Nobody for Governor?

If both candidates are ogres, is S.C. doomed?

Is incumbent Republican Gov. Mark Sanford really leading South Carolina down the pathway to poverty? Would his Democratic challenger on the Nov. 7 ballot, S.C. Sen. Tommy Moore, really wreak toxic havoc on the S.C. environment?

Has Sanford really been totally ineffective during his term as governor? Does he really not care about children or poor people? Did he really refuse to fund the public schools while seeking tax cuts only for the wealthiest South Carolinians?

Is Moore really as liberal as they come? Is he really an ethically challenged Columbia insider who is soft on crime, who fought for the largest tax increase in S.C. history (which Republicans, fortunately, beat back)?

Of course not. But as the clock ticks toward the election, the Sanford and Moore campaigns and state political parties routinely spew such wild exaggerations about the opposition into trough of public opinion. The charges and countercharges that the Moore and Sanford camps fling at one another would be downright comic - except for the fact that some voters will respond to them.

Welcome to slash-and-burn politicking 2006, in which candidates and the organizations that support them daily tear down the integrity of the opposition. To hear them tell it, Sanford and Moore not only are unsuited to public office but also are wretched human beings unfit to walk among the rest of us. Spurred on by political consultants who collectively have refined negative campaigning into a twisted art form, the Moore-Democratic and Sanford-Republican campaigns resort to such tactics for two reasons:

Making an ogre of your opponent diminishes chances that voters will focus on your own record in public office. And if voters do focus on your weaknesses, your negative campaign tactics might help make your opponent seem even weaker.

If trashing your opponent doesn't persuade undecided voters to choose your candidacy, it might turn them off on politics entirely, inducing them to stay home on election day. This holds down your opponent's vote tally while giving the votes of your hardcore supporters greater impact on election day.

Certainly, it's fair for the candidates and parties to point out the weaknesses of the opposition. But why should it be necessary to demonize the opposing candidates?

Moore and Sanford in actuality are decent men with much to recommend them. It's depressing that they would countenance campaign tactics that diminish respect for themselves and the office they seek. If each doesn't think the other is morally and politically suited for the state's top office, why should anyone else?

Each man, in his own way, could lead S.C. government between 2007 and 2011, though each would bring a different style to the office. The hope must be that all voters - even ones who are easily sickened - can look past disappointing campaign tactics at the men themselves and vote knowledgeably on Nov. 7. We're going to be stuck with one of them after election day.