GloucesterTimes.com, Gloucester, MA

October 16, 2012

Letter: Candidates' family ads are irrelevant


Gloucester Daily Times

---- — To the Editor:

I am not sure what Mr. Brown conveys with ads featuring his wife and daughters.

He has had months to talk about his votes in both Senates, yet he offers no specifics about them. As one example, when he could have voted for the Paycheck Fairness Act, he and the Republican monolith voted against it. On June 5, the bill fell short of the 60 votes necessary to override a filibuster and did not make it to the Senate floor. The vote went along party lines.

Who said, in the contest against Ms. Coakley, “I’ll be the 41st vote?”

Does anyone think he intended that to be a one off? Ask him when he drives by, “If men were underpaid instead of women, would you have voted against the bill?”

I am not voting for these non-candidates: Ms. Obama, Dr. Biden, Ms. Huff, Mr. Mann, Ms. Tierney, or Mr. Starr. While each and every one might be a fabulous person, I have only met one spouse and I think her husband has a great wife. I have talked with her more than once but that does not qualify me to say “Vote for her!” She isn’t running for office anyway.

I vote on issues, candidates’ positions and explanations, as well as the cumulative voting record he has in office or the positions fought for before seeking office.

When a candidate trots out his spouse in lieu of saying what he is for, then I conclude that he has a strong reason to divert attention away from his positions. TV spots are expensive, so why focus on what is, essentially, irrelevant?

Arthur Godfrey used to take his chicken soup sponsor to task on air. He acknowledged they dragged a chicken through the water before they added noodles and dried it to make an “instant soup.” Can you imagine such honest candor today? Politics needs a re-hydrated Arthur Godfrey.

ARTHUR THOMAS

Gloucester