Greatest Hits: Voters' Guides - Tips For Candidates (posted 9/6/2006)

The states of Washington and Oregon send Voters' Pamphlets to all registered voters. I value such publications because I can take my time reading about various candidates and ballot measures, make notes on the margins, etc. This makes me more-informed and, therefore, a better voter. (I used to live in Pennsylvania and New Jersey - neither state offered any printed material on candidates or issues.)

In the spirit of full-disclosure, I must confess that I have absolutely no desire to run for public office. The very nature of public service means that you have to serve all constituents, including jerks, crazies, bad-smelling people and others whom I deem offensive. As an office-holder, I'd only want to take care of people I like and would, therefore, demand that a trap door be installed in front of my large and magnificent wood desk to efficiently dispose of others. The trapdoor lever would be located next to my burgundy unborn-calfskin leather executive chair and be made of brass with Hurst shifter knob on top. (Oops. Guess I just lost quite a few potential votes, didn't I?)

Nevertheless, having read voters' pamphlets for almost 20 years, I feel qualified to offer advice on do's and don'ts for prospective candidates. That's what I'll do here, using some selected 2006 aspirants as examples.

My comments may seem to focus on the superficial but, let's face it, we're a superficial constituency. Just look at some of the morons we've elected in years past.

Please note that I'm not making fun of the candidates who appear below. I admire them for taking the time and trouble to seek a job which often involves making nice to an oft-ungrateful constituency. So, a tip of the hat to each of you, ladies and gentlemen. May you (and all future applicants) find these suggestions helpful in your quest to win election.

These examples are from the Washington State Judicial Voters' Pamphlet (all judicial candidates are non-partisan) and the Clark County (WA) Voters' Guide. Overall, Democrats seem to present themselves more professionally than Republicans this year - in photos and text.

Let's begin:

Steven looks like a judge. I can picture him in a black robe. He appears to be well groomed, appropriately dressed and had his photo taken by a professional in a studio. Michael had a friend take his picture. It is poorly lit, poorly cropped, his shirt collar is sticking out of his suit and he has a bad haircut. He looks like a low-rent public defender, not a judge. Michael probably doesn't look this goofy in person; a good photographer can make anyone look better. But, hey, at least he submitted a photo; Richard didn't even bother. I wonder who he looks like? Frankenstein?

Jill should lose the 'Earth Mother' backyard photo and get a real domain name for her website - just like her opponent, Rebekah, has done. (Freewebs.com sites are for political losers. Sorry.)

The U.S. Representative - 3rd Congressional District position is currently held by an entrenched Democrat (with good name recognition) who is running again. The Republicans need to field a strong challenger. Michael may be that guy; he looks like a politician as cast by Hollywood - distinguished and with a firm jawline, piercing-yet-sincere eyes and great hair. His primary opponent, Daniel, seems to be dressed like a Brownshirt and is casting his eyes heavenward in the same pose as those 11th Century Catholic martyrs seen on holy cards. You know the ones - they're always tied to stakes while a hooded torturer is lighting the large pile of sticks at their feet. The public may pray to a martyr but they'll never knowingly vote for one. Especially one who fancies Stormtrooper couture.

Sharon's not even trying, is she?

---

| Back to today's edition of 'The View Through The Windshield' |