I Was Briefed. I Have Orders. The Squirrel Question Is Not Up for Debate.

I was briefed this morning — the full briefing, all four pages, which I received at approximately 7:14 a.m. before being interrupted by a squirrel on the fence outside the war room, which I will address separately and at length. The staff reports that an unnamed opponent has accused this campaign of being, and I am reading directly from my notes here, "in the pockets of Big Squirrel." I asked the staff to read that back to me. They did. I asked them to read it a third time. I sat with it. And then I had some thoughts.

First, the facts, as I understood them from the briefing before the incident. The opponent has been voting in congress — in the people's congress, the one with the chairs and the very long lunches — in ways that are, according to the staff's research, consistently favorable to squirrel interests. The staff prepared a chart. I did not look at the chart because I was still thinking about the fence. But the staff assures me the chart is damning and I trust the staff almost completely.

Now. To the accusation itself. Big Squirrel. I want to be very precise about this. I am not in the pocket of Big Squirrel. I do not have pockets. This is a biological fact that the opponent's team apparently did not research, which tells you something about their operation. What I have is a clear, documented, consistent record — consistent with my position on The Squirrel Question — of treating the squirrel situation as the defining national security issue of our time. That is not being in their pocket. That is knowing where the threat lives.

Here are my orders following today's briefing. One: the staff will issue a full accounting of the opponent's voting record on matters pertaining to, adjacent to, or atmospherically favorable to squirrel interests. Two: the Department of Companionship will open a formal inquiry into whether any legislative body has been, in the staff's words, "softening on the fence question." Three: I will be returning to that fence. This is not a campaign event. This is personal. The staff has asked me to describe it as a "site visit." Fine. It is a site visit.

I want to speak directly to non-doodle Americans who are hearing this accusation for the first time and feeling uncertain. I understand the concern. You have been let down before by candidates who said one thing and then quietly, in committee, in the second sub-clause of an amendment nobody read, let the squirrels win. I am not that candidate. I have never been that candidate. The floor of my campaign office is covered in dogs, and not one of them is confused about where they stand on the squirrel. That is a coalition. That is a record. That is a fence I intend to hold.

The staff is asking me to wrap up. I will wrap up. My position is this: the accusation is false, the opponent's record speaks for itself, and I was in that briefing room at 7:14 a.m. on a Tuesday, which is more than I can say for anyone who has ever voted to table the fence amendment. This campaign has nothing to hide. My orders stand. The site visit is confirmed for 2 p.m. The staff will not be joining me. — *A correction: the staff will be joining me. I have been asked to note that the fence is in a secured location. I have been asked to stop describing it.*