Ethics Dunce: Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Ralph Northam

Current Lieutenant Governor Northam is the “establishment candidate” in the Democratic Party as it tries to hold on to the Governor’s mansion. He is being opposed in the primary by Tom Perriello, a populist, Bernie-backing candidate. Thus Northam is pandering to the leftist, “resistance,” “not my President” hard progressive base by indulging in ad hominem attacks while endorsing incivility and demonizing as the new standard Democratic modus operandi, which it is rapidly becoming.

“Donald Trump is a narcissistic maniac, and I will do all I can to keep his hate out of Virginia.”

I think we can all agree that Trump is a narcissist. So is Obama; so is Bill Clinton; so was  Lyndon Johnson, JFK and both Roosevelts. Many excellent leaders are narcissists. None are maniacs (synonyms: madman, lunatic, usually meaning “dangerous”), however, and neither is Donald Trump, except that anyone who doesn’t embrace political positions the left embraces is subject to being called and judged insane. This is why the Soviet Union locked up dissidents in mental hospitals, and increasingly U. S. progressives are looking to Stalin’s play-book: censorship, marginalization, slander.  Ironically, it is the anti-Trump obsessed who have shattered all rules and traditions of civilized political speech, advocacy and opposition in a democracy, and who are in the grip of mania.

Nothing the President has done or proposed justifies the maniac label, but current anti-Trump politics has nothing to do with justice, or fairness, or responsible rhetoric.  Northam says he wants to keep Trump’s “hate” out Virginia, whatever that’s supposed to mean, but he is branding his own hate, which I suppose is his party’s hate, by calling the President of the United States a foul name designed to wedge fear and alienation between the public and the man whom they chose to lead us.

Notham has disqualified himself for leadership by this alone.

If a maniac was running amuck, do you think Ralph Northam would favor beheading him? Do you really think people who denigrate our nation’s elected leader the way Virginia’s leading Democrat does were offended by Kathy Griffin’s art?


Source: Slate

54 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Ralph Northam

  1. I wonder if an entire post could be dedicated to the ethics of using the term The Resistance versus the term “the resistance” …

    I think it’s very telling about the person what term they predominantly use.

  2. Back in 2013, didn’t Northam refuse to shake the hand of his debate opponent, E. W. Jackson?

    You posted about that, if memory serves me right…

  3. A case could be made to diagnose Trump as a megalomaniac. He certainly seems to fit the definition. Who but a madperson would want the job in this day and age?

    I participate here less and less as you belittle those with different views more and more. In the future it may just be you and Tex slapping each other on the back, maybe a few masochists peeping up now and then to ask for another verbal flogging.

    I really used to enjoy this blog, I considered you fair-minded, despite your personal politics, but lately you want to lump everyone left of center into a huge collective and deride them. My life is too short and too busy to waste my time on that.

    Be well.

    • “A case could be made to diagnose Trump as a megalomaniac. He certainly seems to fit the definition. Who but a madperson would want the job in this day and age?”

      Is that a serious argument or a joke? It sounds like a joke: so now anyone who is President is by definition a maniac! I’m sure that is the point Northam was making. Wait: am I belittling you for making a transparently dishonest argument?

      I am spectacularly fair minded, as it happens, and this horrible issue is proof. I would love to allow all the nice, usually rational liberals around me off the hook, and all I would ask is that they acknowledge the disgusting conduct of the friends, allies and fellow travelers who are threatening the stability and future of the nation with their conduct, and use their influence and credibility to stop it. They won’t, and so they leave it to people like me to step into the crossfire and risk responses like yours.

      Contrary views are welcome. Opinions that the sky is orange are not. If you want to make the argument that it is responsible, professional and fair for a politician to call the President a maniac, or for a national network show to call him “Putin’s cockholster,” or for a Congresswoman to say she’s looking for ways to impeach him, then make it, but make it with facts and precedent, not bias and emotion. You haven’t done that, you just say “your not fairminded because you belittle these opinions.” I belittle opinions that are based on emotion and bias, because they make ethical analysis impossible, Liz. A biased news media also makes ethical politics and government impossible, and those who deny that a biased news media is what we have signal that they are unfit for debate.

      I have always been very clear that some issues have only one ethical side. The claim that illegal immigration should be encouraged and permitted is not a valid or ethically defensible position, for example. The claim that torture is a practice available to a nation like the US, with its human rights mission and founding principles, is similarly indefensible. Arguing that citizens should not have the right to marry based on unalterable characteristics is in that class; so is the position that the government should punish speech because someone has determined that it is hateful. No, I won’t sugar coat rebuttals against these and other equally unethical positions, because people who make them are using fatally flawed ethics reasoning, and that must be pointed out.

      Denigrating, attacking and undermining any, ANY, President of the United States the way the Left is treating President Trump is in the same category of per se unethical positions. I can test that proposition against the advocates for it here, who are extremely astute and articulate, and their arguments have been objectively embarrassing to them: the ends justifies the means, emotion, or rationalizations, like “He has it coming.”

      And those who are doing nothing while the nation burns, sitting back and saying, “It’s not me!”? That is cowardly and dishonest. It is exactly like racism, sexism, or homophobia: you oppose it, or you passively support it.

      It is depressing and hilarious that you write this kind of an attack prefaced by the lame justification of calling the President a maniac that you did. Damn right I’ll belittle such nonsense. So if conservatives had issued TV commercials calling Barack Obama a “maniac” you would have risen to the same defense? Sure, Liz. Sure. But I know I would have made exactly the same criticism of that as I am making now..

      Whose is the “fair-minded” position?

      • “And those who are doing nothing while the nation burns, sitting back and saying, ‘It’s not me!’? That is cowardly and dishonest. It is exactly like racism, sexism, or homophobia: you oppose it, or you passively support it.”

        I’ve been thinking about this since I read it earlier today, and now that I have a few minutes I gotta say, Right back at ya, Jack.

        Trump is a sociopath, an authoritarian, and a narcissist. Lots of politicians and Presidents have some measure of those traits, but few outside of failing states are as extreme as Trump. He is supported by bigots and shows some of those tendencies himself. He is ignorant of many issues, and he refuses to learn. He wants to tear apart his predecessor’s accomplishments, even though he has no idea how to fix them and shows little interest in trying. He expresses open admiration for strongmen like Putin, and he attacks our institutions, the courts and the free press. He is an unusually bad President, and a threat to the welfare of the American people.

        And for the most part, since he has taken office, you have been viciously attacking his critics. You are the one watching the nation burn, and you are attacking the people trying to fight the fire.

        Authoritarians like Trump hate the press, and try at every turn to undermine it so that they, and they alone, become the only source of “truth.” And you, Jack, are helping him, every time you launch your broad attacks against the press. Granted, there have been a lot of stupid things written about Trump, many of them out-and-out factually inaccurate, and those deserve to be called out, and you have done a good job of it. And because I like you, I’d really like to think your anger over the worst incidents by the worst journalists is what’s causing you to launch your overly broad attacks against the entire institution of the press.

        You accuse some of Trump’s critics of abandoning the normal rules for respecting the President, but I would argue that there’s another rule that applies: Authoritarian sociopaths who want to hurt us must be publicly and vigorously opposed. That rule has always been there, but it takes a guy like Trump to bring it to the forefront.

        • But you see, this is more of the same. Trump is who he is, and the people elected him President. Unless you accept this as the starting point, you are lost, and you can’t possibly reach a reasonable or logical position.

          I agree with your entire third paragraph, but it doesn’t justify your position. He’s got the job. Our job is to help him do it as well as he can, not to sabotage someone who is already more challenged and over his head than most. Not only is that the Golden Rule, it’s common sense. If someone who can barely fly is at your plane’s controls, you don’t try to distract him, throw things at him, and mock his every move. That is insane. Do you want to crash? The comparison is the Caine Mutiny exactly. He needs support, not sabotage.

          I have no problem with critics. But enemies are not critics. People determined to interpret every act negatively are not critics. They are saboteurs and assassins. As I must have written a hundred times, it’s easy finding legitimate things to criticize Trump for. But he deserves and needs good will, the benefit of the doubt, and occasional praise, like everyone else who has ever had to lead anything or anyone.

          As for the news media, I’ve documented how thoroughly it has abandoned all professionalism years before Trump came along. I wrote about how they made Obama a worse President, hard as that is to imagine, by not holding his performance to previous objective , non-partisan standards. Flipping around and simply repeating every negative rumor, reporting every Trump statement while eye-rolling—this isn’t fair, no matter who is the target. Do you think this is the mark of an ethical; news media?

          Trump has every reason to distrust the news media, which is no longer practicing journalism. Yes, a free and independent news media is essential, and we don’t have one. The solution isn’t to pretend we do. If I were President, I wouldn’t pretend that’s what we have and enable the fraud. The public hasn’t turned on the press because Trump has attacked it: Nixon was more popular than Trump, and he didn’t make the nation distrust the press. The press has done itself in by being obviously biased, partisan and incompetent, and that is terrible for the US, as I have been saying and documenting for a long, long time. Trump can’t be blamed for that, nor can he be blamed for reacting to the news media that exists, and not treating it as if it is the news media it should be—and I can’t be blamed for pointing out how untrustworthy it has become..

          If the news media was trustworthy, honest and competent, Trump would have never been nominated or elected.

          My “rule” is historically correct, absolutely necessary and has been followed right up to November 8, 2016. Yours— “Authoritarian sociopaths who want to hurt us must be publicly and vigorously opposed”— is bats, unjust like a bill of attainder, and manufactured to justify the unjustifiable and unconstitutional as a response to this President and no other. it hasn’t always existed. It doesn’t exist, because the Constitution rules it out, and thank God for that. Otherwise any time a big enough mob decides that an elected leader is “dangerous,” the Democracy is finished. This was what “Seven Days in May” was about.

          What proof do you have that Trump ‘wants to hurt us”? There is no evidence of that, not in his background, statements, conduct or behavior. The statement is paranoia. How can you even write that? That’s the demonizing and fearmongering that began the second he was elected—and you really think that’s a reasonable conclusion? I’m stunned.

          Like every other guy who grew up in America, Trump wants to do well for his country and be successful in his job. He wants to be remembered as a good leader. Even sociopaths in the US who become President feel that way. He may have no idea how to do that, and his ideas about what a good leader is may be absurd, and he may not have the skill to even do what he wants to do, but the claim that he wants to hurt us is pure Bond villain stuff, and shouldn’t be part of a serious political calculation. It is fear, hate and emotion without substance—bigotry.

          Style aside, it is also just flat out incorrect to declare that Trump is a horrible President based n what he has actually done so far. By his first year, JFK had created an international fiasco and sent the Cold War into the red zone. He had appointed his brother to a post he was unqualified for, and was hiding drug addictions while hauling women into the White House so he could screw them. But the news media was fawning, so nobody would write what you just did about Trump. (And talk about a sociopath…)

          You’re as level-headed as they come, Mark. I’d love to understand how and equally reasonable individuals could come to the point of saying “It’s our duty to pretend this is a banana republic, and to ignore what our fellow citizens decided in our election because we decided that their choice was stupid and insane. That’s not a responsible option. The ethical option is to do what we can to mitigate the threat by helping the President, not sabotaging him.

          I don’t know how I can get that message across to the crazies, if you are immune to it, but I am ethically bound to try.

          • When I say “Authoritarian sociopaths who want to hurt us must be publicly and vigorously opposed” I’m not calling for violent or unconstitutional resistance. Trump hasn’t discarded the constitution, so neither should we. But within the bounds of the constitution, there is plenty of room for opposition.

            For the longest time, I’ve found your Caine Mutiny analogy deeply offensive. Queeg’s officers swore oaths and took on the duty of supporting their Captain in his command of the ship. As an analogy for the relationship of citizens to to the President, that is not even close. It’s a dangerous attitude, more befitting of tyrannical states like North Korea than a democracy like ours.

            Your pilot analogy makes your point somewhat more clear, I think: We’re all in this together, so like it or not, we’ve got to help the guy at the controls do his job. That’s a fair point. (Your pilot analogy also makes an argument for hitting him over the head with a hammer and replacing him with someone more competent, so we probably shouldn’t take it too far.)

            By the way, writing “Trump wants to hurt us” was a poor choice of words. I should have written “Trump wants do do things that will hurt us.” The foolish pilot reaching to cut off the fuel to the engines may not intend to crash the plane, but he intends to do something that will crash the plane nonetheless. And at the very least, we need to slap his hand away.

            The problem with the pilot analogy is that that Trump’s control over the government, let alone over the entire United States, is nowhere near as complete as a pilot’s control over an airplane, or even a Naval captain’s control over a ship. He’s is Commander in Chief only over the armed forces. Neither Congress nor the courts are under his authority, and the duties of most of the people in the executive branch are defined by laws and interpreted by the courts, and many of those people, by law, have considerable discretion in doing their jobs. Their oaths are to the nation, not its president. And that’s before we even begin talking about federalism and all the other governments involved. The system is slow to change, and much of that is intentional.

            That my fellow citizens made a decision I disagree with does not mean I or anyone else has an ethical duty to instantly step out of their way and let Trump do whatever he wants. By design, we can refuse to make it easy. We can fight in the courts, we can fight in the legislatures, and we can fight in the arena of public opinion.

            Trump’s control over these other parts of government is tenuous, and depends a lot on his perceived political influence, which depends a lot on the degree to which people believe he has political influence. So those who oppose him will work to limit that influence, and we need to keep reminding people, including each other, that his influence has limits. Symbols matter in things like this, so sometimes that means being disrespectful, as a reminder that we can be disrespectful, that we owe fealty to no one.

            Finally, it would sure be nice if political action always took the form of reasoned discussion instead of pointless mock beheadings or whatever the outrage of the day is, but “fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…”

            • 1. It’s deeply offensive to suggest that citizens owe loyalty and support to their duly elected leaders and to do whatever possible to allow them to be successful, meaning that the nation is successful? Does the Pledge of allegiance offend you? When did this version of civic responsibility and patriotism take root, and through whose influence? The President as Captain of the ship of state is as old an anology as there is. What’s the matter with it? The Caine Mutiny analogy is dead on.

              2. I guessed that by “trying to hurt us” you meant “Trying to do things that would hurt us in your opinion.” But that makes your argument untenable, because it would justify organized “resistance” against every President.

              3. Elections have consequences, and one of them has to be that the opposition to the candidates the win accept the result and work within the system until the next election. This is not debatable, is it?

              • I kind of think #1 is the real difference between us, and everything else follows from it.

                “[C]itizens owe loyalty and support to their duly elected leaders and to do whatever possible to allow them to be successful, meaning that the nation is successful”

                First of all, I think you are assuming an unwarranted link between the success of our leaders and the success of our nation. Our leaders can have harmful agendas, and if we help them to succeed at their agendas, that may help them to harm our nation. It would be nice if people could help Trump be a better president, but it may be that the best thing he can do for the country is to be ineffective at changing things the way he wants to. In that sense, I’m hoping for success.

                But the offensive part is the idea that we owe our leaders “whatever is possible” to make them successful. The Declaration of Independence has something to say about that: “…all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,” Our government leaders owe us an oath of loyalty, not the other way around. It’s their job to make us successful — Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We aren’t Queeg’s crew. We are the passengers and the owners of the boat. We are the people he’s supposed to be working for.

                And of course my opinion of how he’s doing is my opinion. How could it be otherwise?

                “But that makes your argument untenable, because it would justify organized ‘resistance’ against every President.”

                Again, I’m not calling for violent or unconstitutional resistance, but within those bounds, I’m just fine with resistance against every President. We have free speech and free press and independent states and protection against arbitrary arrest and independent courts for just that reason. Acting within the law to oppose the President’s agenda is working within the system.

    • Lisa Weber wrote, “Who but a madperson would want the job in this day and age?”

      That statement, taken in context to the two sentences prior to it, either paints a portrait of what it looks like when you open your own mouth and shove in your own foot all the way up to the ankle or it could be something that Lisa got from a stand up comedy routine.

      I could give Lisa the benefit of the doubt and take the time of day she posted into consideration; since her comment was posted at 1:29am, I’m gonna take a wild guess it was posted just after bar closing time while driving home. 😉

    • I hear you, Lisa Weber, and agree.

      I find the pith of Lisa Weber’s statement in her third paragraph. (Other responses here so far have only been reactions to her first two.)

      In my view, it is disingenuous (and poor scholarship) to create a mythical group of people (“The Resistance”, “Lefties”, “the anti-Trump obsessed”), to assign them mythical qualities (“in the grip of mania”), and then use those assigned qualities as the reason for marginalizing and demeaning the Group.

      Yes, there are people who hold leftist views. To believe that any significant portion of them have qualities anything like what regularly gets assigned to them in these blog postings is absurd. I encourage all posters to skip the generalities, don’t assume you know the intentions & motivations of other people. The quality of your posts will improve.

      • Pete sez howdy wrote, “In my view, it is disingenuous (and poor scholarship) to create a mythical group of people (“The Resistance”, “Lefties”, “the anti-Trump obsessed”), to assign them mythical qualities (“in the grip of mania”), and then use those assigned qualities as the reason for marginalizing and demeaning the Group.”


        Do you hold those same values when it comes to others being randomly grouped together for political use?

          • Pete sez howdy wrote, “Zoltar Speaks! : Yes.”

            How about all the groups of people that the political left has been creating for political purposes for years; you know what I’m talking about, all the “oppressed” groups that the political left has been intentionally segmenting people into to be used as pawns in their attacks against the political right?

          • By the way Pete sez howdy, you swallowed the bait hook line and sinker and you answered my question exactly how I wanted you to. I’m surprised you didn’t see that one coming.

          • WOW. Pete, Zoltar allowed you to select your rope, test it’s strength, tie the noose to your satisfaction, then stick your head in and grin.

            I’ll kick the chair out for you, Pete: Democrats have been doing this for DECADES, purely for political purposes. Are you not self aware enough to see this? Or is it okay when progressives do it (their motives are pure) but not anyone else?

      • OK, define those groups. Hillary Clinton aid she’s a member of the “resistance.” What does that mean? It’s not a mythical group, if people identify themselves as in it. Progressives as well. People call themselves Sanders supporters. Sanders says health care is a right, wants a living wage, and has a socialist agenda. Can we call Bernie supporters socialists? I don’t use derogatory terms like “lefties” here. “Anti-Trump obsessed”? Absolutely fairly identified based on observable conduct.

        We lived through the cynical and dishonest “No-Labels’ fraud a few years ago—and it did come from the Left (that means left on the political spectrum, by the way, and if you think that tern is pejorative, that’s your problem) , an effort to muzzle legitimate criticism by making it rhetorically impossible. 8 years of group and tribal politics led by Holder and Obama divided the nation into camps, none of which I am in, by choice, But the camps are obvious. If shoes fit, wear them. You’re not getting away with that game here.

        “To believe that any significant portion of them have qualities anything like what regularly gets assigned to them in these blog postings is absurd.”

        Evidence, please. 44% of the public, according to one poll, want Trump impeached even though they admit he hasn’t done anything impeachable. What do I call those people? You don’t think I am qualified to assess the motivations of someone who wants to overthrow an elected President without justification? Screw you. I certainly am.

        The quality of my posts are of great important to me, and if they strike too close to the truth than you can handle, don’t let the metaphorical door hit you on the way out. You haven’t cited any substance, just a vague sense that a national movement isn’t coming from anywhere and we shouldn’t speculate on it. Uh-uh. I’m a lawyer, a researcher, a historian and a writer, and I don’t ASSUME anything. I give my analysis, and I register an opinion. You are welcome to rebut anything, but this line of attack is lazy and evasive. Names for groups that act similarly and in concert are essential for clear discourse.

        Yes, when the New York Times deems a Twitter typo as front page worthy because it makes the President look stupid, when we see professionals disgracing their basic values (like the legal ethicists who filed the complaint against Kellyann Conway), when my progressive friends spend every waking hour obsessing on Facebook about the latest anonymous source who says someone may have had some contact with someone who might have contacts in Russia, when lawyers who should know better call Comey’s letter a Hatch Act violation and Trump firing the guys “obstruction of justices,’ when Broadway casts suddenly start harassing audience members and professors get gym members kicked out for having non-performing views, when every TV comic is trying to top the other by saying things about this President that would have gotten them fired if they had said anything similar about the last one, yes, that’s obsession and mania.

        You want to call it something else? Fine. 1) You’re Wrong and 2) Start the “Nothing to see here” blog.

        This one is called Ethics Alarms, and I’m sounding one, the best I know how. I’m really sorry Democrats, progressives, Hillary voters, students in college, professionals and elected officials, as well as “the resistance” as well as passive bystanders on the Left are disgracing themselves and weakening the culture, but they are, and when they stop, I’ll stop calling them on it. If you can’t see it, you’re a fool; if you see it but refuse to condemn it, you are naive and a poor citizen; but in either case, as a citizen, you’re responsible and accountable for the damage that has occurred and will occur, unless you stand up and say “stop.” Instead, you want to stop someone who is trying to call for civility, proportion, respect, fairness and common sense. Don’t try cripple the tools those of us who care and are willing to confront this have to work with. If you can’t come up with a better description of those trying to bring down the government—and that is what they are doing—then shut up about mine.

        • An addendum: “then use those assigned qualities as the reason for marginalizing and demeaning the Group.”

          The resistance has identified itself as dedicated to taking action, even violent action, to undermine, block and unseat an elected President. That objective is self-defining and self-demeaning. The objectives are unethical, undemocratic and anti-American. If people assign themselves qualities, it is valid, fair and important to explain where those qualities lead.

          If a majority of the Left, Democrats and progressives, however they overlap, were behaving as every other out-group in American politics has beheved since the Civil War, we would not be experiencing what we are, and the current crisis wouldn’t exist. Using those labels are fair and unavoidable.

  4. Jack, living where you live, how do you stand it? It is starting to sound like the entirety of both coasts, along with most of the Great Lakes states have gone off of the rails. “We lost the election, so the guy who won must be a maniac, a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist and needs to be impeached.” All without being able to bring a single example of ANY of the above. I’m rapidly losing faith in the countries ability to absorb this kind of idiocy.

    • The extremist political left here in Wisconsin are still foaming at the mouth about Governor Walker but now they have a new target for their hate, Trump; so some of their ADD attention has been refocused.

      Shouting Republican in a crowd of Progressives is like shouting squirrel in a yard full of hungry dogs.

    • dragin_dragon wrote, “I’m rapidly losing faith in the countries ability to absorb this kind of idiocy.”

      I’d say that a bit differently, I’m loosing faith in the ability of the population to absorb this kind of idiocy before something really snaps?

      I’m of the mind that the wackos are beyond reason now and something really negative will have to happen for the wackos to open their eyes. I actually noticed some eye opening over the Trump severed head photos; I talked a little about my observations yesterday.

  5. If a maniac was running amuck, do you think Ralph Northam would favor beheading him?

    Was this a serious question, Jack? Like…do you actually think most people, when they call other people “maniacs,” are indicating that they want those people beheaded?

    That seems a hysterical overreach.

    • I’m not talking about most people. I’m talking about someone who uses that term in a public statement and televised advertisement, which is presumably a commitment to it. I’m pointing out that within the resistance, the President is characterized routinely as someone or something that is typically dealt with by force and violence, and I’m asking, in the context of our prior discussions, if people who regard the President that way—monster, despot, dictator, lunatic, Hitler, maniac—are really going to be offended by an image showing him after he has been dealt with.

      • “Maniac” is pretty mild compared to “Hitler,” Jack. I think you have a tendency to lump dissimilar things together. I’ve called plenty of people “maniacs” whom I don’t want dealt with either force or violence.

        • Chris wrote, “I’ve called plenty of people “maniacs” whom I don’t want dealt with either force or violence.”

          Can someone please translate this into a complete thought?

          • I’ve called plenty of people “maniacs” to whom I don’t want dealt either force or violence.

            Or the clunkier version:

            I’ve called plenty of people “maniacs” whom I don’t want dealt with with either force or violence.

          • In and around and nicking many Rationalizations:

            1. The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it”
            8. The Trivial Trap (“No harm no foul!”)
            13. The Saint’s Excuse: “It’s for a good cause”
            14. Self-validating Virtue
            19. The Perfection Diversion: “Nobody’s Perfect!” or “Everybody makes mistakes!”
            22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things.”
            24. Juror 3’s Stand (“It’s My Right!”)
            32. The Unethical Role Model: “He/She would have done the same thing”
            33. The Management Shrug: “Don’t sweat the small stuff!”
            36 C. Donald’s Delusion, or “I never said I was perfect!”
            38. The Miscreant’s Mulligan or “Give him/her/them/me a break!
            41 A. Popeye’s Excuse, or “I am what I am.”
            43. Vin’s Punchline, or “We’ve never had a problem with it!”
            44. The Unethical Precedent, or “It’s not the first time”
            50A. Narcissist Ethics , or “I don’t care”
            52. The Hippie’s License, or “If it feels good, do it!” (“It’s natural”)
            53. Tessio’s Excuse, or “It’s just business”
            54. The Joke Excuse, or “I was only kidding!”
            58. The Golden Rule Mutation, or “I’m all right with it!”

            And #22, of course.

            • Jack, above you said you agreed with a paragraph in which Windypundit called Trump a “sociopath.”

              Do you think sociopath is better than “maniac?” Are you not engaged in “serious political discourse?” Do you think it’s OK for you to call Trump names like that, but not a congressman (this would be the most convincing position)? Or were you just agreeing with everything else in that paragraph and not the “sociopath” part?

  6. I am wondering where Northam got his Ph. D in Clinical Psychology? Obviously, he is a partisan hack and not particularly bright as well. The people of Virginia deserve better than this.

  7. Stupid is as stupid does. If the good (or bad) people of Virginia elect a snake, the puncture wounds later will be their fault.

    Thin is, you cannot point to a socialist experiment that did not fail, given a little time.


    I think rules 5, 10, 11, & 13 apply to Mr. Northam’s comment.

    Pete I invite you to come visit Portland, OR where you can watch the “resistance’ in action. My town has become so intolerant with smug socialism, people are starting to lose their jobs if they even question the modern left’s ideology on a variety of topics.
    The “resistance” is attempting to divide what used to be a “live & let live” kind of place. Since Nov. 9th that ethos had been demolished. The news stories confirm this.

    Calling someone names like maniac – may win cheap points, ignoring hate speech from the resistance may allow one to feel like they’re not a hypocrite, and pretending anxiety is not being increased by socialist tactics – is all well…until the powder keg goes off. When it does you can bet the violence & (willful) chaos will be traced back to its roots.

    “First of all I was considered an idealist, then a romantic, then a rebel, then a defeatist, and last of all a fool.” – Walther Darre

    Socialists will always eat their own if they begin to question ideology or tactics. I suspect members of the resistance or Resistance will learn that learn that eventually & either speak out, as many of us disillusioned with the left has, or they will be complicit in the darkness.

  9. Oh the embarrassment of being a Virginia resident. I will vote for anyone other than this guy. Doesn’t he know that only Northern Virginia went for Hillary, and that she got her electoral votes purely on the density of the population there? What a moron. We’ve certainly had our share in Virginia, but this is beyond the pale. I don’t always vote in special or off-elections, but I’ll be first in line with this one. This behavior is statesman-like? Aauugh!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.