Griffiths and Orman tussle on Twitter
One of the best things about Twitter is, unquestionably, the bizarre dust-ups that happen on a nightly basis. Although it pales in comparison to some more notable argy-bargy incidents, PC leadership candidates Doug Griffiths and Rick Orman dipped their toes in the Twitter-battle water on Monday night. See if you can spot the younger candidate:
@Rick_Orman: 1st home cooked meal in 3 wks. Thanks Susan. Rare steak and banana cream pie and @mnf.
Pretty standard politician-on-Twitter stuff, but the banana cream pie endorsement was quickly followed by this:
@Rick_Orman: Doug. You are a good man but you talk about need for PST. Not in my AB.
@GriffMLA: Rick, if this is Rick, I have never said that and you know that.
@Rick_Orman: Doug this IS Rick and you said we need a dialogue on PST at candidates forum. I disagree.
Griffiths is savvy enough to make sure he is not speaking to a fake account. Although, a clever fake would probably say the same thing, I guess.
@GriffMLA: I said we need a discussion on saving spending and tax policy. How do u go from wanting a discussion to wanting it?
@Rick_Orman: If I missed subtly who else did? Come back to right side. It’s lonely here in the campaign.
@GriffMLA: conservatives believe we should get what we pay for and pay for what we get. How will u fix the 27B imbalance?
@Rick_Orman: You were there. Did they not listen? How about living within our means?
@GriffMLA: ?? Right. Exactly. Soooooooo, how will you pay for that huge spread, or will you just cut 27B from the budget?
@Rick_Orman: Rest my case.
@Rick_Orman: You can do better Doug.
At this point, Walter Schwabe of fused logic, who was part of the discussion from the beginning, suggested a debate between the two. Griffiths is game, although Orman seems to doubt the power of the internet.
@GriffMLA: confirm the debate Rick. I’m prepared.
@Rick_Orman: Let’s find a venue with distribution.
@GriffMLA: a venue with distribution? There is huge distribution on the web and web broadcasting.
@Rick_Orman: That’s better Griff. Let me know.
@GriffMLA: let you know what? What are you responding to?
And that’s how it ends. A plaintive call for clarity, with no reply.
The thing that intrigues me is that Orman’s characterization of Griffiths’ position was, if I’m being generous, slightly skewed. This happens all the time in debates but candidates usually let it slip by, in order to focus on their own positions. But, with both candidates active on Twitter, it allowed Griffiths to respond directly and coax a real response out of Orman. It’s not like a debate where a candidate has a limited timeframe and limited follow-ups.
Griffiths presses Orman to explain the mischaracterization and Orman is unable to. I don’t think Twitter makes clear responses from candidates more likely, but it sure makes them look silly when they don’t give them (especially after engaging in a fairly free-flowing discussion). Griffiths asks Orman about the budget imbalance and Orman says “Rest my case,” as if discussing it implies that tax increases are inevitable.
I guess if no one brings it up, it’ll just go away?
