The West Virginia Democrat candidate who was dragged away for calling out gas-money-dependent lawmakers has raised record-breaking sums


Originally published at:



Shhhdaaaap, goddammit. Just let it happen and stop reporting this kind of thing. It’s exactly why they want to kill the tubes.


Poor little public servants, all they were doing was trying to pick up a little money on the side. Now their lobbyist friends are gonna have to sneak them some more money after that terrible woman started dragging reality out in front of the public.

Ha! I hope she gets a #100,000. Who knew honesty was the best policy… Certainly not her opponents.


Gotta love the Streisand effect. Never fails.


“Democrat” is a noun, “Democratic” is an adjective; I would think a professional writer would know this… :roll_eyes:


I’m not able to express surprise surprise at this point; but I always have to wonder why Team Sacred Property Rights is willing to show up when tax rates threaten to budge but not when a state takes action to make it much easier for a favored industry to expropriate your land without your consent(especially since dollars are fungible; while land and health are not).

Is it just a matter of narrowly self-interested posturing? A slogan as cynical as “state’s rights” and not actually intended to bring applied elsewhere?


Is how much money you can raise the only measure of merit in US politics?

Perhaps it isn’t, but you could be forgiven for thinking so from the reporting. This always seems weird to me.


Unfortunately, politicians will use events like this to limit public comments. Too many believe that citizens are to be ruled rather than represented.


So, wait, these guys are selling out to oil and gas and raising only $9,000 for their campaigns? Didn’t Ryan get half a million for his tax cuts?

Obviously you get bigger bucks as speaker of the federal house than as a member of the house in a small state. I’m just kind of amazed that people would sell out their constituents for a few grand. As Lissa Lucas is showing us, you can raise way more money by not selling out your constituents.


The attributive use of nouns is completely conventional English idiom. Hence, for example, “dog kennel” rather than “canine kennel”.


And, more broadly, in English, we don’t care about no stinking parts of speech.


She is running to be the Democrat’s candidate, not the Democrat candidate. There are more than one of them in those parts. Unless we want to start talking about the Republic candidate?


The Constitution, like science, is not a matter of faith.


I think you meant ‘The Constitute’


its what means the most in terms of getting elected because it translates to how much exposure you can buy.


If (as I assume) you meant “the Democrats’ candidate”, that’s a distinction without a difference.

I’m sure, but the headline explicitly refers to the “West Virginia Democrat candidate who was dragged away for calling out gas-money-dependent lawmakers”. That doesn’t imply she’s the only Democrat candidate in West Virginia.

That would be a valid analogy if the headline had referred to her as the Democracy candidate.


Proper noun as adjective is not some sloppy neologism. Revisit yer Shakespeare.


“Team Sacred Property Rights”

They also don’t seem to have a problem with civil forfeiture of cash and property when it is being expropriated from the “bad people” without due process.


I’ve got to disagree. The constitution is absolutely a matter of faith. The benefits only extend as far as we choose to extend them.