Sunday, March 11, 2007

Whose Lie Is It Anyways?


As much as I'd like to release certain emails I won't until 2008. However, Tommy Jardon no longer replies to my emails. It could be because I blew the lid off his flip-flooper ways to the point he's no longer trusted by Gator chieftains, then again one has to wonder if he ever was. In one account the fmr. Action Party president offered, he was the victim of being coerced into Gator by parties to be listed in '08. In another account, this one offered up by Bruce, Tommy & the defectors supported Gator only b/c Bruce waited too long to announce. In yet another account, Tommy claims he "decided to support Moseley sometime in Fall. In another account, Tommy & Leslie defected, putting the earlier coercion theory into question.

But it still continues to get interesting. As many of you recall prior to the elections a PANTS video showcasing the entire slate arrived, with one two minor, though promising details. One interesting detail was that Tommy Jardon appeared for apparently no reason, he was there in classic political-boss fashion, reminiscent of Il Duce, upstaging even Bruce, wasted, and rambling about his whereabouts as if anyone bothered to ask. A second detail of interest was that although Bruce appears on the video, he claims it was released without his knowledge. Hold that thought.

On March 4th I was given a tip that Tommy Jardon & Amanda Kane were assisting in PANTS' defense. I emailed David, Will, Tommy, & Bruce in hopes of verifying this information. Bruce replied that to his knowledge Tommy was not involved. I said he was. Bruce reiterated, that to his knowledge he wasn't. Five days later, Tommy Jardon is listed as co-counsel of the PANTS Party before the Supreme Court.

So, whose lie is it anyways?...



Upcoming Article...Check Back Later Today

12 comments:

Virgil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Virgil said...

"yeer rose"

Say it with me now.

"yeer rose"

Christian Duque said...

Crap. The man says JIGH-ROW when he answers the phone, I'm stickin to that.

Francisco said...

Just as an FYI, I was at the Supreme Court hearing and Tommy was more than listed as co-counsel. He presented the main argument for Pants in front of the Court. Of the 20 minutes allocated to Pants, Tommy used 15 minutes for trying to plead the Pants Party's case while Rose used the remaining 5 minutes for the rebuttal.

I would have to say Tommy held his own given the 'circumstances' of the case and the court (although he did use "uhh...You know" as a 'filler' a couple times...sorry I am very anal about 'fillers').

Christian Duque said...

I'm glad to see Tommy with the GDI's but given his mixed allegiances this campaign I'm not sure to what extent either side can claim him for their side. Additionally, either Bruce goes out of his way to be kept out of the loop or his party's e-board completely bypasses him on everything.

Idk, makes for good blogging.

Anonymous said...

Actually I'd say Bruce has been too involved in decisions with his party and not informed well enough by his party.

If you want to run a campaign with the least number of retarded mistakes let someone run your campaign who is not your Presidential candidate (maybe your party president?) and keep him informed and involved in decision making like any other exec member but he shouldn't overpower/whelm the conversations or decisions. You need someone who doesn't have something at stake to make level-headed decisions that Pants failed to make in this last election.

Gavin Baker said...

Christian, I'm assuming you mean Rosemarie Clouston, not Amanda Kane. Amanda is up at Georgetown Law and probably not involved in UF SG court hearings.

Christian Duque said...

Nope. My source said Amanda Kane was helping. I know where she is, she's been somewhat of a regular contributor as of late, but def. see your point.

I just find it so hard to believe that in a party as small as PANTS (& that's no knock on them, it was partly why I have so much respect for them) that even in this situation you have people working between the lines; I'm totally believing Bruce didn't have a clue, we're friends and like-minded people, I don't believe he'd intentionally deceive me, but like I told them, I wish they'd save me the trouble and just be honest with me.

For once Gavin, I'd like to see the "losing" GDI party REALLY start working AFTER an election and not necessarily "TO BUILD" for the next election but act as multi-faceted organization encompassing elements of a Watchdog group, a lobby, and a vehicle to deliver student grievances to and from SG and the administration, even if largely in a symbolic capacity. This Gavin, would be the semblances of revolution -- a party of the students, by the students that operates based on higher calling than whether or not they "won" at the polling booth.

This type of revolutionary apparatus would win hearts & minds everyday, it would win a loyalty unparalleled by any campaign flier, by any Alligator endorsement.

But parties that "lose" simply wither away and die. I'd love to see PANTS become a name that forever works with Gator on issues that truly help the students, yet haunt those that are in SG just for a free ride on the student's dime.

Anonymous said...

Well I would just comment that I believe there is interest in some of those that were involved in Pants (perhaps more so in the younger ones) in getting back to the work on anything really. Perhaps if this ideas was more developed and wide-spread one of the older guys could try to mobilize this interest.

Anonymous said...

So what happened to the pants senate winner? What did the court say?

Francisco said...

Right now the hearing that the Supreme Court had on Thursday was only to decide whether or not the case had any merit (as far as I know) but I haven't heard anything on it. If the Court rules in favor of the Pants Party, the case is dropped, if not the case goes for another round in the Court. I will be going up to the 3rd floor tomorrow to see if anything was posted.

Bruce said...

i haven't lied at any point during the whole campaign and haven't started now. Think about it: if Tommy had traded teams, wouldn't it have been politically beneficial for us to use that and point out more negative Gator follies? I mean, with us being "the most negative campaign in UF SG history," that would seem like an obvious move.

We didn't. Tommy was with Gator.

I Voted Stickers: the party has never endorsed them, but I have told anyone that asked me that I was also passing them out. I told the Alligator when they asked me too. Seriously. It wasn't a party issue, but yes, it sure as hell was something that I and a few others believed in.

Supreme Court hearing: I'm not a legal person. I was at one meeting, the initial one, and Tommy was not there. The first I heard of Tommy in any serious terms was through an email from you, Christian, that accused me of being disingenuous. I wasn't.

I definitely took a very active role in the management of the party. We didn't have the people to have a choice otherwise. But when I didn't have to, I stepped back. I had little to contribute to the hearing and so I took little part. I didn't make the "big decisions" in this case, but I'm happy with how things transpired. I trust them.

I've been nothing but candid and have no regrets about this campaign. So slam me all you want... I have a feeling I'll come out ok.

this is spring break, keyword: break. enjoy it. :)