Nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof.

I'm alternating between nervousness and elation, and my adrenaline is pumping as I get myself all worked up. I'm trying to settle my stomach down, which is a little difficult because I'm all keyed up.

Why am I bouncing around the room? I've been asked to an interview tomorrow for the No on Amendment E weblog that Tim Gebhart and I write (Tim is doing it as well). And it's a national level interview with a National Press "Broadcaster of the Year" recipient among this reporters several other awards.

I'll probably stink. But once it has been broadcast, regardless of my own inadequacies, I'll link to it if it's out there on the Internet.

So, I might have light posting tonight as I prepare.

Do you think I should refer to Bill Stegmeier as misguided or eccentric... And, do I question Bonniee Russell's motives at a national level... So much to consider, so little time..


Joan said…
pp - Be very careful with any negative comments. Even though what you say is true, not everyone knows the situation and some will question whether the problem is that person or the person who is making the remarks.
The best thing you can do, if possible, is to cite specific examples in as terse a manner as possible.
Actions always speak louder than words.
Good luck.
PP said…
Thanks Joan.

I've been interviewed many times before, and it's no big deal. But as for a national audience, I have to admit this is a first for me.
Bob Newland said…
I think you should admit that South Dakota courts chew up poor people like M&Ms, and that there is a definite problem with the courts, then say that if "E" doesn't pass, you'll devote the rest of your life to helping achieve a JUST justice system.
PP said…
Bob, that was funny. Was I supposed to hear a rim shot after I read it?
Bob Newland said…
A rim job.
PoliGlut said…

It is a management maxim that, when criticizing an employee, never speak to the employee's personage; speak rather to the inappropriate behavior. In this case, the behavior is this AWFUL amendment.

Forget Stegmeier. He is a pawn of his own -- and his friends' -- paranoia. They deserve, perhaps an "angry anarchists" reference but not the spotlight of personal recognition. But don't forget to say "from California".

Damn artichoke-eaters.

This legislation is SO BAD you can focus on it alone ...

-An inquisatory body that can rule not only on the Judge's opinion, but also on any LAWS in question? Seven of twelve people can override the legislature? Then why have a legislature? RIDICULOUS.

-No one with any legal experience can serve on the panel? GREAT IDEA! How about a painter. Not house, but pitcher-painter? (Just, kidding, Bill Fleming.)

-The Rule of Law would be gutted. It would be the "Rule of the Inquisatory Body".

Stand tall, because the people know that E is a piece of shite. Latest numbers suggest this thing's going down 2 to 1. So state your arguments confidently. Ignore the personalities involved.

And enjoy yourself!

You're saying another poll is calling it 2 to 1 against Amendment E?

What about the Zogby, 3-2 for E?

Who's right?

See my take on "E" at and opportunities/amendment/vote no on jail
PG said…

The Zogby was a ridiculously loaded question. Jilted methodology used to build credibility for the parties that paid for the poll (The Yes'rs). Guess even Zogby occasionally "takes the cash". Disheartening.

The numbers I quoted are reliable, with a caveat. Given even minimal info (and it can't be called unbiased info, because almost ANY info about the reach and implications is incriminating) support for E collapses.

Let's hope the No on E folks are on it. The info is crucial. I like their outdoor (billboards), but the rest of their program so far is pretty weak. "Creative" sometimes upstages rudimentary communication.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long