Bob Geary's criticisms of Rep. David Price in his recent article on the North Carolina governor's race ("The Democratic shake-up for governor," Feb. 1) were distressing to me. We Democrats and especially progressives are fortunate that a primary between Price and Rep. Brad Miller was averted. I believe that Miller understood this is not the time for infighting. I applaud him for his decision not to engage in the divisive battle that the Republicans wanted to see.
The notion that Price has not been a strong progressive is inaccurate. The truth is he has spent his time in Congress doing what's right for our district and working for the Durham community. David has also been a powerful voice on issues of faith and for economic justice for all. His support for the humanities is unimpeachable—last year he won the N.C. Humanities Council's highest honor, the Caldwell Award. In each of the last three years, David has been ranked as either the most liberal or second most liberal member of Congress from N.C. by the non-partisan National Journal. We cannot afford to lose his standing and seniority in Congress.
I think progressives should resist Mr. Geary's call to choose sides. His implication that one can't support both Price and Miller going forward is preposterous. I would have supported David in a primary race, but I hope to be able to vote for Miller in the future. Miller has much to offer North Carolina and the nation, as Geary noted. We need to work together to support all progressives. In the coming months we have too much to work for to be divided now.
Hold your horses, Indy—Bob Geary made a number of false assumptions about Congressman David Price.
Mr. Geary wrote that "well-heeled Democrats preferred Price's cautious incrementalism" over a supposedly more strident opponent. But a survey of Democratic primary voters in the redrawn Fourth District showed Rep. Price outpacing his opponent by more than 20 points. The base votes in primaries, and the base supports Price.
Further, Mr. Geary's lamentation of Price as some mealy-mouthed moderate is, how to put it, "horse-produced fertilizer" to anyone who's paid close attention to North Carolina politics. Price has the support of base voters because he's led the fight on progressive causes. Price opposed Patriot Act reauthorization, and he was the first Democrat in the state to come out for repealing DOMA. He supports the public option in health care. He voted against the NDAA bill, and he is opposing SOPA.
Price was also a leader on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and on opposition to the war in Iraq. He's led efforts to crack down on credit card abuses, and he's fought back against the Citizens United decision allowing unlimited corporate money in elections. I could go on and on and on. These are issues where you would expect a progressive to lead. Price has done so, and he's always stood up for the working people he represents in Congress.
President Obama has frequently urged voters not be be bamboozled by conservative mischaracterizations of his record. I feel the need to tell Independent readers not be be bamboozled by what columnist Bob Geary wrote questioning the liberal bona fides of my friend and congressman David Price.
Congressman Price opposed the war in Iraq from the start. Congressman Price is working to close loopholes opened by Citizens United. Congressman Price is an advocate of net neutrality and has spoken out against the SOPA/PIPA initiative that would destroy our nation's information infrastructure. Congressman Price supports strengthening marriage by leading the charge to repeal DOMA and vote down this May's NC Amendment 1, an anti-LGBT referendum that would even remove domestic violence protections from unmarried straight couples.
These are the acts of a tried and true progressive. In a time where national media engages in zero-sum horse-race garbage, it's disappointing to see local columnists fall prey to the same myopic cop-outs. People like me can be ardent supporters of Brad Miller (go for governor, Mr. Miller!) and David Price alike—so why can't Bob Geary?
Thank you for Jonathan Weiler's opinion piece on Amendment 1, which would write into the N.C. Constitution that the only legally recognized domestic union in North Carolina would be a marriage between one man and one woman ("Legally blind," Feb. 8).
Another harmful effect of the legislation would be the message it would send to children. We often forget that people discover their sexuality as young, vulnerable children—regardless of whether they are gay or straight. For children who are discovering they are gay, think about the message they are getting from people who are advocating that the government refuse to allow them the same rights their parents have.
When I read the "frequently asked questions" sections of the websites of groups supporting the amendment, including Vote for Marriage NC, they don't even address this issue. They can't. It renders their position indefensible. And I suppose that is why I have not received responses from the group's leader, nor the legislators to whom I have posed the question, "How would you feel knowing the confusion and loneliness and perhaps desperation your children would feel, knowing that there were organizations of people working hard to deny them the same rights you have and most people take for granted?"
Thank you for your coverage of this important issue. I hope you will include the effect it is having on children in your future coverage.
Your article about the Carrboro anarchists ("Carrboro Commune occupies CVS building," Feb. 8) had the opposite effect on me of that which was intended. Yes, I'm quite sure the delicate sensibilities of bourgeois/ middle-class citizens are shocked at such brazen displays of initiative, direct action and effrontery toward the sanctity of private property. Yes, the fetish worship of private property trumps all other concerns. The bourgeoisie fall to their knees before the golden calf. I, on the other hand, am a class-conscious member of the working class; in other words, a proletarian. I don't see private property as sacred. I feel it should be abolished. I also recognize the middle class as my bitter enemies in the class war that they started. Why should the anarchists, who despise the state, appeal to the state to solve a community problem? The state is their enemy! As it should be. A state is merely the domination of one class over another. This state, and the whole of the United States, is merely a tool of the bourgeoisie to dominate and exploit the working class. Why couldn't those middle-class residents simply join with the anarchists in occupying that building? Aside from the blasphemous attack on private property (in this case, temporarily occupying an abandoned building to make a larger statement), the article indicates that perhaps they were turned off by the masks and the taking of direct action by regular folks without consulting the bourgeois masters. Well, the bourgeoisie wears masks too; and when those masks slip off, and the monsters beneath are revealed for all to see, it may prove difficult for the masters to retain control over their slaves. The anarchists are correct; there will be a CVS at that location if the politely corrupt method of town government is followed.