As Nov. 7 draws closer, the campaign for attorney general has both candidates racing for votes in numerous avenues. But what means are Kathleen Falk and J.B. Van Hollen willing to use to achieve their goal?
Gossip is inevitable in many circumstances, especially in an election at any level. This election season, the public has seen scandals in most areas of the upcoming election.
Though many may not like to admit it, our society thrives on gossip. Everyone wants to know what someone else did to make her feel better about herself. The problem is that gossip is not always accurate. So it should be no surprise that, unfortunately, scandals can make or break elections. It's a classic dilemma for voters — becoming distracted from the issues and having to choose to vote solely on the facts or on the reliability of gossip.
Instead of promoting the positives of their campaigns, both candidates have gone decidedly negative.
It is not necessary for candidates to publicly endorse petty accusations against each other when the media is involved. While it is important for them to differentiate themselves from their opponents, negative advertisement is unnecessary and pollutes the election. It started with rumors, then press releases and now TV advertisements.
According to Chapter 165 of the Wisconsin statutes, one important duty of the attorney general is to "appear for the state and prosecute or defend all actions and proceedings."
The position of attorney general in Wisconsin entails the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer as well as a wide range of other responsibilities. It is not a political position, nor should it be presented as such. Ideologically, the two candidates lie on different ends of the political spectrum, but they do agree on some issues like eliminating the backlog in crime labs, confronting gang violence and fighting drugs like methamphetamine. Their approaches are markedly different.
J.B. Van Hollen is more experienced in the courtroom, whereas Kathleen Falk has more experience administratively. Some may see Ms. Falk's lack of criminal prosecutions as a huge disadvantage, while others may see Mr. Van Hollen's lack of experience managing large groups of people and Wisconsin's budget a downfall. Ms. Falk may have more experience delegating, but she hasn't completed a necessary responsibility for attorney general: prosecuting a case in a courtroom herself. And that is a huge disadvantage.
Kathleen Falk's 30-second TV ad begins by explaining how Ms. Falk has made Wisconsin safer, but after 15 seconds of positive reinforcement, it turns dreary and she attacks Mr. Van Hollen by saying, "J.B. Van Hollen was handpicked by George Bush, and much like George Bush, his extreme views are simply out of touch with Wisconsin."
Falk's advertisement is unprofessional and disappointing. She has moved past promoting her issues to bashing Mr. Van Hollen. The ad is filled with irrelevant information. Also, she contradicts her own beliefs by ending her spot with law enforcement because she believes that it is inaccurate to interpret the position of attorney general as Wisconsin's top law enforcement official. It is not the job of Wisconsin's attorney general to "take on" the Bush administration.
Her advertisement also says, "Van Hollen's extreme views suggest he would not stand up for Wisconsin consumers, the environment or our most fundamental rights." She continued, "Whether it's big oil, street gangs or the Bush Administration — I'll take on anyone to enforce the law." These issues are not comparable or even relevant. Wisconsin's attorney general is not involved with the Bush administration.
The last month before an election is the time to prove the opposition wrong and show that each candidate can surpass supposed weaknesses. On Nov. 7, vote on the issues, not on the gossip.
Joelle Parks ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism and Spanish.
