The squabbling began over an anonymously sponsored phone call left to thousands in the state disparaging Attorney General Janet Napolitano's support of gay parent rights to adopt. The message was left by a woman calling herself Sarah Phillips, who was upset after recently learning that a child she gave up was adopted by a homosexual couple.
Salmon and the GOP are, of course, denying allegations that they were involved. Arizona GOP Executive Director Brian Murray even went so far as to insinuate the calls might have originated from someone in Napolitano's own campaign. It was, after all, a little suspicious that the whole thing took place over the weekend President Bush was in Arizona for Republican fund raising.
Either way, each side is a suspect in the eyes of the other. And the backbiting is by no means confined to Arizona.
On the national stage, we've got President George W. Bush in one corner and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in another, each trying to sink lower than the other.
Last week it was Bush pronouncing that Senate Democrats, by not readily approving a bill for the creation of a Homeland Security Department, were "more interested with special interests in Washington and not in the security of the American people."
Not to be outdone in the area of base party rhetoric, Daschle countered Bush's remarks by accusing him of politicizing the war with Iraq. This statement is odd only because we are not yet at war with Iraq and, the last time I checked, all wars fought thus far in history have been political.
None of this trivial strife should come as a shock to any of us because it isn't anything new. It does, however, make it easy to understand why the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate reported a dismal 17 percent voter turn out in this year's primaries. One can hardly find a reason to get to the polls when none of the candidates is willing to talk about something meaningful.
This seemingly endless feud over minutia is indicative of an even larger issue than low voter turnout: a lack of political platforms. Would the American public take it for granted that political infighting is a necessity if there were more viable options for candidates? Probably not.
Unfortunately, the phrase "third-party candidate" still has certain negative connotations that preclude most of the public from straying from the tried and true two-party system we have now. And that same absurd party loyalty means that the party candidates who survive the antiquated American primary system will be the only ones on the ballot with that elusive designation of being a Republican or Democrat.
In the long run, what all of this means is that voter turnout will continue to remain low unless the presidency is at stake. And the current state of general disinterest in American politics probably won't change for the better until better representation comes about from the elimination of our two-party monopoly or, at the very least, the addition of a box marked "none of the above" at the bottom of the ballot.
As for right now, it means that we still have another month to enjoy baseless personal attacks and small-minded disputes on the campaign trail. It won't end there, but it might lessen once the results are in (except in Florida where they will undoubtedly still be counting their ballots well into 2003).
Scott Phillips is a journalism junior. Reach him at robert.phillips2@asu.edu.
