Message to O'Rourke's Army - When you find yourself in a hole...

Let me help you guys out since I'd like people to stop clicking on the ad Reyes put out and in turn deciding not to vote for O'Rourke.  Your ignorant argument against the "legalize drugs" claim is only hurting your candidate at this point, not to mention making you look like an idiot.

And... If you think I don't like O'Rourke, then you might be confused by my mom having hosted a fundraiser for him in October.

Since none of you have really done anything professionally in the political realm or for mass public consumption, I'll help you out with a little thing we call "perception" and how it's reality. 

In your tiny little minds you think that the people who would be disturbed by the claim that "O'Rourke wants to legalize drugs" think that marijuana is less of a drug than meth, cocaine or heroin.  That's because you're a pot user and you tend to classify drugs. You think marijuana is not as bad as the other drugs. These people that would take offense to O'Rourke's stance don't classify drugs.  They're all bad as they are concerned.  Marijuana is as bad as cocaine and heroin. They see no difference.  Legalizing just one of them is like legalizing them all. 

If you want to play semantics - we can.  If someone wanted to say that O'Rourke was for legalizing every single outlawed drug, they'd have to put a qualifier in their statement.  It would have to read "O'Rourke wants to legalize ALL drugs."  Now that's a lot different than "O'Rourke wants to legalize drugs," isn't it? It is.  That would be hard for Reyes to defend if he said that, right?  Yes, it would be hard.  Mainly because we know that not to be true. 

Do you see the difference there? Don't feel stupid - you're not paid to think about these things, I am.

Here's another good example for you:

Say for instance that Billy Bob Roberts hit his wife and was arrested for domestic battery.  It was the only time he'd hit a member of the opposite sex in his entire life.  And let's say Billy Bob Roberts decides to run for office.  How do you think his opponent is going to approach that assault in their ad?  I bet they'd say "Bill Bob Roberts physically abuses women."  Correct?  Yes and no.  Both answers are right. Here's how.

The statement in this case is incorrect because Billy Bob Roberts doesn't abuse "women," he abused a single solitary woman - his wife.  It's a game of semantics and the use of a plural noun makes the entire statement incorrect.  And Marty Schladen could do an entire article on how Billy Bob Roberts' opponent couldn't back up their claims made in that campaign ad based on semantics (much like you guys are doing now). 

However, the statement is also correct.  It does not matter to voters how many women Billy Bob Roberts hit, or the fact that it was just his wife that one time.  People who would be upset at the fact that Billy Bob Roberts hit a woman don't really care about the number of women involved or how they are related to him.  They just know it's bad and they don't like him for it.  End of story.

Do you think it would have been any better if the ad said "O'Rourke wants to legalize marijuana?" Do you think anyone in the public (other than you) would really differentiate marijuana from all the other drugs?  They don't.  Just because you classify drugs, doesn't mean they do.  Stop projecting.  Start thinking. 

Had you focus-grouped a commercial saying O'Rourke wants to legalize marijuana, you'd find out in your exit interviews that people would claim they heard O'Rourke wanted to legalize drugs.  People don't separate the two like pot users do. 

The more you fill my comments section with arguments of semantics, the more you drive into people's head that O'Rourke wants to legalize drugs.  You don't get to win on a technicality here.  There is no consolation prize either.

You have to admit that O'Rourke's stance on the legalization of marijuana (a drug) isn't a popular one with the conservative voters of El Paso.  Yes, I'm calling the democrats in El Paso "conservative." And that's because they are.  Trying to argue away his very public stance on a very controversial issue with semantics isn't going to help him. In fact, it continually breathes life back into an issue you really - we really - need to disappear.

Please accept that I'm right and you're wrong and move on with your life.  Go bitch at Marty Schladen for writing such an idiotic article that brought so much more attention to something voters really don't like.  Had Schladen had one ounce of brains he would have left the ad alone and it would have been lost to time.  Anybody not watching the Oscars, which was 99 percent of El Paso, would have never known it existed. Instead, Schladen gets involved to try and protect his guy (O'Rourke) and now all of you are running around like morons slapping yourself in the face with baseball bats and the whole world is taking note. 

Learn to shut up when you're wrong because the louder you yell about how right you are, the more people are going to notice that you're not only wrong, but delusional on top of it.  Right now you sound like you're trying to defend Billy Bob Robert's wife beating based on the plurality of a noun.  And I don't think you want that.

Do you know how many people emailed me here in Washington about O'Rourke after Schladen's article?  Dozens.  Dozens of people who are now not going to help him.  Way to go.  Somebody tell Schladen that he's not a kingmaker and his help isn't needed. 

Comments

[Mike]

Sunday's broadside wasn't the Reyes campaign's first attack on O'Rourke over the legalization issue. When Reyes announced he had filed for re-election, Chuy Reyes, his brother and campaign manager, made a Facebook post about O'Rourke.

"We are going to kick some drug pushing, drunk driving, burglarizing (butt)," it said.

I guess that would include Willie Gandara, a notable Reyes supporter.

Oh, and David - you should learn about something called "context". As has been pointed out to you, marijuana is one drug among many. Saying he wants to "legalize drugs", while maybe in keeping with common speak, is a bit misleading. He has advocated for legalizing (or decriminalizing) pot only.

Why couldn't Reyes have just said "O'Rourke is for the legalization of marijuana."?

Context becomes important here, because use oif the plural -"drugs"- implies a whole lot more than just marijuana.

And let's be honest here - can you do that? - pot is a heck of a lot safer than alcohol, which at one time was also against the law.

Supposing it was legalized during your lifetime, I have the feeling that you'd eventually come to accept its new status. You do have a few (more than a few if stories are true) beers now and again, do you not?

The problem with you is that you're practiced in the art of apologia for authority.

[As Always, J....]

Marty Farty... haha!

[choco]

I guess having a discussion about legalizing will lead to me getting a burger, or whatever else DK says something will lead to. Sheesh. Why so mad, bro?

[David K]

Mike,

My entire post was about "context" - I guess you didnt' read it.

You're still trying to argue semantics, only you're taking a slightly different approach than previous commenters - still no good argument from your side.

I'm not debating the legalization issue here at all. What you're trying to do subvert the topic at hand because you and you're buddies lost the point.

Besides, my thoughts on legalization are lot different than you may think and you probably aren't prepared to have a broad discussion about eliminating the FDA as a consequence of legalization. We can save that for another time.

Choco -

Stop smoking and commenting - you make zero sense and your use of the Bill O'Rielly meme is incorrect. Nice try, though.

[stay thirsty my friends, its legal]

there is alot of different types of pot. hash not to mention that sprinkled with angel dust. David is right. its a semantics. making an issue of it makes it worse if you are a Beto fan. if i said Beto smokes does it mean i have to explain what he smokes in detail ? Beto's mom allegedly laundered money. do i have to explain how she did it ? laundering can cover many issues.

[As Always, J....]

stay thirst, no so allegedly [laundered money], SHE did not. *Her* business did, but since contrary to what Mitt Romeney says, businesses are not people and can't talk, it's owner had to admit guilt and pay her fine just like the big banks that got caught laundering millions.

[stay thirsty my friends, it legal]

she is the one who had to plea and for someone who worked on the banking board of the federal reserve in dallas i find it hard to believe she didnt know what was going on at her business. its her business and "she" had to plea and got a slap on the wrist. the dope was in one of willie's warehouses, but i guess he didnt know about it either.

http://dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2002/ar02bod.cfm

[Paco Goldberg]

Question, if "we" legalize mj, has anyone thought of how the cartels will react? Legalizing mj is supposed to 1.) provide a new tax revenue stream 2.) reduce drug-related gang violence, 3) reduce the product unit/cost, and 4.) provide some sort of quality assurance/ regulation. And the cartels are going to react positively to all this? Lowering the price? Allowing commercial competition? Keeping regular business records and paying taxes? Have "they" really thought this through?

[Even Fakier Norma Chavez]

According to my MANY sources, in a desperate attempt, Baytoe O'Rasta is going to roll out this new campaign slogan:'Just Say Yes!' What that ignorant fool doesn't realize is that if it weren't for Rep. Reyes, this town would be full of...NOTHING!!!