Opinion

A clean cut above

The résumés of Paul Bucher and J.B. Van Hollen are very similar. Combating Wisconsin's drug war, running fair elections and fighting cyber crime are on the radar for both candidates, but a few subtle issues set Mr. Bucher ahead of his opponent.

Mr. Van Hollen has been running somewhat of a dirty campaign. In a debate, he went so far as to tell Mr. Bucher, "You suck," and some suggest he distorted facts about his opponent in a recent flier. Mr. Van Hollen, who has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association, implied Mr. Bucher was soft on guns, though Mr. Bucher is an avid supporter of law-abiding citizens' right to bear arms.

In an online chat, Mr. Van Hollen claimed that terrorists are still "training and being financed" in Wisconsin, an unsupported claim clearly intended to create a stir.

What's more, many of the questions students have for Mr. Van Hollen remain unanswered due to unreturned phone calls and requests for interviews by the student press — Mr. Bucher has been very open an responsive to the University of Wisconsin student body.

While Mr. Van Hollen has been busy raising money and taking out personal loans to finance his campaign, Mr. Bucher has continued to prosecute homicide, sexual assault, drunken driving and government corruption while also continuing as Waukesha County's longest-serving district attorney.

Tomorrow, this board encourages all students to support a candidate who differentiates himself from the competition for Attorney General in the Republican primary — Paul Bucher.

Have a thought? We welcome your input, but please be polite and stay on topic wherever possible. Your comment may be deleted if it is inappropriately off topic or promotional or if it is unnecessarily rude or contains personal attacks. We may delete comments for other reasons as well. Just keep it simple and focus on your points as respectfully as possible.

We allow and encourage comments employing satire, wit and irony to make points. Do not flag comments just because you disagree. Flagged comments will be immunized from further flagging unless they stray far from the guidelines and do not add to the discussion. Before flagging a comment you think is offensive, consider your time might be better spent rebutting it than censoring it.

blog comments powered by Disqus

3 older comments

user-pic

“JB didn’t call us back, so we’re endorsing Paul.” See, that wasn’t hard!

user-pic

JB thinks there are terrorists training all over Wisconsin. I don’t want someone that delusional as my attorney general.

user-pic

Based on the above editorial, I understand why the Herald is not endorsing Mr. Van Hollen. Arguments against him are made in a clear, cogent and reasonably manner.

But why is the board endorsing Mr. Bucher?

He seems like an afterthought within this editorial — almost an “Anybody but Van Hollen” choice.

If the Herald is going to come out against negative ads - which is a wise move - then the paper would be well served to tell us who to vote for, not who to vote against.

-Victor Blake Marx

Donate