“Democracy is being allowed to vote for the candidate you dislike least.” Robert Byrne

Well, it’s over. For now, for us. The 2010 Primary Elections for Kentucky and West Virginia is in history, in the can, cut and print. To the winners, congratulations, to the losers, condolences. The reverse is also applicable.

And, true to form, the last leg of the campaign season got a bit heated on both sides of the mighty Tug. It would seem the depiction of the Hatfields and McCoys fighting to the death is a fair representation of the area. Politics is brutal.

Accusations of corruption, accusations of lying, accusations of accusations, denials, outrage, frontal attacks, rear attacks and counter attacks have flown back and forth, the mud slung with little concern for accuracy, and the collateral damage has included the Daily News. We have found a bit of mud in our hair. That’s OK, its our job, comes with the territory. We’ll shampoo and get ready for the general election in November.

But it does give one a different perspective on the political game at the local level. One knows the players involved, and the microcosm of our races looks and sounds much like the big guys. The best defense is a good offense, fake and punt, distract the audience while you pull the old switcheroo. Its kind of like Vaudeville, but not as funny and without girls with pasties. No, wait . . .

It’s not a new phenomenon, politics has always been bloody. For examples, look to JFK, or Lincoln or William Wallace or Julius Caesar.

All it takes is one candidate, acting in what he perceives (give them the benefit of the doubt) is the best interest of the people, whom the candidate will call taxpayers, but who are really the voters. He points out something negative about his opponent, who must defend himself, natch. And so it goes. And goes and goes and goes.

The motive behind this behavior is obvious – it works. Most of the time anyway (swiftboat anyone?) and politicians pay big bucks to find out what political consultants know, but shoot, I could have told them that for a much less exorbitant fee. I will share my brilliant analysis and strategies. Same as it ever was: hit ‘em late, hit ‘em low and hit ‘em hard. There. Done.

If someone is running for office, one would assume (hope?) they have ideas and plans prepared to put in motion if elected. To campaign on nothing more than what is wrong with your opponent indicates you either have no ideas, or that what ideas you have could not be worked into a cohesive plan. Either way, if ya got nothing, its best to deflect the spotlight so voters won’t realize ya got nothing.

This is how it’s done. This is how campaigns have been run since before I was a registered voter, and will continue long after I stop voting due to death, although my vote may still be counted following my demise. There is little to recommend changing the basic game plan. That is why it continues to repeat itself over and over, like one of those perpetual motion machines with a row of metal balls suspended from strings. Pull up one ball on the end, let loose, and the other end raises and smacks back. Back and forth. What’s to stop it?

It will only stop if it ceases to be effective. Hey . . .

Surely it couldn’t be that simple. There must be a more difficult solution to such a complex problem. Rendering the negative campaigning useless can’t really be the answer, could it? Surely someone would have thought of this before. All the voting public would have to do is to avoid voting for the guy who is talking more about the competition than he is talking about himself. That just doesn’t seem possible, way too easy.

A caveman could do it.

So why doesn’t the voting public? How can people keep getting elected running negative campaigns? If a candidate is not focusing on his own campaign, it stands to reason that his campaign is lacking something. If he fears he can’t get elected on his own merit, we need to ask ourselves why.

I am not personally espousing the merits or faults of any party or candidate, past or future. That is for each voter to do for himself.

I am stating a simple concept – if a candidate isn’t talking about themselves, ask them why. If they don’t have anything except bad things to say, they don’t have anything to say.