When Judge James A. Wynn of the NC Court of Appeals got confirmed for the U.S. 4th Circuit, his vacated seat on the NC court (under existing law) set off a kind of land-rush, with NO time for a primary to winnow out the (count 'em) 13 individuals running. Plus this particular election will feature the "instant run-off," with all of us actually voting this fall for our 1st, 2nd, and (if you so desire) 3rd choices for the seat. If no candidate gets a majority of 1st choices, then the two candidates with the most 1st choices go into an instant run-off, and if you didn't chose either of them for your 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice, you're out of the voting.
But check out the 13 ... which we're just beginning to research. Go here and click on "Download the 2010 Special Edition Judicial Voter Guide" to get the Pdf file.
On WataugaWatch's conservative counterpart's blog, as of this moment, the 4 most recent threads are followed by a total of 97 comments.
ReplyDeleteOn this site, the first 4 threads are followed by a total of 12 comments (not counting the one I'm typing at this moment).
If this enthusiasm trend continues through November, there will be an epic landslide in the election results.
You are facing a voting block that is perhaps more energized than any in the last Century and beyond.
As you waste time deriding and mocking your opponents, they, the "Tea Party", are out winning elections.
Today, many members of your Party spent the day fleeing the sinking ship you have created.
And almost no one, even your most devoted followers, seems to even care to participate in political dialogue in the WataugaWatch debate space.
Conservatives' enthusiasm = Bubble Pop Electric.
Progressives' enthusiasm = Xanax + Valium in a codeine suspension over ice.
Will you join your friends, and flee to the life-rafts, or cling to the most dense item on your boat, the anchor?
I've been lurking here for what seems like decades, enjoying the back-n-forth, and have resisted until now any urge to put in my 2 cents. Mike D's smugness is bringing me out, and even now I'd rather quote somebody else (Tom Sullivan) because he said it better:
ReplyDeleteLike channelers, crystal healers and multi-level marketers, “good, healthy right-wing exuberants” (now including the core of the GOP) inhabit personal realities where they imagine themselves mythic heroes – right-wing Dungeons and Dragons characters, but instead of fighting dragons and wizards, they fancy themselves rescuing the republic from fascists, socialists and other make believe foes.
But it’s not just faulty economic theories that led to economic ruin for the middle class that disqualify the right from holding power again. It’s how eager they are to squander the country’s time and energy on every tempest-in-a-tea-party that comes along instead of attending to the pressing needs of real Americans in economic distress.
Behold, a sampling from over a decade of ginned-up controversies Republican leaders found worthy of wasting their own (and their countrymen’s) time:
Clinton Impeachment
Freedom Fries
Swiftboats
Terri Schiavo
War on Christmas
Flag Pins
Anchor Babies
Bill Ayers
ACORN
Birthers
Climate Gate
Death Panels
Van Jones
FEMA Camps
ACORN (again)
Terror Babies
New Black Panthers
Shirley Sherrod
14th Amendment
Ground Zero “Terror” Mosque
There is more of the same awaiting America next January if Democrats stay away from the polls this November and allow extremists to drag the country further down the rabbit hole.
Wow! Good post, Anon. I sure wish you'd pick a name do I don't have to guess if you're the Anon I usually enjoy reading. I also HATE responding to ANYONE named Anon (and I'm not alone, here.)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, great list!
Where have you been anonymous/shyster?
ReplyDeleteYour post had nothing to do with MikeD's point.
I disagree Anonymous 2. The list of right wing conservative obsessions shows how they play on fear and prejudice to whip up the "bubble pop electric enthusiasm" that Mike D talked about. The reality is that this kind of appeal will always have a target audience, but rather than be disheartened by it, progressives need to be just as vocal in trumpeting the issues that actually threaten to cripple our society, such as out of control health care costs, unwillingness to pay taxes, lack of appeciation for the value of education, the unwillingness to consider taking individual responsibility for health insurance for themselves and their children, rampant and unethical greed in the financial industry, oil dependence, and so on. These issues are not fun for us to deal with because they require each of us to take a hard look at how we are living and the choices we are making, whereas the conservative frenzy-inducing issues just point the finger somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteI agree with anonymous 1, but also with Mike D. (I really don't think he's smug). It's much much easier and more satisfying to get all lathered up about "those liberals killing babies, and spooky brown people cutting off heads, and those lefty socialist machinists (?) who want to create death panels.
ReplyDeleteTrying to wade through the real threats to democracy, the consolidation of media, the concentration and consolidation of wealth and power, shrinking opportunity for a piece of the pie, this is much less exciting.
The nonsense is relentlessly spouted by a seemingly endless supply of bubble heads with cleavage and charisma, whilst the only charismatic Democrat is busy trying to clean up a massive heap of elephant crap.
I stopped reading the other site (mostly) because it is so depressing to realize how many really mean self-rightous jerks there really are in this country.
Assault rifle ban
ReplyDeleteMilitias
Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
A similar list of Democrat waste-of-time "controversies":
Waco
Hate speech
NRA
Ammo limits
Right-wing radio
Ten Commandments displays
Confederate flag
Tea Party
Blue Dog Democrats
Second amendment
States’ rights
Brushfire,
ReplyDeleteFrance's lower house of Parliament, equivalent to our House of Representatives, just voted against the right of women to wear the Islamic hood of female humiliation, known as a 'burka', in public, by a vote of 246-1.
People in this world who have slightly less inclination toward martyrdom than you see some things that you label as irrational fears as real threats.
I heard your reaction to the local tax vote. I'm not so sure I would like to live in your version of "Democracy".
Amen Brushfire. I can't read that other site either. I tried for a while, but the competitive mean spiritedness and lack of humanity hurt my soul. I haven't abandoned Obama because I know what a mess he inherited. There is no quick fix, but I think he is trying to find rational workable solutions. The problem is the inertia of a huge society, the vested corporate interests, and the inflammatory rhetoric of people who are not interested in what is right but in winning elections.
ReplyDeleteMike D. Surely you know that in today's world, we have to give up some freedoms in order to have security. Even the most hard-right wing Tea partiers seem to be OK with that concept,(especially if it's other people's freedoms)eg the Patriot Act.
ReplyDeleteAs for the burqa thing: there are many many problems associated with this mode of dressing including security, oppression, and criminals who might use this as a way to avoid capture. Remember little Elizabeth Smart who was hidden in her own city under a burqa? How would you keep men in burqas from spying in women's bathrooms? How would you provide security in large public gatherings? How could you know that an id card belongs to the person under the veil?
By creating a conspicuous sub-class it creates a divided society and consequent instability.
Do you have a problem with laws prohibiting public nudity? The only problem nudity creates is possibly traffic accidents or public nausea - depending.
As for my version of Democracy: Lucky you. You won and our kids lost. Congratulations.
Benjamin Franklin Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
ReplyDelete"It's much much easier and more satisfying to get all lathered up about... spooky brown people cutting off heads" - Brushfire
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why you would associate skin color with the primitive, barbaric act of decapitating a victim with a knife. Perhaps you are just borrowing from the non-humorous portions of George Carlin's tremendously talented and funny career in stand-up comedy?
It is strange to me that although I have never heard a conservative mention the skin color of those Islamic terrorists who decapitate their captives, I have heard about the color of their skin from Liberals on numerous occasions.
Is this true racism, or an attempt to fabricate racism where none exists?
It seems almost as though you are somehow justifying violence from people with a certain color skin, saying it is nothing to be concerned about, it is normal because they are "brown". Did I misunderstand?
You know, if you are interested in George Carlin, he performed many routines which were much funnier, and less likely to be used by dedicated Liberals to race-bait.
Brushfire said:
ReplyDelete"Mike D. Surely you know that in today's world, we have to give up some freedoms in order to have security"
Brushfire, I agree with this assessment. The Patriot Act devised by George W. is a prime example how how we should give up essential liberties, wouldn't you agree? I believe Americans should be monitored whenever and however the government believes they should be. The 9th circuit court recently ruled that federal agents may put GPS tracking devices on our vehicles without probably cause or much of anything for that matter.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry
ReplyDeleteLiberal Mom is correct in that progressive socialists come in both parties. Thank God for the Tea Party movement.
And now the cops are saying that they can film us, but we can't film them.
ReplyDeleteMike D. Haven't you heard about the governer of Arizona who is all afraid about those brown people leaving decapitated corpses in the desert? She wants to pass laws that all brown people must produce citizenship papers upon request and she used a fictional decapitated corpse to bolster her agenda.
ReplyDeleteSorry I didn't clarify the reference.
Anon - I sort of agree with Ben Franklin - but how would you deal with the Burqa issues I described?
ReplyDeleteI would not deal with them at all until they either made them an issue in this country or ask for help in overthrowing their governments to achieve civil rights.
ReplyDeleteThe Arizona law and the governor have said nothing about brown skinned people. The law addresses illegal aliens that the left presume to all be Hispanic (thereby showing their racism). I just read about several Chinese being caught trying to illegally inter the country across the southern border. If I remember correctly, most of these people are yellow skinned. I believe there are also Caucasian Chinese. China is a great big country that has more than one native ethnic race.
Brushfire,
ReplyDeleteAgain, you are the only one I hear talking about skin color and associating it with behavior. It sounds like racial profiling to me, or at least race-baiting.
Brushfire,
ReplyDeleteDo you support the Patriot Act as a bit of "security" that you want in your life. If so, then GW did all right. If not, then what type of security are you talking about?
Does anyone truly believe that Arizona police will stop white skinned people to ask for their citizenship papers? Really? Do you believe in the Easter bunny too?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Too bad you don't believe in democracy. If you want to overthrow a democratically elected government you might be happier somewhere in Latin America with its long history of coups and juntas. They regard the will of the majority as unimportant also. It's all about guns and power, which sounds like Guatemala would be right up your alley.
ReplyDeleteLiberal Mom - The Patriot Act is a direct and unequivocal violation of the 4th amendment. I can't understand how right-wingers get all lathered up about having their civil rights violated (exactly how they don't explain) but are totally silent about the Patriot Act.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to burqas - it is totally reasonable to me that we must be willing to display our identities in public places. If we can make laws against public nudity, we can also make laws against burqas. Not that that is even an issue in this country yet.
Of course burqas would solve the problem for illegal immigrants in Arizona. If people all wear burqas, the police would not be able to tell who looks hispanic. What do you think about that Mike?
Brushfire, your logic process is interesting. By your logic there was no need to do anything when Hussien (Sudamm, not Obama) killed thousands of his own people. This seems to say that if the majority wants to preform genocide it is acceptable to you.
ReplyDeleteYou persist in claiming the Arizona law has something to do with how someone looks when it specifically does not allow this to happen. Probable cause is obtained from investigations by law enforcement officers in conjunction with crimes that have been committed other than being an illegal alien criminal.
Likewise your claims about conservatives and the Patriot Act are easily proven incorrect. If liberals did not support this travesty, then why has it not been repealed by the Democrat President, Senate, and House?
Actually it is the liberal left who has been silent on the Patriot Act. With a majority in the House and Senate, not to mention a President who campaigned heavily against the Patriot Act, a repeal of this bill has not been mentioned. Why do you think Democrats don't want to repeal the Patriot Act? Why do you think they never mention or bring it up?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Check your timeline for Saddam Hussein. The genocide occurred in 1988 with the complicity of the US which falsely tried to blame Iran. In fact Reagan's administration provided the chemical and biological agents which were used in the genocide, and Reagan continued to support Saddam after the genocide occurred.US links to Saddam
ReplyDeleteBush II's Iraq war was all about the oil
So Brushfire, you support a statue of limitations for mass murder. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous- I never said that mass murder is Ok. But I think you are saying that the Iraq war was to stop mass murder from happening or to punish Saddam H. for the genocide he inflicted with the help of the Reagan administration.
ReplyDeleteThe plain fact is the Iraq war was about getting our hands on their oil. Do you think Greenspan was lying?
No, the Iraq war was started by both Democrats and Republicans to prevent Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction (which he had already demonstrated he possessed by using them on his own people) on this country and its allies,
ReplyDeleteBrushfire, maybe this will refresh your memory.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
Anonymous - Do you think Greenspan was lying? Even McCain admitted that we went to war in Iraq because of oil
ReplyDeleteAnswer this if you can - North Korea has a brutal regime with actual nuclear weapons which it has tested right in front of our faces.
Why was Iraq (no evidence of nuclear capability) invaded while Korea was not?
Brushfire, who said a WMD has to be nuclear? Hussein had both biological and chemical weapons. You do not get to limit your terminology.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - Everybody in the world has biological and chemical weapons. There is enough botulism toxin in California alone to paralyze the entire east coast (aka botox). In factI wonder if you can guess what country supplied the materials for Iraq's biological weapon's program?
ReplyDeleteChemical weapons are everywhere too - all you need is fertilizer. You have chemical weapons in your house if you have rat poison, or hydrogen peroxide in your cupboard. The justification we were given was nukes. It was the smoking gun being the mushroom cloud. And all the while weapons inspectors were searching and not finding any evidence of nukes.
Can you explain why we didn't invade North Korea which really truly has nukes, and we did invade Iraq, which did not? Can you explain why Greenspan and McCain both said it was for the oil?