Kent v. David: Positive Discussion or Pointless Distraction?

Steven,

You make very good points. My decision to run came late,and I made the decision after it became clear that David Price would not support impeachment or commit to ending the Iraq war now, and after it was clear that no "legitimate" progressive candidate would risk running.

I think your argument has merit that a weak showing on my part may hurt progressives. On the other hand,if David had no opposition it would send an equally weak message that we are content with the status quo.I am not content and that is why I decided to run at the 11th hour.

I am spending my own money and I am trying to increase my visibility within those constraints.

For what it's worth, my web site traffic has been increasing significantly over the past week. About 90% pledge to vote for me and are requesting yard signs.

I think I have the right message. I regret that I do not have the right political pedigree.

At any rate voters will have a choice,and if i fail to win the primary, the odds are that we will still have a good man and moderate democrat representing us in Congress.

The times, they are a-changin'

From Time Magazine:

And Democrats can't be accused of lacking ideas: many of the party's most prominent leaders are putting out long tomes detailing their views. Later this month, Ted Kennedy's book America Back on Track will lay out ideas to ensure universal health care for all Americans, and House Democrat Rahm Emanuel and former Clinton aide Bruce Reed will put out a modestly titled book called The Plan in August that includes ideas such as a national science and technology center modeled on the National Institutes of Health. Illinois Senator Barack Obama has told the Chicago Tribune his new book The Audacity of Hope, due out in October, will look to show how politicians can "shift away from ideological debates and focus on traditional American common sense."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1179973,00.html

The actions of these "innovators" in the Democratic Party remind me of a cross between Rip Van Winkle and Paul Revere - kind of a Twilight Zone episode.

Here's a piece which casts Rahm Emanuel in a different light.

http://workinglife.typepad.com/daily_blog/2006/04/earth_to_meliss.html

Please forgive me for hammering away at this, but I'm really amazed at the denial that a lot of self-described "progressives" have when it comes to the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama appeared at a fund-raiser for Joe Lieberman and made an urgent plea for donations to return him to office. Joe Lieberman (along with Hillary Clinton) may be the foremost warmonger in the Democratic Party and is just a little to the right of Bush, Inc. on most issues. It is nothing short of mind-blowing that anyone with a progressive agenda would support or promote any of these three sleazy politicos.

Before casting this aside as not relevant to local politics, consider the power of such a progressive node as Chapel Hill - then consider what a squandering of that power occurs when we rationalize & double-think and don't repudiate "inside-the-beltway" politics by supporting candidates like Kent Kanoy who are clearly articulating positions that we believe in.

If David Price is a "progressive" what do we call people who are in favor of national health care, believe that local governments should have more control over food than agribusiness, oppose the anti-constitutional Patriot Act, oppose the U.S. presence in Iraq, and oppose nuclear power?

It's good to hear that local activists are gathering to support such stands. On the other hand, it is a little disconcerting that at the next election most of the same people will be working to elect people who don't agree with the resolutions that were passed. And a lot of them will then be castigating the people who do agree with the resolutions that were passed for not voting for the people who don't support the resolutions. Sometimes I can't see the forest when I'm treed.

Mark -- you just called Barak Obama a sleazy politico. I don't think you have anything else to say.

Jason,

I was meeting with the Chatham County Chapter of the African American Democratic Caucus on saturday and missed the convention.Those resolutions passed are encouraging.

Did the resolution on Iraq set a deadline for ending the occupation, and if so,what is the deadline ?

Did the support for national health care call for congress to support a specific plan such as the National Health Insurance Act (hr 676) ?

Any mention of the need to protect the Constitution ?

Any mention of censure or impeachment ?

Kent

That's Barak O-bomb-a when it comes to Iran. Bush, Inc. loves the way he falls in line.

On a local note - I heard David Price was at that Orange County Democratic Party convention. Did he vote for those resolutions or not? Either way he's got some explaining to do. Did anyone ask for some explanations from him or even ask how he would work to represent the policies espoused by the local party?

The BBC NewsHour interviewed Seymour Hirsch yesterday about his article in the New Yorker on the administrations plan to use nuclear bombs (bunker busters?) on Iran.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

Now this is something I expect the Democratic Party to take a very strict stance on. Let's not let them wait until after we have a mess like Iraq. They need to stop this discussion before it goes any further.

My interest in David price's lesser known votes and positions was piqued when I discovered that he had voted for the anti-consumer, pro-agribusiness National Uniformity for Food Act.

I have discovered that he is a strong defender of not regulating genetically modified crops and food. He has voted against bills that would pressure the food industry to disclose the exact nature of genetic modifications in a product. He voted to support Bush's challenge to the European moratorium on the trade of genetically modified U.S. crops.

His list of major donors does not give any direct clues about his allegiance to corporate agribusiness. UNC & Duke are top contributors (corporate research money??), followed by GlaxoSmithKline.

His votes on "free trade" are pretty much right down the line on the side of multinational corporate control of the global economy.

Any one have any insights into why he supports the anti-consumer Big Ag bills? And the bigger question - why does he have so much knee-jerk support from people who are generally progressive in their views? There is some sort of disturbing denial going on that we need to understand.

Mark,
Doesn't Rep. Price still have some unofficial relationship with Duke? I seem to remember somebody in Duke's administration telling me that at one point.
As for UNC, I would guess research money is the big reason. I'm not sure I get the corporate research money reference. Someone at the county convention was dominating his time talking about the National Uniformity for Food Act. Maybe he will check into OP and tell us what Rep. Price had to say.

I used to be in favor of some GM foods. However, this story changed my mind completely. Allergic reactions in a GM combination where neither part causes allergies by themselves.

Not to open up old wounds, I just want to make sure no one missed today's N&O:

http://www.newsobserver.com/662/story/528749.html

Or the fine work of folks at BlueNC:

http://www.bluenc.com/david-price-in-critical-new-congressional-role

If you don't feel like following the links, just know that Rep. Price suddenly has one of the most important jobs of any member in this new congress.

Talked to him about it a couple of weeks ago and he's fixin' to do some oversight. Already talked to Chertoff. Here's the column link:
http://www.exileonjonesstreet.com/2006/12/14/price-in-line-for-key-post/

From Exile:

Though he has yet to be named chairman, Price, who moves up to senior Democrat with the retirement of Minnesota's Martin Sabo, was paid a visit last week by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson.

It was not a highly detailed look at the budget, Price says, more of a discussion of priorities and the progress of a reorganization of the department mandated by Congress this year. Price told Chertoff he favors an “all hazard approach” when it comes to prioritizing disaster preparedness. The administration, Price says, has shifted too many resources away from first responders, emergency preparedness and helping local law enforcement, choosing to focus almost exclusively on terrorism. “First responders actually have less help than they did before 9/11.”

The congressman wants to take a hard look at the role and strength of FEMA and says it is likely that the committee will turn to the DHS inspector general and the General Accounting Office as part of a broader inquiry into the operation of DHS and how effectively all 22 agencies have been integrated.

Democrats, he says, are determined to revise the idea of checks and balances. “It's one of the things we had campaigned on. Congress shut down as an oversight operation.”

I think this is very important - and undeniably local since so much local effort went into supporting Heath Shuler. Remember how important it was - according to local Democratic leadership - to strongly support Heath Shuler?

Check this out - the guy is just another genetically modified Republican. Big war supporter, wiretap enthusiast, fiscal conservative (whatever that hell that means anymore...)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081007J.shtml

Fool me once, etc. - but fool me how many times now?!?

Jason-

I know a couple years ago back in our side's secret evil lair it was estimated that you would need more money to unseat Bill Faison than you would to unseat David Price. So unless you find someone rich, I don't think anyone with a chance will think the costs would be worth the benefits. However, I have little love for people who buy their seats, so if you find someone, tell them I'd be happy to donate the first ten bucks to their campaign.

But will Faison run for re-election to his House seat or will he try to move up to the state Senate?

With his money and with Moses Carey and Mike Nelson spliting the liberal vote, he´d have a good chance to win, I think, IF he got 40% in the first primary. If he didn´t, the second primary would be a real barnburner.

If he does run for re-election, he´s a lock. Anyone who runs against him would be on a suicide mission.