Yesterday when I sat to read the newspaper, an article caught my eye on the front page of the Daily Camera about the spat that local talkshow host Jay Marvin was having with Jared Polis. For the unitiated, Jared Polis is running for Congress. Apparently Jay's issue was that the Polis camp was "badgering" him about the time slot that he would be on the show, and had stopped by the day before to badger his producer.
So let me say this: If this hadn't have been on the front page of the Daily Camera, I would never have tuned in, so score one for Polis.
The podcast is available on the KKZN website for anybody who would like to listen here, but I don't know for how long.
There is no doubt, though, that Jay was remarkably hostile towards Polis, while on the other hand I found Jared Polis to be quite pleasant. I'm sure that I would have lost my temper had I been on the receiving end of Jay's rudeness.
For full disclosure, I served three years on the District Parent Council for Boulder Valley Schools, and Jared came twice during that time to speak to us on a couple of different subjects. I personally found him to be competent, insightful, and intelligent. The words "wicked smart" come to mind. He was an able defender of Bill Ritter's policies during the race for governor at one of the meetings. I've also met him once at a very large social function, and I greatly doubt that he would remember the exchange or remember me, but again I found him to be articulate and quite pleasant.
So to summarize, I'm fairly pro-Polis for Congress, and neutral Jay Marvin.
When I saw the article in the newspaper, I chose to listen live on the computer, which has the very cool ability to allow me to instant message Jay Marvin in real time. I IM'd him three times during the interview. Several hours later, Jay e-mailed a response to me, and that's where the real fun started. Clearly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to be a radio talk show host. Keep in mind that the response to my IM came four hours after I sent it, so I'm not giving him any slack about being confused because he was in a hurry. Here is the e-mail exchange, starting with my first IM to Jay. As e-mail threads are typically read in reverse, I've reversed the order so that it makes sense, and I've edited out the To's and From's, but everything else is exactly as we e-mailed:
message (from me): Man, Jay, you're not coming off too well here, dude. You sound like you've got a real chip on your shoulder. Jared sounds like he's being pretty nice.
From: "Marvin, Jay" [email protected] : Sure if you think not answering the questions is being nice. If you think giving money to Swift Boat Vets is OK then I guess I don't sound very good.
Jay
Me: I don't think he gave money to Swift Boat Vets, I believe he received money from them.
What is your implication? Do you think that by accepting money from the Swift Boat Vets that he is indebted to them? That he is secretly supporting Bush? He was pretty clear that he did not receive money from the organization, but from individuals. Perhaps that is something that should be investigated by a reporter; have these guys individually given money to other candidates?
I have to admit that I too am curious as to why those individuals would support somebody as left as Polis. He has been an opponent of the war from the beginning, and he supports gay rights. But perhaps that is a question that could be asked of Mr. Polis in a less hostile fashion, or one that could be asked of the donor.
Even Dan Caplis treats his on-air guests with respect when they have the guts to go on his show.
From: "Marvin, Jay" <[email protected]> : Yes, he did. And I checked with the Udall and Fitzgerald camps and both told me they would not take money from them, and if they did they would return it. I think what it means is Polis has no scrupples.
Jay
Me: Let me see if I am getting this right...You're saying that Jared Polis contributed to the Swift Boat Vets?
Jay: No. What I'm saying is he took money from them.
*********
LOL, I have to say, I just gave up. When I IM'd Jay originally, I had a feeling that any response would be hostile and sarcastic. But Jay went even further! He said the opposite of what he meant twice, he refused to engage in any meaningful discussion of what exactly is wrong with taking money from individuals whose opinions you don't share (are candidates going to interview each donor now before taking their money?), and I made the point in the third IM that I doubt very much that an individual's $2000 donation is going to make a large impact on somebody who has put $3M into his own campaign: I doubt they believe they're buying access or influence. I'm sure Jay's time is limited, and I sure wouldn't make fun of somebody who can't spell in a quick e-mail (although I do hate it when my politicians lack scrupples!), but rather than reply with hostility, sarcasm, and an innaccurate statement (twice!) to a listener, how about either ignoring me, or, better yet, replying with respect and a meaningful argument?