Some local Republican elected officials are backing away from their endorsements or denying they made them in Wake County school board member Chris Malone's bid to win the state House 35 seat.
As noted in today's North Raleigh News article by Paul A. Specht and Colin Campbell, some GOP politicians are distancing themselves from Malone since the recent reports about his relationship with fellow school board member Debra Goldman. In some ways, the reaction is similar to how state GOP officials are distancing themselves from Goldman in her run for state auditor.
“I know I endorsed him in the past,” said Commissioner Phil Matthews, vice chairman of the commissioners, of Malone. “But, I have not voted yet and am going to wait and see how things go before I take things further.”
Malone, a Republican, is running against Lori Millberg, a Democrat and former Wake school board member.
When contacted by phone, Commissioners chairman Paul Coble and Commissioner Tony Gurley declined to give direct answers to the question: “Do you support Chris Malone?”
“I support Republicans in their races,” Gurley said, declining to comment on Malone’s race. Coble said the situation is “complicated.”
Joe Bryan was the only Republican commissioner to confirm his support for Malone. “I already cast my vote, so it’s already a done deal,” he said. “I don’t regret it. ... In the end, I think he’ll be a more effective legislator.”
In an April candidates’ questionnaire, Malone said he’d been endorsed by “all Wake Forest and Rolesville Republican commissioners.”
Yet, Wake Forest commissioner Zachary Donahue and Rolesville commissioner Frank Hodge in interviews on Wednesday denied that they ever endorsed Malone. Donahue said he wasn’t aware the candidate was touting his support.
“My stance has always been that I’ve never endorsed anybody,” Donahue said.
Hodge said: “Millberg has had my support since Day One.”
Malone did not return a call seeking comment but texted a reporter to say Donahue had, in fact, previously endorsed him.
Republican Rolesville commissioner Gil Hartis declined to comment on Malone.
Comments
Collateral damage
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 16:33 — ApexterI feel really, really sorry for Charles Malone, Democratic candidate for state Senate. I think he's going to sustain some collateral damage at the polls by being confused with "that Malone guy."
Question
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 14:52 — Dove314The "Real School Board of Wake County" saga continues. After readiing the other blog item where Ms. Goldman explicitly recorded conversations with their knowledge with Malone and Margiotta indicating that Goldman thought Malone was being inappropriate and that he either stop or she would report things, does it suggest that this was more than "adultery" and was in to something resembling sexual harassment, altogether different and arguably more inappropriate in an elected legislator, whether with a (D) or an (R) behind their name?
Or, is Goldman prone to exaggeration or mistruths, in which case we need to be considering what else she might be exaggerating as well?
IF YOU CALL ...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 09:58 — ClearThinker...drivel "nice." You righties are sad, indeed. What Malone allegedly did to Goldman would be sexual harassment in any court of law. She was at least smart enough to tape him and Margiotta while getting Malone to admit such. So here you want Sutton admonished for rightfully telling the hag to STFU when she went beyond her allotted 30 seconds of moderately understandable Debby-speak, but you fully back a broke sexual harrasser with a wife and kids at home who willingly told Cary PD about his "hot" (for him) sexual trysts with a woman who didn't waste time making his suspect #1 when her 9/11 stash went missing. Sidebuns, I'd call you and yours a joke, but I don't think even Jay Leno wants anything to do with you! Sad, and stupid! Indeed!
...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 09:38 — SideburnsThey should have called Bob Sconce. He explains his vote quite nicely.
Release the Tedesco Tapes
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 14:52 — Just_ask_RonBob voted a week too early. Don't you want to hear what your former boss had to say on the Tedesco Tapes?
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/27/2444216/debra-goldman-fires-back-at-critics.html As evidence of her questions about the plan, Goldman played an audiotape she said was made at her house a few days before the vote, in which Margiotta and Tedesco presented the plan to her while discussing changes meant to gain her support.
Yes. About how he...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 09:58 — bpuli9999prefers to vote for an adulterer over a democrat.
So...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 15:07 — Bob_SconceI voted for Beth Woods over Goldman. It seems like I make my choices on things other than those two attributes. In several of the races, I voted for the Democrat over somebody who presumably WASN'T an adulterer -- Elaine Marshall is a superb Sec'y of State, and Janet Cowell is a great Treasurer. Both got my vote, so it's also not just "votes for a Republican over a Democrat woman."
(As Tresurer, Cowell is an ex officio member of the State Board of Education and, from what I've seen, appears to have a good head on her shoulders.)
...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 17:38 — SideburnsSorry Bob. I didn't mean to drag you into this. I just liked your explanation for voting for Malone over the himming and hawing of the Republicans who are quoted above.
Yeah, let's get real. None
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 18:27 — jenmanYeah, let's get real. None of those CCs are going to vote for Millberg. Who are they kidding?
...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 19:27 — SideburnsLOL.
So here's the kicker. If Malone wins his race, will Millberg want his school board seat?
Organizing a protest
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 21:37 — HereWeGoMrs. Sideburms,
Are you organizing a protest of the behavior of school board members that distracts from Student Achievements?
Didn't Lori Millberg resign
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 08:11 — DrActualFactualDidn't Lori Millberg resign from the school board along with Bev Clark? I had heard they resigned around the issue of Del Burns' sitting on the infamous SAS/EVAAS report. Why would anyone want her back on the board when she has been associated with something so damaging.
Lori Millberg caused lots of damage
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 08:41 — FSandYOUOn her "screw the families" tour while on the school board.
Anyone who votes for such a hateful person deserves what they get.
I just reiterated...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 15:30 — bpuli9999what you said in that other post. I really don't care who you vote for and why.
Enough with the hypocritical silliness already
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 12:45 — nmoskalYou mean as opposed to all the people who would vote for Bill Clinton again if they could over a repulican?
Bob has the right to cast his vote as he sees fit and you have the right to cast your vote as you see fit.
Come on, can we all just agree that there are many people, Ds, Rs and Is alike, who would vote for an adulterer over the adulterer's opponent because they find the adulterer to be their least worst choice for any number of reasons? For example as Bob pointed out, they find the opponents' platform or previous actions even more disagreeable than the concept of adultery.
Frankly, IMO once you've had a sitting president caught with his pants down in the Oval office and remain in office with plenty of continued support, the "outrage over an adulterous politician" horse is definately out of the barn and there's no putting it back in. Enough with the feigned outrage and rhetoric over adultery itself. I mean that in general.
I don't care..
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 15:29 — bpuli9999who Bob (or anybody else) votes for - that's his right. I was just re-stating what Bob had said in his other post about why he would vote for Malone over Millberg. I am not "outraged" - I could care less. Who am I to judge? He values political ideology more than moral values but that's him. Not me. Maybe he doesn't care about adultery - as you state.
Frankly, IMO, once you have a sitting president who could lie to an entire country about the reason he wants to go to war and spend a trillion dollars on it (not counting lost lives) and remain in office with plenty of continued support, outrage is pointless. On that note, enough of feigned patriotism and rhetoric.
How about a president who
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 22:34 — shearertwHow about a president who lies to the entire country about how and why our embassy was attacked and why four Americans including an ambassador are dead? Then, for weeks he continues to lies, fakes his own outrage in front of the entire country in a presidential debate, then hides behind a skirt on TV who also turns out to be either lying or misinformed, and then hides behing another skirt who tries to step up and take responsibility for the situation but then it turns out she's lying too!
But I bet you'll go ahead and vote for that guy..,,
I'm sure all the ladies who
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 08:18 — danofncI'm sure all the ladies who post here are glad to know that you refer to them as "skirts".
Let me guess...you have binders full of them?
Isn't it possible that as the investigation into the attacks was ongoing, we uncovered more and more information? Isn't it possible that at first it looked like one thing, only to later be confirmed as something else? Twenty years ago, we would have gotten news of the killings, and then we would have gotten a report a few weeks later detailing what happened and why. Today's news cycle doesn't work like that.
Now, we sit here with people debating whether or not "acts of terror" in a speech the next day referred to the attack or not. Of course, the same people spent an entire day of their national convention with a motto based on a quote taken out of context, so it shouldn't be surprising.
There's a difference between lying and sharing the information that you have at a certain point of an investigation. If not being 100% correct is automatically lying, then Colin Powell and George Bush have some explaining to do.
No....it is not
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 14:09 — shearertwNo....it is not possible.
Not to mention, the overwhelming evidence has already established that nothing the administration said for the first few weeks was true including what they did and didn't know. Get your out head out of the sand.
As for the skirt comment...I suspect more women find the lack of leadership and ability to take responsibility by this president to be far more offensive than that figure of speech (which I've heard other women use several times). Yes...I know...in liberal land, men aren't supposed to be men and women aren't supposed to be women.
Unique females
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 17:59 — Dove314You have some very unique female acquaintances if they refer to themselves as "skirts". What are their menfolk called, "pants"?
That's not what I said....I
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 19:20 — shearertwThat's not what I said....I said the phrase "hiding behind a skirt" which IS a phrase I've heard many women use...I guess they're just confident women. I don't believe that phrase is in any way demeaning or disrespectful to women but it is demeaning and disrespectful to the woos of a president we currently have.
Unless you are a woman
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 08:55 — realisticUnless you are a woman, you cannot decide if it is or is not considered a demeaning comment. Just another Republican man telling a woman how she should think.
There is always someone who
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:06 — shearertwThere is always someone who can be offended by almost anything....that is not selective to women. Dan at least pretends he was offended by the comment. I give MOST women a lot more credit in that they are strong enough and confident enough to not be offended by the phrase "hiding behind a skirt", which, as was explained by starsonours, is simply an analogy of a little boy hiding behind his mother. I'm raising 3 daughters so I learned a long time ago you don't tell any woman what to think which is why I said "I believe". That also gives me a membership card if not at least a backstage pass to have an opinion of my own on the subject. Regardless, my statement(s) had nothing to do with any woman and far more to do with my expections of a "man" to stand up and take responsibility. I will certainly be that example for my 3 girls so that they will know what to look for when they go to chose a husband. They will learn the difference between a "boy" and a "man" when it comes to taking responsibility for their own actions and mistakes. In this case, I can also point to Secretary Hilary Clinton (a woman I am not particularly fond of) as a positive example of how one takes responsbility and how that is not just limited to a "man". It's just unfortunate that I can't say the same about our president.
So if a phrase originates in
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:29 — danofncSo if a phrase originates in an innocent way, it can never be used in a demeaning fashion, because you can just refer back to its origin. Got it. Good to know.
Your statements most certainly had to do with women, because the "skirts" you referred to are high-ranking US officials.
To say I was offended is overstating....considering the source, it wasn't an incredibly shocking comment. You aren't known for your respectful tone.
The phrase I used was only
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 15:37 — shearertwThe phrase I used was only demeaning to Obama and that was intended....
The women I was referring to were Hillary Clinton and Candy Crowley.....to my knowledge, only one of them was a "high-ranking US official" albeit it was clear at the debate that Candy is also on Obama's team, just not officially.
I shouldn't have said you were "offended"... fake outrage would have been a better description.
You should really work on
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 15:49 — danofncYou should really work on your clarity.
The way your posts have been written, it seemed that you were referring to Susan Rice, who went on the Sunday news shows talking about the attack, and Hillary Clinton.
There's no part of what you said that made me think of Crowley or the debate. I also think it's much more of a stretch to accuse Obama of hiding during the debate, since the only thing that Crowley did was correct Romney's inaccurate statement.
I'm sorry, Crowley was the
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 16:25 — shearertwI'm sorry, Crowley was the one who was WRONG, not Romney. Romney's statement was 100% accurate because Romney was specifically talking about Obama not referring to the attack in Libya as an act of terror which Obama absolutely did not do. Crowley has even acknowledged that Romney was "generally correct in his statement" that the Obama administration blamed the tape for 2 weeks, not terror. The interesting part was that Crowley "magically" had a copy of the Rose Garden speech in front of her at the debate! If you watch the tape, Obama points to Crowley to refer to the transcript BEFORE Crowley even says she has it in front of her. So....clearly, the Obama camp GAVE Crowley the transcript BEFORE the debate started anticipating this line of attack by Romney but Crowley obviously didn't have enough time to prepare and read the statement in context to realize that Obama said the word "terror" but was actually not referencing the Libya attack when he said it! STOP WATCHING MSNBC for goodness sakes!
My statement may not have been perfectly clear, although I did say during the debate on TV in the same sentence.
I don't disagree that he was also hiding behind Susan Rice....so make that 3 skirts.
I don't believe that phrase
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 20:16 — danofncI don't believe that phrase is in any way demeaning or disrespectful to women
Somehow that doesn't shock me. You seem just that out of touch with reality.
One of the people you refer to as a "skirt" is the US Ambassador to the UN, and the other "skirt" is the Secretary of State. Even if you and your friends call your female friends "skirts", the offices held by those particular ladies should command a little more respect.
Are you a spokesman for
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 20:38 — starsonoursAre you a spokesman for women?
No. But I recognize
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 20:43 — danofncNo. But I recognize disrespect when I see it.
?
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 21:01 — starsonoursYou see it as disrespect, but that is just your opinion...The saying derives from children who when scared would hide behind their mothers skirts for comfort and protection. Not everyone thinks hiding behind a woman (and having her protect you) is disrespectful.
Well, if the person you
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 23:25 — danofncWell, if the person you claim is hiding is the President of the United States, and the "skirts" you claim he is hiding behind are the Ambassador to the UN and the Secretary of State, I have a really, really hard time seeing it as a respectful reference.
OK
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 04:50 — starsonoursIt maybe disrespectful of the President (but then again when you withhold the truth respect is not warranted) but it is not disrespectful of women.
We'll have to agree to
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 07:54 — danofncWe'll have to agree to disagree.
I think there are plenty of women who would be offended if they were referred to as a skirt.
?
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 21:02 — starsonoursDup
Why is it not possible?
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 15:28 — danofncWhy is it not possible? What overwhelming evidence is there that people were lying? You do understand that there is a difference between lying and providing inaccurate information that you believe to be correct, right?
What I have seen is that people tried to answer questions based on what was believed at the time they were asked, and then when the investigation later proved their information inaccurate they were called liars. Now, since people are trying to wait until the investigation is done so that they don't do that again, they are being accused of covering something up.
Yes...I know...in liberal land, men aren't supposed to be men and women aren't supposed to be women.
If that is some attempt at explaining the reasoning behind your comment, it fails. In my land (which isn't liberal land), people should be respectful of one another. Referring to a woman as a "skirt" isn't respectful. Period.
Since you like to throw out all the talking points, explain why all the blame for the lack of proper security should be on Obama, when your GOP friends in Congress cut $300 million in funding from what Obama requested for the department that covers such issues.
I'm going to waste very
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 16:09 — shearertwI'm going to waste very little time on this because you are simply not worth it.
There is overwhelming evidence that every single piece of information the administration, the state department and the DOD received in the early hours was that this was an organized attack and a terror group had claimed responsibility. No where in the internal communications was a mob or riot or video etc mentioned as part if the issue. The head of the DOD has confirmed this to be the case in recent statements. There is much more evidence I don't even fell like going in to with you. Look it up yourself. With all that, Obama continued the video myth for at least two solid weeks including focusing on that explanation at the UN more than two weeks later. The video was never truly thought to be part of the Libya issue and was from day one a made up story. Get with it Dan. It wasn't confusion or misinformation, it was a cover up story, period.
As to the $300 million supposedly cut by the GOP, that is totally false and was funding cut out of a more than $1B budget increase! You know that because I already explained it before. Not to mention, we all know the lack of security wasn't a budget problem. That too was just a lie. You are weeks behind on your Obama talking points.
I have looked for the
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 17:01 — danofncI have looked for the evidence you claim exists...I even spent some time on Fox News' website.
There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam's Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.
The witness accounts gathered by The Associated Press give a from-the-ground perspective for the sharply partisan debate in the U.S. over the attack that left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. They corroborate the conclusion largely reached by American officials that it was a planned militant assault. But they also suggest the militants may have used the film controversy as a cover for the attack.
A day after the Benghazi attack, an unidentified Ansar al-Shariah spokesman said the militia was not involved "as an organization" — leaving open the possibility members were involved. He praised the attack as a popular "uprising" sparked by the anti-Islam film, further propagating the image of a mob attack against the consulate.
On the day of the attack and the next day, The Associated Press referred to it as a mob attack, based on Libyan officials' comment that there was a significant unarmed protest at the time.
All of this is from an article posted to Fox News on Oct. 27th. Since it's on Fox, everything in it has to be true, right? The quotes are all from the same article, but I left some parts of it out.
It seems like the only overwhelming evidence is that there was a lot of confusion.
I found references to 3 emails. One, 25 minutes after the violence started, alerting about the attack. Another, about half an hour later, stating that shooting had stopped. Then, the third a couple of hours later mentioning the facebook and twitter posts.
I still haven't found the overwhelming evidence you mention.
You're quoting statements
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 19:56 — shearertwYou're quoting statements made by the left wing AP propagated by the Obama administration. You are totally ignoring all of the communications leading up to and during the raid and all the statements made by the CIA officials on the scene who were in direct, live contact with the administration during and after the attack. The overwhelming information was from the very beginning that this was an organized assault by professional terrorist. The Obama administration CHOSE to go with the mob/video story not even suggesting it was a terror plot for over 2 weeks while they knew it was in real time!
You're also ignoring that the "spontaneous mob" used RPGs and mortars in the attack. Even for Libya, that's not typical weaponry used by "spontaneous mobs". We know now that the administration knew mortars were used in the attack within the first few hours of the attack. In fact, we know our guys had a laser guide on the mortar position during the fight and was repeatedly requesting support from a Spectra gun ship in the region but the help never came.
You are unbelievable and when you gather all the facts together, you will see how much of a fool you are.
The only possible other explanation is extreme, beyond believe incompetence by the administration. I give Obama slightly more credit and the other evidence really suggest he knew anyway.
These statements you refer
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 20:26 — danofncThese statements you refer to are the ones reported by right-wing websites by anonymous sources, right? That's not exactly overwhelming evidence.
Any search for "overwhelming evidence" leads me to far-right websites, so I figured an AP story that Fox News saw fit to post was probably the closest thing to truth I'd get.
I really think that if you had overwhelming evidence you'd provide a link to it.
It's called overwhelming
Tue, 10/30/2012 - 08:43 — shearertwIt's called overwhelming circumstantial evidence which is often enough to reach the beyond a reasonable doubt bar in a murder trial.
Start with the link below and then add the Tyrone Woods story and Panetta's new statements and the Fox News reports and the emails and some general knowledge of how things work and the fact that all the major decision makers including the president were at the WH at the same time during the events...
We also know that they knew very early on that the two SEALs were killed by a mortar attack going back to my point about the weapons used not being consistent with a mob attack. The administration didn't just say that it was a mob attack, the denied there was ANY evidence that it was a coordinated terror attack. Well...the death by mortar attack known on day one would qualify as evidence wouldn't you think? Couple that with the claim by a terror group emails and you have a flat out lie on your hands.
At that point, any reasonable person can only conclude that very high level people knew exactly what happen either during or shortly after the events. Obama like his little horse joke about the military but at the same time he seemed to forget about streaming video on drones and satellite cell phones.
The only question that remains is who made the call to not help save these people. The administration refuses to answer that question so I'm pretty sure we know who made that call.
http://m.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
The Libya situation is a
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 14:36 — DrActualFactualThe Libya situation is a complete disgrace. Obama has the blood of 4 dead Americans on his hands and it is PITIFUL that a President would support Big Bird but deny Americans pleading for military help via real time technology. If Obama thinks the American people can't figure out how poorly he handled the situation with the Ambassador he is in denial himself. Panetta said they didn't want to put more American military people in harms way--since when has the military not been willing to go into harms way. There were Delta forces less than an hour away ready to go, trained and ready to serve voluntarily, but once again America pays a heavy price due to a weak president who had to hurry off to a fundraiser. PATHETIC.
Well...he's got Dan fooled.
Mon, 10/29/2012 - 14:51 — shearertwWell...he's got Dan fooled. How many Dan's are out there?
Evidence suggest the two Seals that were present and eventually killed held off the attackers for several hours, more than enough time to get all the help that was necessary to save everyone and repell the attack. Has Obama not learned anything about what a few Seals can do? Oh, I know, he still thinks he killed OBL. I guess with his trip to Los Vegas, he just didn't have time to save these people.
As I recalled it
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 17:25 — nmoskalBob said he wouldn't vote for Millberg because of her past actions/attitudes/treatment of parents not because she's a democrat. I think he's been clear that he doesn't vote straight party, but rather by candidate, so your post seemed off base.
I said I meant what I said in general, meaning in general to the various posters acting outraged about Malone (not meaning you'd said you were outraged). As far as feigned (fill in the blank) and rhetoric in politics, yeah there's plenty of examples to go around.
...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 10:19 — SideburnsNot just any Democrat - Lori Millberg. Big diff.
Of...
Sun, 10/28/2012 - 15:29 — bpuli9999course.