Negative campaigning

The Star Tribune had a story today about negative campaigning. Reports so far indicate that the House DFL Caucus spent far more than the Republicans on these independent campaign pieces, many of which were "negative." Predictably, the losers decried this tactic. Rep. Lynne Osterman, one of the Republicans who lost, said "In my book, I consider negative campaigning cheating. If you cannot stand up and tell me why you should have the job without mentioning why the other team shouldn't, why should I get your vote?"

Osterman isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier. As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with negative campaigning. The actions of the person currently in office are certainly fair game in campaigns, and only those people who are ashamed of their voting records seem to feel the need to call them off-limits. The votes Osterman and other Republicans took in supporting a far-right agenda are extremely relevant. And while people like Jim Rhodes aren't fundies, they did make the votes when Sviggum and other leadership called on them to do so. If these Republicans weren't ready to stand up and defend their voting records, maybe they should have voted differently.