When you responded with the thing about the volunteers, I took it to mean you were somehow critcizing me for mentioning quid pro quo. That’s what I found so strange. I now see that’s not what you meant.

I’d be perfectly content to be civil with you all the time, actually.

You’ve managed to insult me in a string of posts, because — I write badly? A little more focus on fixing things and a little less on looking for a fight would probably be a good idea.

First, Leo Casey associates the Pataki endorsement with the 02 contract, and the Maltese endorsement with his support for “educational issues and his role in the State Senate majority.”

That sounds like quid pro quo to me. Personally, I don’t think the endorsements were based on the anti-teacher behavior of either candidate.

As for your logic, perhaps you blame the waiter when the food you order is no good. Perhaps you blame the mailman when you receive the wrong package. While that’s illogical, it’s certainly your prerogative.

I prefer to assume that the volunteers, like most people, were unaware that Mr. Maltese had a hand in busting two unions and opposes civil rights.

If they were, indeed, aware of Mr. Maltese’s history, and went on to ask people to vote for this man, I can’t muster a whole lot of admiration for them.

Can you?

Bizarre? That UFT endorsement comes with UFTers getting on the phones, volunteers, and making calls to support (and you can fill in the name of a bad endorsement here). When teachers who want to donate time to help the union are asked to make calls pushing “quid pro quo” candidates (if you are correct), yes, that would be abusive.

Perhaps to understand you might need to speak with someone who has done phone banking.

Regarding Mr. Maltese, there simply can’t be enough quo for that quid.

Asking why we endorse candidates for whom we can’t deliver votes is a way of looking at the same problem through a different lens.