Hard edged? Okay.

The ballots aren't even dry yet and the personal insults are already flying:

Secretary of State Elaine Marshall said Wednesday that she still hopes that her rival Cal Cunningham reconsiders his decision to call for a runoff in the Democratic Senate primary.

“I hope he will put the best interests of the party and the best interests of the people front and foremost rather than this his own personal ambitions," Marshall said in an interview at campaign headquarters in Raleigh.

Tell you what, I'm going to agree with the posters here who have stated that asking legitimate questions about a candidate is healthy, and I'm going to pose my own legitimate question: Where can I find a report/list/whatever of Elaine Marshall's votes as a Council of State member? Maybe some of her staff that post here can help? Just consider it a constituent service, if you will. Thanks.



And one wonders why the Cunningham campaign didn't do this earlier.


I'm a little less angry

now than I was, but I still want to know. It got under my skin like a splinter a few weeks ago when I was trying to see who voted for the death penalty ruling (requiring doctors), and I couldn't find jack.

An excellent question

I'm just going by memory, but I think there was more than one vote at various points in the process (whether to stop, sue, allow).

I know I'm not getting these all right, but it is something that Elaine needs to be able to speak about in the primary and the general.

It's a crying shame that none of the other candidates (esp Lewis) made her do it.

This is why I want the hard questions asked early.

If memory serves, Elaine's votes fell mostly on the side of maintaining the DP suspension.

Again, someone's campaign needs to fire up the old-fashioned research.



With a 10-pt lead in the first primary and positioned as the favorite going into the runoff, why would Elaine throw the heat at this stage?

Dan Besse

I don't know

I'm hoping it was just election night frustration.

Spare me

While we are more than prepared to take on Cunningham again in the runoff, I think it'd be hard to argue that this isn't the time put away our own political ambitions and start focusing on Richard Burr. Furthermore, everyone has personal ambitions. Elaine's and Cal's are to serve in the United States Senate. This is hardly an attack. Let's do better.

Yes, let's

Now that we've agreed on that, how about helping me find that Council of State stuff?

One of my searches

Google "NC Council of State and death penalty"

Lots comes up.

First stuff is from Feb 2007

WRAL and Indy articles about executions protocol (or the Council's authority over it?)

6-3 vote. Elaine in the minority on this vote, but it is only one of the very different issues the Council was presented with -- different stages in the process.

Not sure what to take from it.


That's an insult!?

A little thin-skinned for politics don't you think? Of course Marshall would like Cunningham to drop the RO. Scarce resources will be consumed by both candidates, and don't you think that Cal would be saying something similar were their positions reversed? As for the "personal ambition" phrase - of course it's personal ambition; there is always an strong element of personal ambition involved with running for US Senate.

To me the biggest insult this election year is that unqualified winger Steven Walker looking good for CoA. Now that's insulting!

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Yeah, it's an insult

In the context of its use, Elaine is basically saying that Cal is acting selfishly if he stays in the race. And it has the flavor of maybe something more, like he only ran in the first place for his own benefit.

Flip it around, and see how you would feel if Cal pulled more votes and accused Elaine of putting "personal ambition" ahead of what's good for the state.

Consider it in the context of there is going to be a runoff

Anyone spinning anything beyond the law of our State which allows this runoff to go forward as a matter of course to be just that. A North Carolina matter of course.

Once this runoff runs it's course, we will have a candidate and we will back them to kick the living crap out of Burr.

Politician's typically run for their own benefit, first and foremost. Hopefully, they remember that they were American's first, just regular people if that is the case and that they are supposed to, in theory, vote for the needs of the people they represent first.

Let's not flip anything. Let's understand what is at stake and work to defeat Richard Burr.

North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!

I believe there will be a

I believe there will be a degree of voter backlash against Cunningham because he asked for a runoff. It happened to Elaine many years ago in a state senate race. After two recounts the race was tied. We had a do over. Elaine was perceived as the one that pushed for it since on election night she was down by a handful of votes and asked for a recount. The recount had her ahead. They did another recount and it was a tie. In the do over election she lost. Voter backlash seems to have been the cause. At least that is how I remember it. Someone may have a better memory than I do. Does anyone know of any research regarding something like this?

I'm a moderate Democrat.