McCollum playing the blame game

Bill McCollum may prefer to blame his lack of funding for his defeat rather than second guess his campaign ads, but he would be foolish for doing so.

Yes, Rick Scott may have begun advertising earlier; but my recollection is that the ads were positive in nature. He was going to end the Tallahassee pork barrel; he was going to get rid of the fleet of state executive aircraft; he was going to push for an Arizona-like immigration control law in Florida.

On the other hand, McCollum's early ads were all negative. The only message offered was slam, slam, slam Scott. Nothing positive was offered. No program was advanced. Even if the allegations against Mr. Scott were true, the ads were so distasteful that they actually created a kind of immunity for him. It isn't simply a matter of when you start advertising or how often you advertise, it's what you say that truly matters. It's not money spent, but money spent wisely that counts.

By the way, if Bill McCollum is correct that he was put at a disadvantage by early and absentee (also early) voting, perhaps we should take a closer look at the process.

Fairness demands that all the voters be exposed to the same number of news cycles and weeks of campaigning.

John S.V. Weiss

Spring Hill