The Collins Quartet & the local Birchers

28 Sep

In follow-up to this post and Chris’ post, I sent the following email to candidates Dixon, Hardwick, Fudoli, and Schratz:

At least one (if not more) of the members of this coalition holds some pretty extreme, fringe viewpoints.  As in it makes the John Birch Society seem mild in comparison.

Thanks in advance,


I received two official campaign responses.

Professor Hardwick sent this along:

Although I doubt any two people in this community agree on the appropriate role of government or level of taxation, I think most people would agree that there is too much government in Erie County and taxes are too high. I, therefore, am pleased that the coalition believes I am the candidate for 10th District Erie County Legislature most likely to address these issues.

Lynne Dixon sent this along:

While I never sought the endorsement, if their basic principles are that of lower taxes, less government and creating a better business climate in Western New York, then I appreciate that they believe I am the better candidate to address those issues.  As an Independent who left a long journalism career to try and do what’s best for the people of Erie County, regardless of party, that has been and will continue to be what guides me in my campaign.

One of the people on Fudoli’s contact page responded to me, but indicated that his reply was not the official campaign reaction.  Schratz never replied in any way.

So, shorter Dixon/Hardwick would be: I don’t care who they are, if they support me and are for lower taxes/smaller government, I’ll take it.

I’m very disappointed that they don’t think this is a big deal.  Because it is, to me.

One of the members of the Tea Party Coalition holds some pretty repugnant views.  First of all, the members of that coalition who chose to join with him have some soul-searching to do.  Secondly, the candidates who are apparently enthusiastic about the Tea Party Coalition endorsement should be ashamed of themselves.

I wouldn’t join a group, or accept the endorsement of someone who says this:

“[T]he only other solution might be a civil war in which the people or factions thereof, attempt to take back control of their destinies from a dangerously out of control and inept ruling class . . . Expect devastation, famine, starvation, disease, war and disaster after disaster before the ship rights itself. It will not be pretty but, in a way, I welcome it because I know that it is the only way out of the morass in which we have become mired.”


“[T]here are many more unproductive slackers [today] due to big government, new slaveholder interventions and slave breeding programs. People of the type created by these programs would not have existed in any measurable quantity as there would have been little possibility of survival prior to the advent of the modern welfare state. Slacking is now in the genes of the people who have been on welfare for 3 or 4 generations or more and these people are now, for all intents and purposes, societally worthless, ineducable and probably beyond redemption. Yes, they are different because they have been bred to do nothing but slack and vote for Democrats by their slavemasters Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, the Clintons, etc.”


We need to protest the bias of the state run media and how they have bcome nothing more than poop boys for the messiah, obama, and his radical, fringe, take down America agenda.


I have been associated with the tea party movement since March of 2009 and in spite of all the nonsense I hear coming from such small minded people as Pelosi, Reid, Carter, and both obamas, I have yet to hear one member of the tea party movement utter any kind of racially insensitive remark or claim that they oppose obama because of his race. When you tell certain people, liberals, to be precise, that you oppose obama because of his national socialist policies and his wanton disregard for the US Constitution and the rule of law, they seem confused and disbelieving, unable to grasp, I believe, that anyone could oppose him for those reasons….They are convinced that we are part of a Republican cabal, a vast right wing conspiracy dedicated to keeping the masses of poor people permanently enslaved so that we can use them as a never ending source of labor to enrich ourselves and our evil fellow collaborators, Republican racists every one. I don’t know about you but I have never belonged to any political party and I never will. I do, however, vote in every election in which I am allowed and I always vote for the best person – man or woman, of whatever race and/or political party. I think that is more than we can say for our liberal accusers.

The fact that they are endorsing only Republicans must be a coincidence.

I believe that obama has plans to legalize illegal aliens in this country, possibly limiting it to only those from North America which would be mainly Mexicans, and thus guarantee himself and the dems a victory in the midterm elections. This, of course, would come at a time when polls are showing that the dems are going to take a beating of historic proportions in 2010 and possibly lose control of both the House and the Senate. Truly, this would be an act of war against the American people, using a foreign army of illegals to steal from American voters something which obama and the dems could not win in an honest election. This will, of course, spark widesprad protests, possibly some violence, and would give obama an excuse to call out the national guard and place America under martial law. At this point, he would have near dictatorial powers and he would then constitute his dreamed of “civilian” armed corps which he has spoken of openly on more than one occaion.

When confronted with this sort of explicitly ignorant drivel, Dixon and Hardwick punted – they accepted the endorsement anyway, and did not even take care to denounce the specific rantings of this leading member of the group that endorsed them.

Candidates Hardwick, Fudoli, Dixon, and Schratz have had an opportunity to read these things and to weigh in.  A simple:

“I recognize that the Tea Party Coalition is made up of several individuals who don’t always agree with each other on every issue, nor do I agree with each of them on everything.  With respect to the hateful conspiratorial writings you and Chris highlighted, I expressly reject that, and repudiate it.  I will accept the endorsement of any person or group that believes in lower taxes and smaller government, and I will continue to work towards my election to the county legislature, so I may promote that agenda on behalf of all the people of the ___ District.”

…would do. See, that wasn’t so hard.

I wrote last week:

then I’d like to know if, as a Republican, you’re going to be a limp fish and go along with such viciously ignorant hatred, or if you’re going to be like William F. Buckley, Jr. and take a firm stand against the lunatic fringe.

I electorally reject anyone who won’t reject the John Birch Society crap I’ve quoted above.  William F. Buckley would be ashamed.

It’s early, and I’m running late this morning, but I’ll have more to say about this. Seriously, I find it appalling.

56 Responses to “The Collins Quartet & the local Birchers”

  1. Joe Genco September 28, 2009 at 7:33 am #

    Alan: I understand your preference for higher taxes and larger government and defend your right to pontificate. I also detest the some of the ramblings you’ve quoted above. However, in the context of the system in which Hardwick et al are seeking office, a minor endorsement can and will be the margin of victory and turning aside support would not work toward the end in mind. If those who favor a return to a capitalist society and recognize the Constitution as a great document offend you, so be it.

  2. mike hudson September 28, 2009 at 7:34 am #

    have to disagree, alan. the democrats have actually run former members of the sds and the black panthers — groups which actually blew things up and shot people to death — as candidates.

  3. ike September 28, 2009 at 7:47 am #

    you’d never accept the endorsement?

    good, that just lowers the likelihood of you ever getting elected to anything…which, lets face facts, is what you really want.

  4. Byron September 28, 2009 at 8:03 am #

    I also find it interesting that the Freeners and WNY teabaggers proudly and regularly express their contempt for all liberals and Democrats – and 90% of Republicans – but apparently have no problem associating with Allen Coniglio of the Cleansing of Humanity party. I guess that’s because they’re a “diverse group”.

  5. Brian Castner September 28, 2009 at 8:34 am #

    Sorry Alan – Birfers and Teabaggers may be front page news to you, but they’re a minor annoyance and footnote to everyone else. I’m sure Hardwick and Dixon have better things to do than wrestle with pigs in the mud. Accept and move on – its pragmatic, and hopefully will get them elected. Do you really think Hardwick and Dixon are Birfing Teabaggers? Or is this just more broad-brush-guilt-by-association politics, that you don’t like when its about ACORN, for instance.

    • Alan Bedenko September 28, 2009 at 8:47 am #

      Replying to the comments so far:

      @Hudson – thank you for reinforcing my point.

      @Joe Genco – if you can point one instance where I’ve advocated for higher taxes or bigger government for Erie County, please do feel free to cite it. Also, we do have a capitalistic society, thanks for asking. Unless you’re aware of a “stop entrepreneurship act” that’s been passed in Washington or Albany, in which case, feel free to cite it.

      @Ike – I would only run for office again as part of an “abolish county government” slate. But thanks for your concern and off-topic mouth-shit.

      @Brian Castner – no one asked them to wrestle. I asked them to repudiate the remarks. This isn’t like when Hannity asks some random black Liberal to repudiate some crazy belief held by some other random black Liberal. This is a direct endorsement of these candidates by the lunatic fringe. When given an opportunity to back off the beliefs held by that crowd, they decided not to. I think that’s regrettable. You may disagree, but it doesn’t take much to repudiate the crazy. These four didn’t bother. They’re calculating that the 20%-or-so of the population making up Bush dead-enders, glibertarians, birthers, teabaggers, etc. are worth courting. That’s fine and dandy, but I have every right to criticize it and express my disgust and disappointment.

  6. mike hudson September 28, 2009 at 8:53 am #

    does that mean you’ve condemned those associated with the sds or black panther party in the past, expressing your disgust and disappointment that the dems would associate with people who’ve been in groups that actually murdered people? sorry, i must have missed that.

    • Alan Bedenko September 28, 2009 at 9:08 am #

      @mike hudson – I’m not talking about 40 year old issues (the SDS murdered people? I must have missed that.) I’m talking about today. If this were 1972 and the Democrats were running someone for office, and the Weather Underground endorsed that person, I would expect the candidate to reject that endorsement. That would be the only relevant analogy, given your point.

  7. slothrop September 28, 2009 at 9:28 am #

    sds were never violent. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

  8. chantale September 28, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    @brian castner – birthers and teabaggers are not a “minor annoyance” they are a real, racially motivated detriment to free society. led by the likes of glenn beck and rush limbaugh they are gaining credibility with the media. this is not a small issue. candidates should always reject those endorsements from groups that are even an inkling racially motivated in their approach. if the candidates accept the endorsement, they accept the beliefs of these groups and therefore, by association, can be said to hold the same beliefs.

    it is sad that we have not come further in this nation, even with a minority president. there are still shades of racism to be found everywhere and it isn’t “playing the race card” to point it out.

  9. mike hudson September 28, 2009 at 10:48 am #

    the weathermen, who served as the militant arm of the sds, were responsible for numerous bombings, bank robberies and murders. and don’t even try to claim that the sds and the weathermen weren’t affiliated, which would be as ridiculous as saying ireland’s ira and sinn fein weren’t affiliated or that the john birch society and the republican party were not affiliated. see bernadine dohrn, mike klonsky etc.

  10. slothrop September 28, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    weathermen were not a “militant arm of the sds.” They wanted SDS to become militant and SDS refused, so the left sds and formed the weathermen. SDS wanted nothing to do with the weathermen. facts suck.

  11. STEEL September 28, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    So since the Weathermen did bad things is is OK for Republicans to accept endorsements for fringe groups calling for civil war? I just want to clarify your position Mike H.

  12. slothrop September 28, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    hudson – youhave your chronology wrong. The SDS was a pacifist movement rooted in economic justice. Soon, the Vietnam war took over its mission. In 1969, at the SDS national convention, 11 members of the SDS became disenchanted with SDS’s pacifist stance and proposed the formation of the Weathermen (taken from a Bob Dylan lyric “You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”).

    After this, the SDS dissolved due to the splintering at the 1969 convention. The Weathermen were not the only faction formed at the ’69 convention. Others formed that wanted to remain pacifist (which was a majority of the leadership). Thus, there was little to no overlap between the SDS and the Weathermen.

  13. jesse (from ea) September 28, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    Hate to tell you Alan, but nobody really gives a crap. About endorsements in general – yours or the tea partiers.

    Nice of you to write their reply for them, though.

    • Alan Bedenko September 28, 2009 at 11:21 am #

      Thank you for taking the time to post a comment on my site about something you don’t give a “crap” about.

  14. Ward September 28, 2009 at 11:22 am #

    Shorter Pundit: The friend of my enemy is my enemy too.

    • Alan Bedenko September 28, 2009 at 11:40 am #


      Shorter Pundit: Cum canibus concumbunt, cum pulicibus surgent.

  15. Jackson September 28, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    This post demonstrates that this blog has the highest percentage of purposefully dumb commenters of any blog in WNY.

  16. Jonas September 28, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Why is this any surprise? Have you ever listened to Hardwick on the radio? The comments about the “slackers” could have come from his very own mouth. He is always going off about the lazy, unproductive welfare people on the East Side. Besides, radio talk-show hosts are probably the lowest form of life in our country. I would never vote for that asshole.

    Smaller government? Hmmm. I don’t know. Everyone loves to talk about it, but the only one doing anything is Kevin Gaughan, and his idea of “reducing government’ is merely reducing representation. His approach is anti-democratic and all it does is concentrate power in fewer hands, making them less accountable to the electorate. Then you have the people who think we should have a manager instead of an executive. This is mere Hobbesian fantasy. Don’t the unaccountable, unelected authorities already cause enough problems, obstructing any real progress in the area?

    If we want lower taxes, we should ask the federal government for the 28 cents (last I checked) they take from each dollar the average new yorker pays in federal income taxes that has been siphoned off to Southern States over the past 8 years. The states in the south get to have lower state income taxes and lower property taxes because they get the Federal government to pay for infrastructure costs. Now that Blue States have control of Congress we should stop funding their ridiculous pork, and see how quickly these tax shelters crumble.

  17. Jonas September 28, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Ha, delete my comments because you know it’s the truth!

  18. Joe Genco September 28, 2009 at 12:36 pm #

    You ran for office as a Democrat. Democrats stand for bigger government, higher taxes and greater spending. See Obama, Barrack or Kennedy, Ted if you don’t get it.

    • Alan Bedenko September 28, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

      You ran for office as a Democrat. Democrats stand for bigger government, higher taxes and greater spending. See Obama, Barrack or Kennedy, Ted if you don’t get it.

      If you have trouble spelling the President’s name, then I’m of the mind that nothing else you write is worth reading.

  19. STEEL September 28, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    Shouldn’t we have a “language” warning with all that Cum and Pulicibus talk?

  20. Jonas September 28, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    woops, I guess you didn’t delete my comment. Now I feel foolish.

  21. The Humanist September 28, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    @ Joe Genco – “Democrats stand for bigger government, higher taxes and greater spending. See Obama, Barrack or Kennedy, Ted if you don’t get it.

    Or, more correctly, Bush, George W.

  22. STEEL September 28, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    Yes but so do Republicans – see Bush I and Bush II And Reagan.

  23. Brian Castner September 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    @ Alan: You are asking them to wrestle in the mud – there are many fringe groups that endorse politicians all the time, without their knowledge or request (as seems evident here). Hardwick and Dixon don’t have a link to the group. The Birfer’s reached out to them. Any second they spend touching the toxic crap is a second they lose. I don’t blame them for ignoring it and moving on. They gain nothing by getting into a philiosophical Teabagger argument with you – last I checked, running for office was about winning, right?

    @ Chantale: They are a fringe only made more powerful by a couple radio hosts, and the constant Liberal attention. Ignore them and they go away. And labeling Birfers and Teabaggers all as racists is lazy and incorrect. Some certainly are (the “I want my country back from a black guy with a funny sounding name” crowd). Some want lower taxes. Some want government services, but don’t want to pay for them. Some don’t realize Medicare is government run. Some are angry but don’t know why. Most are ignorant. A few have a point lost in the crazy. But lets call a spade a spade, here. If Dems rejected every endorsement from anyone who has ever said anything remotely racist, Jesse Jackson would be out of a job. And he has a far larger following than dead-end Birfers.

    • Alan Bedenko September 28, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

      there are many fringe groups that endorse politicians all the time, without their knowledge or request (as seems evident here). Hardwick and Dixon don’t have a link to the group. The Birfer’s reached out to them.

      and upon being confronted with what’s behind that, they said, “we love small government and lower taxes.” Which is as nice a sentiment as it is irrelevant.

      Since probably a good 80+% of the people are probably not conspiratorial creeps, knowingly accepting this endorsement may harm their chances of winning. Yeah, you’re for smaller government and lower taxes, but (a) so is your opponent; and (b) what’s with this whole “civil war” and “Slacking is now in the genes of the people who have been on welfare for 3 or 4 generations or more and these people are now, for all intents and purposes, societally worthless, ineducable and probably beyond redemption” bullshit?

  24. Ward September 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Alan — Cum Bill Ayers concumbunt, cum scelestus surgent.

    • Alan Bedenko September 28, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

      Ward – that’s exactly right. You have Bill Ayers to be angry about – a guy who did bad things 40 years ago. I have these people to be appalled by, and be even more appalled that people like Lynne Dixon or Kevin Hardwick would enthusiastically accept their support.

  25. Byron September 28, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    Birther-ism, by itself, is definitely not a fringe belief among Republicans. Hopefully Mr. Coniglio’s hope for the “cleansing” of society of all the lower class ineducable hellions who are “bred to slack and vote Democratic” is a bit more out-there, even among teabaggers.

  26. Byron September 28, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    Sorry I screwed up the link.

    By the way, in the “cleansing” quote – “After the cleansing of humanity and the removal of large numbers of reprobates and worthless, violent slackers (which has already begun), libertarians may have a better chance of selling their . . . philosophy” – what does “which has already begun” refer to?

    I’m not sure I want to know.

  27. mike hudson September 28, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    to steel and slothrop…the weathermen were founded at the sds covention in 1969, as you note, by 11 individuals — including obama pal bill ayers — who were already card-carrying members of the parent group. to say they were unreleated is ridiculous, and may indeed reflect your (slothrop) age at the time, and also your present-day regrettable dependence on wikipedia.

    steel, none of it is right, which is exactly my point. so long as the right and the left in this country busy themselves with self congratulatory nitpicking about which radical fringe group supports the other side, the corporate interests that actually do run the country will remain free to rape and pillage.

    and make no mistake, the dems in washington are every bit as beholding to those interests as the republicans.

  28. mike September 28, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    Hudson, take another step back and lets talk about how many KKK members are or were republicans? And we all know they never killed anyone or burned things. Hudson your a sad excuse for a human why arent you dead yet? oh yeh your brains dead, but no one pulled the plug on your mouth yet.

  29. Hank September 28, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    Repubilcan KKK members? Senator Robert Byrd, Senator Al Gore Sr, Sen Strom Thurmond (when he was a Democrat)—You mean THOSE Republicans? The ones who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in such large numbers that LBJ had the R’s come to the white house and kisssed their asses to support the bill?? Since the overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress were Democrats and he couldn’t get majorities from his own party? Oh, THOSE Republicans. Thanks for clearing that up.

  30. Hank September 28, 2009 at 2:54 pm #

    As for the tea Party people, I thought they were just against over-taxation. Like the kind that will occur after Barry and his party get done with health care. Instead of your private insurer paying 80% of your health care costs, they’ll pay only 65%. The increased amount Americans will pay is NOT considered a tax on the middle class—whatever.

    The Birthers are a fringe group that are like the homosexual activists, make a lot of noise, but few in numbers and nobody gives a shit. If we see an amnesty bill before the mid-term elections, I think someone owes Allen Coniglio an apology.

  31. slothrop September 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Hudson – lets say you, Pundit and I form a club. Lets call it the “Oil and Water Club.” We state as a matter of principal that membership is premised on the belief that internet postings are dumb. A few years go buy and we hold a few ice-cream socials. We are happy. But then you decide at the most recent ice-cream social that internet postings can change the world and you form a new group – SNS – The Smugness and Nonsense Syndicate.

    Does that mean that Pundit and I are now members of SNS?

  32. Ward September 28, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    Dang, Alan — you send me to a link where I have to sign up for what you describe is a despicable traitorous google group, before I can see what you’re referring to. I’m afeared that, if I sign up as a member today, some Obamacare death panel seven years from now will deny me coverage for a wart-removal.

    Nice try, but I’m way too smart for that.

  33. Jonas September 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    We have a two party system. The lunatic fringe will have no choice but to latch on to one side. I didn’t see a lot of liberals condeming the far left who accused Bush of being a fascist Nazi and brought up connections to Prescott Bush, continually spammed quotes from Heinrich Himmler on the internet during the leadup to the Iraq war, among other things. Oh and I would say that the majority of 9/11 truthers have nothing to with the left-wing. Most of that cult was being led by Alex Jones who is nowhere near leftist or liberal,

    Come on. You may have privately disagreed with these far leftists over the past 8 years, and been embarrassed of any mistaken association, but when it came down to it, you would be “on their side” if there was a confrontation with far-right, ultra nationalists.

  34. Chris Smith September 28, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    From Rus Thompson’s Facebook feed:

    “Rus Thompson We had a great meeting ar Club W. Candidates that showed were Hardwick, Schratz, Wirth, Fidoli and about 50 people ready, willing and able to give a helping hand to them all.” and ” Lynn Dixon had to be out in Brant for a prior commitment.”

    It now appears to be more than a tacit acknowledgment that a bunch of crazy people have given an unsolicited endorsement.

  35. Byron September 28, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    Slothrop is butting his head against the Iron Law of the Internet (#3 in this list).

  36. Chris Smith September 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    Good luck to Hardwick when he has Allen Coniglio going door to door on his behalf spewing his slaveholder, wiping out humanity, the government is coming to kill you, new world order bullshit.

  37. mike hudson September 28, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    not even worth a reply.

  38. mike September 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    “not even worth a reply.” is a reply hudson.

  39. Steve September 28, 2009 at 5:27 pm #

    Be-dick-o: You’ve got to be kidding me comparing the Reformers to Ayers? Ayers was using bombs and tried to kill people. Your liberal mind is so twisted you can’t even think straight. This site should take away your right to post here. Why are you so un-American? Move to Canada, it suits you better.

  40. Byron September 28, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    I’m fairly sure that Coniglio will stick to the “lower taxes, smaller government” script and not bring teh crazy if he makes any public appearances on behalf of the Collins Four, just as (I would bet) the Freeners’ public speeches stick to the same ideas and don’t (I assume) go into preferring the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution or their other crazier ideas.

    That’s what interesting to me about this: the glimpse behind the curtain of the local teabagger movement. How any more of them have ideas like Coniglio’s, I wonder?

  41. Jonas September 28, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    Coniglio basically advocated for mass genocide of all African-Americans on the internet, the most public forum possible, and he was dead serious. I am not a big fan of guilt by association, but anyone who voluntarily works with such a person, is quietly condoning their view. If this was just the typical tea-party “Obama is a communist” nonsense I would not feel this way, but calling for genocide is seriously fucked up.

  42. Starbuck September 28, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    You’d have a much better argument if Coniglio’s rants were on tape or video instead of apparently in a Google Groups forum that requires login to see.

    I’ve no reason to doubt that you guys are correct in your claims about Coniglio, but it sounds like a time consuming thing for a candidate to check on web forum writings of individuals who endorse them.

    When confronted with this sort of explicitly ignorant drivel, Dixon and Hardwick punted – they accepted the endorsement anyway, and did not even take care to denounce the specific rantings…

    When were Dixon and Hardwick confronted with the specific rantings to which you refer? Was the “confronting” just an emailed URL link pointing to Geek’s blog post?

    Do Dixon and Hardwick even take the time to click on every link that anybody emails to them? Maybe in this case they clicked on it, but it’s possible they didn’t.

    Then if they did click the link you emailed, and then take the time to read Geek’s post, the next thing some people might demand they do is click the links in Geek’s post to confirm the source he quoted and try to verify that Coniglio really wrote what you wrote about him writing. Otherwise they’d just be refusing an endorsement based on what you guys say.

    How much time and effort is reasonable to expect a candidate to spend on things like this?

  43. Haterade September 28, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    Hudson – how about that latest mistaken release from your pal Timmy ?

  44. Tony M September 29, 2009 at 10:39 am #

    “Overview of America” from the John Birch Society is an excellent video that all should watch. Americans need to educate themselves on the roots of why this nation was designed as a Republic and how it has degenerated into a democracy.

    This 29 minute video explains the basics on forms of government such as Republic vs Democracy vs Oligarchy. Also, a little is covered on capitalism vs other economic/social systems.

    “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
    – Ben Franklin

  45. James October 1, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    So should candidates refuse to accept the votes of people that they dont agree with? Should Byron Brown dismiss supporters on the East Side simply because they are only voting for him because of his race? Likewise for any candidates that receives votes only because they have the right friends, influences, cars, business connections, or pets? I might allow that Kearns should not have accepted Palandino’s money, but why not? He doesn’t have to espouse Carl’s political views to accept his support. Simply because a group you don’t like gets behind a candidate doesn’t mean you shouldn’t like that candidate. Similarly it’s a weak way to attack someone you don’t like. The voters in Buffalo that, when asked if they were voting for Brown, stated “He’s the black one right?” or Palandino wanting to get his name in the news by throwing his money away speaks a lot more about them then it does the candidates they are supporting. Why don’t you ask the candidates a question about what they think about an issue that is relevant to Buffalo? Instead of wasting your time informing us, once again, that you don’t like the teabaggers? We get that.

    • Christopher Smith October 1, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

      Accepting votes and accepting an endorsement are two different things. But, thanks for playing.

  46. James October 2, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    True, it’s a different thing, but it doesn’t asnwer the question I was asking. So lets take it a little further and say that Obama was endorsed by the Nation of Islam, which he was. Then lets see what some of the people in N.O.I. believe and say and that means Obama must agree with them? Hrmm… again, as others have stated, this is a LOCAL election and a disagreement with a NATIONAL perspective. But you know… pot knows best when kettle is black after all they are both on the stove. I’m not really much for either side. I probably lean right on most things, but I find the rhetoric on both sides lacking for whit. Also the teaparty movement doesn’t really recognize any organized leadership, spokeperson, or figurehead so for one blogger or moderator to put their stamp of approval on a candidate means … what exactly?

  47. The Humanist October 7, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    Hey James – the candidates in question could learn a lesson from (then Candidate) Obama:

    “I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan,” Obama said in a statement released by his aides. “I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.”

    Barack Obama, January 2008, statement made one day after knucklehead Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen criticized Obama because his church (Trinity United Church of Christ) in Chicago was giving an award to Minister Farrakhan.

    Lesson: when confronted by an association (however tangible) with vile racism and intractable paranoid conspiracy theories, divorce yourself from said crowd immediately and decisively.


  1. Maybe I was Wrong About the Crazies | - September 30, 2009

    […] Anti-Christ based upon some numerology. To me, its easy to dismiss a couple websites that I think Alan spends too much time perusing. But somehow hearing it on the radio today, on a “news program,” made it a lot worse.  […]

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: