Jones exposes Glover record, gets blamed

A tremendous amount of misunderstanding has occurred relative to Shreveport Republican mayoral candidate Jerry Jones and his ads highlighting the voting record of, policy preferences of, and performance of his opponent Democrat state Rep. Cedric Glover in the mayor’s race. (I’ll leave aside analyzing the somewhat curious choice the Shreveport Times made in running the original story, and then the absolutely bizarre choice of doing a story on the story – almost as if it felt it needed to justify the original story.)

Some subscribe to the ridiculous notion that these ads somehow signify that Jones is campaigning in a mean or undesirable way. Jones, the former city attorney, himself described perfectly why they are not: he is relaying information to potential voters, information that is a matter of public record, and trying to persuade consumers of it that the inferences he draws about the lesser capability of Glover to govern as well as Jones asserts he can are valid. After all, Glover is not going to volunteer these interpretations, so Jones does the audience a service by informing them of these.

It’s smart politics, too. One recent opinion writer argued that the candidates had not done enough to distinguish themselves on the basis of issue preferences. Jones’ ads certainly draw contrasts between himself and Glover, which will win some votes for Jones not because they criticized Glover’s record, but because they showed that Jones did not mirror Glover’s record which likely a minority of voters would find appealing.

In his reaction, Glover showed little understanding of these nuances, saying he won't use “attacks” in the final week heading into next Tuesday's elections but instead will keep his campaign focused on the “issues.” Nothing in Jones’ ads did not focus on issues, and Glover shows an unintentional self-revelation by terming an “attack” an ad highlighting his record – meaning Glover himself believes his record is worth hiding because someone else revealing it he terms a provocative act.

(Jones’ approach is unlike that of some state Democrats who ran ads against Jones shortly before the primary which were full of innuendo and false information accusing Jones of favoritism. To equate that to Jones’ approach that utilized verified, public information simply is asinine. Just as asinine is the uninformed assertion that these ads were not truthful and therefore cast aspersions on Jones himself; again, everything in those ads was public knowledge and verifiable, unlike the September attacks against Jones.)

By telling the public what he does not support, Jones also has used this opportunity to claim a mandate if he wins next week. He can claim a vote for him is comparable to rejecting a vote for higher taxes, more spending, more debt and that he would pursue a different philosophy to revitalize the city economically. It may prove to be a valuable resource to persuade a City Council certain to have a Democrat majority.

Glover largely cannot cope with the ad campaign. To attempt to address it would call attention to actions that, again, he seems uncomfortable publicizing on his own. So all he can do is mouth some kind of mantra about taking the high road. It’s not the kind of debate to which voters to whom ideas matter will respond favorably. It’s another reason why Jones looks to win.