Just got my second phone call of the political season. Last night, it was Jennifer Rawson politely asking for my vote. Today, I got someone significantly less prepared and professional.
My best recollection of the conversation:
ME: Hello?
CALLER: Yes, um, well…can I speak to…I’m calling to conduct a political survey.
ME: Ok.
CALLER: If the election were held today, who would you vote for in the mayor’s race? Republican Rick Grinnell, Democrat Jonathan Rothschild, Green Party candidate Mary DeCamp, or have you not yet decided?
ME: I haven’t decided.
CALLER: Would you like to come to a free event?
ME: What event? That would be a big part of whether I decide to come.
CALLER: I don’t know.
ME: Ok.
CALLER: It’s a national camp…
BOTH: [Uncomfortable silence]
CALLER: [Hangs up]
According to my caller ID, the call came from (520) 321-1492…Googling that number takes you to the Pima County Republican Party. Well played, local GOP. Total confusion and hanging up on people you call seems like a solid campaign strategy.
This article appears in Oct 13-19, 2011.
… and yet we are not surprised.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa[takes breath]hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaa
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
And your point is Dan? I don’t see anything in this as more that trying to make the opposition look bad.
It’s a waste of time to do this, your actions make you look like a waste of the world’s oxygen supply.
If you want to post political comments, post something about YOUR side please, sir.
Mammey: You’re mistaken on several fronts, but most prominently that you assume I have a “side”. When we bought domain names of candidates, we bought all of them that were available…including Regina Romero’s. When I met with Jonathan Rothschild and was somewhat irked that he wouldn’t let me film him, I wrote about it. When I thought Rothschild’s campaign ad didn’t actually say anything, I wrote about it. Did you comment on any of those posts, congratulating me for my even-handed reporting? After the Pima County GOP’s leadership turmoil and trouble getting valid signatures for candidates, their general disorganization (of which, not getting an actual script for this poor guy is another sign) is news for the blog or at very least, an pointed anecdote.
Thanks for the added insult (“look like a waste of the world’s oxygen supply”), however. Really sells your point.
Great Dan! Let this be the beginning of a general understanding and establishment of honest rules of debate, or political reporting.
1. Demonizing the opposition is a mirror that reflects on on the doer, not on the opposition. It’s a cheap trick that makes one think badly of the motives of a person that would attack, without remorse, another human being by applying a broad brush of negatives.
2. An understanding that the current media isn’t telling us the truth, and this needs to be corrected, right now. Opinion needs to be separated from reporting. A good reporter hides his/her bias from the reader.
3. People, generally go with their feelings.
Two types here. First type: The person that lives life doing that which he/she thinks they can get away with. Second type: The person that lives life doing what he/she thinks is right.
First type seems to be more common these days.
Example of the first type: Saw an interview with a busted dude who knew in his heart that the “bait car” was a set-up, and had much remorse about stealing it under those circumstances, but said nothing, (or thought nothing) about stealing someone else’s property being wrong. Who teaches kids to be like this?
Example of the second type: Someone who doesn’t walk against a don’t walk signal. Watch people on the street, this is a fun observation. You’ll see what I mean.
Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, just meant to guide you a little.
Regards, Mammey
Mammy: I can assure you that you didn’t hurt my feelings. You know very little about me, and I don’t know anything about you other than the general slant of your political views, so the relevance of your opinion about whether I deserve to breathe or not is non-existent.
You just lost me on the validity of your position when you threw in the personal insult. Just thought you should know. Thanks for reading and having a reaction, however.
So jaywalking is “wrong”? You’ve got a pretty tight moral code there buddy, or perhaps its just your sphincter. Also, it seems like you can’t tell the difference between the blog part of the weekly and the actual weekly newspaper. This is the blog part, things are more informal and opinions are ok.
@Karlito FYI – The majority of City of Tucson Council members (one Repub all others Dem or Green party in Dem clothing, or a Dem thinking they represent the formerly known planet Pluto) surely believes jaywalking is wrong -even though deaths and accidents involving pedestrians in Tucson has declined. They have increased the jay walking citations to $160! These city council members have also made sure the TPD are writing these tix, too. Also, I have heard from UA employees that the UAPD have been ordered to enforce jaywalking to the tune of $185 jaywalking tickets. Sounds like the “tight…sphincters” are the folks who have voted the increase and ordered the enforcement of these fines.
Karlito,
The comment about jaywalking wasn’t about jaywalking. Was about the predisposition of many, many people to first determine if they can “get away with it” before proceeding with action, rather than the “right vs wrong” question they really should be asking.
Mammey
p.s.
“…..Tucson man dies after being hit while jaywalking Sun, Oct 16, 2011…..” you read this nearly daily here in Tucson.