A Halloween Memory for the Blogosphere!

Some Hated It

Some Love It

Others it Overwhelmed.

I think it the best and most creative Halloween post yet seen in the Virginia blogosphere.

Read it, and judge for yourself!

Happy Halloween to the Virginia Blogosphere!

Cuccinelli-Oleszek: Friends Helping Friends; The Hoot doesn’t read Polls.

Announcements today at different times,  places, and modes (don’t know how to link email) announce that both The Cooch and The Hoot are doing network television. The funny thing is that the announcement from Cooch was that Hoot was on network and so he needed more money to fight back, and the announcement for Hoot was that Cooch was on network so she needed more money to fight back.

They cannot agree on debates, but on this they agree-the other person is doing so well that more money is needed to fight back.

As Marshall Coleman once said: It’s just “Friends helping friends, neighbors helping neighbors.”

On the flip side, BVBL notes that when interviewed by Channel 9 Hoot saysthe immigration issue is a “red herring”. Cooch disagrees.

Apparently the general public is at odds with Hoot on this matter, also.  Hoot says all this only a week after WaPo polling indicated that in Nothern Virginia immigration is the second biggest concern of voters (after transportation)…and if you analyse the numbers as those polled in Northern Virginia who are likely to vote, then the issue moves to the top of the list.

Of course, Hoot cannot talk too much about transportation because even though she castigates Cooch for his vote on the bipartisan transportation package she refuses to talk about how she would vote on the same issue because that is a “hypothetical” question. She won’t talk about immigration because contrary to logic, polling, and citizen outcry, that issue is a “red herring”.  She wants to talk about stem cell research, but according to the WaPo poll above, no one else seems to be too interested in it.

Once you discard what Hoot won’t talk about, and the things her potential consituents are not fired up about talking about, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for her to make a case that she should go to Richmond.

Predictive Redistricting in Virginia-2011

NLS offered his House of Delegate predictions yesterday, and with it cast a cautionary consideration for both parties in the next decade.

After suggesting the GOP would come out of this election with a 53-42 edge (plus independents who caucus with the GOP), Ben says:

Not impressive for the GOP which tried to draw itself 66 safe seats a few years ago.

Ben’s observation is correct-the GOP gunned for a super majority (although I thought it was 62 seats), and the resulting slide is perhaps the only possible outcome of the method or goal used by the GOP.

Redistricting for the 2001 elections happened prior to 9/11 so there is a great deal that they could not predict. The GOP attempted to create GOP Majority seats based on recent numbers, but to my recollection did not use a great deal of demographic projections in their efforts. They took the numbers they had, and tried to create as many GOP majority districts in the House and the Senate as they could. The problem was how close they cut it. Example-In 2001 Jack Rust was a member of the House of Delegates from Fairfax, unopposed in 1999, and one of the chief GOP strategists in Richmond. He was seen as a potential House Speaker.

Then they redistricted, and with Rust’s approval moved GOP precincts out of his district to undermine incumbent democrats and make other districts more GOP friendly. The thought was that Rust’s district would be more competitive, but was still solidly GOP.

Ah…as they say, if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans…

Things did not go as the Jack Rust planned. Along came Chap! Petersen, GOP infighting over first the budget and then the gubernatorial nominee, the Mark Warner candidacy, 9/11, etc. A great deal of things happened…and Rust, the future Speaker of the House of Delegates, lost a close race in 2001 and was clobbered in 2003.

Statistics can only get you so far. The course of human events never runs smooth, and all paths-especially politics-is littered with the unexpected.

Rather than gun for a huge majority of district that are leaning GOP, I tend to think the Va Assembly GOP would have been better served by creating 56 bullet proof districts as opposed to 66 solid/lean GOP. While it is true that you have a smaller margin of error, it is also true that it is easier to maintain party discipline and coherence if your number is smaller and more cohesive.

We have seen this in Washington.  After the 1964 elections LBJ told his staff they had 18 months to get things done, as after 18 months congressman would be worried more about the 1966 elections, and that the democratic majority was so large they almost had to lose seats in 1966.  Tight control is also the way that Tom DeLay was able to get so much legislation through the House of Representatives despite having a relatively small majority…a smaller contingent, and greater control.

Given this knowledge, it will be interesting to see how redistricting plays out in 2011…will the majority party follow the Vance Wilkins plan and seek to create a large number of districts that are marginally with the majority party in hopes of creating a huge majority, or will it follow the bulletproof strategy of creating as many absolute win districts with the aim of a smaller majority that is more easily controlled and managed?

We shall see…

RK Liveblog Previews Future Democratic Issues…

Sometimes public communications expose more than is intended, even within small asides.

Such was the case recently when our friends at RK liveblogged with Doug Denneny. Mr. Denneny is apparently the RK approved candidate for the Democratic nominee for Congress in Va-11 in 2008, and the live blog provided previews of future comments, concerns, and challenges on the Democratic side of the aisle.

The first moment came when Denneny was asked about Northern Virginia Senate races. Denneny said he expected Chap! and George Barker to win close races. When asked about The Hoot, he replied:

I think Janet has a great shot. She has an excellent message, and an opponent that is outside of the mainstream with some new financial revelations. But she has tough demographics. We need the Republicans to stay home and the Democrats need to come out and vote.

At first, nothing new. The same old ideology attack on The Cooch, plus an attempt to smear him by implication by mentioning “new financial revelations” without specifying the revelations or stepping up and saying sometthing illegal or unethical occurred.

But Denneny goes on to say  “[Olszek] has tough demographics.” Since when? Since when does any Democratic candidate have tough demographics in a Fairfax that is turning blue? Jim Webb pulled in somewhere north of 54% of the vote in the  precincts of the 37th Virginia Senate district in 2006…what has happened in the last twelve months to say The Hoot has “tough demographics”?

Later, Denneny suggests he is the most serious candidate for the nomination:

…I entered this race last summer as the only democratic candidate, and remain the only filed and declared democratic candidate for this office. I’m not running for any other office this cycle, and I never filed an exploratory committee to “test the waters”. I’m in this to win and to bring common sense back to this congressional district. So Tom’s decision will affect me, but I am plowing straight ahead to win this seat regardless of what he decides, and what my rumored potential rivals decide.

This got a quick return of serve from one Leslie Byrne, who has created an exploratory committee:

Doug: I respect your right to run but please do not ascribe motives to my exploratory committee that are not there(especially under the title of “Ethics in Campaigning”). My wish is to focus on this November 6th and getting our Democratic candidates elected…I will be phone banking for Chap Monday night. Where will you be? Regards, Leslie Byrne

There was a question as to whether this was the real Leslie Byrne. But given that she “signed” her name, and that her post was soon followed by what appears to be a Ben Tribbett comment-well, I think it is the real deal.

What can we infer from this blog?

1. The Democrats are already trying out lines to rationalize The Hoot losing to The Cooch next month;
2. Mr. Denneny is not quite ready for prime time in the immediate response world of the current political arena. If he were, he would he have taken even a veiled whack at a future rival-and for no good reason?
3. Ms. Byrne apparently is ready to go. She will not back off from challenges, and will not let any comment go unanswered. If you want to play in Ms. Byrne’s ballpark, you best come heavy or not come at all-because she obviously is all in.

Yep, come what may next Tuesday, we are in for an interesting Winter!

UPDATE: This PM Byrne told the WaPo that:

Democrat. Leslie L Byrne said today she will likely be a candidate for Congress in the 11th District , even if incumbent Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va) decides to seek reelection….”I am running, there is no question about it,” said Byrne, who held the seat between 1993 and 1995. “I am just waiting for the next election cycle to get done before we start on the next one.”

Like I said…she’s all in!

Small Posting Policy Change…

I keep a page on this site that lists the criteria under which posts are allowed.  I am adding one, and it is unusual enough that I will explain its creation and existence.

A comment to my post about the Chap!-JMDD fracas suggests she is the victim of a “public lynching”.  The more I think about it, the more the phrase bothers me.

First, it is bad grammar.  There is no such thing as a private lynching.  Any lynching I have heard of was carried out in public.  It was not carried out under color of law, but it was done in public.  In fact, that was part of the M.O. of a lynch mob…to commit this violent act in public to frighten people from imitating the victim’s act.

Second, a lynching means someone has been killed, not criticized.  Criticizing a candidate for public office (or, for that matter, a nominee for appointed office) is hardly a lynching. That candidate or nominee is not being taken from their home by a mob, outside the possibility of any protection by the authorities, for the purpose being tortured and ultimately killed by some terrible and painful method simply because the mob doesn’t like what you did or because they don’t like the way the law is handling things.

If you want to see a lynching, stroll down to the Fairfax Library or Amazon.com and get a copy of Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America, take a look at the picture of a real victim of a lynching and the reasons they were subjected to this action, and tell me that JMDD is the victim of a “public lynching”. Search the web for the story of Leo Frank and the end he came to, and tell me that candidates for public office face anything like he did.

It is bad grammar, it is hyperbole verging on demagoguery, it is inaccurate, and I will have no more of it.

You can say someone is being slandered, libeled, subject to character assassination, etc., and all will be well. But as of 10:15PM on 10.28.2007, the term “lynching” or “public lynching” as a term used in expressing an opinion will not be accepted on this blog.

My joint, my rules.

And now, back to the latest political mess…

Stupid Political Tricks

When I was in College and an active College Republican, we had training sessions in a variety of of campaign activities. While the lessons of many of those lectures have been lost I distinctly remember one session leader saying, “If ever in a campaign you are faced with a difficult decision, and you don’t know what to do, there is one question you should ask. Does anyone here know what it is?”

A nice girl from Libery Baptist College raised her hand and said “What Would Jesus Do?”

The speaker smiled, and said ” No…you ask what is the smart thing to do?”

This lesson has apparently been lost to the body politic over the last few years, and while it has hit both parties it has been terribly ignored in Virginia…and typically by the GOP.

This goes back many years. In 1953, Republican state Senator Ted Dalton found himself in position to defeat Congressman Thomas Stanley for the governorship. Such a win would be the first time since reconstruction a Republican had been elected governor of Virginia. Dalton picked that moment to come out for borrowing money to build roads in Virginia.

Dalton was great friends with Harry Byrd, Sr., and Byrd decided he would not campaign against his friend unless he came out with something that Harry absolutely could not swallow…and this was it. Byrd came out swinging over the need to stick with Pay As You Go road financing, and Stanley won the closest gubernatorial election in Virgina history to that time.  Both parties engaged in it by deciding to send candidates against an Independent Harry Byrd, Jr. in both 1970 and 1976.  The nominations of mondo liberal Henry Howell in 1977 by the Democrats and the ultra conservative Wyatt Durette in 1985 fall into this category, but at a higher level of thought.

The GOP has really been bit by the screw up bug recently.

In 2005, as Kilgore made a move toward Kaine was had apparently closed the gap between them to nothing, the GOP released the “Hitler” ads. I remember Chad Dotson saying these ads were decisive, and the race was over.

Chad was right, but not in the way he anticipated.

In 2006-there was “Macaca” and an inability to recover. You know how that song goes.

I really thought we were too close to the 2007 general election for something like that to happen. I was mistaken.

You can go to RK and NLS for the full details of the unfortunate mailing that JMDD recently distributed. The mailing included a copy of a disclosure form that included Chap!’s home address and phone number. With this information landing in the mailboxes of potentially unusual folks across the district, Chap! and his family received a number of harassing phone calls…and by this AM the WaPo had picked up the story.

When asked for comment, JMDD was amazingly obtuse:

Davis said that her opponent is making too much of the mail piece and that she did not publish the personal information intentionally. She also said that all of the information is readily available in the telephone book and on the Internet, and that much of it has been published by Petersen himself.

“He sent out a piece with his children’s pictures and their names,” Davis said. “Give me a break.”

Perhaps, but apparently there was no slew of harrasing phone calls after his mailing, nor was there an increase in threat factor that caused the local police to increase their neighborhood patrols just in case…

We should note that of course she intentionally printed the information. Perhaps she meant it was not done maliciously.

But it is her cluelessness that really sings out. Here she is with a money edge and having supposedly eliminated a nine-point gap-which if true means her campaign was building an unstoppable velocity-and she sends out this drek. She could have made her point without including the personal information.

Why? Why pull this stuff? Probably because they never had the training class I mentioned above. Hence the foolish execution of stupid political trick.

I don’t know that I should be surprised. I have long criticised the Va GOP for the failure to create and articulate a vision for the future, a vision that would build a party identity that would help win elections. When you combine that with a continued inability to run a smart, error free campaign, then you have two obstacles that will likely make the GOP a General Assembly minority unless the party leadership smells the coffee and hears the cries from the wilderness of me and those like me. JMDD is only the latest manifestation of these trends.

Some may think this harsh criticism; some may say “why are you saying this about another Republican?”

Fair enough…what you need to understand is that I am not a Yellow Dog Republican, I am a Default Republican. My default vote is for the GOP candidate, but a strong enough argument or candidate can convince me to cross party lines.

But our party affiliation-or lack thereof-is simply a manifestation of our values and who we are. Before you get to me being in the GOP, I am a husband and a father, and I would not want my family harassed like this…so in the current situation it gets down to this:

–As a father and husband, I find this mailing to be inexcusable;
–As a Republican, I find the thinking or logic behind sending this mailing out in this form to be inexplicable;
–As a politically interested citizen and observer, I find the JMDD reaction to be troubling and sitting somewhere between silly and ridiculous.

I do not live in the 34th, but I bet there are plenty of folks in Senate 34 who fit one of the three categories above.

JMDD wants to be given a break…and I think she will, but not the one she thinks she should receive.

Stupid Political Tricks, indeed.

Quick Takes: Oleszek Connects, Chap!/JMDD overwhelm, and Colgan Craziness

It is a full 9 yard load of stuff that occurred to me in the last 24 hours…

The Hoot gets an Endorsement!

After being stiffed by the WaPo and turned down by the Fairfax Times newspapers, Janet Oleszek gets the endorsement of the Connection papers:

“[she is] far better on the job than she is on the campaign trial…It’s an understatement when she says, “I am not a politician.”

But in her four years on the school board…Oleszek has demonstrated excellent priorities and the ability to work with others to accomplish her goals. Her advocacy of full day kindergarten is an example of her success. She’s patient and cooperative, skills that will be needed in the Senate in the coming years. Her expertise in education, including a focus on higher education, will be needed in Richmond. Her views on most issues, especially guns and education, are far more in line with this district than the incumbent.”

Fair enough…although as I recall the Times papers chose not to endorse her because she could not tell them what her goals were.  What I really found interesting in the Connection endorsements (they also endorsed George Barker and JMDD in their races) is that a close reading of the piece, even allowing for misspellings, shows there is no “trigger” statement involved…in fact, if it were not for the title of the piece “Endorsement: Three Senate Seats: Oleszek for 37th Senate Barker for 39th Senate Davis in the 34th Senate“, one is sometimes hard pressed to discern exactly who the paper is endorsing.

Tired of the Ads…

Last night after supper I sat down with SWMBO to catch some tv…and between 6:30PM and 8PM on NBC 4 we saw four Chap! campaign spots and three JMDD! spots.  I was overwhelmed, SWMBO was not…apparently the night before in the same time range  the ratio was reversed.

Now I know that this was the syndication period (which is controlled by the local station) and not network time, so rates are cheaper.  I also recall reading that rates are either generally cheaper around news time or have special rates for political ads during that time period.

All I know is that anyone listening to these ads tell you (with fact citations) how terrible the major party candidates are, most thinking voters might prefer to write someone in instead of voting for either of them.

I will say that Chap! (and Cooch, for that matter) run their candidate image and disclaimer up front, and then attack.  JMDD! (and the Hoot) put their’s at the end.  I have a hunch if you are going to run an attack ad, you should put the candidate up front and then attack (and use a theme comment like Chap! did, or like George Allen did last year) rather than attack and then, while the viewer is trying to digest the attacks, give the candidate disclaimer.

Prince William Warfare

Life in the trenches is heating up out toward Manassas.  The Journal Messenger offered a strong endorsement of Jackson Miller while admonishing Jeanette Rishell for her prevarications and pettiness:

“While he has only had a short time to prove himself, we believe he has shown that he is a delegate who does his best to keep his promises. We believe he deserves a full term to show us what he can do.We endorse Miller for the 50th district of the Virginia House of Delegates….Miller’s opponent, Jeanette Rishell has shown, through false attack ads, that she cannot be trusted to pay attention to detail or get her facts straight.And her positions on issues are often vague and weakly expressed.

We want a delegate with definite ideas, positions and plans, and who will fight to do what he considers right.

That candidate is Jackson Miller. Please give him your support on Nov. 6.”

Meanwhile, retiring Senators Chichester and Potts endorsed Chuck Colgan. Chichester has already donated to Colgan’s campaign fund. Colgan was also endorsed by Mattie Parrish, wife of the late Delegate Harry Parrish.

None of this comes as much of a surprise…friends of long standing coming to his aid during a tough campaign.

But either Colgan is running scared or he has turned his campaign over to the same DPVA mailing operation that repeatedly distributed completely false charges toward Jackson Miller (much to their candidate’s detriment). A recentmailing attacked Fitzsimmonds for a pro-life position he holds. Fair enough. However, and surprisingly, Colgan does not list reproductive rights as an issue he is concerned with in this campaign, perhaps because his strong pro-life commitment is well known…so why is he attacking FitzSimmonds on ground they presumably share?

This is not the first attack on FitzSimmonds that seems out of kilter.  Fitz once worked for The Cooch in Richmond, but Fitz has been repeatedly attacked in the DPVA mailings for positions taken by The Cooch after Fitz left his employment.  I find this bizarre…isn’t this very much like blaming a former employee of Colgan Airways for a bad experience that occurred after said employee left Colgan’s employ?

The Colgan campaign is blaming (see comments) the mailing, and presumably the many recent attacks on Fitzsimmonds, on the state Democratic Party…as if that somehow distances himself from the attacks. One would think a long term incumbent would be able to exert some control over his own campaign.

Political expediency can be an ugly thing…

On the flip side from questionable conduct, I noted on my last trip to Manassas that Bob Fitzsimmonds has joined Cooch and Hoot as the only candidates who include their party affiliation on their campaign signs.

Tom Davis says No to Senate Bid; Fairfax Times says No to Oleszek

Short Takes of recent events…

The WaPo reports that Tom Davis has officially declared he will not be a US Senate candidate in 2008, and will make announcements about his re-election plans at a later date. As had been suggested by many:

“Davis said he was unwilling to engage in what was expected to be a bruising battle for the Republican nomination with former governor James S. Gilmore III, who is considering a run and is widely viewed as more politically conservative.

“Once you tear off the scab of the Republicans’ moderate-conservative fight, it’s very difficult to put it back together,” Davis said. “This is not the right time” for a run, he added.”

Meanwhile, The Cooch got the endorsement of the Fairfax Times newspapers:

The Times take on The Hoot was even more pointed than the WaPo non-endorsement in the race:

“The 37th Senate District seems to be a moderate, swing district – not an ideal home base for a hardcore conservative like Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R). There are a number of things in his tenure that we find problematic … however, his opponent has given us no reason to support her.

Democrat Janet Oleszek, a school board member, had essentially nothing to offer The Times’ editorial board in the way of specific ideas for the state’s future. Similar to her performance in public debates, she answered questions about specific proposals with generalities. We feel it would be irresponsible to back such a weak candidate.

Cuccinelli, on the other hand, knows state issues inside and out. While we may not agree with him on a number of topics, there is no doubt as to where he stands. And, on occasion, he will go against his party on issues he feels strongly about.”

First the WaPo says Hoot’s campaign has no substance, then the Times says she offered them no reason to support her.

What comes next?

An Absence of Malice in Va-1

I held forth the other day on the out and out carpetbagging of former Delegate Richard Black in his move from Sterling to Fredericksburg solely to have a chance to in the Va-1 Congressional special election this December.

However, it is becoming clear that for many the true standard being used to decide whether one should run for the Va-1 GOP nod is found in the movie “Absence of Malice”

It is a pretty good movie. Paul Newman plays the son of a long dead Mafia boss who owns a liquor warehouse.   A prosecutor leaks a false story that Newman is a target of the investigation of a murdered union leader, hoping the pressure will get Newman to tell them-even though they have no reason to think he has information.   Sally Field, who catches the leaked “fact” and reports it, is in the clear under the Absence of Malice rule in slander and libel cases. As the newspaper lawyer says:

That as a matter of law, the truth is irrelevant. We have no knowledge the story is false, therefore we’re absent malice. We’ve been both reasonable and prudent, therefore we’re not negligent. We can say what we like about him; he can’t do us harm. Democracy is served.

More than a little of this “truth is irrelevant” is happening in Va-1.

Dictionary.com defines “carpetbagger” in part as “an outsider, especially a politician, who presumptuously seeks a position or success in a new locality.”

Today we typically see the term tossed at someone who runs for office who but who has not lived in a district very long. But in Va-1 we are seeing the term has numerous uses.

I previously considered Richard Black, a man defeated for re-election in 2005 who didn’t have the wherewithal to try to win back his old seat. Instead, he rents a house in a congressional district where he has never lived to win a congressional nomination…and does so with such commitment to his new home that he currently has no plans to sell his home in Sterling. Legal? Yes. Desirable conduct from a candidate for public office? No…but “legal” and “right” are not necessarily the same thing-sort of like an Absence of Malice.

But there are more…

Consider Tom Gear, GOP member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Delegate Gear represents VA House 91. Part of the district is in Va-1, and the rest in Va-2.

You can see this coming, right?

Delegate Gear has allegedly decided, like Mr. Black, that the good people of Va-1 are so lacking in options that he is going to move his legal residence to the Va-1 (but still within House 91) so he can offer for Congress.

Legal? Yes. Desirable conduct for a candidate for public office? No…but there you have that Absence of Malice thing going on.  You can do it, it is legal, there are no restrictions beyond good taste, judgement, and character.

This action is not being taken by an elected official who has been gerrymandered out of their seat and moves to continue serving in the same office. This is an action by an elected official who is currently running for one office and changes his legal residence simply to run for a different office. It seems the VB Demos are already loving this scenario.

But beyond carpetbagging Gear is also guilty of another campaign sin, this one against the body politic…and in this he is joined by another GOP delegate, Rob Wittman (VA-99).

Both of these men are currently running for reelection to the Virginia House of Delegates. Yet while running for reelection they are already planning to run for the Republican Congressional Nomination in Va-1 for the December special election. Wittman has already announced.

This is the sin against the body politic-or its subdivision, the people of Va-1. Are elected positions simply part of a job ladder for ambitious politicians?

Or…

Is public office a public trust to be earned by garnering the support of your fellow citizens and representing them as best you can? I don’t see where simultaneous candidacies, announced or unannounced, for multiple offices can reasonbly be considered in the best interest of the body politic.

Oh, someone calls out, but both are unopposed! That has to make a difference!

Not to me. I don’t think elected officials should treat service in the Virginia General Assembly as some booby prize they get if they don’t get a chance to hold the seat they really want to hold.

Nonetheless, it is legal and they can do it. Absence of Malice, again. But I think it is fair to say both are engaged in “intellectual carpetbagging”.

I don’t know what will happen at the Va-1 GOP convention, but it seems there will be more than one opportunist for the delegates to consider. I have to think that candidacies based in legalisms and constituent betrayals have a character deficiency out of the blocks, and I wonder how that will play with the delegates…because along with an Absence of Malice, there may be an Absence of Character.

Oh, you are wondering how the movie concludes? The Assistant US Attorney (played by the marvelous Wilford Brimley) hears of the various leaks that are ending up in the newspaper and realizes someone is playing fast and loose with the rules.

He gathers all the participants and tells them they can talk to him or to the grand jury. He assures them that “…come sundown, there’s gonna be two things true that ain’t true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin’ to know what…is goin’ on around here. And the other’s I’m gonna have somebody’s ass in muh briefcase.”

After sorting through the stories, and realizing that plausible but false stories were created and leaked to bring undue pressure or ruin reputations or both, Brimely says “We can’t have people go around leaking stuff for their own reasons. It ain’t legal. And worse than that, by God it ain’t right.”

What was that last line, again?

“…and worse than that, by God it ain’t right”

I wish we could have old Wilford sort out the upcoming mess in Va-1.

Never Let Them See You Sweat…

The NLS posts here and here about the JMDD imbroglio at Oakton High School made me remember the old commercial.

The incident reveals a lesson all candidates for public office need to learn, especially JMDD.

You can wing over to NLS for the gory details, but this is the Cliffs Notes version. JMDD is at a candidates forum at Oakton HS. It was a student assembly, and students could ask questions. A student asked JMDD to clarify her position on abortion. JMDD called the question a Chap! plant, and apparently proceeded to answer in a less than friendly fashion. Booing ensued, with whether it was justified apparently depending on which side of the partisan divide you stand on.

Many years ago, while a member of the Jefferson Literary and Debating at The University, I learned never to apologize to your audience for being late, for not knowing the subject, not being prepared, being forced to speak off the cuff, etc. The audience doesn’t care. They are there to hear you, and you need to win them over with the force of your arguments, the value of your information, and the quality of your presentation. If you are good enough, they will forget you were late. If you aren’t, they will remember how bad you were…and still forget you were late, etc.

I think the same applies in situations like JMDD faced at OHS. The people attending could care less if it is a plant question. Answer the question to the best of your ability. Show no weakness. Do not let on that you are discombobulated by the question in any way, shape, or form.

On top of that, you don’t want to sound like you are berating a member of your audience, especially if it said audience is a group with a common interest…like sticking up for their friend who is being verbally beaten up by an adult!

What JMDD should have have done is thanked her for a question of great importance in the politics of today, answered her, ducked her, or bloviated and filibustered…

Instead, she violated one of the four rules of presentation, the most important of which is never start a land war in Asia.

Yes, I am fan of The Princess Bride.

The others?

Never attack a questioner…
Never get the crowd going against you…
Never let them see you sweat.

Better luck next time, JMDD.