Primary election ballots are due to the county clerks office on Tuesday.
The district attorney contest has been by far the most contentious, with supporters of Russell Wasley citing his record of convictions and claiming hes the only true Republican in the race, and supporters of challenger Will Furse citing Wasleys record of errors and claiming Furse is the more qualified candidate. With Wasley, what voters have seen is what they will get next time around. Furse is an unknown, but he articulates a clear vision for the office. The broad support of the law-enforcement community tips the scales toward Furse.
The county commission races have been considerably more civil, but many factors help voters choose among the candidates.
For District 2, Pat Degagne-Rule, Keenan Ertel and Bud Garner face off. Degagne-Rule has a background in politics, Ertel has a long history in the community, and Garner has a following among those who support the 9-12 beliefs. Ertel demonstrates both the ability and the commitment to govern with all his constituents in mind.
In District 3, Dewayne Findley and Casey McClellan are running a close race. McClellan is pushing to loosen government restrictions on a variety of activities, a position that garners considerable support but that also plays to sharp divisions between some of the countys economic sectors. Findleys previous term as commissioner demonstrated his ability to represent Montezuma County very effectively in its dealings with various other agencies. Findleys longer view would serve the countys residents well.
After Tuesday (and until November, when the long and bitter presidential race finally will be over), voters should sit back and ponder the factors they considered in making their decisions. Was the negative campaigning effective? Should it have been? Is it ethical to shade, or even misstate, information about an opponents record to paint that opponent in a negative light? Is the truth not powerful enough? Can voters not be trusted to use it to make the right decision?
In any election, its difficult to determine what behavior candidates have encouraged, when theyve turned a strategic blind eye, and which supporters truly have acted on their own. Beyond their candidate committees, individuals running for office have no effective way of controlling others, particularly those others who dont so much like one candidate as intensely dislike another. They can, however, try to promote civil, issue-focused debate and discourage gratuitous nastiness. They can pick up the phone and say, Thanks for your endorsement but Id really appreciate it if youd alter the tone. Or, they can sit back and enjoy the benefits of plausible deniability while someone else does their dirty work.
If they want to win badly enough, theyll choose the latter course. In races around the country, that strategy has worked well lately. Winning, though, is just the beginning.
Dont be surprised if the candidates who win election continue to surround themselves with the people who have been active in their campaigns. Those who have sought out thinkers and doers and visionaries will continue to do so, and those are the ones who will govern best.
