By Thomas Warren III, Editor-in-Chief

Negative campaigning is often the tipping point for voters in either direction. These types of ads may send voters to one candidate out of fear of another or may have the opposite effect of sending voters to the candidate attacked in defiance of the ads. While the consequences of a negative ad campaign may never be fully understood until polls are conducted after the fact or elections are held, one thing that is certain is that the Amarillo establishment, its cronies, and its handpicked politicians have a penchant for using such negative ads on their opponents.

While I am no fan of serious negative campaigning, I think candidates contrasting their records is perfectly acceptable in an election season. Where negative campaigning often goes off the rails and ventures across the line is when the ads target things outside of the candidate’s policy proposals or record. This often seems to be where the Amarillo establishment excels. This group often takes their attacks to an extreme, taking quotes out of context to paint a picture that does not truly exist or assembling random information to create a portrait of a candidate that is not accurate. While these types of attacks are certainly not the kinds of vile attacks we see on social media today where extreme terms are bandied about, the types of attacks employed by the establishment are still troubling as they mislead voters in a way that damages the electorate’s ability to accurately contrast the candidates and contributes to the tribalism that plagues our system.

The negative campaign machine is once again in full effect in Amarillo. Amarillo establishment politician Josh Winegarner appears to be hoping that his Amarillo Matters connections and associations with establishment politicians like Mac Thornberry and Will Hurd will be enough to buy him the Republican nomination for Congress in Texas’ 13th Congressional District. Perhaps his poll numbers show that this is not the case, and would explain why Winegarner is now launching attacks on former White House Physician Ronny Jackson that have been described as attacks on Jackson’s military service.

In a new statement released by Winegarner on Monday, the former Texas Cattle Feeders Association lobbyist blasted Jackson for his service as White House Physician under President Barack Obama and the praise he received from certain Obama Administration officials for his performance in the role. Instead of mentioning that Jackson has received bipartisan praise for his White House conduct, Winegarner spun the ads to paint Jackson as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Keep in mind, Jackson served in his role during his time in the White House as part of his service in the U.S. Navy. Jackson has made it clear that he does not agree with President Obama’s key actions while in office and by no means is a favorite of Democratic politicians. For proof, take a look at Democratic U.S. Senators’ approach toward Jackson when he was President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. It is also worth nothing that Jackson also served in the White House as a member of the U.S. Navy under Presidents Trump and George W. Bush, both Republicans.

Winegarner’s attacks on Jackson drew criticism from Vance Snider on Tuesday. Snider, one of the top polling candidates in the March 3 Republican primary for the seat, was notable for being one of two veterans to crack the top five in the results, based on Ballotpedia.org’s election results information. The other veteran who placed in the top five has been endorsed by Snider in the runoff. That candidate is Ronny Jackson. Snider pointed out that Jackson’s tenure in the White House came as part of his U.S. Navy service and blasted Winegarner for attacking Jackson’s military service.

“When someone begins to attack a veteran’s military service for his own political agenda, I lose all respect for them,” Snider said in his statement. “Josh Winegarner has done just that. He states he understands and supports military veterans, yet he attacks my friend [Ronny Jackson] for his military service under the Obama Administration. When you serve in the military, you are not allowed to speak out against your Commander-in-Chief. You are to follow the orders of the President of the United States under the oath you take as a service member.”

I have to say, Snider makes a compelling argument regarding Winegarner’s comments. However, it shall be up to the voter to decide whether Winegarner attacked Jackson’s military service and whether that warrants switching their votes to Jackson. I believe that is a consideration that should be recognized by all voters who either voted for Winegarner in the March 3 primary or who are considering voting for Winegarner in the July 14 runoff.

Either way, Winegarner’s comments about Jackson’s supposed Obama ties are rather interesting considering that Winegarner himself lobbied against the Trump administration on key issues according to lobbying disclosures filed with the U.S. Senate. If Mr. Winegarner opposes the agenda of the Trump Administration, then perhaps he should explain to voters why he is running as a supporter of President Trump. In my opinion, this may be yet another sad and meaningless label used by a politician to con voters out of their support in the name of tribalism. Consider what Winegarner said in his statement on Monday.

“The facts are clear - I have never made a personal contribution to a Democrat and my conservative credentials are well documented and beyond question - from working for two conservative Texas Senators, to my own Republican primary voting history. We can’t say the same for him.”

This is a wonderful bit of political spin by Winegarner, but if you lobbied against the priorities pushed by conservative politicians, can you really say you have conservative credentials?

Winegarner’s desperate attacks should come as no surprise, considering that the former lobbyist attacked Jackson and then-candidate Chris Ekstrom as “big city carpetbaggers” in an ad released prior to the March primary. I think it is safe to say that Winegarner’s comments are ludicrous, misleading, and disrespectful.

Jackson’s military service absolutely does not qualify him as a carpetbagger for the simple fact that he served where he was stationed. If military service qualified candidates as carpetbaggers, that would mean that any person who has served in the military and run for office outside of where they were stationed would be considered a carpetbagger. Perhaps that is how Winegarner and other candidates who run on the “local versus the world” mantra would like it to be, but that would simply be unfair and disrespectful to our veterans who have given up so much to keep this country free.

As I mentioned in an editorial in February, while Ronny Jackson was serving in the military and in the White House, Winegarner was working as a lobbyist. Yet, Winegarner pledges that he is the one to drain the swamp.

It is safe to say that dog don’t hunt.

Winegarner has shown himself to be a tool of the political elites and the special interests. Perhaps that’s why he lobbied on these issues which are clearly not in line with the positions he preaches on the campaign trail. Maybe this is why Winegarner’s campaign is now failing and he is resorting to attacking a combat veteran like Jackson over his military service to create a false portrait of the issues of this election.

The truth of this election is not that we have “one of our own” versus a “big city carpetbagger” as Winegarner’s campaign would have you believe. The truth of this election is that we have a Washington, D.C. and Austin swamp lobbyist who is a chameleon on his positions and who will not commit to a firm stance on major issues versus a combat veteran who served for over 20 years in the U.S. Navy before returning to Texas.

The choice in this election is not a local versus a carpetbagger. The choice in this election is whether or not Amarillo voters will hand over the keys to the office on Capitol Hill to Amarillo Matters, the establishment and its cronies, and its handpicked candidate.

At the end of the day, this once again boils down to a battle between the establishment’s swamp creature candidate and the will of the grassroots. Voters can get this right, but first they must reject the half-truths and conspiracies being touted by the establishment. Their negative campaign tactics should come as no surprise as that has been their only hope of hanging on to power.

This is not local versus nonlocal. This is the establishment versus you, the voter.

Please carefully consider your options before you vote in this important election on July 14. The future our community and the ability of voters to select their candidates outside of the influence of the establishment depends on your commitment to protecting your right to have a say and your ability to defeat the establishment machine.