SILENCE AS ASSENT:

New Jersey's Dreadful Senate Race (NY Times, September 26, 2002)

So far, all voters have been told is that if they vote for Mr. Forrester they will be giving control of the Senate to a Republican Party that is far more conservative than most of them are; if they vote for Mr. Torricelli they will be rewarding an ethically challenged politician who has embarrassed them. There's considerable truth in both arguments, but that only increases the candidates' obligation to respond to them.

Mr. Forrester must very clearly explain how he differs with, or agrees with, the policies of the Republican leaders-in-waiting like Senators Trent Lott and Don Nickles. Mr. Torricelli can't excuse his behavior, but by discussing it frankly he might at least give the voters some assurance that he has faced up to his misbehavior, and changed his ways.

To date, both candidates have seemed to prefer obfuscation and selective focus. From a political strategy standpoint, maybe it makes sense. But from here it looks, sounds and smells like voter abuse.

Why is it not appropriate to interpret the silence of both as agreement with what their opponent is saying? Yes, Mr. Torricelli is saying, I'm an embarrassment. Yes, says Mr. Forrester, I'm a Republican.
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 26, 2002 12:42 PM