Category Archives: Candidate Forums

Candidate Forum: 2014 GOP Cass County Primary

Posted on by

The Cass County Candidate Forum met last night at the Harrisonville Community Center. The democrats weren’t present. Their party strictly controls their primary—there isn’t one. They don’t allow contested races.

The only ones at the forum were ‘Pubs for three contested races between the county GOP conservatives and members of the Oligarchy who created the mess that plunged the county deeply in debt. The current office holders are working and making progress against that debt by returning the county to its principle areas of responsibilities.

The races covered was the Presiding Commissioner, Associate Circuit Judge, County Auditor and Circuit Clerk. Amy Bell, Kim York’s opponent for Cass County Circuit Clerk, withdrew a week or so ago as part of an agreement with the judicial system ending her service as Circuit Clerk. Kim York is now unopposed and will take office at the beginning of the new term. Regardless, she appeared alone and answered question as did the rest of the candidates.

The forum began at 6:30pm with introductions by each candidate. I noted a couple of…interesting items. All the candidates had two minutes for their responses and answers to questions with a one minute closing statement.

Dave Morris, who ran for state senator against Scot Largent and Ed Emery in the last general election, learned a few things since then. I took him to task then when he appeared at a GOP ‘meet the candidates’ meeting wearing shorts, t-shirt and flip-flops when Messrs Emery and Largent wore suits. I said at that time, Dave Morris wasn’t ready for prime time, i.e., his lack of experience in public office and the professionalism needed for state office. I’m sorry to say, he still isn’t ready for prime time.

In a subsequent question, Dave Morris was first to be asked, “What is the most positive act by the County Commission in the last ten years?” After a minute or so of stammering, he admitted he couldn’t think of anything. Jeff Cox, when asked the same question, immediately answered with killing the TriGen and Broadband projects that were pushing the county into bankruptcy.

The comparisons between Judges Meryl Lange and Stacey Lett were distinctive as well. Ms Lange has been practicing law for well over twenty years. Ms Lett for eleven years if I heard her correctly. Stacey Lett said that she has managed her own law office, and had experience with the local US Attorney’s office and other similar offices. It was unclear if Meryl Lange had ever done so, although she said she was once a lawclerk for a Supreme Court Judge. I didn’t recognize which judge that was so it must have been a state supreme court justice.

The important difference between the two was that Stacey Lett, younger and with only ten years practicing law, had twice the experience as a judge. Ms Lett has been the Raymore Municipal Judge for the last three or four years and has personally handled over 9,000 cases. Ms Lange was appointed to fill a vacancy as an Associate Circuit Judge a little over a year ago.

I did notice that Ms Lett answered the questions given her while Ms Lange did not, using the excuse of maintaining her impartiality prohibited her response to some general answers. I suppose that is one method of not making a statement on her views of being a judge. One statement that struck me, when Ms Lange actually answered a question, was her claim to have “handled 100 cases in less than an hour.” That means each case had only 36 seconds of her attention. It does make one wonder how she could do so and give each decision the necessary scrutiny any judicial case deserves.

The questions to Ron Johnson and Ryan Wescoat was fiery as expected. To call this race for Cass County Auditor a grudge match would be a great understatement. Ron Johnson was elected in 2010 ending decades of auditorial neglect by a string of democrat office holders who did not perform a single audit since the 1970s. During that time, the county auditor, “was an accounts payable office,” said Ron Johnson. Ryan Wescoat was an employee in Johnson’s auditor office when that office uncovered the fiasco of the TriGen and Broadband projects. I’ve written about his discovery in a post some years ago.

Mr. Wescoat wasn’t an employee for long. He was fired for insubordination and, without authorization, releasing documents and approving payments to UAM, the company being sued by the county for non-performance on the TriGen and Broadband projects. Since Wescoat’s political backers are the same former commissioners under investigation, Brian Baker and Bill Cook, one may suspect Wescoat’s motives running against his former boss.

Mr. Wescoat, during the initial introduction, went into great detail about his education and teaching experience. It brought to mind the saying, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.” I made mention of that phrase in a Facebook posting last night. My wife, a professor in a local bible college, was not amused by the allegory.

When questions about the future of the county, both Dave Morris and Ryan Wescoat spoke at length about the need for economic development and taking advantage of the conversion of US 71 highway to Interstate Highway 49. At one point I had to wonder if Ryan Wescoat was running for Auditor or for the office of Director for Economic Development. I forget who responded, Jeff Cox or Ron Johnson, that unrestrained spending by the prior commission to push two economic development projects, nearly bankrupted the county.

Returning to the County Auditor’s race, one question clearly displayed the difference between Ron Johnson and Ryan Wescoat. The question, “What would you do if you found an office holder who was not complying with procedures demanded by law?”

Johnson used his discovery of apparent nepotism by the Cass County Clerk, Janet Burlingame as an example. He reported the discovery to the County Clerk and asked her to change her practice to be compliant with the state’s nepotism law. When, after six months, she had done nothing, he reported the case to the county prosecutor. The case was referred to the circuit court where a judge dismissed the charge because it had occurred during a previous term of the county clerk.

Ryan Wescoat’s answer was similar except for one step. After working with the office holder and not getting compliance, he would go to the County Commission, then the prosecutor. The problem with Wescoat’s process is that elected county officeholders are NOT subservient to the County Commission. The commissioners and officeholders are elected peers. One office is not subordinate to the other. The only point of contact is their budget. The Commission, working with the officeholders, creates a budget for the county and the offices. The Commission, after review with the officeholders, approves the budget. I suppose the power of the budget could be a device to use to insure compliance by an officeholder, but it would be a messy and long drawn-out affair, with, I suspect, lawyers involved in the end. Apparently, Mr. Wescoat’s view of the office of Auditor is more inline with the auditors before Mr. Johnson, an accounts payable office who rubber-stamps the decisions of the Commission without question. The concept of the Auditor being the ‘Check and Balance’ of the Commission and the elected officeholders appears to be foreign to Mr. Wescoat’s thinking.

Overall, the distinction between the two political groups, the GOP conservatives and the Oligarchy seeking return of the old, corrupt methods of governance, was readily apparent last night. I make no apology for wishing the conservatives a win next week. Else…we can greet a return to unrestrained spending, debt, and the return of the county to the path of bankruptcy.

Facebook

Local Election Analysis

Posted on by

It’s been a few weeks since the election. It’s time to look at some races and see if we can determine which campaign tactics won and which didn’t. Let’s look at the races for the county Commissioners, Sheriff and Public Administrator offices.

One commonality is that “Word-of-mouth” works. I’ve been asking some folks who they voted for and why. As expected, most said they voted for ‘Pubs across the board. With a 55/45 overall split of the voters in the county for the ‘Pubs, it isn’t unexpected for ‘Pubs to win. I wanted to see if I could find other factors that helped.

Melody Folsom beat her opponent 61% to 38%. A few write-in votes lowered Michelle Cornforth’s percentage. What helped Melody Folsom to beat her opponent so handily? From the responses I received it was her treatment of her clients—she acted like a parent when necessary and her clients responded well to that approach.

Melody Folsom said, in a public forum, that she viewed her position as a service ministry to those in public care. They weren’t numbers in a file folder to her. She knew each one personally and they knew her. In reality, in was those clients—and their families who re-elected Melody Folsom. The client’s families spread the word. When the opposition attempted to use smear tactics, it back-fired.

Michelle Cornforth lost due to two issues—her filing for bankruptcy a few months ago and her performance in the public forums.  On first issue, if she couldn’t manage her own finances, how could she be expected to manage the assets of her clients better than her own? It was an important question. The forums were important, too. Those attending the forums made opinions and spread those opinions. Cornforth came across as a cold bureaucrat who had more interest in collecting a paycheck than serving her clients.

That bureaucratic impression affected the Sheriff’s race as well. Dwight Diehl has been Sheriff 16 years. He’s a known quantity and has acquired respect throughout the county. He has created a personal relationship to many of the county’s residents. A family friend told me how Sheriff Diehl personally kept the family informed when a family tragedy struck. That personal attention was appreciated…and spread by word-of-mouth.

Doug Catron, on the other hand, was perceived as a transient. He was using the Sheriff’s position as a stepping stone to something else. He spoke a “making alliances” as if that action was the solution to all ills. The public, on the other hand, viewed it as politicking. Dwight Diehl was seen as the county’s chief law enforcement official whose primary interest was the safety of the county—not his next job.

The Commission positions were different. To some extent, all the candidates were known and most had public resumes. Jim Hoke was the exception. Jeff Cox, running for Presiding Commissioner, was a Raymore city councilman. His opponent was Terry Wilson, long-time mayor of Pleasant Hill. North Commissioner candidate Jimmy Odom was mayor of Belton and his opponent, Phil Ducan, was a past mayor of Belton. Luke Scavuzzo, the current South Commissioner, was a former Missouri state representative and local businessman. His opponent, Jim Hoke, was a local lawyer.

That lack of public exposure was a hindrance that Jim Hoke did not overcome.  There were few in southern Cass County who did not know Luke Scavuzzo. There were few in southern Cass County who knew Jim Hoke.

The three winning candidates, Jeff Cox, Jimmy Odom, and Luke Scavuzzo, all had one think in common—ideas and accomplishments. Luke Scavuzzo repeatedly mentioned selling surplus county property to reduce the county’s large debt. Scavuzzo was not involved in the creation of that debt but was seen as attempting to resolve it.

Jimmy Odom spoke of using tax incentives to bring more businesses to Belton. It took little to notice the new Price Chopper, Target, and all the business growth along MO-58. Jimmy Odom seized that growth to project his acumen in drawing business—and jobs, to the county.

Jeff Cox formulated a plan to bring transparency to county government, improve public confidence in the county Commission, and a plan to reduce the county’s debt and resolve the failed broadband initiative. Terry Wilson’s response was, “What Jeff said.” Wilson was appointed Presiding Commissioner last Spring and since that time had yet to do anything to improve the county’s fiscal condition. During the runup to the election, all Wilson did was to repeat Jeff Cox’s talking points. Luke Scavuzzo was appointed like Terry Wilson. He, at least, reminded the public of his acts to resolve the county’s debts. Terry Wilson did not and that cost him the race.

In short, the winning county commissioners had a track record of meeting their public goals. They had a plan, skimpy in some cases, and presented those plans to the public. They were seen as being prepared to act. Their opponents failed to present a plan and had no track record.

The editor of the Harrisonville Democrat-Missourian, John Beaudoin, said, “I am not saying electing a Democrat over a sitting Republican [in Cass County] is impossible. It’s not, and we’ve seen it happen.” Yes, it did happen. Democrat Luke Scavuzzo won the South Commissioner race.

‘Pubs take heed. It could and can happen again if your candidates are unprepared and have no plans to resolve the issues of the day.

Facebook

Cass County Candidate Forum #3 and other items

Posted on by

The third Cass County Candidate Forum was held last night. This time it was only the six Commission candidates and the two for Sheriff. There were some minor difficulties. First the sound system failed. That happened at the first forum held at the same location. Second the moderator used a timer app on his phone. The “Bell” was too faint for some to hear. Other than that it all went smoothly.

At first I tried to note my impression of each individual. I came up with some labels: The Conservative, The Pro, Slick, Legal Eagle, Snake-oil Man, Bureaucrat, The Politician. I couldn’t come up with a name for the 8th that could be printed.

There wasn’t anything new that I could determine.  Jeff Cox set the tone. His goals were fiscal responsibility, setting spending priorities, building the emergency fund, and forcing transparency in the Commission’s activities by creating a video archive/streaming video of all Commission meetings with using the internet to publish the working packets and documents for everyone to review. In essence, to duplicate public access methods used by Raymore and Belton.

Cox’s opponent and the other candidates essentially repeated those points. Terry Wilson spoke after Jeff Cox and said, “I agree with Jeff.” He didn’t add anything to Jeff’s comments. My thought was if all he was doing was copying Jeff Cox’s ideas, why bother with Terry Wilson—go with the originator of those ideas.

Terry Wilson has been in office as the appointed Presiding Commissioner since May of this year. The transparency initiatives brought up by Jeff Cox aren’t complicated nor all that expensive. If Terry Wilson is in favor of them, why hasn’t he already implemented some of them? The same applies to South Commissioner Luke Scavuzzo who was appointed in January after the resignation of Commissioner Bill Cook.

Talk is cheap. Actions show intentions. Neither Wilson nor Scavuzzo have acted and that shows they’re just giving lip-service to transparency.

***

The UN has decided they are going to intrude in our Federal election. I’m surprised Obama hasn’t already invited them. He’s their bud.

The Texas Attorney-General, on the other hand, has a contrary view.

Attorney General Abbott Tells International Election Observers to Abide by Texas Election Laws

Texas AG says Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has no jurisdiction over Texas elections

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today advised the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe — a United Nations partner — that groups and individuals from outside the United States do not have jurisdiction to interfere with Texas elections. The Attorney General’s letter comes after the international group — comprised of 56 members including EU nations and other countries—announced they would be sending election observers to sites throughout the United States, including Texas, on Election Day.

The UN and the EU are in Obama’s hip-pocket. The only election violations will come from the dems. Having the UN and EU rubber-stamp dem election fraud does no one any good.

***

My, my! The White House was notified within hours of the Benghazi attack according to internal State Department e-mails. Yet, Obama and the White House continued to blame some obscure 10-minute video as the cause for over two weeks.

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

(Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

You can find the complete story at the website.

Facebook

Cass County Candidate Forum, September 25, 2012 – Part II

Posted on by

Today will be a continuation of yesterday’s review of the Cass County Candidate Forum. If you remember from my earlier post, with a few exceptions, I was not impressed with the candidates from either party. I reviewed the Commission candidates yesterday. Today I’ll review two others, the candidates for Public Administrator and Sheriff.

The candidates for Public Administrator are Melody Folsom (R) and Michelle Cornforth (D). Melody Folsom is the incumbent. Michelle Cornforth, from her bio presented during the forum is a recent arrival to the county. Her previous experience is as a social worker in Nevada, MO. From her resume, she appears to have sufficient experience for the office of Public Administrator. Melody Folsom has a public track record, Michelle Cornforth does not.

When they answered questions during the forum it was apparent the two had radically different approaches to the job. Melody Folsom viewed her position as a personal ministry to those she served. Michelle Cornforth made similar responses to every question—make sure the paperwork was done, t’s crossed, i’s dotted.

Folsom’s answers reflected her concern for her charges. She was, in essence, in a parental position and she viewed her job as that, to insure each individual received the care and services necessary to meet their needs.

I did not perceive any such approach from Cornforth. While it is important that the necessary paperwork be completed on time and properly, the position of Public Administrator is not bureaucrat hammering square pegs into round holes. I did not see any empathy to the public charges by Cornforth. Her presentation to the public at the forum was cold and aloof. My notes about her was, “Bureaucrat wannabe.”  I have no doubt Michelle Cornforth could insure all the paperwork was completed. It’s the CYA of the bureaucrat. But she would not view her charges as people as does Folsom. For Cornforth, they would be a file-folder with a name.

The other race I’m reviewing is that of Cass County Sheriff. Dwight Diehl (R) is the incumbent with 16 years experience as Sheriff and more years before that in law enforcement. He has memberships in numerous law enforcement organizations including associations at the state and federal level and has experience in the field as a police officer before being Sheriff. He has been innovative with citizen’s academies and has a long-standing personal relationship with the public.

The other candidate for Sheriff is Doug Catron (D). Catron, like Diehl, has years of experience in law enforcement. The most recent as an investigator for the Cass County District Attorney. He, like Diehl before him, attended the Sheriff’s Academy and served as a police officer during his career.

Apart from the similarities noted above, the two candidates have different approaches. Diehl, from his remarks, views the job of Sheriff as a Peace Officer. Catron, from his answers, views the job as political. When Diehl was asked questions concerning crime, he responded as a law enforcement officer. Catron responded as a politician.

For example, one of the first questions was, “What would you do when criminals from the metro area (Jackson County and Kansas City) come to Cass County and commit crimes?”

Catron responded as he did with most of the questions by declaring he would establish alliances with other law enforcement organizations and utilize intelligence from them. Diehl, on the other hand had a short, pithy answer. “I’d put them in jail.”

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two candidates. When asked what his priority as Sheriff would be, Catron said fighting drugs, prescription drugs and meth labs—all political hot buttons. Diehl responded that the number of local/state meth labs has been steadily dropping. There has been no drug-related murders in the county this year and few in previous years. He said the current emphasis was the inflow of Mexican drugs.

I was surprised that Catron was not aware of the changing environment of illegal drugs. His ignorance implied he was out-of-touch with current law enforcement trends and issues.

Of the two, I prefer Diehl for Sheriff. He is the chief law enforcement officer in the county and he views the job of Sheriff as such. Catron, on the other hand, is just another politician on the way to another political office. I like having a real law enforcement officer as Sheriff rather than a politician.

Facebook

Candidate Review: MO State Senate Republican 2012 Race, District 31

Posted on by

Last Thursday, the Cass County Young Republicans had a candidate forum for three who were running for Missouri’s new 31st Senatorial District: Scott Largent, Ed Emery, and David Morris. The candidates had an opportunity to introduce themselves and give a short biographic review. Thereafter the moderator asked the candidates questions on three subjects: Education, Jobs, and how to work with a democrat Governor.  The audience was also able to submit questions in writing to the candidates.

I’m not going into the details of each candidate’s responses.  In most of the cases, they professed similar views at a high level.  The differences appeared when discussing details.  The one area that did not have consensus was the subject of vouchers for education.  Ed Emery and David Morris thought vouchers could be beneficial.  Scott Largent disagreed.

Emery and Morris were of the opinion that vouchers gave parents more freedom in choosing schools…that vouchers would force schools and districts to be competitive and thereby improved the overall quality.  Scott Largent disagreed. He thought that vouchers could force educational conformity upon all who accepted vouchers and not for the better—more so if private and church affiliated schools were forced to accept vouchers.  Largent’s argument could be summed up as, “He who pays the gold makes the rules.”  The rules could be incompatible to the views of the private or church affiliated school.  For an example we only have to look at the recent HHS requirement that would force Catholic institutions to support contraception, abortions and other requirements incompatible with the Church. HHS is proposing to apply rules that would be contrary to the Catholic Church’s, core beliefs and canons. At last count, forty-three Catholic institutions have filed suit against HHS to block this political edict.  If the feds believe they can force such views on the Church in violation of the 1st Amendment, why should we believe they would allow private and/or religious educators to not comply with state curriculum and guidelines?  It’s a valid point.

Personally, I like vouchers but only if there are no strings attached with the funds.  It could be possible if the law was properly written.  But if it isn’t…  Well, let’s say that Largent’s argument has set me rethinking my position.

PROs:  All three believe that unions and disconnected policies have greatly impeded education. They all agree that reform is necessary. They don’t agree as to the methods. 

On jobs, all agree that passing Right-to-Work would draw industry to the state. Ed Emery stated that in a survey of CEOs on business friendly states, MO was in the middle, ranked as 24th.  He noted that the top 20 ranked states all had Right-to-Work legislation.  All three agree that state regulations must be streamlined and some eliminated. None provided any specifics.

The question of working with the Governor had a different response. Scott Largent was the only one to point out that the Legislature really didn’t have any way to force the Governor to do what they wanted.  The Legislature could override the Governor’s veto but he controlled the funds.  Funding for a specific program could be provided but the Governor was not obligated to spend the funds.The Governor could not be coerced into enforcing a bill that he did not support. The only real solution was to have a ‘Pub Governor and a ‘Pub controlled Legislature.

CONs:  Here is where I’m going to get into trouble with someone…most likely with a number of folks. I hope everyone will take my comments as constructive.

All three candidates professed conservative values. I have no reason to doubt any of those professions. I’m sure if any of the three win election next Fall, they would do their best to follow their convictions. Let’s examine each candidate. As I understand it, the ballot order is Scott Largent, Ed Emery and finally David Morris so let’s take Scott Largent first.

Scott Largent is knowledgeable. He had specific answers to the questions. He’s a serving state Representative and much of the new Senatorial district covers much of Scott’s current district. He has the advantage of the incumbent. His conservative credentials are quite good and he has an established track record in Jeff City.  He also has the support of the ‘Pub establishment.

I have a thing about the establishment. I don’t trust them. I’ve a number of friends who would count themselves as part of the establishment. I listen to their arguments. I don’t necessarily agree.  There’s still too much of an Old Boy’s club about the state’s ‘Pub committees.  The down side of this is that when a grassroots movement appears, like the Tea Party or the Ron Paul supporters, the establishment circles their wagons. It becomes an Us vs. Them. That position is a great impediment to the growth of the Party.

Be that as it may, Scott Largent is seen as a member of the ‘Pub establishment. If he is to be successful, he must reach out to those Tea Partiers and Paul supporters.

Ed Emery is a former Missouri state representative. He was term-limited in 2010. Professionally he is an petroleum engineer. He, like Scott Largent, has experience as a legislator in Jeff City.

Of the three candidates, Emery was the most polished speaker. From his comments at the forum and at other public sessions, I would judge his views as more Libertarian than run-of-the-mill ‘Pub. He is a strong small government advocate. He is also more outspoken on controversial issues that the others—his comments concerning “gay” marriage for example.  Those views have a strong draw among many. I like his comments about personal liberty and small government.

However, and there is always a however, I was disappointed in his performance last Thursday. In his responses to the questions, he never once gave a direct answer. To every question, he responded with a general statement supporting personal liberty, individual responsibility and the need for smaller government. But no specific answers to the question.  He was the only one, when asked to give a short bio, did not.  He did come back to that later during the questioning but not at the appropriate time.  During the give-and-take session during the questioning there was an implication that Emery may not be as capable of building consensus among fellow ‘Pubs as would another candidate…like Scott Largent.

David Morris was the third candidate and a local one from Cass County.  He has a passion that was apparent when he spoke. But, when compared against the other two, he was simply outclassed.  Largent and Emery are politicians. They have the look and mannerisms of a politician. While that is not necessarily a positive impression, they do project an aura of experience and knowledge of the various subject matters under discussion—real or not.

The PROs and CONs for David Morris is that he is no politician.  I have no doubt of his strong conservative views. But…if he wants to enter the political arena he needs some experience other than being involved in the local Fire Protection District. Let David run for a county office, gain some experience before diving into state politics.  Jumping directly into a state sentorial race, however, is too much, too quickly. He needs some seasoning and more experience.

If you win the primary David, I’ll vote for you but I think your chances are slim.

Suggestions:  Scott, you need to practice more on extemporaneous speaking. Ed wiped the floor with you.  You knew your subject matter, you responded directly to the question and you appeared to quick on your feet. But you paused, noticeably, before you spoke. Add some polish. Practice speaking and make your responses smoother without the noticeable hesitations. Record yourself and then listen to the playback. You’ll be amazed what you are…and are not saying.

Ed, you have the vocal polish Scott lacks.  However, you need, when asked, to speak to the question, directly and without equivocation. Talk about specifics, not generalities.  Win the primary first, win your own party. Generalities are for the fall election when you have to pull in the independents and disillusioned democrats. That’s when you can be persuasive with your overall views. For now, you’re preaching to the choir and as a rule, us ‘Pubs and conservatives are more knowledgeable that the rest. Speak to us. Convince us that you’re a better choice than Scott or David.

David, I’ve dinged you pretty hard here. Try to understand that I want you to succeed but you have to do better.  First, when you come to a forum of the party faithful to debate your opponents, dress like it.  A candidate forum is a serious event. You are appearing before the party and the public. Appearing in shorts and sandals may be fine for a BBQ or outing at a neighbor but not for a scheduled political event—unless that is your point. If appearing as a non-politician, say so and make comparisons that you’re one of the “guys” not one of the establishment.

In addition, sit down and enumerate your positions on the various issues that you expect to come up in legislature. Write them down. Memorize them. Saying, “me, too” or, “yeah, what he said,” won’t cut it. You need to distinguish yourself from the others.  Why should folks vote for you instead of your opponent(s). Plan in advance what your response will be to a subject. It wasn’t too hard to expect questions about education and jobs. In these times, those questions are a given. Scott was prepared. He had specific answers to the questions.

For example, if someone asked for your views on making I-70 a toll-road, what would you say? You need to have that answer on the tip of your tongue, memorized and the issues understood for an immediate response. Compared to the others, you have no track record. You need to overcome that lack. If you have some successes, state them and how those successes can be applied as a Senator. Although you’re practically a neighbor compared to Scott and Ed, I know little about you. I came away from the forum knowing little more than I did before.

I have no public political experience.  I do have thirty years of observance of political maneuvering in large corporate businesses as an engineer, manager, and executive level project manager. Successful politics is all about perspectives—what you project, what you perceive and how you are perceived. I hope my observances of last Thursday and my review will help one of our candidates win in August and in November.

Facebook