playing catchup
OK, first of all, WTF?. I really don't think airplanes should be able to fly into NY buildings anymore. Not good.
Closer to home, this morning we had our endorsement interview with US Sen. Jeff Bingaman, which wasn't exactly exciting, but definitely more exciting than his challenger, Allen McCullough, who was one of a handful of candidates over the last decade who just wouldn't do our our pop quiz, and who during the primary just didn't even bother to show up for an endorsement interview and whose arrival for his scheduled general election endorsement interview I also am not holding my breath about (hello: grammar?) Actually, I thought Bingaman did well and provided some interesting insights, or at least commentary, on the current state of the world, which I should probably go write down this afternoon so I don't have to replay the entire cassette two weeks from now (a pile of cassettes of these interviews are piling up about three inches from where I am sitting now).
A few thoughts on the McCullough situation. Many of the more conservative/Republican candidates will occasionally remark, when coming in for endorsement interviews, upon their belief that they are unlikely to receive our endorsement. But they come in and they talk and they explain their views and answer our questions. Because they are running for office. They participate in our pop quiz series because we have 50,000 plus readers and they are running for office. It's what you do. You don't have to, but you're not insulting us when you refuse to participate, you're insulting our readers. And, for the record, we have endorsed plenty of Republicans in our time. We endorsed Pat Lyons four years ago for that matter, and some appeals court judges, I believe, and, anyway, the point is, this is part of the process. Refusing to return phone calls, not showing up, basically just gives a preview to what kind of public servant you'd be: the kind who doesn't bother responding those you believe to not be your loyal supporters, which doesn't strike me as a very viable option for positive public service. I mean, hell, John Dendahl is on his way in here this afternoon. I would wager a guess that every candidate will show up. So what's the deal here? That kind of arrogance drives me bonkers. So we'll see if I have to recant and if McCullough does indeed show up for his endorsement interview. If he does, I will be sure to note it!
Anyway, here's Slate's piece on the status of the mid-term elections.
The #1 technorati search term at the moment is "jonny," but when you search on it all you get is an error message. Lots of those error messages with technorati lately. Very annoying.
George Johnson finally weighed in our water piece from a few weeks ago. I was a little surprised to not have heard a word from him on this, since George's blog has probably watchdogged the water situation here better than anything/one. But I suppose being in Santa Barbara is a pretty good excuse for being a few weeks behind on things.
I feel perpetually behind on everything, but it's entirely possible that I'm a perfectionist. An extremely sloppy one, but, still.
Closer to home, this morning we had our endorsement interview with US Sen. Jeff Bingaman, which wasn't exactly exciting, but definitely more exciting than his challenger, Allen McCullough, who was one of a handful of candidates over the last decade who just wouldn't do our our pop quiz, and who during the primary just didn't even bother to show up for an endorsement interview and whose arrival for his scheduled general election endorsement interview I also am not holding my breath about (hello: grammar?) Actually, I thought Bingaman did well and provided some interesting insights, or at least commentary, on the current state of the world, which I should probably go write down this afternoon so I don't have to replay the entire cassette two weeks from now (a pile of cassettes of these interviews are piling up about three inches from where I am sitting now).
A few thoughts on the McCullough situation. Many of the more conservative/Republican candidates will occasionally remark, when coming in for endorsement interviews, upon their belief that they are unlikely to receive our endorsement. But they come in and they talk and they explain their views and answer our questions. Because they are running for office. They participate in our pop quiz series because we have 50,000 plus readers and they are running for office. It's what you do. You don't have to, but you're not insulting us when you refuse to participate, you're insulting our readers. And, for the record, we have endorsed plenty of Republicans in our time. We endorsed Pat Lyons four years ago for that matter, and some appeals court judges, I believe, and, anyway, the point is, this is part of the process. Refusing to return phone calls, not showing up, basically just gives a preview to what kind of public servant you'd be: the kind who doesn't bother responding those you believe to not be your loyal supporters, which doesn't strike me as a very viable option for positive public service. I mean, hell, John Dendahl is on his way in here this afternoon. I would wager a guess that every candidate will show up. So what's the deal here? That kind of arrogance drives me bonkers. So we'll see if I have to recant and if McCullough does indeed show up for his endorsement interview. If he does, I will be sure to note it!
Anyway, here's Slate's piece on the status of the mid-term elections.
The #1 technorati search term at the moment is "jonny," but when you search on it all you get is an error message. Lots of those error messages with technorati lately. Very annoying.
George Johnson finally weighed in our water piece from a few weeks ago. I was a little surprised to not have heard a word from him on this, since George's blog has probably watchdogged the water situation here better than anything/one. But I suppose being in Santa Barbara is a pretty good excuse for being a few weeks behind on things.
I feel perpetually behind on everything, but it's entirely possible that I'm a perfectionist. An extremely sloppy one, but, still.
posted by Julia at 1:50 PM
<< Home