During the nineties, both sides in the culture wars engaged in negative campaigning, largely because it worked. Then voters became fed up with the politics of personal destruction associated with the Clintons. Voices were raised for greater civility.

In an era that brings candidates on a national scale trying to appear upbeat and less bitter toward their rivals, the tone of local politics has remained relatively subdued. Attack ads are nearly unheard of, and thank heaven for that.

As I write these words, I cannot know the outcome of Tuesday’s primary, yet they will appear in print after the results are posted. I decided that now would be an opportunity to issue a public rebuke to one local campaign that filled my mailbox with surprisingly negative fliers. 

Now, I have no particular attachment to Jean Leising, one way or the other, and my personal opinion about her merit would not matter anyway. The point is that the Sponsel for Senate campaign exhibited bad form in its attempt to beat her.

First, it was a lame attempt to go back thirteen years to mischaracterize a vote she made about spouses that owe unpaid child support. The Sponsel campaign argued that she should have been tougher on deadbeat dads. The flier clearly indicates that it was paid for by Sponsel for Senate.

Leising opposed taking driving privileges away from fathers expected to support their kids.  It stands to reason that a man without driving privileges will have a harder time getting and keeping a job to meet that obligation, so I am not sure the criticism of her is fair.

This is just days before the primary election, with little chance for his opponent to reply. Then, in a single day, two more fliers of the same type appeared in my mailbox, though you have to look carefully to see that they too were paid by Sponsel for Senate.

One of them refers to her as a career politician, as though that disqualifies her for holding public office, and it points out how often she has lost elections in the past. Without substantiation, then, it refers to her as a liberal, which in a Republican primary around these parts is fighting words.

Ironically, the campaign also sent a flier claiming that Leising would do anything to win an election. It urged me to vote NO (underlined) on Jean Leising. Well, I did not receive attack ads from her about Sponsel, so apparently she does have her limits. The question to ask oneself is this: who actually stooped lower?

This second flier depicts a guy cheating at golf. Nowhere in the printed material does it say that the candidate actually cheated in any way, shape, or form. The substance of the ad pertains to her soliciting contributions from lobbyists, but if you read it carefully, it never comes out and says that this behavior was cheating.

Now, I understand that politics is not beanbag, and you have to throw sharp elbows to make it in this world, but I also have a son who toys with the idea of running for public office one day. What do I now tell him about the process, except that he should expect this sort of tactic?

The ultimate irony is that Ronald Reagan was famous for reciting the so-called Eleventh Commandment, to the effect that Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. Yet here in the conservative Republican heartland, Sponsel not only spoke ill, he did it in a particularly distasteful manner.

When people turn off from politics, it is largely because of this sort of activity, having nothing to do with the issues. It is sad that anyone finds it necessary to win by blackening the reputation of their opponent in a manner that prevents rebuttal. If civility means anything, it means that somebody comes forward to say this behavior is out of bounds, a low blow.

Besides, to do such a thing exhibits disdain for the electorate, assuming the rest of us would be swayed. What I cannot answer today is whether Sponsel for Senate was correct. All I do know is that I was swayed -- against him.