I love this site! There are no sacred cows there; all things political are equally jibbed and jabbed at with sharp comedic wit. And so it is with a look back at 2006!
Gee. I have found myself fascinated by the soap opera unfolding in the comments section of this blog since last night. One little mention on a controversial Democrat's blog and it's High Noon on ConservaChick! (Yes, I'm laughing while I type this.) For those of you who have no idea what's happening in the ever-expanding comments section , join the club! Here's what I know about Mark Nickolas from bits and pieces I've read on his blog, and from a local news report: Nickolas likes to sneer at Republicans and call them snide little nicknames as he provides his "Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky;" he raised a ruckus within the Democrat party here in Kentucky by filing a suit against the chairman of the party , Jerry Lundergan; and he will be appearing on the same panel with yours truly on Thursday night. That's about it. You now have the benefit of my not-so-extensive knowledge on this subject. Nickolas poste...
Comments
Below is what was banned & 2 followup comments (the followup comments are still on the site) ..
"For all you ... intolerant, closed-minded ... fools lacking judgment that are SO upset and undone that Lunsford is CURRENTLY backing a Republican ...
Feast your eyes on this GREAT FIND about Mark Nickolas the alleged democrat that betrayed democrats.
Courtsey of www.conservachick.com Thread titled: "Thoughts on the SPJ Panel Discussion"
Dated November 18, 2006 ... Posted at 12:05PM.
"Mark [Nickolas] even admitted, oddly enough, that he voted for Reagan in 1984. I hope I haven't outed him to his target audience! If so, then they now have a point of reference that should be educational. It pleased me immensely to find that, even though I strongly disagree with this man's political ideology, we are both fair-minded enough to do what we think is good for this country when the opportunity presents itself."
Get that, even Nickolas voted Republican when he thought Reagan/Bush were better for the country than Mondale/Ferraro. Now, in 2005 NOT 2003 Lunsford is doing the same thing that Nickolas did in 1984. Only difference is Nickolas is trying to make it appear Bruce supported Fletcher in 03 PLUS another difference is Nickolas is making a big STINK over a democrat voting republican. Is this a glass house for Nickolas?
Are you fools in here going to say the comment on Conservachick.com is a LIE?
Posted by: | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 03:30 PM
In light of the 3:30 comment, perhaps we should all reflect on the dangers of syphillis-induced dementia. Tragic, really...
Posted by: | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 03:38 PM
3:38 - Sorry, but I just deleted the stalking troll at 3:30. I banned the lunatic and will be deleting everything he/she writes from this moment forward. Sorry that you all have to deal with such imbiciles who offer nonthing but nonsense like this.
Posted by: mark nickolas | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 03:42 PM"
Interesting that Nickolas refers to FACTS as "nonsense like this." Can Nickolas not handle his own exposure?
Here I'll cut & paste it for you:
FROM MARK NICKOLAS REGARDING HIMSELF BEING OUTTED AS A REPUBLICAN TO A 3:38 Post:
"3:38 - Sorry, but I just deleted the stalking troll at 3:30. I banned the lunatic and will be deleting everything he/she writes from this moment forward. Sorry that you all have to deal with such imbiciles who offer nonthing but nonsense like this.
Posted by: mark nickolas | Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 03:42 PM"
Did you see that? He called the poster a "lunatic?" He said he would delete the "imbiciles" Hmmm.... Bill, seems like ole Nickolas is a closet republican while you are a out front guy.
Not much worse than a hypocrite
Nickolas is a blow hard phony democrat that loves to tarnish good people's reputations.
It is NEVER bad to vote the person as opposed to voting the party. In fact, that's how it should be. Voters should vote for the PERSON that will best lead the country.
However, Nickolas deleted the post because it is true and he is clearly trying to hide it. But why? Why would he hide the fact that he thought Reagan/Bush was better for the country in 1984. What's up with that?????
I had no idea that anyone had outed Mark on his own blog. I used to check in there occasionally before the panel appearance to get an idea of what he was about but gave that up because it's so hate-filled and contrary to what I believe America to be all about. So, nope. I totally missed that. Bummer for me, actually!
When he made the comment about voting for Reagan to me at the panel, it was in the context of having come from Berkeley, CA which is notoriously radical-Left. I chuckled and said, "Oh! Now your blog makes total sense to me!" He then quickly added that he DID vote for Reagan in 1984. To which I replied, "I knew you just had to be intelligent," and chuckled again.
It was an interesting exchange and was posted by me in an effort to let people who read this blog know that even some folks on the radical Left have been known to vote Right.
I do find it highly hypocritical that Mark berates other Democrats for voting according to the person instead of the party when he himself has done so in the past. It's also just a tad dishonest to pretend that a candidate is worthy of your vote just because of his/her party affiliation. I have never found that to be a very smart way to fulfill one's civic responsibilities.
So, since turnabout is fair play, I'll disclose something equally outrageous to my own blog readership: I voted for Gatewood Galbraith for Attorney General in 2004! hehehe Couldn't bring myself to vote for the Republican or the Democrat candidate for that office and went with someone who is brutally honest and upfront about his own shortcomings. I simply felt safer with that vote.
There you have it! I've voted for someone other than a Republican recently! *gasp!* I suppose I'm a traitor to my party... so what. Vote on character, not on party. I'm completely in line with that sentiment.
Bill, I totally agree with you: Reagan would NOT have been happy wtih the way government was run in the past six years. He would have been all for going after the bad guys, no doubt. I seriously doubt he would have condoned the wild spending and pork that ran amok these past six years under Republican leadership though. HOWEVER, I can guaran-damn-tee ya he would NOT have switched parties. The Dems these past six years have been nothing but hypocritical and counter-productive to the business of this nation. They are still socialists and would not have garnered any admiration from The Gipper!
You traitor! Just kidding ... hahaha.
Reagan would have stayed in Afghanistan for one thing. With the "intelligence" of WMD's that has leaked out but that our govt knew (before we attacked) and assuming Reagan would have obviously known the same exact info. W Bush knew, Reagan would NOT have invaded. In fact, Bush Sr. would NOT have invaded Iraq on the flimsy info. W. had. So, you are soooo right, Reagan would have been disappointed with the way this govt has been run.
Ouch, your comments about the dems really hurt me. But, I do think that if Reagan or a Reagan-minded president were in office, the democrats would have been treated with respect thereby giving the Reagan-minded president respect and thus there would not have been this bs stalemate in both the House & the Senate.
I did not and never have voted for Reagan. His first run I, too, was living in California (small world Dawn) and while I was driving to the polls to vote around 4:30 Pacific Time and listening to the radio, the radio announcer said, "Ronald Reagan just won the presidency of the United States by a landslide." Ok. So ... knowing my vote would not count anyway, I wrote my vote in "Walter Cronkite." In 1984, I was so pro Ferraro that ... I voted my party. However, neither time that my party lost was I disappointed with the way in which he ran the country. He was NOT a polarizing guy. Now, I will make a confession as to the one time I voted Republican, it was this year! I could NOT bring myself to vote for Jerry one more time, so I voted for Downard. By the way Dawn, Gatewood was a good pick, too bad he didn't win, huh?
You are so right about Nickolas' blog being a hate-filled speech site. Gosh, what a bizarre comment HE posted after he deleted that post. I can't figure out why he deleted it either? The more sane people, with sane ideas that he bans gives rise to that site being more and more hate-filled. What a pity to be so full of hate.
I do think that Reagan would not have opened a new front in Iraq. I agree with you there. However, I don't think he would have turned a blind eye to the fact that there were bio/chem weapons in the hands of Iraqis who hated America. It was too simple a thing to let that go and end up finding those weapons in the hands of the fanatical bin Laden and his followers. I see the reasoning behind it but I'm not sure I have ever agreed with the approach or the timing to that problem.
I still maintain that the evidence at hand on WMDs in Iraq was anything but flimsy. Several countries had the same intel that we did at the time. Hussein himself did nothing to alter the generally accepted information. Clinton himself acknowledged that threat time and again. I think it's a tad disingenious to blame some lack of solid evidence of WMDs solely on Bush. We all knew what Hussein was cooking up and saw the videos of the training camps that he was permitting on his soil. It's not a stretch to imagine that those WMDs were dismantled and shipped out of Iraq before we went in -- heck, he had how many years to take care of that??
I have to differ with your impression of how the Dems were treated by President Bush -- he has tried time and again to work with them -- Kennedy, of all people, especially! He opened himself to a lot of criticism from his own party by trying too hard to placate them. They have stabbed him in the back over and over each time he's tried to do that. I think the blame for the discontent on the Hill is equally shared by all parties to it. It takes two to tango. My opinion is that Bush tried to tango but the Dems were determined to rhumba instead!
Ha! Another Californian? Go figure! Were you in the SF Bay Area too? How did Kentucky end up with so many transplants? Amazing! It's nice to know that those of us who lived out West are so capable of being honest about our votes and our opinions. That's so refreshing! I think may have inadvertently started a "true confessions" political trend here at ConservaChick but I'm really liking this! It's nice to know that you weren't disappointed at the leadership that you got via Reagan. I think he was able to lead the way he did, in part, because he had a more congenial Democrat congress to work with and he was simply a charming, likeable guy.
Yeah, I would have loved seeing Gatewood as Attorney General. Frankfort might have been a little less fractious. Ack! I'm so tired of the in-fighting up there. It certainly would have turned this state a bit upside down for a while too. Ah well. Hey, I'm just glad to hear that you gave Downard a chance. Had I still been in Louisville and not out in Oldham County, he would have had my vote too. I think that Abramson is ignoring some of Louisville's bigger problems in favor of parks and frilly stuff. That city needs better crime control and more jobs. Period. Although, I must admit that Abramson simply has more charisma -- it would be nice to see a Republican with more charisma as a challenger next time.
Yes, Nickolas's blog is turning into a nasty echo chamber. I think he's cultivating a fan club more than an honest dialog. I suppose some people are just a little less open about themselves than others. He's building a brand and an image over there that has nothing to do with unity and everything to do with "damn the torpedoes." I wish him luck but I shudder to think how much more vicious politics in this state will become as his audience builds...