In the midst of California’s financial meltdown, two contenders have stepped up to duke it out and let voters decide who will take the helm during these troubling times.
Unfortunately, the two candidates seem more than content to bulldoze each other’s reputations rather than focus on discussing and finding adequate remedies for the state’s problems.
Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, the leading Republican and Democratic gubernatorial nominees, have been relentlessly flooding every media outlet available in an attempt to drag each other’s names through the mud.
In their most recent skirmish, Brown lambasted Whitman for employing an undocumented immigrant. Meanwhile, Whitman demanded an apology after one of Brown’s campaign aides was caught on voice mail calling Whitman a “whore” with Brown agreeing in the background.
These politicians have a firm grip on the other’s dirty laundry and are determined to air it out for all to see, and it’s not letting up any time soon.
Oddly, they both have taken to attacking people from their respective parties as well. Whitman criticized the other Republican candidate, Steve Poizner, after she beat him, and Brown has made public his distaste for Bill Clinton, even though Clinton endorsed him.
It seems anyone who might step into the picture to derail his or her personal vendetta is caught up in the chaos. And it appears that their back-and-forth denouncement of each other’s actions is gaining momentum as the election inches closer and closer.
With the economy in shambles and California’s actor-turned-governor twiddling his thumbs in anticipation of being booted from office, it is apparent that voters are left with choosing the lesser of two evils.
It is clear that citizens cannot trust either of them to lift the state from the mire if they are more concerned with roasting their opponent at the stake. Does it have to come down to who has made themselves look better in the media rather than who has the most desirable plan to ensure the state’s survival?
California is in crucial need of a leader that will take initiative and create a plan that will get the state out of financial disaster, not one that will bicker like a child with their adversary.
Negative campaigning and petty quarreling merely serves as a distraction to voters, and it’s become a distressing trend in any type of election.
If the current candidates for governor take the attention off the fiscal situation by making their competitor look fallacious, they can gain support without actually saying anything valuable about themselves or their platform.
The question of why anyone would want to take the reins as the state’s financial situation veers further out of control must also be raised.
What’s in it for each candidate? Whitman has the chance to prove her political savvy, while Brown has a chance to end his career on a potential high note.
Neither petitioner appears to be concerned with providing a secure feeling for taxpayers, as both campaigns dish out vague promises for the future and withering remarks about their opponent.
Stuck in the middle of this grave debacle are the voters, who will once again have to cross their fingers as they check ballot boxes and hope for the best.
Whatever the outcome of November’s election, it’s clear: no one is getting out without getting dirty first.