On gay rights, Neal supports full equality, including marriage, as a matter of law. But he also recognizes that the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom when it comes to whether same-sex unions should be sanctioned by various faiths.
Given his background as a Wall Street investment banker and venture capitalist, Neal is at his best when dissecting the causes of the nation's widening gap between rich and poor and the erosion of middle-class jobs. He calls it "unconscionable" that corporate CEOs make 400 times as much money as the average worker. His prescription for fixing what ails us includes sweeping investments in education and our economic infrastructure, not war, and for junking free-trade policies in favor of fair-trade ones. He thinks the federal government should prepare to buy mortgages and refinance them to prevent foreclosures.
Neal is hardly a perfect candidate. He's never run for office, can be long-winded and abstract about policy, and while he grew up in North Carolina, he's lived elsewhere most of his adult life. He acknowledges that his business life has had its ups and, recently, some downs. He's not rich, and has had trouble raising money despite having been a top fundraiser for the '04 Democratic ticket of Kerry-Edwards.
That said, Neal didn't get into this race until every potential "establishment" candidate from Gov. Mike Easley on down had walked away from it. That includes state Sen. Kay Hagan, D-Guilford, who announced that she wouldn't run, but changed her mind a few weeks later—after Neal declared. Party leaders in Washington and Raleigh quickly endorsed her; the inescapable conclusion was that they feared having a gay candidate on the ticket.
Hagan is a former bank lawyer whose politics are rooted in the moderate-to-conservative side of the party. As one of the Senate's appropriations chairs, she's helped shape state budgets that do well by education but maintain a regressive tax structure. On the campaign trail, she's finally getting up to speed on national issues; for example, after not knowing what to say about Iraq, she's lately started to talk about "redeploying" out of there, though not on any timetable.
She obviously expects to be Dole's opponent and is keeping her powder dry—and away from any "liberal" influences—until the main event. She's refused to meet Neal in a televised debate on grounds that the three other, minor candidates weren't invited too. The three—Duskin Lassiter, Howard Staley and Marcus Williams—weren't invited because they aren't running serious, let alone statewide, campaigns.
In the Republican primary, we endorse neither candidate. Dole has devoted most of her first term to traveling the country—not, however, including North Carolina—as chair of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee. Her efforts in that regard were not just a failure but an embarrassment. Worse, though, is her steady support for all things Bush. The only exception is her newfound enthusiasm for harassing illegal immigrants, the tack she's used to re-introduce herself to the state she supposedly represents. Dole's primary opponent, a retired New York City cop named Pete DiLauro, is a perennial office-seeker with nothing to recommend him.
This endorsement is taken from the Triangle Independent Weekly, a publication from the Raleigh-Durham area. We haven't talked about more local politics in a while, and until recently I embarrassingly knew barely anything about the Senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial candidates. So here is something on the issue. I generally agree with the endorsement of Neal for Senate. I am realistic enough, however, to know that an openly gay candidate has a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected in North Carolina. Still, if he makes it through the primary, he might have shot against Dole. She has done jack shit for the state and has been sucking the teat of the W for 7 years. Bad Dole.
2 comments:
Well, you're not alone, Reed. Local politics, for the most part, doesn't generally garner my interest. Some issues get my attention, like Charlotte-Meck's god forsakenly retarded Water runoff tax piled onto a hike in property taxes, our half-billion dollar light rail system, Jim Black going to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison for being a lying, cheating douche bag, the Nick Mackey debacle, so on and so forth. But for the most part,, local politics lack the zazz that really keeps my attention. Which is odd, since it's the most likely to directly affect my life than most national or international affairs.
Now, as far as Neal is concerned, I consider his being gay a non-issue, and I think he should treat it as such, too. Don't run as the gay candidate, run as the candidate who just happens to also be gay. I think North Carolinians would be more receptive to the idea of an openly gay congressman as long as he doesn't wave it like a banner in front of everyone's face. I think libertarianish-minded concervatives would appreciate on some level an attitude of "It's my damned business, and none of yours."
But in the end, he still wouldn't get their (or my) votes because of his stand on a few key issues. But then, that's the way it should be. Race, gender, and sexual preference shouldn't play a part. But sadly, in the end, it usually does in *some* fashion. Humans will be humans.
I agree that his sexuality should be a non-issue. As the article says, his being openly gay should no more influence support or opposition to him any more than the fact he is openly white. Where I disagree with you is that it wouldn't matter that much. It is hard enough for women to get elected let alone blacks and Latinos and god forbid gays. Don't get me wrong, we've come a long, long way in this country, but never underestimate the bigotry fear mongering of American politics. I am not trying to pick any kind of fight here, but the number of women and minority participants in US (and local) government is woefully low. There are currently 74 women in Congress, which is a good thing. But women make up 50% of the population, so 74/535 (13%) is a pretty low number. There are 43 Blacks (8%), so given that they represent about 13% of the population they are a bit better off. Still, that is pretty low. We could argue that there some selection effect and that fewer women (especially) and minorities run for office. But then we should wonder why they don't. Most likely, structural inequalities and impediments give them a distinct disadvantage compared to white men. After all, money wins elections and white men have that market pretty cornered. Second, women and blacks are less likely to win elections they compete in. The exception is elections in heavily black districts, such as Mel Watt's 12th district in NC. To my knowledge there are only 2 or 3 openly Gay members of Congress.
So, the only point I am trying to make is that gender, sex, sexual orientation, and ethnicity do matter. If you want to break it all down, straight white men make up about 37% of the population of the US but hold over 80% of the seats in our legislature. That is a pretty skewed distribution.
Post a Comment