How Political Candidates Should Address the "Skeletons in Their Closet"

One of the disturbing, negative things about election campaigns is all the negativity and mudslinging that takes place each election.  It's nothing new in American politics.  It seems in recent years it's reached a new low like never before this year is no exception.  It's become fashionable in recent elections for candidates to bring up the issue of "skeletons" in their opponents lives.  What do I mean when I use the term, "skeletons in the closet".  I'm speaking of situations where a particular candidate used to perform or do something crazy, wicked, or ridiculous during their "youthful" days whether it be in college or something of that nature.  I remember back in 2000 five days before the presidential election, someone brought up the issue of George W. Bush receiving a DUI when he was either 29 or 30 years old which was around 1976.  I was strongly opposed to that simply because I knew that Bush no longer drank alcohol.  He repented of what he did.  Therefore, it was stupid for someone in the Democratic Party to bring up Bush's "skeletons"  relating to his alcohol problem.  If a candidate has repented of past sins and no longer practices it, I don't care about what they did in the past.  I believe in repentance and forgiveness.  I'm concerned with the moral character of the candidates while they're running for office.  I'm not that concerned about their past as along as they repented and learned from past sins.

During the 2010 midterm campaign so far, there have been allegations that have sprung forth concerning skeletons in both Christine O'Donnell's and Rand Paul's past.  Christine O'Donnell had appeared on "Politically Incorrect" in 1999 in which Bill Maher was host and she admitted that she dabbled with witchcraft during her youth.  The Jack Conway campaign in Kentucky raised allegations about Rand Paul belonging to a fraternity during his college days at Baylor University.  It was alleged that he was involved in a hazing where they tied up a woman and made her bow down to worship an idol called "Aqua Buddha".  The Conway campaign alleged that Paul was poking fun of Christianity for what he was doing.  Both candidates didn't respond very well to the allegations.  O'Donnell made light of the witchcraft comment.  Paul said what the Conway campaign did was ridiculous.  However, Paul didn't flatly deny he did it. 

I want to point out I'm not in favor of mudslinging your opponent.  I'm opposed to revealing skeletons in your opponents closet especially if it isn't characteristic of that candidate today.  Did Christine O'Connell dabble in witchcraft?  We've seen the clip that Bill Maher aired where O'Donnell admitted she participated in witchraft.  However, she didn't give any type of explanation.  Paul has tried to avoid discussing the issue about his college days at Baylor and instead accuses Conway of attacking his "Paul's" faith.  When you're running for office and "skeletons from your closet" is made public in the news media, it's imperative that they respond to that allegation.  I totally agree it was unfair for their opponent to bring up an issue that should be moot. I don't believe past sins should be brought forth in public unless that candidate is presently battling with that problem.  For example, if a candidate who's running has an issue with the opposite sex, it would be appropriate for past issues (concerning the opposite sex) to be brought up by the media.  It helps us to know more about the character of the candidate.  Otherwise, I think past skeletons should be left in the closet. 

I have a little advice for Christine O'Donnell and Rand Paul:  As painful and embarassing as it might be when the media reveals past sins, you must face it and give an explanation.  You don't have to give a lengthy explanation concerning all the details.  What you should do is to answer the question whether you did or didn't commit the act that was alleged you committed.  If you didn't participate in that act, then you need to be specific and flatly state you didn't committ it so the discussion can be halted.  On the other hand, if you were guilty of the past transgression, then you need to admit (1) you committed it.  Following that confession, you need to (2) apologize to the public for that sin and say you're ashamed you did that.  I thought of something else this morning.  If you've repented of that particular transgression and no longer commit it, you should say that you may have done it years ago, but you're no longer the same person now.  You're a different person and you wouldn't do something like that today.  That's all that has to be done.  It doesn't have to be complicated nor lengthy.  I believe the voters won't hold it against you as long as you respond to that allegation properly.  If you don't address that issue, then it makes the voter think you may be hiding something.  The proper thing to do is to face the issue head-on and address the issue.  Once you address the issue, you can move onto other things.  I hope that will be beneficial.