Kent v. David: Positive Discussion or Pointless Distraction?

Thanks for the BlueNC link. I'm not sure that you have to make up your mind anytime soon. If your view of Kanoy's campaign is that it's a way to send a message to an incumbent who is going to get reelected (almost) no matter what, you've got a month and a half to milk the message. That is, use the occasion Kanoy has provided to talk about the issues and (this is important) be in touch with Price's office.

I don't have to make up my mind at all, as I have the misfortune to live just beyond the reach of David's district in Cobleland.

So, tell me, if David Price is so invulnerable (although he has lost in a former version of this district), why does he spend so much time talking to us? He has frequent public meetings, and he attends numerous other events where he is quite approachable (I last spoke with him at the ACLU-NC's award dinner). He has a regular call-in television show (suspended, I believe, until after the primary). He has local offices with people who are very easy to talk with.

I submit that Price is very interested in what we think. You linked to Anglico's interview with Kanoy. Price took the time to talk with Anglico, too. It's worth reading.

So what if Price "only" calls for a special counsel rather than impeachment at this time. Do you seriously believe that he wouldn't love to see Bush impeached, the Republicans run out of town, and the restoration of a government that will care for its people again?

Sure he's voted for bills that I don't agree with, for example, the bankrupcy bill, but he sure as heck sounded sincere when he explained to me that it was the best we were going to get. He may not vote the way we like every time, but how do you question the motives of someone who listens, works and votes as well as he does? You may not like his professorial style, but if you just go listen to him these days, you'll hear the anger of an Old Testament prophet just below the surface.

josh and lance:

thanks for the posts. your questions and points speak directly to the purpose of my campaign,and i hope healthy debate will ensue.

will :

my hope has been that other groups would "use" this campaign to publicize the desire/need to have congress pursue impeachment and ending the iraq war.

george:

your post captures perfectly the case for leaving david price alone.let me say that i have voted for david many times, and i think he is a kind and decent man. considering some of the other nc members of congress, the 4th district has been fortunate to have david representing its interests.

i have made no attacks against david price. i have pointed out the fact that he will not co-sponsor either the conyers or the murtha resolutions.

in the paper yesterday, david is quoted as saying he wants the party to hold bush accountable without narrowing the party's appeal. i take a different view. i believe that Dems are hungering for bold leadership on these important issues. given the relative safety of his seat, david is in the best position to take a major leadership role in redefining the party and returning it to its core beliefs.

we need Dem members in congress to stand beside courageous members such as john conyers, john murtha, and russ feingold. i hope david will do that. if not,then i'm more than willing to take his place.

From a purely apolitical standpoint, I'd like to point out that David Price has good reason for public campaigning -- especially this year, when there isn't a Senate, gubernatorial or presidential race on the state ballot.

Last time that happened? 1994. And I'm sure Mr. Price is acutely aware of how he fared that year. Granted, the political winds are much different -- there's no Contract with America or anything like that -- but I'm sure that's in the back of his mind.

Response to my good friend George Entenman (who wishes he had one more n in his name so he could be independently wealthy).

One word, George: Leadership.

I can cite one example where David Price has shown genuine political courage and that is his progressive position on Palestine.

Other than that, can you cite any other example where David showed anything remotely like leadership? His track record on Iraq is abysmal, given the sentiments of his District. Yes, he voted against the Iraq War resolution, but he gets antsy when you remind him (as I have) that that was preceded by a multi-day sit-in in his office. He says that vote was an "obvious decision." If so, then why not greet the demonstrators and tell them his position. No he waffled and waffled, but fortunately listened to his constituency.

Now, lets move forward to 2003 and 2004 $87B supplements for Iraq. Not one peep from our Congressman who then says in July, 2005 how awful the Bush Admin policy has been. What about making that case when the winds were not at his back? And, of course, in July 2005, David was still preaching the Stay the Course gospel .. until he got the message at the Iraq Forum.

The Price-Miller Iraq resolution is an Emperor with no clothes. The resolution that he brags on in fact asks Bush (yes with an !) to create an exit plan and then his resolution offers nothing in the way of consequences for ignoring it, if passed.

David Price is heads and shoulders above many other Dems. No doubt. But the District deserves even better. We deserve and would support a Paul Wellstone.

Nuff said...

While it would be nice to have more leadership attacking Bush, there is more to do than beat up on Democrats who have done decent jobs. Before Democrats can wield real power, they have to take back at least one branch of government. In North Carolina, we have the opportunity to make a dent on the Republican majority in Congress.

North Carolina's 8th District, should be Democratic. A majority of the voters are registered Ds, the district has lost more textile jobs than any in the country and incumbent Robin Hayes cast the deciding vote for CAFTA after pledging to oppose it--the same trick he pulled with Fast-track legislation.

Dems have lost the district because they have failed to recruit a viable challenger. This year, a real grassroots progressive is running who can win. Larry Kissell is high school social studies teacher who spent 27 years in the textile industry until his job got out-sourced (the guy whose job got sent overseas vs. the guy who sent it.)

Kissell can win the race. He was late to the starting gate but he's putting together a professional campaign that is still staffed by volunteers. He has gained enough momentum that his main primary opponent dropped out. Most importantly, Larry is a candidate who truly fits this district.

However, the district is poor and Kissell will need help from outside of the area. Orange County progressives should put their energies into this effort. Here's more information on Kissell and the campaign.

http://www.montgomeryherald.com/articles/2006/03/22/news/top_stories/new...
http://www.larrykissell.com/
http://www.actblue.com/page/larrykissell

I'm with Millstone. Instead of indulging in the Price-Kanoy drama, we should be focused on helping Larry Kissell beat Robin Hayes. And don't forget about Heath Shuler taking on Charles Taylor, too. Both Kissell and Shuler deserve any financial or volunteer support you're willing to consider.

As I've said on several occasions, I admire Kent Kanoy's gutsy effort and appreciate that he was kind enough to interview with us at BlueNC. I like what he had to say. We also interviewed David Price. If you haven't had the chance to read his interview, I encourage you to do so. It made me proud to be represented by such a thoughtful man. Is he perfect? Of course not. No one is. But he's a damn fine congressman -- and we have WAY bigger fish to fry in this country without burning our time and energy on a Price-Kanoy battle.

Anglico

PS If you haven't sent a contribution to Kissell and Shuler, now would be a great time to do that. They both need our help . . . and I would hate like hell to wake up on November 8th to find North Carolina didn't do it's share to take back our government.

Heath Shuler
Larry Kissell

Do it now. Okay?

I admire Mr. Kanoy for his convictions and for his willingness to put himself and his own cash into a very tough competition.

But I think the post's heading is irrelevant. Kanoy's not making enough noise to distract Price, let alone the rest of us. And a positive discussion? Why would Price engage? He can ignore Kanoy and get away with it.

Kanoy won't take money to ratchet up his public presence. He's not communicating much of a strategy, beyond hoping others will take the ball and run with it, apparently. He's looking for volunteers, but his site doesn't indicate what he wants them to do.

His campaign website doesn't have positions on any issues beyond the ones that he's calling Price on. The front page of his website reads as though he's running against Bush in the Democratic primary for NC4.

People less invested than us, when they hear Kanoy's name (IF they ever hear his name with next to zero ad budget), will google him and this is what they'll find: first results are five pages from his campaign website, two from his Amazon reviews, a blog post from downingstreetactionnc.blogspot.com, his work page at Duke, and finally ONE article from the Herald Sun, which actually has some good coverage.

Folks who aren't online are even less likely to hear of him.

When Jacquie Gist made noises about running against Price, I was excited. Her campaign would have been a complete longshot (as is pretty much anybody running against a fairly popular incumbent), but I'm positive that Price would not have been able to ignore her or, more importantly, her message.

bob shrum shared the Dem playbook with chris mathews last night on hardball. they will make no issue of impeachment or censure. they will make no issue of when to bring the troops home. they will step back and let bush "implode" between now and november.

this is what the national leadership has to offer. it sounds like the national strategy is to commit to nothing and campaign on a platform of "we're not them".

i continue to hear that my race with david price has dire consequences for the 8th district race. can someone enlighten me as to how this is the case ?

let me respond to bill's criticism of my campaign strategy and viability. he is correct that ,in large part, my campaign serves as a referendum on bush/cheney,and i make no apologies for that. he is also accurate in describing my "google history". i have no political pedigree. i have never held office. i am a working stiff social worker who wants to give the 4th district an opportunity to express their concern about bush and the national leadership(or lack thereof) of the Dem party.

bill is not correct when he disses my web site. i have had dozens of emails offering to volunteer and we have contacted each one to give assignments. what is personally gratifying are the emails that are coming from out of state expressing support and wishing they could vote for me.

and bill...you never responded to my request to help us man our campaign table at the chapel hill library on saturday. i would enjoy meeting you.

kent

I believe that the Iraq War is a huge disaster and a pre-meditated high crime. I believe that Bush and Co. have broken the law and should therefore be impeached. I believe that our society has the obligation and capability to provide basic health care for all. I believe that the death penalty is immoral. I believe that corporations have hijacked our society in nearly every way.

When I held my nose and voted for Kerry I vowed I would never vote for the lesser of two evils again if he failed to win what should have been a total pushover against one of the weakest opponents in history.

David Price does not agree with my political beliefs. So why should I vote for him? After all, if I do, he and the Democratic Party brain-trust will erroneously assume I support his policies.

We are never going to restore an opposition party unless we start to express our opposing views.

A quick update on the war against Charles Taylor. Some of his constituents have created an awesome website calling him to account. Go check it out . . .

taylorsucks.org

the mention of this area having its own paul wellstone 'style' politician got me excited about the prospect.

true leadership seems so rare these days.

Thanks, Mark.

You eloquently express what i have been feeling for the past 6 years. It seems that our party has chosen to run on a platform of promising to be a more competent version of the republican party. For all of its many shortcomings, my campaign does provide the opportunity for 4th district Dems to say,"thanks but no thanks. "

Kent, the answer to your invitation is "no". I want to pressure Price, not merely express my concern.

And you missed the point about my googling: your campaign is not registering in any meaningful way that would break out of the blogosphere and I see no evidence that will happen or that you are actively attempting to make it happen.

I understand and share your frustration with the state of things. I admire you for the sacrifice you're making to campaign, obviously more of a sacrifice than I am willing to make. But, as things stand, it's not enough to make an impact.

Mark, I swear to God, sometimes I just don't understand what you're talking about. Which of your political beliefs does David Price not share? Do you really believe that the two of you have less in common ideologically than the Republican who is also trying to become your representative?

Sometimes living in this country is about choosing the lesser of two evils. But when you vote for David Price (or for John Kerry) you're not voting for evil. Congressman Price has done incredible things for this district, and he has provided incredible leadership for progressives in this country. It's time you acknowledged that.

And if we actually win back the House in this election (which seems less likely when we're challenging strong Democrats like David Price instead of corrupt Republicans like Charles Taylor) our Congressman will be one of the senior members in the majority party on the Appropriations Committee. He could easily become a chair of one of the subcommittees. That would make him one of the most powerful Congressmen in the Democratic Party.

It would also mean that he would be in an incredible position to influence the progressive agenda for this country. He's never going to agree all the time with any of us. But above all else, you can count on Congressman Price listening to his constituents. And in a democracy like ours, that's the type of leader I want shaping the direction of Congress.

My money and my time are going to be spent trying to defeat Charles Taylor and other Republicans this year. Mark, I'd respect you a lot more if you'd make the same pledge.

David Price helped OWASA and UNC get funding to make the water reuse project possible. Clearly he and Mark do share some environmental values. It might be useful to consider those *values* that we all do share rather than concentrating exclusively on policy and tactical disagreements. To me, the kind of concerns Mark and others express here should be clearly and loudly expressed once political balance is reestablished in Congress.

Terri

Terri makes the point (with a lot less space) that I've been talking about. Mark, Kent Kanoy, and David Price have much more in common with each other than they do with the alternatives we have.

No matter what Kent or Mark would like to think, we aren't going to get change in Washington by yelling what we want and demanding that the Republicans listen to us because we're pissed. We're going to force policy changes by winning a majority. And fighting each other doesn't help that.

Let me just focus on one simple, narrow fact. In the run-up to the Iraq War, I knew the reasons were bullshit and I knew why they had been fabricated. I basically understood the entire plot to invade Iraq. I was not alone. Millions of people knew the same things. None of us sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee like war-supporter John Edwards or had up-close perspectives on the criminals that were steering policy like our elected reps. Those of us who saw the deadly scam forming are not geniuses or uniquely connected to secret information. We just have our common sense, an awareness that comes from paying attention over the years and a moral compass. In the end, it was not that difficult to see the clumsy fabrications and to be able to trace the strategy back to its roots in the Project for a New American Century. For an elected representative to fail to understand the movement of events, fail to have an awareness of the scumbags that were behind this scam, and fail to realize the huge repercussions of letting it happen is nearly unbelievable. In fact, it appears that there are only two options that could account for their naivete or tragically mistaken responses - either they were dumber than fish or they were so caught up in some narcotic political double-think that they managed to cause imbalances in their mental faculties. Either way, they fucked up when we most needed some basic leadership born of a little native intelligence.

How can their disconnect from reality be explained or justified? How can I look at myself in the mirror and support such people who have proven themselves inadequate to the most fundamental requirements of a elected representative in a democracy?

Matt C. - why shouild I support Price's position on health care when I favor universal health care?

Mark:

David Price voted against the war. That's pretty much the definition of leadership. And if you want change in Iraq, you better hope for a Democratic majority in the fall.

And you should support David Price because his position on health care is a heck of a lot closer to your own than the alternative.

I don't measure against what's better than the alternatives. That of course is what the corporate-worshiping DNC hopes everyone will do.

Rice Krispies are better for you than Frosted Flakes. Neither one constitutes healthy food.

Matt,

Why do you suppose Price did not co-sponsor Jim McGovern's bill to stop funding the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq: H.R. 4232, the "End the War in Iraq Act of 2005?

The bill would allow Defense Department funds to be used only to provide for: the safe and orderly withdrawal of all troops; consultations with other governments, NATO, and the UN regarding international forces; and financial assistance and equipment to either Iraqi security forces and/or international forces. In addition, the bill would not prohibit or restrict non-defense funding to carry out reconstruction in Iraq.

This will be my last example for now (this is like shooting fish in a barrel...)

Here is Price's position on Energy (this is within his Environment position, he doesn't give Energy it's own major heading):

"Enacting a Sound Energy Plan

I believe that our country should be more aggressively supporting the development of alternative and renewable energy sources, improving the efficiency of our energy use, and providing incentives for conservation.

Unfortunately, Congress passed comprehensive energy legislation in July that largely ignores the problem. I voted against the Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6), precisely because it did not go far enough to improve energy efficiency and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. H.R. 6 fails to strike an acceptable balance between increased energy production and the need to promote conservation and renewable energy development. In addition, the bill does too little to encourage new alternative-fuel technologies and did not increase efficiency standards for automobiles.

Fortunately, the bill does not contain some controversial provisions included in the earlier House version of the bill that would have posed great risks to environmental protection. The final version of H.R. 6 will not permit oil and gas exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or provide liability protection for makers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has contaminated groundwater around the country."

Arguably, that's a better policy than requiring all citizens to ingest a spoonful of radioactive waste per day but does it come close to spelling out how we meet one of the biggest challenges of our time?

Disclaimer: I do agree that MTBE manufacturers should not have liability protection. I also agree that children should not be enslaved.

Mark:

I don't know where you get the cute notion that making positive comments about a bill or position will produce change, but that's simply not the way that politics works. Not in Chapel Hill and certainly not in Washington.

I'm not going to pretend to speak for David Price, but Jim McGovern's bill has ZERO chance of passage. None. Not while the Republicans control Congress and the White House. So why should the congressman devote time and resources to it? Because it would make you happy? I'm sorry but there are constituients in this district who have problems that David Price can actually address. And yet, we all know that Rep. Price has devoted time and energy and political capital to finding a solution to this war. That is incredibly admirable.

I'm just struck by how naive you seem. The minority in the U.S. House of Representatives are largely powerless to prevent the GOP from running rough shod over the rest of this country, and yet leaders like David Price are doing their damndest to oppose their corruption and incompetence. Your righteous indignation is just so misdirected. Grow up and remember what Kennedy said, "Don't get mad, don't get even. Get ahead."

Let's win back Congress. Then we can produce a positive agenda for this country. Devote your time and energy and cash to that. I'd be really surprised if seeing the Republicans disgraced and out of power didn't make you feel a whole lot better than replacing David Price -- who by anyone's standards should be recognized as one of the most progressive politicians in the South.

Cheers,
Matt

Matt,

You seem to have forgotten that the same Democrats you hold out as keys to saving us from the Republican agenda are the very same people who stood by impotently while the miscreants took over. Their bankrupt strategy for saving the country seemed to be that they would stand by watching the house burn down from the fire that the Republicans set rather than grab a hose and put out the fire.

They figured that the American public would blame the Republicans for the pile of ashes and forget that they witnessed it and did virtually nothing effective.

You also seem to have forgotten that Price didn't vote against the Iraq War until a whole lot of people showed up at his office to - in your words - make positive comments about a bill or position.

How many reps around the country are witholding their support for McGovern's bill because they don't think it has anough support to pass? This is a chicken and egg scenario and you know who the chickens are. So I guess I should only support bills that will pass the Congress?!?

No, Mark. In keeping with your analogy, Democrats like David Price are doing their best to keep the fire under control until reinforcements arrive. They just aren't rushing into that burning building with a thimble full of water.

You keeping bringing up the fact that Price took a little bit of time to make up his mind about the war resolution before annoucing how he would vote. That's exactly right, and good for him. I'd much rather have a leader who takes the time to weigh the evidence before him, rather than one who makes an on-the-spot decision from his gut. When you make that argument, it sounds like you'd rather have a George W. Bush running the show -- a guy who makes up his mind in an instant, then never backs down.

I didn't say David Price is with holding support for McGovern's bill because it doesn't have the votes to pass. I said it wouldn't pass even if every Democrat in the country supported it. George W. Bush has never used a veto. Think about that. His party so thoroughly dominates Congress that he has never vetoed a single piece of legislation. That's why our efforts are better spent fighitng for a Democratic majority in Congress than trying to replace a progressive here at home.

I said it before and I'll say it again -- you are being naive. I'm not trying to attack you, but it's best that you recognize that. Your passion is something that the Democratic party thoroughly needs. But you need to wed that passion with reason. Democrats in the House of Representatives are largely powerless. It's up to us to give them some help. We can do that by supporting candidates like Heath Shuler who have the chance to knock off incumbent Republicans.

Matt - you missed my point. Th building burned down a long time ago. Price et al had plenty of time to call in the fire trucks.

And, check my previous post on the run-up to war. No intelligent person could have supported the war or needed time to weigh evidence. It was clearly a scam from the start.

Mark:

I read your previous post on the run-up to war. I chose to ignore it because it was ridiculous. To say that no intelligent person needed the time to weigh all the evidence is just ignorant. Don't be absurd.

The fact remains that you haven't offered one workable solution to improve the direction for this country. I say that the way that we promote a progressive agenda is to win a majority in the US Congress this November. You seem to be disagreeing with me. So what's your alternative?

Looking back over the past 30 years or so, is there any evidence that a Democratic congressional majority will actually promote a progressive agenda?

My alternative: Pull the plug on the Democratic Party life support sytstem and begin to build an authentic opposition party based on political integrity.

matt:

sincere question...

what agenda is the Dem party promoting in order to win in november ?

There is a great cartoon in the Herald-Sun today that relates to all this stuff.

I'm sorry Mark. I should have said, "What credible alternative do you have to offer?"

Let's quit drowning in cynicism and self-pity. Democratic lawmakers all across this country are promoting a progressive agenda and producing impressive results. It's time for us to help them out.

Matt - I'm looking forward to your response to Kent's question.

Mark M. v. Matt C.: Positive Discussion or Pointless Distraction?

;)

Although this positive distraction would not be complete without a brief synopsis from Matt of the elusive "Democratic Party progressive agenda" which has been the bedrock - yet undefined - assumption of his arguments.

Why don't we just elect Mark -- then we can let him sit through hours of exhaustive debate, have his own folks do research, let him walk the halls and hear about the political strategies and hidden consequences of a bill and let him hear from the other folks in his district and then ask why he didn't vote for our personal pet project bill.

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for bills -- you shouldn't be asking Matt Compton, you should be asking David Price. He tends to eloquently and honestly describe reasons why or why not to vote for something from his view of the total package of a legislative action.

"He seems to view his primary challange as a referendum on what Price should be doing in 3 important area."

This is a bad idea. It's not a narrow referendum on 3 issues -- it's a political primary between two candidates, one of whom is more qualified, for a race against another party. Price winning the democratic endorsement won't necessarily be an endorsement for any particular position... it will be a divide between the folks who are willing to sacrifice an influential member of the appropriations committee who votes VERY progressively on any number of issues and the folks who have enough political sense not to, regardless of what they think about those three issues. Single (or narrow) issue voting is what gets pro-life, anti-gay leaders elected again and again. If more people looked at the range of issues and the overall political context in elections, we'd wind up with better public policy and more deliberative debates (where folks aren't locked in to positions, refusing to listen to reasonable arguments) in every policy area.

Ginny,

Mark isn't running against Price. I am. If you have a criticism about a "three issue" candidate,it should be directed to me.

However, let me take exception with your premise.My campaign is really about one issue : the lack of leadership provided by our national Dem leadership, a paucity of leadership so grave that our party is on track to remain the minority party for decades. We will not or cannot articulate a vision for our country that will carry us to victory in november.Rather, the party is hoping that the Pubs defeat themselves.

Just as the congressional Dems shirked their duty prior to the 2002 elections and gave unthinking carte blanche to the Bush/Cheney administration, the party today is shirking its duty to protect the constitution and hold Bush/Cheney accountable for high crimes.

The party crushed the candidacy of a brave new voice in our party, paul hackett. He couldn't win because he was "too outspoken".The party has refused to commit to bringing the troops home sooner rather than later. The party did a cut and run on Russ Feingold's censure measure.

If the party cannot commit to protecting the constitution or bringing the troops home and make these commitments the centerpiece of its national campaign, then America will continue to view our Dem leaders as directionless at best and spineless at worst. And cartoons similar to the one cited by Mark will continue to pop up on editorial pages acroos the land.

Kent:

My "premise" was actually from the original post by Steinhurst, a characterization you didn't object to until the 43rd comment.

My comment was divided into two parts -- one addressing Mark v. Matt C. and the other addressing the comment in the original post. I think the party organization is a mess on several levels, but I think you provide nothing more than a short-term solution without regard for the long-term health of this seat in our district. I have read repeatedly that you do not intend to take contributions, weakening this seat for a Republican challenger to win. You also have said that you will finish your term and not run again, thereby sacrificing opportunities that Orange County (and NC) have for developing leadership at the highest levels.

If your main issue is "the lack of leadership provided by our national Dem leadership", I don't see how you can counter that with a personal "lack of leadership" provided by someone who really doesn't seem to know much (or care much) about being a long-term leader. A "statement candidate" offers no real leadership, just a statement.

Ginny,

i meant no personal attack upon you and apologize if you took offense at my post.

You may have read repeatedly that i am taking no donations,but this is a point my detractors emphasize , not I.

You, Matt, and other mainstream Dems are obviously content with David Price and the job he has done for the 4th district. David is fortunate to have your support.

My campaign is about pushing for a Dem in a safe Dem seat to move beyond his comfort zone and dare to be a national leader who can help redefine the party and return it to its progressive roots.I respectfully disagree that this campaign "weakens" the seat.

If i win the primary you can bet it will shock the party and force it to re-examine the path it has been following the past 6 years. Short of victory, I hope that the results of my campaign will reassure David Price that it is safe for him to take a few principled stands when it comes to holding Bush/Cheney accountable and ending the war in Iraq.

Thanks for your criticism.

Kent

Kent,

I think it's great you are running and that you are standing up for your convictions. However, I am a little confused by something. You say that you are running on one issue: "the lack of leadership provided by our national Dem leadership, a paucity of leadership so grave that our party is on track to remain the minority party for decades." And yet I have to wonder what kind of leadership alternative you are offering if you don't take up all the issues on which you see the Dem leadership failing. Do you expect that your candidacy alone will influence party direction and philosophy?

It just seems to me that if you think the Dems are so lost, you should run as an independent or a third party. Up until today, I thought you were running in order to bring your (and your supporters) position on Iraq into the public debate.

Terri,

After reading your post and re-reading my earlier one, i understand your confusion which I think is semantic due to my clumsy and imprecise choice of words. Let me try again.

My campaign is predicated on the belief that there are many Dems like me who see our party adrift and messageless because of a fear that a "real" Dem platform cannot win the election in 2006/2008. I believe that a strong Dem message is necessary in order to win in 2006/2008,and I believe that no message will result in defeat.

The major planks in that platform should be impeachment and ending the Iraq war, the two issues i emphasize because of the current constitutional crisis we face and the loss of life which is occuring each day. There are other important issues,as well, including advocating for national health care,advocating gay marriage(and adoption), increasing the minimum wage, implementing economic policies that build wealth from the bottom up not the top down, protecting our environment,and implementing an immigration policy that is fair and humane.

I understand and accept that many Dems do not believe as I do. There are many voters who are content with their local and national representation in congress. Those voters have a very good man to vote for on may 2nd. For those voters who want the party to stand proudly on a true Dem platform without apology,then they have another good man (I would like to think) to vote for on may 2nd who shares and represents that desire.

Kent--I guess my questions would be more tactical than strategic, like most of the debate above:

Who is backing your candicacy? Did you consult with many people across the broad range of constituents in David Price's district to determine whether there is widespread support for such a challenge? How do you plan to run such a campaign, particularly with no contributions? It seems to me that campaigns like Ralph Nader's for President (in 2004 and even in 2000) or Cynthia Brown's for Senate that make a lot of noise and then wind up with unimpressive vote totals do more to demonstrate the weakness of the left than threaten the establishment The 'you're with me or you're against me' attitude of Nader did more to isolate radicals from liberals than to build people's power. Something to watch out for.