Category Archives: 2012 Elections

Divergence vs. Convergence

Posted on by

I had an interesting weekend…well Saturday at least. Like many, I’ve been greatly disappointed in the ‘Pub establishment at all levels. Most of my ire is focused towards the Washington leadership, slightly less so at the state establishment.  With those sentiments in mind, I’ve been looking and searching for other conservatives who feel like me. I thought I’d found one such group.

One of the problems we conservatives have is that we’re divided. If you analyze the 2012 election results, you’ll see that more than two million “conservative” voters stayed home this year. Those missing voters had an impact at the federal and state level. The primary problem appears to have been the disbelief and rejection by those voters of the establishment ‘Pub leadership, platform and candidate. A portion of those voters dropped out due to the man-handling of opposition delegates during the Miami convention.

We all laughed when the democrat party ignored their delegates on reinstating God into the dem platform. No one laughed when the ‘Pub establishment added more constraints on grassroots organizations with the goal to minimalize the power of those delegates.

So I and others have been looking for conservative groups whose aim is to rebuild the party—to create coalitions, to unite the various splinter groups, to build a convergence of thought to strengthen the party and to reinstate, to renew and merge, our views with those of the establishment. The establishment has run rough-shod over internal opposition too long. It’s time to force change. With those thoughts in mind, I drove to Columbia to meet with some folks whom I thought may be one such group.

There were only a dozen people overall. Many had driven similar distances as did I. A couple were local drop-ins who sought more information. The group leaders had some slick flyers stating their purpose and vision and copies of the state by-laws.  I scanned the material and found nothing therein that I opposed. In fact, from the documentation, I thought my search was over.

I was mistaken.

I followed my usual methodology…I listened. The groups was clearly divided by age—the “thirty-somethings” and those in their fifties and older. I was encouraged. The age spread would provide a good mix.

Then I listed to the rhetoric and doubts began to appear. The younger and more numerous members were clearly frustrated Ron Paul supporters. Some of the older members were too. As the discussion continued it became clear that the purpose of this group, contrary to the printed documentation, was not toward convergence with other conservative groups nor with the Tea Party organizations.

Some of the older members invoked the Reagan/Goldwater rule, “Never speak ill of another republican.” The more vocal speakers agreed, reluctantly, to abide by that rule and broke it within minutes.

Instead of soliciting ideas for moving forward, the meeting was quickly devolving into complaints about ‘Pub state officials and other conservatives groups. Instead of building consensus, some attendees used the meeting to promote personal political views. Rather than allowing the meeting to continue to slide, a member asked to shelve discussion and elect members. 

I was not surprised to see the new leadership rest with the more vocal, younger members. I didn’t have issue with that. They were more plentiful and demographics ruled. Someone nominated me for Secretary and I quickly declined. I had not yet decided if this was a group that I was searching for and wanted to join.

The meeting broke up after two hours giving me plenty of time to drive home and do some research. I wanted to compare the written goals and purposes of the national group with the personal views of those attending the meeting. It was easy, most were on Facebook and I could visit their pages and see exactly what and who they supported.

My fears were confirmed. Instead of building support among other grassroots groups, a number of the members were seeding discord. No coalition building but creating more discord and divergence. They claimed to support freedom and liberty…as long as it didn’t interfere with their pet positions.

The group was not for me.  I wish them well and I hope they return to those principals and goals they supposedly followed. However, I doubt that will happen.

All-in-all, it was an interesting day. I did meet a few like-minded folks and I was able to meet some I’ve only conversed with via the internet. For now, I’ll continue my search.

Facebook

Local Election Analysis

Posted on by

It’s been a few weeks since the election. It’s time to look at some races and see if we can determine which campaign tactics won and which didn’t. Let’s look at the races for the county Commissioners, Sheriff and Public Administrator offices.

One commonality is that “Word-of-mouth” works. I’ve been asking some folks who they voted for and why. As expected, most said they voted for ‘Pubs across the board. With a 55/45 overall split of the voters in the county for the ‘Pubs, it isn’t unexpected for ‘Pubs to win. I wanted to see if I could find other factors that helped.

Melody Folsom beat her opponent 61% to 38%. A few write-in votes lowered Michelle Cornforth’s percentage. What helped Melody Folsom to beat her opponent so handily? From the responses I received it was her treatment of her clients—she acted like a parent when necessary and her clients responded well to that approach.

Melody Folsom said, in a public forum, that she viewed her position as a service ministry to those in public care. They weren’t numbers in a file folder to her. She knew each one personally and they knew her. In reality, in was those clients—and their families who re-elected Melody Folsom. The client’s families spread the word. When the opposition attempted to use smear tactics, it back-fired.

Michelle Cornforth lost due to two issues—her filing for bankruptcy a few months ago and her performance in the public forums.  On first issue, if she couldn’t manage her own finances, how could she be expected to manage the assets of her clients better than her own? It was an important question. The forums were important, too. Those attending the forums made opinions and spread those opinions. Cornforth came across as a cold bureaucrat who had more interest in collecting a paycheck than serving her clients.

That bureaucratic impression affected the Sheriff’s race as well. Dwight Diehl has been Sheriff 16 years. He’s a known quantity and has acquired respect throughout the county. He has created a personal relationship to many of the county’s residents. A family friend told me how Sheriff Diehl personally kept the family informed when a family tragedy struck. That personal attention was appreciated…and spread by word-of-mouth.

Doug Catron, on the other hand, was perceived as a transient. He was using the Sheriff’s position as a stepping stone to something else. He spoke a “making alliances” as if that action was the solution to all ills. The public, on the other hand, viewed it as politicking. Dwight Diehl was seen as the county’s chief law enforcement official whose primary interest was the safety of the county—not his next job.

The Commission positions were different. To some extent, all the candidates were known and most had public resumes. Jim Hoke was the exception. Jeff Cox, running for Presiding Commissioner, was a Raymore city councilman. His opponent was Terry Wilson, long-time mayor of Pleasant Hill. North Commissioner candidate Jimmy Odom was mayor of Belton and his opponent, Phil Ducan, was a past mayor of Belton. Luke Scavuzzo, the current South Commissioner, was a former Missouri state representative and local businessman. His opponent, Jim Hoke, was a local lawyer.

That lack of public exposure was a hindrance that Jim Hoke did not overcome.  There were few in southern Cass County who did not know Luke Scavuzzo. There were few in southern Cass County who knew Jim Hoke.

The three winning candidates, Jeff Cox, Jimmy Odom, and Luke Scavuzzo, all had one think in common—ideas and accomplishments. Luke Scavuzzo repeatedly mentioned selling surplus county property to reduce the county’s large debt. Scavuzzo was not involved in the creation of that debt but was seen as attempting to resolve it.

Jimmy Odom spoke of using tax incentives to bring more businesses to Belton. It took little to notice the new Price Chopper, Target, and all the business growth along MO-58. Jimmy Odom seized that growth to project his acumen in drawing business—and jobs, to the county.

Jeff Cox formulated a plan to bring transparency to county government, improve public confidence in the county Commission, and a plan to reduce the county’s debt and resolve the failed broadband initiative. Terry Wilson’s response was, “What Jeff said.” Wilson was appointed Presiding Commissioner last Spring and since that time had yet to do anything to improve the county’s fiscal condition. During the runup to the election, all Wilson did was to repeat Jeff Cox’s talking points. Luke Scavuzzo was appointed like Terry Wilson. He, at least, reminded the public of his acts to resolve the county’s debts. Terry Wilson did not and that cost him the race.

In short, the winning county commissioners had a track record of meeting their public goals. They had a plan, skimpy in some cases, and presented those plans to the public. They were seen as being prepared to act. Their opponents failed to present a plan and had no track record.

The editor of the Harrisonville Democrat-Missourian, John Beaudoin, said, “I am not saying electing a Democrat over a sitting Republican [in Cass County] is impossible. It’s not, and we’ve seen it happen.” Yes, it did happen. Democrat Luke Scavuzzo won the South Commissioner race.

‘Pubs take heed. It could and can happen again if your candidates are unprepared and have no plans to resolve the issues of the day.

Facebook

A divergent path

Posted on by

If you are a long time reader of this blog, you will have noticed I’ve been somewhat quiet since the election.  There are a variety of reasons for that reticence…long delayed chores, commitments to friends, and just a bit a depression that I think has afflicted all of us.

I like to call myself a political observer. That is what I call myself when around my ‘Pub friends. I’ve disappointed a few that wanted me to be more active in the political process. I was active this year supporting friends who were running for office. I’m glad to say they all won their offices.

Still, it wasn’t enough to win on the larger state and national scale. There have been many who have pontificated where the failure occurred—we didn’t address the moderates, the independents, the Hispanic voters. We needed to address woman and modify our pro-life stance. We should embrace all the illegals like the democrats and further continue to dilute our voter base.

Those are the opinions of the Washington GOP and their political toadies like Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. Each of them have sold their souls to the GOP establishment. I want nothing to do with them. Whenever I hear them speak, I understand they really have no concept how the rest of the conservatives really think. They don’t understand why we oppose them—after all, they are the party elite!

No more.

At the core, the Republican Party is fragmenting. The conservative base feels betrayed. Why? Because we believe the party elite crammed a vulnerable candidate down our throats whose conservative credentials were weak at best. Then they modified the party’s convention rules to further weaken conservatives, those not of the establishment to maintain the establishment’s control of the party’s primary, caucus and convention process. The result was that many conservatives shifted to 3rd parties or didn’t vote. It was enough to lose those “swing” states.  Democrat ballot box stuffing didn’t help either.

The party elites believe they can continue as before. That won’t happen. In the states and among political pundits outside of Washington, forces are moving. Here’s just a few comments from a couple of well-known conservatives.

Laura Ingraham unloaded on her radio show with this comment.

Laura Unleashed

Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindahl offers the Republicans some simple advice in the wake of crushing losses on November 6. Be smart…be the ideas party…offer intelligent solutions. This sounds obvious, but approach, language, strategy all have to be carefully considered in the wake of Mitt Romney’s defeat and the loss of Senate contests that should have been gimmes for the GOP. As for those Republicans who believe that the party needs to moderate or change its core beliefs to survive, go for it. I think that is both a political fools errand and and bad policy. Most people are conservative because they believe free markets and limited government, borne out of our Judeo-Christian tradition, represent the best hope for America. Those are the principles I will continue to advocate for, regardless of intra-party squabbling or the panic of the moment.

Bobby Jindal had this to say.

Jindal: End ‘dumbed-down conservatism’

By JONATHAN MARTIN | 11/13/12 4:22 AM EST

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and make a concerted effort to reach a broader swath of voters with an inclusive economic message that pre-empts efforts to caricature the GOP as the party of the rich.

…

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

…

Jindal, a Brown Graduate and Rhodes Scholar, is already a favorite of conservative intellectuals and his assessment that Republican difficulties owe as much to economics as demographics will be well-received by right-leaning thinkers. Since last week, a sort of backlash to the backlash has sprouted up, with some conservatives castigating what they see as too much knee-jerk pandering on immigration and not enough discussion of what they see as the party’s unimaginative, donor-driven fiscal policies.Jindal, the son of Indian immigrants, said the GOP “must reject identity politics” and “treat folks as individuals, as Americans, not as members of special interest groups.”

Raising Romney’s damaging comments about voters who don’t pay income taxes, Jindal urged the GOP to make clear they want the support of every American.

“The Republican Party is going to fight for every single vote,” he said. “That means the 47 percent and the 53 percent, that means any other combination of numbers going up to 100 percent.”

Bobby Jindal will be the incoming leader of the Republican Governors Association. There’s more at the website if you wish to follow the link. 

Across the country, groups of conservatives are organizing, planning and gathering. Some call for a new 3rd party. Others point out that we already have conservative 3rd parties and none have been able to draw double-digit percentages in elections at any level. More, this time, believe as I do that change to the Republican Party must come from within. To do that, we must weed out the establishment drones at the local and state levels. Then we can seize the national central committee.

Those who used our support this last election cycle must declare their stance now. Are you for us, the conservatives who worked to get you elected or for the establishment? The time to choose is coming. Choose wisely.

Facebook

A Nation Divided: Kith and Kin

Posted on by

On Monday, Michael Barone predicted a win for Romney.  He was wrong. To his credit, he wrote the piece below for the National Review recording his thoughts about the country at large.  It mirrors my concern as I’ve written here on this blog for the last several years.

The nation reached a turning point yesterday and turned toward a path not of my choosing. We can blame our loss to a number of reasons: 3rd parties siphoning votes from Romney, dem vote fraud in the larger metro areas…sufficient fraud to tip the balance, or the growth of the parasite class of unproductive drones.

The reason matters not at this point. We are already on that path and we know not the perils we’ll face. We can be assured that perils will come from within and without.

Some cry that the Great Experiment has failed. That may be. That point could be a way-station ahead of us as we trod this path. We do know that troubles lie ahead.

Michael Barone is a much more polished writer than I am. I’ll let him speak for me.

Two Americas
The country is no longer culturally cohesive.

By Michael Barone

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

You know who won the election (or whether we face another Florida, 2000), and as I write, I don’t.

But whether Barack Obama is elected to a second term or Mitt Romney is elected the 45th president, the contours of their support during this fiercely fought campaign show that we live in two Americas.

The culturally cohesive America of the 1950s that some of us remember, usually glossing over racial segregation and the civil-rights movement, is no longer with us and hasn’t been for some time.

That was an America of universal media, in which everyone watched one of three similar TV channels and newscasts every night. Radio, 1930s and 1940s movies, and 1950s and early-1960s television painted a reasonably true picture of what was typically American.

That’s not the America we live in now. Niche media has replaced universal media.

One America listens to Rush Limbaugh, the other to NPR. Each America has its favorite cable news channel. As for entertainment, Americans have 100-plus cable channels to choose from, and the Internet provides many more options.

Bill Bishop highlighted the political consequences of this in his 2008 book, The Big Sort. He noted that in 1976 only 27 percent of voters lived in counties carried by one presidential candidate by 20 percent or more. In 2004, nearly twice as many, 48 percent, lived in these landslide counties. That percentage may be even higher this year.

We’re more affluent than we were in the 1950s (if you don’t think so, try doing without your air conditioning, microwaves, smartphones, and Internet connections). And we have used this affluence to seal ourselves off in the America of our choosing while trying to ignore the other America.

We tend to choose the America that is culturally congenial. Most people in the San Francisco Bay area wouldn’t consider living in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, even for much better money. Most metroplexers would never relocate to the Bay Area.

There are plenty of smart and creative and successful people in both Americas. But they don’t like to mix with each other these days.

They especially don’t like to talk about politics and the cultural issues that, despite the prominence of economic concerns today, have largely determined our political allegiances over the last two decades.

One America tends to be traditionally religious, personally charitable, appreciative of entrepreneurs, and suspicious of government. The other tends to be secular or only mildly religious, less charitable, skeptical of business, and supportive of government as an instrument to advance liberal causes.

The more conservative America tends to be relatively cohesive. Evangelical Protestants and white Catholics make common cause; the 17th-century religious wars are over. Southern or northern accents don’t much matter.

That’s typical of the Republican party, which has always had core support from people who are seen as typical Americans but are not by themselves a majority in our always diverse country.

The more liberal America tends to be diverse. Like Obama’s 2008 coalition, it includes many at the top and at the bottom of the economic ladder.

That’s typical of the Democratic party, a coalition of disparate groups — immigrant Catholics and white southerners long ago, blacks and gentry liberals today.

Ronald Reagan, speaking the language of the old, universal popular culture, could appeal to both Americas. His successors, not so much. Barack Obama, after an auspicious start, has failed to do so.

As a result, there are going to be many Americans profoundly unhappy with the result of this election, whichever way it goes. Those on the losing side will be especially angry with those whose candidate won.

Americans have faced this before. This has been a culturally diverse land from its colonial beginnings. The mid-20th-century cultural cohesiveness was the exception, not the rule.

We used to get along by leaving each other alone. The Founders established a limited government, neutral on religion, allowing states, localities, and voluntary associations to do much of society’s work. Even that didn’t always work: We had a Civil War.

An enlarged federal government didn’t divide mid-20th-century Americans, except on civil-rights issues. Otherwise, there was general agreement about the values government should foster.

Now the two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.

As we contemplate our future, it is time to plan how we can collectively and individually survive this coming period with our values, our fortunes, our kith and kin family. Has the Great Experiment failed? I don’t know. It has been, however, severely injured. What would/will happen to that 50% that voted the rest of us into servitude? What will happen now when the parasites match or outnumber the productive? The scenes from Atlas Shrugged appear to be more and more probable.

Perhaps it does, really, come down to kith ‘n kin when we judge one another by whether he or they will guard our back and help us defend ourselves against mutual enemies. Perhaps history and cultures are cyclic. The barbarians have return to assault our gates.

Facebook

Firestorm

Posted on by

I created a firestorm in a FB group today. It was not quite…unintentional. I knew there’d be some members who’d not like my post. Wow, was I surprised!

It all started with this:

“I seldom vote straight ticket. This year I am. Why? It’s easy. We need to remove democrats from office at all levels. Voting ‘Pub is the only way to do that.”

That statement was followed with a link to Michael Mahoney’s blog post.

3P Poll: McCaskill Up by 4, Libertarian May Hold the Key

Public Policy Polling’s (3P) last Missouri Senate survey shows Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill with a 4% point lead over Republican challenger, Todd Akin. Libertarian candidate, Jonathan Dine holds 6% of the Missouri vote.

3P’s survey indicates the Libertarian vote may be the key in a bruising Senate rate.

” Akin’s chances at pulling off an upset comeback victory may depend on whether Dine really gets 6% at the polls on Tuesday,” 3P said in its summary statement.

It appears that few, if any in that FB group, actually read Mahoney’s post. They keyed off my statement supporting voting straight ‘Pub ticket this election. Here’s one comment of several in the same theme.

“I would rather the Dems win the Lt Gov seat then have Peter Kinder win.”

That individual has a right to make that statement. It does, however, indicate why 3rd parties fail. It’s not that the 3rd parties have a better solution. Rarely do they. Instead, it’s more about what they are against. In this case a particular candidate. From the contents of some of the statements, it’s appears to be pure hatred.

The original post discussed McCaskill, Akin, and Dine, not Peter Kinder nor Cynthia Davis. I don’t know much about Cynthia Davis. I know she used to be a ‘Pub and after some flap about something, flipped to the Constitution(?) party. OK, that’s her right. But from my observations, the issue between her and Kinder isn’t political—that I could understand. No, it appears to be personal and those issues have extended to her followers.

The problem is that so many 3rd party candidates have lost sight of the goal—to remove democrats from office at ALL levels. Not just the federal one. Instead, they work harder against a conservative competitor than the dem. To them, it’s not getting rid of the dems. No, it’s blocking the ‘Pub that is more important.  That attitude helps no one except the dems.

Dine is polling 6% in the polls against Akin and McCaskill. If his followers switch to Akin, Akin will win. It all depends on those Libertarians deciding whom they detest more…the dem, Claire McCaskill, or the ‘Pub, Todd Akin.

If this election wasn’t so crucial, I wave my hand at the 3rd parties and wish them well. I’m not a pure ‘Pub myself. I label myself as a Tea Party conservative. However, this election is much, much more important—quite likely whether we can prevent a civil war in the future.

If the dems win or retain control of the Senate, that war will loom much closer. If the ‘Pubs win, we’ll push that event further into the future. Maybe, just maybe, it won’t occur.

I want that.

Facebook

Romney and the Flag.

Posted on by

There is a story emerging from Romney’s campaign trail about a flag—a rather unique and significant flag and what it meant to some Boy Scouts and their Troop. Rather than repeat the story, I’ll bring you the original story and a video taken at the event.

From Romney an inspiring tale of tragedy, Boy Scouts and a flag

The Challenger Flag

At a campaign event in Colorado, Mitt Romney looks on as scoutmaster Bill Tolbert displays a U.S. flag recovered from the wreckage of the space shuttle Challenger. Romney often shares an inspiring story about the flag. (Emmanuel Dunand / AFP/Getty Images / November 3, 2012)

By Maeve Reston, November 4, 2012, 1:15 a.m.

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. — Mitt Romney tried out many stories on the campaign trail this fall to illustrate his belief in the enduring spirit of America. Some were personal — delving into his ministerial duties as a leader in his church. Others were about people whose courage has inspired him.

Ultimately, the Republican nominee settled on one story that has become the closing anecdote in many of his speeches: The tale of an American flag sent into outer space and recovered from the wreckage of the space shuttle Challenger in perfect condition.

These days Romney often leads into the story by telling the crowd, as he did Saturday night in this Denver suburb, that his confidence in America’s future stems from his view that Americans are a people who “give ourselves to things larger than ourselves.”

As a Boy Scout leader some years ago, Romney said he attended a ceremony for young Eagle Scouts where a scoutmaster from Monument, Colo., told the story of his troop asking NASA officials to take their American flag on the Challenger mission. NASA agreed.

As Romney tells the story, the boys watched with pride as they saw the Challenger shuttle launch into the air. “Then,” Romney said, “they saw it explode on the TV screen in front of their eyes.”

The scoutmaster repeatedly called NASA after the Challenger crash, asking if any remnant of the flag had been recovered.

In Romney’s recounting, a NASA official told the scoutmaster after a few weeks that the agency had a presentation to make to the Boy Scout troop: “So NASA came together and the boys were there,” Romney told the crowd Saturday night. “They presented the boys with this plastic container, and they open it up and inside was the American flag, their flag, in perfect condition.”

Romney said when he first heard the story from the scoutmaster, William Tolbert — who is now a major in the United States Air Force assigned to the Space Command — he was sitting next to the flag at the Eagle Scout ceremony. “I reached over and I grabbed that flag and held it out, and it was as if electricity was running through my arm,” Romney said.

“Because I thought about all the men and women in our space program who put themselves in danger’s path out of a desire for learning and knowledge, for us,” the candidate continued. “This is the American way. I think of all of our servicemen and women who put themselves in harm’s way for freedom and for us.”

On Saturday night though, there was a new addition to the story. Noting they weren’t far from Monument, Colo., Romney said he hadn’t seen “that flag in, I don’t know, 15 or 20 years.”

At that moment, Romney welcomed that very scoutmaster on stage — and with him was the Challenger flag. To huge cheers, Tolbert walked the perimeter of the stage showing the flag, which was folded in a triangle and framed.

“Thank you, come on up here. Now did I get that story right?” Romney asked.

“You did, sir,” Tolbert replied.

“That’s great,” Romney said. “That is a great flag representing the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.”

That was reported in the LA TImes. Here’s the video of that event. This video is 30 minutes long. The Flag story begins at 24 minutes, 45 seconds into the video. You should be able to scroll forward to that point if you wish.

That’s a man worthy of the Office of President of the United States. Now, compare that video to this one of Obama’s respect for our flag.

Obama during Pledge of Allegiance

Facebook

Ingratitude!

Posted on by

There is a story coming out of New Jersey this morning that really steams me. We know New Jersey is a haven for dems, liberals and bloodsucking unions.  That sentiment extends as well to some municipalities.  Late last night, reports began to appear that some cities in New Jersey were turning away out-of-state repair crews—because they weren’t in a union.

Nonunion Ala. crews turned away from Sandy recovery

Posted: Nov 01, 2012 10:05 PM CDT Updated: Nov 02, 2012 8:43 AM CDT
By WAFF.com Staff

(Source: Derrick Moore) SEASIDE HEIGHTS, NEW JERSEY (WAFF) –

The hurricane-ravaged east coast has been receiving north Alabama help, but crews learned they’ll be doing work in Long Island, New York instead of in New Jersey.

Crews from Decatur Utilities headed up there this week, but Derrick Moore, one of the Decatur workers, said they were told by crews in New Jersey that they can’t do any work there since they’re not union employees.

The crews that are in Roanoke, Virginia say they are just watching and waiting even though they originally received a call asking for help from Seaside Heights, New Jersey.

Understandably, Moore said they’re frustrated being told “thanks, but no thanks.”

Nothing like ingratitude in New Jersey. In New York City, it is worse. Mayor Bloomberg is diverting relief supplies intended for repairs and the residents to—the New York Marathon. It’s perfectly find for Bloomberg to let his constituency sit in the dark without food, water and utilities as long as the Marathon is not hindered.

Bloomberg Diverts Food, Generators from Devastated Staten Island to NYC Marathon

by Michael Patrick Leahy 1 Nov 2012

Fresh off his “climate disruption”-driven endorsement of President Obama, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has chosen to divert critical food supplies and power generators from desperate residents of Staten Island to Sunday’s New York City Marathon. Gothamist reports: 

[T]hose urging the city to halt the run believe that the thousands of Marathon volunteers could direct their efforts towards post-Sandy relief and cleanup, “and they also argue that the event will divert thousands of police from important hurricane-related duties.” But despite petitions circulating, work started up again yesterday on the Marathon route.

A tipster, who wishes to remain anonymous, told us there were lots of workers in and out of the park today, who had “started before the storm and then came back starting yesterday.” Trailers are lined up from around 71st to 66th Streets on Central Park West, a food truck was set up today, and “generators have been sitting there at least a week.” The tents that were taken down prior to the storm have also been set back up, and there is a stage set up near 73rd Street.

Considering all the volunteer help and NYPD attention that’s already being diverted to the Marathon, the added sight of generators and food being channeled to the event is probably going to strike some New Yorkers as a little misplaced—we’re thinking of the ones who are currently lined up waiting for the National Guard to ration out MREs and bottles of water.

Staten Island residents are frantically calling for help, ABC News reported on Thursday.

Democrats, read this and learn. Your party leadership doesn’t care about you. You are only a tool to be used to get your liberal leaders whatever they want. In this case, it’s the Mayor’s Marathon. When you’re used up, they’ll toss you aside. They did that with Obamacare.

Here you are. A life-long faithful democrat. You’ve voted the party line all that time. You belong to a union. You think your party and your union with take care of you. That’s the big lie.

When you retire, you find your Social Security payments aren’t enough for you to maintain your standard of living. Your union pension fund has been leveraged so much that when it’s your turn, you get less than expected. If you are a retired public employee, your pension may not exist if your state, like California, is about to go bankrupt. And Medicare? Now you discover it’s been destroyed by Obamacare and when you really need medical care…you’re too old and your care is too expensive. Just go off somewhere and die.

Remember the lessons of ingratitude from New York and New Jersey. Socialism doesn’t work. Unionism doesn’t work either. Unions are a scam to siphon your union dues into the union leadership’s pocket and to be used for their benefit, not yours.

Wake up! Vote Republican. Toss out the parasites; the liberal oligarchy at all government levels and seize your future with your own hands. You are the first step in national recovery. Do so by tossing the liberals out of office.

Facebook