A short evening with Kay Hagan

Update: In light of Ms. Hagan's support of Telco immunity in the FISA, I must regretfully withdraw any support for her candidacy.

Kay Hagan, presumptive Democratic senatorial candidate for NC was in Greensboro last night to touch base with the party faithful and drum up support for her campaign against absentee senator and all out disgrace Elizabeth Dole.

Before I get into the particulars of the meeting let me address a few points.

Ms. Hagan is a NC state senator and has done an excellent job representing her constituents. If she wins the primary and defeats Liddy Dole, it will be a tremendous step forward and I have every confidence she will do us proud, as the saying goes.

That said, I went to the meeting last night in search of a leader, but only found a politician. A conscientious and ethical politician by all appearances, but a politician none the less.

Things started out well, and she said all the right things. We needed to address the health care crisis, Iraq required a diplomatic, not a military solution, NC needed someone to represent all its citizens, not just those with lots of money. My cynical heart began to thaw, and the hope that I found someone I could support without reservation began to tingle. Then, at the very end, she evoked the dreaded "B" word. She would strive for bi-partisanship.

The crackling sound was my heart freezing back over and hope dying in the cold.

Whether Ms. Hagan is aware of it or not, "bi-partisanship" to those of us unashamed of the word "liberal", is code for "Guess when I am going to sell you down the river?".

Even for those who would never betray their principles for "bi-partisanship", the term when used by a Democrat in any way other than contemptuously reveals a dangerous naivety about reality. "Bi-partisanship" has only one definition amongst the Washington elite (pundits and politicians): The Republicans always get their way. The Democrats always accommodate them. Any Democrat who doesn't understand this has not been paying attention to political events in Washington for at least the last decade.

I addressed this point in the Q&A part of the meeting and I was the last person to address her.

Now, I will be perfectly frank. I make speeches to drive home my point or question. This can be VERY annoying to politicians who are used to dominating the rhetorical ground with their own speeches, but then again, in my book, such things are what separate the politicians from the leaders.

And I was pretty wound up given the betrayal YET AGAIN of liberal and Democratic principal on the altar of "bi-partisanship". Reid changed the rules on the FISA debate to make an actual filibuster impossible. As a result, the telcos were granted immunity for crimes they committed at the behest of George W. Bush.

Let me reiterate this betrayal. Harry Reid had a clear choice between the rule of law and protecting his corporate masters. He chose to serve his corporate masters.

So, I mentioned this betrayal. I also mentioned Scalia's novel interpretation of the Constitution and its lack of clarity on torture. I made plain that 14 years of "bi-partisanship" had rendered us a de facto police state. Yes, I used that dreaded to term, derided by "serious politicians" as hyperbole. To compound my sin, I also called the current administration "fascist clowns". Nothing gets you labeled a "dirty fucking hippy" than using the word fascist to describe the administration, no matter how true the description is.

At one point during my remarks, Ms. Hagan smiled and interrupted with "Do you have a question?" This further solidified her as a politician in my book, since it is the standard reaction of an annoyed politician who sees they are losing control of the conversation and the topics are shifting into dangerous territory. The fact that several of my points got applause and vocal support didn't help.

Is this about ego? Partially, since standing up to question authority always requires a bit of ego. Then, why are our politicians the only ones allowed to have an ego?

My remarks tapped into the visceral anger that quite a few people felt about what our country has become in the last 14 years of "bi-partisanship". Ms. Hagan, in my unhumble opinion, didn't want to go there.

She was tolerant of my rudeness, and let me have my say, but in the end my question was "are you going to fight or are you going to be "bi-partisan"?". And in the end, she didn't really answer the question.

After the Q&A, she started heading for the door. I was not the person she wanted to speak to further. But, I am not deterred, and approached her for the opportunity to have my question answered privately.

I hoped.

She was polite and gracious, but she didn't have much use for my way of thinking. She departed quickly, her discomfort with me obvious.

To her credit, Chris, one of her staffers sought me out after she left, gave me his card and sought to address my concerns (making it explicitly, and appropriately clear he spoke only for himself, not Ms. Hagan). He assured me that he was a die hard liberal himself, and he would not be working on the campaign if didn't believe in Ms. Hagan and what she stood for.

His loyalty and faith were touching, and he made me sad that I was no longer that idealistic. His faith in his Boss re-assured me that we were in decent hands, despite my misgivings.

But it is sad that Ms. Hagan does not recognize the powerful force she ignores when she shys away from being a leader, and embraces the safer middle ground of "bi-partisanship". Those very same champions or "bi-partisanship" will knife her in the back when it suits their purpose (Senator Joe Lieberman, j'accuse!). By gaining the support of people like me, she would gain a loyal cadre of battle-hardened troops who would have her back.

I estimate that somewhere between 70-100 people were at this event. After the meeting broke up, about a dozen people approached me and thanked me for my comments. A few were quite animated that I had spoken their feelings aloud. In these days of elections won by a handful of votes, this vocal minority is ignored at peril.

Senator Hagan will have my vote if she wins the primary. I guess that's all she wants (well that, and money). I will now visit her opponent Jim Neal to see if he is a leader. Even if he is, I have no illusions about his chances. He's gay, and the the powers that be in the NC party, like Jim Hunt and Mike Easley, are not going to alienate their moderate base by backing a gay man.

But if Jim Neal is a leader, and not a politician, he'll have my vote in the primary and I'll have his back.