The Senate debate, and an early call for Primary Challengers to Erskine Bowles, come 2010
This is a tad bit premature. But despite Richard Burr's lackluster performance in Tuesday's Senatorial debate, and my clear support of Erskine Bowles in the upcoming election, I'm calling on a real Democrat to consider challenging Erskine should he consider a second term.
As for this year, Burr needed to hurt Bowles on Tuesday, and Bowles did more hurting. Now, Burr is dependent on Bush coattails, in a year where NC is as close to being a swing state as it has been since 1980. Burr, whom Winston-Salem Democrats generally acknowledge as usually articulate, seemed to be doing a Dubya impression (which James Fallows argues is artificial even when done by Dubya himself). He used "re-education" as a way of describing the need for displaced manufacturing and textile workers to learn new skills - which I'm sure sent chills down the GOPs more ardent anti-communist members. And, he paused and cleared his throat so many times that, let's just say, I never imagined my hearing Richard Burr's heavy breathing quite that much. Other than claiming that Bowles was lying about his lying, Burr didn't seem to draw any blood. I would say that Bowles will win, probably in a very close race, but he'll win. It's setting up to be another solid year for Democrats on the state ballot.
The debate was an odd thing. First off, there is a fertile field of examples of hypocrisy to plow when you get an NC Democrat and a NC Republican talking about free trade and it's effects. NC's tradition of pro-business politicians on both sides of the aisle has always clashed with the precarious situation of its low-skill, moderate-wage workforce. Bowles and Burr, both of whom supported NAFTA, and since have jumped on to pro-worker, protectionist bandwagons played gotcha, and fully revealed that there is no firm principle to which to cling on the issue of jobs lost due to globalization. The President, I'm sure will be dismayed, but somehow that seems about right.
Second, Burr showed just how bogus of an issue medical malpractice reform is. He mentioned it twice, both times quickly moving on. I think it's clear that this hit-and-run tactic was an effort to signal to medical community his support, while not having to explain it to anyone else. The truth is, the GOP doesn't want to have a debate on this issue, they just want the votes of Doctor's who otherwise might vote Democratic. The fact that Burr seems to think this is the only needed reform for health care costs other than an expensive, useless Medicare bill, is an indication of how little the GOP really has to say on the most important issue this side of terrorism. And if there was a debate on malpractice reform, the secret might slip out that the Democrats have a plan too, albeit not as draconian as the GOP's.
But finally, the most discouraging point in the debate came in the latter third. Within five minutes, Bowles expressed profound anti-gay marriage and anti-immigrant sentiments. I do not have the precise language, but he stopped just sort of supporting a constitutional amendment prohibiting state adoption of gay marriage, for now. Then, left open the door if necessary. This was a perfect example of the cowardice of soft bigotry. I understand the need to placate conservative Democrats, but wouldn't being an adult suffice? The amendment's ridiculous, the constitution isn't a child's play toy, and an issue on which the public is still rather evenly split is not one to play with. And, oh by the way, it's not Bowles and Burr's generation that will have to deal with the consequences, but mine, and we are opposed to an amendment. Are there not enough messes the baby boomers have left for us to clean up, without our gay friends being permanently barred from survivor's benefits?
As for immigration, Bowles did acknowledge the incredibly important benefit immigrants provide to our economy. However, he raised the specter of their "stealing jobs" from workers. I would acknowledge there is a sliver of truth to this point, but the way Bowles raised it easily appeared to be a play on racial prejudice and anymosity aimed at the largest growing segment of NC's population.
Bowles is a good man, and, there is no doubt that he will be a good Senator. However, he's spent a great deal of his political career in retreat and his stance on immigration and gay rights is an indication that a party which has Bowles at it's head is one that does not have a solid grip on the future. I understand the concern, that conservative Democrats, many of whom will vote for Bush in November will bolt if Bowles seems "liberal" on these issues. But this fear is in part based on an unwillingness to risk realigning the state in part by tapping into its changing demographics. With Mike Easley as our shadow-Governor, and John Edwards potentially tied up in Washington, the Democratic party needs a leader that can change the dynamic in this state away from one of continuing fear of a conservative Democrat backlash to a broad-coalition from low-wage working class families to the PhD bloc.
Moderation on these issues may make political sense, but taking an overly conservative stance limits the future energy of the party. In 10 years, gay marriage will probably be a majority issue in the state and the issue of "illegal" immigration may have also been dealt with, or if not, the exposure to the growing immigrant population will make racial demagoguery untenable. But it is very discouraging to have someone out there who not only isn't willing to stand up for the Democrats on issue where our position is gaining strength, but seems willing to parrot the fools on the other side. I hope Bowles wins this year, but if he chooses to run again, I hope a real Democrat challenges his leadership. For the most part, he has yet to really show any.
As for this year, Burr needed to hurt Bowles on Tuesday, and Bowles did more hurting. Now, Burr is dependent on Bush coattails, in a year where NC is as close to being a swing state as it has been since 1980. Burr, whom Winston-Salem Democrats generally acknowledge as usually articulate, seemed to be doing a Dubya impression (which James Fallows argues is artificial even when done by Dubya himself). He used "re-education" as a way of describing the need for displaced manufacturing and textile workers to learn new skills - which I'm sure sent chills down the GOPs more ardent anti-communist members. And, he paused and cleared his throat so many times that, let's just say, I never imagined my hearing Richard Burr's heavy breathing quite that much. Other than claiming that Bowles was lying about his lying, Burr didn't seem to draw any blood. I would say that Bowles will win, probably in a very close race, but he'll win. It's setting up to be another solid year for Democrats on the state ballot.
The debate was an odd thing. First off, there is a fertile field of examples of hypocrisy to plow when you get an NC Democrat and a NC Republican talking about free trade and it's effects. NC's tradition of pro-business politicians on both sides of the aisle has always clashed with the precarious situation of its low-skill, moderate-wage workforce. Bowles and Burr, both of whom supported NAFTA, and since have jumped on to pro-worker, protectionist bandwagons played gotcha, and fully revealed that there is no firm principle to which to cling on the issue of jobs lost due to globalization. The President, I'm sure will be dismayed, but somehow that seems about right.
Second, Burr showed just how bogus of an issue medical malpractice reform is. He mentioned it twice, both times quickly moving on. I think it's clear that this hit-and-run tactic was an effort to signal to medical community his support, while not having to explain it to anyone else. The truth is, the GOP doesn't want to have a debate on this issue, they just want the votes of Doctor's who otherwise might vote Democratic. The fact that Burr seems to think this is the only needed reform for health care costs other than an expensive, useless Medicare bill, is an indication of how little the GOP really has to say on the most important issue this side of terrorism. And if there was a debate on malpractice reform, the secret might slip out that the Democrats have a plan too, albeit not as draconian as the GOP's.
But finally, the most discouraging point in the debate came in the latter third. Within five minutes, Bowles expressed profound anti-gay marriage and anti-immigrant sentiments. I do not have the precise language, but he stopped just sort of supporting a constitutional amendment prohibiting state adoption of gay marriage, for now. Then, left open the door if necessary. This was a perfect example of the cowardice of soft bigotry. I understand the need to placate conservative Democrats, but wouldn't being an adult suffice? The amendment's ridiculous, the constitution isn't a child's play toy, and an issue on which the public is still rather evenly split is not one to play with. And, oh by the way, it's not Bowles and Burr's generation that will have to deal with the consequences, but mine, and we are opposed to an amendment. Are there not enough messes the baby boomers have left for us to clean up, without our gay friends being permanently barred from survivor's benefits?
As for immigration, Bowles did acknowledge the incredibly important benefit immigrants provide to our economy. However, he raised the specter of their "stealing jobs" from workers. I would acknowledge there is a sliver of truth to this point, but the way Bowles raised it easily appeared to be a play on racial prejudice and anymosity aimed at the largest growing segment of NC's population.
Bowles is a good man, and, there is no doubt that he will be a good Senator. However, he's spent a great deal of his political career in retreat and his stance on immigration and gay rights is an indication that a party which has Bowles at it's head is one that does not have a solid grip on the future. I understand the concern, that conservative Democrats, many of whom will vote for Bush in November will bolt if Bowles seems "liberal" on these issues. But this fear is in part based on an unwillingness to risk realigning the state in part by tapping into its changing demographics. With Mike Easley as our shadow-Governor, and John Edwards potentially tied up in Washington, the Democratic party needs a leader that can change the dynamic in this state away from one of continuing fear of a conservative Democrat backlash to a broad-coalition from low-wage working class families to the PhD bloc.
Moderation on these issues may make political sense, but taking an overly conservative stance limits the future energy of the party. In 10 years, gay marriage will probably be a majority issue in the state and the issue of "illegal" immigration may have also been dealt with, or if not, the exposure to the growing immigrant population will make racial demagoguery untenable. But it is very discouraging to have someone out there who not only isn't willing to stand up for the Democrats on issue where our position is gaining strength, but seems willing to parrot the fools on the other side. I hope Bowles wins this year, but if he chooses to run again, I hope a real Democrat challenges his leadership. For the most part, he has yet to really show any.
posted by SebbyMan at 9:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home