Editor:
In the last days of the 2009 election, a large ad appeared that slurred Vicki Huntington and her campaign, insinuating all sorts of bad behaviour. The ad was said to be sponsored by a local business and it promoted the Liberal candidate of the day. No candidate could have rebutted the ad in time for the election.
I have heard this political tactic was used as early as the 19th century. It was called a roarback or rohrback and it was considered villainous or illegal, or both.
A nasty tinge to a campaign is one thing. Nastiness timed to evade rebuttal is another, and vile. I heartily hope nobody will resort to it again this election.
Gail Neff Bell
