Real short version : this all started when Jay Parmley, the former executive director of the NC Democratic party, was allegedly accused of sexually harassing a male staffer. Reportedly, Parmley had sent said staffer pictures of genitals *… Hold on: let me stop for a moment and make a PSA for politicians. DON’T DO THAT. …anyway, Parmley effectively got tossed out on his ear , but there’s still a lot of speculation of just how far a hypothetical coverup of the alleged incident could have spread. This isn’t of academic interest: Lt. Governor Walter Dalton might even be involved, and not coincidentally Dalton happens to be running for Governor this year. He’s doing so because current governor Bev Perdue abruptly decided earlier this year to not seek another term… do people see where this could be going? Anyway, there was a lot of pressure put on NC Democratic chairman David Parker to resign, and yesterday he did so. Cue the relieved-but-still-slightly nervous press releases from the Lt. Governor and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall**, congratulating Parker for doing the right thing, here. Only… the state Democratic party’s Executive Committee voted 263-209 to not accept Parker’s resignation; whereupon Parker said Shucks, Gee whiz, I guess that I won’t resign, then . At which point every Democrat running for a statewide office started blinking rapidly and coughing. Some things to take away from this: first – and this is a criticism of both parties, probably – if you have almost five hundred people on your ‘Executive Committee’ then you’re probably doing it wrong. Second: it’s a real shame that the skill at shenanigans and other political maneuvering being demonstrated by these hadn’t been directed towards, say, repairing the horrific economic damage that the Democrats did to the state of North Carolina until the voters spanked them in 2010. Lastly, we were treated – and no, really, this is a treat for the GOP – to this inadvertent admission of truth: “Well you crazy people, is this the Democratic Party or what?’’ Parker said after emerging on stage from behind a curtain to reclaim a post he resigned just hours earlier. WHY, YES. YES, IT IS. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *By the way, the story is potentially worse, but hopefully not. *Also a Democrat; also up for re-election; and also somebody who doesn’t need any complications this election cycle, given the way that she got shellacked in 2010 when trying to win NC’s notoriously incumbent-unfriendly Senate seat.
See the original post:
NC Democratic Party chair resigns doesn’t resign… :pause:
North Carolina, dubbed “Hollywood East” by doubling as a set for Forrest Gump , The Green Mile , and many other motion pictures, on Tuesday affirmed traditional marriage by an overwhelming majority at the ballot box. Hollywood West vented its displeasure on Twitter accounts. Mia Farrow, who became pregnant with twins as their father remain married to another woman, tweeted, “Oh North Carolina — the disappointment we feel now is nothing compared to the bewilderment & shame your children will feel.” Andy Richter, longtime sidekick to late-night host Conan O’Brien, opined Tuesday night: “Tonight the voters of NC bravely threw themselves under the steamroller of history.” But history is what we have experienced and not what we wish for. Thirty-two states have voted on marriage. Thirty-two states have affirmed marriage as between one man and one woman. Which side, really, has thrown itself “under the steamroller of history”? Echoing Democrat threats to move the party’s national convention from Charlotte, Roseanne Barr tweeted, “[H]ollywood withdraw your productions from NC!” Hollywood, which didn’t withdraw from California after it rejected gay marriage in 2008, has long since withdrawn Rosanne Barr from its productions. This, more than anything voters on the other side of the country did, best explains the rant. Barr last appeared on the silver screen in the mid-1990s, and since the cancellation of her hit television show in 1997, roles on the idiot box have been scarce, too. It’s been six years since she last made a guest acting appearance on primetime television. North Carolina, on the other hand, served as the set for this year’s bestselling movie. In Cleveland County, the set of The Hunger Games ’s “District 12,” 17,779 voters supported Amendment 1 and just 4,406 opposed. More relevant than those figures is this one: 618,574,650 — the number of dollars filmgoers worldwide have forked over to see the movie. An even more relevant number to understanding why filmmakers shot The Hunger Games entirely in North Carolina is $15 million. That’s the estimated tax credit the makers of The Hunger Games will reap from the Tar Heel State. Don’t expect Hollywood to return the tainted money anytime soon. Hollywood hasn’t been generous to North Carolina in the wake of Tuesday’s vote. But North Carolina has been quite generous to Hollywood. The state offers one of the nation’s most enticing tax-incentive programs to production companies. Last year, Tar Heel taxpayers forked over $5,071,322 in tax credits to Journey 2: The Mysterious Island . In its three-season run, the HBO series Eastbound and Down has siphoned $3,740,884 from North Carolina. The CW Network’s One Tree Hill has drained a whopping $27 million from the state’s coffers over the last five years. Even Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Entertainment body-slammed the state for $135,401. That was its reward for shooting Raw and Smackdown at arenas in Charlotte and Raleigh in 2010. WWE? WTF? Hollywood welfare, like actual welfare, overflows with abuse. Last month, a Massachusetts court found filmmaker Daniel Adams guilty of defrauding the Bay State out of more than $4 million in tax credits by inflating his costs on The Lightkeepers
Choosing North Carolina for the Democratic National Convention is looking more and more like a massive misstep on the part of the Obama campaign. The state Democratic Party has faced a
[Posted by Karl] Earlier today , I wrote that Team Obama had been AWOL on gay rights issues for campaign reasons. This afternoon, Pres. Obama officially “ evolved ” into a supporter of same-sex marriage during an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts: “I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.” The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. Well, that’s semi -evolved, anyway. I suppose it remains to be seen how progressives will embrace states’ rights. On Twitter (and elsewhere), a number of smart people have suggested that Obama benefitred from yet another distraction from the economy and the debt. Yet gay rights are a classic wedge issue that divides Obama’s prospective coalition, which would seem to be an unwelcome distraction for Democrats. Many have also suggested Obama found himself painted into a corner by comments from people like VP Joe Biden. Allahpundit provides a decent elaboration of this thinking: Looks like his strategy now is simply to get it over with ASAP and then let people forget about it over the next six months. Some key constituencies, like young voters, will cheer. Others, like black voters, might not be thrilled but given their overwhelming support for O the risk that he’ll lose many votes because of this is minimal. Meanwhile, Romney’s unlikely to make it an issue since it’d throw him off his core economic message. (See, e.g., Haley Barbour insisting yesterday that the gay-marriage chatter lately is a Democratic distraction .) All true enough, but I continue to think “The Decision” here is driven less by pressure from Sheriff Joe than by broader campaign considerations. Recall how Democrats think about the demographics : [Ruy] Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “ The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election ,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33. Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate. What yesterday’s elections may have told Team Obama is that the bitter clingers out there are bitter enough to give 41% of the Democrat vote in West Virginia to a convicted felon and to ease a ban on same-sex marriage into the North Carolina constitution. They may have concluded that their energies are better spent targeting more socially liberal white college graduates in the suburbs of northern Virginia, Philadeplphia, Denver, etc. than wasting time on trying to persuade Rust Belt Jacksonians to pull the lever for Barack Obama again while (as Allahpundit suggests) considering discontent among socially conservative African-Americans an acceptable risk now. The establishment’s mockery of Obama’s unevolved position may have suggested to Team Obama that painting Mitt Romney as a right-wing extremist is made more difficult when the president shares Romney’s position on SSM. Obama’s hastily-arranged interview with Roberts suggests his campaign was prepared to let SSM drift off the news radar, until facts on the ground drove a public (but controlled) flip on the issue. –Karl
Continued here:
Obama’s flip-flop on same sex marriage still driven by the campaign
Infantile. The characteristics of a baby or child, says Webster’s. Being infantile is a charming characteristic — in a baby or child. In adults? Adults charged with the serious responsibility of discussing or actually running public policy? Never good. As seen here in this story about Occupy Wall Street, replete with photo of a protester defecating on a police car. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. has been observing and writing about this kind of ludicrous behavior that he terms the “Infantile Left” for some 40-plus years through the magazine that he created and you are reading, The American Spectator . What brought this memorable photo of a defecating Occupy protestor to mind was reading the stunning, pull-back-and-survey-the-battlefield book that is Tyrrell’s new book, The Death of Liberalism . The book is nothing less than an autopsy conducted while the battle still rages. An astute recognition that Liberalism’s defenders are being reduced by the day if not the hour to the political equivalent of the survivors of Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, the latter known to history as the high-water mark of the Confederacy. A great swarming, savage last-assault across the political battlefields into the incessant cannon and rifle fire of the American majority. Leaving in the aftermath not only massive Liberal casualties on the battlefield, but inducing a sense of crippling psychological failure among the Liberal survivors, of which at the moment the Occupy Wall Street debacle — they of the defecating-on-police-cars and rape tents crowd — is the most vivid example. The irony? It wasn’t always so. Classical liberalism, as Tyrrell states, originally “stood for adherence to individual liberty, to tolerance, to reason, and for many of us, to empiricism.” The classic liberalism of a George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and the others known today as the Founding Fathers but one example, if the example most familiar to Americans. Tyrrell cites this wonderful definition of classical liberalism given all the way back in 1873 by England’s Sir William Harcourt, who made the point in a talk at Oxford. Liberty, said Harcourt, …does not consist in making others do what you think is right. The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally this — that a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic government tries to make everybody do what it wishes, a Liberal Government tries, so far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do what he wishes. Harcourt anticipated the reign of Obama and Pelosi by 139 years. In the style of true conservatives everywhere, he understood the eternal human nature — and its temptations with centralized power. Tyrrell employs a literary device that originated with the late William F. Buckley, Jr. To wit, separating the original meaning of “liberal” in its classic sense from today’s term by capitalizing the word to “Liberal” or “Liberalism.” It is a useful device to differentiate what has come to mean two very, very different belief systems, one of them appallingly nuts. For a small sample of just how infantile one can see the Infantile Left at work here in Oakland, California in 2011, in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at the Pentagon in 1967, in Los Angeles in 1992 or all manner of places in 1986 when Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in response to an attack on U.S. military personnel in then-West Germany. Here’s an interesting one with Infantile Left expressing itself on the environment. And who could miss these two bookmarks to the career of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry doing the Infantile Left gig here (as captured in a Swiftboat ad) and here , where he windsurfed as a presidential candidate. And there’s Hillary as potential president The examples are endless, and you can’t make it up. The details of the Liberal autopsy begin immediately, with Dr. Tyrrell walking slowly around a figurative steel table examining the lifeless political corpse, diligently recording the life of the deceased. Just who were these Liberals, anyway? After 40 some odd-years of experience, Tyrrell knows them well. Liberals: …who began as the rightful heirs to the New Deal, have carried on as a kind of landed aristocracy, gifted but doomed. They dominated the culture and the politics of the country, unchallenged from the beginnings of the Cold War to the first Nixon Administration. So dominant were they that they could totally pollute the culture with their prejudices and their views. In its place they created Kultursmog , a Kultur whose contaminants were everywhere in the media, among the literate classes, even among illiterates — everywhere. Kultursmog is the only form of pollution to which the Liberals never object. In fact, they deem it healthy. While Tyrrell doesn’t say it here, the saga of Liberals is not unlike the saga of the late Whitney Houston. At one time the very essence of raw talent refined, polished, sparkling and dominant. Followed by the inevitable results of decline evident after years of what might be called snorting political cocaine — the dependence on sheer racism, a culture that glorifies sexual gratification, a wild addiction to the idea of feel-good emotions replacing hard science, economics and plain common sense. Followed by the inevitable…political death. No, one does not crap on a police car to make a point about economics. Rational political actors do not get drunk and leave a girl in a car to drown then resume a lifelong Senate career as if nothing untoward had happened. One doesn’t fan riots or anti-Semitism that results in death and destruction of property, gain fame by making preposterously false allegations of a racial rape — and get to host an MSNBC television show as a reward. Paying off a pregnant mistress with tax-deductible funds after exhibiting one’s streak of anti-Semitism by musing aloud to a reporter about New York City as “Hymietown” shouldn’t make one a serious player in a serious political party. Not to mention that fiddling with an intern and lying about it to a grand jury should cause more than an “ahem” from a party that insists it is fighting some grand war for women. As Tyrrell documents, the list of infantile behavior by the left is long, well beyond the specifics of behaviors by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and, of course, President Bill Clinton. Not to mention the monkey business of one-time presidential hopeful Gary Hart with Donna Rice and the still imploding reputation of ex-Senator and 2004 vice-presidential nominee John Edwards. The plagiarism scandal of Joe Biden has elevated him to the vice-presidency. But there is more to this behavior that has caused the Death of Liberalism . There are those pesky fundamentals called issues, approached by Liberals with what Tyrrell correctly calls the real objective of the “Stealth Socialist.” (Interestingly, Tyrrell points out that when Republicans are presented with political leaders who engage in likeminded personal misbehavior, they reject them — two of the more prominent examples being the presidential run of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the exploded career of South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford.) One by one Tyrrell examines issues and events that served as the proximate cause of Liberalism’s death . And the Stealth Socialist issues and events are as momentous if perhaps not as memorable as the personal behavior is tawdry. • Henry Wallace: The rise and fall of FDR’s Liberal Vice President Henry Wallace, whose Liberalism even in 1944 touched off alarm bells with the powers-that-be within the Democrats’ own party hierarchy. Replaced by Missouri Senator Harry Truman (and in the nick of time — FDR died a bare four months after being inaugurated, placing Truman, not Wallace, in the White House) Wallace set about leading the opening round of what became the Liberal civil war within the party. Eventually, Wallace departed, becoming the 1948 nominee of the Progressive Party. • The Big Lie: Combined with a laughable yet disturbing sense of moral superiority, the Big Lie is now routinely used as Pickett’s armies used the bayonet. In hand-to-hand political combat the sharp end is pointedly used to accuse of racism those who question Liberalism’s latest panaceas or by shrieking, as Tyrrell notes, that “anyone questioning their latest scheme of alleviating poverty hates the poor.” This use of the Big Lie began with the fiction that Alger Hiss was not a Communist, something that has now been positively affirmed by the release of the Venona files. The longer Hiss lied, the angrier Liberals became at those charging him with lying. More recently when Bill Clinton as president lied under oath about Monica Lewinsky, the Big Lie was employed to insist that “it was a minor infraction of the law, like double-parking one’s tractor in downtown Little Rock.” • McGovernism: In 1972, a young delegate to Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party convention of 1948 was South Dakota Senator George McGovern — the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Tyrrell examines a now obscure but key moment for the Liberals, that being the formation of the “McGovern Commission.” Formed after the pitched battle between Liberals and the battered remnants of the old FDR-Truman Democrats in 1968 — and it was a battle, with Infantile Liberals taking to the streets of Chicago during the party Convention and getting into a furiously bloody battle with the police of the old line Mayor Daley — McGovern’s task was to reform the party’s delegate selection process. He did — by obliterating the idea that individuals should be elected as delegates to the party’s national convention and replacing it with the now-sacred cow of identity politics. If you were black — and X percent of your state’s population was black — you have a delegate’s seat based on skin color. Ditto with gender, etc. Running himself four years later, using the rules he himself had engineered, McGovern not only trounced the party Establishment and won the 1972 nomination but permanently ousted the dwindling remnants of what FDR historian and ex-JFK aide Arthur Schlesinger once termed The Vital Center . • Class Warfare: If FDR employed a bit of class warfare during the Great Depression, it was McGovern who immersed the party in this pernicious cycle of greed and envy. The greed for government money — taxpayer money or “free” money as it is called today — combined with the envy of those who achieved without it. McGovern proposed three policies in particular that caught Tyrrell’s eye in his autopsy, three policies he notes that “stand out as beyond the wildest hallucinations of Henry Wallace” — began instantly to clog the Liberal artery that normally channeled a sensitivity to the sensibilities of working Americans. They were: — “a government grant of $1,000 annually for every man, woman, and child, rich or poor”; — ” a 37 percent reduction in the Pentagon budget…the savings going to social welfare programs…”; — “a rise in taxes, most strikingly on inheritance — no one would be able to receive more than half a million dollars from one’s family in a lifetime or at the time of one’s death!”
