Fred Thompson Asks Supporters to Write for Themselves
posted 20th September 2007 in Election 2008, Ethics, Media, Politics by Jim
You know, I don’t like the policy priorities of Fred Thompson one bit. But I appreciate that when his campaign asks supporters to write letters to the editor in support of his run for office, they request that supporters “write in your own words why you think Fred should be elected President.” The Thompson campaign doesn’t provide materials to cut and paste, either. In short, it trusts followers to think and write for themselves without any plagiarist props. That’s refreshingly different in the age of Unity08, GOP and DNC shenanigans.
 |  |  |
Good post!!!!
http://fayettecountyrepublicanpartyiowa.blogspot.com/
By the way, Jim, you realize I developed these tools as well, right?
For all your bloviation about my “encouraging plagiarism”, you could have at least given me credit.
I’ll give you credit, Mr. Turk:
Michael Turk did not encourage people to lie.
For once.
There’s your credit, Mr. Turk. All the credit you deserve.
So you DO work for Fred Thompson, then.
OK, Michael Turk, you want me to give you specific credit?
Attention, everybody. Tap, tap, tap.
MICHAEL TURK WOULD LIKE ME TO LET YOU KNOW THAT HE DOESN’T SET UP SYSTEMS TO PLANT PR PIECES IN NEWSPAPERS UNDER THE FALSELY CLAIMED AUTHORSHIP OF LOCAL CITIZENS ANY LONGER.
I’m glad you’re a changed man, Michael Turk. There’s your credit. Now keep it up — you know we’ll be watching.
I told you the other day that I do work for Thompson. I disagreed with your characterization of that work as being “on staff”.
And don’t worry, I know you’ll be watching. I’ve become some sort of twisted obsession for you. It’s flattering and somewhat creepy at the same time. You’re sort of like Rose to my Charlie Harper.
Get over yourself. I’m not obsessed with YOU.
I’m following the many ethical problems surrounding Unity08, and I’m also troubled by the effort of public relations people to plant their words in newspapers under the false authorship of ordinary people.
YOU just happen to be at the nexus of both, which is your problem to resolve.
Ho, boy, I just googled Charlie Harper (the TV series, not the British punk bank star), and Rose was Charlie Harper’s love interest.
Looks like little Turk might be trying to play footsie with ol’ Jim. Which pocket has Turk got his hankie in?
These “Republican family values” are such an endless source of entertainment.
Actually, “love interest” is not exactly accurate. Charlie used Rose and then cast her aside. She was unwilling to let it go and began stalking him. I found that analogy appropriate as you could make a legitimate argument that I’ve spent a fair amount of my professional life screwing Democrat candidates.
And as everyone knows, I’m just the Democrats’ whore.
I think we’ve already figured out that Michael Turk is a wannabe bully.
But how could writing about ethics be mistaken for a “twisted obsession”? Doesn’t speak well for the Republican understanding of ethics.
Now where did that odd Turk feller run off to? After he wrote all those scintillating remarks on his website about Jim having a “hate-on” for him. I wanted to ask him what is a “hate-on”–maybe something Republicans do in airport men’s rooms?–and whatever possessed him to think of that expression in connection with Jim.