A candidate running for congress in my fair state has been running an ad in which he says he would require that all candidates for US citizenship be required to read, write, and speak English. The problem is, that’s already a requirement for citizenship. I called the number for his campaign on his website, told them I’d seen the ad, and explained the error. The person answering the phone couldn’t do much about it, of course, but he did say he’d pass on the information. To me, this is a rather large error, not because it’s pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment, but because it shows the candidate doesn’t know much about an issue he’s chosen to run on.
Here’s what I’d like to know. If a candidate you otherwise like makes what you think is a rather serious factual error, how would you like to see him or her handle it? After all, I would think it takes time and money to pull ads, although I would like to see the offending ad. I’d settle for the candidate contritely admitting he was wrong and promising to check his facts in the future, but something in American political culture seems to work against that.
What I would like them to do, and what would be the most profitable/damage limiting thing to do are not the same.
I always like to see honesty in my politicians, but I am fully aware that honesty might not be the most succesful policy. Unfortunately other policies turn out to work better than honesty, such as policies of brushing it under the carpet, or manipulating the details in such a way that the mistake wasn’t a mistake afterall.
Everybody says they want honest politicians. Then everybody flees from, or punishes, those who actually demonstrate honesty, and repeatedly vote for the silky-tongued liars who most convincingly deliver patronizing platitudes.
So I’m pretty much convinced that no matter what people say, they don’t really want honest politicians. They want parents who will pat them on the head and offer soothing reassurances that the scary monsters won’t eat them.
I’d like to see the candidate quietly correct the error (i.e. change the ad without ceremony) and move on. I don’t think it’s necessary to blow whistles and wave arms and such to draw attention to an error you plan on correcting.
If he gets called out on it by the opposition after a correction has been implemented, explain that an error was made, maybe laugh it off with something along the lines of “looks like we’re both guilty of missing a few facts” and move on.
If he gets called out on it when the error is discovered and illuminated by the opposition, own it, thank the opposition for bringing the “error” to light and move on.
There’s really no graceful way out of a misspeak. You certainly don’t want to defend it, so if you can’t ignore it (which has worked very well in recent US politics) all you can do is take the high road, say “Yep, ya got me” and move on. Personally, if I were an undecided voter and the OP’s candidate got busted as described, my vote would be bought if he just gave it 4 seconds of silence & a blank look, smirked out an “oops,” and continued on with the campaign.
I can’t be alone in thinking: if all you can get on my guy is a technical error (which in this case really isn’t an error as much as an unconscious agreement with one of a brazillion existing policies) then you’re admitting that your guy can’t stand on his own merits–you have to try and tear mine down. I’m sick of seeing petty crap like “Obama slighted the blue collar world by declining an offered coffee and instead asking for orange juice” or “Hillary voted to go to war but now she wants to bring the boys back home! She doesn’t know what she wants!” Show me something relevant like, “Mr. X, champion of anti-prostitution legislation, has been proven to be an habitual John for the last 15 years and eats human flesh when he’s not buggering 2nd grade boys in the back office of his local church…and sometimes even then!” Those kinds of things are worthy of explanation. Chefguy
You’ve seen those shepherd’s crooks they used to use to get bad comics and Vaudeville acts off the stage? The image your post provided, over and above the gaffe reference.
Do you live in a state where the voting public votes on referendums to raise taxes/create bonds/increase levies? If so, perhaps she meant that she’d never voted for one of those, as a private citizen.
