Let’s play nice

By Sean Pearson
As a country, we often complain about the “new lows” candidates sink to when coming to the end of an often fierce and furious campaign. The truth is, we’re simply carrying on a more than 200-year-old tradition that has never done anything but further dig party lines in the sand.
As of Tuesday afternoon, unofficial votes show that Republican insurgent candidate Joe Miller continues to lead incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the Senate primary by some 1,294 votes.
Things haven’t changed much since a week ago.
Well, unless you count the media hype that continues to surround the “Tweet” heard ‘round the world.
If you happened to miss it — which seems highly unlikely — here’s a quick recap:
On Friday, an interesting post appeared on Miller’s Twitter account in response to rumors that Murkowski could run on the Libertarian ballot if she loses to the Sarah Palin-backed Teapartier Miller for the GOP nomination.
It read: What’s the difference between selling out your party’s values and the oldest profession?
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the post compared her to a prostitute and demanded an apology, reportedly referring to the name-calling as “disgusting.”
In response, Miller’s camp said the tweet was actually written by a volunteer staff worker who has since been relieved of his tweeting duties. Miller then insisted the tweet was directed at the Libertarian Party, not Sen. Murkowski.
In the end, however, Miller apologized to Murkowski for “any hurt feelings caused by this poorly conceived post.”
But it continues. In Monday night’s news, it was the Libertarian Party’s turn to need consolation from the flying muck that landed on his group. Head of that party, Scott Kohlhaas, went on the record as saying it’s hard enough to get Libertarian principles across to an uneducated public. Why would they agree to back a candidate who isn’t against the war in Iraq-Afghanistan and other key ideals held dear by the party like more personal freedom from government interference?
“This was like a Seinfeld show,” he complained, “a show about nothing.”
Name-calling, mudslinging, dirty politics; it’s all been around for quite some time now. Before we start feeling all smug and proud of just how low we’ve sunk, perhaps a quick peek back at mudslinging days of yore will paint us in a different light now.

• In 1800, Jefferson hired a writer named James Callender to attack President Adams. He wrote that John Adams is “a repulsive pedant,” a “gross hypocrite,” and “a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
• In 1828, a Republican pamphlet said Democrat Andrew Jackson was “a gambler, a cock fighter, a slave trader and the husband of a really fat wife,” an insult for which he never forgave his opponents.
• In 1836, Congressman Davy Crockett accuses candidate Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s clothing: “He is laced up in corsets!”
• In the 1850s, a Democratic newspaper told voters that Lincoln should not be elected president because he only changed his socks once every 10 days.
• In 1876, opponents of Rutherford B. Hayes spread around a rumor that he had shot his own mother in a fit of rage.
Then, there was the infamous Harry S Truman, who, while campaigning for John F. Kennedy in 1960 said, “If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to hell.”

And we thought those bumper stickers taunting Lisa about being appointed to the U.S. Senate by her dad, Gov. Frank Murkowski were mean.
Maybe we actually have gotten better. Maybe we have evolved into a more civilized nation. After all, we teach our children to play nice with each other in kindergarten. I wonder why we stop when we grow up?
Or maybe this is just how the game is played.
I say it’s time to stop the game and change the rules.

Subscribe via RSS

Subscribe via email