news-record.com

NEWS

Etheridge in, Bowles out in NC governor's race

Thursday, February 2, 2012
(Updated Friday, February 3 - 12:22 am)

RALEIGH (AP) -- Former U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge announced Thursday that he will enter the Democratic primary for North Carolina governor, hours after Erskine Bowles decided against it.

Etheridge's bid further shakes up the party's gubernatorial future just a week after incumbent Beverly Perdue said she wouldn't seek re-election.

Etheridge, who served seven terms in Congress from Harnett County, previously was state schools superintendent, winning two statewide elections. He released a statement that improving the state's public education system has been his life's work. The schools are expected to be a big issue in the campaign as Republicans passed a state budget that Democrats have panned for reducing spending by several hundred million dollars.

"As we move forward, we must ensure we are making the key investments in public education, community colleges and the university system," Etheridge said. "This election is about leadership. It's about moving forward — not moving backward."

The announcement means that Etheridge will join Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton and state Rep. Bill Faison in the party's May 8 primary. Three others are considering whether to enter the race, but that group no longer includes Bowles, a former White House chief of staff and two-time U.S. Senate candidate.

Bowles, who also was a past University of North Carolina system president, had been encouraged to get in the race by many Democrats who said that his long resume in state and national politics would be a great asset. Republicans had viewed Bowles a tough rival for presumptive GOP nominee Pat McCrory, a former Charlotte mayor, particularly with his fundraising acumen and personal wealth.

Bowles wrote in an emailed statement Thursday morning that he wouldn't run after having "spent a lot of time trying to think what is the right thing for me to do."

"I don't think anyone questions my love for North Carolina or my efforts to make our state a better place to live, work or raise a family. I've done my best in this regard and I plan to continue to do so," Bowles wrote. He made a reference to advice given by his late father, Skipper Bowles, about serving people.

"There are lots of ways to make a difference, lots of ways to add to the community woodpile," he added.

U.S. Reps. Brad Miller of Raleigh and Mike McIntyre of Lumberton and former State Treasurer Richard Moore each said after Bowles' decision they were still considering getting in the race. Etheridge, who planned to talk to the media Friday, had said earlier this week he was awaiting Bowles' before moving on his own decision.

At age 70, Etheridge would be the oldest candidate in the race, but also the one with the longest resume in state politics — and probably the longest voting record that rivals could attempt to criticize. He joined the Harnett County commission in the early 1970s, followed by the state House before being elected state superintendent in 1988.

His last run at elected office ended in 2010 when as the 2nd District incumbent he narrowly lost to Republican Renee Ellmers. A viral video showing him grabbing a man who was taping him on a Washington street didn't help his effort. Since then, Perdue chose him to run the state's office for managing federal stimulus dollars and to advise her on the response to Hurricane Irene.

The search for a Democratic nominee for governor was created when Perdue announced that she wouldn't run for a second term, saying she didn't want to politicize further her efforts to restore education funding reduced in last year's state budget.

Campaign filing starts Feb. 13 and the primary is in less than 14 weeks.

Miller, who announced the same day Perdue got out of the race that he wouldn't seek re-election to Congress largely due to redistricting, said he hoped to decide by this weekend whether to get in the governor's race. He said he believed he'd have a strong base of support from the beginning. Progressive groups such as MoveOn.org have been telling boosters to encourage him to run. Miller would likely be a favorite of the state party's liberal bloc.

"I feel pretty confident that I could put together a campaign very quickly," he said.

Moore said in an email that he is still very interested in running for governor "and will spend some time calling around the state over the next few days to gather advice and perspective."

A statement from a spokeswoman for McIntyre's congressional campaign said he's "continuing to discuss with family, leaders and advisers and pray about where he might best be of service to North Carolina."

Democrats have held the governor's mansion in North Carolina since 1993. Only two Republicans have been governor in the past 100 years.

Accompanying Photos

Joseph Rodriguez (News & Record)

Photo Caption: Erskine Bowles

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 11:44 am EST

Well, I would have likely supported him in the primary despite the fact that he's a political insider and a millionaire investment banker, and thus part of the "1%" whom we are expected to denounce as virtual Enemies of the People.

True, it might have made it a little bit less convincing to label the Republicans as the "party of the rich" when your own candidate is quite wealthy and connected, but I have a feeling that whomever the Democratic candidate is, they'll also be a well-connected millionaire. Virtually all candidates at this level are either rich or filthy rich, and that includes our own Democrats as well as Republicans.

If we Democrats would just start rejecting our own millionaires in favor of "real" people, I'd be so much more energized and I would feel less hypocritical in the voting booth.

rooster8786

February 2, 2012 - 12:29 pm EST

so, regardless of a person's experience and abilities, if they're "rich or filthy rich", by your standards, they should be automatically rejected? Do you also just say if they're black, or hispanic, or asian, or maybe they only have nine toes, they're automatically rejected also? Racism takes different forms, besides skin color, as you make abundantly clear...

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 3:12 pm EST

When did I ever state that the rich should be automatically disqualified from office? I'll tell you where: Nowhere. Moreover, did I not openly state that I would probably have voted for Bowles if he decided to stand for election?

Once again, here is the only point I made: When you make it one of the party's primary political strategies to label the opposition as the "party of the rich," I cringe when it runs millionaires and billionaires just like the Republicans do. Then we are reduced to basically arguing that "My rich guy is OK, but your rich guy is bad."

I guess that I jus don't like to be in a position where they can say "the pot is calling the kettle black."

Does that explain it better for you, Rooster? Maybe you should read people's posts a few times and make sure you understand the point before you launch into erroneous and absurd attacks on statements that were not made. Hey, just today I made an erroneous criticism, but I had the courage to acknowledge it. I admitted that I was wrong. Can you?

rooster8786

February 2, 2012 - 3:27 pm EST

"If we Democrats would just start rejecting our own millionaires in favor of "real" people,..."
That pretty much makes my point....

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 6:54 pm EST

Gee, I advocated that we should consider encouraging ordinary middle class people to reach for office instead of having a roster filled with nearly all millionaires. I guess I must be a communist in your eyes, too. For a Democrat, you sure do seem to be on the side of millionaires and billionaires. Hell, maybe I should just join the Communist Party. At least they're intellectually consistent.

JRL2

February 2, 2012 - 12:38 pm EST

Rooster I don't agree with the Doctor either, but his statements has NOTHING to do with racism. Gheesh!

rooster8786

February 2, 2012 - 1:50 pm EST

yes, his comments do. He is automatically excluding Mr. Bowles because he has money. He is automatically excluding someone because of his preconceived notion of what makes a candidate a good candidate. How is that any different than saying I won't vote for you because you're black, or hispanic, or asian? How does someone's net worth determin e if they are a "real" democrat or not? The only difference, in his racism, is he didn't say whether he considers him "rich" or "filthy rich"...

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 2:56 pm EST

You are wrong, Rooster. I refer you to the answer I made to your question/attack above. Again, I only maintain that it is hypocritical to make it a perennial point to attack Republicans for their millonaire/billionaire politicians while we also nominate millionaires and billionaires ourselves. Class conflict is a major strategy in our Party, and it doesn't help when we nominate people from the same economic class that we like to attack (ie. the 1%, as OWS would say). Most people are blissfully unaware of the irony in doing so, but it makes me feel like a hypocrite to attack "the rich" while pushing other members of "the rich" for high office.

Didn't you sense the irony in 2004, for example, when we blasted millionaire Bush as the rich-man politician who was the oil industry's tool, while we simultaneously lauded the billionaire Kerry as a man who understood the common people? If you did, perhaps you can see my point. If you didn't, you're a lost cause because you're hostage to partisan considerations. A moment of self-reflection can be valuable, even for a political party.

If we are the "party of the common people," why don't we EVER have some common people as candidates for important positions? The Congress, governorships, etc., are all the playgounds of the rich, regardless of party affiliation. Please just try to think about what I said again, and try to see my point. I hope I didn't anger you by questioning the Democratic Party's habit of attacking "rich politicians" when they are Republicans and supporting them when they are Democrats. If you are indeed an absoute party loyalist (ie "My Party, right or wrong), then I suppose you are still ready to lead an online a lynch mob to attack me, but if you have the courage to think outside the box, I ask you again to just reconsider my point.

Your attempt to link me with a kind of racism is so utterly absurd that I have chosen to ignore that aspect of your response entirely, as it says more about you than it does about me.

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 2:57 pm EST

And by the way, rooster, re-read my original comment. Did I not say that I would still have supported Mr. Bowles? Did you miss that or ignore it because you thought it could help your absurd comparison of my thought to racism?

General Greensboro

February 2, 2012 - 3:16 pm EST

Settle down, Rooster. Try to argue doc's points rather than things he didn't write.

And let's try to get this thread back on topic. It's teetering on the edge of going off the rails.

GG

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 3:23 pm EST

Yes, sir, General. You have my full cooperation.

To meander back towards the point, I would indeed have gone for Bowles in the primary. He has a better background than the others, and I think he would have brought a lot more political savvy to the Governorship than Perdue did or that the other candidates would.

rooster8786

February 2, 2012 - 3:34 pm EST

GG, Sorry, but the way I read the first sentence of the last paragraph of his first comment, it clearly says "...just start rejecting our millionaires..." That's what the doctor wrote and I commented on. Seems to me he wants his fellow democrats to automatically reject someone based on their bank account and I don't see how that is any different than rejecting them for their race, nationality, handicap, sex, or any other absurd reason.

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 7:14 pm EST

Again, you are taking my comment to extremes and misunderstanding my point. To "start rejecting" millionaire candidates does not equal the idea of automatic rejection. That is something YOU came up with and erroneously drew from the comment.

Apparently, my choice of rhetoric in my original comment really enraged you into a virtual conniption fit. However, I offered you a clarification several times, yet you still CHOOSE to misunderstand my comment. It has been explained to you again and again and you refuse to budge. Maybe YOU should run for governor.

Let's run through it one more time, Rooster. Our party(Democrats) has in the past, and is currently still making it a point to critcize the Republicans as the "party of the rich," yet the people leading our party are almost exlusively millionaires and billionaires; in fact, our people in Congress tend to be much wealthier than Republicans. I woud like to see some ordinary middle class or working class (ie. the "real" people I mentioned...."real" in the sense of ordinary, regular folks) to get some party support to run for office. Would it be so horrible for a talented middle class person to hold the governorship, for example? Why can't the party find some talented working class guy who wants to serve and help him succeed? I did not advocate banning the wealthy from office holding, and if my rhetoric led you to believe that, I clarified my position on numerous occasions. You just refuse to have a discussion. You just want to take your extreme (and wrong) interpretation and pound it to death. Yes, I think YOU would make a great politician or a talking head on FoxNews.

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 7:31 pm EST

I suspect that you might be a Party loyalist who would rather just keep throwinglabels at opponents and never stop to ask questions of your own Party, or you are an elitist, or you didn't take the time to think about my comment. My point was simple: if our strategy is to make the case that the GOP candidates are out-of-touch millionaires and billionaires, we better make sure we're not just a party of millionaire and billionaire candidates. Gee, how rotten of me. How evil. How DARE that I question the Democratic leadership. Are you and all your rich friends going to call me a communist? Are you going to join Rooster's lynch mob of obstinance?

Or are you big enough to allow people to ask uncomfortable questions without getting angry at them? Instead of labeling questions as "silliness," why not provide some substance as a counterpoint?

I seem to have really upset the elitists, the "Democrat billionaire good, Republican billionaire bad" party hacks, and the people with poor reading comprehension skills all in one swipe.

Bosco

February 2, 2012 - 4:39 pm EST

I like rich people. Republican, Democrat, Independant, black, white ,yellow, brown, whatever. Maybe Mark Zuckerberg will run for office. People that created wealth by doing things other than writing a couple of mediocre books

The_Doctor

February 2, 2012 - 6:49 pm EST

Like others, you didn't comprehend my comment. You skimmed it and had an emotional reaction. My beef isn't with rich folks. It isn't with rich office holders or candidates. My complaint is about the hypocrisy that is created when our Democratic party makes an issue out of the rich Republican candidates but never questions why all of our candidates also seem to be very wealthy people. What is so dammmmned hard to comprehend? It seems like you folks don't like it when people point out inconvenient ideas.

overtaxed

February 2, 2012 - 9:20 pm EST

" What is so dammmmned hard to comprehend? It seems like you folks don't like it when people point out inconvenient ideas."

Amen Doctor.
I've tried to tell people that politicians on both sides care only about one thing... MONEY!

Maybe this will help those who don't get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PkWf9M3rUw&feature=related

Doug Johnson

February 2, 2012 - 4:55 pm EST

I am with you Bosco, never worked for a poor person.

northoftheboro

February 2, 2012 - 10:07 pm EST

If Etheridge wins the May primary, this will be great news for the GOP...all they will have to do is re-air the video of him physically assaulting two teen staffers in DC who committed the unpardonable sin of asking the 7-term congressman a question. That video got the incumbent defeated in November 2010 and should do likewise in nine months. Come on Dems...vote him in!

General Greensboro

February 3, 2012 - 7:06 am EST

Does anyone have anything to say about Erskine Bowles or Bob Etheridge or the upcoming Democratic primary?

Doc and rooster, your sidebar has gone on long enough. No more, please.

GG

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search