Comments on: The Mutinous Local Republican Party

By: Don Smith

Don Smith — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:58:38 +0000

Ummm…make that 5PM PST. We just figured out how early we have to get up to go to the airport tomorrow…so, we’re going to bed EARLY tonight!

By: winnieo

winnieo — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:20:05 +0000

I love your numbers!
Gluten-free cookie, please.
Yes, I thought you were referring to this post. Easy to see the confusion, no matter which way you look at it. Like so much of life, aye?

By: Don Smith

Don Smith — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:05:12 +0000

Oh…I get it now. You thought I was referring to this particular blog, on the “Mutinous Republican Party.” (Even though the text of my post dispelled any confusion).

OK, winneo, ya got me. I should have made clear I was referring to the title of Mike’s blog overall, instead of this one post.

Congratulations. You win a cookie.

By: Don Smith

Don Smith — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:02:55 +0000

Ein, you can’t be this obtuse.

Zwei, I spent several paragraphs discussing why I think Mike’s blog name is a bait-and-switch, based on his last three posts. (I also made clear that that was my opinion, which he is free to dismiss). Try reading again, after the word “discussing” in the second paragraph. If you read what I wrote, it should be painfully obvious that I’m referring to Mike’s blog name.
If you still don’t get it after that, you and I must be on different wavelengths. We’ll have to leave it at that.

By: winnieo

winnieo — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:05:40 +0000

Uno, Veteran Veritas is a sub-heading under ” Pol. & Govt.” If you are having a problem with that, you might want to take it up with the Head Blog Meister.

Deux, you said, “I think the title of this blog is a subject worth discussing,” and I read on eagerly to see what you had to say about the subject. Oops! You forgot to discuss it.

By: Don Smith

Don Smith — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:07:28 +0000

Tell ya what…I’m signing off on this issue. I’ve made my point, and I’ve no desire to be a pest. This is your blog, after all.

I’ll monitor this thread throughout the rest of today (I leave for Disney tomorrow, so blog commenting will de facto cease!). If you want me to respond to you directly, I will—I owe you that. Just, please do it before 7 PM PST—I’m hitting the sack after that.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. If nothing else, the caffeine has indeed been flowing in the tea this weekend!

Until the next time we ideologically joust, or agree, or both…

Your TucsonCitizen.com colleague
Don

By: Don Smith

Don Smith — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:02:32 +0000

Mike, pontificate much?

By: Mike Brewer

Mike Brewer — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:28:10 +0000

43 of 45 posts have been pure advocacy. One piece made national news, with the announcement of widows benefits for ALS/ Lou Gehrigs’ Disease and resulted in 92 calls from all over the nation. That is veritas. A bit of personal perspective is called humanity. Smith chimes in to one post, puts some kindling on the fire, and then hollers Fire! The gentleman is really splittin’ hairs on this one.

By: Don Smith

Don Smith — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:50:27 +0000

Winneo, based on the logical trail you’ve laid out above, I guess that ANY subject can be tied to veterans, in one way shape or form. (Sort of like “Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”)

Actually, winnieo, I think the title of this blog is a subject worth discussing.

This is just me talking—but, if I come to a blog titled “Veterans Veritas—Advocacy for our Veterans,” I’d expect to see discussions about veterans issues, an essentially nonpartisan subject.
More to my point—if I clicked on a blog whose title implied it dealt with veterans issues, but found myself instead in the midst of a political discussion, I might never visit that website again. I suspect I’m not alone in that sentiment.
Imagine if I, a self-identified conservative, titled my blog “TUCSON’S CHILDRENS BLOG: A Place To Talk About The Future Citizens Of Tucson.”

Next, imagine the reaction of parents who visited the blog to read about local kids issues (e.g., kids activities at the Tucson parks, preschool funding)—but instead found me talking about Ronald Reagan. Think they might feel a bit misled? I do.

Now, I could justify my sleight-of-title-wording by claiming that, in my opinion, all parents and children should read the words of Ronald Reagan. But, I bet most moms and dads would still felt snookered.
If Mike wants to write a personal blog, I encourage him to. I do, as does Carolyn Classen. On personal blogs, you can be as opinionated as you want.

I am concerned, though, when the writers of non-partisan topical blogs (veterans issues, health, etc…) use those blogs as a political forum. IMO I think that’s what Mike has done here. And I don’t think that’s good for TucsonCitizen.com, which is trying to build a readership.

But that’s just me.

By: mike_brewer

mike_brewer — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:36:56 +0000

Well now ‘winnieo’ I see by your quill you must be a writer. Your takes are surely interesting.
I have discovered in recent weeks that there may not be so many ‘versions’ of truth as there are varieties of projections of self.
I cannot quite see how some of our thoughtful posters have missed the advocacy part. I made it clear that Steve K came out to support our program at the Merritt Center, for combat vets. And I thought it was clear that I support him. Unless, I am sizzled from summer heat, I think that is titled “advocacy.” The process is such that you have to get someone elected first before they can advocate. Is that not the American way?
I have been in about 18 cities in the past two years, many of whom are actively engaged with programs for veterans transitioning to civilian life, and our supported in one way or another by local elected officials. None of our current elected officials can point to such activity from their respective wards.
Summarily, the intent of the mini-essay was to bring into the sunlight, how difficult it is for a good man or woman to get elected in Tucson without first appeasing the icons of real estate. I know, I spent 29 years in the industry. So I am advocating for an honest process… the one that veterans defend. I do hope that is a proper syllogism, or at least a “verity”