Is it possible that the Republican Party in Minnesota repeated the same mistakes we made on a national level during the Presidential race? Once again we were facing a huge-government official with controversial and concerning affiliations, a record and history pointing to uncertainty, and a left-funded smear campaign drawing attention to personal attacks on our candidates, rather than the more important issues at hand. And once again, our candidate took the high road, focused on issues and solutions, had the better and more concrete plan, and was not elected. It is of course worth investigating where we have continued to go wrong, especially with the 2012 elections on the horizon.
In light of our encouraging success in the House and Senate this last election, the outcome of the governors race was baffling to many. Sure, the role of extensive voter fraud and corruption within the system designed to account for said fraud remains to be fully assessed, but it won't change the fact that the next Minnesota governor will be Mark Dayton.
What disappointed me most about how this election played out was it's shocking similarity in many way to the outcome of Senator John McCain's campaign for the Presidency. I still remember sitting just a few feet from John McCain during his town hall meeting in the new gym of Lakeville South High School as he handled a comment by one of his supporters about Obama being "an Arab," by defending his opponent and insisting that we focus on the issues and platforms, rather than any personal attacks. McCain never swayed in his strict and righteous adherence to a campaign of facts and integrity. But what exactly constitutes integrity? Should the personal qualifications and associations of a candidate be entirely ignored and his or her plan solely focused on?
The Democrats ran a campaign based almost entirely on the charisma and image of their opponent's ideas and personal attacks on their opponent's personal life. Palin's daughter got pregnant and Emmer drove under the influence 20 years ago. Do either of those attacks really tell the public whether or not these opponents will serve us well in office? No. The Democrats were also the ones who pushed arguments about Sarah Palin being a bad mother for running, because she had children who needed care and attention. These are the same people who the media claim appeal to women. Saying that a candidate shouldn't run because she belongs in the kitchen feeding her children is appalling and insulting. And yet, it was acceptable coming from Democrats. If men can serve in office and have children, then so can women. Palin's children did not in any way constitute a legitimate reason for why she would not be suited for the job.
Yet, when we mention Dayton's recent issues with alcoholism and relapses, we're derided for our "shameful" character attack. This is a criticism of Mark Dayton, rather than his ideas, yes, but isn't this an arguably more valid criticism than drinking and driving twenty years ago, in terms of having a relevant impact on performance?
It is important that Republicans maintain campaigns based in integrity, but it is also important that we understand that omitting certain things from the public that are clearly relevant is quite the opposite of integrity. People deserved to know about Obama's affiliations. Granted, Obama came in sort of as a ghost candidate, present but without anything solid to characterize him, let alone criticize, but had we known even a little more about the man, perhaps voters would have sensed the warning and cast their vote in favor of a more suited candidate. If you're thinking that such information is the media's responsibility to present, as the nation's self-called watchdog, then you're right. The media workforce failed the American people last election to say the least. They were so busy presenting Obama as some sort pop culture icon to boost their ratings, that they forgot completely that the purpose of having our media is for it to serve the public. Just as their star candidate forgot that the purpose of having a government is also to serve the public.
But be that as it may, representing the actual beliefs and ideals of the citizenry requires that we better support our reasons for presenting this candidate instead of simply agreeing with the other party's choice. And that involves not only what our candidate has to offer, but why we feel the other candidate will be unfit to represent or hold office.
Mitch Berg outlined several points about Dayton that the media neglected to mention during the endorsement process and election, among which were of course the alcoholism and relapses, along with "quitting his job as economic development commissioner under Rudy Perpich, the closure of his DC Senate offices in 2005, his record as a New York 'Teacher'-it was up to Sheila Kihne to find out that 'the toughest job of his life' lasted sixteen months of working about 1/3 of the time until his draft status let up." He also listed Dayton's educational record, commenting, "the University of Massachusetts at Amherst won't say if he got his teaching certificate (or, indeed, whether he completed any coursework at all), which'd be an odd bit of history for someone who opposes alternative teacher licensing."
Erin Haust, writing for the Minneapolis Conservative Examiner wrote:
Dayton's history of ties to socialist, progressive groups is far from secret. Dayton spokeswoman and Executive Director for Alliance for a Better Minnesota, Denise Cardinal, was a featured speaker alongside self-avowed communist and community organizer Van Jones at the America's Future Now! conference last summer. They and other speakers demanded redistribution of wealth in the United States and discussed radical, revolutionary tactics to accomplish that end. Neither the state party nor the Emmer campaign made the connection between radicals like Cardinal and Van Jones and the Dayton campaign.
She mentioned as well that Alliance for a Better Minnesota led a smear campaign against Target. Bill O'Reilly luckily exposed them for this "hypocritical and shameful tactic used by ABM to disillusion Minnesota voters." Haust pointed out that once again, "the state party and Emmer campaign was silent."
She continued:
Dayton's campaign received millions of dollars from groups and individuals linked to socialists, progressives and communists. George Soros funded organizations like Democracy Alliance contributed heavily to his campaign. Soros himself is scheduled to co-host a fundraiser for Dayton in the coming week.
The Republican Party of Minnesota and the Emmer campaign failed to take advantage of the national media attention Dayton's friends and allies were receiving during the campaign and throughout the recount. The opposition research was non-existent. The state party and the Emmer campaign failed miserably to expose Dayton's past and present relationships, even when national media outlets were on the cusp of breaking the stories wide open.
Though Tom Emmer ran a campaign focused on the facts and issues of the race which were of course to his advantage, the Emmer campaign and state party did appear to forget that smear still is effective. That false ad that played over and over again with the mom talking about how Emmer voted to lessen punishments for drunk drivers received no response from the campaign, which was basically the same as confirming it. The Republican Party desperately needs to touch up on some of the basics of public relations, because the opposition is using it with such proficiency that they can bring in candidates like Mark Dayton and win elections.
We should continue to run the more professional and respectful campaigns, by focusing on the issues and facts and only mentioning those personal and character attributes that directly affect how well a candidate can perform a job. We shouldn't simply rule out all personal criticisms, though, because those affiliations and personal issues will surface while Dayton is in office, just as we saw the manifestations of the concerning beliefs and affiliations of Obama's surface in his radical reign. I would have hoped that history would have taught us just how dangerous it is to choose representatives based on intentions rather than their ability to carry through those intentions, the means they are willing to justify in getting there, and whether or not public opinion or reaction holds any weight with them in terms of evaluating their grand plans.
Apparently, it hasn't yet. But I still hold out hope that this is not due to the carelessness or selfishness of the voter in most cases, so much as the general ignorance, fostered by a negligent and agenda-driven media, which had allowed for campaigns like these to turn out the way they do. If we truly care about our fellow citizens, we will ensure that next time around, our campaign presents all of the facts, including why voters should not vote for our opposition, and about which attacks on our candidate are or aren't true. Despite how it sounds, it won't be simple. But it will certainly be necessary if we don't wish to repeat these same mistakes a third time.
Cross-posted at True North and Ladies Logic.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment