Charles B. Aycock? Really?

Published December 16, 2014

by Gary Pearce, Talking About Politics, December 15, 2014

Democrats in Washington are squabbling about torture, a $1.1 trillion budget bill and regulations on Wall Street and big banks. Democrats in North Carolina are squabbling about – I kid you not – Charles Brantley Aycock.

 

Specifically, the squabble is in part over whether the wife of a descendant of North Carolina’s governor from 1901 to 1905 should be state Democratic Party chairman in 2015.

 

Aycock was both a racist and a pro-education (for whites) governor. For years, the state party had an annual Vance-Aycock weekend in Asheville, since renamed the Western Gala because of Aycock’s racial policies. One of his modern-day descendants apparently opposed the name change, feeling that the good Aycock did should outweigh the bad. For this heresy, some Democrats believe that said descendant’s wife, Patsy Keever, should not be party chair.

 

As a long-time Democratic activist asked this weekend, “If my great-grandfather was a horse thief, do I have to leave the party?”

 

This would be of great concern. If it mattered. But, in today’s world of creative campaign financing and myriad political committees, the state party doesn’t matter.

 

In fact, this squabble is a good thing. It gives the people who fight about things like this something meaningless to tear each other apart over. Which frees up everybody else to get about the work of winning elections in 2014.

 

Next up: Given their records on slavery, do we rename Jefferson-Jackson Day? This should keep the Goodwin House busy through November 2016.

Read More NC SPIN >>

December 16, 2014 at 10:07 am
Greg Dail says:

The PC police wants to hold yesterday's politicians to today's standards, and is willing to punish todays politicians for the sins of yesterdays politicians which today's politicians had nothing whatever to do with.

The modern Democrat Party, you gotta love it!

December 16, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Norm Kelly says:

Strife in the Demoncrat party is simply a discussion. Strife in the Republican party is always listed as a battle for the future of the party, a battle that may tear the party apart, a battle that will distract party leadership leading to voters abandoning the party.

Racism is such a strong point for demons, that it has become their main point, almost their only point. Everything comes down to skin color for true libs. (notice it's the kindly, loving, for the kids, libs who see skin color first, anything else comes in a distant second!) Without claiming racism, demons have NOTHING to say about Republicans/conservatives. In order to maintain their 'superiority' on the race issue, it is critical that their party head is NOT the descendant of a true racist. It's also important for the DemocRAT party to continue to do what it can to hide the fact that it was them who stood in the way of Equal Rights legislation back in the '60s. It's critical for demons to continue the lie that it's Republicans/conservatives who are the true racists. If they dare allow a racist persons family member become party leader, how exactly will the buffet slayer respond? How will the N&D editorial board ever continue to be an ally of the demons when a racist heads the party. It will not & does not matter that the person is a racist, it only matters to those concerned more about skin color than anything else that someone who was a racist had offspring that may want to be in a leadership position.

Live by racism, die by racism.

Battles in the demon party are fun to watch. This issue will split the party and turn off a majority of their supporters. Oops! Slipped into lib mode there for a minute and forgot I wasn't speaking of Republicans. I take it back!