GOP tries to upend NC campaign backed by tea party

[04SCTLS]

GOP tries to upend NC campaign backed by tea party


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_el_ho/us_gop_tea_party


AP – Tim D'Annunzio, republican congressional candidate for North Carolina's 8th district, answers a question …


By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writer Mike Baker, Associated Press Writer – Mon May 24, 6:18 pm ET

RALEIGH, N.C. – Republican officials are working to derail the campaign of a tea party supported candidate in North Carolina — circulating documents from the man's messy divorce that depict him as a pot smoker who has called himself the messiah.
It's a risky move for state and national party leaders trying to harness the power of the tea party movement without letting it spin out of their control.
Tim D'Annunzio, a congressional candidate in North Carolina's most competitive district, has run an anti-establishment campaign with vows to dismantle entire branches of the federal government. His ideas have drawn support from tea party activists, and he has raised more money from individuals than his GOP rival while also contributing more than $1 million to his own campaign.
Republican leaders in both Raleigh and Washington, however, are worried about his electability in November if he wins a primary runoff next month. They're publicizing court documents about D'Annunzio's past legal, martial and business troubles and denouncing him as unfit for office.
"Mr. D'Annunzio has disqualified himself by his background, his record and his behavior," said Tom Fetzer, North Carolina's Republican Party chairman. He said the GOP embraces the tea party but doesn't believe a person with such a checkered past should be the party's nominee.
In Hoke County divorce records, his wife said in 1995 that D'Annunzio had claimed to be the Messiah, had traveled to New Jersey to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed God would drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland and found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona. A doctor's evaluation the following month said D'Annunzio used marijuana almost daily, had been living with another woman for several months, had once been in drug treatment for heroin dependence and was jailed a couple times as a teenager.
The doctor concluded that his religious beliefs were not delusional. A judge wrote in a child support ruling a few years later that D'Annunzio was a self-described "religious zealot" who believed the government was the "Antichrist." The judge said he was willfully failing to make child support payments.
D'Annunzio declined Monday to discuss the specifics of his past and refused to confirm or deny the details of the court documents. He acknowledged having "a troubled upbringing" but that he got himself out of it and changed his life 16 years ago, when he had a religious conversion.
"The bigger story is that the power brokers in Raleigh and in Washington are willing to go to any length and use any unscrupulous tactic to try to destroy somebody," he said. "They think that they're losing their control over the Republican party."
D'Annunzio was the leader in a Republican primary earlier this month but didn't get enough votes to avoid a runoff. He faces former television sportscaster Harold Johnson in a runoff vote June 22 for the 8th District, which extends from Charlotte to Fayetteville. The GOP is targeting Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell, who won the seat two years ago after many years of Republican control.
Republican tensions with the tea party have surfaced around the country, most recently in Kentucky, when the coalition pushed political novice Rand Paul to victory in the GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat. Paul defeated Trey Grayson, who was supported by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
In Nevada, tea party backers have supported Sharron Angle over former state GOP chair Sue Lowden as the party's pick to challenge Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
Ronnie Long, a Harrisburg businessman who is president of We the People NC and part of the tea party movement, said he was disappointed to see Republican officials resort to personal attacks against D'Annunzio.
Long said his group and others are backing D'Annunzio because he has the integrity and fortitude to make decisions for the people and not the party.
"He's not the kind of person the parties can rule over and manipulate," he said.

_______________________________________________________________

Well the Tea Party certainly has some colorful candidates.
And watching Republicans try and eat one of their own..... priceless

 

[foxpaws]

Ah come on, he can't be that bad - there are only court documents that support the allegations...

You know, it isn't like he actually sat in the same room as Bill Ayers....

The scary part is that if this man gets the party's nomination next month - then he probably has handed over the seat to the dems.... The tea party, if not careful, will destroy the chances of the GOP to win back the house this fall. Mainstream America will not vote for candidates like this, and as this article points out, the GOP is desperately trying to figure out a way to cultivate the tea party without having candidates like this marginalize the party.

 

[Calabrio]

I don't know who this guy is.... and who decided that he was the "tea party candidate," other than the left-wing spin machine that is frantically trying to marginalize the opponents of big government?

And the Democrats need to be careful, because mainstream America wouldn't vote for candidates like Nancy Pelosi.

...also, do you really want to continue the lie that Obama doesn't know Bill Ayers and only attended a party with him, foxpaws?

 

[foxpaws]

I don't know who this guy is.... and who decided that he was the "tea party candidate," other than the left-wing spin machine that is frantically trying to marginalize the opponents of big government?

I believe he has endorsements from a couple of the "We the People" chapters - Change the Congress PAC (although I think they are broke) has also endorsed him, Independence Caucus and the Conservative Party of North Carolina are also in his camp.

It is hard to tell with the tea party stuff - they are so loosely organized that they hurt themselves in cases like this, but those groups appear to be loosely aligned in some sort of tea party way.

And the Democrats need to be careful, because mainstream America wouldn't vote for candidates like Nancy Pelosi.

Do you think that Pelosi's seat is in danger Cal? She might get less than her usual 75+% of the vote - but, do you think she will be defeated?

...also, do you really want to continue the lie that Obama doesn't know Bill Ayers and only attended a party with him, foxpaws?

Got the court papers on that Cal? All those photos - ah, don't forget the money trail... Those minutes of the meetings, the contracts for the book, the eye witness accounts...

Mr. D'Annunzio's record is very clear - how about the clarity of what you are saying Cal - documented records, documented accounts or innuendo, fuzzy logic and smear? I think you have aspersion, not facts.

 

[Calabrio]

I believe

You believe? Well that's solid charge.

he has endorsements from a couple of the "We the People" chapters - Change the Congress PAC (although I think they are broke) has also endorsed him, Independence Caucus and the Conservative Party of North Carolina are also in his camp.

Wow.

It is hard to tell with the tea party stuff - they are so loosely organized that they hurt themselves in cases like this,

Or, because people like you will go out of your way to misrepresent and make dishonest associations.

but those groups appear to be loosely aligned in some sort of tea party way.

So he's now gone from the "Tea Party Candidate" to 'some kind of loosely aligned in some way' guy.

Do you think that Pelosi's seat is in danger Cal?

I didn't say that. I just said that outside of radical area of San Fransisco, she'd have little luck winning office anywhere else.

Mr. D'Annunzio's record is very clear - how about the clarity of what you are saying Cal - documented records, documented accounts or innuendo, fuzzy logic and smear? I think you have aspersion, not facts.

So, let's be clear here, you are still going to argue that the only association President Obama has with Bill Ayers is that they both attended a party together. Is that what you are saying?

 

[foxpaws]

You believe? Well that's solid charge.
Wow.

Or, because people like you will go out of your way to misrepresent and make dishonest associations.

So he's now gone from the "Tea Party Candidate" to 'some kind of loosely aligned in some way' guy.

That is all anyone has Cal - there is no recognized 'Tea Party' like there is a recognized Republican Party, so you have to go by loose associations...

It is one of the biggest problems with the tea party groups. They don't want to be tied down to a 'party', however, then, people like Tim D'Annunzio surface, grab some endorsements - and then there isn't a cohesive answer. Yes, he has gotten money from tea party PACs - but since there isn't a hard and fast party line - who knows... it will damage them far more in the end then their 'we are all independent' stand helps them now.

I didn't say that. I just said that outside of radical area of San Fransisco, she'd have little luck winning office anywhere else.

She is mainstream in her district - but maybe you don't consider SF America...

We are all different - sort of handy that the founding fathers knew that all areas of the country would have a variety of issues and concerns, what is 'mainstream' in Akron, sure ain't 'mainstream' in Boulder. Michele Bachmann wouldn't get the time of day in Denver... However, Pelosi - probably electable in Denver.

So, let's be clear here, you are still going to argue that the only association President Obama has with Bill Ayers is that they both attended a party together. Is that what you are saying?

Nope, Ayers was instrumental acquiring funds from Walter Annenberg for a charity that funded public school programs in Chicago, and then later, Obama served on the board, both as chair and as a board member. Ayers never sat on the board, nor had voting rights, however, I am sure he attended board meetings - it would make sense since his efforts helped establish the charity.

 

[Calabrio]

That is all anyone has Cal - there is no recognized 'Tea Party' like there is a recognized Republican Party, so you have to go by loose associations...

No, you don't have to, you have chosen to focus and associate someone with rather outrageous claims against them with a very broad movement that is working against your agenda.

Again, you don't "have to," you have decided to out of political expediency. Just as you have chosen to imply that the "Tea Party" is racist based upon your knowingly false characterizations of Rand Paul's statements.

You don't HAVE TO engage in deceptive, dishonest, political opportunism.
You chose to. But that's what people who lack integrity do.

We are all different - sort of handy that the founding fathers knew that all areas of the country would have a variety of issues and concerns

It's interesting that you say this, while you support the unconstitutional expansion of the federal governments powers. Rather than leaving power at the local and state level as the founders intended, you consistently support national policy.

You're right, it was handy that the founders understood that the best government was government that was close to the governed. Unfortunately, people like you have spent the better part of the century undermining it.

Nope

So, why did you imply that they only shared space in the same room together earlier? Why did you give that impression if you know full well that they have a closer association.

 

[foxpaws]

No, you don't have to, you have chosen to focus and associate someone with rather outrageous claims against them with a very broad movement that is working against your agenda.

Again, you don't "have to," you have decided to out of political expediency. Just as you have chosen to imply that the "Tea Party" is racist based upon your knowingly false characterizations of Rand Paul's statements.

The tea party, well, what we can discover of it, fractionalized as it is, isn't racist Cal - I have never said it was. There could be members in it that are.

So, is anyone backed by the Tea Party Cal - it appears by your representation of it - no one is backed by it - correct?

Quit misrepresenting my statements - although why I even state that is beyond me - it is what the right here is really good at - misrepresentation.

And I have never said that Rand Paul was a racist - not once, nor have I implied that he is - what I think he is is a chicken, he isn't going to stand up for his belief that private business should be able to discriminate, he backed down, he heeded his handlers, and he is being dishonest. He is 'yellow'.

So, why did you imply that they only shared space in the same room together earlier? Why did you give that impression if you know full well that they have a closer association.

I do not know 'full well' that they had a closer association. I know they have sat in the same room. They sat in the same room for a fundraiser. They sat in the same room for board meetings. That is it. I have nothing beyond that - there is no evidence of any contact beyond that, there is speculation, innuendo, lies, etc. but there isn't any other concrete evidence. Guilt by approximation is pretty weak Cal. Unless of course, you have some amazing evidence, that missing photo, that check, those minutes, the phone records, the restaurant reservations... What do you have Cal?

 

[shagdrum]

The tea party, well, what we can discover of it, fractionalized as it is, isn't racist Cal - I have never said it was.

No, you just constantly post up articles and viewpoints that do that for you. Like a good little troll.

Just because you don't directly say the tea parties are racist doesn't mean that what you say and what you do doesn't infer the tea parties are racist.

Very selective choice of words there.

 

[04SCTLS]

Rand Paul is only engaging in some fancy intellectualism but it was pretty stupid of him to expound on this in the media.
He realized it was such a bad bungle that he cancelled appearing on the weekend talk shows over this.
Regular people are not going to understand his nuances.
Nice first impression to make on the general public.

No he's not racist, just another stupid intellectual.

 

[Calabrio]

You can certainly argue how wise it was to approach a topic that can be so easily misrepresented by political opportunists who lack integrity, but this isn't a case of a "stupid intellectual."

Paul was right to cancel his interview on Sunday because the story here isn't about what he said but is just being dishonestly used by the left and the media to advance the false racist narrative.

Discussions like that one NEED to be discussed. The basic issues of constitutionally limited government and property rights have been effectively silenced from the public debate, and the veil of "sensitivity" has been an effective way to censor it.

The issue isn't that people are too stupid to understand his point, the real point is that since these concepts are never discussed, they seem foreign to most people. When the political and media culture emphasizes the "common good" over the constitution and individual liberty, we have a serious problem.

We NEED to have these discussions, but they have to be HONEST discussions. Not examples of propagandists trying to exploit racial sensitivities for ugly, short term political gains. This isn't an issue of racism, it's an issue of limited government.

And when things get more difficult, it's too late to introduce these constitutional concepts to people.

 

[04SCTLS]

You can certainly argue how wise it was to approach a topic that can be so easily misrepresented by political opportunists who lack integrity, but this isn't a case of a "stupid intellectual."

Paul was right to cancel his interview on Sunday because the story here isn't about what he said but is just being dishonestly used by the left and the media to advance the false racist narrative.

Discussions like that one NEED to be discussed. The basic issues of constitutionally limited government and property rights have been effectively silenced from the public debate, and the veil of "sensitivity" has been an effective way to censor it.

The issue isn't that people are too stupid to understand his point, the real point is that since these concepts are never discussed, they seem foreign to most people. When the political and media culture emphasizes the "common good" over the constitution and individual liberty, we have a serious problem.

We NEED to have these discussions, but they have to be HONEST discussions. Not examples of propagandists trying to exploit racial sensitivities for ugly, short term political gains. This isn't an issue of racism, it's an issue of limited government.

And when things get more difficult, it's too late to introduce these constitutional concepts to people.

I disagree.
We don't need this discussion outside of a college since it comes down to parsing discrimination.
This is soundbite politics not some professors at a lecture.
Now you're the one apologizing for Paul's right out of the gate stupid political gaffe.
Couldn't he have picked something else to make a first impression with?
The thing speaks for itself IMO.

 

[foxpaws]

And as I have been trying to find out - do you really believe that Rand Paul changed his position on CRA overnight? That is just stupid - of course he didn't. Today, he believes just as he did a week ago, that allowing private business to discriminate is OK. But, publicly he now supports the entire act, including Title II.

And it isn't a question of racism, it is a question of does he understand tyranny- and history - does he understand how the CRA was created and why the different Titles are there - can he comprehend why things were failing, and why the Feds needed to step in? Reading how the cases unfold, how carefully the black community worked at revoking segregation, discrimination, separate but equal and the Jim Crow laws, along with helping create an act where crimes against blacks could be taken out of all white courts with all white juries and tried at a federal level, is a great victory of liberty at work. He doesn't understand economic ramifications of discrimination, he doesn't seem to understand how a majority will always prevail if it is allowed to discriminate. Which isn't about race, it is about how the constitution protects the minority from the majority.

He seems to have not taken freshman civics.

I don't think he is an intellectual, I think he is another one of those who only thinks of 'me'. He doesn't extrapolate what will happen with his decisions beyond how they effect him personally. So not only does he lack historical intelligence, he lacks emotional intelligence, certainly a crime when it comes to leaders. Empathy shouldn't get in the way of logical evaluation, but, it also needs to be a tool used by our leaders.