News-Record.com

I can't predict how this congressional race will shape up, but it looks like Democrats have a candidate in Daniel Johnson with proven courage and character. If he doesn't align himself with his party's Nancy Pelosi wing,*Doug

Doug! Are you aware that Congressman Patty has a big time military hero competition in the Republican primary? It appears that Congressman Patty is being thrown under the Republican bus like Judge McCullough by his own conservative party.

Sigh. Autumn: When a young man's fancy turns to...shamelessly promoting Democratic candidates in Western N.C.

Doug, you've got a great blog, but I just don't get your obsession with using a Greensboro web site to hype up Democrats in the 828. Last year, we got a non-stop dose of the Great Heath Shuler. (Sadly, the voters in WNC agreed with you, putting this second-stringer into office).

Now, you've got a man-crush on this Johnson guy, whose qualifications for elected office may be even shakier than Shuler's, if that's possible. You're even trying to rationalize it by claiming he's a "conservative Democrat", which is one of those "jumbo shrimp"-style oxymorons. Such an animal doesn't exist, my friend.

If the voters in the 10th District want a true conservative, they should keep Patrick McHenry, who has proven he's the real deal.

I'm eagerly awaiting your Hillary Clinton endorsement, Doug. I'm sure she's a true conservative at heart....

Question, you are a proven left wing liberal. Now you suggest your mom, may have once voted for a republican? Second Shuler is so far left he needs a road map to find his way west to Berkley. All folks push for pork for their district, fact of life. I have not heard you complain about that pork from Raleigh for the Civil Rights Museum.

js,

Thanks for the comment about the blog. I appreciate it and the feedback, positive or negative.

I'm not trying to promote anyone. Rather, I'm trying to give a heads up. Yes, about a year ago I wrote that Heath Shuler was a guy who could knock out Charles Taylor in the 11th District ... and that happened. Now I'm saying Daniel Johnson has some credentials that could get him elected.

Sure, these districts are out of our newspaper's traditional circulation area. But blogs can be read anywhere and everywhere. I've taken special notice of the 10th and 11th districts because I've lived in both and still have family connections in both. More than that, however, I think all North Carolinians should take at least a casual interest in our state's entire congressional delegation.

Doug J, all Democrats are not alike. You won't see me writing that Jay Ottivorre has any chance to beat Howard Coble in the 6th District because, from what I know about Ottivorre, he's too liberal to be elected in a traditionally Republican district, even if 2008 proves to be a very strong year for Democrats in general.

Daniel Johnson still has to lay out his political views so 10th District voters can see where he stands, but a guy who was a military hero, a prosecutor and a minister's kid has a pretty good foundation to build on, I'd say.

If the voters in the 10th District want a true conservative, they should keep Patrick McHenry, who has proven he's the real deal.* Just Saying

Is that in pink tights or a Red State dress like most recent conservatives with their gender issues as the "real" deal? What's next? You are going to call Doug a Muslin Fascist and sic the Michael Vick pitbull " Patty" on him.

"I'm not trying to promote anyone. Rather, I'm trying to give a heads up. "

************

Doug, if I ever run for public office, I sure hope you will give my campaign the same "non-promotional heads-up". I wouldn't need to hire a PR staff!

Doug J says Doug C is a "proven left-wing liberal."

The folks at Blue NC called him a "wingnut," that is, an extreme right-winger.

You must be doing something right, Mr. Clark.

Thanks, Ed. I'll settle for somewhere between the extremes.

Ed,

Just following up. I read the string at BlueNC and appreciate your questioning their characterization of me as a wingnut.

I can't help commenting on the irony. I'm pointing to Daniel Johnson as a Democrat with potential to win in a strong Republican district. That can only happen, however, if voters who more or less hold my kind of political views support him. Yet people with more or less my kind of political views tend to be labeled as wingnuts by the BlueNC crowd. This is the same crowd that immediately embraced Jim Neal and seemed offended that Kay Hagan decided to run for the Senate after all. My conclusion: The Democratic Party in this state is lucky ... so far ... that the BlueNC strain isn't more influential.

The Democratic Party in this state is lucky ... so far ... that the BlueNC strain isn't more influential.* Doug

That is what Robin Hayes thought until he ran into Larry Kissell's BlueNC team. I can't believe you and Ed continue to be establishment MSM buddies after all the nasty things that he has said about your political beliefs.

You would do well to read BlueNC more closely if you think there's a "crowd" embracing anything or sharing any particular view. We have strong Hagan supporters, strong Neal supporters, more than a few Republicans, and a large number of independent readers - somewhere between 3000 and 4000 each week. To assert that there is a "crowd" is to grossly misunderstand the nature of our discussions.

I personally supported Jim Neal when he was the only declared candidate, and (silly me) I took Senator Hagan at her word that she would not be running. Maybe you're a cynic who assumes politicians are always lying, but I'm not.

My use of the term "wingnut" to describe you was a very specific reference to your evoking the "Pelosi wing" of the Democratic Party. I said at BlueNC, and I'm saying here, that the "Pelosi wing" is a well-established right-wing expression, first formed (as far as I can recall) in the drug-addled brain of Rush Limbaugh. You deserve to be called out for parroting that partisan rhetoric.

You'd do well to read my blog more closely if you're going to lay some insulting tag on me based on a single reference.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but "Pelosi wing" seems an apt term for liberal Democrats in Congress. A Democrat running in a Republican district in North Carolina simply can't win unless he separates himself from some of the views the lady from San Francisco represents.

As for Hagan "lying," I think that's a gross and unfair mischaracterization. When she first announced she wasn't going to run, I believe she meant she wasn't going to run. She was entitled to change her mind as circumstances changed. When Grier Martin opted out, the Democrats were left without a candidate with any chance of winning next year, so Hagan answered the call.

Anglico, that's an unfair characterization of Doug. He's hardly a "wingnut" - he's written plenty of complimentary posts about Democrats (most of which are completely off-base, but still.....) Me, on the other hand, I'm a wingnut!

However, I just don't see much difference between the so-called "Pelosi Wing" and the "Down Home" Democrats Doug loves so much, other than a Southern accent.

Any differences are more a function of style, not substance. The guys Doug likes still support the national Democratic agenda of higher taxes and bigger government.

As far as Kay Hagan goes, Doug is right - she has every right to run and, in my book, she didn't lie to anyone. Circumstances changed and she changed her mind. Having said that, I sure hope voters won't be dumb enough to send her Washington after the less-than-stellar job she's done in Raleigh.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh*
Doug

Good for you, but you shouldn't believe everything that John " Exxon" Hood writes.

Anglico, that's an unfair characterization of Doug. He's hardly a "wingnut"* Just Saying

Why not! What is unfair about the size of Doug's nut lugs on his conservative brain....oops....and stop going around in neo-con Orwellian circles trying to explain your program robo Republican-conservative paradigm myths. You are starting to sound like George Bush whinning about his 24% favoritables to the American people.

Consider yourself bookmarked.

just saying,

thanks again for your comments. When I give the impression of being in love with "downhome Democrats," I'm trying to encourage Democrats to put forward candidates who will promote sensible policies rather than partisanship. Same for Republicans. The polarization in our current political system is harming our country, yet the extremists of both parties seem to want more of it. How about some political leaders who can pull us together instead of driving us farther apart?

How about some political leaders who can pull us together instead of driving us farther apart?* Doug

Does the name Ron Paul and it's amazing revolutionary movement cure your depression about your future?

What's that? " Total Silence" as usual from the conservative establishment mainstream media.

Doug, I'd agree that the polarization of the political system isn't good for America. I'd also admit that the Republicans need to take their fair share of the blame for that - they've been just as guilty as the Democrats in that regard.

However, I just dispute the notion that these "down home" Democrats you are so fond of are "leaders who can pull us together." They espouse the same tax 'n' spend philosophy, just in a more folksy manner. That's not an approach I can get behind, no matter how many pig pickin's or NASCAR races these guys attend.

Point taken. But tax 'n' spend probably won't get them re-elected. We need leaders who really can set a new, fiscally responsible course, whether they're Dems or Republicans. And I regard Republicans who want to borrow 'n' spend as worse than the tax 'n' spend liberals. Sure, spending priorities are different, but we can't saddle future taxpayers with so much debt.

I agree wholeheartedly with that, Doug. I have been tremendously disappointed with the Republicans' recent unwillingness to rein in spending.

We need leaders who are willing to 1. lower taxes, which are far too high and 2. cut government spending, which has grown out of control. Raising the national debt isn't a good policy.

We each come to the issue of political differences with our own time horizons and perspectives, so let me share mine.

My modern experiences with divisiveness in politics came in two forms. First were attacks on abortion clinics and demonization of abortion providers by extremists on the religious right. Second was the assault on Bill Clinton, more or less by the same crowd. (I'm sure there were examples of extreme partisanship prior to that, but these are the ones that are vivid for me.)

Those two examples spawned an era of hardball right wing politics that culminated in the coronation of the worst president in the history of our country. Along the way, an honorable US Senator was "swift-boated" and the White House political director succeeded in making every aspect of government part of the Republican propaganda machine.

Meanwhile, as I see it, Democrats stood by and wrung their hands, wishing things would get better.

Now, here you are wringing your hands, wanting everyone to play nice and for things to get better. That's like asking a tug-of-war team to stop pulling where they stand, even though one team dominates the field, having pulled the center so far to the right that it's barely recognizable as the center.

The muddled middle has not been effective in reining in the right wing extremists, and now that the left has risen in anger, so-called moderates (like yourself, I presume) are "shocked" by how things have spun out of control.

The anger is real. The left has been taken for patsies and those of us who once tried to play nice are no longer willing to make concessions in areas that should be non-negotiable. Basic issues of privacy. Wars of choice. And worse. Torture. Abrogation of basic rights. Disdain for the integrity of our system of justice.

If moderates ever get activated and stop the juggernaut of Republican extremism, the stage will be set for bilateral disarmament. Until then, I'm afraid it's going to be a hard-fought war, all day every day.

In my position as a person without a newspaper or a political war chest or a corporate sugar-daddy, my options are limited. Art Pope isn't spending $4 million a year to fund my soapbox. Nobody's spending anything. Which means I have to resort to what I'd call guerrilla tactics against a stronger army. Satire, sarcasm and ridicule become the weapons of choice, interspersed with rational argument, emotional appeals and humor. We're feeling our way along, trying to create that mix that drives wedges where they're needed and engages our volunteer "militia" where possible. It's an imperfect science, this emerging blogosphere, but it is fully transparent - which is more than I can say for our government.

Anglico, the list of grievances may be long on both sides of the political divide but reciting old offenses doesn't get us anywhere.

Transparency is limited by the anonymity of the blogosphere. I don't have any idea who you are, let alone for the most part who comments on your blog or even mine.

Transparency is limited by the anonymity of the blogosphere. I don't have any idea who you are, let alone for the most part who comments on your blog or even mine.*Doug

BS Doug! Anybody can smoke out a anonymity on the net in 3.5 secs, if they are serious in this revolution for freedom and liberty. Do you really believe that the government [ along with it's private political allies] does not read your blog and the comments of others in it's big brother search of Ismalo-fascism terrrorists [Whatever that is?]

Yeah, I'm sure Dick Cheney is personally reading my blog and tailing your dog Max while he's at it.

My name is James Protzman. You can click on my name at BlueNC anytime you want and read more about me than you'd ever want to know.

I understand the inclination to dismiss anonymous comments, but the truth is, anonymity is a great equalizer. It forces evaluation on the merits of the ideas, not on the status of the person offering them.

I recently had a run in with an anonymous commenter who was not just calling me names (I don't mind that) but was personally attacking me. I draw the line there and don't engage with people like that. But up until that line was crossed, I found his points insightful and informative. Turns out he is a senior elected official in Raleigh (I never "out" anyone).

James

PS Speaking of anonymity, now you know how we feel when reporters cite "administration sources" or a "senior whatever" in news stories.

PPS Citing old offenses may not get us anywhere, but the old offenses themselves are what got us here. I'm making the case that calling for people to "be nice" is not likely to make any difference given the historical divide. You may think that it doesn't matter who started it . . . but when you're on the short end of a stick, who started it matters enormously.

Thanks, James.

Funny story about the senior elected official. It really makes you wonder who's joining in the conversation anonymously. And you make a good point about the anonymous sources used by reporters.

I don't mean to be arguing that we all need to be nice to each other. My contention is that it isn't practical for advocates of very liberal or very conservative views to insist on getting their way. Change happens when the middle shifts, usually by small degrees. The leaders who work the middle will be most effective.

To: just saying-

RE: "You're even trying to rationalize it by claiming he's a "conservative Democrat", which is one of those "jumbo shrimp"-style oxymorons. Such an animal doesn't exist, my friend."

just saying,

Are you voting for a third party candidate this year? I am just wondering, as I am not sure "conservative Republicans" exist anymore...You call Rep McHenry a "true conservative?" But, I am not sure what is �conservative� about Rep. McHenry�s protectionist trade policies�.The GOP presidential nominee doesn't believe in the First Amendment, the GOP congress ran up record deficits before losing control and sending a few colleagues to jail...I am just wondering where these "conservatives" are that you seem to so admire.