I have been involved with Asheville politics off and on for over nine years. I met Gordon Smith last year and from the onset was quite impressed with his thirst for knowledge for local issues. He stays informed on what is going on in our community and truly cares about people. I was thrilled when I heard he was going to run for Asheville City Council! I encourage neighbors, friends and anyone who wants to see Asheville grow smart and prosper to check out Gordon's Web site at www.gordonforasheville.com, where he articulates his thoughts and recommendations on multiple issues. I am proud to support Gordon Smith in his run for City Council. I hope others interested in Asheville's future will learn about Gordon and cast their vote for him.
— Becky Davis
Asheville
i would imagine there are other candidates running for City Council who do not stoop to the levels of which Gordon Smith has done recently on local political forums.
i’m speaking of his insistence on calling others who disagree with his apparent Socialist leanings sexually perverse derogatory names, while pretending to be actually interested in opening up a serious dialog with them.
many of these people he addresses in such a way i have personally come to know and admire in their efforts of standing up for LIBERTY, which is apparently a concept about which Gordon has little to no knowledge, based on his own comments.
his attacks are upon mere local AMERICANS who are sick and tired of living in a country which bills itself as the “land of the free” while its leaders CONTINUE to usurp the rights of We the People while they disobey the law of the land and also steal from our own future generations.
in the 20 years i have lived in Asheville, i have never witnessed anyone running for local government act in such a way.
while i might not agree with our local candidates on many of their political philosophies, i would hope Asheville citizens would elect candidates who have more integrity than Gordon Smith… or AT LEAST some degree of political savvy!
other candidates running for Council who will hopefully not stoop to such levels, 3 of which i will certainly support rather than Gordon Smith:
Cecil Bothwell (D)
Jenny Bowen (U)
Ryan Croft (R)
J. Neal Jackson (U)
Ester Manheimer (D)
Kelly Miller (D)
Carl Mumpower (R)
Robin Cape (D)
(oh, and BTW… if i don’t respond to any follow-up comments, it’s not because i’m being rude, but because i am choosing to not be notified of them! 8-)
OOPS! correction: Robin Cape is apparently not running for re-election.
I would encourage everybody to NOT vote for the political hack and it doesn’t have anything to do with conservative or liberal.
“i would imagine there are other candidates running for City Council who do not stoop to the levels of which Gordon Smith has done recently on local political forums. ”
yeah, buut that’s cuz you are a gay chicken lover.
that’s cuz you are a gay chicken lover
Is that someone who loves gay chickens?
I cant believe ANYONE would vote for mudslingers like Smith. What’s his policy anyway? “I’m a little Barack Obama.”
If you want someone FOR and OF the people look to J. Neal Jackson who has volunteered to politicians of both major parties or Mumpower whose campaign is composed of a strong volunteer-only base and refuses to take party donations.
Pluto, there you go again with your homophobic “gays are chickens” thing.
Yeah I want to vote for an angry blogger that can’t handle an opposing viewpoint. I want to vote for one narrow minded individual . . . .
there’s something about gordon that just rings hollow to me.
i know i’ll vote for Bowen, she’s intelligent and pro-liberty – and i think i’ll vote for Bothwell, since he’s clever and thorough. and i think we’ll get some good, original ideas out of them.
but where are gordon’s original ideas? why do i want bland outspoken liberal guy?
Who is teaching these chickens to be gay? That’s what I want to know.
Are they called gay chickens because they happily hide behind pseudonyms till someone ruffles their feathers by not following the pecking order?
shadmarsh for mayor!
Becky, Asheville doesn’t need to “grow smart”. We are smart enough already. That is why you moved here, if you stop and think about it. IK do like Gordon. Not sure if I’ll vote for him because he is a communist. I will vote for Cecil Bothwell though!
Just curious Biff. What exactly is the definition of a “communist”, in your world?
pat-someone possessing more than a grade-school-level education.
That makes Biff definitely not a communist lol
I like his ” Not sure if I’ll vote for him because he is a communist. I will vote for Cecil Bothwell though! ”
So one one hand he is not sure but on the other hand he already made up his mind, or not, well maybe, perhaps we’ll see what happens … hell, maybe I’ll vote for both of them …
Actualy, one of Gordon’s planks IS to provide local support for Obama’s economic and environmental agenda. And that is a very good thing.
To: Infinity & critics of Gordon Smith in general:
1) Gordon has elevated the debate – not lowered it. This can be easily confirmed by reading his posts on issues ranging from the Parkside development, to the Woodfin Coal-plant, to the I-26 connector. (Just Google his name next to each of these issues.)
2) That you accuse Gordon of being “socialist” says more about your own ignorance and bias, than Gordon’s platform. Smith has befriended people across the political spectrum, and his blog encourages spirited and educated debate.
For example: Former NC Rep. Charles Thomas (R – 116) allowed his name to be used as a reference when Gordon applied for the empty seat left by Holly Jones last year.
But don’t take my word for it. Attend one of his campaign events, or read his blog. You’ll witness a wide range of ages and political leanings.
3) The Caps Lock key is located immediately to the left of the “A” key. Turn it off. Writing words in uppercase letters does nothing to make you sound more credible.
4) You rambled incoherently about folks standing up to Gordon in the name of liberty. Unless you have names and examples, you are a bigger mudslinger than what you accuse Gordon of.
5) You might want to reconsider the “U” next to Jay Neal Jackson. He’s clearly the GOP’s candidate. For example, he’s told me he’s planning to address the Tea-Baggers on July 4th, and has admitted that Republican Buncombe County Chair Tim Johnson inspired him to run.
Besides, technically city races are supposed to be non-partisan. (Which is a shame, IMHO.)
His blog supports support of his beliefs and his beliefs only, You dont get posted unless
1) You kiss his rear.
2) Spout the same tired non-sense he spouts
3) To be as Smart or progressive as he is which really means to be as narrow minded as you possibly can be.
He is just more of the same that’s already on the council now.
Scrutiny Hooligans Comment Policy, posted at the website:
Comments Policy
When you submit comments or e-mail via our contact form, please consider the following, because by doing so you are agreeing to it:
GENERAL CONDUCT: Our first and perhaps most important rule was adapted from and perfectly communicated by honorary Scrutiny Hooligan Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. in his 1965 novel God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater:
“There’s only one rule that I know of, babies — God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.”
In other words, be lively, be friendly, be critical, be funny, be snarky, be strident – go nuts! But be civil. Don’t do anything in our house that you wouldn’t do in your own. We’re fans of people who know how to have a good time without breaking anything.
FIRST-TIME COMMENTERS: We currently require that all comment authors have a previously approved comment before it appears on Scrutiny Hooligans. What this means is that if you’re a first-time commenter, your comment will be held in our moderation queue until a site administrator can okay it. This is a one-time thing just to make sure that you are indeed a real person and not a robot, a spammer or a robot spammer. Don’t take it personally.
USING HTML: If you’re comfortable with using HTML formatting tags, feel free to use them to spruce up your comments. Just above the comments box, there is a list of acceptable HTML tags that you can use. Any tags outside of the posted list (such as image calls, javascript code, media embeds, etc.) will be automatically removed from your comment. One thing to keep in mind when leaving comments – any URLs that you post will appear as hyperlinked text. This is a handy workaround if you’re not quite comfortable with the anchor (”a”) tag. Also, inserting four or more URLs inside a comment will trigger the spam filter. We do monitor our incoming spam comments for false positives, and legitimate comments will eventually be approved by an administrator. Again, don’t take it personally if these aren’t retreived immediately – we’re all busy with jobs, families and sundry obligations.
SPAM: Our policy on comment and e-mail spam is simple: We don’t like it. We don’t want it. We won’t tolerate it. Our Akismet spam filter catches about 99% of it, but every once in a while a few will slip by. These get deleted, and corresponding network and e-mail addresses get banned.
VALID E-MAIL ADDRESSES: Your privacy will be respected and, unless you give us express permission to publish it, your e-mail address, which is a required field in the comments and contact forms, will remain private. Any message containing a fake e-mail address (like “inbed@home.com” or “noneofyourdamnbusiness@screwyou.com”) will be treated as spam.
SOCKPUPPETRY: Let’s say, for example, that one of our contributors posts something about Hubbert’s peak oil. If someone posts a comment reflecting a contrary view, we have absolutely no problem with that, but if the comment originated from a computer belonging to, say, ExxonMobil or Halliburton, we have a big problem. Let’s also say that a situation arises here similar to what happened with fomer Rep. Charlie Bass in New Hampshire during the 2006 campaign, where one of his top staffers took it upon himself to post demoralizing comments to local blogs in order to artificially deflate support for his opponent, Rep. Paul Hodes (who was elected in 2006). These are examples of “sockpuppetry”. All sockpuppet comments will be treated as spam, and a full disclosure statement will be posted in the appropriate thread by a site administrator. No exceptions. For an accurate and thorough definition of sockpuppetry, click here; by “full disclosure”, we mean this.
GODWIN’S LAW IS ENFORCED HERE: From Wikipedia:
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Godwin’s law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons.
The rule does not make any statement as to whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
So we’ll just put the kibosh on those threads that get all Hitlery. If folks do it over and over, they’ll get banned. I don’t imagine this will ever happen.
Here’s a shoutout to all of you who know exactly how to behave when in the Hooligans’ living room – with wit, style, information, and truth.
Thanks,
ScruHoo
Means nothing when you can’t speak your mind. Just like here, if its something “they” don’t like it doesn’t get posted.
feeling delusional and paranoid, mysterlog?
Yeah Paul,
Gordon has really “elevated” the debate. Where should we start? His relentless mockery of Stuart Coleman that went so far as to spread lies about Coleman creating the open cut? His repeated references to “teabaggers”? Still using “chainsaw Charlie” for Congressman Charles Taylor?
Color me surprised if Gordon doesn’t get the counselor of the year award.
Republicans allowed him to be used as references? There’s a page turner. Yet you are going to attack Jackson for being unaffiliated as a ruse? Come on Paul, play it even.
Let’s look at Gordon’s accomplishments:
1) Held the rally flag while the law handled the Parkside debate, and was decided in a court of law. Gordon’s work accomplished exactly nothing.
2)Push forward on the ten year plan to end chronic homelessness. Great, it’s a solid idea. Gordon wants to support an already enacted plan that will go on with or without him. Hard to give him cred it there.
3)Fight the Sullivan Act. Again, great. How? What’s the plan? It passed the NC Senate 49-0. That’s a lot of people to sway.
4) Let’s see some Gordon Smith budget numbers. Where’s the spending going to go?
I wonder if Gordon still supports the return to partisan city council elections?
Mysterylogger, I hear you loud and clear on the posts.
J:
You wrote: “Gordon has really “elevated” the debate. Where should we start? His relentless mockery of Stuart Coleman that went so far as to spread lies about Coleman creating the open cut?”
Not to be snarky – what “open cut” are you referring too? Do you have a citation?
That aside, being critical of Coleman’s land-grab does not equal lowering the debate. Gordon helped educate the public while the AC-T was busy trying to figure out why they were losing market-share.
What’s infuriated the few of people who supported Coleman’s Parkside project is that Gordon was spot-on accurate. They’d scream and whine about “lies”, but continually failed to debunk anything.
Besides, a few paragraphs down you point out that Gordon had nothing to do with saving the land Coleman swindled the county out of.
Make up your mind on the effectiveness of Gordon Smith.
You wrote: “His repeated references to “teabaggers”? Still using “chainsaw Charlie” for Congressman Charles Taylor?”
1) The Teabaggers named themselves. It is entirely accurate to use the term.
2) But you really need to grow thicker skin.
The “Chainsaw Charley” moniker for Taylor is far older than Scrutiny Hooligans. Heck, I heard dyed-in-the-wool Republicans refer to him that way when I first moved to Asheville in 2002.
You wrote: “Republicans allowed him to be used as references? There’s a page turner.”
I’ve pointed out that Gordon is getting a lot of support from the thinking members of the conservative party.
No more, no less.
You wrote: “Yet you are going to attack Jackson for being unaffiliated as a ruse? Come on Paul, play it even.”
I’m not attacking Johnson. I’ve known him for about two years, and he seems like a great guy.
If pointing out someone’s base of support is coming from the GOP is an “attack”, then the Republican party _really_ needs to clean up its act.
You wrote: “Held the rally flag while the law handled the Parkside debate, and was decided in a court of law. Gordon’s work accomplished exactly nothing.”
2)Push forward on the ten year plan to end chronic homelessness. Great, it’s a solid idea. Gordon wants to support an already enacted plan that will go on with or without him. Hard to give him cred it there.
3)Fight the Sullivan Act. Again, great. How? What’s the plan? It passed the NC Senate 49-0. That’s a lot of people to sway.”
Thank you for pointing out how Gordon has been active in the community, and where he stands on important issues.
4) Let’s see some Gordon Smith budget numbers. Where’s the spending going to go?
You can start here:
http://gordonforasheville.com/issues/read-recent-public-speeches-etc/
Frankly, no other candidate has come close to explaining how to handle the budget crisis better than Smith. (Apologies to Bothwell & Bowen, because they also done a great job on this topic.)
Other candidates I’ve spoken with about the budget give some version of: “Well, it’s complex. Just trust me to listen to all sides.”
You wrote: I wonder if Gordon still supports the return to partisan city council elections?”
Dunno. Ask him.
Paul,
Please read along as Gordon spouts off the first rumor he hears in an attempt to drag down the Coleman family: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/asheville-nc/TGHPUT1679PVQE2G5. It would be nice to have a City Councilman who does not repeat the first thing he hears without checking to make sure it is true.
Paul, you miss my points; I am not going to rehash the Parkside debate with you, that’s beside the point here. There is way to have a constructive debate, and there is a way to bring someone down personally. With Gordon making comments such as he did on the Topix thread, it appears he unfortunately strayed from the constructive debate. Actions like that make it hard for me to see how he will lead a diffused debate on development.
As for the name calling, Paul, Gordon repeatedly decries being referred to as a radical extremist. One would hope that someone who dislikes being attacked in such a manner would rise above the fray. But as you say, maybe you Hooligans should just grow some thicker skin the next time you are referred to as radical extremists.
I like your impetulant stance on the “teabaggers”. Because a few of them once called themselves teabaggers, it now universally applies, despite people indicating they do not appreciate it. It is always something when grown men justify their name calling instead of rising above it; congrats Paul.
So now Charles Thomas is supporting Gordon Smith? Careful with your wording there. Being a reference and supporting are two entirely different stances. I think you are making too much of Charles Thomas serving as a reference.
I have made up my mind on the effectiveness of Gordon Smith. While he did collect and amass a plethora of already printed material to redistribute, organized rallies, etc, Coleman’s dispute was handled in an impartial court of law. If Gordon had never gotten out of bed, we would still have the same result today.
So Paul, you do not dispute that everything Gordon is for will go on, even without Gordon on the council.
As for the budget, it is a brief description of what he wants to see. Yet, your link offers no financial numbers. Gordon wants the Paul Ryans of Congress to produce budgets for all of us to see, Gordon wants the Tea Partyers to produce budgets for all of us to see. Since he is so interested in seeing budgets, I hoped he would produce one of his own. I guess it is not to be.
There is no denying Gordon pays great attention to the happenings of the city, and is well versed in many of the affairs. His service on the Homelessness Council is admirable. His campaign is just rather, well, vague.
For instance, repeal the Sullivan Act. Great. How? What is he going to do? Write lettes? He cannot vote to repeal it. Why is his strategy going to be effective? I would like to see more than “I will fight against unfairness”. Que Rainbow Bright.
‘Tis a long campaign season. I’m happy for you that you support him, I remain to be swayed.