Renee Ellmers is getting yet another challenger in the Second District primary race: Tim D’Annunzio, a businessman who lives in Raeford, just outside the district. He filed his candidacy two days ago. (Congresswoman Ellmers has yet to do so.)
Longtime observers of state politics have heard the name D’Annunzio before. A veteran and founder of a business that sold body armor to police and military personnel, D’Annunzio was a Tea Party hero back in 2010, when he was a candidate for Congress in the 8th district. He did not make it out of the primary, thanks to the staunch opposition of the Republican establishment. The party chairman at the time, Tom Fetzer, called him “unfit for public office at any level.”
To make a long story short, Republicans in the state party and in Washington eventually reached the conclusion that D’Annunzio was kind of a nut, and nominating him would embarrass the GOP and lose them a competitive seat. (D’Annunzio lost in a runoff to the more acceptable Harold Johnson, a sportscaster who himself lost to Democrat Larry Kissell that November.)
Despite this setback, D’Annunzio returned two years later and was the Republican nominee against David Price in the 4th district, an ultra-liberal district stretching from the Research Triangle to Fayetteville designed to pick up as many Democrats as possible. The D’Annunzio campaign ran radio ads against Price, presumably financed with the candidate’s personal fortune – highly unusual in such a lopsided district. In the end, he won only a quarter of the vote.
At some point after this loss, D’Annunzio became a Libertarian and ran in that party’s primary for U.S. Senate. Apparently Libertarians found him to be too conservative for their liking, and he lost to Sean Haugh.
Now, D’Annunzio is a Republican again, and will probably add more chaos to the already chaotic Second District race. The real question is whether he plans to spend some real money on his campaign. If he does, he might further divide the anti-Ellmers vote in the primary and make it easier for Ellmers to slip through once again. Remember, all she needs is 40%. To recap, Ellmers’ challengers include D’Annunzio, Club for Growth-endorsed Jim Duncan, Kay Daly, and Frank Roche – and there might be more on the way. Ellmers, Daly, and Roche have not filed yet.
This primary is definitely one worth watching over the next three months, as Ellmers is considered the member of Congress most vulnerable to a conservative challenge. If nothing else, D’Annunzio’s entry will add even more entertainment to the race.
John Wynne is the “conservative voice” at PoliticsNC, where he also provides polling analysis and commentary on legislative campaigns. When not writing about politics, he enjoys gardening and listening to opera. Contact: johncwynne@gmail.com.
Tim doesn’t like to be criticized, which I have done to him on Face Book. Now, he has taken all of my comments off of that page, and taken away the ability to make new comments. Don’t worry, Tim, I have gotten removed from a FB page for Hillary, also. In my opinion, all candidates are up for scrutiny and criticism, even some I may agree with. Mr. D’Annuzio has shown that he can’t be trusted in Congress; I have every right to be heard and recognized by my representative, and Tim has shown that he will only recognize those who are in agreement with him. The previous commenter is correct, there are limits to every movement and Tim represents that limit. If I were a republican faced with those running in the Second District, I would have to stay with Renee.
D’Annunzio is running again? I like to see the right wing base giving the old Republican establishment a scare after that establishment used them over and over again. But there are limits to every movement and he represents that limit. I just realized he posted above. Well, I will let that post speak for itself. Sheesh….
Matt Phillippi, if you were to tell the full story you would have to include my response went on to tell of the precedent found in our amending the constitution to change Senators from being appoint by the state – to as it is now – having to be elections. It is the 17th Amendment ratified April 8th 1913 that changed it. I went on to say in theory we could amend the Constitution in the same way to have the members of the supreme court stand for election in a similar manner. And thank you for the perfect lead into telling about the other comments this article repeats, and as with the the original reporting, they are bits of conversations taking out of context and used in creating a new meaning out of whole cloth. This is typical media and political attacks. Matt, your example here perfectly illustrates the politics of person destruction. And for full disclosure – the ark I was speaking of in the original conversation is the one mentioned in Revelation 11:19 where it is revealed that Christ became the new “ark” carrying the New Testament. That is what and Who I found. But none of this matter because it is the truth and there isn’t an attacking that can be made of from truth. So, the damage is already done and that is the cross I will bear if need be in order to do what must be done. I will not be deterred!
Bulls@$t. All you said was “I don’t see why we couldn’t do that.” I may still have the video around somewhere.
I know it would be pretty much just token opposition but I was wondering if any Democrats have filed yet for the district?
Funny story, I once attended an A’nnunzio event as part of an opposition research job. He held a pocket copy of Constitution in his hand the whole time as a prop. When an older tea party gentleman asked him why we couldn’t put term limits on the Supreme Court, A’nnunzio replied “I don’t see why we couldn’t do that.” It was all I could do not to stand up and shout, “Its in your hand why we can’t do that!”
*”Its in the Constitution, you’re literally holding the reason in your hand!”
“unfit for public office at any level.” That defines the Republican Party now, doesn’t it?
And your mom