CHIP, BRAC, the possibility of Texas going blue, working with House Speaker Tom Craddick if it doesn’t, big money from Central Texas filling the coffers of both candidates, UTEP’s future, border issues, getting stuff done vs. talking about getting stuff done, light rail, El Paso as a national leader when it comes to renewable energy. The list goes on! There is so much to be talked about in the election for Texas House District 78 between Joe Moody (D) and Dee Margo (R).

But what were we talking about last week? A blog. Oh dear.

Moody, as we all now know, wrote some rather silly things on a public website last year. Over the last few weeks, Margo has been using quotes from several of the blog's entries in campaign emails. But Margo (while I can understand why he would milk it for all it is worth) is taking the issue too far. It is becoming annoying.

Margo has rightly said at different points during his campaign that this is a crucial time for El Paso, an exciting time, a time in need of strong leadership so that “things get done.” Then why on God’s green earth are we wasting our time on this one, when there is so much else that needs to be said over the next month?

A further thing must be said about the timing of this story. The Margo campaign sent out a second press release in response to the story on Friday. It was full of condemning quotes from retired military “in light of Joe Moody’s comments recently uncovered by the El Paso Times.”

It is at the very least feasible to posit that the Margo campaign has been in possession of Joe Moody’s childish blog musings for some time. It is also feasible to posit that the plethora of veteran quotes found in Margo’s “press release” took a reasonable amount of time to amass. Once collected, would it not make sense for the Margo campaign to “tip off” the El Paso Times, wait for the story to develop a little momentum, and then release a (rather polished) press release “in response?”

Aside from the timing, it is worth discussing the general use and worth of blogs posted by political candidates. I caught up with Margo on Wednesday where he defended the use of quotes from Moody’s blog.

“What is negative about putting something out which is public? Isn’t it done for public?” Well, I suppose that’s true. If Moody wasn’t smart enough to see that electronic naval gazing couldn’t harm any future political ambitions then that’s his loss. I can see how they would be worth a quip or two. “Blogs are designed for others to see and comment on,” said Margo. Again, fair enough, I suppose they are.

But that's not the be all and end all of blogs though is it?

As a 26-year old Englishmen I must admit to being rather clueless about the phenomenon commonly called the “blogosphere.” As I understand it, it is a page on a website that a person updates with their feelings, views, pictures and so on. A blog is a public sharing of parts of a person. But the blog is not equivalent to that person, just as one's business ties or TV preferences aren’t.

It is not Joe Moody’s blog, or Dee Margo's business ties that are running for District 78. It is the men themselves. Therefore, in the arena of political debate, personal blog postings are not germane.

For example, the El Paso Times reported that Moody made the following comment on the Aug. 25, 2007. "It's hard for me to decide which is worse ... the military or the banks. One recruits you to get killed immediately ... while the other will suck the life out of you for years to come."

That is a rather immature thing for someone to say, (especially someone thinking about running for public office). But is it really indicative of Moody’s position on BRAC or finance? Does a person’s poetic output (and I mean poetic in the benign sense of the word) translate into their positions on issues as a political candidate?

Shouldn’t what Joe Moody actually says in his political manifesto and in public forums be what Margo critically analyzes and repudiates? After all, the policy laid down in his campaign manifesto has no literary quality. It is a policy statement. It is meant to be translated into action once in office. None of this is true of one’s poetic output (regardless of how shabby it is.)

Margo’s latest campaign email contained seven quotes from Moody’s blog (taken from three different postings). One reads as follows: “I went to Austin over the weekend...way too much drinking as usual...” Another references posting on his blog from work. The campaign email concludes that this means “Moody didn’t take his first taxpayer-funded job seriously” and that the consumption of alcohol is “perhaps…why he’s so eager to get there.”

I might expect this sort of sketchy literary analysis (and “gotcha politics”) from a Michael Moore or a Bill O’Reilly, but not from a candidate who to speak with and listen to expresses the demeanor of a thoughtful moderate. These emails insult the intelligence and waste the time of voters. Especially when there is so much worth discussing.

Unfortunately this is becoming an unnecessary hallmark of the Margo campaign. A recent mailer (posted below) reads, “Joe Moody doesn’t know if he pays property taxes … (he) talks about lowering property taxes but admits he has never directly paid (them).”

The mailout, complete with Moody mugshot, is based on a quote of his from a debate with Margo where he admits to being (drum roll) … a renter. But there’s more! He is a renter who does not know how much property tax his landlord pays. Someone call the Blue Texas PAC quick and get Moody to give that $40,000 back! He's obviously stupid!

The mailer’s logic is that Moody, 27, has never owned a house and so must know nothing about property taxes. But that is a redundant charge. Margo has never been a cop. Is he unqualified to espouse a political position on law and order. I’ve never been a deity. Are my views on existence and God invalid?

It is, in part because of mailouts like this, that normal people are unwilling to donate to political candidates. Only the super rich can afford to waste their money on such tosh. Again, what is Moody's position on property tax? Is it feasible? Is there a better alternative? These are questions that really matter. No one has the time to consume childishly negative electioneering. Life is too short and politics too important.

The ability of candidates to represent their constituencies should be determined through intelligent debate of their positions and characters. That is what should be great about democracy. It should (essentially) not be about the candidates at all, but about those things a community collectively shares and values. (And how those shared values are embodied in the candidates). Elections are in this respect, solemn.

The District 78 race is great because the candidates are so different. Voters have a real choice. They offer different positions on the issues and different philosophies of how to achieve things in Austin. They are from very different backgrounds, though both are undoubtedly El Pasoans with impressive track record of community service. These differences should create the perfect storm within which District 78 can enter into a dialog as a community so as to discuss who they are and where they are going.

Not that it has to be pretty. But it should be dignified. If Joe Moody is too young, too wet behind the ears or too stupid to represent District 78 then for goodness sake, Margo should make that point with the eloquence and reasonableness befitting a successful businessman in his 50s. The blog may make the papers, but it adds nothing to the dialog that must take place in District 78. It only takes away from it.