The campaign between U.S. Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, and Martha Robertson, a Tompkins County Democrat, officially began scant weeks after Reed took his oath of office.

At times, it has not been pretty. Television advertisements and mailers from both sides have distorted the truth at best and told outright lies at worst. Robertson, as she mentioned during the recent debate at The Post-Journal in Jamestown, is in fact not from Ithaca, as Reed has so often referred to her in campaign advertisements.

Reed is not, in fact, a millionaire, as was stated during a recent Robertson advertisement. The ability for television advertisements to mislead voters is one reason sit-down, policy-oriented debates such as the recent debate in Jamestown are useful. No amount of television advertising can hide a representative’s ability to handle the many layers of complicated national debates.

Such was the case last week when Reed and Robertson debated four policy questions. The stories detailing the candidates’ answers began running on Page One Sunday and will continue through Wednesday. Perhaps the most noteworthy takeaway from the two-hour discussion of foreign policy, deficit reduction and domestic surveillance was the difficulty that taking all-or-nothing stands can present for someone in Congress – or someone running for Congress, for that matter.

When a candidate states all free trade agreements are a bad idea as part of a discussion of cutting the federal deficit, that claim is likely to have a real-world consequence. Robertson, during the debate, said she was against free trade agreements approved by incumbent Reed, noting the deals hurt workers and local communities because they make it easier for corporate profits and jobs to be sent overseas.

It is a great point in theory. In reality, as Reed noted, a free trade agreement with South Korea helped Cummins sell its engines overseas and provide work for Chautauqua County employees at the Jamestown plant.

Taking an absolutist position on natural gas exploration and drilling can also have adverse consequences on foreign policy. A discussion of foreign policy between the candidates touched on the exporting of natural gas, which Reed supports and Robertson opposes. Robertson says she supports energy independence as long as it isn’t based on fossil fuels. Reed supports energy independence – both domestically and for export to foreign nations – in part because sending natural gas to allies in Europe reduces their reliance on Russian natural gas, thus helping neutralize Vladimir Putin’s grip on Europe.

And, inflexibility doesn’t help a representative get their point across in Washington, D.C. When asked about his stance on sending troops overseas, Reed said he doesn’t favor such action now, but thinks it has to be an option available to the President and Congress to make misbehaving leaders of other nations respect the fact the United States may use force if necessary. Robertson accused Reed of “waffling” and trying to have it both ways.

In actuality, Reed is showing the flexibility needed when handling important issues such as sending American troops into harm’s way.

Reed has shown, over the last two years, willingness to take local issues to Washington, D.C., and the ability to handle issues that are difficult and intimately connected with other complex issues. He deserves another two years as your representative in Congress.