Crabgrass sentiments toward candidates who decline to identify issues and answers are comparable to what Klein at DWT already has written, so why try to reinvent the wheel. Read what he has posted.
Klein examines specific candidacies where a trend toward declining to have an ISSUES page is equivalent to a big, empty, "TRUST ME!" When that's the message, Should you? How gullible are you? (Two phrasings of the same question.)
Putting that question into a primary contest where one goes with issues, another goes with "Trust me," examine a pair of campaign presentations, and see how you feel.
Specifically, looking at one district, GA14, where MTG currently wears the fright wig, compare and contrast two Dem challengers Greene. This is very important, since MTG is known to stand for nothing but hysteria and fear mongering. So, Dems are different, right? Dems want to present level best thinking and attitude, a capacity to recognize challenges and form policies, right? Dems do not want puffery and consultant-scripted pablum, right?
This
is honest substance about rural revival. Northwest Gorgia needs. A family-first business woman facing rural needs of GA14, offered as such, no bells, no whistles, no cosmetic scripting, but substance. This
is a black guy posing in a black hat, no regional family ties shown while posed alone by the handlers against a good run of pristine barnwood. You read about his vision, and what you see is he does not like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Who does?
Vision? We don't need no stinking vision. Want to see a different view of the man?
Established politicians endorse him, even one from California, and yet, same barnwood, same cosmetic hat, same posture, same enigma, issue-wise.
He has an endorsements page. She has a platform page.
https://holly4congress.com/platform
Not overly wordy, but: Issue by issue; plan by plan. He doesn't go there. He has bravado. But MTG has enough of that herself to where the voters might be growing tired of unthethered bravado.
The only place Flowers and his handlers thought to put a FAQs page is about his merchandising. She has a merchandising page, where she clearly defines it as a way to contribute, and posts notice of who can contribute, legally, to her campaign. Formatted clearly as an ActBlue page. He has slogans, all with a focus against MTG and not really for much else of any positive substance.
A well-traveled "merc" who might have been doing whatever, well paid in multiple foreign venues, paid and following orders. He could have guarded poppy fields, or been a convoy truck driver, or warehouse supervisor, he will not say. That vs a person whose life was in district, talking about needs of the district.
What she sees and what she'd work to improve are no mystery. One sells ego, the other sells perception and dedication. Or so it seems to Crabgrass, where opinions can differ.
Local press coverage, here and here, mostly about fundraising, and mostly commentary about Greene. No concerted effort to find local coverage was made by Crabgrass - those two items showed up per a generic search.
This "Join the Mission" video has to have thinking people ask, he says he is running on "personal character and self respect" but we expect that from any candidate, and beyond that what's he stand for? Consultants script his video, weave together film clips, a John Wayne stride included past a military aircraft; but who really is this guy? Pure bullshit, from a candidate noted as problematic, here and here. It seems as if the handlers of the candidate see GA14 as lacking thinking people, (probably because they sent MTG to Congress). But those two New Republic items raise questions which scripted bravado dialog fails to answer.
Donate to who you see as the sounder and better grounded candidate of the two. Or find a third GA14 candidate or do donations outside of there. It is just that MTG has to go. Yet an option is to wait post-primary and then fund the Dem winner.
Neither of these two, Flowers and McCormack, appeals to Crabgrass as a dedicated Democratic Socialist in the sense Bernie has defined the term. Not that such a persona would likely generate traction and win in GA14. But one of this contrasting pair has actual gravitas while the other is a "Trust me" anti MTG candidate, vocally and to the detriment of telling us more of who, exactly, we are looking at.
One concerning aspect, per this earlier one of the two National Review items, is that two mercs appear to have been expressly recruited to run against MTG and her like-minded Colorado attitude-kin, Rep, Bobert. As if some military psy-op person made the choice, send in macho mercs to eliminate two troublesome women in districts where mercs might sell well with the men folk.
Whether, how, and by whom this pair, one in Georgia the other in Colorado, were recruited is a question for which we ordinary people will never receive an answer. And if having one, would you trust wholly what anyone says about motivation behind that quaint pairing?
National Review looks to have nothing good to say about either of the "nat-sec bros" challenging strange incumbancies; while the entire world might have nothing at all good to say about either of the pair of wigged-out incumbents.
It is as if a "Fight fire with fire" mentality is at play in inserting two mercs into two parallel candidacies. Either way, any way, however recruited, the mood here is to wish Holly McCormack success while encouraging considerate readers to help fund her campaign, doing so as concerned politically aware individuals.
BOTTOM LINE: Why should GA14 vote out MTG for one who could well be as much a loose cannon as her? Put another way, of the two Dem primary candidates noted here which would you lend money to? Do the GA14 voters want a post-primary equivalent of a cage fight, or are they better than that, and want to replace a problem with a solution? Not disrespecting GA14 voter intelligence, the guess here is the family-oriented problem solver will prevail, even if less well funded, even if not being Hollywood-DC scripted and relying of DC consultant handling to set posturing norms, including clean spiffy photo-op barnwood lumber props and all.
Another viewpoint is that mercs are well paid to receive and follow orders while trusting the chain of command, and that should appeal to those funding and running Dem inner-party affairs.
Take the money and obey orders; could there be a better theme to make a Bloomberg-Democrat smile.
Hey - Soros could be behind things. Wait long enough, and some Republicans will suggest exactly that.
The post could be closed after that last paragraph. And it might be petty to go where this paragraph goes. But, the official next-to-flag-in-expensive-well-tailored-suit cliche Ballotpedia photo shows the man in a different light than the overly affected cowboy-image trope -
 |
| Smothers Brothers commentary. |
Holly McCormack's main website photo suggests a genuine what you see is what you get. No ambivalence, no posing, no contrivance, no consultant hand pulling image strings. Her image's background is much a part of the story.
LAST: That wedding ring in the above posted Flowers photo, is he married now or not? The New Republic hit piece (the one focused only on him) makes marital history and status an issue. (That NR item's lead photo shows Flowers' right hand deftly covering his left.)
__________UPDATE_________
Each candidate has a Ballotpedia page - McCormack / Flowers
McCormack's web design consultant is identified on her site, Flowers' is not.
McCormack's designer, https://www.newwavestrategies.com/
Each candidate has an online video - McCormack / Flowers
(Although it makes no difference, you can find the McCormack video on her Ballotpedia page, the Flowers video on his ActBlue page)
This is the objective update to what has been, admittedly, an editorial.
The objective update is offered in belief that these two are the most likely Dem primary winners; and in belief that either would be superior to the incumbent (faint praise is nonetheless praise). MTG is an international embarrassment to the nation. Either of these candidates should be able to defeat her. However, as we've seen with Joe Biden, a candidate running as "having the best chance to defeat" is a candidate running a negative campaign, not one stressing positive attributes. With Biden, a better alternative was done in wrongly, so the hope is neither of these two conspires with others to rig things against the other via shady inner-party insiders playing favorites. If either is cozy with DNC or DCCC, I favor the other!
[Note - missing links and cleaning up text in the main body of the post was done after all was written and posted. No material alterations, just cleanup.]
_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Newsweek - Does it seem to you Holly McCormack is getting a fair shake?
If you see her mentioned in passing - a mere afterthought - ask yourself who might be writing the lyrics to that outlet's song? MSM reposts the Newsweek item. Does it seem to you that either of the outlets really cares about policy? About the needs and views within the district about what will make life better, in district? Or is there a bit of over-leveraged new-sheriff-in-town love of Marcus? The problem-free candidate to take on MTG, who is not recognized too favorably but at least gets more attention than McCormack.
Is the DNC telling Newsweek who to feature and how? If not DNC, who?