Showing posts with label Nevada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nevada. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

The Judge and the Book of Mormon ... OR ... How NOT to Raise Funds




A conservative candidate for Judge in Clark County Nevada – a good man (and not a Mormon) has made a potentially election-killing decision.  He’s tied a major campaign fund-raiser to the Book of Mormon. 

More on that in a minute.

Sure, there are more Mormons in Clark County Nevada (home to Las Vegas) than you can shake a stick at.  For a century and more, casino owners have been glad to hire Mormons as dealers – they’re honest with their employers, and (the word is) they have no compunction about cheating the heathens.  I may have that wrong – I may be referring to Jack Mormons – lapsed Mormons who nonetheless hold onto major of the faith’s tenets.  But that’s really beside the point. Anyway, casinos are Mormon-friendly employers – however, even without casinos, this would be Mormon Central. Just down I-15 from Utah, Clark County was first settled (other than by the Paiutes) by Mormon settlers who built the Old Mormon Fort not a half-mile from what is now Las Vegas’s Fremont Street Experience.

However, for every Mormon in Clark County, you’ll find at least one non-Mormon who’s all but fed up with their door-to-door evangelism – not to mention the arrogance of mere children who arrogantly believe that they can teach their elders something about a life they have yet to live. 

Taking it a step further, there are more than a few Clark Countians who live in fear of Mormon bosses – one of my closest friends has a Mormon boss, and he lives in fear of being the only executive on the department’s team who isn’t at least nominally a Mormon.  Harassment isn’t too strong a word, and while I doubt if this is “official” LDS policy, it happens – just as does “shunning” of non-Mormons by neighbors in heavily-Mormon communities (that I can speak to from personal experience).

But that’s not really the point.  In fact, the Mormon faith isn’t even the point.

The point is that politics and religion don’t mix – they never have. It’s only worse when the religion is controversial.

Any religious faith, if pushed hard in a political campaign, can become polarizing.  Even a fairly neutral belief such as conservative or reformed Judaism, or mainstream protestant Christianity, even these can become polarizing in a political campaign.  Bring in a controversial faith – be it the late Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” or pretty much anything having to do with Islam, the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses (to name a few), and you’re going to polarize a segment of the political electorate.

Polarizing the political electorate means driving potential voters away – for reasons having nothing to do with the qualification of the candidate.  Jack Kennedy lost votes because he was a public and believing Catholic. Mitt Romney lost votes because he was so closely identified with his Mormon faith.  Joe Lieberman, a great and good man (for a liberal), lost votes because he was well-known to be a faithful Orthodox Jew.  In an election that close, his faith might have been the difference between President Bush and President Gore.

Is any of that right?  Of course not.  Even, “Hell, no!” 

But it is very much human nature, which is why every savvy politician who wants to win tries to avoid “taking sides” in a religious debate. They recognize that any such debate will only hurt them with some voters. 

At least if it’s the candidate’s own faith, most do better by embracing their faith than to be seen running from it.

But when a candidate makes religion an issue – and the faith isn’t his own – that’s just a bad political choice.

Enter this conservative candidate for judge, this good man who’s not even a Mormon.

Today he posted on the Facebook discussion group “Clark County Politics” a fund-raising promotion.  It reads:

“Donate to ____ 4 Judge between now and May 15, 2014, and WIN 2 BOX SEAT TICKETS FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION NIGHT SHOWING OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.  Support ____4Judge and win a chance to see the most popular show of the year with him on Primary Election night.”

Ignoring the poor grammar and punctuation, here’s the kicker.  Apparently, THE BOOK OF MORMON he’s referring to is a Broadway stage show, and a touring company of the play will be in Las Vegas on primary election night.  Not being a fan of Broadway shows, this was all news to me.  But if I’d known that, it wouldn’t change my negative reaction to this.

All I knew was when I saw the promotion on the website, I saw THE BOOK OF MORMON and a photo of one of the Mormon teen-boy missionaries, nametag, white shirt, white socks and black tie – book in hand – on the promotion.  I didn’t read the fine print about it being a Broadway show.   

All I did was see this message, then react immediately and viscerally to it. Seeing the promotion but not really reading it (yet), I knew I had no desire to win a copy of the Book of Mormon – so the “incentive” offered nothing to me. More to the point, I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what a non-Mormon and otherwise reasonable conservative candidate for judge was doing pushing a minority and clearly controversial faith – let alone doing so in the midst of a purely secular election.

So I asked him, and he explained that it was a popular show, and a good fund-raising incentive.  Frankly, I wasn’t buying it.

Then another conservative climbed into the conversation, noting that “this big hit Broadway play was prepared by liberal play producers in anticipation of Mitt Romney’s presidential run in 2012 – I’m surprised that you are not sensitive to the derogatory impact …” 

I don’t know if that’s true. Imagine – liberals wanting to mock a Republican presidential candidate – hard to believe, isn’t it? 

However, whatever the play is supposed to do or say or be, I do know this.  If two conservatives – well-known local activists who both were prepared to support this candidate’s run for judge reacted this badly, and for completely different reasons – then this has to be a bad idea.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Ron Q. Quilang - Candidate for NV Senate - Unleashed an Attack Dog ... on my Wife!

The politics of A&E and GLAAD Come to Republicans in Nevada

 An Object Lesson on Why Employees With Tempers Should Not Have Access to Your Social Networking Connections ...
A Relatively Civil and Frankly Unimportant Online Dispute Turned Ugly When A Candidate's PR/Publicist/Strategist Attacked My Business and My Wife ... on Facebook

 I don't usually get "personal" in these blogs - these are about businesses, and my complaint is with the staff member of a Republican candidate for the Nevada state Senate.  To the extent that a political campaign is a business, this does "fit" - but more important, this is an object lesson on why employers should NOT let employees (especially those with tempers) represent them on social networking sites.  It is also an object lesson in the importance of being responsive to online issues.  Where Cracker Barrel quickly learned their lesson and repented, this candidate said "he'd look into it" hours before his attack dog attacked my wife on Facebook, over a minor dispute about a posting on a Facebook site, one that was neither vulgar nor offensive.

Here's the story ...

The politics of A&E and GLAAD Come to Republicans in Nevada - A Republican Candidate's PR Guy just attacked my wife on Facebook because the PR guy and I exchanged a few more-or-less civil words earlier today, but they turned out to be words he didn't like.  They weren't vulgar of offensive - he just didn't like them. So he attacked my posts, trying to damage my business - then he went a step further and attacked my wife.  Earlier, I had warned the candidate that his guy was freelancing his anger, but all I got was an "I'll look into it."

A few hours later, his attack dog bit.  So much for responsiveness.

For proof, here is a cut-and-paste from my Facebook page - note the first one is aimed at my wife, Lynn, who was not part of the conversation, nor is she part of my business, which Haynes is trying to damage.


Is that how you want your Republican Candidate to hire and manage his staff? Is this the kind of Senator you want - a man who says "I'll look into it" but does nothing to keep his staff from attacking not only a fellow Republican the PR guy didn't like, but attacking his wife as well?

I don't think so.  At least I hope not.

UPDATE - Andre' Haynes admitted to stalking my wife online in a Facebook Exchange - here are  his comment:  

Andre Haynes ·
If you apologize for the blatant disrespect and remove the post that you published on Ron Q. Quilang's page and the bog... then I will remove my post and no longer comment on your page or your wife's.
 
(Please note that his idea of blatant disrespect is posting a message on an open Facebook Group in which I was a member, a message with useful content on how to write campaign speeches and raise campaign funds ... the disrespect is that Andre' Haynes sees himself as a campaign guru and felt threatened by my comment - when he asked me to stop posting, I did, but now he wants me to apologize for engaging in free-market capitalism, while following Facebook's rules ... go figure)

Ron Q. Quilang, candidate for Nevada Senate from Las Vegas, has an attack-dog campaign manager named Andre' Haynes - earlier today, we exchanged a few more-or-less civil words (no cursing, nothing vulgar, no insults - just a disagreement) over what was after all only a misunderstanding, but soon I could see he had no principles, so I just let it drop. 

However, I did warn his candidate by Facebook IM that his attack dog had gotten out of his kennel (so to speak) and asked him to put a muzzle on Andre' before things got ugly.  The candidate said "he'd look into it" - but two hours later, his guy tried to bite me.

I'm just guessing here at the guy's motivation, but (I'm also guessing that Ron the Candidate didn't do anything to make him back off), because apparently, my decision to end the debate offended Andre' too.  And, because he really didn't like what I said to him, he started attacking my wife online.   

Shades of the far Left - attack the family.

Then he started going to dozens of Facebook conservative political discussion groups, attacking me directly and trying to hurt my business.

Shades of A&E and GLAAD.

As I said, I tried to get to Candidate Ron Q. Quilang to call off his dog (we traded IM messages on Facebook), but clearly, whatever he did was ineffectual, because he did nothing (nothing that worked) to stop his attack dog.

If this is the kind of Republican he is (not stopping his attack-dog PR/publicity guy from attacking family members while trying to ruin the reputation and business of a fellow Conservative Republican), then you need to think long and hard about voting for this guy.

If he can't or won't control his people, how will he represent us?

I would not have said anything about this (Reagan's 11th commandment) if Andre' had only attacked me.  But he attacked my wife.  That is out-of-bounds. It is harassment.  It is NOT a Conservative value.

Think very long and very hard before supporting Ron Q. Quilang.