Congressional Questionnaire: Clarifications
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.aclj.org
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
(I couldn’t get onto the internet last night and therefore did not post last night. Sorry.)
I have received one response so far from my mailing of a Congressional questionnaire (See the November 14th post for the questionnaire and the November 16th post for the candidates.) for the primary election for selected Congressional Districts and for the U.S. Senate from Illinois. Unfortunately, the candidate did not return the questionnaire. Instead, I received campaign literature consisting of two pages of generalized issue statements. That is not acceptable and I will not publish the two pages. Should he/she send the questionnaire completed and signed, it will, of course, be posted.
I have a degree in political science. I have been taught how to write a valid public opinion poll question unlike much of the junk that masquerades today as a valid question. Most of the questions ask if the primary candidate will or will not take a specific action in relation to a specific issue. The others ask for the position of the candidate in relation to a specific question rather than asking about generalities. The questions also measure the intensity of the support or opposition to the issue by requiring a distinction between agreeing/disagreeing and strongly agreeing/disagreeing. That is a technique to help determine whether or not the candidate is likely to compromise on an issue because he/she does not have a strong devotion to that issue. General campaign literature tends to ignore intensity in relation to many issues.
Not only have I been trained in political science, I have run for political office. Even though I had training, I attended the campaign workshops that both parties tend to hold for their candidates. I did so to learn from people who had practical experience running political campaigns. I still have the material given to candidates at those workshops. In the future, I might do a post or two on some of the techniques taught.
Two quick examples in relation to campaign pictures. Campaign pictures with the family are almost always considered important. At one workshop, we were told of a candidate who was single. Since they could not do a family picture, he was shown jogging with a beautiful, big dog. The fact that he was jogging was important to the picture. The fact that the picture included a dog, it was a beautiful dog, and it was a big dog was also all important to the picture—every aspect of the picture was taken into account.) It was an impressive picture. In fact though, the candidate did not own a dog and the picture was staged.
In another campaign, the candidate was shown playing basketball with his children. The final campaign picture was one of dozens of pictures taken by a professional photographer during a basketball game that was played specifically to get an appropriate picture for the campaign. Several hours were taken to get an “impromptu” picture to use in a campaign mailing.
As Ronald Reagan has been quoted as saying, “I paid for this microphone!” This is my blog and I know the process used in political campaigns. I never wasted my time answering questionnaires from organizations, such as Planned Murderhood, that I knew would not endorse my candidacy.
However, my questionnaire is not for the purpose of my endorsement or helping me decide who to vote for. It is designed to give specific information to the general voting public about specific primary candidates and their positions on specific issues without the normal, generalized information given within campaign literature.
Therefore, unless I receive the questionnaire I sent to each candidate with all questions answered (comments are optional) and signed by the candidate, I will not post anything provided by that candidate. I will, on January 2, 2008 as stated in my letter to the candidates, identify those primary candidate(s) who decided not to answer my questionnaire. I will also post once again before the primary election all the answers from all the candidates (I haven’t decided yet if I will post the comments for a second time.) who have answered the questionnaire and the names of all those who did not answer the questionnaire.
Campaign literature is not sufficient. I will not contact candidates again asking them to answer and to return the questionnaire. They are adults who theoretically want our votes. They should be willing and able to give specific answers to specific questions.
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.aclj.org
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
(I couldn’t get onto the internet last night and therefore did not post last night. Sorry.)
I have received one response so far from my mailing of a Congressional questionnaire (See the November 14th post for the questionnaire and the November 16th post for the candidates.) for the primary election for selected Congressional Districts and for the U.S. Senate from Illinois. Unfortunately, the candidate did not return the questionnaire. Instead, I received campaign literature consisting of two pages of generalized issue statements. That is not acceptable and I will not publish the two pages. Should he/she send the questionnaire completed and signed, it will, of course, be posted.
I have a degree in political science. I have been taught how to write a valid public opinion poll question unlike much of the junk that masquerades today as a valid question. Most of the questions ask if the primary candidate will or will not take a specific action in relation to a specific issue. The others ask for the position of the candidate in relation to a specific question rather than asking about generalities. The questions also measure the intensity of the support or opposition to the issue by requiring a distinction between agreeing/disagreeing and strongly agreeing/disagreeing. That is a technique to help determine whether or not the candidate is likely to compromise on an issue because he/she does not have a strong devotion to that issue. General campaign literature tends to ignore intensity in relation to many issues.
Not only have I been trained in political science, I have run for political office. Even though I had training, I attended the campaign workshops that both parties tend to hold for their candidates. I did so to learn from people who had practical experience running political campaigns. I still have the material given to candidates at those workshops. In the future, I might do a post or two on some of the techniques taught.
Two quick examples in relation to campaign pictures. Campaign pictures with the family are almost always considered important. At one workshop, we were told of a candidate who was single. Since they could not do a family picture, he was shown jogging with a beautiful, big dog. The fact that he was jogging was important to the picture. The fact that the picture included a dog, it was a beautiful dog, and it was a big dog was also all important to the picture—every aspect of the picture was taken into account.) It was an impressive picture. In fact though, the candidate did not own a dog and the picture was staged.
In another campaign, the candidate was shown playing basketball with his children. The final campaign picture was one of dozens of pictures taken by a professional photographer during a basketball game that was played specifically to get an appropriate picture for the campaign. Several hours were taken to get an “impromptu” picture to use in a campaign mailing.
As Ronald Reagan has been quoted as saying, “I paid for this microphone!” This is my blog and I know the process used in political campaigns. I never wasted my time answering questionnaires from organizations, such as Planned Murderhood, that I knew would not endorse my candidacy.
However, my questionnaire is not for the purpose of my endorsement or helping me decide who to vote for. It is designed to give specific information to the general voting public about specific primary candidates and their positions on specific issues without the normal, generalized information given within campaign literature.
Therefore, unless I receive the questionnaire I sent to each candidate with all questions answered (comments are optional) and signed by the candidate, I will not post anything provided by that candidate. I will, on January 2, 2008 as stated in my letter to the candidates, identify those primary candidate(s) who decided not to answer my questionnaire. I will also post once again before the primary election all the answers from all the candidates (I haven’t decided yet if I will post the comments for a second time.) who have answered the questionnaire and the names of all those who did not answer the questionnaire.
Campaign literature is not sufficient. I will not contact candidates again asking them to answer and to return the questionnaire. They are adults who theoretically want our votes. They should be willing and able to give specific answers to specific questions.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 10:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home