©
It's a sad state of affairs when two candidates running for state office make news simply by being respectful of each other.
But a civil campaign devoid of personal attacks was exactly what constituents in Connecticut's 18th Senate district got when two-term incumbent Democrat Andrew Maynard and his Republican challenger, Stuart Norman, began stumping with each other.
You read that right.
Rather than blaming Maynard for Connecticut's economy and riding the national anti-incumbent wave, Norman, a school board member, proposed that the two engage in "a campaign of civility and respect," the local newspaper, The Day, reported.
Maynard agreed.
So in recent weeks, the two went around their sprawling district together, debating issues such as how best to deal with the state's multibillion dollar budget deficit, what to do with the bloated Department of Transportation, and how to deal with the state employees' pension system, which is in danger of bankrupting the state.
Maynard won Tuesday night with 60 percent of the vote, but Norman said he enjoyed the campaign immensely and praised the senator for joining him on the civility tour.
"I went into this knowing it was a huge uphill battle," he told The Day, "but it didn't feel like a battle. It felt like fun."
The candidates' willingness to engage each other in thoughtful discussions with citizens about Connecticut's problems set a tone that should reverberate throughout the capitol in Hartford.
Indeed, in these days of bottom-feeding campaigns and multimillion-dollar elections, Maynard and Norman need to expand their tour, reminding the rest of the country what a democratic republic is supposed to look like and how its leaders are supposed to behave.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Gee, the word that comes to my mind..
is "chump". If you're not in it to win it, you shouldn't be in it. Interesting that the Pilot's editorial board lauds the antics of these two, yet, declines offering any criticism of what transpired in california, where the Democratic candidate (and now winner) for the governor's seat there labeled his female opponent as a "ho", well, not in the street lingo offered here but used the actual word. Unless I missed it, I don't recall anything in the way of the Pilot calling out their fellow Democrat for such an utterance. I guess all women in politics are thus labeled as such! I mean, even the National Organization of Women (NOW) of California endorsed that view. Remember, good or proper 'discourse' to this bunch means you agree with them and/or don't point out how bad they are on any given issue.
I think you missed the point
The point is, these candidates ran honest civil campaigns that gave the voters actual information of their individual ideas on solving the issues that threaten the state. This is simply an example of how campaign discourse can be conducted. In today's elections this is a rare occurrence. We are exposed to dirty misleading tactics all the time. Going into all the bad examples would be pointless.
Again, voter hold most of the blame
I have to agree. There will always be differences in opinions on how to solve the problems we have. However, to combat an opposing view with character assassination instead of sound facts and reasoning is too often employed. All views have to be voiced and then the electorate make a sound decision on the course we take to move ahead. Unfortunately, many people only look at the charisma of one candidate over another and not the issues at hand or whom will serve our country best. You can give the media a little bit of the blame but I believe that the lion's share belong to the many voters who are too lazy to look past the sound bites and flashy appeal to just jump on the mudslinging bandwagon. The only reason that candidates use negative campaigning is because it works.
The media takes some responsibility in all the rancor
The media has to accept some responsibility in all the rancor. Controversy sell. Big headlines sell papers, shouting guests draw eyeballs. If the media would publish fewer controversial sound bites, if the talking heads would televise fewer talking heads shouting talking points, the campaigns would be different. Why papers and tv are re tweeting tweets is beyond me.
If only this were the case in the rest of the country
I sincerely wish that we had been able to have our candidates here in Virginia conduct their campaigns in the same manner. To have the candidates actually talk about the issues and their ideas on solving them would certainly be a luxury. Unfortunately, that was not the case. I guess you can't legislate civility.