On the Road to Election Day, Part VII: Prepare to lose all your rights

I'm not sure why, because goodness knows I've written enough about politics to know better, but only as I've been running for political office has it become at times painfully clear that as a candidate for an elected position, I've got next to no rights to do just about anything.

No, really. I'm not being dramatic here.  Think about it.  There are no better examples of this than Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.  Just think about how constrained their words must be, their behavior, who they are seen with and who they've been affiliated with in the past.  Now think about how they have to live with all the choices they've ever made as ones that can be used for and against them, by people who are for or against them.  And they have little to no recourse to impact people's choices to use and misuse their life's stories unless they want to exhaust themselves and everyone who supports them.  All for what?

Well, at least in their case you can say, all for the idea that they believe that they know how to be the leader (or vice leader) of this country and they want to be leader (or vice leader) of this country.

But having that ambition, and pursuing that ambition, in our country, then gives others the right to say that one is a lousy mother and the other wasn't born in the United States?

Well, yeah, it actually does.  And yet, how ill is that?  And how often are those charges made by people who themselves will ever put their neck on the line to run for public office and subject themselves - in the name of the hope that they will be able to serve the public interest - to the exact same exacting scrutiny?

Now, the most benevolent thing I can say about this irony (that people who most likely will never run for elected office will embrace and refine the ability to make public figures constrain themselves inside a behavior box so that they don't say or do much of anything, let alone say or do anything that could be twisted - and what can't be twisted if a candidate for political office says it?) is that the media has often portrayed rumor-mongering as a cheap and inexpensive way to vet candidates for political office.

So, okay - voters do the job that maybe the MSM or even some blogs don't want to in terms of lobbing theories about candidates that have little or no basis in reality and then seeing what sticks.

But beyond the vetting catalyst, is this really a healthy game, a useful exercise or does the propensity to sling whatever one can at a now-public figure in order to knock him or her off balance really provide information that, in the end, will help us select and elect good public servants?  Or does it have, in fact, the opposite effect?

Based on my experience as a candidate for the last few months, and as things get closer and closer to election day (just eight weeks from today), I have to say that, from where I sit (and walk the streets), the more people toss out, the more I feel compelled to fall silent.  I don't want to provide more fodder for people who are intent on twisting. I can't trust those who I'm supposed to (like my local paper that, through poor copy editing, completely messed up a bunch of sentences about the challengers in my race) because they are under the gun. And I'm concerned about making sure I say enough about my fantastic family to let people know I have a fantastic family, without opening the door for others to issue knocks on them, kids included (because for all the promises that kids are off-limits, there are people who will go after candidates' kids).

So what does this do for the voters?  And is it really fair, appropriate or helpful to say, "Well, this is the price you pay for running for office" because the issue is not what can I tolerate.

I say, No. It is not fair, appropriate or helpful.

And I also say, the real issue is and should be, for every voter: How do we measure the quality of someone who wants to be a public servant?

Throwing at them everything and anything that has little to do with the work they need to perform on the voters' behalf but can be thrown at them simply because they're choosing to put their neck on the line to serve you and therefore they are a public servant sure doesn't sound useful to me.

More resources:

Vetting Vet by Juliet Lapidos

On Language: Vetter Vets 'Vet'

The Art of Vetting and Paying Taxes by Jill at The Malitz Muse

Opposition Research: Learn it fast, Creigh by Elaine in Roanake at Blue Commonwealth

The Democratic Dossier on Sarah Palin: 62 pages of 'Oppo Research' by Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher