Reichley Column: Mudslinging

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how some political ads can be technically correct but misleading. I’m guessing if you asked voters, most of them would say they want to be told the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. And most of us say we want to hear about issues, not personal mudslinging. So why do we so rarely get positive ads about a politician’s ideas?

Simply put, because mudslinging works, misleading ads work. And positive ads telling the voter what a candidate plans to do give the opponent more things to mislead voters about.

For example, McDonnell has a positive TV ad about his transportation plan. In the ad, McDonnell suggests selling Virginia’s ABC (liquor) stores to raise money for transportation.  Deeds responded in the
September debate by deriding the idea, indirectly suggesting it would lead to another Virginia-Tech-type shooting. Noting that some revenue from liquor sales is tied to mental health and substance abuse
services, Deeds said “Who in this room thinks after what happened at Virginia Tech (that) we’re going to cut mental health services?”

So you might think Deeds wouldn’t consider selling the ABC stores, but you would be wrong. In a radio interview last week, when asked about the idea, Deeds said “well, the sale of liquor stores is
something we ought to consider. The sale of alcohol is not a core service of government. Privatization is something we ought to take a look at.” So either Deeds is fine with “cutting mental health
services,” or his comment at the debate was meant to misleadingly scare voters about the idea.

Closer to home, Sunday’s paper ran a story about a political advertisement under the headline “Mudslinging starts in the 51st district.” The story is about a flier distributed by Richard Anderson, containing
an arrest report from 2005 for his opponent, Paul Nichols. This is another example of an ad that is literally true, but misleading, because while Nichols was arrested, the case was later dismissed when
the officer failed to appear in court.

Further, the article says Nichols took the time to have the record expunged, so by now the arrest shouldn’t be on the record. And now that the arrest has been made public, Nichols has come forward with
details that suggest he wasn’t at fault. 

Given the wording of the flier (for example, calling Nichols a “different kind of ‘slugger’”) it seems the intent is to make a much bigger deal out of this arrest record than is supported by the information we
have been given. Although it is hard to fault his opponent for not knowing details that Nichols is just now providing, it is clear the evidence available didn’t support the conclusion the flier hoped the voters
would reach.

If the flier had simply noted the arrest (which is a fact), and asked why Nichols didn’t trust the voters with this information, that would have been a reasonable question to ask. After all, an arrest is public
information, and Nichols felt it was important enough to get it erased. Nichols clearly believes the facts exonerate him, so why not talk about it, rather than hoping nobody finds out about it?

And in fact, Faisal Gill, Nichols’ opponent in 2007, knew about the arrest, but didn’t mention it. Nichols called Gill after the flier came out, and Gill supposedly told him he felt it would be “unfair” to use it,
prompting Nichols to say “Now I know what a humble person he was.”

So why use negative ads? Because, as the 2007 Gill/Nichols race reminds us, it works. In 2007, Nichols was using misleading fliers against Gill (making it all the more remarkable that Gill wouldn’t use
the arrest record against Nichols). In this paper’s endorsement of Gill, the editors chided Nichols, saying Nichol’s “misleading fliers about Gill show that when it comes to politics he has no qualms about
crossing the ethical line.”

An earlier editorial discussing a Nichols flier said that Nichols’ “use of manipulated images against Faisal Gill crosses into the realm of fantasy and lying.” The editors concluded “those who are caught
deceiving should apologize to the voters. How about it, Mr. Nichols?” 

Nichols never did apologize. And he won the election, showing that false negative mudslinging works. So maybe next time Nichols calls Gill to complain about an opponent’s mudslinging, he could
apologize to Gill for his own misleading ads.

Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at .