Not Cease from Exploration

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Message from Kevin Haggerty

I received a message from Kevin Haggerty stating his opinion that I slighted his campaign effort with THIS POSTING. Basically it boils down to my assertion that Ken Smith won the primary vote because the anti-incumbent vote was split. Mr Haggerty is just as free to disagree with my assertion as I was in making it in the first place.

In any event, I've pasted my formal response to Mr Haggerty below.

***********************

Kevin,

I think my point was factually correct...you did split the vote (although the "thank you note" part was a bit snarky). Put another way, had it been you against Smith, you probably would have won. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm reasonably sure that would have been the case.

I also think you are being selective in what you cite. If you read an earlier post, you will see that I complemented you on how hard you were working. I specifically said...

"I give the guy credit for working it, that's for sure. He was running and sweating like Rocky. All things considered, it wasn't a negative impression."

Another point: I wasn't covering any campaign. That's not what I do. I probably wrote maybe three or four postings...at most...about your specific race, and not in a single instance have I ever claimed to be offering anything other than my opinion about things. With all due respect, the operative word there was "opinion". This includes, by the way, the tons of opinions about how Ken Smith deserved to be removed from office. If anything, for that kind of "coverage" you should be thanking me. This is the difference between what a blogger does and what a journalist does. I am the former, and have never once claimed to be the latter.

Kevin, I have nothing but respect for how hard you worked. That's just as much on-line as the other posting you cited. I don't though need to be on a campaign trail to know how difficult it is to run for office and be subject to opinions such as mine. That, however, goes with the territory.

To summarize: I stand behind the opinion about your splitting the vote (that which you remembered), just as I also stand behind the opinion about how hard you were working (that which you forgot). Mostly though I stand behind my right to comment as I see fit.

Regards,
- Steve

6 comments:

JD Curtis said...

I never saw such an echo chamber in my life. For all the writing that you do, you could at least afford to leave a comment at my blog de vez y cuando.

Tom Borthwick said...

How did you enjoy your first Haggerty exchange?

If he doesn't agree with you, he takes offense.

I'm rather glad we are no longer on speaking terms. It gave me a headache.

Stephen Albert said...

JD...with all due respect, you are not giving me much to comment on. For example, the whole "Obama Social Security Number thing" falls into the wacky conspiracy theory bucket for me, where it will reside with thing such as...

...George W. Bush has the WTC blown up
...the Jews control the media
...Fluoridated drinking water is a Communist conspiracy

...and I already feel like I've wasted time.

If you want to believe that the President isn't a US citizen, then there is nothing I can do about that, so I'm not going to try.

For the record though, I do read all of your postings.

Stephen Albert said...

Tom...I actually received a very responsible, rational response from Kevin. Done deal as far as I am concerned.

Anonymous said...

You would think that for how many times you've said "I write for me and no one else", JD would get it.

Trying to have an adult coveration on his topics is like banging your head against the wall. Can't believe there might be two ways to look at something. Black and white. And never wrong. For someone always right, start predicting me powerball numbers man!

Tom Borthwick said...

Wow, I wish I'd gotten a rational e-mail from him. I wonder what that's like.