What about Bob? More petition stuff - Part II

If you'll recall my post a few weeks back, I was responding to Eddie's request from the SDMM weblog about my position on the whole smoked pharmaceutical thing. And I noted I wasn't sure of their chances, but generally, I discussed what ballot initiatives need to consider if they want to win.

More recently, I posted on some of the commentary containted on the SDMM website about one of the assistant AG's; moreso than anything it was a convenient segueway into who our next AG might be. Eddie had noted that Bob Newland's words were his own. And Bob Newland took the opportunity to reply to my post and express some more disdain for prosecuting attorneys. I posted an innocuous reply, and Bob replied again. Fine. He can have the last word on that post.

Just to see if there were any related comments, I visited the SDMM website recently, and checked out a couple comments left for one of the latest posts. And, boy. Did I get an earful. I don't even want to put it on my weblog it's so bad. Click on the link, so I don't have to include it here.

My only words after reading Bob's diatribe and more importantly, possible admissions of activity that could be construed as contravening South Dakota law, were "oh my god."

In many elections, the messenger is a huge part of the message. If people aren't comfortable with who that messenger is, the candidate or measure you're promoting is going to suffer greatly for it.

In this case, the South Dakotans for Medical Marijuana are trying to promote legalizing the use of that particular drug for a theraputic measure for seriously ill people in face of opposition from the state health department, law enforcement, etc. Okay. Alleviating suffering. That's not the most difficult sell in the world. There are legislators sitting in the Capitol who might agree with you. Or at least one.

But I'd venture a guess that if it becomes common knowledge that Bob Newland, the main pitchman for the measure, is openly talking on the SDMM website about previous experiences of a recreational (and not theraputic) nature, and other activities he expounded on which were far worse - I'd say the ability of this measure to resonate with main street South Dakota is nil.

I would bet if you took an opinion poll of the average South Dakotan and tested the Medical Marijuana question on that basis, most would say the pitchman belongs in jail.

Your pitchman or candidate has to be able to connect to the voters and convince them to support your cause. If a candidate cannot emote, or if the pitchman is contrary to the cause, you might consider yourself in trouble from the start.

Not to pick on the Medical Marijuana people, because they aren't the only ones who do this. In fact, I've found Eddie to be a pretty decent person who has called myself on misquoting him when I was wrong. And I was.

I've been involved with other measures on various levels before where I tried to nicely say "get your main guy in the background because he's not going to do you any good."

It's not that they were a bad person. Clearly, they had to be a person committed to the cause to bring it up in the first place. But sometimes that commitment can be viewed by others as fanatacism, and it turns the average voter off. Or, that pitchman becomes so offensive the measure can't win. So it comes down to which is more important - the message or the pitchman. And to win, you have to choose.

It's not anything personal, it's just a cold, hard fact.