“NC Democrats say they’re the party of principles. They should act like it” (Aug. 2) made an ill-informed, defamatory attack on NC Supreme Court candidate Chris Anglin.
As a citizen, he was concerned about the attacks on our independent judiciary and was moved to take action. He didn’t make, break or change the rules; he just followed them.
He has been outspoken and up front about why: to stand up for an independent judiciary; to give a voice to disaffected Republicans who no longer recognize their party and are appalled at the assaults on our democracy happening every day on a state and federal level; and to make the point that partisan judicial elections are a bad idea.
No ‘trick’ in that and nothing ‘wrong’ about it. In fact, our democracy needs more of it.
Consultant to the Anglin campaign
‘Pig in a Poke’
Regarding “NC GOP votes to change way ballot amendments are titled” (July 25): My Granddaddy used to warn against buying a “pig in a poke.” For those who may not know, a poke is an old-timey word for a bag or sack . The warning was against buying something unseen or not evaluated.
Well, our Republican-led, supermajority, veto-proof General Assembly wants us to agree to voting for six amendments to the N.C. Constitution without any discussion on the merits of these amendments.
In fact, the Republican leadership, at great taxpayer expense, has called a special session in order to have these six amendments added to the ballot in November without captions to explain them. They want to put these amendments in a poke with no opportunity for discussion or evaluation by the voters.
Voters are being asked to vote for the contents of this “poke” without any thought of the consequences. Therefore I suggest that voters follow the advice of my Granddaddy and refuse to buy the contents of this poke. Vote no on each of these amendments.
In “Trump: Border crackdown or government shutdown” (July 31), President Trump was quoted saying “If we don’t get border security ... I would have no problem doing a shutdown.”
We’re the laughingstock of the world, but not for the lack of border security. We are because we elected this man to be president of the United States.
In response to “Little hope for solution: Tensions rise as partisan divide deepens across NC” (July 30): I would like to call your attention to an issue that has been tragically affected by polarization in our country – climate policy.
Recent studies have found that the problem is not so much that Republicans are skeptical about climate change, but that Republicans are skeptical of Democrats – and that Democrats are skeptical of Republicans.
Researchers believe that Republican opposition to climate policy has occurred, in part, because climate policy has been a Democratic issue. Likewise, studies showed that Democrats toed the party line. The researchers believe their studies suggest that climate policy gridlock is largely about exaggerating disagreement for the sake of disagreement.
Fortunately, they found a pattern that surprised them: political disagreement was substantially smaller when it came to Republican-backed policies. They conclude that there was very little distance between Republicans and Democrats when evaluating a Republican proposed carbon tax. And that this suggests that a carbon tax such as the one proposed by prominent Republicans including James Baker III and George Schultz may hold more promise for a bipartisan agreement then we have seen with Democratic policies in the past.
Regarding “The fears of Driving While Black in NC are true; the data prove it” (July 29): We have now had two articles about the study done by a UNC professor which seems to show that Driving While Black is a problem. But at this point all we have to go on is his interpretation of the data.
Did he consider the nature of the stops? Were they based on radar monitoring wherein the race of the offender would be unknown until the person is pulled over? How many of the stops are random roadblock checks where maybe every fifth car is checked? Were the stops in heavy crime areas? How many of the stops resulted in arrests?
Let’s see the data so we can draw our own conclusions.
Vincent M. DiSandro Sr.