Christopher Rants, Say it Ain't So!

Christopher Rants, Say it Ain’t So!

Last time out, I admitted to a new-found respect for Council Member Brent Hoffman for having the integrity to identify the recent appointment of Marty Dougherty to city office for what it is: an exercise of political patronage!

In the past, however, I’d similarly expressed a grudging admiration for another local Republican: Christopher Rants. In particular, I’d praised him for his keen political acumen, despite the fact that we rarely see eye-to-eye on the issues.

Well, once again I find myself disappointed. In my estimation, Rants went way over the line in his comments regarding the flap over negative campaign ads in House District 94. You may recall this incident, as it convinced Republican challenger Kevin Winkus to drop his party affiliation in disgust over the unfair attack ads generated by the state Republican Party, ads that essentially accused his Democratic opponent of coddling pedophiles. As the Sioux City Journal noted, the campaign ad in question noted Representative Kurt Swaim’s paid work “as a court-appointed public defender in a lascivious acts case in which a man was convicted but served only four days in jail” (SCJ 9/18/06).

Now, anybody who still retains even a smidgen of intelligence and decency would realize the patently unfair nature of such a charge. Public defenders, unlike trial lawyers, do not generally have the luxury of picking and choosing their cases. Their clients are assigned, and they are expected to defend their clients to the extent possible. That is how the American system of justice operates; whether we like it or not everyone is guaranteed a fair trial, no matter how heinous the alleged crime.

On this occasion, great intellect and decency were shown by ex-Republican Wiskus. Meanwhile, the worst sort of political expediency was demonstrated by Representative Rants. “There’s nothing untrue in that piece and absolutely nothing misleading,” Rants whined, and so everyone should just shut up and leave things be.

Good lord, man! Talk about a Clintonesque overplaying of a semantic technicality! Has Rants stooped so low as to criticize a public servant for faithfully fulfilling his assigned duties? Or is Rants now prepared to start picking and choosing which American citizens are deserving of the protections supposedly guaranteed in the Constitution? [Couldn’t he instead leave that odious task to our feeble-minded president?]

I love a good fight as much as the next guy. A political campaign can be and often is rough and tumble. But such blatant misrepresentation of an opponent’s record is both inexcusable and unethical. That Rants aided and abetted such slander saddens me. Partisanship should never be allowed to excuse the abandonment of principles.

Peace!
Historian