Of Websites and Wobbles, Nominations and Knee-Jerks

Alliterative titling aside, I had planned to start this post off a bit differently, but a funny thing happened on the way to my global dashboard.

And it all started (as all things eventually will) on Twitter. Earlier this evening I got an @ reply from Mark Brooks over at the Heartland of Virginia blog.

By the way, I’m presuming the titular “Virginia” is meant to imply “REAL” Virginia. (‘As opposed to what, exactly?’, you may ask. Well, you’d have to ask one of our politically southpaw friends to explain that one, I’m afraid.)

But, I digress. My point here is somewhat more cogent than all that.

So, our lefty friend Mark asked me what I have against candidates asking for volunteers. My response was, I admit, a bit cheeky. The exchange continued from there, and I had to resort to channeling Harry Reid, at which point Mark (perhaps lacking a retort, or simply too tired to further the exchange) bid me a pleasant evening.

Now, I’ve read Mark’s blog and I have found it to be somewhat between black and white, though he generally uses a fair amount of reason in his diatribes (unless he chooses not to).

Sorry, channeled Harry Reid again for a minute.

Anywho, so now we’ve gotten to the original intended starting point. Finally. Again, it all started on Twitter, where my friend Dana had posted a remark about State Senator Robert Hurt’s newly minted “For Congress” website.

It IS a bit troubling that a page titled “What People Are Saying…” is actually nothing more than a laundry list of favorable (and contextually misleading) quotes from various media outlets from LAST year (and none later than October, I might add).

Also, just for giggles, go and track down the original source quotes and you’ll find that nearly half of those were merely news outlets re-printing statements from Chris LaCivita (a paid consultant for the Hurt campaign). Curiouser and curiouser.

Let alone the fact that, even if these were legitimate quotes from actual media personnel, Hurt is trying to portray himself as a “true conservative.” This is crawling on bloody hands and knees whilst positively wailing the question:

“What ‘true Conservative’ would classify anyone in the State-run left-stream media as ‘people’?”

Excellent point by Dana, but STILL not what sent me storming down the hallway in anger after viewing Hurt’s new website for the first time.

No, what got to me were three things in particular that, as yet, no one else seems to have picked up on.

First: At the top of the home page, you will notice a box to input your email address, along with a “Submit” button. This is widely accepted, all across the vast interwebs, as a simple way for visitors to sign up for email updates from a given site.

Not in this case. Notice that, by hitting the “Submit” button, you are redirected to another page, gently asking for a host of further information. No big deal, right? Well, of course not. At least, not at first, until you notice the heading:

“Volunteer Today.
Sign up today to volunteer for Robert Hurt for Congress”

Nice, huh? And you thought you were just going to casually sign up for email updates. Au contraire! You are now, by clicking “Submit” a second time, an official Hurtite.

But, just in case that’s not quite arrogant enough for you, let’s move on to point number two (but keep that home page handy for the piece de resistance): On the same “Volunteer” form, look to the right (YOUR right, my left) and notice the string of check-boxes. (Oh, yes, Rob LOVES check-boxes.)

Well, THAT’S all cool, right? You can specify exactly HOW you’d like to (mandatorily) volunteer. Awesome. Gotta love specifics, right Rob? (Unless they pertain to bits of your voting record that you’ve developed selective amnesia about.)

But, if you’ll read the list of ways to volunteer, you may notice something. Go ahead. Look. I’ll wait to see if it jumps out at you (you know, like a blatantly unconstitutional taxing authority embedded in a transportation plan). See it yet? There’s only seven boxes. I’ll give you a hint: there’s some odd use of capitalization on this particular line.

Got it? Bing! Bing! Bing! “Election Day Activities.” Could he have possibly meant, “Primary Day”? Maybe. Oh, but wait! No, that can’t be, because the VERY NEXT line says “Getting out to vote.” Hmm. So, did he mean Primary Day (which is June 8th) Activities, or, as the capitalization suggests, “Election Day,” meaning November 2nd?

Just asking reasonable questions here, folks. Obviously, if Hurt means Election Day, this speaks volumes about a) the man’s ego or, b) the promises he’s been given by the party establishment (you know, the same ones who ensured that public outcry was ignored and a primary was selected in the first place). Or, logically, c) all of the above.

And, last but (to me anyway) not least, point number three: On the home page of Hurt’s site, look closely at the graphic located just to the right of the “What People Are Saying” header.

Yep. A bullhorn.

Funny, I’ve been using a bullhorn myself, for years , to signify how we in the grassroots are being ignored by the establishment hacks, and now an establishment hack is trying to co-opt my chosen prop. Lovely.

Before you get your knickers in a wad, no, I don’t have a monopoly on bullhorns, but who else, currently or formerly in this race, made a bullhorn their signature? No one, besides me.

And notice how the red & white one on Hurt’s site bears an incredibly striking resemblance to the one I used in the two videos linked above.

To me, this comes across as much more than mere coincidence.

One final point: I am sick to death of arrogant charlatans trying to horn in (like RINOs, one might say) and attempt to take on mantles they know nothing about. But, what I’m even more sick of are regular folks who call themselves conservatives, yet are willing to roll over for any swinging Tom, Dick, Harry, or Robert who shows a willingness to put an R after their name.

There are even some who make this decision and roll right over, then attempt to justify their complete lack of principles with “but, he’s the only one who can win,” as if they’ve even performed more than a cursory vetting of the other potential candidates.

This is shameful. The candidate selection process exists so that we can make informed choices based on more than electability, popularity, or political experience. If Virginia had taken THAT route, John Brownlee would have been our Attorney General now (or perhaps would have lost narrowly, who knows?), given that certain Republicans were saying Ken Cuccinelli “CAN’T win” last April.

Again, look at ALL the candidates, objectively, and make informed choices. I’ve made the analogy before, and it certainly applies in this case, given our current economic problems, – When you’re standing on a wobbly chair with a noose around your neck, knee-jerk reactions can be fatal.

Let’s inject some logic and rational discussion before settling on a candidate. Please. We have just under 5 months. Let’s not screw it up.

If you feel differently about any of the above, the comments section is open.

Update:
It seems my question has been answered regarding whether Hurt’s volunteer page check-box actually meant "Election Day" rather than "primary day." Read Campaign Manager Sean Harrison’s statement here. "Upcoming election" and "victory in November," with not a single word implying that there’s still a nomination to secure (or screw up) in June. Arrogance, plain and simple. Nuff said.

Update #2:
Hadn’t noticed this until now but, as with the "simple submit" box on the home page, the Hurt campaign has flaunted common interweb standards with another oddity. Namely: if you neglect to type in the triple-w before "roberthurtforcongress.com" in your browser’s address bar, you get a "bad host name" error. (Or at least I do on my desktop-mimic mobile browser.)

You would think that the NRCC’s golden-boy and Virgil Goode’s heir-apparent would at least have a web team capable of enabling smart-surf, right? If your experience has been different, please let me know.