Miller and Rishell Have A Debate
By Greg L | 5 October 2007 | 50th HOD District | 55 Comments
I’ll have more on this later, but Jackson Miller really whupped Jeanette Rishell tonight at the Prince William County of 100 Debate. Rishell got so flustered at one point that she compared abortion to going to war in a bizarre reference that sounded as if she was talking about going to war against unborn children. Rishell is clearly out of her league.
If you want to listen, here’s the full audio. (WMA format, 10MB, approx 1 hour running time)
I’ll have highlights tomorrow, hopefully.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
55 Comments
Views: 978
Loading ...
Actually, I saw that debate, and Rishell was not flustered. She drew a bad comparison, and Jackson Miller, preaching to the choir, decided to expound it for you folk. She then went back to clarify her comment. What she was trying to say was that she, indeed, agrees with abortion. No news to you guys, right?
I thought it showed lack of class of Miller to call Ms. Rishell “Jeanette” several times during the debate. I’m glad she finally gave Miller the respect he deserved when after several instances of this she called him “Jackson.” I also think it showed profound lack of class that he waited until his closing arguments, when Rishell could not correct the record, to spout out the real lies.
Is there a way I can download this for my iPod? My internet is restricted at work, so I can’t pull it up to listen to it there.
Oh, so you guys post while you’re working, huh?
No way… that would be poor form at my job.
Yarmy: of courrrrse she did. *pats yarmy on the back in jest*
She was whupped.
Anon: 6:50: What are you, the post police? Beat it if you having nothing to contribute.
Just sayin’, Dave B. Sounds a little irresponsible to me to be posting on the job.
“I also think it showed profound lack of class that he waited until his closing arguments, when Rishell could not correct the record, to spout out the real lies.”
Oh, you mean where Miller pointed out the accusations that Rishell made in 6 mailers, that both the Journal Messenger and Gainsville Times have proven to be 100% false? You mean those “lies”? Or maybe you are referring to her assertions that she will somehow “get tough on immigration”? It is a proven fact that she helped raise money for illegal aliens, opposed the 287g program, and opposed every bill that Miller put in to deal with illegal immigration.
Get real. Jeannette Rishell is a Liar’s Liar. I am glad Jackson Miller called her on it.
Yarmy, I am not surprised that you saw the debate. I would wager that you are one of Rishell’s paid campaign staff.
“Anonymous said on 5 Oct 2007 at 6:50 am:
Oh, so you guys post while you’re working, huh?”
What kind of bizarre question is that? There are a lot of people in this world who create and own businesses who have earned the right to do whatever they want at work since it’s their dime anyway. Of course, those same people probably many times can’t take weekends off, skip vacations, work very late nights and early mornings, and holidays are spent worrying about getting the employees their Christmas bonuses.
So, please tell us what your job is that you are so concerned that, as Dave B. said so astutely, “What are you, the post police?” I guess since another Elecion Day is around the corner I should just get used to you strange anonymous posters coming out of the woodwork.
Now that I have that rant out of the way, I can get back to scheduling my 3 hour lunch break and figuring out which friend will want to cut out of work early today so we can hit the links.
Dear Readers,
Last night, I watched and filmed the debate between Jackson Miller and Jeanette Rishell. Both sides did well and probably nobody’s mind was changed. What shocked me though was the lit piece against Jackson that was handed out and place on chairs last night by the Rishell campaign.
It concerns property that Steve Smith and myself sold to Jackson. This property is in the county and not in Jackson’s district. The piece states that Jackson paid $460,000 for a property assessed at $4000, and that he paid $460,000 for an additional property assessed at approx. $135,000. The truth is he paid $460,000 for both together at the height of the market.
The piece then states that he sought to build 16 homes and that the board turned him down. The board passed 7 to 1 in favor of the comp plan initiation. The number 16 was suggested by staff, not Jackson, he originally sought 9 half acre homes. The board suggested that staff work with us to determine what the best use is for the property.
Since this time, I have entered into a contract agreement with Jackson and two others on this property to form a partnership. We have worked with Supervisor Nohe and Ray Utz from palnning and have determined that a commercial application makes the most since. We are moving forward to develop the property in a commercial venture.
The staff at planning, the board, and members of the Planning Commision have all been professional and helpful. Special kudos to Ray Utz.
I do not know why the Rishell campaign feels the need to fabricate issues concerning Jackson’s business and professional career. I do not believe Jackson has sought to tarnish Mrs. Rishell’s career with Carteret Mortgage. I have work with Jackson Miller for the last two an a half years as his Principal Broker and am honored to work with him and have him as a friend.
Sincerely,
Austin Haynes
Prince William Soil and Water Conservation Board Director
Principal Broker, Christopher Real Estate Co.
The only folks in the audience last night supporting “Jeannette” were the NOW Nags, who, by the way, couldn’t maintain the requested “proper decorum” when Jeannette answered the Roe v. Wade repeal question.
Sorry for my two typos in my earlier post.
Mr. Haynes, thank you for setting the record straight. Sounds like bad form once again on Rishell’s part.
PS, You should probably submit that comment as a letter to the editor to inform the public.
So let’s see, we have the Director of the Soil and Water Board in partnership with a Repubican member of the House of Delegates working with a Republican Supervisor on a development issue. Typical Republican approach to things — insider dealing and cronyism. Thanks for setting the record straight.
Yarmy 5 Oct 2007 at 6:20 am:
A first name is for show only? come on……..!
Anonymouson 5 Oct 2007 at 7:16 am:
maybe he owns the business?????
G Man said on 5 Oct 2007 at 8:14 am:
National Order of Witches!
Austin, Both sides did well?????? Are you kidding me? With friends like you, who needs enemies. I dont think Jeanette Rishell answered 1 question straight all night.
I even heard one of her staffers say to another “we got our ass handed to us tonight”. I was there for the senate debate and dont even live in the 50th so I dont have a stake in the outcome. Out of the four candidates debating tonight she had the worst performance bar none.
Unfortunately, I can’t vote for Jackson either since I’m not in his district. But I was at the debate and Jeanette was toast.
Rishell handled some questions well, but even when she spoke well, the one thing that struck me is that she sounded very rehearsed, as if her responses sounded over memorized or perhaps she was reading them off of a sheet of paper. There was little emotion or conviction in her voice at all.
I have a background in broadcasting and a degree in broadcast journalism. I had to take speech classes and worked on a radio station and in a tv studio. So you can say I have a trained ear.
Miller’s delivery wasn’t as polished, it wasn’t bad, he just isn’t as slick. But he sounded more like he meant what he said. There was real emotion and conviction in his voice, which made him sound more honest and believable to my ear.
Both did well, but each side had a major gaffe/weakness. I wish Jackson Miller had stated his reasons for not expanding anti discrimation policy to include gays in state employment. To just say no, you don’t have the right, without saying why makes it sound like his position is not defensible. Perhaps it is defensible, perhaps it is not, but without knowing his reasons for it, I cannot support his statement.
Rishell’s weakness was the repetition of her lies, particularly when she accused Miller of doing nothing about immigration during his term. In less than one year, he has done more than anyone else in Richmond, and anyone familiar with the issue will know this. She also was misleading about the abusive driver fees, by blaming Miller for excluding out of state drivers, instead of telling the truth and blaming Kaine.
Since the truth is most important to me, I give the debate to Miller.
Roe v. Wade is a legal decision, and therefore cannot be “repealed.” It displays a fundamental lack of understanding to suggest that it would or could be “repealed.” It can be “overruled.”
The confusion is understandable, however. Roe v. Wade addresses a legislative issue, and looks less like a legal decision than a statute.
I suppose that those who worry about it being “repealed” reveal that truth by their inaccurate terminology.
I love when people are so brave with their words, yet post as anonymous. First off, to the first anonymous post, I thought Jackson did the best in the debate. That was not what my post was focused on. To the post that decribes Repuplican collusion, Hilda Barg and John Jenkins both supported the comp plan initiation. Please do not disparage someone’s ethics whom you do not know. How brave you are with your words!
I figured that conservatives could not admit that this debate was one where each candidate landed some jabs and took some. It definitely was spirited! Given the lack of organization by the Miller folks for this debate (no campaign signs along the road except a forest of blue ones for Rishell and Colgan; Miller arriving late so he did not have to mingle during dinner and actually listen to voters), it seems this blog’s author wants to make sure that people think it was a route by Miller despite his lack of pre-event focus. Glad he will have the audio up because then non-attendees can hear for themselves what was said, not how either candidate’s supporters think the event went. Miller’s rant at the end suggests to me that he is getting rattled by Rishell’s campaign. And that makes for a good and interesting race for the last month of the campaign.
Anonymous said on 5 Oct 2007 at 6:50 am:
“Oh, so you guys post while you’re working, huh?”
And where are you exactly? Work? I’ll just go ahead and assume that you’re posting from work.
I figured that conservatives could not admit that this debate was one where each candidate landed some jabs and took some. It definitely was spirited! Given the lack of organization by the Miller folks for this debate (no campaign signs along the road except a forest of blue ones for Rishell and Colgan; Miller arriving late so he did not have to mingle during dinner and actually listen to voters), it seems this blog’s author wants to make sure that people think it was a route by Miller despite his lack of pre-event focus. Glad he will have the audio up because then non-attendees can hear for themselves what was said, not how either candidate’s supporters think the event went. Miller’s rant at the end suggests to me that he is getting rattled by Rishell’s campaign. And that makes for a good and interesting race for the last month of the campaign.
Austin, it’s nice to put one’s name, but when someone is prevented from replying using one’s own name, one has no recourse but to use Anonymous as their name.
I am not sure what Greg and company have against my partner, but they to not let him post under his name.
Ed Mattison
Austin said on 5 Oct 2007 at 9:33 am:
I love when people are so brave with their words, yet post as anonymous. First off, to the first anonymous post, I thought Jackson did the best in the debate. That was not what my post was focused on. To the post that decribes Repuplican collusion, Hilda Barg and John Jenkins both supported the comp plan initiation. Please do not disparage someone’s ethics whom you do not know. How brave you are with your words!
Austin, it’s nice to put one’s name, but when someone is prevented from replying using one’s own name, one has no recourse but to use Anonymous as their name.
I am not sure what Greg and company have against my partner, but they to not let him post under his name.
Ed Mattison
Austin said on 5 Oct 2007 at 9:33 am:
I love when people are so brave with their words, yet post as anonymous. First off, to the first anonymous post, I thought Jackson did the best in the debate. That was not what my post was focused on. To the post that decribes Repuplican collusion, Hilda Barg and John Jenkins both supported the comp plan initiation. Please do not disparage someone’s ethics whom you do not know. How brave you are with your words!
Heck, they don’t let me post under my name, either!
Ed Mattison
I’ve been to other Miller events and he has always, as last night, remained a gentleman. He always referred to his opponent as a nice lady, and stuck to his record. It wasn’t until she printed and distributed absolutely false attacks on Jackson Miller, that he was forced to defend himself by bringing it up. She started it. Unlike his opponent who can afford to spend full-time campaigning, he has a job. Even so, she was full of non-answers (listen to the audio), evaded questions, and exposed herself as the non-entity, inexperienced person that she is. As a freshman delegate last term, he is amazingly involved, addressing important issues that affect all of us, and brings a wealth of experience as a businessman and police officer to the table. She reminded us several times that she is a mom and grandmother. Big whoop. So am I, but I don’t think that qualifies her to represent anyone but her family.
Ed,
Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate it.
Austin
Mr. Miller clearly showed himself last evening and it is clear that if want intolerant, racist, judgemental leadership he is the candidate. He was so desperate at the end of the debate that he lost his composure. As for myself I will be voting for Ms. Rishell.
JM, the reason she had no conviction in her voice is that she dosent even believe what she is saying herself. She has pulled a 180 on the immigration issue from last year.
I am quite frankly dissapointed to see her sell out her own convictions. I believe her staff has convinced her that she must jump on this “immigration band wagon” to win. Its simply not working.
Jeanette, you almost beat him last year sticking to your principals. Why did you betray yourself and your supporters by wading shoulder deep into this anti-immigrant hype this year.
“I am quite frankly dissapointed to see her sell out her own convictions. I believe her staff has convinced her that she must jump on this “immigration band wagon” to win. Its simply not working.”
Illegal immigration is not a “bandwagon” — it is a serious problem. People want to know what Rishell will do about it, if elected. Furthermore, she’s basically saying the same things you guys are — clamp down on illegal immigrants and send them back to their countries, enforce local laws on illegals, and work with Congress to get funding to do these things. She’s just not saying these things in as inflamatory manner as you.
Amen, rebelling elephant at 12:01.
I was at the debate and yes Rishell did make a comment likening reproductive rights to going to war. She did make it sound like she was going to war against unborn babies. She’s awful.
Also, Colgan said that we were mistaken. All those guys hanging out at the 7-11 are really legal immigrants from El Salvador. Imagine that. He says we are mistaken and so we don’t have a problem with illegal aliens.
But the best line of the evening belongs to Bob Fitz. He said Colgan was the architect of the area’s traffic problem. That line had more truth in it than Colgan’s entire evening. DUMP COLGAN.
Rishell sounds like a typical Democrat who blows in what ever direction the wind of current ratings would suggest is favorable. I was not at the debate therefore I cannot comment on the outcome. I can surmise however that her stance on abortion fanned the NOW attendees into a butch rant. Can the Anonymus/Anonomous sparring cease as it is difficult to keep up with who’s who. I suggest one of you change your screen name.
“Miller’s rant at the end suggests to me that he is getting rattled by Rishell’s campaign. And that makes for a good and interesting race for the last month of the campaign.”
I think a better explanation is that the Rishell Campaign has looked at the numbers, judged the reaction she’s getting door-to-door, and realized the only hope she has is to go negative. Not a bad strategy, except for the fact that when you go negative, what you are saying about your opponent better be true. What she put out shows me that her campaign is in a panic. That last night she didn’t mention even one of the accusations her mailers made during the debate, speaks volumes. She screwed up by lying about her opponent, got called on it by the local press, and wants to try to distance herself from it as quickly as possible. Kudos to Miller for not letting her off the hook.
The problem that Rishell has to deal with now, is that everybody, and I mean everybody who’s not a rabid supporter of hers knows the calims she made in her mailers are 100% false. The Manassas JM (hardly a right-wing publication) and the Gainsville Times both completely debunked her campaing claims. Her mailers were a serious gaff, and one she is unlikely to recover from.
So, you abandon your principles and hide your real agenda in an attempt to get elected, because you know from previous experience that the people reject your positions on issues that are important to them. When lying about your own positions isn’t working either, you fabricate negatives about your opponent. When the local press comes out an calls you a liar, where do you go from here? About the only thing she hasn’t done yet is chew her own leg off like a coyote caught in a trap. Rishell is caught in a trap of her own making.
You lose, and you go away. Goodbye Jennette. I hope this will be the last we hear of you.
Oh, and those of you who continue to defend her on this blog, you end up looking like idiots. Rishell has made jackasses out of every one of you.
Batty loves the word “idiots”. (dict. “a person exhibiting mental deficiency in its most severe form and requiring constant care”) Watch out, Batty, our mental hospitals will fill up!
Actually, Bats, Rishell did repeat some of her favorite lies during the debate.
She trotted out the lie about Miller not doing anything about illegal immigration while in Richmond, ignoring the fact he introduced several pieces of legislation, most of them passed in the house, and one became law. Not bad for a freshman delegate in his first term.
She also accused him of excluding out of state drivers from the abusive driver fees. It is true he voted for the law, but Kaine created the exclusion. The bill was amended to exclude out of state drivers after it passed in the house.
JM
Miller did a good job explaining what happened with the abusive driver fees.
And Miller voted for it after it came back from Kaine with the abusive driver fees in it. So, he can try and blame Kaine, but he voted for abusive driver fees and needs to take responsiblity for that vote — or, like Lingamfelter, change his mind about it now. As for Jeannett’s comment about abortion being like war, it has to do with the fact that she is very much personally opposed to abortion, like Jackson Miller, but doesn’t believe the government needs to intrude in people’s private life, unlike Jackson Miller.
“I was at the debate and yes Rishell did make a comment likening reproductive rights to going to war. She did make it sound like she was going to war against unborn babies. She’s awful. ”
Patty, you are so distorting the truth. I was at the debate, too. Jackson Miller twisted Rishell’s words around. Rishell was trying to say she felt very strongly in favor of a woman’s right to choose. She came back on response time and said that what she intended to say was that she feels very strongly that abortion is a personal decision and the government should not intrude in a woman’s life.
If you think she was saying she was going to war against unborn babies, you need to listen to the tape.
I cannot believe the detritus on this blog! Jackson voted for the abusive driver fees not once but twice! There is no excuse for his inept decisions & he should be voted out of office. He was right last year when he stated that Jeanette is smarter than him–she would never have supported such nonsense.
Elephant, you are making this a little too simplistic.
Patty, I, too, was at the debate, amidst Rishell’s supporters who were very obviously feminazi baby-haters. When I heard R.’s words come out of her mouth I suddenly realized that what I’d heard about pro-choice women was true - they actually consider babies the enemy. Perhaps her tone or wording was “off”, but her supporters cheered her on. It was when Jackson Miller got up and called her on it, that I realized it wasn’t my imagination. She did rebut afterward to “explain” what she meant, but it was pretty lame.
Anonymous 5:23,
Miller didnt “blame” Kaine at all. You must not have heard the debate. Miller 1. didnt change his mind about it, and 2. He actually took responsibility for it saying something along the lines of “we messed this idea up and we deserve the criticism.” (I dont have the exact quote but it was along those lines.) He actually was very polite mentioning Kaine.
I, like several others in the room knew very little about Miller or Rishell as we dont live in the district. I was there to support my state senator. I am suprised at some of the comments about Miller doing so poorly on this blog as my recollection of the debate had him as a clear winner.
Not that Rishell did poorly. She held her own, but Miller seemed much more knowledgable on the issues. He also gave much more direct answers and showed confidence. Rishell was to guarded and on several questions she never really gave an answer. She was a good speaker but seemed to be the least prepared candidate of both debates.
Why dosent this blog have a section on how well Senator Colgan did in his debate. As usual he had a great sense of humor and was very personable.
you all need to watch this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdwBOy-FIk
“Why dosent this blog have a section on how well Senator Colgan did in his debate. As usual he had a great sense of humor and was very personable.”
We just kinda felt sorry for him, actually.
Please to not attempt to pigeon-hole pro-choice women. In the first place, we greatly outnumber anti-choice women. We are simply women who feel we are capable of making our own morally appropriate choices.
Most of us love our children, grandchildren, niece, nephews, and little neighbors. Many of us feel abortion is undesirable, yet we do not choose to push our feelings down the throats of others who may not share our views.
I personally do not want the state to make deeply personal decisions for me or for my children.
Please do not attempt to engage me into a debate on this issue. It will not happen.
Dolph, then don’t ask the state to pay for your or anyone else’s “choices”, if you truly don’t want the state involved.
I don’t intend to debate this either.
No where in my post was money mentioned. Where on earth did that come from?
yep, I hate to admit it. I spent the last hour listening to this debate.
Delegate Miller was clearly stronger in his opening, closing, answers, and rebuttals. His worse response was the answer to Mrs. Rishells question. He seemed to go off-pace and sounded like he was not ready for the question. Kudos for that question Mrs. Rishell. His ending was very effective, hardly sounding like a “rant” as Tom Osina said earlier in this thread, but of course I had no video to see body language with the closing.
I agree with JM’s assesment in this thread. Mrs. Rishell sounded very rehearsed. In fact, overly rehearsed. She also did a very poor job in answering the questions. She seems very afraid to be nailed down to a solid answer as if it will offend someone. I would advise Mrs. Rishell that vagueness is not a quality that people want in their leaders. She is running against a former Army officer and a policeman. She has to stop coming off as wishy washy.
I have to say Delegate Miller wins this round. Not a knockout, but definitely a unanimous decision.
Is this their first debate? and how many more do they have scheduled?
Dolph, the typical pro-choice person has been in favor of the government continuing to fund Planned Parenthood. Maybe you are not typical.
The curious thing to me was why did Mr. Miller need to have the question about “Immigration” repeated? …I know Ms. Rishell had a detailed answer, but that must have been a bit embarrassing.
No one wants to go back to the days of back alleys and hangars. The supreme court understands not only life from within the womb but the life of abuse, of incest, of deformities and the never ending operations and cost that go into protecting someone else’s misery.
The writer that claims that Ms. Rishell is personally opposed to abortion must know something about her thoughts that was not apparent from the debate. She never claimed to be personally opposed. Instead, she made a comment that she believed that making a decision about abortion was akin to making a decision to go to war; I took it to mean that the decision maker had to decide whether the enemy was a sufficient threat to the decision maker to justify terminating/killing the baby/enemy or initiating deadly force against a foreign enermy. She came across at the debate as militantly pro-abortion. If that was not her intent, she is not a very capable debater.
The writer who describes Delegate Miller’s closing remarks as a rant is plain wrong. It is true that Delegate Miller called Ms. Rishelle a liar based on the statements made in her campaign literature. The campaign literature had already been shown to contain numerous demonstable lies; and both the MJM and the Gainesville Times both pointed out her lies. The MJM, which comes across usually as pretty politically liberal, wrote an editorial criticising Ms. Rishelle’s lying tactics. Perhaps those who thought the closing remarks a rant did not want to be reminded that Ms. Rishelle has shown herself to be completely lacking in integrity. I am not sure that Ms. Rishelle could have undone some of the harm she has done to her reputation, but she might have at least blamed a campaign lackey for the lies and apologized for her slanderous remarks. She is apparently too lacking in class to do that.
Rishelle came across as PWC’s own Hillary. The longer she blabbed, the more I got the image of Hillary at the mike. Miller cleaned her clock.