Pet peeve

Granted, this is pretty small potatoes, but I just noticed a bit of campaign business that not only appears to be deliberately misleading, but is.

This example appears on the latest mailing from candidate for 71st District State Rep, Jerry Lack, but it's been done before by at least one other candidate in the recent past.

First we have to agree that candidates are, indeed, candidates. They're running to be elected to office, but have not yet been elected, correct?

OK, then why does Lack and his wife appear on the mailing wearing tee-shirts emblazoned with "State Representative Jerry Lack"? "State Representative" appears above, while his name is printed much larger below, but there's only one way to read it, and that's as "State Representative Jerry Lack."

This really bugs me. Other's in the past have had shirts which read the same way, despite the fact that, like Lack, they'd never held office before and had certainly never been elected to the office proclaimed on their shirts.

What's my problem with this? Well, if you couldn't already figure it out, it's misleading at best. Is there a reason these items don't read, for example, "Jerry Lack for State Representative"?

Instead it's a declarative statement, "State Representative Jerry Lack", which to anyone reading it implies that he already holds the office.

It would even be a bit less misleading if they merely switched the positions, with "Jerry Lack" above and "State Representative" underneath in smaller type. But why is the simple word "for" conspicuously omitted? Saving ink?

When candidates engage in this, they give no indication that they're actually a challenger seeking the office, but rather the appearance they're the incumbent and have already been elected. Isn't this a bit, I don't know... presumptuous, not to mention disingenuous?

This is no doubt deliberate, either consciously or unconsciously, perhaps as a subtle psychological ploy either to give the impression of incumbency or to subtly implant the appearance of inevitability.

Perhaps this little tactic is something that is spreading among candidates like a dishonest virus, with candidates seeing others do it and feeling it's a good ploy, subtle as it is.

I stress that this isn't meant as any reflection on Lack as a candidate, other than to question why he went with this admittedly minor bit of chicanery, but rather to point out something which I find annoying at best, and a blatant attempt to mislead at worst.

Does this now entitle any of us to wear a shirt stating, say, "U.S. Senator Bob Blathermouth", or "Mayor Susie Creamcheese"?

Do you think you'll see Barack sporting a tee-shirt emblazoned with "President Obama" anytime soon? And wouldn't he rightly be pounced on and denounced for it if he was foolish enough to do so? (before he actually IS president, which won't be too long it appears.)

Am I the only one that finds this practice bothersome?