We released our endorsements last week, which naturally means we’ve been deluged with comments about had bad/wrong/corrupt we are, and we’ll get to those in just a minute. First, let’s catch up on our cover story from two weeks ago, about Redneck Revolt, the far-left outfit that likes to brandish assault rifles.
Tricia Johnson thinks they’re on to something: “Marx specifically stated that the people were to remain armed and resist any attempt by the government to disarm them, that disarming the people is an act of oppressors and the people cannot remain free without the ability to resist on all levels. I do see the conservatives running scared. As always, they want to pooh-pooh and minimize the armed leftists, as if that makes it true, and then attempt to perpetuate the myth that leftists don’t have arms. Many of us are former military or, like me, law enforcement-trained. They’d rather live in their fantasy cocoon. Good, let them. The element of surprise is as valuable as being well-armed.”
“Do they really want to take on millions of ex-military and ex-law enforcement?” responds George Martin. “Let’s get this party started, cupcakes. Signed, a retired career military combat vet of three wars.”
Love where this conversation is headed.
All right, endorsements. Pat O’Brien says our support for U.S. Representative David Price is “dead wrong”: “He’s just another old white man, and Michelle Laws is an amazing woman who gets things done. I have known her for a decade, and she has shown remarkable accomplishments on the grassroots level. We need more like her. Price has had his chance to make a legacy.”
Glenwoodbrooklynite rises to Price’s defense: “Being an old white man doesn’t disqualify a great representative like Price from serving. He’s been a terrific congressman for our district, and I look forward to him really making progress on gun safety with the wind at his back this time. The INDY is right: he is indeed a good fit for District 4. We do need some new people in Washington, no doubt, but that is no reason to dump the good ones.”
On to what might be our most controversial endorsement: Roger Echols over Satana Deberry for Durham County District Attorney. Ellen O’Grady says we screwed up: “I had the privilege of attending the People’s Alliance meeting the evening they endorsed Satana. I got to hear community members speak with much love and conviction on Satana’s behalf. She has the legal expertise. She has the experience of bringing people of various backgrounds to the conversation, to look directly at how systems are affecting lives. She has a well-researched plan and a commitment to that plan. I’ve heard Echols’s supporters admit that Satana entering the race has gotten him to make more progressive moves. I don’t want a DA who needs to be pushed to take a progressive stand.”
Skepticalbrotha says we’re ignoring our own reporting: “Satana Deberry is running in large part because of the INDY‘s investigative reporting on the police shooting of Frank Clark. Y’all laid bare the lies and duplicity of the police, and Echols’s complicity with those lies. Frank Clark was murdered, but let’s focus on plagiarism, ’cause that’s more important than police accountability.”
J.P. McPickleshitter counters that “Echols is a principled man.” “The speech he gave about considering the context in which the monument destruction occurred was nuanced and brave, and happened well before he was ‘pushed by his opponent.’ Durham For All’s portrayal of Echols as a pro-police lackey is shameful and dishonest. And [Deberry’s] plagiarism and subsequent response were more than a simple ‘mistake.’ It’s an issue of honesty, and Deberry had ample opportunity to take responsibility and be truthful after it came to light. That didn’t happen. If Deberry’s supporters were being honest, they’d admit that they would never give that same benefit of the doubt to Echols.”
Want to see your name in bold? Email us at backtalk@indyweek.com, comment on our Facebook page or indyweek.com, or hit us up on Twitter: @indyweek.
