Confessions of a Negative Campaigner

October 19th, 2012 · · General, Politics Comments Off - Tags: , ,

“It is wrong, quite simply, to squander a candidate’s priceless moment in history, a moment in which he or she could have brought critical issues before the citizenry, on partisan bickering.” – Congressman Mike Pence

Congressman Pence is a great role model for positive campaigning. In fact, I borrowed the name of his 1991 essay for this post. He ran an unsuccessful negative campaign in 1990 and since then swore to never do so again and he’s kept his word. He is focused on what he will do as the next governor of Indiana and his plan for our states future.

In 2010 I ran for a local political office and went negative with my campaigning. I do regret running a campaign that as a Christian I cannot be proud of and have learned the hard way that negative campaigning is simply wrong. With a few years of reflection I realize how big of a mistake I made:

  • Many long hours spent developing policies to streamline and improve local government in the face of property tax caps and constricting budgets were wasted by going negative. Putting the focus on my opponents perceived negative points and not my own ideas cheated the voters out of productive and valuable exchanges.
  • Going negative taints the largely positive experience of campaigning. It is a great experience to get out into your community and to meet the voters. Running a negative campaign polarizes people and diminishes your ability to be a positive impact on your community.
  • Negative campaigning was disrespectful to my opponent. Anyone who runs for public office deserves to be respected. Running for office is one of the most difficult things you can do. The commitment of time and money are significant as you are put yourself on display and submit yourself to continual scrutiny.

Ultimately, negative campaigning exposed my immaturity as a candidate and a lack of confidence in my abilities. Holding public office is an honor that I hope to someday achieve. However, the next time I run for office I will focus on conducting a positive, issues-based campaign that is respectful to my opponent and of value to the citizenry.

Mourdock Donnelly and Horning Clash in US Senate Debate

October 16th, 2012 · · Politics Comments Off - Tags: , , , ,

Recent polls show the open US Senate seat in Indiana at dead even between Republican Richard Mourdock and Democrat Joe Donnelly, making their race one of most watched in the country as a few seats changing hands could alter which party controls the Senate. Libertarian Andrew Horning is also on the ballot, but is only polling at 5%.

With such a build-up it would be hard to deliver on expectations, but that’s exactly what all three candidates managed to do. Nearly every answer was heavily contested between Mourdock and Donnelly while Horning spent most of the night pointing out the dysfunction between the two candidates and offered a third option to fix the mess that the two parties have created.

Donnelly played up his support of bi-partisan politics and made an interesting attempt at reaching out to supporters of Republican Senator Richard Lugar – who was defeated by Mourdock in the May primary – by defending Senator Lugar’s record, discussing his bi-partisan efforts while in congress and by denouncing a letter sent out by Mourdock that claimed Lugar had “betrayed” Indiana voters. Donnelly will need to sway these “Lugar Republicans” to move ahead in this race.

However, Mourdock landed the hardest punch of the night while addressing Donnelly’s response to a citizen’s question concerning the role and size of government. Mourdock criticized Donnelly for claiming to support a limited sized government when Donnelly voted in favor of the government takeover of healthcare (Obamacare), thus increasing both the size and cost of the federal government.

Meanwhile, Libertarian Andrew Horning continually characterized Mourdock and Donnelly as the “cogs in the broken machine that cannot fix themselves”. He spoke out for limited, constitutional based government and pleaded with voters to support a “3rd option”. The key flaw in this approach is that the majority of voters in the state of Indiana support either the Republican or Democratic Party.

To vote third party as a “fix” to the problem means that voters are at fault as well. While this is factual, most voters will likely avoid such a catch-22 situation and continue to vote mainstream. Horning must relate Libertarian policies to the daily lives of Hoosiers to move past the normal 5% support that his party typically receives.

This hotly contested race will come down to a few key factors. If Mourdock can consolidate the Republican base and regain Lugar’s supporters, he will see a surge in the polls. His stance on principles over partisanship resonates well and should be re-enforced to blunt the majority of Donnelly’s attacks.

Outside races will also have an impact on this race. The race for Indiana Governor is currently dominated by Republican Mike Pence who is polling well ahead of Democrat John Gregg. Pence’s strong showing coupled with the Presidential race moving in Mitt Romney’s favor will certainly help energize the Republican base and enhance get out the vote efforts.

All eye’s will be eye’s Indiana’s U.S. Senate race right up until the polls close this November 6th as it could dramatically reshape the next 4 years of federal policy.

Obama Invokes the Liar, Liar Pants on Fire Defense in Face of Mounting Failures

October 15th, 2012 · · Politics Comments Off

“It seems pretty clear that their new strategy is basically just call us liars.” –Paul Ryan

Given the comments following the first presidential debate, Paul Ryan is correct in his assessment of the situation. “Governor Romney may dance around his positions. But if you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth,” Obama explained following the 1st presidential debate.

Obama’s adviser  David Axelrod, continued the liar, liar defense with his critical comments of Romney’s statements during the debate. “It was a very vigorous performance, but one that was devoid of honesty,” Axelrod said of Romney. He said that Romney delivered “fraudulent” lines that will be hard to hold up over the remainder of the campaign.

This type of strategy is in stark contrast to Obama’s 2008 stance on how to properly run for office: “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things,” Obama said after his 2008 acceptance speech.

Instead of defending his record, Obama has been on the attack making big issues out of little things. For example, his ridicule of Romney for proposing to cut funding for PBS to help reduce the nation’s deficit and reliance on loans from China:

“You didn’t know this, but for all you moms and kids out there, you should have confidence that finally, somebody is cracking down on Big Bird. Elmo has been seen in a white suburban. He’s driving for the border. Oscar is hiding out in his trash can.”

During the recent vice-presidential debate Paul Ryan closed with the key reason as to why Sesame Street has become an issues and not the Presidents track record as commander in chief.

Essentially it comes down to broken promises. Even more embarrassing for Obama and his administration is that they’ve been caught lying about the series of unfortunate events in Syria, according to the Washington Post. This foreign policy disaster in Syria is yet another reason why Obama would rather focus on Big Bird and not his administration’s string of economic and foreign policy failures, and why they would rather attack Romney.  

As Obama taught us in 2008, if you don’t have a record to run on you create fear about your opponent.

Romney is Right to Criticize the 47%

September 18th, 2012 · · Politics Comments Off

Mitt Romney is taking heat for his recent comments about the poor and lower middle class in America.  47% of the country not paying taxes is a real problem.  Speaking about it should not draw fire…it should draw applause.

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.  My job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

He’s right.  The U.S. has a 16 trillion dollar deficit that is fueled by excessive spending.  Clearly spending more money is not the answer to this type of problem.   Limiting spending and making the difficult cuts necessary to get out of this mess are required.  I’m pleased that a candidate has finally decided to be honest about the problems with the entitlement programs and hope that people rise to his challenge of accepting personal responsibility for their lives.

Think I’m being unfair?  The Democrats aren’t even modest about the assumed vote of those on government assistance going to President Obama – in fact, they are banking on it:

“We’re headed in the right direction. Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they’re not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits, cut access to food stamps, cut job training,” Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) said on MSNBC’s Al Sharpton program.

Clearly the entitlement vote will be a factor this year.  So why is Governor Romney getting heat for talking about it while President Obama is getting away with exploiting it?

The video of Romney’s statements can be found here.

Talent Is Nothing Without Persistence

September 16th, 2012 · · General Comments Off

I do not value talent. It’s hard to define and is a subjective label at best. What I do value is persistence – that odd and oftentimes foolish ability to continue on in the face of certain perceived failure.

Why is this important to me? Because I (and all of you) will fail. Don’t believe me?

The difference between failing and being a failure is clear. These winners kept moving forward, unlike the failures that we’ll never read about or hear of. Talent didn’t move these great men towards their goals, persistence did.  They focused like a laser on their end goals and did not stop, ever.

I’ll take a team full of can do/never quit minded people over “talented” any day.