Disclosure?

This post by Owen at Boots and Sabers struck me as rather odd.

Either Owen is really naive about the nature of political campaigns or he's shilling for JB Van Hollen.

Owen suggests that Attorney General candidate Paul Bucher deliberately failed to disclose the fact that Wisconsin Right to Life endorsed both Bucher and Van Hollen this week. Imagine that, a political campaign promoting the accomplishments of its candidate while ignoring those of its opponent.

Is Owen suggesting a new set of standards for primary campaigns, a kind of "fairness doctrine?"

The real screw up was on the part of Van Hollen's flak who included the term "dual endorsement" in a press release otherwise devoid of any substantive information regarding Van Hollen's position on issues of concern to Wisconsin Right to Life members, or his own record of protecting life.

Wisconsin Right to Life Endorsements (WRTL) are always coveted so it's hard to imagine why the Van Hollen campaign would acknowledge a primary opponent in their release unless he failed to get WRTL’s nod.

This is not a matter of disclosure. It's not Paul Bucher's job to tell the rest of the world that JB Van Hollen is pro life, that he’s Republican, or that he even exists. The more people Bucher can get to the polls without ever hearing Van Hollen’s name, the more likely he is to win.

Should McDonald's "disclose" the fact that Burger King has toys in their happy meals too?

There’s a big difference between running a winning campaign and commenting on one.