Beverly Perdue is having some campaign finance oopsies:
While none of this implicates Perdue at this time, the investigation apparently is zeroing in on someone inside her campaign, which could prove quite damaging when she’s up for election next year, assuming we still have them at that time. To no surprise, other North Carolina Democrats could soon be lining up to face Perdue in a primary.
Meanwhile, pathetic defenses of her that she was just kidding around have been shown to be nonsense.
And Iowahawk has been unrelenting in the mockery:
#BevPerdueSurefireOneLiners “What this country needs is a huge mass grave for counterrevolutionaries. [chirp chirp] I mean, NOT!”
#BevPerdueSurefireOneLiners “Don’t you just want to torture my opponent with battery electrodes? No? Um, I was only joking. Ha ha! Ha.”
#BevPerdueSurefireOneLiners “What North Carolina needs is concentration camps. Who’s with me?”
#BevPerdueSurefireOneLiners “I once shot a dissident in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas, I’ll never know.”
To which I add: #BevPerdueSurefireOneLiners “Hey, those eggs we need for the omelettes aren’t going to break themselves.”
Just listened to the recording. Steven Wright’s joke delivery model is safe…
I recall someone here mentioning a couple of times he was worried the Donkeys would scuttle the 2012 elections.
They would, if they thought they could pull it off. And I don’t think they’re in denial about 2012 the way they were about 2010.
Speech like this fits nicely with things that Bill Clinton and Michelle Moore (his cup size is in the 95th percentile) are saying about the possibility of people rioting in the streets. Of course there will be riots because the Democrats are organizing them.
/day of raaage
Even if it was a joke, one of the bad aspects is the thought that politicians are unwilling to do the right thing because they need protection. Elected officials can’t be sued for passing legislation that hurt people. Therefore, they don’t need protection. Otherwise, the whole point of a democracy and regular elections is to hold them accountable for making bad decisions. If there were not held accountable, it would be far worse.
If we could sue, I’d sue for false advertisment. She obviously isn’t pro-democracy, so what’s with the Democrat title? And for those who might respond, “it’s the Democratic Party”; well obviously it is not at all.
See, that’s what’s screwed up about people today. If she’d made a joke about a minority group or some other politically charged topic, you’d hear at least some calls for her resignation. Joke about an attempt to destroy our republican form of government? Nah, that’s no big deal. If it were a joke at all.
Sadly, she’s a graduate of the University of Kentucky. If she learned nothing else there, she should at least know that it’s ALWAYS time to fire the football coach.
What’s amazing is what they say out in the open. Can you imagine what they say among themselves when they think nobody is looking?
When my son told me about this today, I thought he must have heard it wrong. Sadly not so. Sadder still is that IF it was a joke, it was in no way funny. And even sadder than that, for ANYONE to presume to call for halting elections in a country that has never done so, even during a Civil War, seems stupid, soft headed, and outright dangerous!
What, do you suppose, the fallout would have been had Chris Christie, or Bobby Jindal, both of whom are (R) Governors, had said this, ‘jokingly’? There would be calls from the left for their heads!
.
.
John Wolf,
it was ME. AND this crazy b*@ch is MY governor!! She’s a real peach in other areas too. A broad thinker who throws money around like she’s hit Power Ball and MegaMillions on the same week.
She’s a nut, IMO.
.
.
George,
I’m from KY and now live in NC. How does what you said fit here? She’s advocating NEVER firing the ‘coaches’, regardless of their W/L record.
Or is that the point? I’m probably too pissed off to think clearly.
Since none of the usual suspects has shown up, it looks like I will have to be the one to say it.
How is this any different than Perry wanting Texas to succeed from the Union?
How is this any different than Perry wanting Texas to succeed from the Union?
In just the context of the difference between succession and suspension of elections; succession doesn’t take away a Democracy nor Republic. It removes federalism, but everyone in Texas could potentially keep all the rights they previously had in Texas. And people outside Texas could keep their rights. Suspension of elections takes away Democracy in the short term, and if not eventually restored, will take away the notion of a Republic.
As for Perry saying stupid things that make support for him problematic? It’s a fair cop, but can you show where Perry wanted succession and support for it, rather than arguing that there’s a constitutional vehicle/mechanism allowing for it?
We’re talking about Texas seceding, not Texas succeeding, aren’t we? It’s quite likely that the second would be much easier given the first.
I tried to check a while back, and it seems that the story that Texas only allowed itself to be admitted to the Union on the condition that it could secede at a later date if it decided was an urban legend. But maybe Perry believes it?