The campaign is almost over and I've weighed in on what the candidates and their handlers are doing in these finals days. You can read my take on the election here.
But I'd like to know your views of this long campaign. What were the high and low points of the campaign? They can be at any level -- local, state and national. Here's your chance to get any gripes off your chest or praise campaigns that you think did well.
Post your comments and let everyone know your feelings about this election.
My complaints are how fast many campaigns went right to the lower blows and political spins so to drum terror into the voter if they did not vote the way that they suggested. This included having what looked like the same exact uniform but on two different firefighters on both sides of proposition issues. Of course the GOV race so that they all could protect their phoney baloney jobs (quoting Mel Brooks there) but was looking for those that talked about what they could do and the positive steps forward to fix the issues at hand.
Locally, many are really vocal of City Council races and School Board positions as it affects everyone's future, so why NOT get into that fight. Of course with an Opinion Talk Blog talk here of 170 entries or more by the time that this ends, the Sheriff's race has been a long and passionate one. The positive side on that is that people really care about their safety and getting the job done, with a long range plan in place for future happiness as well.
Not going to name names but will say that relief of 8 months comes in 48 hrs to those that want to see a campaign sign free landscape and to those Editors at the Fresno Bee that had to read all these political entries of the last 250 days. A ton of personal thanks to everyone on the Editorial Staff and Jim Boren for having such an outlet as this, to do our "harumphing" or "praise" of whatever side of the ballot we're supporting come November 7th. Gives you faith that at least someone out there cares and has hope for a better tomorrow.
National: Fear tactics only work for so long.
The Governor's race has been a big disappointment. Maybe Angelides never had much of a chance, but he does have a viewpoint that was worth being heard and discussed, whether or not it was accepted. But we heard and saw very little of that, as this campaign very quickly became personal and superficial.
It's also disappointing to live in non-competitive Congressional and Assembly districts (Nunes and Villines). Villines' opponent has been so invisibible that I can't even remember his name the day before the election. What's the point having an election without a choice?
And once again the initiative process is being abused by well-funded special interests. There are a few on the ballot that still have me wondering if they're a good idea or not (e.g. Prop. 87). And a few are downright scary, like Prop. 90. Do people who support it have any idea how much money that one will end up costing us all if it's passed?
The school board campaign has been a positive for the most part. It's nice to see a spirited debate over such an important governing body. As for the Sheriff's race, the sooner that's over, the better.
Here, here, Mike. As soon as Cal is sworn in, we can start repairing the damage that has been festering in the Sheriff's Department for the past several years.
Low points (there are no high points); Observations on the 06 election:
1. Remember a few years back when the print media had non-partisan groups (supposedly) examining "ads" as to their truthfulness and then publishing their findings? What ever happened to that worthwhile concept? (My guess, the media caved, in the face of legal actions).
2. Negative ads work, that's why they are so popular. Not nice, mind you, but they work. And that's why they will always continue. (BTW, if anyone wants to see "really negative" ads they should check out the elections of the early years of our republic).
3. In marketing or an election (which is only an extension of the marketing concept), it's axiomatic: He who frames the terms of the debate wins. Election marketing is not really about truth; It's really about the manipulation of facts to convey an impression or perception. It's all about money and packaging!
4. We've all become W.C. Fields Americans: "I never vote for anyone, I always vote against." (That may be an logical extension of negative ads).
5. "The theory is that election to Congress is tantamount to being dispatched to Washington on a looting raid for the enrichment of your state or district, and no other ethic need inhibit the feeding frenzy." George Will.
6. The news media treats voters as dunces. Just look at the copious commentary that follows, for instance, any speech by any politician. They all try to tell me of what I just heard or read. And it's not usually all that accurate. Media commentary almost always comes with a built-in agenda. The media assumes that I am a moron, incapable of discerning when a politician lies to me.
I think overall I felt a wide-ranging dis-ease with how things are going, locally, nationwide and globally, as well. I think real issues are evolving around democracy, corruption and the use of force as persuasion (eg., "terrorism"). But it all seems to be mirrored by our President's obsession with combating terrorism by using terrorism. I think globally, people see through it and I think nationally it's beginning to penetrate below the neck, but hasn't reached past the upper thorax, yet.
I'm glad it's over. The web seems to provide most of what we need when it comes to finding out politician's actual positions-- it appears that there's no way they'd be willing to waste campaign dollars on telling us anything positive. (Though, given the joy of fast forwarding through commercials, maybe there were lots of fuzzy bunny commercials that I just didn't pause for. I wouldn't bet on that...)
I'm glad that there were good candidates who were willing to run. We're making the process so nasty that it seems like reputation suicide to run for anything.