Trending
It's probably safe to say that most people enjoy fudge and/or hot fudge sundaes.
However, many of those same people probably don't have a sweet opinion of political candidates who "fudge" their abilities or power, as they seek voters' support for the first time -- and those already in office, and now seeking re-election, who tout purported accomplishments of their soon-to-be-completed term of office and, perhaps, regarding prior terms.
It's always wise for voters to scrutinize claims and promises in the days and weeks leading up to Election Day, whether it be a primary or general election, and judge those claims and promises on the basis of honesty.
Tuesday's general election -- labeled midterm -- is now history, and anyone reading this editorial might be wondering why bringing up the issue of campaign honesty should be a current topic.
However, eligible registered voters, as well as people who will be registering to vote, need to keep in mind that this writing has a dual objective. Besides dealing with honesty, it is a reminder that, in only about two months, individuals will be throwing their proverbial hats into the proverbial ring for next year's municipal elections.
As seasoned voters already know, and which next year's "rookie" voters need to know, municipal elections deal with such local-level offices as county commissioner, city and borough mayoral and council seats, seats on township boards of supervisors, seats on school boards, as well as magisterial district judge positions.
There also are other local-level positions that appear on municipal election ballots, such as auditor or tax collector, but those mentioned above usually are the highlighted races commanding the most attention.
The main point, in looking ahead to next year, is that the offices that will be on the 2027 Blair County ballots are offices that are closest to the people. In reality, then, they are offices of significant importance and, yes, impact taxpayers' wallets and pocketbooks in no small way.
But back to the "fudge."
Incumbent candidates on both sides of the political isle often voice campaign rhetoric like "I did this" or "I did that" and "I prevented this" or "I prevented that," when in fact they simply voted "to do this" or "do that" and merely voted to "prevent this" or "prevent that."
No lawmaker has the power alone to pass or kill legislation. Thus, every lawmaker should be honest about being just one vote, not imply that he or she is someone who alone can approve or reject in totality.
Proclaiming that "I voted to do this" or "I voted to do that" is the honest way to seek voter support and confidence. Also, "my vote helped pass this or that" or "my vote helped defeat a proposal to do this or that" also make clear that a candidate is not attempting to dupe constituents.
Neither should non-incumbents exaggerate their power or importance, but it's not uncommon for that to occur -- not only on the national or state political fronts but in local contests as well.
Voters need to scrutinize closely what candidates are saying. Paying attention is not difficult, but it is important.
It can provide an invaluable glimpse into whether a candidate believes that voters are stupid, uninformed or easily misled.
Did the candidates for whom you voted on Tuesday skip the "fudge" or pile it on in abundance?