Granny D again. I’m just two nights away from my CSPAN debate with Senator Judd Gregg, who seems to want to keep his Senate seat, and I’m very nervous. It is hard for a 94 year-old woman from the woods to think about going against a career politician lawyer, but I got myself into this mess.
We get to ask each other four questions. I think I know what I will ask him (see http://GrannyD.org), but I can’t imagine what he will ask me. If he hired you to come up with a question or two, what would you come up with? I’m sure he wants to put me on the spot without looking mean or disrespectful of my age. Any ideas?
Oh, and I VERY much appreciate all the posts in reply to my messages. I am learning a great deal.
Yours, Doris “Granny D” Haddock
Hmm what happened to the sociopath part? That was pretty funny. Or did I make that up.
No matter what he asks you answer the 4 questions you would have wanted to be asked.
If he doesn’t ask those 4 just say: “That’s an interesting question but you know what, I think the listeners would be way more interested in my views about “fill in the blank”. Then go on to answer that question.
Politicians do it all the time in the effort to serve themselves and their parties. You should do it to serve the interests of the people.
Best of luck
Keith
Doris,
I have given over 400 speaches in 15 years and I still get nervous. You are on a very difficult race. You are out spent 200 times to 1. That�s why you walked over 3,000 miles isn’t it? Did your opposition do that? Isn�t well done better than well said?
A man�s reach should exceed his grasp at times. Otherwise what in the hell is heaven all about? I think Robert Browning said that.
Should you know the answer to all questions?
E.L.Masters said
And there is the silence of age,
Too full of wisdom for the tongue to utter it
In words intelligible to those who have not lived
The great range of life.
As democrats, we Amercians might often seem too idealistisc, too hopeful. We really do believe in a better world. Perhaps that is na�ve refusing to accept things as they really are right now. We often just see things as we want or yearn for them to be. If we can�t find a way we�ll make one. We really are great dreamers, believers and fixers. Maybe this is stupidity more likely it is our greatness. This is you.
As for old age. Age is your perspective. To me�old age is 10 years older than I am. So too for you. Like you, I never see my age as an obstacle. An obstacle is the scary thing you see when you take your eyes off your goal.
Be yourself. Pause. Reflect on the question. Don’t be afraid to say “As I reflect on that….I don’t think I have all the facts necessary to give a direct answer but consider this…”
Remember “One man with courage makes a majority.” Andrew Jackson I think said that.
Having read and listened to at least fifty of your speeches my wife is collecting for her publications regarding the rhetoric of Granny D, far be it from me to give you advice as to how to answer. Your are the wordmaster. Be yourself, and ignore people who tell you to be evasive and answer what was not asked just because “all the politicians do it.” You are not just another of those two-bit politicianw like Gregg. Just answer what you know as honestly as you can, telling it like it is as you always have in your speeches, and you will shine, girl! The one tragedy would be if you succumbed to the temptation to becaome as evasive and dishonest like all politicians in order to win because that would be the worst defeat.
Besides, although our people can often be misled because they are too trusting, I really think they can tell the difference between an honest person involved in politics and a politician evading honest people. You have understandable butterflied. I always have pteradactyls flitting around my gut what I have to speak. Just remember, you could well have rocked him on your hips while you were an adult and Judd was a baby. Imagine him in diapers still because he might as well have been weatring one on his head as an adult, considering how little he really understands. Too bad Lloyd M. Bentsen has already used the best quip regarding that young fellow who he was running against. Just remember Gregg is just a youngster in need of some correcting.
I think its a safe bet that he will challenge your lack of experience, to which you could respond that you have 94 years of life experience, which you would prefer any day since political “experience” often means growing more distant from the people that elected you. You may feel that this is a fair criticism of Gregg.
I agree that you should not take the advice of the person that told you to ignore the questions and answer the ones you wished you were asked – you aren’t going to defeat anyone by sinking to their level.
Something tells me he will ask about the economy, terrorism, your age, and your experience for the job.
If he has half a brain, he will anticipate the kinds of answers you would give to general questions, and ask pointed questions in an attempt to put you off guard.
For instance, I remember a debate where Kerry or Edwards (I don’t recall) was asked “You have said Bush misled us into war, does that mean that if you had your way, Saddam would still be in power?”
So, instead of asking “What kind of experience do you have for the job?” I think he’ll ask “how will your charming manner have any effect on career politicians who aren’t easily persuaded?” or something to that effect.
Granny D,
you are the most articulate, on point speaker I have heard in recent time. I understand a debate is not a prepared speech but I believe you can and do think quite well on your feet. I also agree with the person who suggested you provide the “answers” you want viewers to hear, if you don’t like the questions. I rarely miss having cable TV but I will be with you in spirit, as will millions of others throughout the country.
Cedar
I think you should expect questions about your age, specifically regarding the likelihood that you will live long enough and will be healthy enough to serve your first term. In particular, anticipate comparisons to Strom Thurmond, who everyone admits was not very productive in his last years.
Along the same line, expect questions regarding the importance of experienced Senators serving the state. This question will not be aimed at your inexperience now, but at the prospect of wasting six years of experience on someone who “cannot possibly” be more than a one-term Senator.
It seems to me that this area (your age) is your weakest point. Be very prepared with any information you can muster regarding your ability to serve. I would advise against the “ageism” defense; I think the Senator will likely be able to phrase the questions so as to persuade most voters that the questions are relevant, and an “ageism” defense will sound like you’re evading the question. Instead, I would point to your own health and energy as points against the health questions, and use the asset of your long life experience to counter any allegations of inexperience he may make. Particularly, anecdotes of your own experiences in tough negotiations, especially recent ones, will help to counter the image of a tired, old woman in the Senate.
From what I’ve read of your opinions, I think we disagree on many things, and I doubt I would vote for you were I eligible. However, I do admire your energy and spirit, and I fervently believe in the democratic process. So, I wish you the best of luck in the debate and the election, and I hope my advice helps you prepare.
Ask him (not directly) if he writes his own blog. Is he aware of the ongoing revolution in communication that makes the medium used for your “debate” quite obsolete.
Invite him to send comments to your blog and explain that the blog is only the tip of the iceberg of radical technological change that you have already demonstrated mastery of and that he is likely clueless about.
Love.
Hello. He’ll be nice to you.
If you want to really throw him a curveball, ask him this:
“Senator Gregg – looking at how your votes have affected the environment and our national debt, it strikes me that you’re not old enough to appreciate the long-term consequences of things. Do you think you’ll be proud of those votes when you’re my age?”
Granny mine!
Your “adopted” grand-daughter here has never been so proud of you! I am sure you are going to wipe your opposition off the chart! You have the fine mind and the fine heart that is needed there – or anywhere, really. You will be fine. You are nearly a poet when you speak of our rights and our freedoms.
You have inspired me and many, many other Americans to keep trying to fix this mess. It will take all of us working as hard as we can to make a change. The fact that you never give up and never give in is sheer inspiration for those of us who struggle every day to go on under the oppression, to keep walking. You are the lamp that we follow. You are the wind in our sails. Don’t ever doubt what you mean to so many of us. We can never fully thank you. Thank you.
Will be watching with pride and knowing that you are the right person for any political position. President would be better.
Love always,
Aileen
Granny D – I’m a student currently at Barnard College of Columbia University. I’m curious, I see that many of the other commenters mention your age as an obstacle to overcome. But what about your gender? How has being a woman changed, if at all, your view on certain issues? Has it changed the way you run your campaign? If a man were running in your place, would his campaign be any different?
I really admire what you are doing and what you stand for. There should be more politicians like you!
Thank you!
May God calm our nerves, give you the words to say and steel your heart for a great show. I’m praying you will win. But if you do, remember the system has things so tied up that a Freshman Senator has little power. However you could let a lot of cats out of the bag if you use your voice on the blog.
Yours for a better America
Granny D has plenty of cats to let out of the bag, and I’m sure she’s seeing the power of the blog. Granny D also needs to raise money for TV ads for New Hampshire so people can learn as much as possible about their Senator and how he has voted on the issues.
The comparison between how Judd Gregg voted and how Granny D would have voted is here: grannyd.org
If you want to contribute to help Granny D put TV ads on the air in New Hampshire during the next 12 days, go here:
http://grannyd.com/alerts/grannyd1.htm
If it weren’t in a confrontational debate, I would sincerely want to ask if you consider the war in Iraq to be more like Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, WWI or any other war, and why.
For instance, if you consider it to be like Viet Nam, why? Why not Korea?
He won’t ask that, of course, but I’m curious.
Granny-
I was Dennis Kucinich’s North Dakota Coordinator.
Just be yourself. Like the late Sen. Paul Simon said, “If you’re looking for a slick packaged product, I’m not your candidate.” You could use that quote at the debate maybe even in your closing statement.
To be less nervous, I recomend a couple things. Deep breaths about 8 times. Also, the visulization method. Close your eyes and picture in your mind what you want to happen at the debate. Also, I rccommend picturing winning the election over & over in your mind.
In terms of ?s, I think he may ask you a ? that may try to convince people that you’re out of the mainstream. You just need to show how a particular stand is mainstream.
I wish you the best. My new doctor is only a year younger than you!!
Brad
Granny-
I left part of Paul Simon’s quote off “If you’re looking for a slick packaged product like a new soft drink, I’m not your candidate.”
Brad
Hi GrannyD!
You asked what questions he might ask you – understandable. I don’t know local politics but I’m sure there’s a pattern.
Watching TV advertising (something I try to do as little as possible), everything is backwards and upside down.
The most expensive cars are billed as ‘affordable’, which insults you if you can’t afford them, so the non-confrontational viewer choses not to be offended by pretending they could buy it if they really wanted to.
Laundry deturgents with a ‘fresh, clean scent’ are heavily dosed with the cheapest perfume on the market.
And so on.
Politics has taken up this lead – everything is backwards.
Someone who doesn’t pander to industry is robbing the populace of the benefits of taking extra special care of the needs of the industry.
I expect questions will come of this form – I don’t watch a lot of debates but I’ll tune into CPAN now and then.
Following this broken logic, a candidate is less suitable because they didn’t have aristicratic markings (industry associations, friends in high places, parents in high places); women don’t belong in politics because it would be a pointless trend bucking against a perfectly innocent and harmless trend for men to be elected; … I’m trying to think of more.
Again, this is all broken logic.
I knew a pathological lair once.
They start out nice enough, but you absolutely have to tow their line or they get nastier and nastier.
Dealing with him was one of the most awkward things I could imagine.
Besides how insulting it is, you don’t even know where to start – if you start
correcting one lie, will you be forced to correct other lies?
You just get a feeling that they’re far more serious about the whole
deal and perhaps should be allowed to continue lieing just to avoid
confrontation.
Any poor soul watching the interaction is going to be put off by the whole
situation and won’t have much of a chance to sort it out.
I can only imagine how I might deal with this situation, and my imagination says:
repremand them with just an “ah ah” sound like you would a child the
moment they start to lie – don’t let them get an inch.
Setting up false premises counts as lieing.
Start out on the offensive – don’t let them get the offensive.
The only way to do this is to point out their own paradoxes – a politican, like
a bad middle manager, will make them simaltainously responsible for
every good thing that happens and absolutely uninvolved in any
bad thing that happens.
A good manager has her nose in everything and is privy to everything – set the standards for him to play by.
You can’t out-promise him, so set higher standards.As soon as he starts to take credit for one thing but blame someone else for something else, call him on it.
Parties keep each other in checks and balances – in a balanced government, one party shouldn’t be able to “ruin” things for people such as by blocking legislation.
In fact, if no bill were passed in 100 years, there would be no grave damage done to the country – damage comes from misguided efforts too easily put through – so don’t allow him to blame a party for blocking something or not towing some line.
If he suggests you wouldn’t have passed some law, or won’t pass some law, remind everyone there are too many laws, too many bad laws, too many politicans in over their heads trying to legislate their way out of problems, and any decision the country makes should good and well represent not only
the concensus of everyone, but should represent the consensus people
hold for a period of time and are likely to continue to hold for generations.
Trying to push legislation through against the will of the people or with only narrow support is shameful.
It’s often said that you’ll regret more the things you don’t do in life than the things you do do. With legislation it’s naturally opposite – legislation takes away
the rights of others to do things.
Don’t let him suggest you would pass something that shouldn’t be.
Don’t let him suggest you wouldn’t pass something that needs to be.
Don’t counter with “yes I would” or “no I woudln’t” be instead with the idea that laws should be made carefully and not quickly and they often cause more problems than they create, and when laws are made, they must be something that most people can live with and that they cna live with for a long time.
Someone else pointed out the idealism angle – this is another common attack.
Cynisism is far more rampant now days.
Good thing happens when leaders with vision take office – bad things
happen when cynics take office.
It’s ironic that we’re supposed to be so proud, brave, and tough, yet fear drives us to duct tape up our houses and classify millitary budgets to protect them from terrorists.
So, if he implies (and he won’t say it) that you’re idealistic, imply – or say – he’s cynical, you’re popular because you make people feel good, and you make people feel good because you believe in them and the country, and you don’t think anything idealistic or cynical is necessary – our strength is in our roots and our traditions, not our willingness to react violently or our of character.
Of course, it’s backwards that he would imply you have any sort of idealism
as they’re fiercely idealistic, throwing science and even reports from their
own departments away when they don’t say what they want to hear.
With the war, we’ve fought three wars: we’ve attacked with bombs the infrastructure like bridges and power plants – why? So we could rebuild them?
We attacked Sadam and his military – that’s what people wanted.
Now we’re fighting the people we were supposed to be setting free – and
it isn’t because they hate freedom – they’re rejecting our puppet government.
If we really set them free, how can we force a puppet government on them?
Don’t let him start talking as if all three wars are the same war – they aren’t.
We could have fought one but not the others.
Likewise, just because we unseated Saddam doesn’t mean we have to
force a puppet government down their throat.
This is a false premise and if he starts pushing it, he’s pushing a lie.
It would also be a lie to say anyone can fix the mess as well as anyone else –
cooperating with our allies rather than bossing them around might
defuse the situation and corproate interests need to be decoupled from
peace interests.
I don’t want to pretend to know your secrets, but I’d like to pretend to pretend to – the “idealism” attack is less effective because you’re yourself just a bit cynical, and you aren’t a young man with a slick suit and a probable agenda.
When your mother comes and tells you how you’ve screwed up when your friends are around, this is one of the most embarassing things imaginable – and your insinuation that this guy isn’t honest, isn’t doing a good job, or is just plain getting wrong carries a huge amount of weight just because of the roles.
If your mother balls you out, you probably did something wrong.
Energy might come up.
Paying for the war is just as bad as maxing out our credit to pay for electric windmills or solar panels – it’s forcing one energy solution down everyones
throats whether they want it or not.
The market should speak for itself.
If gas is too expensive, people will look at – and buy – other things – but
the price is being kept artificially low through war.
if he implies the economy depends on energy, agree, but reject his
premise that it must be oil and the government must procure it us.
That’s a lie.
Greed seems to be the common theme – everyone feels entitled to
a bunch of stuff and we’re dieing to elect whomever we think is
corrupt enough to steal it for us.
We want giant SUVs, dinner out every night, big screen TVs, and all this stuff –
and we feel like we should have it because we work hard at jobs we don’t
like.
The simple truth is you get stuff when you work hard, you’re honest, and someone else isn’t robbing from you, and people and politicains need to be reminded of that.
Don’t let him start to imply our national wealth or personal wealths
hinges on us being bastards. That’s not good old fashioned values and it’s
not what’s worked in the past. When people get greedy and corrupt, the most corrupt of the lot are the only with anything in the end.
I wish I could be more specific about things he might ask you – I wish the political mavens who must be hanging out here would pipe up and answer your question too.
I’m a computer programmer – it’s often said you can’t lie your way into
making a program work.
I’m sure farmers have a similar saying – you can’t lie your way into a crop.
People need to be reminded that you can lie your way into office, but you
cna’t lie your way into freedom, wealth, or peace.
I’m sorry if I repeated things entirely too obvious – I’ve only seen a few of
your interviews – but I feel I should do what I can that might help.
We’re all cheering for you!
-scott
Granny D: Scott Walters has given you much specific and good advice. But despite distinguishing himself as even more long winded than myself or that libertarian, Max Liberty, he is just wrong about:
“Don�t let him start talking as if all three wars are the same war – they aren�t. We could have fought one but not the others.”
Such abstractions ignore the inextricably intertwined realities in all three supposedly separate wars. For example:
1) “We�ve attacked with bombs the infrastructure like bridges and power plants – why? So we could rebuild them?”
Unfortunately, a surgical strike is out of the question when the cancer has metasticized throughiout the bloodstream. Madman Insane’s family and party supporters had tentacles woven throughout the country, with a large number of defenders in the vicinity of their chief. Even if we had airlifted 10,000 paratroopers into southern Baghdad when we had reason to believe Saddam was holed up in the bunker Bush hit to begin the war, and they had been able to kill or capture the main malignancy, as time has proven, 50,000 minor malignancies were flowing through the bloodstream of Iraq. So, removing Saddam would have set them “free”–but free for what. Everything in their history– both pre and post war– suggests that the Baathists would have just set themselves at each others’ necks while we sought to extricate our brigades from Baghdad. But that would have involved house to house fighting. Either we would have had to leave that up to the infantry walone who would have suffered exceedling casualties, or we could have had to call on our bombs and missiles to raze the way out. We would have had to disrupt the electical generation to take out communications and anti-air defences, attack the oil depots and refineries to halts Saddam’s refueling, etc. The factors are too long to mention even for this long winded writer.
We attacked Sadam and his military – that�s what people wanted.
Granny D, Ed Marshall (edromar) here: sorry I had to interrupt my response to Scott to help Kris here at home). To continue:
2) Yes, that was what people wanted. But a leader must not always just give the mobs and masses what they want while they are panicing. A true leader and representative is a representative of the people in their better minds. Of course if he doesn’t have one like Duh?bya, that is not possible.
Hopefully, a Senator on the foreign relations committee would have access to better intell and info than a scared citizen who would assume that you could just do a surgical strike to take out Saddam without disturbing the roads and bridges, and then just walk away without doing damage to the people or infra-structure. A good leader knows you have to look wisely at reality and admit the consequences. We should have known that if we were going into Iraq it would involve great destruction of all aspects of their society.
3) Now we�re fighting the people we were supposed to be setting free – and it isn�t because they hate freedom – they�re rejecting our puppet government.
Had we walked away right after we’d razed Iraq to take Saddam, they may have had civil war, or maybe the Sunni Baathists could have regained the reigns. No doubt they had planned for a guerrila war. In any case, Madman Insane would have been gone, but no good would have been done. Now the Iraqi would have had to deal with even greater failure of the infra-structure and economy, but would merely have seen a new dictator taking over–as will happen sooner or later despite our window dressing puppets claiming to seek democracy. It is becoming so clear that the most we can hope for is a trifurcation of Iraq into a Baathist Sunni Triangle, a Krdish northern area and an Iranian allied theocracy in the South. Even Duh?bya admits that he would consider a Shiite theocracy a “democratic” state that would coulnt as fulfillment of his dreams. However, both the Shiite and Sunni Bathist states would be much greater supporters of al Qaeda terrorists than were our worst fears while Saddam was in place. He was a true opponent of Iranian and all other fundamentalist Muslim theocratic a-holes. Of course Duj?bya, being himself a fundamentalist, theocratic a-hole, would consider that “democratic.”
Scott concludes by asking: “If we really set them free, how can we force a puppet government on them?”
But of course Duh?bya never wanted them free. He wanted beating them to give him popularity while keeping their oil under limited production so his oil buddies in Texas can make a killing in the energy market. That crap about “democracy” always was sheer crap.