AACFAMILY & FRIENDS
» » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
How did I handle the negative campaigning against me in 1986? I remembered what Bill Clinton told some of his friends in his 1982 campaign for governor when he was trying to make a comeback. He had lost to Frank White in 1980 after serving only one term as governor. He had taken many hits in the 1980 campaign, and he resolved in 1982 to respond to every allega- tion. Clinton said, “If someone repeatedly spreads lies about you, and you don’t answer, people eventually will believe them.” Some of the hits Clinton took in the 1980 campaign were
true — others were not. In the 1982 campaign Clinton publicly apologized, on statewide television, to the people of Arkansas for the mistakes he had made in his first term and asked for a second chance. When a lie was told about him during the cam- paign he addressed it. In my 1986 campaign I publicly admitted my personal fail- ings, but in talking to the electorate told them I was no different than they were. I was human. I had made mistakes and would make more. Tey appreciated my honesty and openness. However, I made it a point to tell them that it was my desire to continue to serve them in an honorable and professional manner as their “public servant.” In my five plus years of service at that point in my career I had already gained a reputation for being forthright and truthful but cognizant of others feelings, operational excellence, exacting and accurate “to the penny” fi- nancial reporting, a willingness to work with the quorum court and other elected officials, a strong financial management plan, and a willingness to listen to the electorate. During my 1986 campaign my opponent made several al- legations about me and my tenure as a county official that were not true. Tey were not necessarily being said by my opponent, but by her supporters and inner circle. I addressed each of the allegations but never mentioned the name of my opponent nor did I ever say anything negative about my opponent. Not mentioning a name reminds me of the 1976 presidential campaign. During Gerald Ford’s administration, after taking over the presidency upon the resignation of Richard Nixon, he was in a news conference when journalist Fred Barnes asked a question. President Ford said, “Tis was during the 1976 prima- ry campaign, in which my main opponent for the Republican presidential nomination was Ronald Reagan. One big issue in that campaign was the pardon of Richard Nixon. Tough I felt I had done the right thing, I wasn’t exactly eager to call attention to that particular decision. Evidently, my reticence didn’t escape Fred. He got up at the press conference and said: ‘Mr. President, two or three times today you have talked about your predeces- sor, and once you referred to Lyndon Johnson’s successor. Are you trying to avoid saying the name Richard M. Nixon?’ My answer was simple and succinct. I said, “Yes.” Although Richard Nixon was not Gerald Ford’s opponent — it was not a name that he wanted associated with his campaign in the 1976 Republican presidential primary. I believe mention- ing the name of your opponent in your campaign just gives them free advertising and exposure. Do your best to never men- tion the name of your opponent when campaigning and never talk badly about your opponent. Run your race on what you have done and can do for the folks in your county. Run on your merits, not the demerits of others. If you don’t have enough merits, you probably don’t need to be running. And now, back to my 1986 campaign. When it was all said and
COUNTY LINES, SUMMER 2016
done, I won that election with 67.6 percent of the vote. Te Poca- hontas Star Herald reported, “Randolph County Treasurer Eddie Jones received the largest percentage of the vote in this county, polling 67.6 percent as compared to 32.4 percent for his chal- lenger.” Some of the names on the ballot that year included Gov. Bill Clinton, former Gov. Orval Faubus, Lt. Gov. Winston Bryant and U.S. Rep. Bill Alexander. I felt fortunate to have polled more votes than anyone else on the ballot, but I truly believe that I could have lost that race if I had decided to go negative. I understand that this publication is read primarily by people
who are already elected to office — so you’re running for re- election. You want to run a clean campaign but your opponent is known for running a negative campaign. How do you main- tain your commitment to run a positive campaign and not let your opponent get the upper hand? First, let me tell you that surveys show that more than 80
percent of survey respondents think that attack-type campaigning makes people less likely to vote. Similar percentages characterize attack campaigning as unethical and expressed the view that such techniques produce less trustworthy leaders. Voter preferences suggest that campaigns that emphasize fair, relevant and truthful information will be more effective and appealing to voters.
Here are some ideas about how to run a clean campaign: 1. Run a campaign that voters can feel good about. A yard- stick for measuring campaigns is whether their tactics are designed to draw voters into the process and to the candidate’s run for office. Tis includes: • Asking voters to support your candidacy based on your positions on the issues facing the county;
• Being honest about your views, what you will do and the kinds of decisions you will make when elected or re-elected;
• Using campaign methods that meaningfully engage the public about issues facing the county or the office you are seeking; and
• Treating fellow candidates with honesty and respect — confining any criticisms to issues that are relevant to the office being sought, not criticisms of the opponent.
Some of the campaign techniques that push people away from the election process include: • Personal attacks such as name calling, character assassina- tion, innuendo and stereotyping; and
• Mischaracterizing others’ positions for political advantage — such as using half-truths or twisting the facts to create a false impression.
2. Responding to negative attacks in the proper manner. If you have pledged to run a clean campaign based on truthful, relevant and fair information, it can inoculate your campaign against the effects of unfair negative attacks by your oppo- nent. Te goal of pledging to run a “clean campaign” is to have negative attacks on your campaign look conspicuously uncongenial from the fair and informative tone that you are setting for your campaign.
If you are the victim of a negative campaign, analyze what See “CAMPAIGNS” on Page 20 >>>
19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64