Re: These people are bastards but...

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's a question that was just posted which the campaign should definitely answer. Let me know if you'd like me to write answers to some of these.

As you may or may not know, there have been several postings on Reddit concerning Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors as a safe form of nuclear energy and a viable form of lessening dependency on foreign oil. My questions are: Is Dr. LeGrow aware of this technology? If so, what is his stance on research/funding?

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/a872w/liquidfluoridethoriumreactorlikemeyoure/

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Evan Feinman <efeinman@gmail.com> wrote:

Excellent. I will make sure to vote for it and circulate it among my lists

-- Sent from my Palm Pixi

On Oct 11, 2010 4:44 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's the link to the reddit post wherein users can ask questions, which Wynne or ourselves can answer in a future post (preferably sometime this week). It's already gotten enough votes in a short enough span of time to get it up near the top of the IAMA (I am a..) subreddit, which means that it will appear on the main reddit front page and thus visible to perhaps a hundred thousand people, a majority of whom are Democrat-leaning and highly secular.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Antonio M. Elias <Antonio@legrowforuscongress.com> wrote:

You guys provide me the content and I will make it happen on the website.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Evan Feinman <efeinman@gmail.com> wrote:

Barrett,

This looks good. We'll send this around tomorrow (after we're SURE that Randy didn't show up at the event tonight).

Antonio, we're ready to post questions (and our answers) to the website daily, right?

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's an altered version:

A few days back, The Tidewater News ran an editorial that we at the Wynne LeGrow campaign found to be of great interest. After first noting that the papers long-beloved incumbent Randy Forbes is a swell and honest guy, the editors go on to raise a minor but noteworthy concern regarding a mysterious decision on Forbes part, made all the more mysterious by the congressmans perceived virtues:

Curiously, though, Forbes was unresponsive to an invitation by the Virginia Peninsula League of Women Voters to take on LeGrow in a debate. Hes also been unresponsive to our newspapers attempt to find out why he shunned the debate invitation. Thats unusual for Forbes, a straight-up guy whose re-election bids we have endorsed over the years.

We would respectfully submit that a longtime politician who refuses to debate his opponent and who ignores questions submitted to him by a friendly newspaper is probably not a straight-up guy at all, but rather a crooked one who would prefer that the voters not have a chance to compare their candidates side-by-side lest they conclude that its time to send a better, more competent representative to Washington. If Forbes wanted the voters to be better-informed on how his policies differ from his opponent, he would happily agree to a debate. The fact that he refused not only to take part in such a debate but also to explain this unusual decision to his supporters among public and press alike should alarm anyone who believes that a representative should be answerable to his constituents. Forbes disregard for those who have elected him is itself an answer; he wants your vote, not your input.

However much the people and press might like Forbes to face LeGrow for a frank discussion about how to bring jobs back to Virginia, reduce the budget deficit, and ensure that the U.S. stays competitive amid a fast-changing international landscape, such a debate will almost certainly not come to pass. Luckily, we have come up with a partial solution, one which we think will be even more informative to the voters than a debate would have been.

Tomorrow, the LeGrow campaign will ask Forbes a question. This question will appear on our website, LeGrowForUSCongress.com, and will likewise be sent to every media outlet catering to the 4th district, as well as to the Forbes campaign itself. The day after tomorrow, we will ask another question, which will again appear on our website and again be sent to all of the parties noted above. The day after that, we will do the same thing. Likewise for the day after that one. We will, in fact, be asking a question each day, right up until the eve of the election next month.

The wonderful part of this plan is that it doesnt require Forbes to participate or to do anything at all. If he or his campaign would like to answer any or all of these questions, they may do so. In the more likely event that they ignore these questions lest they accidentally help to inform the voters and thus break with Forbes campaign policy, we will happily assist in getting the word out that they would prefer not to answer.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I can reduce the attack on Tidewater if you think there's a chance they might turn on Forbes; from the way the editorial is written, I'd assumed that there was pretty much no way they'd abandon Forbes for an atheist Democrat, but then I know nothing about the paper. I'll rewrite now and send you another version in a few minutes.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Evan Feinman <efeinman@gmail.com> wrote:
Barrett,

I like it, and it's definitely a forward leaning document. I am a bit concerned about the shot at the tidewater news in the third paragraph. They're already moving toward being angry at Randy for snubbing their reporter along with the LWV. No sense calling them a partisan rag in something we distribute to all of their colleagues - even though they are being pretty transparent.

Evan

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys-

Here's the press release. As I said earlier, I think this is the absolute best move we can make at this point; it brings widespread attention and focus to Randy's cowardice and his implied acknowledgment that a debate would hurt him, and also creates interest in the questions we'll be asking him, which themselves will damage Randy further. Let me know what you think.

***

Recently, The Tidewater News ran an editorial that we at the Wynne LeGrow campaign found to be of great interest. After first noting that the papers long-beloved incumbent Randy Forbes is a swell and honest guy, the editors go on to raise a minor but noteworthy concern regarding a mysterious decision on Forbes part, made all the more mysterious by the congressmans perceived virtues.

Curiously, though, Forbes was unresponsive to an invitation by the Virginia Peninsula League of Women Voters to take on LeGrow in a debate. Hes also been unresponsive to our newspapers attempt to find out why he shunned the debate invitation. Thats unusual for Forbes, a straight-up guy whose re-election bids we have endorsed over the years.

It does not seem to occur to the editors that a politician who refuses to debate his opponent and ignores questions submitted by a friendly newspaper is probably not a straight-up guy so much as he is a crooked one. Rather than wondering aloud why Forbes is hiding not only from his opponent but also from his own supporters in the public and the media, the editors of Tidewater News should pretend for a moment that Forbes is a Democrat and LeGorw a Republican, in which case they would have no difficulty in determining that Forbes is a dishonest political hack who does not want the voters to learn too much about how his policies differ from those of his opponent.

However much the people and press might like Forbes to face LeGrow for a frank discussion about how to bring jobs back to Virginia, reduce the budget deficit, and ensure that the U.S. stays competitive amid a fast-changing international landscape, such a debate will almost certainly not come to pass. Luckily, we have come up with a partial solution, one which we think will be even more informative to the voters than a debate would have been.

Tomorrow, the LeGrow campaign will ask Forbes a question. This question will appear on our website, LeGrowForUSCongress.com, and will likewise be sent to every media outlet catering to the 4th district, as well as to the Forbes campaign itself. The day after tomorrow, we will ask another question, which will again appear on our website and again be sent to all of the parties noted above. The day after that, we will do the same thing. Likewise for the day after that one. We will, in fact, be asking a question each day up until the eve of the election next month.

The wonderful part of this plan is that it doesnt require Forbes to participate or do anything at all. If he or his campaign would like to answer any or all of these questions, they may do so. In the more likely event that they would prefer to ignore these questions lest accidentally help to inform the voters and thus break with Forbes campaign policy... well, thats fine, too.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll forward this to him and see what he can do regarding a video. Meanwhile, I'll write up the press release we talked about announcing that, since Forbes can't be bothered to debate, we'll make it easy on him by asking him a question each day that he can answer - or ignore - at his convenience.

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Antonio M. Elias <Antonio@legrowforuscongress.com> wrote:

It seems a local paper has gone beyond our press release and actually called on Forbes to debate themselves. They do it in an amazing way - they trash us and all but endorse Forbes while they're doing it but...

http://www.tidewaternews.com/2010/10/09/forbes-should-welcome-debate/

At least we're not alone in thinking the lack of debate is ridiculous. Anything else we can do with this? Barrett - you mentioned your friends that are starting up a campaign consulting firm - if they do videos perhaps they could put together a bit for us dramatically showing news headlines of "Forbes won't debate" with a voice over or something. If you know what I'm talking about...

-AE

--
Antonio M. Elias
Campaign Manager
LeGrow for Congress
www.legrowforuscongress.com
o.: 434.348.1077
c.: 571.274.9840

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Evan Feinman
Deputy Campaign Manager/Field Director
Wynne LeGrow for Congress
www.legrowforuscongress.com
434-509-8522

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Evan Feinman
Deputy Campaign Manager/Field Director
Wynne LeGrow for Congress
www.legrowforuscongress.com
434-509-8522

--
Antonio M. Elias
Campaign Manager
LeGrow for Congress
www.legrowforuscongress.com
o.: 434.348.1077
c.: 571.274.9840

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302