Signs for the upcoming supervisor elections have started to
appear around town and one of them sets my teeth on edge.
Signs for the upcoming supervisor elections have started to appear around town and one of them sets my teeth on edge.
The signs for Marian Cruz bear the legend “It’s about integrity.”
The first time I noticed this phrase, it was on a big, hand-stenciled sign, and I thought maybe integrity was an issue just for that particular household.
Then I noticed that Cruz’s official signs say the same thing. So it’s official: The Cruz campaign is tossing the issue of integrity into the race without coming right out and saying why.” Why are we going there?
Full disclosure: I have done paid writing work for Cruz’s opponent, Jaime de la Cruz. But this is not so much about these two candidates.
I’m questioning the use of innuendo by one side to gently call into question the integrity of the other. By doing it this way, they don’t have to come up with any facts or examples. They can just say, “We think integrity is important to the campaign and to the position of supervisor.” And who wouldn’t agree with that?
But they may have accomplished leaving a vague doubt that all may not be quite right with the integrity of the other candidate.
This county has enough real issues to worry about without its candidates dragging the campaign out of issues and track-record discussions into very delicately phrased pokes at the other side. If nothing else, this is not the way a person with integrity would run a campaign. I want candidates to focus on what they would do differently, if they are challenging an incumbent.
You may remember, there was bad feeling at the end of the previous campaign, when de la Cruz was elected over Bob Cruz, the then-incumbent and Marian’s husband. Is this the source of the remark on Cruz’s signs in this campaign? I said that my comments were not about these two candidates specifically, but if any of this history is involved, I say let it go.
An incumbent should be able to point to his or her accomplishments and ask voters: “Did I accomplish enough for you? Did I accomplish the right things? What has changed? What should I do differently? Vote for me, and I’ll do an even better job for you and our community.”
A challenger should say: “So and so had their turn. But look what they neglected. Plus, I disagree with this that they did. We would be much better off if X, Y, Z. Plus, I have experience in (some important area that’s suffering in our county) and this is a crucial issue for us right now, so vote for me!”
It should be like a job interview. Candidates present their credentials, accomplishments and skills and hope they get (or get to keep) the job. You would never go to a job interview and say, “Hire me because that other person is a slimeball.” And candidates shouldn’t do that either.
