There is nothing more beautiful than the glistening and serene view that a lake or pond surface can offer; there is such beauty in the gentle waves rippling in concert with each other as they effortlessly work their way toward the shorelines. The reflections from the sun are magnificent as they instill a sense of calm like nothing else. But, more than anything, they serve as the primary and ecological layer of so much more than the casual observer can ever see.<br />
<br />
That initial layer of beauty is underscored by very different views as the depth of the water increases. As you work your way down from the top, the eventual and last level will have an ample supply of silt, scum and slime that makes up the floor. The bottom feeders thrive in this environment as they prey. They dig and thrash on the floor looking for anything that they can find to devour. Often, their works loosens the slime until it begins to rise and becomes visible on the lake's surface.<br />
<br />
This ecological example is duplicated, albeit in a political sense, every time an election comes up. We always have candidates who stay above the muck and continue to swim and tread in the top layer keeping the issues at the forefront. But, it never fails just as it does with our water supplies, we always have some of our bottom feeders who will inevitably dig and thrash looking for anything that they can devour. This despite whether or not it has anything to do with the issues and slowly, but surely, their efforts send the sentiments and slime to the surface.<br />
<br />
Whether negative campaigning is a good thing or a bad thing is completely dependent on who is using the techniques. I cannot recall a time where negative campaigning has not been justified by the candidate slinging the slime. They can come up with a myriad of reasons why this "important information" needed to be brought forth. The fact that the information had been available for a long period of time but was only released a few days before an election is simply just coincidence. The fact is that the information is only important as it applies to some harm of the candidate, and character destruction, rather than any issues of the campaign that are never discussed. But, nonetheless, this type of campaigning continues.<br />
<br />
Even after one poll after another has stated that most voters prefer candidates who stick to facts rather than attacks, some candidates cannot resist the opportunity to resort to these tactics. They will always find an excuse or justification for the strategies even as they proclaim that they are basically opposed to negative campaigns. Apparently their opposition is not so strong that they remove themselves from the tactics. Some even allow the negative messages to be represented by a "third party." Then the candidate can say that of course they had nothing to do with it but they respect the "third parties" right to express their opinion. To quote one of my favorite lines from the old Laugh-In television show
