Thursday, October 27, 2005

The Lessons Continue

Why do political campaign advisors urge against having an active blog or engaging in dialogue with opposition? Because it's bad enough to have negative linkage to one of your blog entries, but worse if they start hammering you with repetition. Most advisors will tell the candidate- dump the blog and ignore the blogger.

Consider the dialogue. I said I thought his analysis was too literal, extracting a few words at the expense of the spirit of the commentary. He turned that around to suggest that I should therefore never be taken literally, on anything, especially on policy issues. His third post willfully ignores the fact that my comments were on a radio network, which is an interest of mine, and tied it to my candidacy. It's a ridiculous stretch, but that's what opponents will do, which is why you shut up; stick to the talking points; be an empty suit; and if you're going to blog at all, keep it to tales from the trail and pictures with farmers, auto workers, and retirees.

Oh well, I guess it's just not my style. For one thing, I tend to agree with the Oscar Wilde wisdom on being talked about or not. I have faith that many of the readers of his blog will read what I've said and not find it a reason to actively campaign against me. True, others won't be so open minded, but that being the case, I probably never would win them over anyway.

Really, if anyone wants to put my picture and name in a prominent place on their blog, all I ask is that you link back to this blog or my campaign site and spell the name correctly: K-O-L-E. I'd be delighted if a 1,000 bloggers assailed my comments on Air America within the next three days. Or, perhaps Daily Kos could. That would be delightful!


Michael said...

The desperate left are scrambling to defend the likes of AA when the facts speak for themselves. WWRC-AM (NYC) had an arbitron rating so low as to be undetectable, it had been a fraction of a point back in the spring. In DC they are in last place. The facts are that if AA were a horse it would already be sporting a skull piercing.
On a related note your blog is worth a nice chunk of change!

Over $3K!
That's cool!

Rob Beck said...

You know, I only have one liberal critic on my page (so far), but he's at least civil and our banter back and forth is actually kind of fun and even intellectually stimulating. Why oh why do the majority seem to follow your friend, Mike. "Neal Boortz is a racist jackhole"? That's the best he's got. Beautiful.

I noticed he and his yard dog commenter both took the same low road. Really wanted to jump in there, but as by taking the high road you demonstrate such back and forths are just p!ssing contests and the left always likes to prove they can make a bigger puddle.

Todd S. said...

My advice is to ignore that guy. Obviously in his universe if you are not a "leftist," you're a right wing nutjob. Funny...the left criticizes Bush for saying things like "If you're not with us, you're against us." But it's perfectly acceptable for them to say the same thing...

Mike Kole said...

It's funny- both sides, far left and far right, ironically employ the term "wing-nut", either entirely oblivious to the fact that there are two far wings, or with head in sand in hopes nobody notices. At any rate, there's a whole lot of 'my team right or wrong' out there right now, which is unfortunate.

The subject of my recent re-post entitled 'You Have to Know What Team To Root For' is exactly this phenomenon, although I intended it for fiscal conservatives who doggedly keep voting Republican.

I do enjoy civil discourse in disagreement. I've always found that it makes me sharper, so I value it trememdously. This one started off so well. Alas...