Congressman Bob Etheridge Is In A Dead Heat

The Democrat Congressman who assaulted a student is now in a dead heat in his race. The race for the North Carolina Second Congressional District seat was considered safe though expected to be tougher than usual because of the anti incumbent fever in the country.

However, Ehteridge assaulted a college student and the incident, which was caught on video, went viral on the Internet. In the 24 hours following the incident Etheridge’s challenger, Renee Ellmers, raised $24,000 and a flash poll shows her with a 1 point lead.

I can’t understand how this dirt bag has not been arrested for the assault much less how he is even polling close to his challenger. People should be thoroughly disgusted that a a member of Congress would assault anyone, much less a student.

Etheridge bullied a college student who asked him a simple question; “Do you support the Obama agenda?” The response was something one would expect from politicians in Nazi Germany or Venezuela. It certainly was not what we expect in America.

This is the violence Nancy Pelosi was worried about except it is from her side and not the TEA Party activists whose every move is scrutinized by Democrats and the state run media as they look for some act of violence that they can use to paint all TEA Party members as a violent bunch.

But, as has been the case all along, it was a member of the left who acted violently and it was a Congressman, no less.

Etheridge is lucky he picked on a college student who obviously had no desire to counter the attack. Otherwise Congressman Etheridge might have been missing his teeth.

The poll is a good start but this race is a long way from over. Ellmers needs to get permission to use that video and then put it in her campaign ads. The people of North Carolina need to be continually reminded of the thug they have in office and need to understand that it is their duty to show this jackass the door.

I think Congressman Etheridge might want to avoid the 5 martini lunches from now on.

Source:
ABC

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

26 Responses to “Congressman Bob Etheridge Is In A Dead Heat”

  1. Adam says:

    My only complaints with your assertion is that this is the only poll I can find so it’s hard to say what the state of things were before the assault.

    The poll does break down the question though. Just 45% of people said the video made them less likely to vote for him the largest chunk (45%) of those are Republicans who weren’t going to vote for him anyway.

    Those are significant numbers of course but
    I’m more interesting in the strange bunch that is the 14% who said it would make them more likely to vote for him including a handful of Republicans.

  2. MissPolite says:

    Of course, we can always count on Adam to not even bring up the serious issues like assault, but instead talk about poll numbers or make partisan comments.

  3. In on it not says:

    Yeah, more like schlarving the poll!
    Schlarve, schlarve, schlarve.

    Remember the lesbian liberal enviro-Nazi Melissa Etheridge’s introduction of Algore and the now-stretched-marked mouth, Cameroon Diazanon at the Live Earth Concert?

    “It brings me great pleasure to introduce my hero,,,blagh blagh blagh Algore! And his aging teen-bobber schlarve-esse, Cum-moron-Desist!

    Don’t get your hopes up about Dummercrats voting out louts and criminals. Need I remind you of Dine-em and Dunk-em Ted Kennedy? What is the assault of a conservative student compared to THAT?

    Etheridge will probably get a star by his jock-strap-sniffers.
    Aint that right, SAdam?

  4. It’s important to keep in mind the great success the Democrats have had at news and message control, owing to their allegiants’ dominance of the Old Media. Yes, the Internet and talk radio have made some strides in this regard, but the “customizable” nature of those media dampen their effect: people of view X tend to patronize websites and radio programs that champion view X, while those who disagree with view X routinely avoid them.

    To Miss Ellmers: It’s quite possible that the great majority of those who would be offended by Etheridge’s behavior will either never learn of it, or will dismiss it as elicited by “right-wing provocateurs.” There’s no substitute for an energetic electoral campaign; don’t rely on your opponent’s missteps to do your work for you.

  5. Big Dog says:

    I would expect Adam to comment on the polls because that is what the post was about. I would also expect a comment about the assault because that is the reason for the dead heat poll (Etheridge was considered safe).

    However I did not expect Adam to comment on the assault. He and Darrel and others will ignore those inconvenient things and focus on the relatively benign.

    If a poll said Obama lost points after murdering a baby on TV Adam would discuss the poll while the rest of us would discuss the murder.

    • Adam says:

      I’ll discuss whatever I feel like and have time to discuss. You didn’t tell any whoppers or distort the truth on this subject (yet) so what is there to discuss anyway? Ridiculous.

      • Adam says:

        Or I know. I’ll just write complete nonsense that is nothing but insults, slurs, swearing and crude sexual references which you’ll have to go back over for me and censor with asterisks. Apparently that is what passes as discussion on this site these days.

        • Blake says:

          Really? Really? Gee, I haven’t gotten my dose of sexual references yet, perhaps I should- but i would not ask Adam for those, he’s not verbose enough in the ways of swearing- he DOES have the slurs and insults down, though.
          It must be a leftie thing—

        • Adam says:

          Don’t worry Blake. I understand how my comments can come off as slurs and insults to a man like yourself who has built his world view on anecdotal evidence and illogical conclusions.

  6. MissPolite says:

    Yes, Adam exactly like your “illogical” and “hopelessly” biased comments.

    • Adam says:

      You clearly are not up to speed on Blake’s almost hilarious lack of logic and you’re not showing yourself to value facts or verifiable information so far on this site either. But hey, if it makes you feel better to pretend I am the only one here biased politically then more power to you I guess.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Adam, please do not take it as an insult, it is the truth. You generally discuss what you want and it often ignores the main point particularly when the main point is some truth about your messiah that paints him unfavorably.

    And yes, you will discuss whatever you feel like and whatever I feel like letting you. Important to remember before you go breaking all bad.

    Now let us realize that the issue was the assault and you have ignored it because you cannot figure how to defend this slug.

    As for distortions and lies, you rarely find a distortion and never a lie here but you can keep the Alinsky tactic up if you wish. Keep saying it enough and maybe someone will believe you.

    • Adam says:

      “Now let us realize that the issue was the assault and you have ignored it because you cannot figure how to defend this slug.”

      Nonsense. My formula is pretty simple. If it’s a subject I like to talk about (polls, campaigns, etc.) or if I clearly disagree with your the facts you present in a post then I’ll discuss it. If not then I’ve got better things to do.

      I know your side likes to believe that my side has to clearly state in writing our condemnation of every outrageous outrage of the moment lest we be thought to be in support but really I stopped falling into those traps years ago.

      “…you can keep the Alinsky tactic up if you wish.”

      I find this funny every time you mention it. What did you call basic political arguments before you’d heard of Alinsky? Alinsky simply put down in writing what every successful political operation in history has utilized to frame the situation in one light or another. If you think that is somehow unique to my side you’re a bigger fool than you let on.

      • Big Dog says:

        Who are you calling a fool little boy?

        And by making the claim you did about every outrageous outrage you are admitting that you either find the assault no big deal or are minimizing it because it shows your side in a bad light.

        I don’t know what my basic political arguments were before I heard of Alinsky since I heard of him when I was about 12or 13 and had few political arguments.

        No, he put down in writing what RADICALS do to force an unpopular agenda and to force people into his way of thinking. Fortunately we have ways of dealing with morons like him.

        I think your side does have to clearly state in writing what you believe because those beliefs change by the day and depending upon who is in the White House. If one from your party is in there then nothing done is wrong and those very things you condemned about the other guy are now quite OK. Your rabid attacks and stupidity are forgotten as you tell us how it is perfectly OK for your messiah to do things that only a few years ago you found horrible and unlawful. Things that had you yelling IMPEACH now have your full support.

        So yes, your side needs to articulate what you think and feel because we need a record to hod you against. Otherwise you would change your stories to fit your needs. Oh wait, you do that anyway.

        Yes, Adam, if you read a story about an assault by a Congressman and can only comment on the poll then you are tacitly approving of the Congressman’s actions. You further prove that by saying you comment on things that interest you which means a lack of comment is an admission that you are not interested in a Congressman assaulting a person.

        Bet if it was a Republican who assaulted a person you would suddenly have an interest…

        And that is why you have to write it down.

        • Adam says:

          “Who are you calling a fool little boy?”

          You, clearly. You can pretend my side has cornered the market on these “Alinsky tactics” but your side is chock full of Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and other dirty rotten scumbags and manipulators that wield political weapons better than Alinsky could ever dream of doing.

          “…if you read a story about an assault by a Congressman and can only comment on the poll then you are tacitly approving of the Congressman’s actions.”

          Rubbish.

          “…a lack of comment is an admission that you are not interested in a Congressman assaulting a person.”

          That is almost true. I do not care one way or another. Now, you can pretend that somehow implies my support for the actions but that is just more rubbish.

          “Bet if it was a Republican who assaulted a person you would suddenly have an interest…”

          Hard to say. But I bet we both know what you’d say in that case: It was really just a liberal pretending to be a Republican and there would be no way to prove one way or another so your tortured logic suggests you are right to say so.

          “Things that had you yelling IMPEACH now have your full support.”

          Name one.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Save the fool talk for your family reunion.

    Yes, I would defend any Republican congressman who did something wrong including assault. Right, what world do you live in. While you dismiss all the wrongdoing on your side it was I who called for the resignation and/or prosecution of wrong doers on the right.

    So before you rewrite history look back and learn what you are talking about.

    And you dislike Rove because he beat you twice. There is nothing wrong with him but you see bad in him and good in the Obama regime.

    Says a lot about how moronic you are.

    • Adam says:

      “Save the fool talk for your family reunion.”

      Why? I rarely talk about you at my family reunions.

      “Yes, I would defend any Republican congressman who did something wrong including assault.”

      I didn’t say that so much as I said you would inject a sense of uncertainty in order to not have to say either way. Remember, any Tea Party violence is either clearly a lefty or a lefty pretending to be a righty, right? Convenient.

      “There is nothing wrong with him but you see bad in him and good in the Obama regime.”

      You simply miss the point. What you call Alinsky tactics are no different than the tactics used by your side and by politicians all over the globe for thousands of years. I’m not trying to say it’s right or wrong or that one person is any better than another. The left and right work from the same playbook. It’s ridiculous and sad to keep suggesting otherwise.

      • Big Dog says:

        What TEA Party violence? Seen any yet?

        The Alinsky book was written for you radical types, you know the one on your side.

        Don’t talk about me at your family reunion. It will raise the IQ of the room and they might become conservative.

        • Adam says:

          “What TEA Party violence? Seen any yet?”

          I’m just making reference to your statement on this subject:

          Plenty of Democrat/liberal/progressive operatives have been in the TEA Party protests and have acted ignorant to portray the Party as bad.

          “It will raise the IQ of the room and they might become conservative.”

          You can’t really raise an IQ but either way there’s plenty of conservatives in my family already. Those conservatives are also racists, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence…

      • Pete Fleming says:

        Speaking of Alinsky’s rules for radicals and this administration’s recent push to control what we hear thru “fairness” in broadcasting. A recent Obama speech says that he would use our tax money to pay people to advocate his positions. This makes every conservative suspect that anyone advocating this madness is paid with our tax dollars. On right vs. wrong… the Bible says that toward the end of times “right would be wrong and wrong would be right. We have lost our Christianity and our moral compass. “He who labors to build a Nation without the Lord, labors in vain.” Read the Federalist Papers… Demand that they be taught to our children.. Separation of Church and state means separating us from the source of our blessings. Not a smart move.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Certainly IQ can be raised though the increase is usually not very big and is most often temporary. However, since IQ is a measure of ability to understand ideas and not knowledge some research suggests that though IQ is generally stable a stimulative environment involving learning new skills or solving puzzles could help improve IQ.

    And there have been operatives that acted ignorantly which is certainly different than being violent. A lefty putting up an ignorant sign is an attempt to portray the movement in a bad light but does not involve violence, which is what we were discussing.

    • Adam says:

      “And there have been operatives that acted ignorantly which is certainly different than being violent.”

      And I agree for the most part. I should have chosen better language than what the word violence implies.

      Though I think it’s hardly fair to blame what confrontations have happened solely on the left, the tea party events have been relatively free of violence from the right.

      • Big Dog says:

        Though I think it’s hardly fair to blame what confrontations have happened solely on the left, the tea party events have been relatively free of violence from the right.

        Fair enough. While I admit that some from the TEA Parties might have run off at the mouth and provoked incidents they have avoided starting the physical violence. Not everyone on the left is responsible but neither is it fair the way Pelosi (and other politicians from the left) portrayed the TEA Party members.

  10. Pete Fleming says:

    Bob is an excellent example of Royalty; Who are YOU to question me?…. oh..should I be representing YOU? but the “president’s” policies….. how can I represent YOU? I’m so confused. Just send me back so I can represent you some more. How about some cap and trade? Want to pay twice what you’re paying for electricity? Send me back! How about those taxes… wait till December when you see how we made your income tax refund disappear! After all..we have to fund expanding govt.! Send me back!

    • Big Dog says:

      Hi Pete, thanks for stopping by. It is an attitude that politicians of all parties have when they have been in office for too long. We need to replace them every few years to keep the place fresh…