A candidate and negative campaigning
Wednesday, May 10, 2006

By David Sanders

I continue to be amazed by Mike Hathorn's tenacious candidacy to become the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor. He is kicking and scratching his way toward possible nomination by pulling out all the stops and attacking those who stand in his way. The current object of his torment is front-runner Bill Halter.

Hathorn has filed an ethics complaint against Halter, claiming that he violated state campaign finance laws 150 times by shifting dollars from his one-time gubernatorial campaign to his lieutenant governor campaign. Then there was the recent lawsuit filed challenging Halter's residency, which was filed by a law firm with ties to Hathorn's campaign.

I'm not against candidates playing rough. I figure if a guy or gal can survive the rigors of a campaign while being called every name in the book and simultaneously having his or her character smeared, serving in elected office should be a piece a of cake.

For those who think negative campaigning is a recent phenomenon, I would encourage you to read John Ferling's book, "Adams vs. Jefferson." The book is about the 1800 presidential campaign and details the accusations and name-calling traded back and forth between two of America's more esteemed statesmen.

Back to the modern age, it appears Hathorn has mastered the skill of going negative worthy of Adams and Jefferson. Again, it is nothing to be ashamed of, but is something, I think, he shouldn't be afraid to admit.

At an April Democratic Party debate, Hathorn was asked if he had ever run a negative campaign. He claimed that he hadn't, but drew the distinction that as long as one is raising issues and talking about the record of a particular candidate, it's fair game. In the same breath, he eschewed personal and character-based political attacks. He said they are wrong and hurt the process, the Democratic Party and isn't the way he does business.

He might want to check back to read his own campaign material and what others have said about it.

In 2001, while running against Jo Carson in a runoff to become the Democrat to fill the vacant 3rd Congressional District seat, Hathorn unleashed a bevy of accusations against his opponent. To put his tactics in context, America was reeling from the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

His direct mail campaign told Democratic voters to "Say No to Carson's liberal agenda. Say No to a weaker America. Now more that ever we need a leader that will make America strong, that leader is Mike Hathorn."

He repeated the mantra in an attack on Carson's supposed ties to the nursing home industry: "Say No to Carson's liberal agenda. Say No to the Fort Smith nursing home lobby. Say No to a weaker America. Jo Carson just hasn't been there for our families."

Bill Williams, the Democrat who didn't make it into the runoff, had supported both Carson and Hathorn, claiming Democrats couldn't lose with either one of them carrying the party's banner. But days before the runoff, Williams withdrew his support from Hathorn, citing his "baseless negative campaigning." At the time, Hathorn defended his campaigning by claiming that he was simply responding to Carson's negative campaigning.

Later that year, when facing Republican John Boozman, Hathorn used the usual attack lines claiming that the GOP candidate supported a risky scheme to play the stock market with the Social Security Trust Fund. Hathorn lost but gave Boozman a tough race.

Hathorn should embrace his history as a negative campaigner and not run from it. It remains to be seen if his current lines of attacks can win him his party's nomination.