...but I couldn't believe I was seeing it show up all over the internets! You'd think they would have caught it and maybe corrected it immediately. (click on the screen cap image above to enlarge it)Spell check is (mostly) your friend. I think it's a fine and necessary policy for campaign staff to properly spell the name of the office your candidate is seeking; especially if you want him to be taken seriously.
BTW: $75k for Google ads!
6 comments:
Spot the Typos game:
Dig this one from the Attorney General's office...
--------------------------
RFP#2010-06
Representation of the University of Connecticut Intellectual Property Matters
The State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General, is seeking proposals to provide certain legal services representing the University of Connectciut in intellectual properyt matters. Proposal are ue by Ausgus 16, 2010, at 3:30 p.m. Easten Time, as detailed in this RFP For more information, please visit the Attorney General website: http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?a=2429&Q=463024
--------------------------
Sheesh. I thought *I* had a bad case of the fat fingers.
That looks more like someone spilled their coffee on their keyboard! At least it's not in the AG's political advertising.
Bob, I gotta say I usually enjoy reading your blog... until lately. The anti-malloy sentiment on it is really unsettling. I really appreciate how fair you were when you were a delegate (and was always pulling for you to back Malloy based on the evidence). I supported Ned in 2006 too, and you were a huge part of that. I just don't see the same candidate at all. Things have changed.
Anyway, this really got me: "BTW: $75k for Google ads!"
Ned Lamont s expected to spend twice as much as malloy overall, I'd think (hope) that this is a smart Malloy strategy to get exposure. It seems more odd you would balk at his expenditures, than the sheer total amount Ned is spending.
My 2 cents.
Peter, Mansfield
Peter, the $75K thing was a very slight knock at the fact that Malloy's camp spent that amount of money on Google ads and someone somewhere didn't even bother to spell check the most important word in the ad!
If you want to read about cheap shots, just take a look at some of the things coming from Dan's campaign. I'm all for talking about the issues, yet we're seeing absolute silliness like the Top 10 Reasons Lamont Won't Debate, which only cheapens the discussion. The real reason Lamont is reticent likely has much more to do with Dan's silly grandstanding to the press about the debates before he even asked Lamont personally. It was a cheap and intellectually dishonest move, IMO.
I make it no secret that I dislike some aspects of Dan's campaign (and especially some of his staff), but I like Dan personally and you can absolutely count on my supporting Malloy 100% should he prevail in the primary. Until then, we're in for a somewhat bumpy ride, not unlike the 2008 Obama-Clinton contest.
We're Democrats, though, and we'll get through this. It's what we do.
Thanks for responding CT Bob. I think I understand your point of view. My counterpoint is that, on the whole, both campaigns are employing the same silly campaign tactics. Lamont's has been much more subversive and whisper based - as a volunteer for Malloy I hear all the time things that are simply not true that get sourced to the Lamont campaign. Malloy's has been more in the public.
It's equally as silly that Ned chose not to debate. Make sense politically, yes? But I thought he wasn't another politician?
Ultimately, this is your blog and your place to have an opinion. I think my central idea is that on the whole, I typically enjoy your fairness. I think these last few weeks here and at My Left Nutmeg have started to feel like a really unwelcome space for Malloy supporters which is a shame.
I'm sure the end of the primary and time will heal wounds, I hope.
Regards,
Peter
Mansfield
Peter, thanks for the nice words. You are always welcome to post your thoughts here.
I really do try to maintain a certain semblance of fairness here, except of course when there's an especially good opportunity for comedy. Like in this particular case ("governer").
Also, once I decide to endorse a candidate, even then I really try to be fair, but I'm less likely to hold my tongue when I see something I don't like from the opponent. Especially if it looks like it might not be entirely true ("5,000 jobs)
Realistically, I doubt debating Ned will help Dan all that much, unless Ned is caught on camera actually kicking a small dog or a child during the debate.
Dan's trailing badly in the polls, and all his worry about the debate is diverting attention from the issues, which is where either candidate will ultimately win. That's what Dan should be worrying about right now.
But hey, I could be wrong. Who really will know until four weeks from now? I would say, may the better man for the job win.
Post a Comment