Negative attacks

Negative election campaigns always mean that somebody is nervous. Somebody is taking voters I think should be voting for me, and when I decide my campaign is obviously not being effective enough, I have to attack the opponent and point out what is wrong with them.

The following two flyers have been distributed, attacking TOV. It is funny to attack TOV based on their, considering they did not exist until a few months ago... but it is being done anyway.

The attack is on TOV in the form of their number 2 man Rav Alon, who was previously in another party. The claim is that TOV wants to clean up the city, but their man was in charge of it until now, and if he could not do it then, why should you trust TOV to do it now...





The flyers are fairly anonymous, so it begs the question who is behind it. There are two other parties that are competing with TOV for the same voters. CHEN, to a small extent, and more directly Gimmel.

It does not make sense for this to have been done by CHEN, because they would then be attacking themselves, claiming that their own guy did nothing in the previous session. Gimmel is much more threatened by TOV, and it makes much more sense for it to be them. Also my sources tell me they were put out by Gimmel, but that cannot really be confirmed officially.

The real chutzpah is that when the candidate Moshe Abutbol gets asked why he did not accomplish anythign serious as Deputy Mayor with his various responsibilities, he responds that the mayor did not allow him to work and blocked his intiatives. When Gimmel, along with other parties, are asked why they did not accomplish what they set out to, they respond the mayor did not allow them to accomplish.

As residents, and as voters, we have the right to question the candidates and parties. if they give us flaky answers, we can either trust and accept, and vote for them again, or say it is a bad excuse and vote for them for other reasons, or vote for someone else.

But it is chutzpah for one party to attack another party on their lack of accomplishment, whether real or not (and I do not know if there is basis to the actual claim or not), when they themselves have to answer why they did not accomplish and fulfill their responsibilities.