Third Response

[sqlrob]

Looks like was too good to be true

sqlrob

I have spoken to the person who replied to your friend. I must have read your email a bit too quickly, because I thought the email came from you rather than your friend. According to our operations manager, your friend's email was filled with foul language and verbal abuse.

I have to stand behind our operations manager. We are not required to endure such abuse in exchange for votes. We won't say anything to make you happy and then turn around and ignore you like other political candidates. I assure you that Kinky is the only candidate in this race who may actually bring something new, honest and refreshing to the table. Something that's sorely lacking.

Thank you,
Laura

Laura Stromberg
Press Secretary
Kinky Friedman for Governor 2006
laura@kinkyfriedman.com
512.326.5465 office
512.689.7393 mobile
512.326.5116 fax
www.kinkyfriedman.com

And my response (referring back to her first response as well)

Yes, the original e-mail was filled with foul language, I agree with you
on that. The proper response in that case, would simply have been
deletion. It's far simpler (and less likely to rebound) to simply click
delete, especially if Mr. Jordan is as busy as he claims.

Ms Stomberg, I have a question for you. Inconvenient truths are often
couched in rude and profane language. You don't know someone, say
within the past 10 years, who has done the same, made a career out of
it and is using the experience and notoriety to, oh, hypothetically,
run for governor?

And through all this, I notice that the original concern still remains
unadressed. How is it fair to put more on a group that is already
overburdened with more than it's fair share of costs? How is it
Constitutional, providing Equal Protection? How does it not violate
Federal laws banning discrimination on family status? So far all I see
is a candidate that parades "For the Children" as a banner, slams a
group that is usually politically easy to slam, and doesn't give a
second thought to the Constitutionality or fairness of proposals.
Sounds like the average politican to me, just one with a more colorful
background.

Comments

My letter to Laura...

[spiderlilyfairy.livejournal.com]

I have friends who recently corresponded with you and one other member of Kinky's campaign committee about the proposal to make childfree couples pay more money to subsidize those with kids.. I am childfree, I worked to get Kinky on the ballot, but thanks to your people's poor handling of criticism of this idea and your response to the person who pointed it out, I don't think I'll be voting for Mr Friedman.

I'm tired of subsidizing people who breed irresponsibly and expect others to pay for their mistakes, and I'm tired of politicians telling me that not having children means I should have to pay more to make up for someone else who is living beyond their means. I didn't have kids because I cannot afford them, and my mama raised me to live within my means. I currently pay over $1000.00 a month to insure just myself and my husband. We don't see the doctor very often. If I had 6 kids and a husband, my policy with the same company would only be $650.00. That's not right. And that's only one example.

Its very frustrating to see my sister in law who has 2 kids with state medicaide, WIC, and several other subsidies who routinely buys Perrier water, albacore tuna, organic fruits and vegetables and other luxuries, but because there's no help for you if you're poor and childfree I'm still paying off medical bills from an accident that happened 2 years ago- and now I'm going to be asked to pay even more money for kids that aren't even my relatives? Its not right.

Its also not right to excuse anyone whose response to criticism is "fuck off" by saying that you "don't have to put up with bad language to get votes." No one said that you did- but if Kinky wants to say he does things the "Cowboy Way"- well, the Cowboy Way would have been to hit delete instead of responding in kind. I don't think writing a letter full of bad language is the way to get my point across, but when I get one from someone, rather than lower myself to their level, I either delete it or respond appropriately (which means not feeding into their bad behavior).

Between expecting me to bankroll the irresponsibility of others and the poor treatment of those asking why such behavior as described above is tolerated, I don't think my husband and I can responsibly vote for Mr Friedman now. I want change, but not if it means any constituent concerns will be addressed in the manner demonstrated thus far. I don't think being bullied is any better than being lied to or ignored.

Its just not the "Cowboy Way."

Yours,
pippinsrosy