Comments on: Drudging Up Drama

By: Drudging Up Drama

Drudging Up Drama — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:05:06 +0000

[...] Correction: I misread Rob’s post, the calls were not going into her district. The call in question was apparently to John Patterson’s phone in Springfield. [...]

By: Shaun Dakin

Shaun Dakin — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:13:10 +0000

Hi,

This robo is probably from Freedom’s Watch. There was chatter last Friday about this in the Politico. See my blog for the story.

blog.StopPoliticalCalls.org

Shaun Dakin
CEO and Founder
The National Political Do Not Contact Registry
StopPoliticalCalls.org

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:13:58 +0000

Agreed. This is why the blogosphere is a wonderful place!

By: Rob_N

Rob_N — Wed, 28 May 2008 16:04:41 +0000

I see… I suppose I did raise some “issues” in the post, though the main focus was on the bizarre fact that a robocall targeting Bean of the 8th went into Springfield a few hundred miles away, on the edge of Ray LaHood’s 18th district.

(Maybe someone at the robocall corp accidentally typed in “18″ instead of “8″ on the database targeting supermajumbocomputer.)

As for “hypersensitivity” … if no one calls out fibbers on their fibs the fibs stand alone and may come to be accepted as “common knowledge” or even somehow “true” (or, more accurately, “truthy”).

That may sound altruistic, but if we’re supposed to have a two(+) party system in this country, we need both sides (and more) pointing this stuff out.

Just sayin’.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:17:05 +0000

Rob, sorry if “up in arms” was an aggressive interpretation of your post. But even raising the issue to me wreaks of hypersensitivity.

On a side note, I think there SHOULD be a web site where all Robocalls are posted and can be scrutinized. Maybe we should set something like that up huh?

By: Rob_N

Rob_N — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:14:25 +0000

And to reiterate, I don’t know why Beasley calls this a “wonderful post” given that the entire premise of the post is based on Mike’s misreading of my post.

The phone call didn’t necessarily “come from” a Springfield area code.

The phone call about the 8th district was made *to* a Springfield area code phone… which makes no sense given where the 8th district actually is in Illinois.

By: Rob_N

Rob_N — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:08:05 +0000

Beasley,

Bean’s legislation doesn’t ban robocalls.

Rather, it requires full disclosure (at the beginning of the call and on the Caller ID screen) of who is calling and also sets limits on acceptable times for calling (ie, not when the kids are in bed…).

Have you read the legislation?

By: Beasleysbrother2

Beasleysbrother2 — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:01:13 +0000

Wonderful post again! Robocalls are annoying, and happen alot. How else can message be brought out to those who are disinfranchised. If we ban it, aren’t we banning free speech? If you hate it, do what I do, hang up.

By: Rob_N

Rob_N — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:21:55 +0000

Did you read the Illinois Reason post? “Up in arms”?

I think you need to clean your glasses Mike.

All I wrote was that the Daily Herald’s John Patterson got a call targeting Cong. Bean and that if Melissa Bean’s robocall legislation was a law instead of a bill, Mr. Patterson would know who was ringing.

I also noted the fallacy inherent in the call itself as well as the recent fits of feigned rage from Bean’s con opponents over her robocall proposal. Both are points Mr. Patterson ignored in his brief post.

PS - As I understand it, the phone call actually went to Mr. Patterson’s bureau office in Springfield (not “into Melissa Bean’s district” as you’ve written). Hence his surprise, and my post regarding his surprise, since her 8th district is nowhere near Springfield — http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/114