Simpkins PAC endorsements Part 1

This is going to cause Dr. Guarino’s head to explode.  Ben apparently got a sneak peak at the endorsements that will appear in tomorrow’s Carolina Peacemaker, for which he writes articles from time to time

I ran into a member of the Simkins PAC yesterday who was headed over to last night’s endorsement meeting in Steve Bowden’s law office a couple of blocks from my abode.  As we discussed were the PAC was headed with this year’s at-large City Council endorsements, the member explained where some of more influential members were on the Carmany/Wade race and that he/she was going to try and sway them back over to Carmany’s side.  Apparently those efforts were not successful.  I’ll call that one a real horse race, but still have confidence that Carmany will prevail.

Perkins and Anderson-Groat endorsements should come as no shock, but Marikay Abuzaiter’s nod in the at-large race might be a surprise to some.  If so, you haven’t been paying attention to the changing tides.  Several black politicos have approached me in the last month suggesting that I ought to be paying attention to Marykay’s campaign and put one of her signs in my yard.

As it currently stands my brown and crunchy yard is only sporting signs for the mostly uncontested campaigns for Yvonne Johnson (mayor) and Goldie Wells (District 2). (well,… there’s also one resisting the rezoning of land near Haw River State Park). 

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

23 Comments

  1. Posted October 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Did you get any sense as to what factors went in to making the decision?

  2. meblogin
    Posted October 29, 2007 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Where is your Sandy sign?

  3. meblogin
    Posted October 29, 2007 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    never mind…might not be in your district

  4. Posted October 29, 2007 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Peacemaker comes out on Thursday. It has been like that for a very long time.I get early peeks at everything.

  5. dhoggard
    Posted October 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, Meb. I’m District 2. But I might get me one anyway.

    Right you are, Ben… on both counts.

  6. Posted October 29, 2007 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    David, my head is not quite exploding, especially since there had been some indication that Marikay and Wade may have been getting the endorsement over the last couple of weeks. We knew that Wade was looking for it, as well as Sandy; but this obviously changes completely how people should look at Marikay.

  7. Jim Rosenberg
    Posted October 29, 2007 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Do the Simkins PAC people you know act just like regular humans, or can you tell just from looking that they are machines?

  8. dhoggard
    Posted October 29, 2007 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Glad to hear your head is intact, Joe. I just couldn’t resist.

    But, how do you square this statement with Wade’s endorsement by the Simpkins “machine”?

    …”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”

    You are going to reject Wade’s candidacy in favor of the “non-machine” candidate… right?

  9. Posted October 29, 2007 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    David, in this race, both candidates indicated they would seek or accept the endorsement. Their hearts were in the same place.

    I do not live in this particular district. But on my blog, I will not be making a recommendation on behalf of either candidate if the reports about Wade’s endorsement are true– and I assume they are.

    Frankly, I think this is tragic in some respects. Wade and Marikay both could have had some major things going for them if they had gone the principled way, and won in spite of it. Now you have to sit and wonder in what respects they might be compromised– what they might have agreed to, what they might have represented, what will be expected of them, etc.

  10. meblogin
    Posted October 29, 2007 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Wade is in this race for Wade and not Greensboro. Anyone care to explain her good points? ….maybe a few county folks?

    WIN SANDY WIN!!!!

  11. Nick
    Posted October 29, 2007 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Thanks –I have been talking about this at Guarino’s site for weeks. Wade was willing to do anything for that endorsement. It’s one thing to reach out to all voters, but its another to pander to the black leadership as she has done. It’s amazing how she suddenly found southeast and northeast Greensboro and every black event where she could be seen for pictures. I can only hope the endorsement backfires. Sandy is the best candidate by far and the voters will have the final say soon enough. Does anyone know the demographics in D5? Will the endorsement really make that big of a difference for Wade or will it galvanize Carmany supporters!

  12. Nick
    Posted October 29, 2007 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    Any while I often disagree with Joe…he has been consistent…read his reply to one of my messages on his site about Wade…

    “I am extremely concerned about the practice of self-described conservatives and Republicans seeking and accepting the Simkins endorsement. I think it is inappropriate, and should be a matter of party discipline. I blogged specifically in a dedicated post over the summer.”

  13. Posted October 30, 2007 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    Yeah, I have to agree with meblogin. I don’t understand how people can have the oversight of what happened with the whole county fiasco and not leave a bad taste in your mouth. Doesn’t really sound like it’s in the best interest of D-5.

    While being endorsed by Simkins PAC is pretty good, I think what Nick says is interesting too. D-5 consists of more than just Adams Farm area, but living there, I have to say that the sway isn’t as much as say D-1.

    Regardless, I can tell you one thing. I’m getting sick and tired of the five of the same mailers I get from the Wade camp almost every week. If killing trees isn’t enough to sway me, then the fact that it’s the SAME mailer to really turn me off. Bleh.

  14. dhoggard
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 5:48 am | Permalink

    meb, I do know that county employees stayed pretty frustrated at Wade much of the time. Staffers report that they had to explain issues to her over and over because she couldn’t quite get her arms around the particulars that were intregal to making important decisions.

    “Not the sharpest tool in the shed.” is a common descriptor that I’ve heard. The Rev. Belvin Jessup’s tenure on Council has been used as an analogy for what staffers can expect from Wade.

  15. Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    Nick, you assert that Carmany has pandered in order to gain the Simpkins PAC endorsement, yet in the face of Wade actually receeiving the endorsement, you make no such assertions about Wade. Question: Where are your facts? What pandering by Carmany, specifically, are you referring to and what has you convinced (facts, please) that Wade did not “pander?”

  16. Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    CORRECTION:

    Sorry, Nick, I completely misread your comments. Please ignore my question above. I’ll blame it on a lack of coffee. My apologies.

  17. Posted October 30, 2007 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    “David, in this race, both candidates indicated they would seek or accept the endorsement.”

    This is not true. Carmany did not “SEEK” the endorsement. “Seeking” says to me that she was actively working to get the endorsement. If that were the case, she would have changed her stance on some of the issues, like City funding for the museum.

    Certainly had the endorsement been offered to her, she would have accepted it. But “seeking” it was not the case

  18. Tony Wilkins
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    dhoggard said,
    ““Not the sharpest tool in the shed.â€? is a common descriptor that I’ve heard. The Rev. Belvin Jessup’s tenure on Council has been used as an analogy for what staffers can expect from Wade.”

    A new low for you Hogg. I’ve read it 10 times and still can’t believe you posted these words. Notice the harmful way you inflict insult without using your own words or identifying the source. I think there is a word for that.
    Think about it as you lay head on pillow tonight.

  19. meblogin
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Does Wade support the civil rights museum?

    If so, she does not support the voters.

    All Sandy supporters and supporters for a better Greensboro need to vote this time!!

  20. Nick
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    Roch101…no problems here

  21. dhoggard
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    Tony,
    As you suggested, I’ve now thought at length about what I posted above regarding my unattributed statement regarding some staffers’ opinion of Wade and find that I do indeed need to come clean…

    The actual statements were more along the line of “…half a bubble shy of level”.

    Sorry ’bout that.

    I’m also sorry that you think I’m making it up.

  22. Posted October 31, 2007 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Thanks, Nick. Although, in misunderstanding your post, I missed that you were suggesting Wade had pandered to the PAC. In fairness, what evidence do you have of that?

  23. Tony Wilkins
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    Thanks for clearing your conscience Hogg.
    Don’t you feel better about yourself?
    Now, let’s go get a shrimpburger before they close the joint down for the season.