Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Jeremy Portzer <jeremyp AT pobox.com>]

So, this morning on the radio I heard an attack ad against Richard
Burr.  (Presumably it was sponsored by Bowles, but I don't know for
certain.)  The ad was criticizing Burr's record on breast cancer
research; it was narrated by a breast cancer survivor and claimed that
Burr had voted against any and all funding for such research.  Ok, fine,
seems like a valid point.

But what really got me is at the end of the ad, the narrator said
something along the lines of "vote against Burr; don't elect a candidate
controlled by special interests."

Now, if you are a supporter of breast cancer research and making your
sole decision to vote based on which candidate would further that goal,
ISN'T THAT A SPECIAL INTEREST ?!?!

How/why did the author of this ad have the gall to spend the whole spot
talking about their one goal -- not electing someone who would not
further their particular interest -- and then claim that the candidate
*is* beholden to special interests.  WHAT?!

And if they were trying to insinuate that Burr's stance *against* cancer
research was due to a "special interest" -- what interest is that?  I
haven't ever heard of a "Citizens for Breast Cancer" anywhere!

Craziness.  The ad was making a very good point with me until I heard
this idiotic part.

Jeremy

-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jeremy Portzer        jeremyp AT pobox.com      trilug.org/~jeremy     |
| GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F  E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part