Digging in the campaign dirt.
By: Hank Kalet
It appears that the gloves are off.
The Middlesex County Democratic Organization has mailed a flier to township Democrats that criticizes mayoral candidate Debra Johnson for "violating the state’s anti-discrimination policy." The flier alleges she’s called staff members at the state Department of Health and Senior Services "derogatory and demeaning names," made threats to employees, and generally exhibited "poor judgement, unprofessionalism and extremely inappropriate behavior."
The flier hit local mailboxes over the weekend, a little more than two weeks before the June 6 primary election that will pit Ms. Johnson, a former mayor running as an "Independent Democrat" without party backing, against incumbent Democrat Frank Gambatese, who is running with the endorsement of the township organization.
Ms. Johnson and her supporters view the flier as a low blow and out of bounds. They say it represents an unwarranted personal attack that is indicative of the sort of deplorable tactics used by the current party leadership.
Dawn Smith, chairwoman of the Republican Party, has gone so far (in a letter to the editor this week) as to call it "the nastiest piece of campaign literature I have ever seen" and consistent with the kind of personal attack she says was leveled against Republican candidate Ted Van Hessen back in 2004.
Listening to this I am reminded of the scene in "Casablanca" when Capt. Renault is forced by the Germans to close Rick’s American Café: "I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" he says as a croupier hands him a pile of money and says, "Your winnings, sir."
Basically, no one should have been surprised that the Democrats or their proxies at the county organization turned Ms. Johnson’s work troubles (she resigned from her position as director of the state Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Legal and Regulatory Affairs after a state affirmative action panel upheld accusations that she created a hostile work environment) into campaign fodder. The reality is that this kind of attack ad is de rigueur these days in campaigns and is pretty much a staple of both parties.
For example, the Republicans used the allegedly independent Swiftboat Veterans for Truth to tarnish the military record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a highly decorated war hero. Republican gubernatorial candidate Douglas Forrester made use of then Democratic candidate Jon Corzine’s failed marriage to attack his integrity during their race last year.
Those were campaigns for higher office, some might say, which is true. But to assume that local politics is immune to the pressures and tactics of the modern political campaign is naive and it ignores recent local history.
One only has to think back to 2004 to see the attack ad in action in South Brunswick. That’s when a flier accusing Mr. Van Hessen of owing $346,000 in back taxes to the state was mailed to voters during the last week of the campaign, during the Post’s blackout week, when new campaign issues cannot be raised in the paper. The Van Hessen flier was factual, though one-sided and designed to mislead. And the question it raised was a fair one.
The timing of the ad, however, was another story. It hit mailboxes so late in the campaign that Mr. Van Hessen could not respond, leaving voters to wonder what all of this was about. (Mr. Van Hessen, who no longer lives in town, said after the election that the income tax issue was a personal matter and that he would not discuss it publicly.)
The Johnson flier is similar in many ways: It is factual, if one-sided, and the issue it raises about Ms. Johnson’s character deserves a response. Ms. Johnson has acknowledged this, saying this week that it was unfortunate that her opponents have gone negative and that the comments she was alleged to have made were taken out of context.
At least in this case, the county Democrats sent out the fliers early enough to give Ms. Johnson a chance to respond.
(Before local Republicans attempt to mount their high horse and ride to the defense of the electorate, they should look back in their own archives at the rather desultory fliers they inundated voters with in the late 1990s, when they had a bit of cash at their disposal.)
This column is not designed as an endorsement or criticism of the Johnson flier or either candidate. The paper is not endorsing in the primary (see the Editor’s Note on Page 1A). Rather, it is an attempt to remind readers that mudslinging has a long history.
During the presidential race of 1796, for instance, American voters were forced to endure a level of nastiness that would make most modern candidates run for the hills as an editorial in our sister paper, The Princeton Packet, pointed out a couple of years ago. Supporters of John Adams, who would go on to win, called Thomas Jefferson an atheist, a coward (for his lack of military service during the Revolutionary War) and a candidate for "cut-throats who walk in rags and sleep amidst filth and vermin." Jefferson supporters, for their part, returned the taunts by accusing Adams of planning to tear up the Constitution, declare himself king and install his sons as crown princes.
That kind of mudslinging makes the current local dispute seem rather tame.
Hank Kalet is managing editor of the South Brunswick Post. His e-mail is [email protected].

