Sue is:  “… troubled about the online community’s (what I consider to be) over-the-top reaction to the litmus test regarding candidacy and then chucking it all because “their favoriteâ€? gets endorsed by the same PAC they spent weeks and months disparaging...”

I’ll put it more succinctly: Hypocritical, one and all.

This entry was posted in Greensboro Politics, Life in General. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Spag/The CA
    Posted November 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    From my post at Sue’s but you can take a shot if you want, Hoggard:

    “Perhaps an example to support your argument would be appropriate. As for me, I blogged that I thought the Simkins endorsement of Wade was a cynical ploy to help Carmany. Whether I was wrong or right, I don’t know.

    I also continue to be amazed at the whining over Carmany’s loss in the blogs and at the N&R.”

  2. Posted November 11, 2007 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    A quick Google search captured these in a few minutes, Sam…

    Dr. G. 3/05 – “This PAC has had a disproportionate influence on local elected officials, even to the extent that some local Republicans have obsequiously sought its support.”

    Dr. G. 5/05 - “…The amoral influence of the Simpkins PAC needs to be opposed and resisted by both major parties. It simply cannot be permitted to control local politics any longer. Its depradations have been too numerous…
    Elected officials need to foreswear its support and dissociate themselves from it, permanently;”

    Ashanti 9/07 - “Mitch Johnson is scheming little worm, who is a sock muppet of the Simpkins PAC/Joe Williams”

    Bubba dittos Ashanti 9/07 – “That certainly sums it up, doesn’t it?”

    Ashanti at Bubba’s on Bellamy’s hiring – “The Simpkins PAC selected T. ( Dianne’s Cousin ) and their sock puppet Mitchie said Amen !”

    Bubba, again, dittos – “Indeed……”"

    For the record, Sam… I thought the same as you when I heard of Wade’s endorsement. But my conversations subsequently found it was the real deal. As for the ‘whining’ about the Carmany/Wade contest… I’m moving on to the issues.

    On the issue of water, I think Wade’s stated position is all wet… you?

  3. Spag/The CA
    Posted November 11, 2007 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    David, I’m not sure the Joe’s criticisms of Simkins necessarily require him to withdraw support of Trudy Wade. Do you support Carmany, the actual candidate whom you disagree with or do you support the candidate you agree with even though she is endorsed by a group you oppose? You have to make a choice. Joe chose the person who would have the power. I don’t think he or anyone else you speak of were too happy with the Simkins endorsement, but they were less happy with Carmany.

    I can’t speak to the water issue because I admit that I am not familiar enough with the facts.

  4. Posted November 11, 2007 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    Just a matter of clarification– I did withhold my support of Dr. Wade once I learned of the endorsement. And just as in the case of all the Simkins endorsees, we need to be concerned about what positions they took, or representations they made, or agreements they struck, to secure the endorsement. This should be open to the public for Dr. Wade and for all the other Simkins endorsees.

    But I think all of Sandy’s advocates need to consider carefully the impact that the endorsement likely had on the outcome of the election. If the PAC’s influence on local politics is such a good thing, how could it have ostensibly caused such an outcome? This instance should precipitate some introspection and reconsideration of the local ground rules, if we are to accept the premise that Sandy was a good public official worthy of reelection.

  5. Posted November 11, 2007 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    I should have noted that Joe did indeed withhold support of Wade in light of the PAC’s endorsement. So my charge of hypocrisy should not be directed toward him and was a bit unfair.

    That endorsement likey DID have an impact on the election, Joe. That’s what PACs do from my understanding. They are political ACTION committees, after all.