Hard work pays off

And the winners are:

County Commissioner (3 seats available)
Candidate Votes Percent
Barry Jacobs 6446 25.40%
Alice Gordon 6314 24.88%
Mike Nelson 5100 20.09%

Fred Battle 3934 15.50%
Betty Tom Phelps Davidson 1748 6.89%
Robin Cutson 1189 4.68%
Artie L. Franklin 651 2.56%

Superior Court Judge District 15B (2 seats available, 4 primary winners)
Candidate Votes (Orange/Chatham) Percent
Carl R. Fox 11345 (7066/4279) 36.64%
Adam Stein 6505 (4817/1688) 21.01%
Chuck Anderson 5145 (2863/2282) 16.62%
Allen Baddour 4736 (2577/2159) 15.30%

Michael W. Patrick 2031 (1300/732) 6.56%
Kenneth B. Oettinger 1197 (784/413) 3.87%

Orange County School Board (4 seats available)
Candidate Votes Percent
Susan Hallman 2819 22.94%
Debbie Piscitelli 2496 20.31%
Ted Triebel 2467 20.07%
Anne Medenblik 2378 19.35%

Tony McKnight 2035 16.56%

My election summary: hard work pays off. The winners last night were those who worked hard both to raise money and to talk to voters. This worked for the Chatham Coalition as well, whose slate won soundly in all 3 districts.

Admittedly, I haven't looked at the results by precinct yet. Your thoughts?



Who was from Weaver Dairy Satellite precinct? 65% of the vote! That's incredible.

On the other hand, Mason Farm Road had 1.74% turnout and Country Club barely more.


Weaver Dairy Satellite = Carol Woods.

As an active Democrat, I am pleased that we have a good strong slate of County Commissioners candidates and should have no trouble electing them all in November. I was also pleased to see Price easily renominated and Robin Hudson nominated for NC Supreme Court.

Yes, only Carol Woods retirement home residents vote at Weaver Dairy Satellite, so naturally the voter turnout there is much higher. At Country Club and Mason Farm alarge percentage of registered voters are UNC students who are in the middle of exams.

I voted yesterday at the Mason Farm precinct. I love it because it is 2 blocks from my house, but it is also a 'perfect storm' of non-voters. It includes some of south campus, so mainly underclass students who do not get out for primaries. It also has many grad students, especially med students, that i would categorize as transient. Many of the folks on my road are only residents in name only. Some of them are med students who are gone for weeks at a time. In my building there are 5 occupied apartments, but the majority of the time my roomate and i are the only ones there. I like the area, because it is a good place to live, but it is very quirky as far as political activity. But those are just my observations.

I'm pleased with the results yesterday. Congratulations to all the winners. I will happily support the full democratic slate in the fall, and I hope Fred Battle makes another run. I would absolutely vote for Fred next time.

Fewer than 10000 Democrats voted of the almost 50000 registered (9450/47152=20.04%). Overall only 13.2% voted; this was a bit higher in rural Orange (14.35%), probably because of the school board race. Only about 6% of GOP and Unaffiliated voters voted.

Here in Efland, 148 Democrats voted out of 802 registered, fewer than 20%. Most were over 60 years old, few were under 40.

Primary turnout is dismal now. What will it be like in 10 years? Will one out of 10 voters pick the candidates everyone will vote on in November?

In Orange County, the primary IS the election, for all intents and purposes (or, as a friend of mine says, "for all intentional purposes"), at least for the near future. Most county officials don't even have GOP opposition in November and the few GOP candidates running have virtually no chance of winning.

Yes, Jamie Daniel will "win" (that is, run 1st, 2nd or 3rd) in rural Orange as he did last time, when he ran first by a small margin, but he'll be trounced in Chapel Hill/Carrboro. Ellie Kinnaird's opponent may also win narrowly in rural Orange (and Person County, also part of her district) but Ellie will swamp him in southern Orange.

In Chatham, we've still got to stay on top of the outgoing commissioners, who have 7 more months in office, and now nothing else to lose.


(But, I mean, Wow! It's a good day.)

Results from "northern" Orange (12 precincts: Caldwell, Cameron Park, Carr, Cedar Grove, Cheeks, Efland, Eno, Grady Brown, Hillsborough, St. Marys, Tolars, West Hillsborough)


Barry ran first in all but West Hillsborough, where Battle won.

I thought it might be interesting to offer a "post mortem" on my campaign. i hope that bloggers will offer their comments and analysis.

last night we received 6% of the total vote vs. a very popular incumbent and a nice guy. at first glance this does not seem to be very impressive,but let us put this result in perspective.

1) i decided to run for office just 10 weeks ago. at that time i had never held public or been actively involved in organized politics. outside friends and family my name recognition was somewhere around 0%.

2) my campaign "organization" consisted of my wife,chris,and my friend and neighbor,don. as the campaign progressed we added a few wonderful volunteers.

3) my campaign expenditures (the public has a right to know !):

filing fee: $ 1562.00 (1% of a rep's salary)
campaign signs $795
web site $ 400
flyers/cards $300
campaign poster $ 80

total: $3137.00 (not including filing fee: $ 1575.00)

4) despite my efforts, i received no endorsements from any progressive groups/media

5) i did not campaign in wake county and very, very little in chatham county.

6)because i continued to work full-time my personal campaign time was limited to nights and weekends.

7) i missed two opportunities to raise my profile when the incumbent refused to debate me twice -- once in a community setting and the other on nbc-17 tv.

8) did i mention that i am a political nobody ? btw, i once mentioned to my wife that i always wished i could be somebody. she said i should have been more specific.

so in this context, i believe that 6% sends a message that there is a significant progressive constituency in the 4th district that wants leaders who will take a stand and to be true to real Democrat principles.

i want to thank op folks for their support and criticism. i look forward to following the issues here and through november. what inspires me is the dream that john conyers will become the chair of the house judiciary committee. think about that !

finally, i want toss out some special thank you's :

to mark for his kind piece in the chapel news, his supportive posts on op and working the polls yesterday...

to dan coleman for his letter to the indy which eloquently and succinctly captured the true intentions of my campaign...

to will for his encouragement( i wish you had made it to al's party,and i,too, hope one day we will meet face2face)

and to jacquie who single handedly delivered my best precinct showing ( the north carrboro poll ).

i think yesterday proves that a real progressive who starts early,has some name recognition,and doesn't have a fund raising phobia, can win in 2008. what do y'all think ? whoever that person may be, i promise to be your first volunteer.

and last(but never least)... ruby, my offer of a beer together will continue in perpetuity !

Ruby, when I saw the numbers, I was able to use a new tip (at least new to me) that I learned the other week. By holding down the Ctrl key and rolling the wheel on the mouse, you are able to change the size of the font. Seems to work on most web pages. Hope it help others who might not have been aware!

As to non-voting...my husband didn't vote yesterday because he had to take a last minute business trip. Elder Son was out of state and didn't feel he'd been able to research properly (he's had an intense semester--20 hours and not a fluff course among them). I would've preferred that he voted--but I respect his reasons for NOT voting.

The Boy won't be 18 until August, so, although he's registered, he couldn't vote. (Or so the poll workers told me when I enquired.)

Me?--I was voter #66 at the Church of Rec.

First I heard that Price refused to debate Kanoy. That is truly weak.

Any candidate with integrity would honor the democratic process by engaging in a debate with challengers. There is no excusefor this pusillanimous behavior.

> The Boy won't be 18 until August, so, although he's registered, he couldn't vote. (Or so the poll workers told me when I enquired.)

Melanie, the poll workers told you incorrectly.

§ 163‑59. Right to participate or vote in party primary.

No person shall be entitled to vote or otherwise participate in the primary election of any political party unless he

(1) Is a registered voter, and
(2) Has declared and has had recorded on the registration book or record the fact that he affiliates with the political party in whose primary he proposes to vote or participate, and
(3) Is in good faith a member of that party.

Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, any unaffiliated voter who is authorized under G.S. 163‑116 may also vote in the primary if the voter is otherwise eligible to vote in that primary except for subdivisions (2) and (3) of the previous paragraph.

Any person who will become qualified by age or residence to register and vote in the general election or regular municipal election for which the primary is held, even though not so qualified by the date of the primary, shall be entitled to register for the primary and general or regular municipal election prior to the primary and then to vote in the primary after being registered. Such person may register not earlier than 60 days nor later than the last day for making application to register under G.S. 163‑82.6(c) prior to the primary. In addition, persons who will become qualified by age to register and vote in the general election or regular municipal election for which the primary is held, who do not register during the special period may register to vote after such period as if they were qualified on the basis of age, but until they are qualified by age to vote, they may vote only in primary elections.

I didn't vote in Orange County (those of you following the Cumberland County races will know why!), but I was overall pleased with the results.

There are plenty of reasons why a candidate with integrity would choose not to engage in a debate.

It grants publicity, name recognition and legitimacy to a competitor's position and candidacy that they may not deserve. It places them on equal footing, grants equal time, etc. to positions that should not necessarily have equal weight in a debate. Additionally, Price would have to communicate his positions and record on any number of issues, while Kanoy would only need to hammer home a few points repeatedly. In order to respond to those sufficiently, Price would have to focus on issues that aren't actually his focus. (This is actually comparable on the other end of the political spectrum and NC Sen. Rand's democratic primary, where Paul Williams was running on only two planks: anti-abortion/anti-immigration. And even these two planks played better to Fayetteville Democrats than Kanoy's planks to Wake/Chatham/Orange Dems.)

Essentially, a debate format allows the other person to work to set the agenda for the campaign. The reason Kanoy would want to engage in a debate is because he wanted to narrow an important and complex position to only two or three issues. That's a far more dishonest tactic, in my opinion. But I wouldn't go as far as Mark Marcoplos to issue blanket statements about people's character without asking for their reasons why and looking at the fuller picture. Perhaps pusillanimity is in the eye of the beholder? ;)

Kent Kanoy appears to be a good, intelligent, thoughtful person. But why should David Price have debated him? He
was not a serious congressional candidate, in my opinion.

It was not just the fact that he didn't raise money, although that is part of it: why not take limited indiviudual contributions of say, $100? Contributions show support. My guess is that Kanoy didn't even try because he knew he had little support.

But the main thing I saw was that was no base for him. There was no widespread progressive dissatisfaction with Price. He did well in both conservative and liberal precincts and everywhere in between, despite being challenged from the left and the right.

When you consider that only 9500 Democrats voted in Orange Co., it appears to me that this was the "hard core" and more liberal than the average voter, who, in Orange County, is still pretty liberal. Yet Kanoy couldn't even crack 10% in Orange Co. and didn't get even a quarter of the vote in ANY precinct, including North Carrboro, where he made his best showing (22%).

Sorry, Kent, it was a mistake to run from the beginning, in my opinion. It's not enough to be right, you have to pick your spots. If our rep was Mike McIntyre or Bob Ethridge, I could see it. But not Price.

As posted on BlueNC - ducking the debate was equated with "smart politics".

I guess I'm smarting from smart politics.

Price's supporters have told me that Price has "turned the corner" - that he's prepared to stand and deliver.

Great! I'll believe it when I see it ("deeds, not words" as the NC State motto goes).

Paul, Price espouses democracy for Iraq but doesn't practice democracy in his own district. Please don't confuse politics with democracy.

Democracy equals engagement. Engagement equals debate.

Price ducked the debate and missed an opportunity to shut up doubters like myself.

Why is "undemocratic" not to debate an opponent who has absolutely no chance of winning?

Price did not try to keep Kanoy from running, nor did he or his people "bad-mouth" him, from what I saw.

When I heard that some local progressives were trying to get a candidate to run against Price, I expected a current or former local elected official or at least a party activist.
I am very active in the party, a "political junkie," and a progressive Democrat, but I had never heard of him before he ran. He had no "base" at all.

Kanoy is a serious person, he raised serious issues, but he was not a serious candidate for congress.

The fact that debating Kanoy may not have made sense, from a political strategist's point of view, is not really a sufficient answer. Of course he had his reasons for turning down debate. But for a candidate from a party that screams bloody murder in the Congress because the other party shuts down and limits debate, those reasons seem hollow and hypocritical.

And, anyway, we (including journalists) should not become amateur campaign managers, accepting as sufficient the justifications of political strategists whose desire and job is to win. The fact that David Price was better off to refuse debate is of little concern to me and to voters. We have interests that may include, but aren't limited to, what is good for David Price. And respectful debate of ideas, wherever they come from, is one of those interests.

If campaign exigencies trump all other democratic values, then we must conclude that Douglas, by far the more prominent politician, was a fool to debate Lincoln. And perhaps he was, if we measure the value of what he did strictly by political outcomes. But who would argue that we would have been better off as a nation if he had refused Lincoln? And I don't think we, as voters and citizens, are better off because David Price wouldn't debate Kent Kanoy, even if we are quite happy that David Price won.

I hope that all of us, citizens and journalists alike, quit spitting back the "wisdom" of the Carvilles and the Matalins of the world to explain why we have to accept our debased and alienating political process. We deserve better, I think.

(And no, Kent Kanoy is not Abraham Lincoln.)

Duncan, comparing debate in congress to debate on the campaign trail is mixing apples and oranges in my view. They are not at all comparable.


obviously you were not at the durham lowv forum where i was able to engage price on a host of issues, including impeachment,ending the war in iraq now,repealing the patriot act,advocating gay marriage and adoption, advocating a national ban on the death penalty,and supporting an increase in the minimum wage. if you had been there, you may have been disappointed to hear that price presented no platform other than "i've tried really,really, hard but we can't do anything" until the dems take control of congress. if you and others had attended the forum you would better understand why price turned down future opportunities to debate the issues.

so although i appreciate your criticism, i think you have mischaracterized my campaign. and i am very appreciative that you chose not to comment on my character. we've never met,have we ?


we have met...at the candidate meet and greet in hillsborough. you offered your hand with the pronouncement, "i'm not supporting you." it seemed like such an odd greeting at the time. nevertheless, i admire the hard work you have been doing in trying organize folks in northern orange county.

indeed, i admire the passion and commitment of all the op folks i have encountered. thanks again for letting me participate on the blog.


And yes, I know that Douglas won that senate race in Illinois. That's part of my point, actually.

Paul, it's about engagement.

We've had 6 years of disengagement by the ruling party.

Seems like the Dems would fall all over themselves to differentiate themselves from "business as usual". I imagine it would help attract the growing numbers of independent voters.

Was Kanoy "worthy" of debate (engagment)? Yep.

Kanoy was no raving loon calling for the return of the gold standard. He was running on a platform with clear and specific policy goals. As I've said before, he served as an excellent proxy for many of Price's anti-war, pro-Constitutional constituents.

Price, by debating Kanoy, would've been engaging those folks concerned about the issues Kanoy was running on...in a sense, he would've been debating with the %10 of OC folk that just voted for Kanoy.

Maybe it's easy for you to dismiss engagement with one person, Kanoy, but surely you see the problem with disengaging with a couple thousand folk (folk that were willing to "throw away" their vote to send a message).

BTW, that's it for me on the Kanoy campaign.

I'll expect and trust you steadfast partisans to make sure Price doesn't waver, that he does move forward, that - as I was told yesterday - he does "turn the corner".

Kent, what I said to you was, after Don introduced us, was something like "Nice to meet you; I'm not voting for you, but I'm glad you are raising serious issues."

The reason I said that is because I didn't want you to waste your time with me when there were others in the room who may have been open to your candidacy.

There are many ways to raise serious issues without running for Congress. And if you do run for Congress, it appears to me that you at least need to try and raise some money; as I suggested earlier, why not limit contributions to $100 per person? 100 such contributions is $10000. Not much, but at least enough to do some print ads and radio.
And it gives people some "ownership" of the campaign, which is important.

And again, I looked at your candidacy and asked: who is this person? Why should I as a progressive support him for Congress? He has never run before, is not active in the party, did not even attend our county convention (although he may have been campaigning elsewhere, I don't know, but his absence was noted by me, if not others) and will raise no money.

And, of course, is running against the most progressive member of our congressional delegation.

Wiil, I posted several times that I knew Kanoy was no "loon" that he was a serious *person*, but again, that doesn't make him a serious *candidate.*

I don't like our system either. It would be wonderful if people came out all over to listen to Lincoln-Douglas type debates. It would be wonderful if we had full public financing and someone like Kent could get matching funds IF he raised money with small contributions.

But that's not the system we have.

No, they didn't say "turn the corner," did they, Will? I mean, can't we come up with our own cliches without recycling W's empty war rhetoric and campaign-trail inanities? Hell, even W eventually realized the stupidity of that cliche during the last campaign:


Paul, a leader would, by personal example, take on the political consultant/industrial complex system we have an fix it.

Price ducked the opportunity to demonstrate his leadership by not shooting for a higher standard.

Ducking that opportunity resonates strongly with his ducking many of the other opportunities he's had over the last 6 years to protect and safeguard our democracy.

As I just said, though, I hear he's "turned the corner". I'll be measuring his deeds, not his words to see if that is so...

Sorry Duncan - straight from two steadfast Orange Dems.

Accepting the "system we have" is the opposite of progressivism, Paul.

I do not accept the system we have, Duncan, I'm doing my little bit by being involved in the party to change things. We are pushing hard at the state and local level for full public financing and further lobbying reform.

But that won't happen by November. And we need to get Democrats back in control in Congress before we can do anything at all on Kent's issues.

If in fact, Kent had been nominated, could he have won? The GOP won this district before, although it is more Democratic now than in 1994 and this will be a Democrat year, I believe.

But even if Kent won, could he have been as effective as Price in a new majority? I doubt that.

Again, you're switching the question from one about debating to one about winning. We were talking about debates, and how much more we might have learned about David Price had he chosen to debate and to take on the issues raised by Kanoy. I do not believe for a second that Kent Kanoy would have beat David Price in the race, or even done much better than he did, had Price agreed to two debates. Hell, Price might have picked up some votes for being forthright and being willing to act on the courage of his conviction..

Instead, it's duck and cover until we win back the House, and then we'll all grow some spines. These will be my last words on this thread on this subject, and I'm going to steal them from Will: I'll be watching to see what he does.

Kent said:

"what inspires me is the dream that john conyers will become the chair of the house judiciary committee. think about that!"

The hypocrisy in that statement just blows my mind. Kent -- you say that you dream of a Democratic majority, but you challenged an incumbent, progressive Democrat when there are honest-to-God conservative REPUBLICANS throughout this state who could be challenged and defeated.

Now that the country has seen that the world (to say nothing of NC-4) does not revolve around Carrboro, can we please get focused on the real issues at hand. Progressives have a great chance of winning back the Congress in November. Kent Kanoy is dreaming of the day. So I'm asking for pledges right now. Who's going to write a check to Larry Kissell? Who's going to spend a Saturday going door to door for Heath Shuler?

Hooray for the Chatham voters!

People are using the word "progressive" like it means "anyone to the left of fascism." Get a grip.

If I knew what all these so-called progressive candidates were going to do once they take the House, say an agenda of some kind rather than platitudes about faith and family and education, then I might very well go door-to-door for a quarterback who ruined an NFL franchise before becoming a Realtor and real estate developer? Other than a little over six years of buying and selling real estate in eastern Tennessee, I can't see anything in Heath Shuler's literature to indicate whether he's a progressive or not. He's big on faith and family, I got that much. His issue papers are "coming soon." He thinks his opponent should be in favor of spending $60 million to buy up 1,200 acres of Pennsylvania land to commemorate the crashing of Flight 93, a cheap and opportunistic jab. He's opposed to selling off acreage in western North Carolina, which I can agree with.

But all of this hardly makes him a progressive. So quit calling him that. He's a Democrat, and hell, what does _that_ mean? If we lose the House, it will be because we ran candidates like Heath Shuler because we think North Carolinians (yes, I understand there's a world outside Carrboro -- I live in Pittsboro) are stupid, and dazzled by fame like crows to tinfoil. If we gave people some credit for once, and realized it isn't the Heath Shuler's of the world who are going to lead us back from the brink of authoritarianism, we might just start running some candidates who will not only win, but who will save our country.

I can tell you that Shuler is NOT a progressive.

But he is a Democrat and will vote with the Dems to organize the House and that's enough for me right now.

Duncan, if you came home and found your bathtub water running and overflowing into your bathroom, what's the first thing you do? Get a pail and start bailing? Think about the fact you might have to replace your flooring or clean the carpets?

No, I would guess you'd turn off the water and then think about what to about the damage.

Supporting Shuler is turning off the water.


you are nothing if not consisistent. you have consistently presented the false choice that one either supports my candidacy or dems in OTHER districts. i ask again, how in the world could supporting me hurt kissell and shuler ?

i see nothing hypocritical in my statement. in fact, price does not support conyers and i did. and there is no doubt in my mind that if i had won the primary that i would have won in november. finally, to refer to price as a progressive is generous,. in my opinion he is a moderate,not that being a moderate is a bad thing.


sounds like i may have misconstrued your greeting for which i apologize. you are right to question me as a candidate for the reasons that you outline--- an unknown with no history of activity in organized politics. my hope was that ideas would trump dollars and the cult of personality. in other words, i was counting on the credibility of my stands on issues to mitigate my lack of political credibility.

and no, i was not at the county convention, but then price was not with me at that same time meeting with the chatham co. african american dem. caucus. price chose a meet and greet,see and be seen type event. i was already committed to attend a forum where people had the opportunity to hear what i stood for and to ask me questions of importance to them. i believe i made the right choice.

Kent, I think supporting David Price is about much more than just the "cult of personality" and money. He is a leader in the House and one of the most serious backers of "process" reform that there is.

I know that changing House rules is not exactly a "sexy" issue and David is hardly a "firebrand," but what he is doing is more critical than any particular issue, because if the GOP can continue to run roughshod, the Dems are even more powerless.

Sorry, I misconstrued your "he refused to debate me twice" with "he refused to debate me."

(No, I wasn't at the Durham League of Women Voters, because I'm not in the league of women voters, Durham, the "undecideds", or even an Orange County voter for this race.)

But maybe he found your Durham debate as unconstructive as you did?

I am so tired of this outrage of yours, Matt. I don't share your assumptions. I insist on more than "the best we've got." If that's the best, it sucks. We want and need more from our leaders. If we have to look outside the party for that leadership, so be it.


please read my previous post again and i think you will find that i made it very clear that i was referring to MY lack of spending and MY lack of political personality. in no way did that part of my post make reference to price.

i think reasonable people can disagree as to whether "process" reform is more important than protecting the Constitution. indeed, i think price is talented enough to work on changing house rules and find time to sign the conyers resolution.

again, these false choices perplex me...


I understand the concept and I will, indeed, roll my eyes again and attempt to turn off the faucet in November. I will go door to door, I will work with the Chatham Dems again, I will put signs up in my very visible yard, I will canvass at the polls again, I will do everything I can to get out the vote. I will do naked cartwheels on my front lawn with sparklers in my ears if it means taking back the House.

But, damn, man, how many times have I been told to do exactly this (except for the sparklers), to be a good and loyal party guy, during the last twelve years? Some variation on the "we've got to win, first, then we'll figure it out" argument has been offered in each election since 1994. I was in Washington covering Congress in 1994, and I can tell you that they did not win all those seats, the very ones we've been trying to take back ever since, on a platform of "win first, ask questions later." That Contract With America, as much as many of us reviled it, was a specific and substantial set of promises; it was not full of vacuity and bromides, it was something tangible and very direct and very aggressive. They did this as the minority party, and we know the results.

So I'll be a loyal party guy this time. But I'm getting impatient.

Ruby, as long as money talks, I don't believe we can do much to affect real change.

Public financing of campaigns should be #1 on the progressive agenda. Lobbying reform should be a close second.

I know that doesn't stop self-financed candidates from say, spending a quarter million dollars to win a rural state house seat, at least it helps immensely.

The NC Democrats "Speaker Black problem," appears to have finally pushed them into seriously debating REAL reform. Some, like Ellie and Verla, don't need to be pushed by us, others do.


where did you get the idea that i found the durham forum "unconstructive" ? i found it to be very constructive and instructive.

And one more thing, before I shut up. (I think I already promised to do that. Oh well, broken promises...)

Anyway, if the rules changes and reorganization of a branch of Congress under Democratic control is going to be done in a way that sets the stage for real reform, let us learn from and not forget the lesson of the Iraqi War Resolution of Oct. 10, 2002, passed in a Democrat-organized Senate.

Duncan, I didn't say all would be well if Dems organize the House.

But you have to crawl before you can walk.

And you want us to run a marathon.

I'm frustrated with the party as well -- when the DNC called me asking for money yesterday, I laughed. (Although partly because I'm going to have $150,000 in debt so asking for money right now is kind of funny.)

But I'm equally frustrated with the far left. You guys have moved so far out of dialogue with the moderates and the right. I used to be very, very liberal, but you guys have scared me off to "progressive Moderate Democrat."

I know a lot of folks don't buy "framing" as legitimate (it's all pishposh, apparently), and as a rhetoric major I'm used to that being equated with manipulation. But the left isn't even TRYING to communicate with the middle, much less the right, anymore. What happened to ideals of a discursive, democratic society?

For those of us somewhere between the tribalistic communitarianism of folks around here and my relatives out in the country who are content to mind their own business and read the Bible, we're equally disillusioned with the structural "party" and the party activists [you]. It's easy to understand why people prefer to talk to folks who operate within their own frameworks, but instead of castigating folks like Matt C. (newsflash: we are a lot closer to North Carolina's position than you guys are) listen to us and understand what we're saying. Formulate arguments that are persuasive to us, instead of concerning yourselves with getting high fives from your own far left corner. Making us feel like the naughty stepchildren isn't going to win any votes for folks like Kanoy.

Sorry for my rant, but I'm really tired of the far left refusing to see that they're part of the problem too.

I so agree Ginny. Kent, I admire your courage to run such a race. I'm not convinced it was constructive b/c it forced Rep. Price to take time away from his congressional work to campaign and to spend time and money better spent in the fall and on races that could help take back the House. That said, running was your's (and everyone's) perrogative and more power to you.

Reading some of the other bloggers you'd think David Price were the enemy. Will, you said before Tuesday that the proudest vote you ever cast would be for Kent Kanoy? Did you not vote in the Helms-Gantt race? Helms-Hunt? Kerry-Bush? Mark, you told us you voted for Fred Heinemann. That is mindboggling. I'm sorry you didn't include that factoid in your CH News article (perhaps you did and I missed it).

Rep. Price got 37,000 votes in a low turnout primary. You can blame it on his not debating, on voters being dumb, on money in politics, blame it on whatever you want, but the fact remains he got 37,000 votes. It would be nice to just once hear some of you naysayers tip their hat to David Price w/o any snide backhandedness and acknowledge that maybe - just maybe - he won b/c the voters generally agree with the way David Price has conducted himself in office. Isn't it just possible that 37,000 voters in this progressive district are actually happy with their congressman?

Lastly, I'm sorry about Fred Battle's loss yesterday and I too hope he runs again.



Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.