Sandals Deleting Criticism from His Blog?
I have heard reports that Alan Sandals is deleting critical comments from his blog. If this is the case, it truly signals his weakness as a candidate. I'm not talking about trolling here; rather, I mean legitimate arguments against his candidacy that are washed from his blog. When encountering a reasoned argument--or even a poorly worded one--the proper approach is to articulately refute it. If Sandals (or an agent of his) is actually erasing criticism from his blog, then he has lost my respect.
According to Charlie Crystle:
The Sandals blog has deleted my comments twice--safe, easy, non-confrontational comments that asked readers to watch the debates and decided for themselves. I'm stunned at the miscalculation.That kind of thing might play in the top-down PA Democratic Party, but it doesn't play here. If you disagree with something, we don't remove it. That's all. Feel free to express your opinions. Our rights are being trampled all over the place. But you can speak freely here.
Sandals, I can only shake my head. What were you thinking?
Tom Ford wrote this comment in a post I wrote last month.
Also an interesting coincidence -- after the NOW PAC announced an endorsement, I submitted comments to the Sandals site which asked what changes he made to his position on parental consent for minors seeking abortion in order to secure the NOW PAC money, and if he would release the position questionnaire that the NOW PAC had him fill out.
Today, not only were my comments not posted, but my access to the Sandals site was removed.
What's going on here?
posted by Shlomo Boudreaux @ 10:16 PM
12 Comments:
Funny thing, about a week or so ago my access was back. Weird.
Yeah, I had the same experience about a month ago with the Alan Sandals website. I tried logging on but it didn't recognize my username, so I contacted his campaign and there were some problems with the database when they switched formats on the website. I just had to create a username again, and things have been fine since.
Hmmm. It remains interesting that removal of one's comments and/or access account to Sandals' site coincides with posting critical comments. Explaining this away as "problems with the database" sounds like an easy excuse to stifle dissent.
For someone who has spent 1/2 million dollars of his own money on his campaign, Sandal--and his paid staff--seem to be having a whole lot more computer trouble than someone (Chuck) whose campaign is run entirely by volunteers.
"If Casey continues losing ground before Santorum goes on the air, he is toast. "
This is a quote from townhall.com. Why are you wasting time on Sandals' website when you should be talking about how Casey is going to crash and burn in November and we're going to wind up with Santorum again.
If you're worried about taking things down, consider Chuck's hypocrisy: He has claimed all along that he only has volunteers helping him, but there was an ad on craigslist for canvassers at $7 an hour with his web address. You can't go see it anymore, though, it's been "removed by the craigslist community."
Anonymous:
This was a sleazy, Rovian tactic likely committed by another campaign (Casey, Sandals, or one of their supporters). The notice on craig's list was removed because it was bogus. Look, Chuck doesn't have the money to pay for canvassers; it's that simple. Besides, Chuck adamantly supports a living wage of $9 per hour, so why would he pay his canvassers anything less?
Francine:
I agree, Casey is going to crash and burn. Your reference has been discussed here and elsewhere. I like to write about many different aspects of this race on by blog, rather than limiting discussion to Casey's failings.
Furthermore, do you really think Chuck is that dumb? If he was going to hypocritically pay his own canvassers, why on Earth would he write a public ad on craig's list? The sensible way to do this would have been to clandestinely pay his own volunteers; he already has 6,000, so why recruit more, risking your criticism? Like I said before, the craig's list ad was bogus.
Wow, Shlomo, are you accusing Alan Sandals' campaign of planting some stupid ad on craigslist to discredit Chuck? Because you should probably be prepared to back that up with some proof. If I were Sandals I would be pretty pissed off about that. After all, his campaign isn't the one that goes around doing stupid stunts like handing out coat hangers at State Committee. Oh, wait-that was Chuck's campaign.
Nah, it wasn't Sandals, but this wack-job jenna who fancies 'erself some kind of political genius. You can get a real clear view of her "insights" at her blog: http://tellitalllikeitis.blogspot.com/
Must be a full moon.
Well, Slob, all I know is, that compared to handing out coat hangers to Casey supporters at State Committee, posting something on craigslist isn't so bad, albeit stupid. That just makes whoever did it look dumb; the coat hanger thing made Chuck look bad.
Francine:
No, I am not accusing Alan Sandals' campaign of planting the craigslist ad; for the receord, I am not accusing Casey's either. In fact, nowhere in my comment did I state this. I implied that placing a bogus craiglist ad seems like something that one of Chuck's opponents would do. Attacking the credibility of one's opponent is a common politic tactic these days. Please note the wording of my previous comment:
"This was a sleazy, Rovian tactic likely committed by another campaign (Casey, Sandals, or one of their supporters)."
I emphasize the words "likely" and "Casey, Sandals, or one of their supporters." A candidates supporter is not necessarily affiliated with his campaign. Being that this bogus advertisement could only benefit Casey, Sandals, or one of their supporters, it seems reasonable that one of the aforementioned parties could have posted the ad in question on craigslist.
Sorry about the typo on "for the record." My finger slipped.
Post a Comment
<< Home