What, it’s local election season again? Well, technically it’s primary election season, but in one-party dominated Orange County, the primary election IS the general election. It's gotten to the point that many of the top positions aren't even contested any more within the Democratic Party, much less have a Republican challenger.

Reliably, the local news media has maintained an entertainment approach to the primary election, mentioning it only in passing. The handful of “informative” puff pieces have been, yet again, directed to vague questions with equally vague answers. As reported in the local Chapel Hill Watch blog, the ”Skewed & Preserver” maintains its outstanding track record of subjective reporting about the county sheriff's election.

Carrboro Alderman Joel Hall Broun is running for county commish. You would know next to nothing about her amazing performance record in Carrboro. (Doubling taxation without increasing government services is a talent.) The local media doesn’t report the increase in taxes paid during a politician’s tenure or the increase, if any, in government services during a tenure. Why enable informed decisions when you can rely on ignorant whispering campaigns about how “conservative” a non-anointed candidate is?

Turns out that one commish challenger (naturally labeled by local Progressives as “conservative”) decided to educate voters in a unique way. Mr. Phelps’ supporters placed the above pictured flyer on cars at the Hampton Pointe shopping center in mid Orange County. Thankfully, the local media didn’t report any of the flyer facts, thereby inadvertently affecting the inevitable whispering campaigns.

Ignorance is bliss.

One of the hallmarks of local Progressives is the hypocrisy of the double standard. It’s okay for you to have a drug rehab center and a homeless men’s shelter next door to you. It’s not okay for them to be next to me or my friends. So it should come as no surprise to Pulpsters to learn that realtor/developer Mayor Mark Chilton has come out against endorsing not only a fellow realtor, but also a fellow Democrat running for county commissioner, Mr. Joe Phelps.

Mr. Chilton openly split with the endorsement of Mr. Phelps by the Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors (Association). In the words of Mr. Chilton, “Mr. Phelps has shown himself to be antithetical to city and rural planning.” Unfortunately, Mr. Chilton didn’t provide a single example to support his conclusion. (SeeDTH Chilton Hypocrisy Story.)

Mr. Mark Zimmerman, an Association spokesperson said incumbent Mr. Barry Jacobs never asked for an endorsement. He also said that Mr. Phelps was endorsed because he supports private property rights and economic development. But Mr. Chilton said the Phelps endorsement was aimed at realtors gaining advantage in Orange County at a time when development is a major issue.

What did he say? Can this be the same Mr. Chilton who has used his position and his friends on the Carrboro governance board to get personal advantage as a realtor in Orange County at a time when development was a major issue? Can this be the same Mr. Chilton benefitting from the multi-million dollar public road improvement outside the Veridia development he’s hawking as Veridia's realtor, instead of spending that money improving the Carrboro corridor on Estes Drive?

Perhaps Orange County can only afford one Progessive realtor politician lining their pockets at a time.

When ”illegal” political acts have no consequences, then those acts will not be deterred.

Pulpsters were treated to a very progressive example of campaign dirty tricks in the latest Chapel Hill municipal race. The mayoral race was hotly contested between Councilors Mark Kleinschmidt and Matt Czajkowski. The progressive machine favorite was Mr. Kleinschmidt. The Chapel Hill News weighed in for Mr. Kleinschmidt not just on its editorial page, but also in its reporting. All expected a close vote.

Out of nowhere appeared a widespread bulk mailer from an unknown organization, CHCPAC. The mailer played on liberal lemming values, namely, that anyone who is fiscally conservative is a social conservative as well. Orange Progressives don't care about taxes or spending money wisely. Those who do must break bread with Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. As always, facts are optional, and party guides serve as political fountains of wisdom.

The mailer was exquisitely timed. The mysterious CHCPAC organization did not have to file a report on who was behind the organization before the election. The mailer also was illegal, in that it didn’t say whether or not Mr. Kleinschmidt’s campaign had anything to do with or approved of the mailer. By law, CHCPAC was supposed to notify the entire mailing list of the position of the Kleinschmidt campaign BEFORE the election occurred.

Mr. Czajkowski’s campaign knew CHCPAC was not one of its supporters.

ALthough Mr. Kleinschmidt’s campaign obviously benefitted from the mailer, it was mysteriously reserved in its comments about CHCPAC. Supposedly, Mr. Kleinschmidt and his supporters knew nothing about the mailer.

Adding to the mystery was a telephone call to local radio station WCHL, another local media group supportive of Mr. Kleinschmidt’s campaign. An unnamed source tipped WCHL off that it was none other than Mr. Cam Hill who was behind the mailer.

Pulpsters will remember Mr. Hill for two reasons. He “shook down” UNC for his home on Rosemary Street in an unusual property swap. He also lost in the last election cycle by about 60 votes, to be replaced by none other than Mr. Czajkowski.)

Mr. Hill was outed by WCHL just in time for him to register CHCPAC legally, but after the election. (See CHH Hill CHCPAC Story.)

Mr. Hill never sent out another mailer identifying himself as CHCPAC and the position of the Kleinschmidt campaign, as required by law.

Revealing his classy character in keeping with loca progressive values, Mr. Hill said revenge was not a factor. ”I want Mark Kleinschmidt to be mayor. If I wanted revenge, I would have killed his dog.” (See CHH Hill Baby Story ).

Pulpsters are well aware of the self-serving, ineffective Carrboro environmental organization dedicated to preserving their backyards, aka Friends Of Bolin Creek, bka Friends Of My Backyard (FOMBY). In true Orange Progressive fashion, FOMBY has watched as Bolin Creek has been bulldozed up to its stream buffers by residential development approved by the Carrboro town government, all under the rubric of promoting “small town urbanism”.

There's no hypocrisy in praising the heaviest residential density in Carrboro alongside the steepest stream beds of Bolin Creek, at least so long as the bulldozing doesn't occur in their backyards. Fear of a scheduled connector road extending from Seawell School Road to Pathway Drive, aimed precisely at the cul-de-sac belonging to FOMBY president, Mr. Dave Otto has provided FOMBY leasdership with the intestinal fortitude to look beyond true environmentalism and into nobly saving their own backyards.

Despite Carrboro open space stream bed regulations that have systematically driven Carrboro's heaviest development onto Bolin Creeek, FOMBY has stood by, not silently, but perversely praising those who have openly heavily developed the Bolin Creek environment.

So what could be more fitting than FOMBY interjecting itself into the upcoming Carrboro municipal election. Yes, FOMBY has decided to bestow a completely surreal environmental award to that supreme Bolin Creek destructionist, Mayor Mark Chilton. A paragon of environmental virtue and patellar virtuosity, Mr. David Otto, has announced that FOMBY shall give Mr. Chilton an environmental award at a very public press conference, by sheer coincidence, just days before the Carrboro municipal election. How clever and so inscrutable.

Political whores or environmental stewards? Pulpsters can reach their own conclusions about FOMBY and its illustrious head giver of awards, Mr. Otto.

Orange County is a prisoner of the charms of one party government. In this case, it’s the Democratic Party. Although the 2008 voter registration statistics show a split countywide of only 54% Democratic versus 19% Republican, and 28% Unaffiliated, that's enough of a cushion almost to guarantee that only registered Democratic candidates are elected. (That split varies little even in southern Orange, namely, 54%, 15%, an 31%, respectively,)

In a one-party banana republic, the ruling party gets what it wants. There is no opposition. There is no political dialogue. Thus, Orange Democrats ought to be happier than “those whose party affiliation will be kept in the trunk”.

Then again, maybe not.

A Partisan Happiness Gap
What does it mean when the reputable Pew Research Center comes along with a finding that being a self-described “Republican” means you’re likelier to be happier than if you’re a “Democrat”. (The fiercely unaffiliated Pulp notes that the Pew study ignores how being “independent” or “unaffiliated” compares to these other two monikers.)

Even if you factor in religious attendance (weekly) and personal health (good to excellent) and factor out income or net worth, there’s a pesky 7% differential between these two party labels. Although the gap has existed since polling started in 1972, it’s now the biggest ever.

What’s Going On Here?
As a group, Republicans not only have more money, they have more friends, are healthier are more likely to be married, like their communities better, like their jobs more, and are more satisfied with their family life. Heck, they even like the weather better.

Perhaps the answer lies in the polled fact that Republicans are more likely to feel that individuals – rather than outside forces – control their own success or failure. Or perhaps it’s that they feel they have more of what they most value in life. (Sorry Democrats, it’s not money).

The Pew study used two regression models. It wanted to filter out vague correlations. For example, is it that happy people get married, or that married people get happy? Does money lead to happiness, or happiness to money? Or might some unrelated factor be creating correlations which don’t actually have any causal connection?

Scoff at the 7% gap at your own risk. Statistically, it means that your party identification has a greater direct bearing on your odds of being very happy than does your race, your ethnicity, or even your gender.

Life Satisfaction
Scoff at the happiness gap as simply being a measure of material things, of one’s rung on the socio-economic ladder. Sorry, that’s not right either. “Life satisfaction” is an evaluation of one’s circumstances. “Happiness” is a measure of one’s feelings. So what happens when you compare Republicans to Democrats on the same ladder rung?



It makes no difference. Even on the same rung, the gap goes to the elephants.

Are You In Charge?
Republicans are more likely to think they can control their course down life’s turbulent river. Over 40% of all Democrats are a cork in the chaos, compared to 28% of Republicans. The gap widens as the socio-economic ladder is climbed.



A feeling of having some control over your path is a strong predictor of well being.

Hard Work Ethic
Perhaps one of the most fascinating gaps is the perception of how to succeed economically. Some 59% of Republicans say hard work and ambition are the keys to material success. Amazingly, only 35% of Democrats agree. Moreover, that gap doesn’t go away as one climbs the ladder. Democrats on the highest rung are significantly less likely to believe in hard work and ambition.



So Pulpsters, look around. Do you see a tendency to minimize the rewards of hard work and ambition? Do you see a tendency to believe in needing help from others to steer a path to happiness? Do you see a tendency to value a stable marriage and children less? According to Pew, these are all factors that lessen happiness and satisfaction for people in this country.

Do they sound familiar in this county?

No one really expected veteran Democratic Congressman David Price (first elected in 1986) to have any problem winning re-election in 2008. Once again he romped to victory with at least 70% of the Orange County vote. What Pulpsters may not know is that Mr. Price did so on campaign contributions (at least $1,117,429) raised mainly outside his district. In fact his percentage of out-of-district money (67%) almost matches his vote getting in Orange County.

About half his money comes from individuals, with the remainder from PACS.

Mr. Price is not unusual in using mostly our-of district monies. A report just released by MapLight shows that 79 percent of campaign contributions Representatives are out-of-district. In fact, Mr. Price is a piker compared to fellow Democrat Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA) received a staggering 99.6 percent of his campaign money coming from people and interests other than his constituents. Of the 421 Representatives included in the report, 408 of them got more than half of their campaign money from outside their district. That’s over 95%.

See the Open Congress Website.

A dangerous political diversity virus may be on the loose in southern Orange County and spreading, causing untold damage in opening people’s minds to alternative thinking patterns. Local political public health officials at the Center for Cosmetic Diversity & Thought Uniformity Control (CCDTUC) have been alerted and mobilized.

As reported in the Pulp (Czajkowski Off Political Medications Story) on 14 May 2008, Chapel Hill Town Councilor Matt Czajkowski revealed once again that he’s not taking his political medications. He confused local town financing of elections with a guaranteed means for subsidizing incumbent campaigns. A political mind control hazmat team was dispatched by the CCDUTC. A pandemic political virus was not thought to be behind the political confusion of Mr. Czajkowski.

However, one week later an Orange County Democratic Party Precinct Official has shown signs of what has now become known locally as “Czajkowski's Syndrome” by agreeing with Mr. Czajkowski. That official wrote the local media a letter saying the following.

“Matt Czajkowski on the Chapel Hill Town Council is correct to point out that incumbents have an advantage to win elections here and that Chapel Hill candidates do not receive large donations from lobbying groups. However, when pressed, Czajkowski stated that incumbents demonstrated their greater influence in last November's election by running as a “bloc.”

Czajkowski did not state what many know: the Sierra Club, hand in glove with the Independent, chooses and promotes local candidates. Last November five local candidates ran for re-election together with one “campaign coordinator,” Tom Jensen, a Sierra Club activist by his own description. Public funding of elections will not change this.

The Independent usually rubberstamps the Sierra Club political endorsements and says they endorse the same. In our municipal election, the Independent published Tom Jensen's letter endorsing re-election of all the incumbents with no identification of Jensen as their campaign coordinator or a paid Sierra Club worker, nor as vice chair of the Chapel Hill Planning Board at that time.

The Independent does a fine job tracking down information about Raleigh and Washington, D.C., politicians, but has trouble getting information on locals. However, the list of editors at the Independent includes a family member of a Chapel Hill politico, so the information should be readily available.

We need a Town Council more representative of all Chapel Hill, but challengers must overcome an entrenched political machine. Without soliciting campaign contributions, Czajkowski received about as much as Sally Greene. But he had to spend more on his campaign. ” See CHN Chapel Hill Political Machine Letter.

Clearly, the political virus now identified by the CCDUTC as infecting Councilor Czajkowski is contagious and spreading. CCDUTC officials are concerned that this virus is communicated by respiratory pathways such as talking, which can lead to widespread, uncontrolled thinking if not quarantined and eradicated.

CCDUTC officials remind all citizens to let the Chapel Hill Orange Progressive political machine do all the political thinking for you, assuring that you will remain free from the ravages of performance based political analysis disease, otherwise known as “Czajkowski's Syndrome”.

In the past recent election cycles, the local steno pool (aka media outlets) have refused to print “negative” campaign ads. But what the term “negative“ means is in the eye of the beholden.

For example, the above ad was run in a local paper by parasitic fungal expert and, quite appropriately, former head of the Orange County Democratic Party, Barry Katz. This ad is considered not “negative”, i.e. the editors aren’t backing the candidate being exposed. (See Flame Pit - Katz Scratch Fever!!!.)

However, the below ad, was not allowed in April 2006 by the local papers because it was “negative”, i.e., the editors were backing the candidate being exposed.