This is for personal, noncommercial use only.
Can we stop New Jersey's political campaigns from degenerating into typical mudslighting and a "yo' momma" level of discourse?
That's the question Richard Lee from the Hall Institute, a New Jersey think tank, asks in a recent column.
The abyss into which this gubernatorial election has sunk hasn't escaped national attention: Washington Post columnist David Broder recently wrote, "Campaigns (in New Jersey) are rarely elevated affairs, but the current battle between Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine and Republican challenger Christopher Christie has sunk to new depths." Slate described it as "an all-out food fight."
What does Lee recommend? Well, like most think-tank guys (and editorial writers, for that matter), he doesn't have to deal with political realities. Two of his suggestions, I'll wager, will never see the light of day: Moving back primaries to September, which would at least limit the amount of time for negative campaigning; and developing an accuracy-rating system for advertisements, similar to those of motion pictures.
Tempting concept, but good luck.
One of his ideas, though, is a little less radical: Scrapping the existing debate process to get the candidates and their campaign handlers out of the negotiations. Have private citizens, civic leaders and academics figure out a format that will give voters a clear idea of where candidates stand on the issues and how they differ.
Anything that would make these debates a little more watchable and meaningful is welcome.
Meanwhile, here's a note of cheer: It's all over today.
Posted in Carla_linz on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 2:50 pm
No comments have been posted. Be the first poster!
Click here to report a comment as abusive.