I Would Never

Another night where my story isn't coming from the news, directly.  It is actually coming from an advertisement during the news that has been running.  I have been meaning to complain about it but other things have come up that were more annoying.  Finally it has taken over with my annoyance and is the subject of tonight's post.


Anyone in the central New York area, and anyone who is big on politics, knows that one of the closest races can be found for the congressional seat currently held by Ann Marie Burkle.  She won it from Dan Maffae in the last election and it was very close, as in a few hundred votes.  He has decided that was a sign that he should run and his party has agreed.  This is such a close race that without exaggeration you will spend a large portion of the evening seeing an add for one followed by an add for the other.  In one of his commercials he points out that she sponsored the bill that would redefine the meaning of rape.  That is all that is pointed out, that she sponsored this bill that would change the laws.  No comment was made on what her stance was regarding rape just that the bill would change it.  Her counter to that was that he was lying and didn't know what he was talking about.  She then defends her actions by stating that she has several daughters (I can't be bothered to remember how many) and has stood up for rape victims and would never do anything to cause additional issues for rape victims.  She then states that as soon as that language was pointed out to her the bill was revised to remove the it.  And she finished with stating that it was wrong of him to use rape victims for political gain.

Here's the problem I have with this.  First, he only told half of the truth if in fact the bill was revised.  I really have little issue with that because he was pointing out her actions which is what happens in a political campaign. But my biggest problem is with her statements.  No matter what her real stance is on rape victims she sponsored the bill with that language in it!  Face the facts, you put your name on a bill that would have redefined the law so that there was a forcible clause in there.  To me it points out that you really have no idea what you are doing because you couldn't even be bothered to read the bill you were sponsoring!  And I'd also like to point out that her opponent isn't the only one using the issue for political gain.  Her campaign was the first to point out that she sponsored the bill so tell me why she can use it for gain but he can't?  What makes it different, the fact that she is a woman?  That just sounds to me like she is trying to say that only women can make decisions regarding things like this, and that's just wrong!  Especially when you consider the fact that her co-sponsor on the bill was a man.

For once I would like to see a political campaign where the whole truth was used.  And I would like to see it with all parties involved.  Of course that isn't going to happen as long as we are stuck with a two party system.  Unfortunately, unless some serious cash magically appears it probably won't happen in my lifetime.  I'm really glad that we are down to just four more weeks before the election.  The lies and finger pointing are really getting bad this time around.