So, today, I guess I am the lucky bastard not SOB. Mr Scherer, the better candidate for your U.S. Congress, sent me some really fun and interesting comments about my post yesterday. I approved and posted them but I couldn’t just hope people found them buried in the comments section of my blog so I am providing them compiled and completely unedited (typos included) for your reading at the end.
I appreciate the fact that he took time to respond to my questions about his resume and background. I’m sure after you read his comments you’ll feel SO much more comfortable. I know for me it was very uh, er, helpful.
His first complaint is that I’ve infringed on his copyright by using the banner from his blog. Fair enough. While I don’t know for sure I’ll concede the point. I’ll admit that it was a little frustrating trying to find an actual picture of the man on the Internet to use. You would think a candidate would have had some coverage along the way? For that I’ll apologize and I've taken it down. I hope Mr. Scherer will accept my apology. I try to admit if I've made a mistake.
To begin, well, I love people who jump to absolutes like because I commented on what he writes as his resume and ask questions about it (like the Democratic candidate wouldn’t??) that I presume to be an expert on him and everything. For Mr.Scherer if I question or comment on something = being an expert on it.
I love how he takes me to task for writing by blog under a pen name but that he seems to think it is okay for JOCO SOB because "SOB might actually helo this metro area reduce violence by rasing awareness". Writing anonymously is an important tradition in American political discourse. The Federalist Papers were written under the name “Publius” and rebutted under the name “The Federal Farmer”. Of course I’m not nearly as important as those guys but the 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
“Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing
dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority
views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It
thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First
Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . .
at the hand of an intolerant society.”
Further, Mr. Scherer defends hiding the identity of Jane Doe as an “important campaign team member” because she works for the feds and he states that working on a campaign is a violation of the law in her position (maybe referring to the Hatch Act). It seems in some federal positions it is permitted and in others it isn't. If she is permitted then she doesn't need to be a Jane Doe. If she isn't permitted then she is breaking the law and Mr Scherer is a party to that. If that is the case do we really want somebody who violates our laws, or allows their people to violate the law representing us in Washington? I guess the laws don't apply to him. Oh, wait, maybe that does make him ready to be our Congressman. At a minimum if he really cared about her would he allow her to put her career in jeopardy for his political gain? Sad. If he is dismissive of this law which laws would he not care about in the future? At any rate, I have my own reasons, mostly for creative freedom, that I chose to write under the pen name Jocoeveryman. I guess it is okay for some to be anonymous and not others.
Mr. Scherer makes defense of his using JOCO SOB’s blog as a mode for getting information out (I guess as opposed to mine??)by complimenting the quality of SOB’s blog. Sir, I concur. SOB has a quite excellent blog and I’ve written on several occasions I believe he is Johnson County’s best blogger, hands down and enjoys a huge readership. I’m happy for him not jealous. SOB and I have different goals for our blogs. I try, not always successfully, to keep the focus of my blog on Johnson County or at least write from a Johnson County perspective. I’m glad he “ges your respect”. He deserves it. What I meant by him being lucky to get that email is lucky like being the first reporter to a car wreck. It was meant as sarcasm. I'll admit perhaps poorly written but intended as sarcasm none the less.
I appreciate Mr. Scherer addressing some of the “errors” in my post. I’m glad he clarified his work experience and named some of the Fortune 50 companies for which he provided “consulting”. I can’t figure out why he wouldn’t have just named them in his blog to begin with since he seems to go and on and on about everything else at incredible length. Funny, how so many old, forcefully, er, I mean, semi retired white guys run around calling themselves consultants. Just an observation I've noticed. I'm sure Mr. Scherer's work will be completely examined if he is the Republican nominee and it will turn out he did important and meaningful work for those Fortune 50 companies.
I love how Mr. Scherer expects me to know all this stuff about his personal life. I think they were fair questions and certainly questions that would be asked if he were nominated. His angry responses to a blogger are so telling to how he would respond under pressure. Poorly. All I can say about law school and the suit against Merck as well as Harvard and the VA is it seems to this voter like such a victim’s mentality. Winners find ways past obstacles. I love the quote by Randy Pausch when he said,
“Brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep
us out. The brick walls are there to show how badly we want something. Because the brick walls are there to stop the people who don’t want something badly enough. They are there to keep out the other people.”
Finally, crap, I hate these really long posts because I know what Mr. Scherer still has to learn is that nobody reads them when they are too long. Again, sorry. Mr Scherer, I would welcome you to provide any comment you want on my rants either by comment on the blog or by sending me an email. Yes, they are rants. Rants are appropriate for a blogger, not for a person who wants to be my Congressman. The anger and rage is apparent in his writing.
Sir, I said it before and I’ll say it again. You seem to be well intentioned, a true conservative, a patriot, and a man who honorably served our country. I respect that. You are also, in my opinion, out of your league running for Congress. It is just my opinion but that is what I do on my blog....offer opinions. The couple dozen people who read this blog can read your words and decide for themselves.
Now, for the words of Thomas Scherer in response to yesterday's post:
Sir, you are infringing on my copyrighted web site.Please provide me where I
gave you permission to take my property (web site graphics, photo) and why that
taking is not a violation of federal/state law allowing me to seek relief/remedy
for that infringement?Tom Scherer, the better candidate for your U.S.
Congress,
Finally sir, since you appear to be an expert
knowing more about me, than I do, why do you hide and not give your real name or
contact information?Are you afraid to reveal your identity? In regard to your
blog, I have read it. I could have sent you a post, but hardly anyone reads your
blog because it not worth reading.Whereas I have respect for the dark satire on
JOCOB's site related to his posts on making others aware of violence in the
metro area. By making us aware, SOB might actually helo this metro area reduce
violence by rasing awareness. He ges my respect. You do
not.
Now let me address some of your errors. I never
stated I worked as a consultant for one Fortune 50 Company. I worked for
several. GE, Sprint, American Airlines for starters. Does that help?Second, Jane
Doe is working for the federal government. Because of that position, she cannot
be named because of her job position which prevents them from being associated
with any political campaign. Since you are an expert on everything, you should
know that. Third, as you correctly note, I completed one year of law school.
While at law school, I was given a prescribed medication (statin) that was done
in error. I almost died from it. Hence, why I filed suit against Merck and got
judicial review by the United States Supreme Court in 2007. I am sure you knew
that also since you are such an expert on everything. I was invited by Harvard
to attend Harvard in 2006. The VA refused to pay for my attending Harvard,
despite me being eligble under Chapter 31 of Title 38. I am sure you aware of
that also.Finally, since you are wiser than all of us, when are filing for
United States Congress?
Thanks for your opinion. If you specific
answers, you can always call me. Or I if you give your contact info, I can
address some of your own rants and speculation. My number is 403 8584. Since you
are a fan now, call me.Tom Scherer
Posts
