Really last-minute sleaze
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Elections, General Politics, Partisan Hacks, RaceIn Maryland, Republicans have sent out a last-minute flier that implies black leaders support Gov. Robert Ehrlich and Senate candidate Michael Steele.
Problem is that none of the three leaders pictured support Ehrlich and only one supports Steele.
Shouldn’t people who outright lie in campaign literature automatically lose?
Over at Midtopia I’ve got links to more election hijinks, here and here.
UPDATE from Justin Gardner:
CNN reports…
BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) — The campaign of Maryland’s Republican governor, Robert Ehrlich, took responsibility Tuesday for a flier that some voters complained was an attempt to falsely suggest Ehrlich and another candidate are Democrats.Shareese DeLeaver, spokeswoman for the Ehrlich campaign, said the brochure was not a “dirty trick,” and was a reach-out to Democratic voters led by the group Democrats for Ehrlich, showing people they could choose Democrats for other offices while still supporting Ehrlich and Steele for governor and senator.
I’d like to see the flier.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 7th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, General Politics, Partisan Hacks, Race. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 7th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I would agree that if you lie you should automatically lose. I could support that as a law. It wouldn’t be any worse than flag burning, voter IDs, gay rights, or any life support bill that these dicks in congress have taken it upon themselves to impose and waste our time on.
November 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think you can say somebody loses, because usually these shadowy groups have NOTHING to do with the candidate. They’re funding by outside sources, and not always by the side they appear to be supporting. There’s a lot of counter-intel going on here to make it appear as if it’s coming from one side when it really isn’t.
It’s just so damn messy that if anybody is caught handing this stuff out, they should be put in jail, period. And if you can find solid operational connections up the chain, then yes, a forfeiture is in order. But I doubt it would very rarely find it’s way back to the candidate him or herself.
November 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
There is a simple solution to all of these voter frauds and scheming – accountability.
If your convicted of illegal voting practices following an election win then you are automatically kicked out of office and face criminal prosecution. Your opponent takes the office.
If your part of an organization which engages in fraudelant practices you face criminal and civil prosecution.
Until we abide by the rules and laws and enforce them we will not have a fair and open system. The Founding Fathers realized that, why do we have such a hard time with the concept?
November 7th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Eural, as Justin quite correctly noted, these vipers (on the left and the right) wtho revel in dirty tricks around election time, have nothing to do with the campaigns themselves.
Would you support a rule that Democratic candidates lose if ACORN is convicted of registering dead people to vote? Of course not. The Democratic candidates are not responsible for and have no control over ACORN activists. Likewise, the Republican candidates and Republican party officials have no control over the sleazy people who scheme to “help” Republican candidates. I’m really getting tired of reading bloggers who act as if one party or the other has clean hands when it comes to this sort of thing. Even if some Democratic campaign funds make their way into ACORN coffers, or GOP campaign funds made their way to pay for this brochure, that’s absolutely no reason to toss out an elected representative. Elections would become a farce, decided only on the basis of after-the-fact lawsuits rather than at the ballot box.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Dirty campaign tricks are as American as apple pie. Doesn’t make it right but it does make it unsurprising.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
While I agree with Justin, Pat and Alan overall, in this particular case the ad was paid for by the Ehrlich and Steele campaigns. Nothing shadowy about it.
I recognize that a simplistic “you lie, you lose” rule wouldn’t be a good idea. It was more an expression of frustration than anything else.
November 7th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Problem is, campaigns are so sleazy these days I could easily see one side deliberately tricking the other into a lie, or even framing them for something they didn’t do.
What we really need to do is get all elections to the point that ONLY campaigns can say anything about their election, and that ONLY their direct constituents – NOT corporations or lobbyists – can contribute money. Third parties with soft money should SHUT UP.