Letters: Political Debating Protocol, endorsements
Political Debating Protocol 101
What kind of language should candidates use? Certainly not that in the current use.
Please no more personal attacks, insults, unsubstantiated lies or accusations.
If you are so low and need the personal attack, at least have the integrity and decency of presenting detailed facts and relevant evidence. Many view them in a different perspective. You are destroying individuals’ reputations, for heaven’s sake.
Joseph Goebbels said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Lies and calumnies also were preferred weapons in the verbal arsenals of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
We are averse to and tired of epithets and monikers; especially those attempting to diminish or denigrate opponents. We don’t want to hear of “little, crazy, crooked … etc.” like nicknames, or how small hands, noses, or any other appendages an opponent has.
Please stop! We are wasting everyone’s time.
Public media glorification of these practices helps the perpetrator, detracting from the honest political process.
Please show us substance and solid objective policy planning; the specifics about how your plan will improve socio-economic realities.
Think of our forefathers debating the contents of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other amendment. Nobody then said not to listen to opponents because they are crooked, ugly or their mother dresses them funny. We would not have a Constitution today, which incidentally is the best in existence.
While you work at polishing your political expressions, please suppress unneeded superlatives, e.g.: “tremendous, unbelievable, totally unacceptable, etc.)
Additionally, if you declare that someone’s action “was a total failure” or “a disastrous policy … etc.” It would be only acceptable if you provide a detailed alternative or a fail free course of action. This is risky business; your reputation as a strategist is also at stake.
— Jaime Menendez
Staneski is ‘real voice’
I have had the pleasure of knowing Pam Staneski for nearly 20 years.
We met when I was president of the PTA at Calf Pen Meadow. Her family had just moved to Milford. She immediately jumped in and became part of our CPM family. Twenty years later she continues to be a person committed to our community — running for Board of Education, stepping up to advocate for Boys & Girls Club, serving on various nonprofit boards, and working to start the Milford Prevention Council.
Pam is my friend; she shares my commitment to making our community better and I have been involved in many projects with her that work to that end. The one thing that I can say: If you want someone who will work for you, be honest with you, and is responsive, then Pam is your person.
I ask that you join me in putting her back in Hartford to be our voice, a real voice, for us.
— Ann Fabian
(Editor’s note: State Rep. Pam Staneski, R-119, represents Milford and Orange.)
Staneski has resident’s vote
As a lifelong resident of Milford I am happy to support Pam Staneski for a second term and I ask you to join me in casting a vote for Pam on Nov. 8.
We need people like Pam representing us, one who returns phone calls, takes time to meet with you when necessary, and truly does put us first.
She has proven that she “has our back” and I will proudly cast my vote for her on Election Day. I ask that you join me.
— Suzanne DiBiase