Lansdowne Debate Open Thread, and Why In The World Is Jim Plowman So Afraid of Jennifer Wexton???

By Loudoun Insider

I’ve had some interesting reports from last night’s Lansdowne debate, but don’t have time to put them together into a detailed post, and I wasn’t there anyway.  So if you were there and want to share, fire away in comments.

The most ridiculous thing of all was that Jim Plowman didn’t show up as he said he would because he would be facing Jennifer Wexton head-on.  After she destroyed him at an event in Sterling he has ducked her requests for a real substantive debate between the two of them and now refuses to go anywhere she is for fear of being humiliated again.  I thought he was such a great trial attorney, shouldn’t he be able to handle this woman that he and his people always say is totally unqualified???

UPDATE:  Looks like Plowman isn’t winning any fans with his “Run Like Hell” attitude towards Wexton.


Comments

  • liz says:

    You’re kidding. He didn’t show??? Did anyone bring a chicken?

  • Cowardice says:

    He did not show. The forum was very tame. Everyone said they would deny the open band franchise. The trustworthiness of some of the candidates was suspect.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Wexton is an impressive candidate.

  • What Election says:

    If you added the candidates, HOA board members and candidate family members there may have been a total of 5 voters in attendance. This is the most disengaged election year I have seen since 1988 in Loudoun. There may be some interesting surprises due to low turn out.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    She is despite what all the Plowman supporters say. If she was such a lightweight then Plowman should jump at the opportunity to appear jointly with her and show her up if he can. I just don’t know if she has enough money to get her message out to overcome the crimson tide this election year.

  • Jennifer Wexton is as sharp as a tack. She’ll be a great CA with no one having any reason to see her as politically motivated.

    I used to say that the CA’s race, and all the other constitutional officers’ races, should be non-partisan. After dealing with such litmus-test, partisan issues as the setback requirements for residential side-yards, and figuring out how many chickens equal one sheep, I am of the opinion that all county races should be non-partisan.

    The idea that our community might not have someone as good as Wexton for its lawyer because of partisan politics is depressing.

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    I wouldn’t call it a debate per say. Nor was it heavily attended, maybe 18 citizens came out. There was no rebuttal time allowed. It was more like a Q & A forum, where each candidate had 3 minutes to answer(s). In fact all the candidates were asked nearly identical set of questions.

    Scott York came out swinging. His comments about the Sheriff’s race were spot on, York stated: “the most important thing voters will weigh in on is the Sheriff’s race, you have one candidate under FBI investigation and facing lawsuits, you have another candidate who sent lewd photos to a new acquainted female and then you have Chapman…who not only has the experience but ethics…”

    And I seem to recall that’s about the time Speakman abruptly left the forum.

    Very few fireworks – except Baldwain v. Higgins and Chairman York’s assessment of the Sheriff’s race.

    Bouna seemed to regurgitate Ronis’s position on several issues.

    Oddly enough, there was a consensus on one issue: every single candidate stated their position on the openband issue, especially Michew & Herring. However one important issue was never brought up, the contentious HS8 topic.

    To sum it up: I expected more fireworks and lots of fiery exchanges. Last night’s event was a dud, poor attendance and a “format” which prevented any attacks/rebuttal.

    As a long time Loudoun resident, I do miss the good old fashion debates, like the Loudoun Easterner or League of Women Voters…

  • BR, can you tell us what happened between Baldwin and Higgins?

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    I seem to recall a pot shot about who they voted for and who is in the White House – and now responsible for our current economic turmoil.

    Higgins response was a two punch knock out: “Last I checked I’m not running for President of the United States…”

  • Baron, are you sure? If true, that would be quite a role reversal. At the debate I attended your quotation would have been an appropriate rejoinder by Baldwin.

  • I was there says:

    After watching the OpenBand debate unfold here, I went to the LOTP meeting last night expecting that they would hold Buona’s feet to the flame. He previously told me that there were just a few radicals against OpenBand, and that he believed in a company’s ability to enter into contracts and that the homeowners had a contract that was fair. Instead of posing the OpenBand question to Buona first, they posed it to the senate and delegate candidates (who all answered that they will talke steps to prevent such contracts in the future — mentioned self-dealing, etc), then to Ronis, who stated again clearly he would vote against it and stated some of the issues with the contract and why it was bad. At that point, Buona basically repeated Ronis. There was no time for rebuttal, so no clarification on why Buona took OB money, and how this is a conflict of interest.
    Ronis shoudl have attacked him, but he also seems like a dignified guy, so “attacking” is probably not his style (contrast with Stevens Miller).

    I now not only disagree with Buona, but he seems very wishy-washy and easily swayed (bought?) to me. Of course, what else could he say after 7 people have already agreed OpenBand is a bad deal all around, and he is sitting in the HOA that has filed suit against them. Also, I noticed Ronis’s letter to the editor yesterday — and it was pretty damning — perhaps Buona’s only “way out” was to deney any preference to OpenBand.
    I would have had more respect for him if he had at least been consistent with his message and stood up for what he beileved in. Instead, I find him parroting his opponent quite often.

    Baldwin was clearly the “winner” in last night’s debate. Think whatever you want of Obama, suggesting that getting rid of Obama will solve all our county issues is just stupid. Mr. Baldwin handled this low blow with dignity and humor.

    Wexton was very impressive. I hadn’t seen her before, and never heard of her opponent, but will vote for her because she is very smart and her opponent must be an idiot not to show up — if nothing else than to face her charms ;-)

    York, while entertaining, I thought was out-of-line in using his time to attack the other candidates. I like Chapman very much and will vote for him, but it made York look bad. Of course, his opponent looked worse, so I guess it wasn’t any loss.

    I didn’t really see anythig remarkable between the senate or delegate candidates, so I am OK whoever wins. Noone stood out.

    I spoke with York and Belanka about HS-8, and they are both for the NCC location. I didn’t get a chance to ask anyone else about it.

    The format of the debate really was pretty good considering there were so many candidates, but they absolutely should have asked different questions of each set of candidates, and a period of rebuttal would have been a great benefit to the audience.

    Bottom line, except for Wexton, I didn’t change any of my votes after this event.

  • James says:

    Speakman left before the York comment. The Simpson comment was a cheap shot since the FBI investigation is concluded with no charges. York could have stuck with his own race.
    Higgins took a shot at Baldwin’s national political contributions and Baldwin responded he is not running for national office. Baldwin wins on that point.
    Wexton was impressive. She agrees the CA office should be non-partisan and she did take a pot shot at Plowman for once again failing to appear and defend his record. I see a changing of the guard is in order on a lot of fronts.

  • Fear & Loathing says:

    Sorry if this does not go with the topic as written, but it is my understanding that Mr. Plowman had told the Lansdowne folks he could not make that date, well in advance of the actual event. It has also been told to me that there was not even a place setting for Mr. Plowman because they knew he was not coming. So it is not quite what is being portrayed.

  • Leesburg Dad says:

    Fear & Loathing:

    Every other candidate on the ballot — Republican, Democrat, and Independent — was there. This event was scheduled months ago. What did Plowman have to do that was so pressing?

  • Fred says:

    F&L – you’re not singing from the same sheet of music. Don’t you realize that truth and facts have no place when trying to distort the good and honorable record of Jim Plowman.

    He wins with 60% of the vote.

  • Leesburg Dad says:

    Fred:

    Read this sworn affidavit, filed with the court, about how Jim Plowman personally tried to extort someone to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit, and then tell me how “good and honorable” Plowman’s record is.

    http://www.theplowmanrecord.com/supporting_documents/Innocent/Affidavit_Faughnan_September_12_2008.pdf

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    As pointed out above, every other candidate was there but Plowman. Wexton challenged him to debates and he avoided her and said he was just too busy. He’s obviously petrified to share a stage with her.

  • BlackOut says:

    Dick Black is refusing to debate Shawn Mitchell. Coward.

    Good for Mitchell he is going ahead with the debate anyway. He’ll probably get the same answers from a non-existing Black as if Black was there. Once a pol-bot always a pol-bot.

  • I was there says:

    If you look at the Lansdowne invitation it has the pictures of all the candidates that would be attending – Jim Plowman never was on it

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    @ David – you’re right it was Baldwin to had the knock out remark, sorry for the confusion. Thanks for setting me straight, it’s been a long day.

    My impression is Higgins has been very partisan and it’s getting old.

  • “After she destroyed him at an event in Sterling”
    I was at an event at GWU out on Rt 7, where Wexton tried to impune Plowman’s record by implying he was a racist. He let a minority girl go , and replaced her with a caucasion female. Wexton lined up the wagon, but in a question from the panel, Plowman was asked why he let the minority go…
    Plowman’s answer was simple… She was padding her hours.

    A better attorney would have known the answer to that question before it was asked. Plowman never get bested.

  • I was there says:

    I just found out that Lansdowne Village Green had invited Buona and Ronis to attend a debate style event many months ago. Ronis accepted, but Buona refused to attend stating that the voters would be far more interested in him appearing with Scott York rather than Ronis because they (he and Scott) are on the same ticket.

    BR, Actually, Minchew said very little on OpenBand, it was mostly Herring, Phillips and Ronis.

    One thing that really hit me was when Ronis was reading a something Baldwin had written to him (they were sitting next to each other) by Baldwin, and Ralph was noticeably trying to read it over his shoulder — I think they call it “rubber necking”….?

    Buona is just too slimey for me to have to watch every week on the Government channel!

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Oh yeah, let’s take former Plowman critic turned Plowman butt kisser BPM’s word for it! I had three reports that plowman was a nervous wreck at that event, and obviously he has been too scared of Wexton to face her again.

    And once again Plowman is speaking out of school like he did during the Mark Tate affair. There is no way he should be disclosing personnel issues during a debate. I hope that woman attorney sues him for impugning her character in public.

  • Plowman was a bit nervous at the beginning, for sure. Given the mixture of the dems in the room, he had a right to be. But he recovered nicely, and laid Wexton out like a marginal tablecloth with the one-liner.
    “I hope that woman attorney sues him for impugning her character in public.”

    Hey, Einstein, I now understand how you pump up her lousy credentials as a lawyer. It appears that you have the same illness.

    The woman was let go for padding her time sheets. You don’t think there’s a recorded process that proves that?? She has no grounds to sue him over anything, because when they arrive in court, she has to prove that she didn’t actually pad her hours…against a detailed and documented case that she did.

    Duh.

    Funny how the one person who accused Plowman of speaking out of turn is the same one who’s now not welcomed at LCDC circles and is probably one of your sole information sources. I’m calling him on the BS , until he has proff that Plowman said anything unbecoming. They call what you and he are doing “heresay”

  • After the first Plowman term, and the tremendous amount of that time that it took to clean up the mess that Bob Anderson left the office in…we see him endorse Wexton.
    Nuff said.

  • We see Anderson endorse Wexton, obviously.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Here’s all you need to know, folks, the facts that the LCRC partisans want to remain buried:

    http://theplowmanrecord.com/

  • Member, McGimsey Aides Support Group says:

    I was at the minority forum in which Ms. Wexton DID INDEED kick Mr. Plowman’s behind. I had never seen Plowman at all, and had only met Ms. Wexton when she came to our home to introduce herself. From the very second Mr. Plowman took the “stage” he came across as a mean, bitter man who resented he had to be bothered by someone daring to run against him.

    I have some knowledge of the intern who was supposidly “padding her timesheet”, as Mr. PLowman claimed. That untruth was nothing more than a desperate attempt to cover his behind. He seems to believe whatever he says or does should be accepted just because he said it. Doesn’t he know there are at least a few smart people who hear what he says? Does he really believe all of us are just that dumb and uninformed?

    Ms. Wexton makes a lot of sense, and appears she will be a ‘bull dog” going after criminals….Mr. Plowman only goes after those who aren’t his “friends”, and also has made some really bad legal strategy decisions. Ms. Wexton has my vote.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I wonder if the long delay in getting justice for the Bennett family had anything to do with Plowman avoiding Lansdowne? It seems they don’t know what to do there now that Jim Fisher left town.

Leave Comment