A Little Off the Top: Is it November Yet?

Dear Mr. Burns and Mr. Tester,

I'm writing this in hopes that one or both of you can let me in on a little secret — where you stand on issues that are important to voters.

Like most voters, I grow sick and tired of the mud-slinging that seems to be the trademark of many campaigns. I know that trying to undermine your opponent's campaign is a lot easier than telling us where you stand on the issues, but after several months of being assaulted with attack ad after attack ad, I still don't really know one dang thing about either one of you.

We understand attack ads are part of the campaign process. Heck, that's the reason most of us don't even consider running for office. You spent months getting beat up by your opponent, and then WHAMO!, you win, and you have spend a couple of years fielding phone calls from whiney people complaining about the potholes on the road in front of their home, demanding to know what you are going to do about it.

But after months of listening to your ads, I don't know which side is up. I guess that means your campaign advisors are doing a heck of a job.

Don't worry guys, this is a non-partisan column — both of your ad campaigns are equally annoying.

Sen. Burns, you really got the ball rolling with your "haircut" ad. You know the one, where you got the actor to pretend to be my local aw-shucks-ma'am barber. (As you can see, no barber is going to be able to put his kids through college with me as a customer, but that's another column.)

I thought it was an amusing ad campaign, I have to admit, until you got to the end where the barber claims Mr. Tester was a bad tipper. Now all is fair in love, war and political campaigns, and you can claim Mr. Tester voted to legalize the molestation of golden retriever puppies for all I care, but a bad tipper? That's hitting below the belt.

Mr. Tester, you seemed to be taking the high road there for a little while, which really won my admiration, but pretty soon, you got dragged down into the snake pit, too. The most recent ads claiming Mr. Burns voted against increased armored vehicles and funding for vets really caught my attention. Who is against vets, or helping our troops in Iraq?

Almost as soon as that ad came out, Mr. Burns was forced to dig up his own little army of soldiers, and parade them on TV and the radio, loudly proclaiming that Mr. Burns is a friend of the veterans, and all soldiers in general. I felt bad for those soldiers who got used like pawns in both of your campaigns, as they became part of a larger war that has neither a noble cause nor a potential positive outcome.

I know, I know. You guys didn't authorize or pay for many of these attack ads. It was the job of the state Democrat and Republican parties, right? After all, they all have that little disclaimer at the end, saying "This ad wasn't endorsed by the candidate we are indirectly endorsing by badmouthing his opponent…., etc, etc."

Yeah, right.

At least stop letting the state political parties use you as a pawn for their own game.

All I know after several months of this crap is that I don't know squat about where either of you stand on a number of issues. And this is why I'd make a terrible campaign manager.

You see, behind this jaded, cynical, balding self of an editor, I'm actually an idealist about running for office. I have these weird ideas that would probably get me laughed off of any campaign staff in the country.

Bear with me here. What if you guys actually spent your money telling people how you would vote on certain issues? I mean real issues, like higher property taxes versus properly funded schools, or what you would do to resolve the long-standing water rights issues facing homeowners and tribes throughout the state. How do you feel about logging on Forest Service lands, or allowing snowmobiles in Yellowstone?

I'm sure you have opinions on some of these issues, but you sure as heck don't want anyone to find out, lest they vote against you in November.

Other than a mention by Mr. Burns about being against flag-burning, and Mr. Tester's ad about how since he's a fourth-generation farmer, he really cares about the concept of family, I haven't heard much from either of you on any issues of substance. Being against flag burning and in favor of the concept of "family" in Montana is like saying you will vote in favor of motherhood, apple pie and baseball.

Whoop-tee-doo.

Why don't you act like you got a pair and tell me where you stand on controversial issues.

As for your political ads, I understand that negativity will probably always be a part of the campaign process. If you are going to tell me a candidate voted against more armored vehicles in Iraq, for example, I want to know the bill number — even on the radio spots. You see, I suspect a lot of these claims are taken out of context, when someone voted against a larger bill that might have had a little rider attached to it.

That person might have thought the larger issue outweighed the little riders attached to it, but you run an ad claiming so-and-so is against letting Girl Scouts sell cookies, when that was just a rider attached to a larger bill, which if passed, would have allowed convicted child molesters to run day care centers.

This is how cynical I've become about the campaign process. It's almost gotten to the point where I believe the opposite of whatever you are saying about your candidate, and I'm speaking literally here.

What happened to the days when a candidate would host a barbecue, and everyone in town could come and hear him speak about the issues he or she felt were important, and then afterwards, there'd be a "meet-and-greet?"

Sure, you'd have to put up with the one guy who corners you and wants to talk about turning Glacier National Park into the world's most beautiful professional motocross course, but there'd probably be three or four normal people with real issues that are a real concern to them.

I can hear your campaign managers laughing from here. But they probably don't have too much time to laugh, what with one of you being accused of having a link on your Web site to some liberal blogger that nobody in Montana cares about, and the other one of you badmouthing firefighters, of all people.

So, I've resigned myself to another three months of watching you guys throw mud at each other. (Campaign philosophy: "If we throw enough, some of its bound to stick!").

I feel like Richard Pryor in "Brewster's Millions" where he runs on a campaign to vote for "none of the above" for no other reason other than voters are sick of the same-old, same-old.

If enough of us vote "none of the above" because we don't know a single thing about where you stand on the issues, does that mean neither one of you gets to hold office?