RTP-area local music and culture

[Duncan Murrell <dvmurrell AT nc.rr.com>]

On Nov 10, 2004, at 9:43 PM, kevin maxwell farmer wrote:

> she talked about the issues in a way that connected with voters, her
> opponent talked about her sexuality.

That's an oversimplification of that race.

I don't see what's wrong about talking values when it comes to figuring 
out how people vote for president. There's forty years of hard, 
statistical evidence that suggests that values of one sort or another 
trump just about everything when people vote for president. Check out 
Thad Beyle's stats at the Center for the Study of the American South. 
Furthermore, my affinity for the Democratic party's position on most of 
the issues are fully in keeping with, if not directly the result of, 
the values I hold, some of which derive from my (gasp) church 
background, some from the hours sitting zazen at the zendo, and some 
just because I'm a fan of the Enlightenment. I'm not afraid of a 
discussion of values, but I'm sorry they make you berserk.

On the other hand, the statistics also seem to indicate that in races 
down the ticket, people _do_ vote the issues more often, probably 
because they're more immediate and less abstract. Democrats still live 
on down the ticket, and as a result the Democrats (this time) increased 
their share in the State House. Julia Boseman was a county 
commissioner, and therefore was 1) a proven, well-known leader who had 
2) obviously long ago resolved any issues her electorate had (if they 
had any at all) about her sexuality.  Boseman's experience isn't one 
from which you can extrapolate a lesson for the national Democratic 
party. She's a hard-nosed pol who gave it to Woody (the Republican) as 
hard as she got, until the Republicans decided to race for the bottom 
and wallow in their filth. She probably would have won, anyway, even if 
the Wilmington paper had stood by its endorsement of her opponent. 
(Endorsements are worthless.)

d