With election night looming, the political calls have resumed. Unlike many of my friends, I take a certain measure of interest in them.
The first call was from a Georgia Appeals Court candidate encouraging me to check out his Web site which I did. I discovered that he revealed absolutely nothing about himself other than an utterly disingenuous claim to have no judicial philosophy. That’s liberal speak for “I believe in legislating from the bench, but I don’t want you to know that." So I emailed him for more information about whether he was conservative or liberal; judicial activist or strict constructionist. Even then, he responded with vagueness causing me to do more research.
I finally discovered that he would be yet another judge fond of operating as a mullah and issuing his own fatwahs from the bench (as Rush so aptly describes much of our judiciary). Yet I still had to carefully search the other five candidates Web sites before I finally found one that even admitted a philosophy. Fortunately, he renounced judicial activism and claimed membership with the Federalist Society. All of this from a single robo-call.
The next call took a different tact. It was a push poll. A push poll is designed to undermine your support for a candidate and is only used by the most repulsive of politicians. It goes something like this: Do you support Joe or Sue? If you say Sue, the next question goes something like: Would your support change if you knew Sue was a dirty, rotten scoundrel? Keep saying no, and it keeps taking it up a notch. Would you still support Sue if you knew she kicked puppies? Stole candy from babies? Was an ax murderer? Was an agent of the Taliban?
By the end of the call, I was so angry about the push poll that my support for Sue only grew. Anyone engaging in push polls deserves a solid drubbing at the polls.
Who knew campaign calls could lead to so much enlightenment? I doubt the politicians did.
Chris Goldston
Cumming
The first call was from a Georgia Appeals Court candidate encouraging me to check out his Web site which I did. I discovered that he revealed absolutely nothing about himself other than an utterly disingenuous claim to have no judicial philosophy. That’s liberal speak for “I believe in legislating from the bench, but I don’t want you to know that." So I emailed him for more information about whether he was conservative or liberal; judicial activist or strict constructionist. Even then, he responded with vagueness causing me to do more research.
I finally discovered that he would be yet another judge fond of operating as a mullah and issuing his own fatwahs from the bench (as Rush so aptly describes much of our judiciary). Yet I still had to carefully search the other five candidates Web sites before I finally found one that even admitted a philosophy. Fortunately, he renounced judicial activism and claimed membership with the Federalist Society. All of this from a single robo-call.
The next call took a different tact. It was a push poll. A push poll is designed to undermine your support for a candidate and is only used by the most repulsive of politicians. It goes something like this: Do you support Joe or Sue? If you say Sue, the next question goes something like: Would your support change if you knew Sue was a dirty, rotten scoundrel? Keep saying no, and it keeps taking it up a notch. Would you still support Sue if you knew she kicked puppies? Stole candy from babies? Was an ax murderer? Was an agent of the Taliban?
By the end of the call, I was so angry about the push poll that my support for Sue only grew. Anyone engaging in push polls deserves a solid drubbing at the polls.
Who knew campaign calls could lead to so much enlightenment? I doubt the politicians did.
Chris Goldston
Cumming