Sunday, August 24, 2008

Just curious

If you are running for office you have to be prepared to answer questions. Tough questions, sometimes. You have to be prepared to take criticism. Just think. If you are elected you will have David and Penny Elsebush railing at you every meeting, you will have Tad calling you a Nazi at every meeting. And that's just for starters. And you have to listen respectfully, and you sometimes have to engage in discussion, whether you want to or not.

Campaigning helps you develop a thick skin, and prepares you for what is to come.

So, If you are going to use the blog as if it were a website, which is entirely respectable, then don't allow comments. Use it to post your positions, and articles and supporters' names, and links to things you consider to be important, just as you would on a website. Nothing wrong with that. It is a web presence, and that is what matters. Blogger even advertises its blog site as a website.

But - if you are going to have a campaign blog, one which allows comments, and pretends to be open for discussion, then allow the comments. Maybe even consider responding to the points and questions. Because if you get elected, you're going to be representing all the people.

Are you getting 'blocked' on George's blog? I'm hearing from people who are. Maybe the "George Clark Blog Team" is off on vacation or something.... or maybe George is into censorship, or maybe he doesn't want to answer any questions. People are asking. See if your comments/questions get through - georgeclark08.wordpress.com/

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

From the GeorgeClarkblog team:

"Feel free to have a vigorous debate about the issues, but calling people names you consider derogatory would not be acceptable in Council Chambers and it isn’t acceptable here. This isn’t Fox News nor a Rush Limbaugh broadcast."

This in response to:

"With all due respect “Clark Campaign Blog Team”, if this is a Blog for George Clark and his run office, one can rationally assume he stands by these views and those of his socialist friend Alec.

I lean to the left, but not that far."

So how is calling Alec a socialist deragatory in any way, when it is clear from the articles he has written, that he is a proud socialist?

Pretty funny to to talk about deragatory namecalling, and then toss off a few insults, likening legitimate questions to "fox news" and "Rush Limbaugh"...

lmSao...

Rose said...

Not to mention that the one calling Alec Johnson a socialist is Alec Johnson himself - in his many many writings.

It is fair to ask George Clark what Alec Johnson's opinions have to do with his campaign - and why he is allowing them to be posted in his name - when Alec Johnson is fully capable of creating his own blog for his rants.

Then to insult anyone who asks questions - and to block questions - it's silly. Just flat out silly.

Anonymous said...

I saw Alec hanging out at the Green party booth yesterday at the Organic Planet Festival.

exrepublican said...

rose said the other day:
"The notion of the poor and low income has been addressed - they would receive a check every month."

rose is a socialist too, whats the big deal?......

Anonymous said...

the "big deal", ex-repub, and current bonebrain, is that a current candidate for eureka city council has a blog on which to expound and expand upon his views. When those are questioned, he shuts the comments down.

Simple enough for you?

exrepublican said...

2:00,
then dont vote for him.....to call him names seems futilte. but if it makes you feel better, thats all that matters.

simple enough for you? or do you need to control the guy's blogsite? grow a pair..

if i were running for office, i wouldnt allow every single comment shown, but i play to WIN!!!

Anonymous said...

How is it "namecalling"?

If Alec is a socialist, and proud of it, then why stifle debate as to whether or not George Clark holds the same views?

I know that this may be a bit over your head, but consider the fact that it is Clark that has entered the public arena by running for office. He's gonna get pilloried for CENSORING reasonable questions.

The Heraldoites of the world would be shouting from the rooftops if the Polly Enderts and Frank Jagers of the world had blogs with comments enabled, yet were CENSORING the comments.

And you know what? I'd be right there with em.

"simple enough for you? or do you need to control the guy's blogsite? grow a pair"

Nope, I don't need to control the guy's blogsite, but I will most certainly point out the blatant hypocrisy that the George Clarks of the world seem to feel comfortable employing.

Now I know this obviously not simple enough for you to grasp, but give it a shot...

exrepublican said...

elections arent about debate, they are about winning......the guy obviously thinks that limiting debate will increase his vote count. its his campaign, and its his risk to take. it may backfire, as blogs like this will expose the action.

its not about debate, its about winning with as little debate as possible.

Anonymous said...

I agree with that, Ex.

My point has been that he has opened up a can of worms by opening his blog up as a means of stirring discussion and debate, and has then censored it by blocking comments that are reasonable in nature.

But, I agree, it's about winning.

BTW, do you not agree that if it had been Frank Jager had done the same, that it would be hammered on in some of our other local blogs?

I just want consistency, regardless of idealogy.

exrepublican said...

two words:john mcCANE

have you seen him "debate"? ask him ANY question and it comes back to 5 years in a POW camp. no politician wants MORE debate, it exposes their weaknesses...

Anonymous said...

who's John McCane?

btw, I expect more of my city council candidates, in the way of answering direct questions, as long as they arent personal and or deragagatory in nature.

Anonymous said...

who's John McCANE?

I expect more of my city council candidates, in the way of answering direct questions, as long as they arent personal and or deragagatory in nature.

exrepublican said...

hmmmmm....local candidates should be held MORE accountable than the PRESIDENT OF THE US when it comes to debate? why?

Anonymous said...

You misinterpret what I am saying, EX...

I expect more of my local city council candidates, because I can walk up and talk to them. I can attend debates and have a reasonable expectation of being able to answer my questions.

I expect my local candidates for city council to not play politics (I know, it's a pollyannish thought) and answer honest questions with honest answers.

Sadly, I don't expect that of any of the presidential candidates. Do you?

Lest you think I am a McCain fan, I am a registered dem, though I am to the right of many of the greens masquarading as dems in Humboldt county.

Anonymous said...

oh, and I thought i could pose reasonable questions on a blog opened up for just that reason, and have them answered, not censored.

Rose said...

Nobody is calling anybody names, for God's sake. Alec Johnson ANNOUNCES himself all over the net as a socialist.

George Clark sets up a campaign blog FOR HIMSELF and then lets good old Alec use it as a soapbox.

The logical assumption is that Clark agrees with those views. It is FAIR to ASK him if he does, in fact.

It's not like asking him if he believes in the tooth fairy - socialism brings with it certain attitudes about government and private property rights, and taxation, and certain freedoms - people have a legitimate reason to be concerned - which of course is what you want to avoid letting anyone know.

exrepublican said...

"I expect my local candidates for city council to not play politics (I know, it's a pollyannish thought) and answer honest questions with honest answers."

having dealt with the city council before on a few matters, i would say that you are dreaming if you think our local council doesnt play politics.

as to censoring, im not surprised one bit. campaigns are all about perception. controlling perception is the key. if there are offensive comments made or comments that are off topic, i would be surprised if a candidate DIDNT censor and try to control perception.

Rose said...

And I agree with you, ex. It's a brave new medium, but people are not yet brave enough - and I can certainly understand not allowing the slimy awful kind of comments that we know show up on blogs.

I can tell you, though, my comments were not nasty. Some of the comments others have shared have not been nasty. Challenging, maybe, as in "how can you say that?" but not in any way nasty.

So, make it clear, only cheerleaders comments will make it through.

Rose said...

BECAUSE, ex, most of us recognize that George Clark is a good person.

But since he is setting himself up like another Dave Meserve - in it for self aggrandizement and to further a political agenda, and not in it for the people, to serve. There are legitimate questions.

Because he himself put it out there that he is in it to secure a "Progessive" majority on the board, there are questions about his stands and his motives.

exrepublican said...

"there are questions about his stands and his motives."

i agree. i received an email saying that george is a terrorist....i wouldnt trust him as far as i could throw him after reading that...

Rose said...

:) See. Now even I wouldn't go that far. :) He must have trouble getting plane tickets then. :)