Well, Ron over at Sewerwatch is sure having fun. Reason # 10,398,374,367,382,923 why we desperately need campaign reform. And why the Fair Political Practices organization really should be either reformed or dumped altogether. The problem with them is the public thinks that they are "watchdogs" keeping our Pols honest. They aren't. They're more like a "beard" that offers cover for the Pols and their operatives, buying them time to abscond with the silverware.
It's a problem all over since our campaign laws have so many loopholes, put there by, you guessed it, the Pols who like the way things are and see no reason to change. Adding more wrinkles are the blurred lines between PACs, personal blogs, Face Book, the Twitterverse, free speech, the personal vs public/professional, and what the meaning of "is" is. When does my Facebook Page or blog stop being "private-free-speech-personal" and start becoming a "paid-professional- PAC?" Talk about "angels on heads of pins." Stephen Colbert had fun with all this, but, in reality, it isn't really funny at all.
As for four awkward years? Ummm, for any newbies in the room, maybe. But, politics ain't beanbag, Professional Pols (i.e. those serving more than one term) have developed the hide of rhinoceroses, carry shivs (or hire them) and if they want a friend, are advised to get a dog.
Bruce
Gibson's "Evil Genius in the Back Room," and Why I Predict
Four Awkward Years in SLO County Government
... now playing at a SewerWatch near you:
Posts
2 comments:
Ah, beautiful, Ann!
Thanks for the link.
Ann asks:
"When does my Facebook Page or blog stop being "private-free-speech-personal" and start becoming a "paid-professional- PAC?""
When Bruce Gibson starts paying you $20,000. I'd say THAT's when the line is crossed.
Ann also writes:
"And why the Fair Political Practices organization really should be either reformed or dumped altogether."
I vote: Dumped altogether. What a worse-nothing-nothing mess that thing is.
I wonder what their budget is? What a complete waste of money. They make things worse, for the exact reason Ann points out: "The problem with them is the public thinks that they are "watchdogs" keeping our Pols honest. They aren't."
Exactly right (and just like the Trib... [ay-oh!]).
Ann writes:
"As for four awkward years? Ummm, for any newbies in the room, maybe.'
What now makes the Dow/Gibson relationship so awkward is that, sure, there will always be Pols that hate each other, but that sentiment usually remains out of sight.
But now that we all know that Bruce pays Tom Fulks FAT stacks to do things like run around and destroy Dow, and Dow now knows that, too (thank you very much)? Well, that's gonna get way awkward... for the next four years... at least.
Thanks again, Ann.
Huh. This is interesting -- what's happening in this comment section.
I mean, every single time Ann links back to one of my posts, a (what appears to be) "bunch" of anonymous "crazies" show up in the comments section and attempt to absolutely destroy me -- my character, my reputation, oh, just anything and everything.
However, THIS time, Ann links back to my post that shows how local, left-leaning Pols pay Tom Fulks (and his "employees"?) BIG bucks to, among other things, sneak around on the Internet and absolutely destroy the character and reputations of anyone -- especially media-types -- that writes something even slightly critical of Tom's clients, and not one of those anonymous "crazies" shows up -- this time -- to destroy me.
So, yeah, that's kinda interesting.
For example, where's the person (persons?) that posts as "Lynette Tornatzky?"
Every time there's a report posted, anywhere, that doesn't portray Tom's clients in a favorable light, there's "Lynette Tornatzky" posting thousands upon thousands of comments that 1) Over-the-top-cheerlead Tom's clients (i.e. Bruce Gibson), 2) Destroy the person that posted the report, and 3) Destroy Bruce's opponents.
In other words, Tornatzky is doing exactly what Tom Fulks gets paid BIG bucks to do. So, I sure hope that she's getting a piece of those FAT stacks that Bruce is paying Tom, because, if she's not, then she's being had: Bruce is paying Tom tens of thousands of dollars to do what Lynette does for free.
Or does she?
And that's why I find this comment section so interesting: Ann links back to my post that that shows how local, left-leaning Pols pay Tom Fulks (and his "employees"?) BIG bucks to, among other things, sneak around on the Internet and absolutely destroy the character and reputations of anyone -- especially media-types -- that writes something even slightly critical of Tom's clients, and, for once, not a word from Lynette (even though she's posted comments in Ann's two posts, following this post.)
Interesting.
Post a Comment