Erskine to Democrats: "Drop Dead"

Erskine Bowles was strong last night in the senatorial debate with Dick Burr. On points, he clearly won. And sartorially, his bold red tie whipped up on Dick Burr's pansy pink. Pink?

But Erskine's steadfast decision NOT to be a Democrat, except for the convenience of having a party affiliation on the ballot, is beginning to wear thin. His "non-partisanship" can sound high-minded, and we're sure he means it that way, but to us, who labor long and hard because we believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, it rings like an alarm bell. Who are we voting for here ... John Friggin' Breaux? Thanks, but no thanks.

He rang that "I'm no Democrat" bell several times and right off the bat during the hour-long debate. He said he would be "a strong, independent voice in Washington, someone who will put partisan politics aside" and would practice "the values of bringing Democrats and Republicans together." Made us flash on Grover Norquist's quip that "bi-partisanship" is just another name for date rape. We don't see Erskine successfully fighting off the pawing hands of Bill Frist.

"I'm going to be as non-partisan as someone can be," he said in closing. "You'll not see me voting with my party 96 percent of the time." Well, jeez! Approximately what percentage of Democratic positions do you find odious, Erskine? We'd kinda like to know before we go on busting our humps on your behalf. "Vote for Bowles. He'll support Democratic ideals ... an unknown percentage of the time!"

That crack about not voting the party line 96 percent of the time was a jab at Dick Burr, who is on record voting with the president that often (frankly, we're surprised it isn't 100 percent). And while Erskine was busily blotting out any tinge of Democrat on his person, Burr was just as busily wrapping himself in the failed policies of El Presidente (free trade agreements, for example, and No Child Left Behind and disastrous environmental rules), as though the polls showing Bush and Kerry almost even in North Carolina just didn't exist. But Burr couldn't quite bring himself to outright endorse a constitutional ban on gay marriage, though we're sure that his supporters THINK he did, the way he phrased it, but he weasled out, saying he couldn't think of anything more important than the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman (said the candidate in the pink tie) but clearly NOT also saying he therefore supported an amendment to the Constitution. Erskine, for his part, drily noted, "I don't think there's anything conservative about changing the Constitution."

On economic issues, Bowles said twice, and with the exact same dropped 'g,' "People are really hurtin,' " just like the good ole down-home boy he ain't. It was a polished and clearly rehearsed gambit, and he certainly pulled it off better than Kerry ever could, adding an anecdote at the end about a poor man he met in Greensboro who had to decide whether to take his ailing daughter to the doctor or not, because he didn't have insurance. It was positively Clintonesque.

Erskine's one misstep came on a question about the assault weapons ban. He said he supported the ban because "every single police chief supports it." Burr gleefully pounced: " 'Every police chief'? I'll be glad to send you a list of some police chiefs who don't support it."

To the direct question from moderator Carl Kasell about following the "party line," Bowles replied (and here I quote him at length): "I've said many times that North Carolina needs a strong, independent voice in the U.S. Senate, someone who will put partisan politics aside and stand up for North Carolina. When I negotiated the first balanced budget in a generation [as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff], I had to go up and spend literally weeks and weeks locked up in conference rooms with Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. That wasn't easy. But I also had to spend weeks and weeks locked up in conference rooms with Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt, and that wasn't easy either, 'cause the two sides were really far apart. And what I did was find that common ground, and we were able to balance the budget and move the country forward. That's the kind of effort I want to see in the future, no matter what the issue is. You know, I disagree with people in my party over many issues. You know, I supported the 87 billion dollars for this war. That's something I really believe in. I thought the Medicare program that was just passed [back last December] that Richard voted for, I thought that while it has lots and lots and lots of problems and it needs to be amended, I thought it was a beginning step. So there are lots of areas like that where I would not vote with my party. What I would do would be to try to do what's right for North Carolina."

He managed in that one answer to stick his bony elbow in the face of anti-war Democrats and senior citizens, who in the main absolutely despise the new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan. Back last December he was announcing his total support for the Medicare bill. Since then, and apparently after hearing from a fair number of disgusted Democrats (yes, THOSE people!), he's added the caveat of "lots and lots and lots of problems" with the bill, but he still supports it. Which means, we guess, that we'll soon be yelling at his legislative aides over the telephone like we were yelling at Tom Daschle's aides back last December when Daschle was being "non-partisan" to the detriment of every elderly person in this country.

What we don't need in North Carolina -- sorry, Erskine -- is another Tom Daschle Lite Democrat.