Scot C. Trypal
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 708
Our President wants my family to hang his photo in our home, so says a letter I just received.
The photo is nice. It shows the handsome first couple in a comfortable pose, presumably outside their Crawford Texas Ranch.
Reading the accompanying letter, it seems it was sent by our local “Chairman” (of what it’s not clear); let’s call him John. John says “it’s very important” to him to know we received this photo and that it “is suitable for framing and display”. He wants me to write back and assure him of the photo’s condition and relieve his concerns.
He’s already written our letter! We just have to send it. It says “Thank you for sending the personalized photograph... I will display it proudly...”
John goes on to explain how our photograph of the President is “complete with a special, personal inscription to you”. Sure enough, right on the photo, the president addresses me, [fancy script font]“Mr. Trypal, thank you for your early commitment and dedication as a Charter Member of the campaign… Grassroots leaders like you are the key to building a winning team.” [/fancy script font] It’s then “signed” by the president and first lady.
I’m a grassroots leader.
As an addition, John also suggests we could send along “whatever you can afford” in donation, and yep, 3/4th of our “thank you letter”, the one meant to assure John of the photo’s quality, is set up for taking in funds, anything from Discover Card to personal check. He says he’s asking me to continue my support. Now this is odd, as, though I’ve voted for Republicans multiple times, I’ve never registered as one or donated to the Republican Party.
Anyway, John says, “I would be thrilled to tell the President you are with us”. That’s something. He’s planning on talking to the President of the United State about me, if I send this thank you letter back.
The rest of the letter is pretty standard:
--The “liberal national media” won’t let the President get his message out. “It’s up to us”, it says.
--The “currency trader” George Soros is a slanderous Democrat. (Is that like a moneychanger? Meant to sway Christian folks?).
--The Democrats are “well funded” and that the Republicans need my help to beat the Power of Soros and get Bush to his fund raising goal. It’s never said directly but you get the sense that, financially, President Bush is at a disadvantage.
--The Democratic “rhetoric has amounted to nothing more than hate speech”.
Now all that may be true or not; that’s not the issue I’m taking. It’s the less than honest manipulation that bugs me. It has them all: use of reciprocity, appeals to consistency, assumed familiarity, personal association with the powerful...
Besides what‘s above, consider this one: The letter starts “Dear Mr. Trypal”, but it seems the black typed “Mr. Trypal” has been crossed out with blue pen and replaced by a handwritten “Scot”. It’s as though Chairman John saw this letter going out and thought, “How can we be so formal to such a friend of the Republican party. I know Scot! I’ll just cross out his last name and write in his first.”
But, on closer inspection, that “handwritten” strikethrough and first name is clearly done by a printer; you can easily see the characteristic imperfections. That’s just wrong (not to mentions tacky).
------------------
I don’t want to make this a Left vs. Right thing, as I’d bet the Kerry campaign has done or will do something similar, and I’m not wild about either party. But, seeing as this forum gathers some principled skeptics, I wonder what you’d think the appropriate reaction to something like this would be.
For me it’s an immediate turn off. It strikes me as dishonest and I’d not give money under these circumstances. I do contribute to political causes, but, for this same reason, I’ve turned down pleas for cash with a curt explanation, even when I strongly supported the cause.
But is that being obstinate, and politically unrealistic (maybe even suicidal)? Is it just a necessity, as it is in buying a used car, to put up with this sort of thing when selecting a president? Do political organizations simply need this sort of manipulation to survive? Or, is this indicative of what’s wrong with politics and someone should be making a fuss?
P.S. What’s funny is that I got this letter the day after I got a “prayer rug” in the mail (a piece of paper with a poorly rendered Jesus face printed on it). That letter tells me to kneel and pray on the "rug". Then I must send it back (they claim they need to reuse it). All sorts of miracles are promised. Oh, and a donation wouldn’t hurt either... It’s depressingly similar.
The photo is nice. It shows the handsome first couple in a comfortable pose, presumably outside their Crawford Texas Ranch.
Reading the accompanying letter, it seems it was sent by our local “Chairman” (of what it’s not clear); let’s call him John. John says “it’s very important” to him to know we received this photo and that it “is suitable for framing and display”. He wants me to write back and assure him of the photo’s condition and relieve his concerns.
He’s already written our letter! We just have to send it. It says “Thank you for sending the personalized photograph... I will display it proudly...”
John goes on to explain how our photograph of the President is “complete with a special, personal inscription to you”. Sure enough, right on the photo, the president addresses me, [fancy script font]“Mr. Trypal, thank you for your early commitment and dedication as a Charter Member of the campaign… Grassroots leaders like you are the key to building a winning team.” [/fancy script font] It’s then “signed” by the president and first lady.
I’m a grassroots leader.
As an addition, John also suggests we could send along “whatever you can afford” in donation, and yep, 3/4th of our “thank you letter”, the one meant to assure John of the photo’s quality, is set up for taking in funds, anything from Discover Card to personal check. He says he’s asking me to continue my support. Now this is odd, as, though I’ve voted for Republicans multiple times, I’ve never registered as one or donated to the Republican Party.
Anyway, John says, “I would be thrilled to tell the President you are with us”. That’s something. He’s planning on talking to the President of the United State about me, if I send this thank you letter back.
The rest of the letter is pretty standard:
--The “liberal national media” won’t let the President get his message out. “It’s up to us”, it says.
--The “currency trader” George Soros is a slanderous Democrat. (Is that like a moneychanger? Meant to sway Christian folks?).
--The Democrats are “well funded” and that the Republicans need my help to beat the Power of Soros and get Bush to his fund raising goal. It’s never said directly but you get the sense that, financially, President Bush is at a disadvantage.
--The Democratic “rhetoric has amounted to nothing more than hate speech”.
Now all that may be true or not; that’s not the issue I’m taking. It’s the less than honest manipulation that bugs me. It has them all: use of reciprocity, appeals to consistency, assumed familiarity, personal association with the powerful...
Besides what‘s above, consider this one: The letter starts “Dear Mr. Trypal”, but it seems the black typed “Mr. Trypal” has been crossed out with blue pen and replaced by a handwritten “Scot”. It’s as though Chairman John saw this letter going out and thought, “How can we be so formal to such a friend of the Republican party. I know Scot! I’ll just cross out his last name and write in his first.”
But, on closer inspection, that “handwritten” strikethrough and first name is clearly done by a printer; you can easily see the characteristic imperfections. That’s just wrong (not to mentions tacky).
------------------
I don’t want to make this a Left vs. Right thing, as I’d bet the Kerry campaign has done or will do something similar, and I’m not wild about either party. But, seeing as this forum gathers some principled skeptics, I wonder what you’d think the appropriate reaction to something like this would be.
For me it’s an immediate turn off. It strikes me as dishonest and I’d not give money under these circumstances. I do contribute to political causes, but, for this same reason, I’ve turned down pleas for cash with a curt explanation, even when I strongly supported the cause.
But is that being obstinate, and politically unrealistic (maybe even suicidal)? Is it just a necessity, as it is in buying a used car, to put up with this sort of thing when selecting a president? Do political organizations simply need this sort of manipulation to survive? Or, is this indicative of what’s wrong with politics and someone should be making a fuss?
P.S. What’s funny is that I got this letter the day after I got a “prayer rug” in the mail (a piece of paper with a poorly rendered Jesus face printed on it). That letter tells me to kneel and pray on the "rug". Then I must send it back (they claim they need to reuse it). All sorts of miracles are promised. Oh, and a donation wouldn’t hurt either... It’s depressingly similar.