Anti-democratic Democrat governor cuts and runs

January 26, 2012

"Cancel elections? Wonderful idea!"

Remember Governor Bev Perdue, the Democratic Governor of North Carolina who suggested canceling the 2012 congressional elections so Congress could focus on solving the nation’s problems? (And preserving their Senate majority, coincidentally.)

Maybe she should have cancelled her state’s elections, instead. Facing bad polling numbers and strong opposition, Governor Perdue is calling it quits:

North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue, facing a hard fight for a second term, will not seek re-election, a Democratic official said today.

The first woman elected governor in North Carolina history, Perdue faced a potential rematch against former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, a Republican whom she narrowly defeated in 2008 in the state’s closest gubernatorial contest since 1972.

Perdue’s win was partly attributed to Barack Obama’s surprise win in North Carolina.

Perdue was expected to make a formal announcement later today, according to a Democratic official, who requested anonymity in order to discuss the governor’s decision.

Her likely opponent in the next campaign was to be Pat McCrory, former Charlotte mayor and a Catawba College graduate.

Hat tip to my blog-buddy, ST, who’s a go-to source for Tar Heel State politics and whose site should be one of your regular stops as the (Social) Democratic National Convention rolls into her hometown of Charlotte this summer.

Meanwhile, Ed Morrissey analyzes the egg-on-face moment this gives the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign (but I repeat myself):

Instead of making a triumphant entry into Charlotte and lifting Perdue to re-election, Democrats from around the country will have their convention opened by a one-term governor who couldn’t win re-election even with a Democratic presidential incumbent on the top of the ticket and her party spending a ton of money in her state.  That’s not exactly a winning message for Democrats this summer.

I think this means she gets moved to a 3AM speaking spot.

As for Governor Perdue, herself, I shed no tears at her decision. Not because I’m a partisan Righty who thinks the Democrats don’t deserve to win another election ever, because of the their incompetence and the damage they’ve done to the nation.

Though that’s true.

No, it’s because of that stupid statement about cancelling elections, which she lamely tried to pass off as a joke, that I think she should go away and never be heard from again. It’s not that I think she’s some sort of Fascist, though the proposal itself was. It’s that she has to be either incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant of American History and political tradition (and of Fascism, itself) to even suggest such a thing and not know how appalling an idea it is.

And we don’t need those kind of ignoramuses in our politics.

Bye-bye, Bev!

North Carolina’s Nanny-Stater of the Month

June 1, 2011

Yes, this month’s award goes to a busybody in the backyard of my blog-buddy, ST. Now, you may think you want your hamburger rare or medium-rare (1). You might even be looking forward to it.

Well, forget it! Nanny knows best what you can eat, so nothing less than (flavorless) medium for you, Bub!

Presenting Reason.TV‘s Nanny of the Month for May 2011, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources:

Thank goodness the State is there to make the choices we can’t be trusted with. 

(1) FWIW, I’m a “rare side of medium-rare” kind of guy.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Ask questions of a congressman? How dare you!

June 14, 2010

Maybe the strain of voting for the worst legislation since Smoot-Hawley is getting to poor “Representative” Bob Etheridge of North Carolina’s second district. Could it be guilt and fear of the voters’ wrath that causes him to physically assault student journalists who had the insolence to ask him questions? Tito, roll tape:

Big Government explains:

Last week, Democrat Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC2) attended a fundraiser headlined by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was asked by some students on the street whether he supported the “Obama Agenda.” He didn’t take it well.

Expect more of this. The hard, progressive left captured the Democrat majority in Congress and forced them to enact a fantasy grab-bag of legislation that is increasingly unpopular with the American public. We’re on the cusp of a deeper recession, millions of unemployed Americans have no prospect for work, taxes are about to spike higher and we’ve maxed out the national credit card. The Democrats were given a chance to run government and they’ve only succeeded in running it into the ground.

So, yeah, Democrats who are up for reelection this November are a bit testy.


Let’s recap what we saw on this video. A sitting Congressman–a presumed living extension of James Madison and other founding fathers–was asked on a public street whether he supported the President’s agenda. His response was to hit away a video camera and assault a student. The age of Pericles this ain’t.

No, it isn’t. Looks like Congressman Etheridge needs a time out.  You can help him get one by contributing to his opponent.

LINKS: Further thoughts from Roger Kimball.

UPDATE: Etheridge apologizes:

“I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.”

Fine, but the residents of his district should still fire him.

LINK: More at Pajamas Media.

Why bother to have an election at all?

October 20, 2009

This news stopped me in my tracks. The Justice Department voided a change to local election laws in Kinston, North Carolina, that changed elections there from partisan to non-partisan races. The reason? Black voters will be able to elect candidates of their choice only if they know which ones are Democrats:

Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters’ election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

You’re darned right they have. I can’t count all the layers of “wrong” in this diktat. Here are a few, as pointed out in the article:

  • The town is majority Black. The problem isn’t African-Americans being denied their franchise, but low Black turnout for local elections. The reporter even interviewed Black town officials who opposed this decision.
  • The town is already solidly Democratic. People interviewed for the article couldn’t recall the last time anyone aligned with Republicans had won an election.
  • The decision insults Black voters in the town, by assuming that only Black candidates could authentically represent Black townsfolk and that those candidates could only be Democratic, and that the voters can’t decide their own interests for themselves.
  • The decision insults the White minority in the town by assuming they’re a) racists who wouldn’t vote for a Black candidate (just how did those Black officials get elected then, when African-American voter turnout is usually low?) and b) so partisan that they’d overlook their racism because the Black candidate is a Democrat.
  • The decision shoots dead the principle of local control over local politics, denying the people their sovereign right to decide their affairs for themselves. Remember, the law the DoJ invalidated was passed by the voters overwhelmingly last November, when Kinston Blacks turned out in large numbers to vote for Obama.  In fact, it was a rare moment when more Blacks than Whites voted there. Is Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder saying Kinston Blacks are so stupid that they would disenfranchise themselves?

When the Voting Rights Act became law in 1965, there was a good reason for it. The old Confederacy (and many parts of the rest of the nation) was dismantling the Jim Crow system of apartheid laws, and Whites in the state and local power structure were trying to rig things to keep themselves on top, often by preventing Blacks from voting at all by hook or crook. Federal intervention was necessary to assure African-American citizens their rights under the Constitution.

But, 54 years later, more than two generations have passed and Blacks are well integrated into the political system; while there may be a need for an occasional intervention, that surely isn’t the case here where, again, the town’s Black majority approved the new law. In fact, I can’t see any reason for it whatsoever, and the decision makes no sense. Given the solid Democratic lock on town offices, it isn’t as if Democrats needed to rig an election to win. There’s no benefit for them in it.

Unlike, say, in Chicago….

Whatever the reason, this is another moment in the Holder Justice Department’s troubling history regarding voting rights. Coincidentally, the Obama appointee who made this ruling also ordered the dropping of voter intimidation charges against New Black Panther Party members in Philadelphia, in a case arising from the 2008 election.

So, question: Is the Justice Department under Barack Obama and Eric Holder just inept, arrogant, and clueless about local realities, or are these parts of an effort to assure there’s a D after the name of every winner?

(via Big Government)

TRIVIA: Speaking of North Carolina, did you know the city of Wilmington is the only place in the United States to experience a coup d’etat? The legally elected government, comprising Black and White Republicans, was overthrown by armed White Democrats.

LINKS: Ed Morrissey writes about the further politicization of the Justice Department. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy calls the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division “cowardice central.” Background on the politicization of the division from Hans von Spakovsky.