October 26, 2008-Bismarck Tribune

Wear clean underwear, brush your teeth three times a day and shower every morning. She told me that life wasn’t always fair, but most of the bad things that happen aren’t the end of the world. I learned from her and my pop that money doesn’t grow on trees.

Be careful what you wish for as it might come true, she would often offer. She would also explain why I could or couldn’t do something: “Because I’m your mother and I said so, that’s why!”

But the best of my momma’s truths — or deal with the consequences — was this one: If you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything at all.

I have mentioned this jewel to my own children many times.

But somewhere along the chain of food, command, fence or letter that message from mommas has been altered, at least by politicians, who mostly, probably, also had good mommas.

The political creed today seems to be this: Never say anything nice about your opponent, especially if you are behind in the campaign. The creed continues: It is often best to sling mud in the face of your opponents to see how much sticks and distorts his or her real image.

Sounds like out-of-control kids.

That philosophy, as we all know, is in direct opposition of the “North Dakota Nice” norm. Therefore, it’s a good thing we only have about two weeks left of the negative campaigns and all the muddy fights.

Truth be told — and I am — I’ve never believed the old yarn about sticks and stones breaking bones and words never hurting. I’ve been hit with sticks and stones and none ever broke a bone, but I’ve sure had several mouthfuls of hurtful words spewed at me.

Far too many campaign managers, strategists and candidates believe attacking an opponent on professional and personal levels is effective. They claim they have proof it works. 

Maybe I am naïve, but I don’t like it. It doesn’t work with me and it makes me question the character of the attacker. I want to know why I should vote for a candidate, not why I shouldn’t vote for the other candidate.

It’s also a matter of respect; not only for the candidate being attacked, but for the attacker. How can a candidate respect him- or herself if he-she bends or blends the truth, tells only part of a story or makes up blatant accusations for propaganda purposes? How can I respect them?

Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I believe it is always best to strut, humbly, your own stuff. My personal votes are based on the positive qualities a candidate convinces me that he or she has to do a job. I understand no candidate for any job, political or otherwise, is perfect, but bad-mouthing the competition with me is a huge negative. And I don’t base my vote on partisan politics.

The national and local examples of mudslingers and specific messages abound. They fling different amounts of filthy words at every opportunity. This could be a never-ending column of specific examples, but what would be the purpose? Still, here is a brief critique of several races and the high, low and middle roads that candidates have taken.

President:

McCain — low road.

Obama — middle road.

Governor:

Hoeven — high road.

Mathern — middle road.

Congress:

Pomeroy — low road.

Sand — low road.

Insurance Commissioner:

Schneider — low road.

Auditor:

Peterson — no road.

Splichal — high road.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction:

Laird — middle road.

Sanstead — high road.

State Treasurer:

Schmidt — high road.

Vance — low to middle road.

High and middle road politicians get more consideration with me; The low-roaders can win my vote if they are the best candidate, but it’s a harder sale. 

A final note: This week’s Tribune editorials will focus on political endorsements. My personal voting preferences have limited influence on the Tribune’s editorial board endorsement decisions. I am one of four members of the board who have equal influence in these discussions and decisions. The ultimate decision rests with the publisher, but he rarely exercises that power and the five members of the board generally reach a negotiated consensus.