The Sherriff's Race

Wheeler: I am proud to have endorsed Daryl Loar for Sheriff.  Having always been guided by my core beliefs in truth, fair play and common sense, conservative values, and thus I could not have remained uninvolved in one of the most important political races in recent history.

After reading one of latest McMullen brochures, I was very disappointed, to say the least, in the negative tone of the mailer, not to mention the half-truths and mistakes it contained.  It is no secret that the McMullen camp and Union activists have been spreading vicious corruption rumors, and downright lies in effort to dirty the name of a good man, and I am appalled by their efforts.  I have strong opinions, and have learned sitting by and saying nothing, even though I have nothing to gain by taking a stand, is not in the best interest of the community we have served for the past 26 years.

Since Sheriff Loar took office from the Good ole Boys, he has lowered the budget and the Crime rate in Indian River County, tightened up the efficiency of the agency, utilized the community volunteer program, despite the undermining efforts of former members of the command staff and their union cronies.  After being elected, Sheriff Loar did not take the first year or so off, he continued to be involved in his community. I believe Sheriff Loar’s community involvement speaks volumes for his character and commitment to one-on-one involvement with local charity and service organizations.   I have personally seen the Sheriff, as he meets with community leaders to listen to what they feel are the problems facing Indian River County.  Taking the time to meet with other governmental agencies, Sheriff Loar has increased leadership communication by keeping the people briefed on current law enforcement issues and solutions.

In my experience of 8 years as Sheriff and 16 years as a County commissioner I have learned that the elected Sheriff must be strong enough to run his department as he thinks best,  and without that strength of character, the Union leadership and the good ole’ boys would run the department.  I am strongly supporting Daryl Loar as the right man for Sheriff.  I believe he is the one with the strength of character to stand up to Union special interests, keep taxes  low  and fight the criminal element in our communities.  I hope you too will vote to re-elect our Sheriff.   I agree with CW's first three paragraphs and have some strong disagreement  with some of the other.

 I don't have a "long standing feud" with former Sheriff Raymond.  In fact election night I went to his campaign headquarters and congratulated him after defeating me for that office.  Then on Oct 1, 2000 I invited him to have an office in the S.O. and added him to the pay role to do the transition to his administration.  Roy and I have had many conversation and we get along fine.  Roy and I do disagree on some things like the Sheriff's candidates. We agree on other things like good law enforcement and the health of the Sheriffs office.  We just disagree on how to best achieve it.

 Not being as prolific a writer as my counterpart  I will simple say that when it comes to his comments about Bob Keating, Joe Baird, Kay Clem, Leslie Swan, Jim Gabbard and Charlie Vitunac we not only disagree, but I see it as negative campaigning, smear, spin and innuendo that goes against everything he out lined in this blog defining negative campaigning. 

 The guest column that was in the PJ Thursday explains my reason for endorsing Sheriff Loar in that race.

Wilson: The only true test of whether something is dirty politics or not is "Is it True". Some people think information is negative campaigning if it isn't what they want to hear even if it is true in every respect.

A smear campaign that includes inaccurate information has no business in politics. More often you find smear campaigns rely on half truths, innuendo, and spin instead of outright lies. A campaign that provides accurate information that holds a candidates opponent accountable for his or her actions, however, is in my opinion a public service. Hiding true information is just as dishonest as promoting inaccurate information. People need to know why to vote for someone but they also need to know why not to vote for someone.

Last week the McMullen campaign sent out a mailing that resulted in strong reaction from the Loar camp. It also resulted in Gary Wheeler electing to endorse Loar over McMullen instead of remaining neutral as he says was his original plan.

The well designed mail piece quotes 32963 and questions the integrity of the sheriffs reporting of road patrol records. The only question is "Is it true?"

"Every word is true", says McMullen. If so, then what's the beef?

I suspect its more about the past than the present. It is no secret that Gary Wheeler has a long standing feud with former sheriff Roy Raymond. Raymond after all handed Wheeler one of only two election losses in Wheelers 26 year political career. Seeing Roy Raymond's picture in the mailer was all it took to tip the scales.

Bea Gardner for example is notorious for inaccurate information. In Gardners case inaccurate is fine as long as it supports her position on that day. Sometimes it is hard to tell her position since it changes with the political winds (she was against the electric sale and now she's for it). Gardner's trick is to never check. If she never checks to see if the information or charges or Bea fantasies are true then she never has to correct them.

By far the originators of smears are incumbents and staff. Bob Keating and Joe Baird often provide partial, inaccurate or downright false information but are never questioned.

Kay Clem was a master at half truth. Leslie Swan, Clem's understudy, is now being challenged by Sandi Harpring. Harprings disclosures in a press conference about absentee ballot irregularities are reminiscent of the Clem years where ballot mistakes, political manipulation and shameless self promotion were the norm. 

Remember Jim Gabbard and Charlie Vitunac? They used their positions of power to make charges that later turned out to be absolutely false. They even changed their testimony180 degrees different than their on camera statements to the then City Council and got away with it.

There seem to be rules for smearing. Here is what to watch for.

#1. A negative smear campaign must be true or contain some small amount of truth. Enough to cause confusion and doubt in the minds of voters. An innocent person cannot defend themselves against a smear that contains a half truth because you cannot prove a negative as in "I am not a crook because...". At least some people will already believe you are a crook and that is all it takes. Smear campaigns are out to fool enough of the people not all of the people.

#2. If true or partially true, you must smear early. Too often campaigns wait with their "surprise" attack. It takes a while for a smear to work. People have to think about it. And don't forget about absentee ballots and early voting. If you are a voter watch for negatives earlier before people cast early ballots.

#3. If untrue, smear late. It gives the poor unfortunate victim less chance to prove their innocence and incumbents have learned over the years that they are believed and at least with the local press they are never held accountable for charges that later prove to be unfounded. No one is ever "cleared" by the press later. Believe me I know!

#4. Smear often. Smears often don't take hold unless it gets "legs". That is a term used to describe stories that appear multiple times. The theory is if I see it once it may or may not be true. If I see it for weeks then it must be true because everyone says so.

#5. You need a willing carrier. A smear that no one knows about won't work. Negative campaigns require a willing carrier. Even one that blasts negative campaigns can be willing carriers. The Press Journal will print stores and editorials and proclaim how bad negative campaigning is all the time promoting the negative campaign.

So watch for the tell tale signs of a smear. Ask yourself one question. Is the McMullen information true? If it is then Mr. McMillin has ever right to print it. If not that should weigh heavily on your decision.

In short. There is nothing wrong with negative as long as it is the truth...the whole truth...and nothing but the truth.