than to provide contrast, to many of us they represent--still to this very day--a display of impeccable manners during a heated battle.
Post a Comment