Election 2016

"One person shows up to O'Malley event in Iowa, remains uncommitted"

Former Maryland governor's quixotic bid for Dem nomination slides from long-shot to sads-making.

|

Twitter

Via the Twitter feed of Chad Pecknold comes the sort of story that is truly and hilariously sads-making:

"One person shows up to O'Malley event in Iowa, remains uncommitted"

Amid a vicious winter storm on Monday that forced some presidential campaigns to cancel their scheduled stops in Iowa, only Martin O'Malley decided to press on.

And one man at his last event, the only person to show up, in fact, "was glad to see me," the former Maryland governor said. But he still would not commit to caucus for O'Malley.

The man's name is only known as "Kenneth" and was immortalized in a tweet from ABC News' Sarah Beckman.

NEXT: Mystery plaintiff sues Islam critic Pam Geller for wearing a bikini, also sues Kim Kardashian and Kanye West for being bad role models

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. kinnath? Is that you?

  2. As a former LP candidate…I been there man, i feel for ya.

    1. Was it Hitler? I was told it was always Hitler.

  3. Whats the frequency, Kenneth?

    One.

  4. ‘And the other one said she wouldn’t march alone.’

  5. Dang, Martin.

    If I know Iowa, you weren’t more than a block or two from a bar. You couldn’t just go to the bar with him and have a few beers, maybe some cheese curds?

    1. A an Iowan, I can tell you we have nothing to do with cheese curds.

  6. When your most compelling campaign literature is shirtless selfies, and you can get even Maryland to vote Republican, maybe you should bow out of politics and take a sinecure of-counsel position.

      1. “Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder.” Right?

  7. Greatest story ever. And to think he’s in third place for the democratic ticket.

  8. In a just world that one person would have laid into “Carcetti” for his Charm City policing policies.

    1. I’m a big stathead.

  9. ‘O’Malley went on with his prepared remarks, but refused to answer questions from the crowd.’

    1. “Why are you so popular?”

      1. “Your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train.”

  10. Full transcript of the guy calling in Tamir Rice. Interesting:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..crime.html

    Dispatcher comes off as a fucking idiot, BTW…

    And this brilliant conclusion from the moron:

    “Meanwhile, the ultimate fault is in ourselves for permitting our country to become a place where a 12-year-old with a toy gun gets shot to death by a cop who is found to have been in reasonable fear for his life.”

    Get that everybody? It’s YOUR fault, not Officer Loehmann’s.

    1. In a country plagued by gun violence, a cop can’t be held criminally liable for mistaking an authentic-looking toy for a gun?but that still doesn’t let the Cleveland PD off the hook.

      I sincerely wish that Michael Daly dies, scared and alone, from a long, drawn-out, agonizingly painful bout of colon cancer.

      1. Bleeding out from a gut shot in a wrong-door no knock SWAT raid would be just as painful, though quicker, with the added feature of being deliciously ironic.

      2. Hey! Check out the plot of Daly’s first novel:

        A columnist for the New York Daily News offers a novel about an unlikely hero–a middle-aged, overweight, underappreciated cop facing his own conscience and finding a new identity after he kills a street kid…. Transit cop Jack Swann travels the New York subways day after day, catching the occasional fare-beater or mugger. One day, as he is tangling with a thief, a shot is fired and a boy lies dead. Jack must come to grips with the consequences of killing. People see him differently and he himself feels changed, even liberated. He loses weight, starts to take an interest in his work, and goes on a spending spree. Though his wife is distressed, other people suddenly find him interesting?even the folks in the internal affairs division. Violence is not seductive to Jack, but a single violent incident has changed his life and his outlook

        Fuck. You.

        1. You said it, man. Fuck Michael Daly, yo.

        2. I was going to point out that he wrote something outrageously awful which was highlighted here a few weeks ago, but I couldn’t pick it from his archives because it’s all outrageously awful.

        3. HM, why the Fuck you?

          I don’t know anything about this writer or novel, but it might be an interesting take or commentary on modern policing.

          1. Read the first link, the Daily Beast article, where he manages to blame Rice’s death on everything from income inequality to “gun violence”…everything except the personal agency of Loehmann in his decision to reenact the opening of S.W.A.T.. Then read him harping on Sandy Hook as of last week; it’s clear that Daly believes Loehmann’s actions are excusable due to the fact that horrible, racist Republicans allow guns to be privately held.

            I am very skeptical of that the plot of his novel was written as satire. Indeed, it shows the bias he has towards a real life event that mirrors it.

            1. Dude has some pretty serious wish fulfillment issues.

        4. “…a shot is fired and a boy lies dead.”

          The officer shooting passive voice: Not just for news reports anymore.

      3. It’s almost like gun violence BY the cops doesn’t count or something

  11. I don’t get why he isn’t doing better in the Democratic primary. He spouts the talking points perfectly and he’s far less shrill than the other two.

    1. Hillary has the mainstream/establishment wrapped up in her cold, clammy, reptilian coils.

      Bernie has the lefty nutters dialed in what with being a socialist and all.

      There’s just no room for a bland spouter of talking points.

      1. ^This. O’Malley checks all boxes for his lib-tard bona fides, including abolishing capital punishment in Maryland and working to pass gay marriage long before Barry and Hill-Bot were on board, but the DNC and the media are populated almost entirely with Clinton’s people and they’re making sure they don’t fuck it up this time around.

        Also, I don’t see America electing two Irish presidents in a row. O’Bama has done enough damage.

  12. One of us should run as a Democrat on a libertarian platform. Nothing deceptive, just a commitment to a naivete about the platform being anything less than fully consistent with liberal thought.

    1. I’ve thought about it, especially since a Maryland Team-Blue-bot admitted to me that his party has no genuine principles.

      1. There are basically two camps within the Democratic party right now: those who are motivated entirely by TEH FEELZ and those who lust for power. Neither has any coherent philosophy or guiding principles, and the latter group is manipulating the former to their advantage.

    2. I’ve actually thought about that, but it would be so confusing to the modern Democratic party, that it would cause a tear in the space-time continuum.

      1. Without a coherent political philosophy in their voters, anything goes, if it is packaged right.

  13. #Kennethlifematters.

  14. This gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. O’Malley is obvious scum who enjoys the arbitrary use of power, and the exploitation of it for his own gain. I’m sure it’s very demoralizing to an egomanical prick like this to see that no one gives a fuck about him. That he isn’t special or important. If only all politicians got such a welcome.

  15. Off topic because I am bored:

    “In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers – for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the god given right and ability to determine our own destiny.”

    When I read that I thought ‘The only true revolution’ was a pretty extraordinary claim but it doesnt take much thought to conclude that it is correct. The ideas behind the formation of the government we have is radically different than any other. We established the parameters within which government must operate no matter who holds office. Every other government behaves within different parameters depending on who is in office. It is a fundamentally different idea about what government should be.

    I think this is another important set of contrasting concepts that is just subtle enough the proggies can’t grasp.

    1. I read up and saw Dr Whom’s comment about a dem admitting they have no principles. I remember shreek admitted here once that truth is irrelevant.

      Who am I kidding? It is true that most proggies can’t grasp the concept of limited government and its importance, but equally true that a sizable number of them either don’t care or hold that idea in contempt.

      1. I read up and saw Dr Whom’s comment about a dem admitting they have no principles. I remember shreek admitted here once that truth is irrelevant.

        I’m reminded of an interviewer talking to Harry Reid some months after the 2012 election. When asked about his comments on the Senate floor, alleging tax evasion and other nefarious acts that he knew Romney did not commit, Reid’s response was, “Well, he didn’t win, did he?”

        Romney would have been a bad president, but Reid, Obama, and their proggie ilk are reprehensible garbage.

        1. I remember that. I was struck dumb not only by his naked admission but by the complete lack of criticism from the dems.

    2. I think was true at the founding, but has changed. I don’t think people realize how much the fabric of our government changed following the Civil War. Whatever tension and give-and-take that may have existed between the state and federal governments before 1861 was completely and irrevocably changed following the war and the passage of the 14th Amendment. For all practical purposes, we were no longer a union of free and independent states; it became unequivocally clear that the federal government was the dominant force and the states subservient. The 17th Amendment took things even further in that regard. Since that time, the states have progressively descended into being little more than administrative bodies implementing the will of those in Washington and whatever limitations we may have attempted to put on them have gradually eroded until, under the current administration, the government now has the authority to mandate us to purchase products from corporations (and in the process, reveal to corporate strangers all sorts of personal medical information), require that we disclose all of our financial affairs to Uncle Sam, launch wars without the consent of the people’s representatives, and murder U.S. citizens without due process.

      1. All of this is true. Commenter Robert noted the other day that ideology is never enough to sustain any movement, only self-interest ever is.

        It is sad that the vast majority of citizens in this country can only see the short term interests and not that in the long run liberty is greatly to their advantage.

        1. I think the problem stems, at least in part, from the fact that political systems in general, and our current system in particular, tend to reward power-grabs and underhanded behavior while punishing honesty and accountability. I don’t trust anyone in politics because anybody who goes into politics is either (1) after money, (2) after power, (3) thinks he knows how to run your life better than you do, or (4) some combination of the above.

  16. So Iowa gets snow and I get 60 F the week after Christmas?? Not cool Iowa, not cool.

  17. We established the parameters within which government must operate no matter who holds office.

    Which have since been interpreted by a group of 9 Top Men who believe A = not A. It was their job to hold the other two branch’s feet to the fire. Whenever Americans do ever actually get the balls to overclock some weapons grade woodchippers, these folks should be the first in line. It didn’t take very many generations for us the throw all that away.

    I don’t think I am a libertarian any more because you can only practice that philosophy when you can somehow enforce NAP. I leave people alone and if they don’t leave me a lone, there used to be recourse with the law. The rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, being compensated for takings. Those sort of things I think are preconditions for any sort of libertarian society. And if there are too many threats that impose on your freedom I don’t think you can practice libertainism. You can be one in your head, but not on the street.

    1. I would argue that when police officers have a defacto and dejure license to kill, as they do today, you no longer live in republic of limited enumerated powers. I don’t recall summary executions being in the list of Article 1, Section 8

      1. Not to nit-pick, because I agree that the police in this country are out of control, but cops are (1) agents of the state governments, not the federal government, and therefore not operating under the U.S. Constitution, and (2) tend to be an arm of the executive branch, not the legislative.

  18. I wasn’t even aware of O’Malley. Now I like his style.

  19. When I first saw this headline, I assumed it was from The Onion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.