A word about smear ads

A personal note. Some commentators endorse candidates. I do not, since not only does it compromise objectivity, but it isn’t the proper role of a media member, even an opinion writer.

For the record, this isn’t an endorsement since A) the election is over, and B) it is a personal observation of what’s wrong with today’s politics.

I found the attacks on Democratic Delaware County District Attorney candidate Jack Stollsteimer to be of particularly bad taste – and in this environment, that’s saying something. Obviously, negative ads are part of the game, and Jack is a big boy well-equipped to handle attacks and adversity.

However, from an ethical perspective (yes, I know – “ethics in politics” is an oxymoron), there should be at least some truth to hit pieces. Yet many of the attacks against him were woefully offbase, particularly the charges that he was “corrupt” and “out for himself.”

It’s been my pleasure to have known Jack for 10 years, and, during my time as an investigative reporter in the city, worked with him extensively on many issues.

In that decade, I never, repeat never, saw a single aspect of Jack’s character – personally, politically, or professionally – that could be considered “corrupt.”

In working with Jack in his capacity as Safe Schools Advocate for the School District of Philadelphia (a watchdog position), I discovered him to be one of the most honest, independent and diligent public officials I have ever known.

For reference purposes, the list of those I have known whose character left something to be desired is extremely long, including former state Supreme Court justices, state senators, state representatives, Speakers of the House, congressmen, city councilmen, political appointees, and businessmen.

Many were convicted and lost not just their freedom, but their dignity and reputations. So yes, I know a thing or two about what “corrupt” people look like. Newsflash: Jack Stollsteimer ain’t one of them.

Did Jack acquire personal gain from his position? Absolutely – exactly as he should have. He gained the personal satisfaction of doing the right thing in rooting out corruption – real corruption – and calling out those who needed to be held accountable.

Despite ruffling feathers of political heavyweights, at a risk to his political career, he made tough calls when many would have let things slide. And the beneficiaries of Jack’s efforts? School children, parents and taxpayers.

As of this writing, I have no idea if Jack won or lost. (Editor’s note: he won.)

And for the record, I have nothing against his opponent,

Kat Copeland, who, by all accounts, would also make a fine district attorney.

The point is that the more we allow unsubstantiated attacks to continue – and both parties, at all levels, keep upping the ante in that regard – the result will be fewer people of good character stepping up to run for office. Once upon a time, the basis for negative ads was a candidate’s voting record (which is fine), or if he had a legitimate skeleton (fair game, too.)

But now, both sides pride themselves in concocting ultra-far-fetched attacks that have but a miniscule kernel of truth, if any at all, so that candidates spend their time defending themselves and trying to disprove a lie.

And when good people stay out of the arena because the personal cost is too high, the result, all too often, is the election of political hacks with no agenda other than perpetuating their stay in office by any means necessary.

Republicans and Democrats (and, sadly, even the media at times) are putting out falsehoods with alarming regularity.

It’s insidious, and if we are ever to return to the civility necessary to effectively govern our Republic, it must stop.

Candidates and their families, the American people, and most of all, our children – our future – deserve no less.

Here’s to demanding honest campaigns and holding those accountable who willfully disregard the truth.