I've been involved in politics, either as a campaigner or an academic, since I was a teenager. So I've seen a lot. Some of it good, some of it bad.

My first inclination, any time someone gets agitated over something in politics, is to tell them to let it go. Nothing is as bad as it seems. In politics, there is always someone trying to convince you that Armageddon is just around the corner.

So why do hit-blogs make me so mad?

What's that?

The Hays Daily News ran a Hutchinson News story on Sunday about an anonymous blog attacking Salina congressional candidate Tracey Mann. Now, why you'd attack someone who is in sixth place out of seven candidates is beyond me, especially now. Why go after his 4 percent (according to the SurveyUSA poll I talked about last week) when you can start picking off that 25 percent who said they haven't decided yet?

Running scared

The real problem with hit blogs, like the new one against Mann and the one posted against Sue Boldra last year, is their anonymity. If Monte Shadwick attacks Tracey Mann, Tim Huelskamp hits Sue Boldra, or Rob Wasinger goes after Jim Barnett, we know who's behind it. If the attack is inappropriate, we can hold the sponsor of the ad accountable. But the problem with hit-blogs is that anyone can produce them and hide their identities. Whoever the supposed sponsor of the hit-blog is, they are using a fake name that's the problem. If you can anonymously attack anyone without accountability, I want you to have no place in my politics.

Give it to me straight

I don't mind attacks in politics. I think candidates should say why you should vote for them instead of other candidates. Just keep it relevant, and be accountable. When people hide behind anonymous hit-blogs, they deprive us of that basic democratic opportunity to hold people accountable.

So feel free to take your shots: just do it out in the open next time.

Chapman Rackaway is an associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University.