Thursday, March 6, 2008

10th deemed a race to watch

Congressional Quarterly still calls our district "safe republican" but Election Inspection includes it in a list of "House races to watch:"
In the 10th District, Daniel Johnson has been a complete surprise. A Navy veteran and attorney, Johnson has raised more money than any challenger in this dsitrct in recent memory. While this district is heavily Republican territory, underfunded Democratic opponents hav consistenly gotten around 37% of the vote. Republican Patrick McHenry holds this seat and will be tough to defeat, but opportunities like this one can not be passed up in years like this.
And someone named John M. Setzler Jr. is obviously worried about the primary. He says Republicans don't have a reason to vote because the presidential candidate is already determined. But then (as he opines about how long it takes to change registration), he shows a photo of McHorny . . . and no mention of Lance but why else post the comments with the gigantic photo?

6 comments:

Unknown said...

Drama Queen, how do we get you more mainstream in this area? People need to know the info without looking like the views of this site are so to the left. Love your passion and think it should be shared with more people without having to hunt for it.

Drama Queen said...

Hi Jeremy Thanks for stopping by.

For more distribution I often post at BlueNC (www.bluenc.com) and at Scrutiny Hooligans (www.scrutinyhooligans.us).

But if you want to start posting at your own site or at BlueNC you are quite welcome to . . . then you can be less passionate and less left . . . the more the merrier, I say.

John M. Setzler, Jr. said...

I said no such thing. This is the type of 'politics' that gives politics a bad name. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Drama Queen said...

John: I wrote that you said "Republicans don't have a reason to vote because the presidential candidate is already determined."

And if you read your post, that's pretty much what you said. I also linked to it so that my readers could make their own interpretation of my paraphrasing.

Your choice of the McHenry photo implies that you think he should not face a contested primary.

If canceling primaries is your idea of democracy, I'm a little confused about why my politics is supposedly shameful.

Anonymous said...

Come on John. Does the fact that Patrick Mchenry being corrupt not upset you.

Google him. Read this site. All of it is true. 100%.

Patrick is the next Mark Foley for the Republican Party.

Do not drink the mchenry Koolaid.

John M. Setzler, Jr. said...

I said *I* in that post. "Pretty much what you said" is your interpretation of it. My post was not intended to have anything to do with the congressional race. I used the photo I had of Patrick McHenry because it is one of the few photos of politicians that i have in my archives. YOU PEOPLE turned the post into something to do with the congressional race when it was simply an observation of mine about the presedential race. I said nothing about Patrick McHenry in the post, and also didn't say anything about the congressional race in general.

I voted for McHenry last time around, but he was not my first choice. I'm also sure that all of you did too since he was the republican on the ticket.

My post probably could have been worded better for sure, but my simple observation was that my vote for the presidential nominee doesn't matter. If I had known that someone was going to dissect that post and put words in my mouth behind me, I probably would have stated it differently.

I have read through your blog. I understand that you don't like Patrick McHenry. I have no problem with that. I also have not decided who I will be voting for in that race yet either. Reading this blog is helping me decide. Namecalling seems rather childish though.

I also work for the local newspaper. You might want to ask for permission to re-publish their work. Copyright is something that everyone should cherish rather than abuse.