View Article
11
North Carolina’s most famous Democrat, Jim Hunt, ran for statewide office six times and each time gave the liberal Democrat running for President a wide berth – and so did Mike Easley when he ran in 2000 (Al Gore) and 2004 (John Kerry). And no one thought much of it.
 
But now two Democratic Congressmen – Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissel – are giving another liberal Democrat, Barack Obama, a wide berth and all blazes has broken loose with one Democratic County Chairman wanting to drum Kissell out of the party.
 
Back in the old days if you attended a political rally in North Carolina you’d hear folks say with pride, I vote for the man not the party – and in the audience heads would nod. But in these more enlightened times if you go to a Republican Convention and stand up and say, Well, surely you don’t believe there’s a U.N. one-world government conspiracy afoot to take over North Carolina through zoning laws,  then another delegate is likely to jump up and say, That fellow’s not a Republican, he’s a crazy liberal who doesn’t believe in Agenda 21;-- or if a Democratic candidate expresses a dram of doubt about the wisdom of Washington-run health care a local Democratic Party Chairman will jump up, declare him a pariah and add, horrified, That fellow ought to be a Republican – let’s run him out of town on a rail.
 
Years ago, Jesse Helms (who was no respecter of political parties) used to campaign all across North Carolina saying, I don’t care which party straightens the country out  – as long as one of them does.
 
Maybe that sentiment is no longer true. Maybe it was never true. But, then again, maybe today we have a problem with convention delegates and county chairmen.

 

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (2) RSS comment feed |

Comments

apowens
# apowens
Friday, July 13, 2012 9:13 AM
This seems a bit simplistic. In my mind, to be sure, the thoughtful, civic-minded, policy-over-party type deserves respect. Indeed I hope I'm one. There is a difference, though, between (1) regarding policy over party versus (2) accepting one party's talking points over another's.

If a politician genuinely disagrees with his nominal party's position on an issue, or if the politician believes that truly representing his/her constituency requires a position opposite his/her party, then that politician ought not be booed in that occasional opposition.

That's alot different, though, than choosing the opposing party's talking-point version of a policy or going with the opposing party's side because you think your constituents agree with that inaccurate portrayal.

Health care is a good example(and this isn't an argument on the merits of ACA, so take this all as 'for argument's sake'). Let's say the ACA really created a single payer system of goverment-run insurance, hospitals, and doctor's offices. Reasonable people can differ on the wisdom of that, and a Democrats in conservative districts ought to think that one out carefully.

But let's say ACA kept the existing private insurance, hospitals, doctor's offices system, allowed everyone to keep existing plans, created a broader market with more competition, and tossed in a few regulations to make insurance companies more consumer frieldy. Of course, the opposing party is going to distort the actual policy. The Democrat in a conservative district has a choice: (1) talk to the constituents, make sure they really know the policy, then work with them to conclude on how the politician and constituents really feel about the policy; or (2) assume the constituents believe the distorted version of the policy, assume you're in a conservative district wherein you win only by convincing them you're conservative, and vote with the opposing party.

Choice 2 strikes me as weak - and I think that's why folks have been disappointed.
Carbine
# Carbine
Monday, July 16, 2012 12:55 PM
Choice #1 is an impossibility, since virtually no one really knows how this Rube Goldberg monstrosity of a law is really going to work. You can't explain what you don't understand, and I've yet to meet a proponent of the law that truly understands it. When Nancy Pelosi quipped that they would have to pass the ballot see what was in it I just figured she had misspoken. Apparently she was in earnest. And even if a dim-bulb like Kissell could figure it out, what makes anyone think that he'd be able to explain in the three and a half months what no one in the Democratic Party has been able to explain in over two years?

The best choice would be to recognize a bad law for what it is, and advocate its repeal.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.
Blog by Snyder Interactive : Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :  DNN Hosting  :  Terms Of Use  :  Privacy Statement