"But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."
I've dealt a lot with mailers requiring dates on them. The first thing I check when mailing based off of a template (especially one sent out infrequently) is that the dates are right this time around. So my natural inclination when reading this is to look at the correct date of August 9, 2011 on a calendar. It's the second Tuesday of August. Given that it's an election, I checked when the second Tuesday of August was 2 years ago in 2009. It fell on the 11th. If this letter did have malicious intent, they did a damn good job of making look like a very plausible clerical error.
Oh, that's really good. Those amateurs on the left should take notes - this is how professionals do this, y'all.
I found another article concerning this issue in which Seaholm actually responds: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/koch-group-mails-suspicious-absentee-ballot-letters-in-wisconsin.phpAs far as we know these mailers were only sent to AFP members. The mailer instructs recipients to fill out the applications immediately, and then fill out the absentee ballot immediately once they receive them. The due date is wrong (Step 4, page 3) as is the day of the week (Step 4, page 2).The obvious dynamic fields (obvious defined as slight variation in font and spacing compared to adjacent words) are "August 2011" "Thursday" and "August 11". SO that's two incorrect fields... if you're an uncircumcised Philistine. Everyone else will use the datepart() function to get that info off of a single date field. If that date field is wrong, both the day of the week and the date will show up incorrectly. And as already mentioned, the incorrect date in question would've been correct had the ballot been due in 2009 instead of 2011.I'm sorry, Pat, but you're really reaching here. This is way too common an error sent to AFP's own members. I think the only people who will buy malicious intent here are those who really, really want to.I'm not saying this was or was not malicious. I know the answer to that as little as anyone at this point. But given such plausibility (which IMHO increases the more I find out about this story) it's just not going to resonate the same way as tax advice on how to claim underage prostitutes.
Post a Comment