No joy in mudville

And, following that, we’re sure the election season will rain down on us more mud-slinging politicians so desperate for a victory that their ethics vaporize like fog on an autumn morning. The personal and mean-spirited attacks will amp up as we get closer to November, and that raises the question: What is unacceptable political behavior now?

We’ve already been sullied by the attack ads in the race for governor; most of them are misleading, and they rarely raise important issues. Many of us are so disappointed in the candidates and the process that the election will amount to a lesser-of-evils vote or to no vote at all. I vote by switching the channel every time I see an attack ad, and I suggest you do the same.

Focusing on the negative characteristics of an opponent rather than on the issues seems so commonplace today. Using statements that are factually true but that are taken out of context has become an art form for less-than-worthy politicians who pay millions for these misleading ads. When did this become accepted behavior by people seeking public office?

Most politicians would draw the line at making statements that are clearly factually untrue. It becomes even worse when these attacks on a candidate’s image are made anonymously, and the politician has no place to turn in fighting the allegations. Such is the case with one particularly nasty race in Nevada County (see “Izzy under assault,” page 20). Political mailers, for which no one would take credit, were sent to citizens with false allegations against a candidate.

Is it really worth it? Once the mud has dried on the political battleground, is the territory worth having?