Sunday, July 16, 2006

Lt. Gov. - The Dirty Tricks Brigade Strikes

Well, if you thought the race for Governor was getting dirty, just take a look at the next race on the ballot.  Certainly, Greg Hecht has shown no mercy going after Jim Martin with some fairly distorted and disingenuous attacks, and of course, Casey and Ralph are scuffling around in the mud as well.

But the Lt. Gov. race has taken a turn for the nasty.  According to an email from a loyal reader, someone is going after Jim Martin anonymously.  Sez our source:

“This evening (Sunday) at around 8:00 PM, I answered my phone at our familyresidence in Winterville, GA and got what was either the most politically suicidal automated call that a candidate running in Georgia has ever authorized or a disgusting example of gutter politics at its sleaziest.
The ‘caller’ identified himself as ‘Orlando Jones’ and his voice had a mincing, lisping… delivery that was straight out of a bad, late-night sketch comedy show. "Orlando" went into great detail into how one of the Democrats running for Lt. Governor (Jim Martin) was finally a candidate that the gay and lesbian community could wholeheartedly support.  The call claimed that Martin was working tirelessly "to legalize sodomy" and was leading the fight for gay marriage. It wrapped up with a remark about how, with Martin as Lt. Governor, gays and lesbians would finally have someone in office that they could count on to take their side on every issue.

There was no "paid for by the friends of" or "authorized by." There was no phone number for further information or how to volunteer. It was a stink bomb, pure and simple.”

So there you have it.  For clarity’s sake, the call was a “robodial,” an automated call where a recorded message is played for whoever answers the phone.  Now, having worked with a couple of robodial providers in past lives, I can tell you that they are notoriously close-mouthed about their political client lists.  While most political consultants and vendors love to talk up their client lists, phone vendors keep them under wraps – in many cases because they make a good bit of money off of these types of calls.  For what it’s worth, most of these calls don’t carry a “paid for” disclaimer, although disclosure laws do apply to them as well.  Thing is, they’re usually untraceable.  By the way, a friend who also got the “Orlando Jones” call verifies the content.  

Never ones to avoid a good conspiracy theory (I just finished reading “Crossfire” by Jim Marrs), here are a few scenarios to speculate about who was behind these calls.

Martin’s main opponent in the primary, ex-Sen. Greg Hecht:  (Odds – very likely)
When looking at dirty tricks like this, suspicion naturally turns to the opponent.  (Or the butler, if it happens to be an Agatha Christie novel.)  Cui bono?  In the short run, definitely Hecht.  Observers are saying that Hecht’s early momentum is a thing of the past, and Martin is ahead in the polls.  We have no way of telling what the various campaigns’ internal polls say, but Martin has been picking up some momentum, with endorsements by ex-Gov. Roy Barnes, Andy Young, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  A series of robodials tying Martin in with the politically volatile gay rights movement could stall his surge and help Hecht.  It should also be noted that Hecht hasn’t really proven himself to be shy about going after Martin.  (Apparently, Jim Martin single-handedly murdered a bunch of kids or something – we don’t know.  We didn’t get that mail piece.)

One of the GOP hopefuls, Ralph Reed of Casey Cagle: (Odds – somewhat likely)
Ask yourself again, Cui bono?  In the case of Reed or Cagle, for either of their campaigns to do this would indicate some extremely scary polling about Jim Martin.  I don’t think that polling is out there, although Martin probably does stack up well against Reed.  Question is, is Jim Martin so intimidating to either Cagle or Reed, they feel forced to resort to this tactic this early?  Jim’s a good guy, and he’s run a good campaign thus far, but no Democrat is that intimidating this early.

One of the other Democrats running for Lt. Gov.: (Odds – unlikely)
Robodials are cheap, but why would someone polling as far behind as the other candidates for Lt. Gov bother?  There’s no way this moves them into a runoff situation.

A gay rights group, such as Georgia Equality: (Odds – not very likely)
While the gay rights lobby usually resembles the Keystone Kops more than an actual political force, this is just too heavy-handedly gay to be their work.  (Remember, I didn’t get the call, I’m just going off sources here.)  But seriously – there are smart politicos in the gay rights movement, and they know how much something like this can hurt a campaign.  Plus, “Orlando?”  Lispy voice?  Legalizing sodomy?  That sounds a lot more like what someone who doesn’t associate much with gay people expect them to be.  Too stereotypical for Georgia Equality.

The Jim Martin Campaign: (Odds – highly unlikely)
I include this scenario in the interests of fairness.  It’s not unheard of for a campaign to do this, so that they can play the martyr card.  In this case, however, it’s just not very likely.  As mentioned above, Martin has run a smart campaign thus far – and for them to do this for the sympathy vote is beyond boneheaded.  Any possible positive press hit is far outweighed by the damage this does with moderates – not to mention any damage in the presumptive general election.  Also, most observers think that Martin is sitting on a lead right now – so why squander that on something this risky?  Besides, anyone with a lick of sense will tell you that this probably isn’t much of a story in the press, and even if it is picked up, the angle is not “poor Jim Martin,” it’s “Holy Geez, politicians are getting sleazier.”

Some other person or group, not directly tied to any campaign (Odds – very likely)
When shit like this goes down, the unconnected groups are the best bet.  Remember everyone’s favorite 527c, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?  Stuff like this happens all the time, and the lack of a direct connection to any campaign makes it easier to do.  Odds are, though, we’ll never know.

But don’t let that stop you.  Bug your local journalists, and get the investigative resources of the ABH (I tried to type that with a straight face, I really did) on the case.  And by all means, speculate away in the comments.  

Oh, and by the way, if the name “Orlando Jones” sounds familiar, here’s why.  7-up anyone?  


Publius said...

Not related to the above post, but how many of you guys got the Greg Hecht mail piece that doesn't even say for which office he's running?

hillary said...

I believe I did.

Let me also point out to Brian Patterson that if he's canvassing door to door, Friday during the day is not the most likely time to reach people who have jobs, and leaving a note saying "sorry I missed you" is merely aggravating (i.e., promotes the thought, "It was your own damn fault. I _work_ for a living").

Anonymous said...


My parents got the same robo-call at their Columbia County home.

(email me sometime)

Michael Memberg said...

You don't know who Orlando Jones is?

Anonymous said...

Who is he?

Publius said...

Guys, I'm thinking this call came from Hecht's campaign. I thought of another piece of circumstantial evidence that points to Hecht - the timing.

Best as I can tell, the calls hit around 7:30pm - during a live debate in which both Hecht and Martin participated. If you're on the Hecht campaign, this is good timing, because Martin can't call you on it during the debate and force you to admit or deny doing it.

Whereas, if you're a GOP type doing this, strategically, it seems to me that you might want this brought up during the debate to create some more fireworks and let the two frontrunners beat on each other.

This is circumstantial evidence at best, but it's enough to make me think that Hecht is the culprit. If so, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

Michael Memberg said...

7-Up guy, Drumline guy, etc. IMDB...

R. Hay said...

I got the Orlando Jones call, Sunday evening. I hung up after a few seconds as I do for all of these robot calls. And then it hit me... gay and lesbian alliance endorsement? is that something Georgia politicians brag about? WTF?

Jmac said...

Drumline ... wow. Excellent reference.

dick said...

I agree with Publius, Hecht is the most likely culprit. I also think this is a desperate measure (not that desperation is a requisite for Hecht to act like an asshole). He clearly has a Napolean complex, and I think it was obvious in yesterday's debate that he is a lying tool. He accused Martin of hypocrisy vis-a-vis outsourcing. If I were Martin, I would have asked him if that little platform was American made, and if it really helps in doling out the "Hecht" so richly deserved by....whoever "them" are.

Patrick Armstrong said...

I've already recieved several emails about this last dirty trick. Thanks for publishing about it. Calling campaigns to task for filthiness will change the way political campaigns act. It also upps the stakes for tommorow:

Negative Campaigns (i) vs The Internet BullS**t Filter. I wonder who wins this one.

Anonymous said...

I don't have a TV, so I'm happily out of the loop with regard to so much statewide campaign bs - I've gotten a couple of emails from friends and colleagues telling me about the mud being thrown at Martin. Too bad. He seems like a great guy - I spoke with him for a couple of minutes at a recent event, and while he does seem tolerant of people's lifestyle choices, he mentioned nothing about a love of sodomy, either to me or in his four or five minute pitch.

Also, in reference to Hillary's comments about Patterson: while for working folks the daytime candidate visit may seem useless, there are lots (LOTS) of retirees on the eastside, and so Patterson was probably making pretty good use of his time.

However, I gotta say, Patterson's recent mailer targeting women was a little over-the-top. It was one of those ominous pieces: "one in three women will be a victim of sexual assault..." etc. It was coupled with two photos, one of a black woman and what looked like three white undergrad women lying on the lawn (north campus maybe?). He stated that as SG, he would make the post-assault experience easier.

Publius said...

Yeah, let me jump in on the Patterson mail piece. I got it too and here's my two cents.

Family violence is a tough issue to talk about without sounding like you're pandering. Really, unless you've got something fairly new and specific to talk about, policy-wise, it's best to leave family violence as a bullet point at best. Show that you're aware of the issue, but as I said, unless you've got something new and specific, leave it at that.

hillary said...

There are also lots of non-retirees on the East Side. Don't leave a note saying "sorry I missed you." Leave a note saying "I care about the votes of old people more than yours." Chisholm also left a note, but he came by Saturday, which is reasonable.

Anonymous said...

That's kinda whiney, isn't it? You can't really expect any candidate trying to do a door-knocking campaign to schedule appointments. Maybe you've never worked on a political campaign or maybe you just don't like this candidate. He's not my guy, either and I got the same thing but, jeezus! I didn't get all huffy about it. The guy was out there working it and that's what matters to most people.

Back on subject, I sent Hecht an email telling him what a scuzz I thought he was. If he is the Democrat in November, I'm going to skip the Lt. Governor's race.

Jmac said...

Yeah Hillary, I love ya, but that's horrifically irrational.

hillary said...

I don't think I'm being whiny about it. And it's not the reason I didn't vote for him. McGinty, you of all people should understand this, as we've discussed various politicos having fundraising stuff for two hours in the afternoon on a weekday. What it says is that you don't care as much about the working vote as you do about the nonworking vote (elderly, rich). I don't see what would be so weird about going door to door after 5. Maybe people would get mad if their dinner were interrupted. It's a minor point, but it's one that's not really ever raised.

Anonymous said...

I bet if this guy was going around to houses before 5pm then he was also doing it after 5pm but just on a different street. Just a guess but that's how most candidates do it.

It works the same with phone calls and other things in a campaign, somebody is always going to object to something that you do. That's just a fact of campaigning. Fortunately, it's not many who react like Hillary.

Mike said...

I'm the guy in Winterville who got the call from "Orlando." Here's the rundown, 24 hours later, on reactions from folks I notified:

The ABH - Zip.

The AJC - Nada.

Sec. of State, Elections Div. - An "Eh...What can you do?" e-mail.

The Martin Campaign - E-mail a couple of hours later that night.

Athens Politics - A follow-up e-mail within an hour and the story up and running on the site by midnight.

Keep up the good work, guys.

FWIW, I'm a stay-at-home dad who was at home when Brian Patterson was going door-to-door in our neighborhood. He was dog-ass tired and dripping with sweat but still managed to be earnest and engaging. I thought he was smart as a whip and the fact that he was even out there doing the door-to-door thing *at all* made an impression on me. He could've just robo-called, you know...

DoubleDawgDareYa said...

I found the Patterson piece strange too. It was actually "1 in 4" who will be a victim of domestic abuse. And then one black woman in one picture, and three young attractive white college girls in a separate picture. Maybe I'm reading wayyyyyyy too much into it, but doesn't that imply something about which "1 in 4" is going to be subject to the abuse? Even if I am reading too much into it, it's just damn weird to put four women with whom you have no defined relationship on a campaign mail piece.

Just my two cents. Can't wait to vote tomorrow.

hillary said...

Fortunately, it's not many who react like Hillary.

It's also not many who notice a damn thing. Feel free to keep piling on.

hillary said...

Also, DiDDY, noticed that about Patterson's mail piece too. Y'all should scan it. Note that the three college girls are very cheerful, while the African American woman looks kinda pissed.

Mike said...

The AJC has picked up the "Orlando Jones" story. It's the 6:31 entry in today's Political Insider blog (Monday). is also on the beat. They've even got a .wav of the call.

Good on 'em.

Anonymous said...

sorry, Hillary but, you way over-reacted and went all drama-queen over nothing. nobody to blame but yourself on this one.

hillary said...

Lookit, I'm gonna be the bigger person here and not say anything back.

I'm guessing this story would've hit the morning meeting feature on the ABH site if that weren't off for the week. Dang it.

Anonymous said...

I also happen to disagree with Hillary--my wife--on the Patterson issue.
However, I'm also sick of cowards disparaging her character anonymously. Grow a pair and sign your name!
As for the "Fortunately, it's not many who react like Hillary" comment: by "react" do you mean "express an opinion on a political blog." Yeah, buddy, it'd be a real tragedy if more people did that.
--Jared Brown

Charles R said...

I, for one, don't think hillary's concern was irrational or over-the-top or dramatic. It seems to me she made a coherent and reasonable claim: a daytime, door-to-door visit is not likely to interact with those parts of the population who are out at work during that time. And, to then leave a note, however much it fulfills the requirements of social graces, that misses the point of why the interaction did not take place (on hillary's account, poor advance planning), can be frustrating or aggravating to a person who works away from home. I saw nothing whiny or crazy in what she said or how she presented herself. She even provided two reasonable alternatives to the weekday-daytime door-to-door: weekend-daytime or weekday-evening.

Where these anonymous comments sniping at hillary's character or reasonableness truly come from, I don't know, but as usual, a little bit of charity goes a long way.

Anonymous said...

Put me in the camp of those who didn't find Hillary's response to be "all drama-queen." My interpretation of her critique was that it was just that -- a critique. She articulated possible weaknesses in an approach:

"Let me also point out to Brian Patterson that if he's canvassing door to door, Friday during the day is not the most likely time to reach people who have jobs, and leaving a note saying 'sorry I missed you' is merely aggravating."

I just don't see any indication of Hillary taking personal offense, let along any "drama-queen" behavior.


hillary said...

Thank you, you three chivalrous dudes. I do hope it came across that this was not any kind of big deal to me. It didn't affect my vote in any way. It was just a minor annoyance. And I like discussing minor annoyances.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, guys. I know that I too am occassionally prone to hyberole and overreacting when it comes to both blogs and politics; I'll give the anonymous poster the benefit of the doubt and assume that that's what he(?) was doing as well, but sometimes the anonymous comments make it seem like someone has a personal vendetta.
Hillary often says things with tongue somewhat in cheek that some people take, for whatever reason, way too seriously. That being said, I didn't think her point about door-to-door canvassing was completely without merit.

Anonymous said...

I don't wish to hi-jack this thread with yet another discussion of anonymous blogging but please respect that fact that many of us blog anonymously because of where we work. If you work for the local government or UGA or the school system, etc. you cannot risk blogging under your real name. All those pseudo-names are really anonymous, also. I have no idea who Publius, DIDDY, or Charles_r, or 90% of the people who blog around Athens really are and I don't need to know. You don't either.

It would be a shame if people who are really on the inside of the local political scene could not share what they know just because they "needed to grow some".

That said, Hillary is entitled to her opinion and I plan to pass along her comments to some of the local campaign workers for them to think about. I can't imagine that it would cause them to change their tactics, though. There are always people who "react" like this.

Anonymous via Anonymizer.

Anonymous said...


Where I work, you can't even admit to being a Democrat!

Patrick Armstrong said...

I don't want to disparage the use of pseudonyms, I just find it awful that so many folk are afraid of getting kicked out of work for their opinions and political affiliations.

We have that problem down here on Island City, too. Last year a teacher was quietly fired for keeping an online diary (that said nothing about the school but about some sleaze in the community), and I won't even get into how many folks who work at various famous South Georgia resorts fear talking about their poltics for fear of reprisal.

That just don't seem real American to me.

Jmac said...

Hillary knows I was just joking around with her, but perhaps I should have avoided posting a flippant phrase. However, I don't know why we're responding negatively to the notion that someone disagrees with her position.

Her position is a valid one and, as Charles noted, she posted some viable alternatives. But I still interpet the situation different, as does her husband apparently, so I don't see what the big deal is in saying that one disagrees with her position.

Flippant comments, like mine, aren't appreciated, sure, and the poster who dropped the 'drama queen' line was definitely a little out-of-line (and most assuredly doesn't know her).

But I don't necessarily see what was flippant about the anonymous quote about how she reacted. She did react quite differently to someone coming by her house and leaving a note than, arguably, most people would. Pointing this out isn't necessarily a disparaging comment.

I don't agree with her take on the situation, and we chatted about why I disagree with her this morning, but, hey, whatever. It ain't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. If I ever run for office, I'll definitely stop by Team Brown's after 5 p.m. on a weekday. :)

hillary said...

Yeah. I definitely don't mean it to sound like I have problems with people disagreeing with me. I kinda welcome it, generally.

I do have problems with people acting like I'm completely crazy. Sometimes. Or being jerks.

Internets language is hard though with conveying the nuance.

Also, it is entirely possible to blog under your real name and work for the university. So far...

Anonymous said...

It doesn't have to be your real name. Basically, I'd just like to be able to distinguish all the anonymouses from each other. I don't know Publius or Dawg Corleone, but I can distinguish their comments from each other.
Having some sort of signifier helps establish tone and intent. Maybe I read more malice into "anonymous"'s comments than was intended (sidebar: or are are there two separate anonymouses above? That's the kind of thing a name would be useful for), but I think calling Hillary a "Drama Queen" and saying fortunately people don't react like her sound pretty dismissive, especially since she is one of a very few (if not the only) females that post here. Anyway, sorry if i did (and for hijacking this thread).

Anonymous said...

Last comment on this, I promise, but to answer you, Jmac, I read this: "Fortunately, it's not many who react like Hillary" as being about her general reactions and not this one specific instance, as though to say "Hillary is a crazy person."

Patrick Armstrong said...

Da Po Blog examines anonymosity in the blogosphere. Also datelined today.

Publius said...

All of you picking on each other, don't make me come down there.

Ok, seriously, I've been meaning to weigh in on this one all day, but I've been volunteering all day for a candidate. Anything I say in Hillary's defense now is just going to look like I'm going for the cheap chivalry - but here's my two cents.

Having been around talking to a lot of voters today and in the last couple weeks, I don't see what's so weird about Hillary's comment. From a political perspective, it frustrates me - hell, at least he was out sweating for your vote - but I get it. Other folks don't like being called on the phone, and won't vote for anyone who calls them on the phone, whether a robodial, a volunteer calling, or the candidate himself or herself. I once had a voter who wouldn't vote for a candidate I was supporting because she didn't like the candidate's haircut. I won't even get into the number of voters who automatically rule out a candidate based on gender, race, or religion.

So, different things piss off different people. It's cool, it's democracy. And for Hillary to not vote for Patterson because he left a note and knocked before 5pm is no different than her not voting for him because she disagrees with him on his position on underage drankin'. The end result is the same, and besides, no candidate will get every vote.

WRT anonymous comments - I have no place to talk. I'm more or less anonymous, and I dig it that way. I feel like it gives me greater freedom to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. That being said, I would encourage everyone who reads our humble offering on a regular basis to get a blogger ID, and post comments under a nom de plume.

hillary said...

Yes but. Let me reiterate. I actually do base my votes on the issues. I go out and do a lot of research. I'm an informed voter, damn it, not just a coot. (Not really a coot at all, in general.)

Publius said...


Actually, can girls be curmudgeons? Perhaps a curmudgatrix.

hillary said...

I'm really far too cheery even for that. You'll see whenever you actually meet me.

Jmac said...

OK, I'm with you, but let me be the advocate here ...

If we say someone not voting for a candidate because their canvassing methods equals position on the issues ... then what's the big deal in suggesting that their rationale is a big wrongheaded?

I've told plenty of folks I think their positions or stances on issues are wrongheaded because, well, that's what happens in debates sometime. And if we allow someone to say Candidate X turned them off because of something that is what I believe is fairly superficial like canvassing time of day is equal to the issues, than why shouldn't someone - please - say 'I don't think that's right because X and Y ...'

Again, not coming down on Hillary here. She and I have discussed this here in the office, but I think we need to consider this whole notion of equating issue stances to, forgive me, trivial things like canvassing or calling folks on the phone.

Hillary is an informed voter, probably more informed than me on a variety of issues. So her vote was honestly based on the issues (and cast earlier), and not on Patterson's canvassing efforts.

But I think it's kinda ridiculous to say things like you won't vote for Candidate X because he/she is calling folks to encourage them to vote for him/her or knocking on doors at 2 p.m. is on the same level as saying you won't vote for Candidate X because he/she feels this way about a particular issue.

Sure the end result is the same, but the process is, then all fouled up.

hillary said...

I agree with Jonathan on principle. And Publius in practice. There's the difference.

Charles R said...

I dislike anonymous sniping. I like sniping from a nom de plume. Or, rather, I have no problem with people who use a pseudonym consistently. It gives a coherence to their comments that stands in for an internet personality. I fully understand why there are times when you do not want the things one truly wishes to say to come back to you, but such a powerful mechanism for expression is too tempting of our goofier or more malicious instincts.

It was not disagreement with hillary that concerned me. It was the tone and quality to the rejection.

At any rate, Jmac, I think that Publius' point is not that how one makes the judgment to vote is always on the same level, but that in the democratic system, such differences are obliterated in the counting of the lots. We do not live in an aristocracy of the classical kind, where the truly virtuous rule by recognition of their virtue. We live in a government where people succeed simply by numerical superiority, and this superiority is ignorant of the whys behind the votes. I don't think this means the process of electing an official is fouled up, unless we should have a form of government where participation is some kind of existential outpouring into whoever is going to represent us. As though we live in the state or do the work of statecraft vicariously through some figurehead or person. The process works the way it does because it liberates people from having to worship or identify with their representative or leader.

And there are plenty of people who probably do not want to have anything to do with linking together the political and the social, and if this means permitting votes on the basis of seemingly non-political things—"non-issues"—then so be it. The enlightened form of state participation does not mean being very much informed about one's regional, national, or global issues, but it means allowing for the possibility of people to be people, whether philosophers or housewives or plumbers or executives or homeless. If haircuts and dialects and races and footwear and sweating did not matter, then all we would have to go on is our support of the most virtuous and persuasive rhetoricians and politicians. But these do matter, and is why we focus so much upon them, and has been the case since Plato and Aristotle considered republics, oligarchies, democracies and polities.

I mean, if we're going to say that voting on the preference of hair style is bad because it's not an issue based preference, why do we turn back around and say there is something praise- or noteworthy in someone working hard to get elected by personally walking the streets, personally answering the phone calls or email, personally getting the sore feet and throat? If we think that someone's capacity to pursue an audience reflects something about how they will function as a representative, what is the difference between the presentations? Personally walking the street is as much of an appeal to non-issue preferences as wearing the appropriate clothes or speaking the appropriate language. And, in this political age of internet dissemination, it is very inefficient. So why do it? I suspect it is because we still, for whatever reasons, highly value authenticity, in ourselves and in our representatives—authenticity still matters to me, for example, when making comments on the internet. But whenever authenticity becomes a deciding factor, does this mean we have just decided our vote on the basis of something that is not an issue?

DoubleDawgDareYa said...

Ok, I'm gonna pull a yes, but.

The difference in the example you just gave is that "authenticity" goes to ultimate character issues, and therefore how a candidate will handle "issues" if elected, and so IS issue-related. A haircut only goes to the candidate's sense of style.

On the anonymity thing, I agree with charles and jared. Anonymity in the sense of not revealing your real name is ok; I've been doing it on here this whole time for the same reason mentioned by others: up until next week I've been working in a guvment job, even sometimes getting relevant information to my posts because of said job, and thus I couldn't risk anyone with the power to fire me from said job reading it and realizing it was me.

But I do see a major difference between that and true anonymous posts, without even a consistent nom de plume. For one thing, as mentioned, it's confusing, and we never know for sure whether it's the same "anonymous". For another, there is no way to call somebody out if they say something inconsistent with previous comments. I think those who post with anonymous ought to at least have the decency to sign off at the end of their message with some kind of name consistently.

Anonymous said...

I have to go anonymous sometimes because of me telling you about a job offer from a local publication that did not like my blog and how it might reflect negatively on said publication. Then there is the whole pissing match with the wife of my editor....never mind. But this has been a great thread. Hilary and Jared are great contributors to our communal political discourse

Fishplate said...

Anonymous bloging...

If you knew me, you would (probably) filter my comments in a different way than you process them now. But there is no way you can know me through this medium. Thus, my anonymity substitutes for real knowledge of me, without the added problems of repercussions of your possibly wrong interpretation of my intentions and personality.

Publius said...

Yeah, but you actualy use a nickname, which makes it less of an issue.

liberalandproud said...

Oh for heaven's sake. Start a new thread! More than half of these comments weren't even about the whole "dirty tricks" brouhaha. There. Now I'm the drama queen.

nolapoet said...

I. Hate. Friggin'. Robocalls.

It's the surest way to lose MY vote. We had 14 of those suckers clogging up our answering machine in the primary and I think 4-6 in the runoff in Clayton County. The pols wrote in their own direct line to our private homes. I say we call THEM on it by robocalling our disgust to each candidate's home number.