LJWorld.com / Simons: Campaign will challenge voters to verify information

Archive for Saturday, June 21, 2008

June 21, 2008

It appears the 2008 political campaign season is going to be filled with many tough, mean campaign tactics from the presidential race to the many hotly contested U.S. House and Senate seats. Hopefully, the rough stuff will be minimized at the local and state levels, but perhaps that is wishing for too much.

The public, the voting public, is going to be showered with campaign rhetoric with candidates promising to do all kinds of good things if they are elected. Challengers will tell voters how they would have voted on controversial issues, finding fault with the actions and votes of incumbents they are trying to beat and playing the Monday-morning quarterback game. Incumbents have the task of defending their actions and votes and, at the same time, outlining how their seniority and experience are great assets.

This year, for the first time in this nation’s history, an African American will be a major party nominee for the presidency. This is likely to create a more sensitive environment with some people leaning over backward to keep from doing or saying anything that might be considered racially motivated. Unfortunately, there will be those who either subtly or outwardly try to play the race card.

Money is going to play a role. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has announced he will forgo any public financing for his presidential bid, thereby allowing him to spend unlimited amounts to win the race. At this time, GOP contender John McCain says he will spend only what is allowed by the federal finance law. Can money alone buy the Oval Office?

One of the biggest challenges facing voters is knowing whom to believe when considering which candidate to support.

A timely example is provided by a news release sent by Nelson Krueger of Lawrence who is co-campaign manager for Jim Slattery, a former congressman from Kansas who now is challenging incumbent Pat Roberts for the U.S. Senate.

Some weeks ago, federal officials announced a huge contract for jet tankers had been awarded to EADS-Northrup Grumman, a French consortium, instead of to the giant American company, Boeing. When this happened, the anti-Roberts people immediately suggested Roberts did not work hard enough to help Boeing, which has a major plant and thousands of employees in Wichita, get the contract.

This week, the Slattery campaign issued a multipage press release claiming, or raising questions about, whether Roberts did, indeed, fail to give the proper support to Boeing, perhaps because he received $14,000 in campaign contributions from Northrop Grumman.

Slattery campaign officials claimed the so-called “buy American” provision was removed from the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill with the help and support of Roberts. Slattery supporters also claimed Roberts’ son, David, lobbied the Senate on behalf of EADS concerning the Defense Authorization Bill.

A Roberts spokesman acknowledged Roberts received the $14,000 but said he also received campaign support from Boeing. They said it is likely every member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee received contributions from most every major American defense contractor. They claim Roberts was not a part of the Bush effort that opposed the “buy American” provision. Bush said if the provision was included, he would veto the Defense Authorization bill. It was removed and the measure passed the House and Senate.

Lastly, Roberts supporters pointed out that although David Roberts was a member of a major lobbying firm, the Rhoads Group, his efforts involved helicopter issues, not the jet tanker matter.

Clearly, the Slattery people devoted a great deal of time and effort to assembling what they considered damning evidence against Roberts and his son. However, Roberts spokespeople could counter that the campaign contributions were not unusual and that the records of Roberts’ son are open to the public and show he did not lobby on behalf of EADS-Grumman on the tanker legislation.

It would be surprising if Roberts’ representatives were not supportive and defensive of the senator because he does enjoy a record of being honest and straightforward. This does not mean he has never made a mistake, but in this case, the record seems to support his position.

This is just one example of what the public is going to be subjected to in the coming months. There is nothing subtle in the Slattery effort as he wants the public to assume the worst about his opponent and the opponent’s son. No one is off-limits.

If the efforts are so intense and heated at this time, consider what they are likely to be as the November election draws closer.

Half-truths, vast sums of money, racial undercurrents, promises and pledges (some of them honest and legitimate and others that are nothing but phony), hollow vote-getting efforts, false accusations and Monday-morning quarterbacking all are going to be used to try to get votes for one candidate over another.

American voters are going to have a tough time determining who is telling the truth when the name of the game in past elections has been to “go negative” and when it appears this tactic will be expanded in the current election effort.

It’s not a pretty picture. The use of such tactics to win votes is one more reason it is difficult to get good men and women to seek public office.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

21 June 2008 at 8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

OK, Dolph, we know you are a stalwart Republican— couldn't you have just endorsed Roberts's re-election bid in a couple of paragraphs rather than this long-winded backhand against Slattery?
21 June 2008 at 9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

queequeg (Anonymous) says…

“It would be surprising if Roberts’ representatives were not supportive and defensive of the senator because he does enjoy a record of being honest and straightforward”

what a laugh.
21 June 2008 at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

Yes, voters are going to have to sort through a great deal of information this election cycle.

Including campaign ads that are put into editorial form and disguised as words of advice to the voting public.
21 June 2008 at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldnavychief (Anonymous) says…

As we verify information, remember, when double parked in front of a cat house, it is difficult to convince the electorate you where in there saving souls. Were roads group really working on helicopters for a French consortium or blocking “the giant American company Boeing” from being awarded military jet refueling contract. From the recent Intelligence Committee reports, there has been lots of sleeping at the switch for which there will be an accounting. We are not upset that mistakes were make, we are upset because we were mislead. Pat Roberts will answer for his poor performance and failure to find solutions for issues important to Kansas.
21 June 2008 at 11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Well, of course we won't need to sort out and verify the validity of all the information that'll be thrown about during the elections. We can always count on the award-winning LJW to tell us the objective and honest truth. And I for one plan to vote the entire slate according to the LJW editorial board's endorsement.

[Yes, that was sarcasm.]

But what the heck, from the look of the early comments, it doesn't appear too many people are even interested in the information that will be presented, having made up their minds already anyway. Big shocker there.
21 June 2008 at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Some of us have a wide variety of sources of information, nota. You should try it sometime.
21 June 2008 at 12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…

Why was Bush so against the “buy American” clause that he threatened to veto the whole thing?
21 June 2008 at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

If you're referring to the size of your derriere as your “wide” variety of sources, boohoozo, that was the most accurate statement you've made in months.
21 June 2008 at 2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…

“Why was Bush so against the “buy American” clause that he threatened to veto the whole thing?”

Maybe because the lives of the servicemen who depend on having the best available aircraft to fly in are more important than being able to stamp “Made in Kansas” on an inferior aircraft?
21 June 2008 at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

guybeau (Anonymous) says…

YES!! Verify - on June 5, 2008 Phase II of U. S. Senate Intelligence Committee report released what Pat Roberts knew and when he knew it. www.intelligence.senate.gov and waste Pat Roberts failed to see - www.oversight.house.gov This is not old news nor the end of this discussion.
21 June 2008 at 3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/st…
Barack Obama came to Jacksonville for the first time this year … by the end of the day Obama had raised more than $1 million here. Obama spoke for 31 minutes, then waded into the crowd to shake hands for several more minutes.
Obama told the crowd he is confident that he will win on the issues. As a result, he said, the Republican strategy will be “to make you afraid of me.”
He ticked off charges that will be made against him: too young, too inexperienced, “he's got a funny name.”
Then he paused: “Did I mention he's black.”
He waited for the laughter to die down, then added, to perhaps the biggest cheer of the night, “He's got a feisty wife.”
As if to prove Obama's prediction, a heckler outside the convention center shouted at two women leaving the fund-raiser that they'd “burn in hell” for supporting Obama. He said that Obama is a Muslim who will “take away all our weapons.”
21 June 2008 at 8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

guybeau (Anonymous) says…

Pat Roberts failed the country when it mattered most. See a real news story www.primebuzz.kcstar.com/?=node/12238
24 June 2008 at 7:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

texburgh (Anonymous) says…

Okay, take Roberts at his word. But ask yourself this, why didn't he fight Bush to the death on this issue? Roberts has been much more of a suck-up to the Bush administration - supporting almost anything Bush wants without question - than an advocate for Kansas or Kansans. No Kansas legislator should have supported the bill without the Buy American clause. Roberts did. We need someone who is more interested in Kansas than being the president's lacky.

And, yes Dolph, we know you love all Republicans. You even endorsed Jim Ryun - another do nothing Republican. Why not dump the pretense of objectivity and make your list today? This editorial amounts to nothing more than a paid political advertisement. It is the equivalent of “swift-boating.” We know the LJW will be doing more of this. I'm offended by the LJW trying to disguise it as an editorial.
25 June 2008 at 9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gonewiththewind (Anonymous) says…

Well said texburgh. I hope you stay on them for using the editorial page as an ad. The LJW knows they will receive ads from Roberts and are priming the pump like they have done on many other community service projects leading to big advertising paybacks. “swift-boating” You are on it.