Chris on 
Again, I am chasing the brilliant Robert Mentzer, but that is just how it goes sometimes. Really smart people point to something, and then later slower people like myself get a chance to say something about it.
Have we as a culture lost our damn minds? Has the media driven us off the rails in some absurdist play that only leads to us bleeding on our neighbor’s lawn after an argument about the Pro Bowl versus the All Star game? What is the inherent bit of anything that Rep. Sean Duffy did wrong in this video?
Let’s be clear, we all know I am a Democrat. Huge flaming big government, tax and spend, take away your guns (not that part so much), liberal. I am not really any of those things, save for being a Democrat, but I am aware that this is the internet, and you get to say what you like.
I have met Rep. Duffy, and the truth is, I like the guy. As a guy, a dad, and a husband, he seems like a remarkably cool guy. As a politician, he is a good campaigner. As a person voting on public policy, I disagree with him 100 percent of the time. But, he was cool when I met him, and cool goes a long way. Ron Johnson, not cool, by the way. And Herb Kohl sort of weirds me out.
But, are we kidding with the reaction to the video? A man, Rep. Duffy, leaves his office, another man is in the parking lot with a third person and a video camera. Rep. Duffy answers a question, then gets in his car. The man in the parking lot dramatically yells at the man in the car, and the other guy records it, and they put it up on the internet.
And then the voices that oppose Rep. Duffy use this video as some sort of narrative point. Look, my party, the Democratic Party, really needs to reevaluate strategy if they think that this is the kind of thing that will get us the future.
This looks like TMZ and some poor celebrity trapped outside of a parked car or something.
Rep. Duffy did nothing wrong. He left his office, answered a question, and got in his car. Maybe he had a doctor’s appointment, or one of his kids had a swim meet. We have no idea. But, to somehow infer that a man getting in his car is running away from the question is a false inference. The question was asked AFTER Duffy was in the car.
Was this intentional and poor theatrical stage setting? Did this man have any desire to get the question asked and answered? If he did, it is not like it is impossible to make an appointment, and ask Rep. Duffy or his staff.
But, that is not what this guy did. And somehow this all turns into Congressman-Duffy-runs-away-from-a-question.
Now today I see in the Wausau Daily Herald, the nice Vietnam Vet has taken the opportunity to write a column. He wrote in his column, “I wish to respond to the charges that Duffy and his staff have made against me and other constituents who have, time and again, been unable to get answers from him on the big questions facing our economy.”
Now, I am a pretty plugged-in sort of guy, and honestly I have not found a comment from Congressman Duffy about a guy in his parking lot and another guy with a video camera.
Wayne goes on to write, “I would like to know why Duffy believes people should be able to live on $7.25 an hour when he admits to struggling on his $174,000-a-year salary. If you do the math, a minimum wage worker earning $7.25 an hour working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 a year before taxes. What family can survive on that?”
I would respond, Wayne that is not what you asked him. I would also again say, it is entirely possible to make an appointment like an adult, and ask him then.
But, Wayne, that is not what you did. You showed up in a parking lot with a video camera. This is different from making an appointment.
Then Wayne, you or your friend released this video tape to the public.
I get it. You wanted to prove a point, create a narrative, and all of the rest. And you did. You gave activists video to use, now we will see a commercial with Duffy driving away from a Vietnam Vet. I am sure that shows up.
But, what we do not get out of this is an actual discussion of the minimum wage in this country. We do not get a discussion about the economics of raising the minimum wage or the public policy involved in doing that. Let’s just agree that this had nothing to do with learning about the minimum wage.
Because Wayne, if you wanted to ask Congressman Duffy something, you could have made an appointment.
We can all make an appointment.
I thought long and hard about running for the state assembly since the 85th seat is open. I thought this would be a great chance for an independent with no incumbant running.
I stayed awake at night.
A number of reasons lead to my announcement of non-candidacy on the dr rent blog on 3/13, but I think this situation leads to something I was thinking.
I kept asking myself in this world of polarized partisan politics, of we vs them, of your with us or against us… in this world to people really want elected leaders of vision who can look at both sides of an issue and try to establish policy for the greater good?
Or… do people just want targets that they can ridicule, blame and ambush when those leaders snap their fingers and the world does not become a better place magically over night.
We are not currently a culture of “asking what we can do for our country”, we are instead a culture of “who can we blame”
And, when it came right down to it… I didn’t need that. And some of the best minds we have in this country who could make great leaders… well they don’t need that either.
Whether I agree or disagree with any candidate for office, I do admire their willingness to put on that shirt with the HUGE bullseye on it.
Dino,
I saw a much different video than you did. Duffy was walking up to his car. The man asked when his next town hall meeting was going to be. Duffy said he had promised to do one a year and it was over. The man then asked if he was going to support the raise in the minimum wage, Duffy told him to make an appointment. You say Duffy answered a question, but you neglect to say that he purposefully avoided the question about the minimum wage that the man asked. All it took was a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘I’m not sure’. Neither was confrontational, but in the end Duffy pleasantly avoided answering the question.
At no time was the man confrontational. He asked a simple question about a bill pending before the House. Duffy, despite what you claim, did not answer it. He avoided it by saying make an appointment with his office. Wouldn’t it have been much easier (and less controversial) to simply answer the question?
Duffy’s office issued this statement about the incident ““I’m sure Mr. Olson is a nice guy, but CREDO is a liberal San Francisco based Super PAC intent on pulling stunts and nothing more,” Duffy spokesman John Gentzel said” So, according to Duffy’s office, a constituent asking a question – again not in a confrontational manner – is pulling a stunt and nothing more.
Incidentally if it had been me, I would have like to ask Duffy why he promised to not vote to overturn the Health Care Act unless there was a Republican alternative in place. Yet he has done so on several occasions with no alternative in place.
Elected officials, like Duffy,have an obligation to address the concerns of all their constituents. Not just the ones who support them. And not only within the parameters they set up. Who would have voted for Duffy if he campaigned by saying “you will have one opportunity to ask me questions each year, and if you miss that, then you must set up an appointment and come to my office”? Certainly not me, and I doubt if you would.
You ask what Duffy did wrong. Well, a constituent politely asked him a simple question and Duffy blew him off. That’s wrong. And it was not very politically astute, especially with a camera present.
I do not think he blew him off, which is the crux of your response Matthew. You can think what you want.
He was asked a question, he answered it, and got in the car.
I believe he was in the car when the second question was asked.
Furthermore, if this person had a question, he could have made an appointment. It is not a secret phone number, he could have called and asked as many questions as time allowed.
Further, I did not see the press release from Congressman Duffy with that quote. Could you provide a link to it? I cannot find it online anywhere.
Your nit picking about the number of town halls is also transparent. Duffy has office hours all over the district. It is fair to make an appointment, and ask questions.
Is this the same standard you hold all elected officials to? That they be available 24 hours a day, at your beck and call. Because I do not think I can show up to Herb Kohls house, or Tammy Baldwins house, and just wait around to ask a question, and if I did I assume they would tell me to make an appointment.
I think the standard applied in this case is completely fabricated.
“I do not think he blew him off, which is the crux of your response Matthew. You can think what you want”
Well, that’s what I do think. And the video demonstrates that he did just that.
“Furthermore, if this person had a question, he could have made an appointment. It is not a secret phone number, he could have called and asked as many questions as time allowed.”
He was right there. All he had to do was answer “yes”, “No” or “I’m not sure” Why should the constituent be required to do something else? They were both there, face-to-face, the voter and the elected official. Why should he have to do something else to be face-to-face with his representative?
“Further, I did not see the press release from Congressman Duffy with that quote. Could you provide a link to it? I cannot find it online anywhere.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/sean-duffy_n_1681441.html
Now you can read it. Duffy’s office called a constituent asking a question in a civil manner a “stunt”
“Your nit picking about the number of town halls is also transparent”
Get your facts straight, Dino. Duffy, not me, said this to the questioner: “”We said we’re going to do one every year, and we’ve done that.” If you are right and it’s nitpicking, who is the one doing it?
“Is this the same standard you hold all elected officials to?”
Yes.
“That they be available 24 hours a day, at your beck and call. Because I do not think I can show up to Herb Kohls house, or Tammy Baldwins house, and just wait around to ask a question, and if I did I assume they would tell me to make an appointment.”
Nope, and that is not what happened. It was in the middle of the day, let’s assume it was in the middle of Duffy’s work day. It was not in the middle of the night and it was not at his house. Please do not create a set of circumstances that, not only do not apply to this situation, never actually occurred.
“I think the standard applied in this case is completely fabricated.”
What standard, Dino? This thing you fabricated about going to someone’s house in the middle of the night? Or the standard that an elected official should be readily available to answer questions from a constituent, especially when that official is functioning in his position as an elected official? Or shall we assume Duffy was at the WDH answering questions because you think he is a “cool guy”? I doubt it. He was there because he is an elected official. And, as an elected official performing as an official in the middle of the day – let’s call it his work day – he was civilly asked a question by a constituent and he drove away (after he, not me, used the excuse of one townhall meeting a year) without answering.
I am sure, Dino, that you are aware of now arguing in support of denying a constituent a basic answer to a simple question about a bill before the Congress. Please remember that the next time you mount your high horse and issue a screed about openness is government. Or are government officials only required to be open at appointed times?
Thanks Matt, for the link.
Ahh, that is an awesome litmus test in the lat paragraph Matt. I am now branded something because I wrote this, how great.
The reality is still this, Congressman Duffy was getting in his car. Congressman Sean Duffy has office hours. Has an office. And a staff.
If this man wanted an answer to a question, he could have, like I can, made an appointment with Congressman Duffy and asked the question.
But, he did not.
As far as the video being released by Credo, well, Credo is a PAC. As such they have a desired outcome. The spokesperson did not comment on the guy other than to say he is a nice guy.
““I’m sure Mr. Olson is a nice guy, but CREDO is a liberal San Francisco based Super PAC intent on pulling stunts and nothing more,” Duffy spokesman John Gentzel said in an email. “If they’d really like to set up a discussion on the minimum wage, I’d encourage constituents to call our district office, schedule a meeting and come in to discuss their issues. We’d be happy to have a policy discussion.”"
Again, the idea of office hours comes up.
I do not understand where the line disappears for Congressman Duffy. Is it appropriate to approach and elected official with a camera in a parking lot, and ask a question, eh, I do not know.
Is it appropriate to create a narrative out of that video so to paint the elected official in a negative way? Eh, probably not.
How come Duffy and his staff are not allowed to set the number of Town Halls they want to do? Isn’t that really up to their discretion? I do not remember any Obey Town Halls ever, or Herb Kohl when I was in college.
So, if he has 1 or ten, what would be satisfactory? Let us at least be honest about the fact that those who do not support Duffy are going to find fault in everything he does, says, doesn’t do, and doesn’t say. Let us as a culture just own that.
Furthermore, I am not arguing for a less transparent government. That is fun of you to try. But, what I am saying is that this man clearly had an intent to shoot this video in this manner. Release it to this PAC, and then it would become this thing.
If this man Wayne was actually interested in speaking to Congressman Duffy, he picked a rather inopportune place, the parking lot of the local paper, when he could have scheduled an appointment in the office.
“I am sure, Dino, that you are aware of now arguing in support of denying a constituent a basic answer to a simple question about a bill before the Congress. Please remember that the next time you mount your high horse and issue a screed about openness is government. Or are government officials only required to be open at appointed times?”
I am not really doing that. But, that sure is fun to read about me doing that.
I think we can all concede that – given the presence of the camera – Olsen was trying to create a public political moment. But, Dino, can you also concede that “make an appointment” is most likely a pure blow-off from Duffy? It is, in fact, one of the classic political blow-offs, and – whether or not Duffy actually wants to meet with Olsen – it seems pretty obvious that it was meant first and foremost to get rid of someone that Duffy didn’t want to talk to.
As someone who’s had a camera shoved in my face and been asked loaded political questions, I can understand Duffy’s desire to not want to engage with Olsen. Then again, I’m not an elected official and I do think that makes a difference. Either way, your interpretation of “make an appointment” is significantly different from mine.
No Charles, I am not. I am not willing to accept that this was a blow off move.
I am not willing to assume intent on Duffys part in anyway. I think ascribing this as anything more than a guy getting in his car and leaving someplace, while someone shoves a camera in his face, is nothing I am willing to do.
No more than I am willing to say that this is Congressman Duffy having a less than open whatever the hell Matthew thinks I am arguing for all of a sudden.
Congressman Duffy has office hours. If you want to speak to him about an issue at hand, you can make an appointment.
If you want to create a media event for a PAC, then you can show up to a parking lot with a second guy with a camera, film something, and throw it up on the internet.
Either way, I am not a mind reader. I cannot be sure that make an appointment is code for something else.
I do not know, you are a musician, and musicians are in fact connected to the universe in a different way, you might be a mind reader.
Either way, I do not think it is a blow off to be told to make an appointment. Because, I can in fact, make an appointment if I want.
Confronting a guy in a parking lot out of the blue with a camera is in my opinion no different than the zealots at town hall meetings that shouted down and screamed at politicians over the health care law.
There is no place for that garbage.
Nothing he could have done here would have made his opponents happy.
Raising the minimum wage is not a yes or no topic to be solved in a parking lot with some random guy looking to make a name for himself or get on the news.
“Raising the minimum wage is not a yes or no topic to be solved in a parking lot with some random guy looking to make a name for himself or get on the news.”
The ‘guy’ is a constituent whether or not he was seeking to make a name for himself. and the question was not about the topic of the minimum wage, it was about how Duffy was going to vote on the bill. Of course Duffy could have simply said that he had not decided. Or he could have said he was gong to vote for it. Or he could have said he was not. In any case he would have answered the question. But he chose not to. And please watch the network news, or cable news shows. Politicians are very frequently confronted by people with microphones and cameras in parking lots, on sidewalks etc. etc. and asked these very kinds of questions.
I fail to see how this getting an appointment makes sense. what is the purpose of the appointment? Is it to make it possible for the constituent to meet with the elected official? But in this instance the constituent was already in a face-to-face situation with the elected official. While it may not have been a prearranged appointment it was, in fact, a meeting. And, again the question simply required a one or two word answer.
Again Dino, you resort to shallow rhetorical tricks. You attempt to somehow compare this to a midnight invasion of a person’s home fell by the wayside, so we forget that. But now you somehow suggest that I said Duffy’s office was critical of the person asking the question. But I never said that, did I. What I said was that Duffy’s office called a constituent asking a question a “stunt”. And that is exactly what they did. And now it is suggested that the question was a complex policy question. But it wasn’t, was it? The question was simply about if he was going to vote for a bill or not. A question requiring a simple one or two word answer.
As to your claim that you are not arguing for less transparent government, please examine what you argue. Is government more or less transparent when constituents are only permitted to ask questions during time periods – be it an appointment or a town hall meeting – controlled by the elected official? Is government more transparent when elected officials can limit (or eliminate) times when they can be confronted by constituents? You suggest that elected officials can limit these opportunities. And, whether you admit or not, these kinds of procedural tricks can and do limit both public access to their elected officials and make government less transparent.
Now you say that people who oppose Duffy are going to find fault in everything he does. Not true. I oppose Duffy, but I find no fault in his vote to approve funding for public broadcasting. Further you stated that you disagree with him 100% of the time. From this we can then assume that you personally oppose funding for public broadcasting. Is that accurate, Dino? Please be careful when you make absolute pronouncements. And, further, you state that you are not willing to assume intent on Duffy’s part. At the same time you have no similar problem with assigning intent to the questioner. Strangely you are able to read his mind but not Duffy’s.
Dino -
Did you notice in the WDH on 7/25 that two people wrote letters to the editor? Both had gone to Duffy’s office to request an appointment to discuss the minimum wage bill with him. He was not available and his office staff had no idea when he would be. So both left contact information so that an appointment could be made and they could discuss the bill with Rep. Duffy. Over a week later neither of the two had received any kind of feedback from either Duffy or his staff.
Do you still maintain that the suggestion that the man in the video call the office and set up an appointment was something other than a brushoff?
I do not have any idea if it was a brush off.
I maintain that if you want to speak to Congressman Duffy, you are free to make an appointment.
Or at least free to attempt to make an appointment.
Elected leaders at the federal level don’t care what people like you and I think. Especially freshmen. They are told what to think as soon as they get inside the beltway.
Elected leaders at the state level only care what you think when elections are close.
So far, only locally elected leaders appear to care and are willing to listen.
“I do not have any idea if it was a brush off.
I maintain that if you want to speak to Congressman Duffy, you are free to make an appointment”
According to the two people who wrote the letters to the WDH you are not free to make an appointment. You are free to try to make an appointment. But evidently Duffy exercises his right to not make an appointment with you.
At least now you are reaching the position where you accept it might have been a blow off. After all, earlier you said: “I do not think he blew him off, which is the crux of your response Matthew. You can think what you want”
By the way. I still maintain, with even more evidence, that suggesting making an appointment was a blowoff of his constituents. I will further suggest that if you want to speak to Rep. Duffy and are face-to-face with him you better try to speak to him then and there. Evidently neither he nor his office will follow up if you request an appointment.
Ok.