They might just have been right.
I just got off the phone with Neal who was absolutely charming - the kind of person I feel like I've known forever after our 20 minute conversation. The thing with both Hagan and Neal is that they don't feel particularly shellacked, though I will say that Neal's complete lack of barriers or formality did make Hagan feel a little glossy in retrospect. I suppose that's to be expected, though - Hagan has been in politics for a long while while Neal hasn't held an office outside institutes of education. She's had more time to integrate the sheen of politics into her NC gal personality.
But that's the whole crux of their run-off, much like the Clinton/Obama debate nationally. Which is better: a newbie who hasn't been tainted by the political system, but perhaps will have more of a learning curve once in office, or a person with existing experience and relationships that might make the transition smoother, but who has had plenty of time to be twisted by an increasingly suspect system?
Going into my conversation with Neal, I had two questions top of mind: 1) How does he really differ from Hagan politically? 2) As a man who makes no bones about being gay, how does he intend to keep his sexuality a non-issue?
He had several examples at the ready on the Hagan question - areas in which their votes would have been different had they already been in U.S. Senate. Some differences according to Neal:
- Hagan would grant retroactive immunity to telecoms for their participation in warrantless wiretapping; he would not.
- Hagan said she would support SCHIP if it didn't interfere with the tobacco industry, but Neal says he would "take kids over smokers any day."
- Hagan wouldn't give an opinion about Mukasey being installed as Attorney General because she didn't have all the info the Senate had. Neal said he would not vote for anybody who had to parse words about whether waterboarding is okay. "I don't think that sends the appropriate message to the world."
He rightly pointed out that anyone who wouldn't vote for him solely because of his sexuality likely wouldn't have voted for him anyway because of his stands on a variety of issues, particularly social issues. During a time in which barriers are being knocked down right and left in the presidential field, Neal believes people find his honesty refreshing.
It is a beautiful picture that shows a North Carolina in which an openly gay man could take over Jesse Helms' seat just six years after the master hate monger retired. Even more than my concern about whether enough North Carolinians will vote for a gay man, though, are my concerns that people who have no problem with his sexuality will choose to use their vote elsewhere in their search for the winning horse. That's not a problem with him - that's a problem with a political system that would be better served by allowing people to choose more than one candidate during an election - that way, we could vote for our favorite dark horse (like me and Mike Gravel in the presidential election) while also casting a vote for the person closest to our views but with the better chance of winning (Obama... then again, I do love Obama... almost as much as the surly Gravel.).
Am I a total Neal convert? I'm not sure yet. I completely agree with his stands on the issues above but there's more research to be done before the May 6 primary. I definitely want to have a beer with the guy, though... not that that's a reason to vote for a person... but perhaps this quote is:
"We've had enough of the politics of division," he said. "This is a year about changing the status quo." Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment