Open letter to BJ Lawson

BJ, when you first started running against David Price, George W Bush was still president of our country and the leader of your party. You seemed different, a breath of fresh air - you talked about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and seemed to have some idea of the dangers of powerful government.

As a civil libertarian, I wanted to find out more about you, so I contacted you and we had a wonderful three-hour breakfast meeting where we seemed to agree on a lot of principles and issues. After that we met once, perhaps twice, for more pleasant and stimulating conversations. I even invited you to a liberal political group, where you impressed other liberals with your apparent earnestness and even with some of your ideas.

At one point I asked you why you belonged to the Republican Party. You replied that the party was broken, ripe for takeover. That sounded reasonable, given the ways that a Republican President and Congress had tossed away a budget surplus and gone to war against a country that hadn't attacked us. That Republican Party is dangerous, I said, and you seemed to agree.

But now I'm feeling angry when I think about you. When I feel as angry towards someone as I do toward you, it kind of shocks me. I have to ask myself, "What is bothering me? Why am I angry?"

I believed that you represented a better Republican Party, something that our country desperately needs. As I told you, I will never vote for a Republican - I won't go into my reasons here - but our country would be far better off with the the party of Eisenhower than with the party of Rupert Murdock.

What have you become as you try once again to be elected to Congress?

  • Your belief in the Bill of Rights seemed genuine and principled. And then you finally admitted to me that you'd use the power of government to stop a woman from having an abortion. So much for principle: you see the Constitution you want, the same way Glenn Beck does.
  • When we talked, you seemed to understand that our true problem is not big government but government owned by corporations, government over which we have no control. If you don't believe that this is a fight to wrest control from corporations, why are you running for Congress? Do you now actually believe that "socialists" and not corporations control our government? That's quite a switch in your thinking and one that shocks me. If you still believe that corporate control of government is the problem, why are you so afraid to say so?
  • You call David Price, elected to Congress in 1987, a "career politician" and then fawn at the feet of Ron Paul, elected in 1976.
  • You imply that David Price is a "socialist". Yes, you really use that word even through you know it's untrue. ("Socialism comes with a Price" is your name for a recent fundraiser).
  • You say that "...David Price votes with Nancy Pelosi more than any other congressman - and that principled Americans need to stand up and say NO." So I’m “unprincipled” because I support Price and Pelosi? Please tell me that to my face, BJ.
  • In the new Lawson-speak, your supporters are "patriots". People like me must be traitors, right?

So, yes I'm angry now. I'm tired of politicians like you, who claim to be pure, patriotic, trustworthy, different, special while spouting the same vitriol and economic magical thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

To my surprise I'm finding myself questioning your motivations, where I didn't two years ago. I've gotten to know David Price fairly well over the years, and while I do not always agree with his positions, I've learned never to doubt his motivations: he truly wants to do good for all Americans. I can no longer tell what you stand for, BJ. Unfortunately it's become all to easy to see who you're standing with.


BJ is an opportunist, pure and simple

Two years ago, he would have run as a Libertarian if he thought he could win that way. Today's he's running as a tea bagger, hoping to capitalize on the crazies coming out of the woodwork.

It saddens me too, George, to see BJ turn out to be just another political whore.

Solving big problems

I watched the accompanying video where he denounces "comprehensive immigration reform" as just other words for "amnesty"

I can't imagine someone who is anti-gay marriage, will make getting rid of a bad law like DOMA a priority.

What about things like the EPA or CDC? The environment isn't limited to one state, its interconnected, the spread of disease isn't either, and neither are oil spills. These are just a few areas where taking libertarianism too far defeats our country's ability to tackle big problems... like comprehensive immigration reform.

Lawson's tilt to the right

is a sad, sad thing. What's even sadder is what it must feel like for him to look in the mirror every morning.

More concerns

As with many congressmen who have districts than span multiple cities, he has an office in each to meet with constituents so at any given time he is necessarily not at more than one of them which makes me find this video a bit disingenuous:

And I think someone who is anti-federal funding for research/education makes a poor representative to the research triangle.

Debate coming up - Oct 8

Just got an e-mail about it. Click here for more info.

Event is open to the public

On Friday, October 8 at 6:30 p.m. Rep. David Price (D-NC) will debate Republican challenger B.J. Lawson at the Durham Station Transit Center. The debate is sponsored by and the Independent Weekly newspaper.

What: North Carolina Fourth Congressional District Candidate Debate

When: Friday, October 8, 2010
6:30 PM – 8:00 PM

Where: 515 W. Pettigrew Street
Durham, NC

Should be an exciting day in Democratic politics. The Price-Lawson debate, and the Marshall Bomb of course.

No Change

I have yet to hear a change in a position, only in the talking points. That's called politics. Disappointing, but that's the way things work (courtesy of a dumbass electorate).

As for the Nancy Pelosi deal...if you like her, then you're one of few who actually does. Newest NBC/WSJ poll shows her to be as popular as BP. I'm sorry, but I can't stop cracking up at that. That's just how terrible she is.

Also, I suspect that none of you will vote for David Price and then continue to complain that we're fighting endless wars in the middle east, right? Or complain about corporations ruining politics? Or that our "War on Drugs" is wasting money that could be used for other programs/debts? Ok. Just checking.

But for whoever you want to, just don't come and bitch about what you voted for afterward. That pisses me off more than anything.

But for

But for whoever you want to, just don't come and bitch about what you voted for afterward. That pisses me off more than anything.

Lord knows, worrying about whether you're pissed off or not is truly the most important consideration I have when voting. Way more important than the catastrophe that would come with "Speaker Boner" in the US House.

Republicans started our trillion dollar shitstorm of wars. And you want to give them the keys to the car again? That's one fucked up way to think about things.

Burr + Foxx

I think trump Pelosi.

B.J. Lawson is a strong Republican, defender of constitutional and conservative values, and will be a great advocate for the 4th District. North Carolina would do well to help our country, and our state, by electing Dr. B.J. Lawson this November.

I thought he was running on not being such a strong republican? I also saw he won Virginia Foxx's endorsement, a champion of social conservatism.

Wow. Are you 7?

Both your boner joke and lack of ability to think logically would point to the conclusion that you were something other than an old man. But alas, things can be deceiving.

I never meant that you should consider what I think before voting. My point was that I KNOW you are going to vote for the guy who has voted for every all but one war since taking office, the man who still is crusading for the war on drugs, the man who voted to repeal Glass-Steagall, the man who voted to cap liability payouts for oil companies, and the man who has had the proverbial keys to the car for the last two decades. You know all that, yet you will vote for him anyways, because he is your friend, and he has a D next to his name. You've already admitted you're a "liberal hack", so there is really no need to expand on this further. You love party over ideology, and you miraculously find voting for the lesser of two evils...not evil?

Furthermore, as I already pointed out, David Price had the car keys for the 4th district the last 22 one else. He has had the chance to vote against the PATRIOT Act, against the repeal of Glass-Steagall. He's had the chance to not take $3.5 million from PACs. He's had his shot at balancing the budget. It's laughable to say that because BJ is a Republican, and Republicans were in control for several years in the past couple of decades, that there is somehow a connection to their voting record. That has to be one of (if not the) oldest logical fallacies in the book. One can't say that he "fawn[s] at the feet of Ron Paul", and then say that he would have a voting record closer to a neocon if elected (because we have already seen hints of that here, and we all know it was coming sooner or later). It makes you all look stupid to throw out an argument, and then pick and choose when to apply it.

EDIT: And related to the name of the topic - should I start calling her Nazi Pelosi, drawing mustaches on Obama? Or would that just be childish?

I would find it rather satisfying that you lower yourself in nearly every argument you have with someone of opposing ideologies if it weren't for the fact that you don't care, because you are, as previously discussed, a political hack.

You're wasting your time, Jake

Minarchist is an anonymous troll whose only purpose here is to disrupt and distract. That said, I do appreciate his/her keeping this BJ thread alive.

It's one thing to read a candidate's campaign propaganda, but it's an entirely different thing to sit down with a guy and hear exactly what he stands for in his very own words ... and then discover those words don't mean squat when the rubber meets the road. I know Zabouti. He is fair and tolerant, almost to a fault. He has spent a lot of time with Lawson. I trust his take on this situation.

I don't think we should be giving the keys

to someone who is anti-marriage equality, when we have the option of someone who has stood against DOMA.

And you also have to ask, if you you're doing a 4 year review, what have the GOP done for you in the last 4 years? Even supposedly moderate republican senators & retiring republican senators like Snowe or Collins or Brown or Lugar or Voinovich wouldn't cross the party line to support DADT repeal.

The GOP screwed us last time they had "the keys to the car" and I'm not ready to trust them yet when even moderate republicans act no differently than the hard liners.

And with Lawsons growing tea party association, he's losing any moderate cred he might of had.

Plus there is the whole throwing his support behind the failing policies of the new wake school board thing.

And, as GOPs, including those here in NC (like in Apex) push to make abortion harder and harder to access, even if they can't make it straight up illegal, how much of a defender will an anti-choice candidate be?

I noticed at least that 538 updated their projections of the race as of 4 days ago:
Giving Price a 95.9% chance of winning.


Abortion? Gay Marriage? What a joke.

Obama is firmly against gay marriage (thus anything going through the congress is worthless), and abortion hasn't been an issue for decades (with the exception of a small blip in the health insurance bill which ended up being moot anyways). Come join the conversation in 2010.

Also, lol @ you continuing on with these logical fallacies about "well 'X' did this, which means that 'Y' is also going to also!"

Fairness is a joke?

The Pres already said he'd signed DOMA repeal. But frankly it wouldn't matter if the president had never said that. I'd still want as many pro-equality candidates in office as possible to help change things.

You want pro-benefit candidates

Because that is the only difference between Lawson and Price. Lawson doesn't want the state involved in straight or gay marriages. Price wants the government giving equal benefits to both. I don't necessarily have a problem with either (since benefits are already being given out - they must be given out equally), but I much prefer the government not having their nose in what someone does in their private life, whether it be marriage, drugs, prostitution, or anything else that is morally questionable to some.

Edit: BTW, "fairness" is a joke if you plan on being remotely objective.

It's not just the government

that has its nose into our private lives; there's also insurance companies, banks, prospective employers, etc. And then there are the (real) criminals mining our personal data for identity theft and such. My point is, even if the government were completely removed from vast areas of our lives, those "vacuums" would not remain unfilled.

And just a note: prostitution is not (always) a victimless crime. Thousands of women and girls (and some guys, too) in this country are captured, coerced, addicted and/or imprisoned in this industry every year. One man's "private" doings is another person's living hell, and frankly, the government doesn't do nearly enough to help these folks.

Price in Cary

Price's campaign office is in Cary. He's actually putting most of his campaign time into the Wake County portion of his district. It shouldn't be that hard for you to find him. Just give it a try.