Campaigning: Dirty v. Negative

One of the parts of campaigning that makes people most uncomfortable is dirty campaigning.

But people will often say something along the lines of, "Oh, I just hate negative campaigning." Well, there is a difference and I want to help underscore the difference because it is often the topic of discussion and was even mentioned in a recent debate.

First, lets talk about the differences between the two.

NEGATIVE is highlighting something bad about your opponents track record, candidacy, policy position, business or professional association or time in office.

DIRTY is fabricating something, bringing up something about a relative, or something salacious that isn't related to the campaign. Its almost always something that isn't issue-oriented.

I raise this point because this campaign has been pretty sharp between candidates. Normally its just the main headline race that has the sharp barbs at one another. But since there are so many hotly contested races in this campaign season, the blows are flying all over the place.

I'll go over a couple of attacks that are negative, but not dirty. I highlight these two examples because they were specifically characterized as something as dirty or personal.

Example number 1 - Ray Gutierrez's recent attack on the fact that Arditti still took a full salary as judge when she was suspended from the bench while she was facing the charges she ultimately was exonerated of. The reason someone called it dirty was because of the fact that Arditti was acquitted. Yes, that is true. But thats the not the point of Gutierrez's attack.

What he is doing is underscoring the fact that Arditti took the salary while not working for the tax payers of El Paso County and the tax payers had to foot the salary of another judge to come in and do Arditti's job. His line of attack isn't about the disposition of her case. He's criticizing the fact that she still took a salary. Critics will say that its not right to take a salary for work you didn't do. Supporters will say that she would've been doing the job but for the fact that she was suspended and that was out of her control. Both sides are valid arguments, but I think its ridiculous to call Gutierrez's attack dirty.

It isn't. Its tough and its issue-based, but its not dirty.

Arditti is asking for another term. The heart of the debate for any incumbent judge, or elected official for that matter, is whether or not they deserve to be sent back to their office for another term.

Gutierrez delivers and sharp, but fair critique in my opinion.

His first attempt at attacking Arditti was feeble and Arditti spoke with me at great length to explain her courts numbers. She was right, he was wrong.

Now she has a different issue to deal with. Its fair in my opinion.

The other example is something on video. I posted this video last week of an exchange between Vince Perez and Chente Quintanilla.



As you can see in the video, Perez makes critiques of Quintanilla's track record in the legislature and raises the question as to why Quintanilla is seeking the office of County Commissioner.

Incredibly Quintanilla calls it a personal attack and actually finds himself defending former County Commissioner Willie Gandara in his response. Even Dora Oaxaca doesn't put herself in to the position of having to defend Gandara so I am baffled as to why Quintanilla felt it necessary to do so.

Later Quintanilla characterizes the critique from Perez as "personal". This is a perfect example of a mischaracterization of an attack. Quintanilla's main selling point to voters is that he has been an elected official in the region for years and what he has done for the community. In fact, he even mentioned the fact that the El Paso Times laid out some of his accomplishments while he was State Rep and  he uses it in literature.

He is marketing his experience to voters. He is therefore open to a critique of his record as a State Rep. Its fair game and its not personal.

But the reason that Quintanilla and others have found that kind of criticism something that makes them uncomfortable is because they have never faced it before previously.

Those are just two examples, I could analyze more but I think its important that people understand what is really going on beneath campaign rhetoric.

But, on the other hand, people who engage in negative politics run the risk of voters not being happy with it. Its always a bit of a risk when candidates go on the attack because it can sometimes leave them open to a counter attack or make their opponent a martyr. Candidates have to be careful to not let negative campaigning define their candidacy and have to provide a mixture of critique of the other candidates along with a strong dose of what their plans for the office are.

Still a long way to go people, more than 40 days until early voting...