“Are you bleeping me?”

That was the subject of a email I received an hour ago from the James Perry campaign.

Given his latest commercial, it is no surprise that he has decided to use a personalized subject on his email sent to media and prospective voters which electronic missive showcases a new commercial.

His commercial shows common folks using “coarse common language” that is bleeped out. 

Yet, in his commercial he says he is an Eagle Scout.

In his commercial, he says that he will be providing specific change if he is elected.  .

But, first he needs to change his candidacy and his commercial won’t do it.

If anything, his email headline and his commercial do just the opposite.

Specifically, when you receive an email from someone in this case, “James Perry”, you think that it is coming directly from that person to you personally unless it is part of a newsletter you might receive every day.

So, obviously, many people are going to open an email from a person you might know entitled, “are you bleeping me?”   Who wouldn’t?

Then, about the first thing James Perry does in his email is mention his commercial.  You click on the link and the commercial has common people using bleeped-out foul language that refers to his opposition.

Pictures of John Georges and Edwin Murray likeness appear.

What is unfortunate about this commercial is Perry is suggesting that his “opposition won’t change anything” and using implied expletives to create public outrage to their candidacies.

The email and the commercial is a shame.  James Perry is a very fine man and his campaign should be taken seriously.  But, by introducing himself to the community, by using suggestions of foul language simply goes against the “Eagle Scout” he truly is.   It actually goes afoul of the type of person James Perry seems to be.

I suspect James Perry’s critics will say that his stunt is a way for him to raise plenty of noise and money.  So far in his campaign, he is doing respectable, but, he does not have the deep pockets or the contributions of his opponents, which is one of the points he is making in his campaign.

James Perry does have good ideas and a good story to tell about himself.  But, his commercial is a bad idea.  Even if it gets him attention, it scars his image.  He also cannot back up his message.  He has no idea if there won’t be “change” if any of his opposition gets elected.   If he wants to run a serious campaign at a serious time, then he can discuss the issues as soberly and as passionately as anyone.  His “bleeping email” and his “bleeping commercial” undermines his character and unfortunately makes a “character” out of him. 

Governor Jindal and The Fundraising

According to TMP, Governor Jindal’s campaign has reportedly decided to donate ten thousand dollars his campaign received last year to a victim’s compensation fund in relationship to a scandal now occurring in Florida.  The original contribution to the Jindal campaign money was donated by a Florida attorney, Scott Rothstein and his lawfirm.  The attorney is accused of 1billion dollars in fraud.

It is wise that the Jindal campaign is deciding to do what many in Florida are also doing—washing their hands of the contributed money to his campaign.  The web site TMP says that “There was reportedly a second Jindal fundraiser hosted by Rothstein, this one held in Miami last November during the conference of the Republican Governors Association. We're asking Jindal's office about that fundraiser and will let you know if we hear more.” 

Moments ago, I attempted to obtain information about that money and likewise hope to update this story.

But, there is a bigger question here.

When politicians take in contributions, often they do not know the history or background of the contributor.  Sometimes the background is obvious.   Careful vetting should always be done.  The bigger the contribution, the greater the involvement by the contributor, the greater the vetting is required. 

In this case, it appears that the Ponzi scheme occurred in 2009.  The contributions occurred in 2008.  Around the time of the political contributions were also contributions made to the Palin-McCain campaign.

However, based upon a timeline, it appears that at the time of the political contributions to the Bobby Jindal campaign, there is no any indication of possible wrongdoing by Rothstein.  The events in question appear to have occurred in 2008.

No politician wants to be associated with any “tainted person” for there would be suggestions implied of improper associations.  It would also be improper to imply any association with Bobby Jindal, John McCain or Sarah Palin with any wrongdoing of any kind simply because a big contributor later gets involved in an action that raises serious questions about his behavior.   

When events such as this do occur, the proper thing to do would be to do exactly what Governor Jindal is doing.    Politics can be a mine of golden opportunities.  It can also be a minefield of public relations disasters that explode upon innocent individuals who have no reason to know of any future combustion.