Will someone please take away Kirby’s Facebook account?

How many times do we need to say that? (And we only half-heartrendingly mean it because it’s an endless source of material for us.)  His social media skills have caused him national embarrassment when he so sloppily interpreted the 1st amendment. And if you search through our archives, you’ll find example after example of his Facebook ineptitude. It never ends. So we really shouldn’t be surprised to see something like this make it our way:



That post was a result of the big meanies at the FNP calling his legislating style out in this morning’s editorial. So like the grown up that he is, he lashes out at M.C. with some pretty outrageous accusations. We cannot envision for a moment that M.C. would choose to confide in the two of them if she had any frustrations about Bud. Nor can we believe that M.C. would support Billy as the VP of the council. So, we asked around our Yokel world and were told that this is not a thing that happened. So unless and until Kirby can prove that these things actually happened, (And we won’t be holding our breath!) someone really needs to babysit him when he’s on the social media.

Your Friday dose of excuses and witch hunts!


In today’s Political Notes, Danielle Gaines, touches on the Kirby sign controversy. (Your Lady Yokels are mentioned!) What excuse does Kirby offer for his Mantrum Facebook post?

“I took a sign off my property that was not authorized to be there,” Delauter said.

As far as the “One shot one kill” statement, Delauter said it was intended only to tell Republicans to vote only for Rose in Tuesday’s election. (There are three open seats on the ballot.)

“It has nothing to do with harming anybody,” Delauter said. The reference refers to having one shot to place a Republican on the school board. If GOP voters also vote for a Democrat, it would “kill” their support for Rose.

First off, there’s three open seats on the board. So if every Republican voted for Cindy and one or two other Democrats it wouldn’t necessarily “kill” their support for Rose.  This strategy of one vote is really myopic and prevents people from exploring candidates for the other two open seats. Essentially they are allowing everyone else to choose the two other candidates that will sit on the board by encouraging them to give up those votes. Now, as to whether or not either one of those signs was authorized to be there:

The Maryland State Highway Administration removes political and other temporary signs from state roads within a general right of way. The agency considers that area to be the space between utility poles on either side of a road, SHA spokesman David Buck said. The right of way could include private land.

“No non-approved signing is allowed in our roadways. Period,” Buck said.

SHA workers will pick up signs when they see them and take them back to local shops. The agency focuses particularly on areas where drivers should pay attention, such as ramps.

“The last thing we want people to do when they should be devoting their full attention to driving is … looking at a whole bunch of campaign signs,” Buck said.

And honestly, the point of all this wasn’t really about whether the signs should be there or not. It was about the way that Kirby handled the whole situation…on Facebook..like a petulant child.

Now that’s not the only goody in the Political Notes section this fine morning. Kirby wants to know who is behind ads in some local papers asking voters to support Yes on Questions A and B.

Well, the paper found out in two flashes of a kitten’s tail. County Executive Jan Gardner. After clearing it with the legal department and seeing that other jurisdictions have done the same, it was decided to run the ad in three local papers. What we love, love, love about this section the most is this quote:

In an interview, Laxton noted that the County Council voted 7-0 in support of the measure, and the ad was forwarded to the council’s leadership before it was approved for printing.

Which doesn’t exactly mesh with this quote from earlier in the article:

“I’m trying to figure out who authorized payment for that,” Delauter said in a phone interview.

Sigh. You voted for both of these charter amendments Kirby! And if you had bothered to ask just one person at Winchester Hall we bet you would have found the answer to your question.  But that is not the # way is it?

Kirby please take a break this weekend. Back away from the computer, stay away from signs and just kick back and relax. We beg you!


#kirbydelauter will kill your signs!!!

Sorry Creampuff. We know it's something new everyday.
Sorry Creampuff. We know it’s something new everyday.

In his grand tradition of posting his trangressions on social media, Kirby shared this today:



One shot one kill? What is that supposed to mean?  Oh, Kirby you really should close your account. Have you learned nothing from the whole hashtag incident? Or from your friend Blaine?  For your own good, shut your account down!

Is there a Yokel legal expert in the house who can explain the penalty if a current office holder were to be found stealing or destroying campaign signs?

Why didn’t the charter amendments on the ballot include one for recalls?