Negative Campaigning

I've been asked whether I'll run a negative campaign and I've had folks tell me that they intend to go after my opponent.

A lot of this has to do with the definition of "negative campaign", of course.

Taking issue with an incumbent's prior acts as a legislator is not necessarily a negative campaign, nor is pointing out the differences between candidates.

Personal attacks and name calling are certainly examples of negative campaigning and I absolutely will not do either.

I've met with my opponent and have nothing bad to say about him as a person. He's more to the left, I'm more to the right. We disagree on some things, we agree on other things. For example, we both support LGBTQ rights and we both support abortion rights (though, I'm sure, with some differences relating to the stage of pregnancy), while I'm sure we disagree on things like the Second Amendment and school choice.

If you want to support me as a candidate, please do not engage in ad hominem attacks on my opponent. The state of politics in this country is abysmal and the "you're either with me or against me" absolutism in so many campaigns is a significant driver of overall civil strife.

I care about Montana and the Bozeman area. I want to see cooperation and civility, even as we deal with the reality that we all have different ways of dealing with the important issues.

I'm a constitutional conservative who believes in small government, liberty, low taxes, individual rights and the rule of law. I don't believe in stereotyping or demonizing those who disagree with me.

So there is the answer to whether I'll run a negative campaign, with much more than a yes or no answer.

There are many policy differences between my opponent and me and those policy positions, which I'll be expounding on as the election nears, should inform you on who to vote for. And that's the only thing that should matter when it comes to an election.