Premium Login

Checklist: Seven Questions to Ask Before You Attack
(Published in the May, 2005 issue of Campaigns & Elections Magazine)

1. Have you established enough credibility? When Democrat Janet Roberts ran against incumbent U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy for U.S. House in Minnesota in 2002, she came out of nowhere and immediately began launching scathing negative attacks against him. While it is true that challengers must attack their incumbent opponents, they must also give voters a reason to vote for them. Had Roberts laid the groundwork before her by presenting a positive agenda, her campaign would likely have been more effective. (She lost to Kennedy 57 percent to 35 percent.) Bottom line: Before launching an attack, your candidate must build up some residual “positive” political capital.
   
   
2. Is your candidate guilty of the same thing? As former Speaker Newt Gingrich found out, voters will forgive many indiscretions but they will not forgive hypocrisy. In the case of the President Bill Clinton impeachment, the president survived the scandal – but Gingrich lost his job when fellow Republicans abandoned him in part because of news of marital indiscretions. Lesson learned: If you’re guilty of the same thing as your opponent – no matter how tempting the juicy information is – you cannot use it. As the cliché says, “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”
   
   
3. Can you confirm the accusation? “Leaking” information to the press is one thing. If you’re going to directly attack your opponent you had better be able to back up the attack with facts. Internet research is a great place to start the research process. However, before launching an attack, you must have a document in hand to back up your findings. According to long-time political researcher Terry Cooper, even highly credible publications such as Congressional Quarterly can contain errors.
   
   “Blogs and sources that don't have the established credibility of CQ must be checked even more thoroughly,” he said.
   
   
4. Is it believable? Sometimes incumbents are so popular that especially harsh attacks against them (even if they are true) will backfire. In 1988, Republican candidate George Voinovich’s campaign accused U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, of being “soft” on child pornography. The ad backfired because voters could not bring themselves to believe the “grandfatherly” Metzenbaum would possibly be on the wrong side of such a serious issue. Before launching the attack, ask yourself, “Will the folks in my district believe this”?
   
   
5. Will anyone care? Dick Morris says “the toughest thing in politics is to be an insider and think like an outsider.”
   
   He is right. Those of us who work in politics must constantly remind ourselves to ask why the average person should care about this? Complicating the matter is the fact that this answer will change depending on when and where you ask the question. A candidate in Kansas may score points by accusing his opponent of being a carpet-bagger. But the same exact argument in New York City or Florida, places full of transplants, would probably fall flat on its face.
   
   
6. Do you know why your opponent did it? The first thing they teach you in law school is to never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to. The same is true in politics. Say your candidate wants to attack his opponent for missing votes. He might accuse his incumbent opponent of not showing up for work 30 percent of the time. That would be a good attack, unless the incumbent answered, “Yes, I did miss a lot of votes, because my wife was dying of cancer.”
   
   
7. Was the evidence obtained legally? Too often, the media prints illegally obtained information. Most of the time, the fact that it was obtained illegally is merely an afterthought. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s unethical and if you are caught using it you might go to jail.
   
   If you have a friend who works in courthouse and says he can get you your opponent’s sealed divorce records, do not do it. Not only is it wrong, but also information gained through unethical campaigning almost never makes a difference in the outcome of the election.