I have never known why some people think that to make themselves look good they must make someone else look bad. This practice seems to be political campaigning 101. Let's just take two examples. Stewart Mills is rich. That neither qualifies him nor disqualifies him to run for office. Stewart has long hair. What's that all about? Do we judge people by the length of their hair? Why is it being used against him in ads? Nolan was criticized for a picture of him, casually holding a rifle with his finger on the trigger. How does that disqualify him for public office? These are all petty accusations at best.
Stewart needs to explain his positions on the issues and that is what he should be judged on. No more, no less. He needs to work hard on this, as he is the challenger and no one knows what he's about and not waste time attacking Nolan personally. He should tell his political party this too as most people see their accusations as a direct reflection on him. As for Nolan he's been in office and he has a record we can judge him on and that's what we should do and can do. No more no less.
When you attack someone else, with the intent to make him or her look bad - at least for me - it says you don't have much going on in your camp or you would be talking about it. People should be judged on their merits and their public record. Not if they're rich or poor, white or black, male or female. If you're voting for people for these reasons, you're the one that's misguided not the candidates.
Mike Holst
Crosslake
