The election this November will be an historic event with either the first African American president or the first woman vice president. It would also be refreshing if the election were decided on the issues rather than on emotions and negative campaigning. However, mudslinging is a political tradition in American politics, getting its start in the election of 1798.
In his farewell address to Congress, George Washington warned against "the baneful effects of the spirit of party." Nevertheless, in the election to succeed him, the Federalist newspapers backing John Adams accused Thomas Jefferson of being a swindler, a coward and a godless man, while Jefferson's Republican supporters derided John Adams as a monarchist, repulsive pedant and gross hypocrite. Sadly, little has changed in the ensuing 210 years.
Locally, there are also contests that should be decided on the facts but where emotions run high and will undoubtedly cloud judgments, with Plymouth being a case in point. The three incumbents running for re-election have been diligent in their opposition to the proposed casino. The challengers are pro-casino. I suspect that the pro-casino slate will downplay that position: arguing instead that they are opposed to the project but that the city of Plymouth needs to protect itself by negotiating with the tribe.
In reality, one could plausibly argue that the city, the county and the state are already in negotiations with the tribe. Those negotiations are represented by the draft environmental impact statement recently submitted by the tribe to the Department of the Interior.
The DEIS epitomizes the tribe's vision of Plymouth's future and that vision isn't very appealing. The official document is close to 2,000 pages of information organized in a manner that makes for a very difficult read, even if you have the time to slog through it. Fortunately, both Amador County and No Casino in Plymouth have taken the time and posted their findings on their respective Web sites. Reading those explanations, you get a picture of the tribe's intentions that is very different from the slick image they are now presenting to groups like the Plymouth Rotary Club. At the Rotary meeting, the tribe's representatives conceded that some aspects of gambling can be very negative for the afflicted community, but they were not going to dwell on that. How convenient for them! Instead, they presented a slide show representing Plymouth's future, complete with a golf course that is not even mentioned in the official document. Pretending that the casino is a done deal with only beneficial impacts will only fool those who haven't taken the time to research the facts.
Amador County and the state have a very different interpretation from that of the pro-casino group. In the state's response to the DEIS, Andrea Hoch, the governor's legal secretary, reiterated the state's position that the tribe's "restored lands" justification for Indian gaming was "not supported by the facts or law and, therefore, the proposed acquisition did not qualify." This is an issue that will undoubtedly be resolved in federal court, where a claim to qualify for something that is unsupported by facts carries little weight.
Meanwhile, pro-casino candidates will talk of "smart growth" or some other misleading euphemism for what this casino project actually represents. I'm more inclined to be reminded of the old joke about putting lipstick on a pig.