The link below is to an article from GoErie, that discusses how negative campaigning has materialized in a number of races facing Pennsylvania voters. I’ve been especially angry about the negative stuff being passed of by some bloggers as commentary, during an especially important election year. I understand the tactic, but question if the results will help PA voters in the long run.

Negative ads work by raising doubts about candidates. But don’t let such tactics make you doubt the value of casting your votes in Tuesday’s primary.

Lesbian Blogger, Sue Kerr writes (emphasis in bold in mine):

I’m not retreating from my positions. Someone told me I’ve been hard on Onorato.  I believe my opinions are based on his voting record and certainly do not stem from personal animosity — I’ve never met him in person. It is my job to advocate for the candidate that will best serve my community — my queer community and my community of women and my community of working and lower rung folks.  That’s doesn’t make me mean, just insistent.

I applaud Kerr for admitting that her position is based on very little, yet it is such a shame that she hasn’t even met Dan Onorato, given the number of chances she has had to do so. But she is kidding herself and everyone else if she doesn’t think there is some personal animosity at work. Candidates are who they are today, and where they stand today is critically important to know and understand. Their past shouldn’t be ignored entirely, but rather placed in context and considered within the context of the present. And how can it be that you haven’t met Dan Onorato? You have been in the same room as he has been. Maybe it is easier to villianize someone if you haven’t actually shaken his hand.

Her blog contains a “counter” that adds the time that Onorato “first had the opportunity to give domestic partnership benefits to Allegheny County employees.” Her tactic is attack first, and don’t worry about the facts, like when on Facebook, she trashed Brice Dixon about employee benefits as a way to make a snarky attack on the Allegheny County Chief Executive Onorato. But let’s focus on the fallacy of the counter, and the accusation that Dan hasn’t given something.

I work for a large employer in the City of Pittsburgh, which struggled for a number of years to adopt a domestic partnership benefits policy, and I was fortunate at the time, that my direct supervisor was appointed by the chancellor to head the committee that finally got DP benefits passed. Through that whole process, I learned much about what was happening, and how the process was moving from “no benefits” to what we ended up with. And I was truly amazed at how complicated it was.

Let’s get real: Dan can’t give anything to anyone. “Give ” implies an exchange between two parties as one has something they own that they will hand over to another. This doesn’t reflect the real role of the County Executive, and we would all be up in arms if he just started to give things away to various people. Nor even if he could give something, it wouldn’t be something he did on his own. We have an elected County Council, not a King or a sole leader.

But the most ironic part of this is the notion that employees get something. Sure, my partner can now be covered by my group insurance at a rate less than he could get insurance on his own, but it costs me money!  Every month the full cost of the insurance plan is taken out of my income, so was I given something? Maybe a decrease in my take home pay? But it doesn’t stop there, because even though it is money I never see, I get taxed for that money. What did my employer give me? An increased tax burden?

I don’t mean to diminish the fact that today, my partner has health coverage which is essential. But nobody gave it to him or us. We purchase it. And it is unbelievable for anyone to suggest it is all about someone giving something to others. This is weak-minded and illogical thinking.

Is Kerr simply being “hard on Onorato” or has she crafted an anti-Onorato “ad” on her blog which is slimy, and inaccurate?

I am with her 100% that it would have been awesome for the County to offer DB benefits far earlier than it did. But to try and lay all of that on Dan Onorato, is wrongly directed, inaccurate, and unfair. Kerr claims (emphasis in bold is mine):

It is my job to advocate for the candidate that will best serve my community — my queer community and my community of women and my community of working and lower rung folks.  That’s doesn’t make me mean, just insistent.

From my perspective, the “counter” is nothing if it isn’t mean.

The voters of Pennsylvania, and the women and queer community deserve accurate and real portrayals of candidates to assist them in understanding the candidates. Painting false images of people doesn’t really do that, does it?

I believe Dan Ororato has the best chance of beating Tom Corbett in the Fall, and it is crucial for issues important to women, and the LGBT communities, that Corbett not be elected. Look at what has been happening in Virginia since they elected a Republican governor.

No one has tried to paint Dan Onorato as a far left progressive, but he deserves a fair and honest exploration of him, rather than such a mean-spirited attack. More than that, the voters in Pennsylvania deserve it.

via GoErie.com: Editorial – Our view: Candidates should can negative ads.