Re John and Elizabeth Edwards’ new home: The only thing they’re guilty of is over-answering.  In situations like this, the less said, the better.

Remember the first rule of getting out of a hole: Put down the shovel.

It’s his money, he earned it and he can spend it like he wants.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

The 2004 election demonstrated the power of the Internet.  It’s now the YouTube campaign.

The first victim was former Senator George Allen of Virginia.

Here’s a hit on John McCain that’s now circulating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

By the way, thanks to my son James for the link.  At 17, he’s my link to YouTube politics.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

Looking out the window as he gave his state of the city address, Mayor Meeker noted the four cranes hovering over his $221 million convention center, his $20 million downtown hotel and his $40 million underground parking lot. (News and Observer; 1-23-07).

Then the Mayor proposed building a 28 mile adventure trail along the banks of the Neuse River – for a million dollars a mile. Will the Mayor’s spending spree never end?

Dix Hill

The last time the Mayor’s Dix Hill Task Force met, he ended up in a tussle. The Mayor wants the city to buy Dix Hill and develop it for $40 million. Greg Poole, a leader of a group wanting to turn Dix Hill into a park, instead, said the Task Force’s guidelines would end up ‘developing most of the site and creating a much smaller park on the unusable parts of the property along Rocky Branch Creek and on top of an old city landfill.’

“All they would give us as a park is wetlands and a landfill,” he said (News and Observer; 1-23-07). Another critic added, “It [Dix Hill] certainly shouldn’t be turned into a strip mall…”

That sounds like an odd criticism of Charles Meeker who, running for reelection two years ago, treated developers like a plague of locusts.

It appears, when it comes to development, Mayor Meeker has a double standard. There’s one standard for the rest of Raleigh and another for downtown which includes handing out tax-subsidies, passing bonds, and granting exemptions from regulations.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

In his State of the Union Speech, President Bush laid out his vision of the war on terrorism, saying Islamic Radicalism is an ideology – much like Communism and Nazism were ideologies in their times, opposing everything we stand for and determined to destroy us.

Democratic Senator Jim Webb, in his rebuttal, did not differ with Bush’s vision of radical Islam. In fact, he stated clearly the broader war on terrorism must be won. But he argues President Bush has been an ineffective war leader, saying the President recklessly plunged us into the war in Iraq, despite warnings from military leaders and others, and now it is time to stop him and set a new direction.

President Bush and Senator Webb, both, implicitly, seem to agree military victory is no longer a solution in Iraq – or, perhaps, for that matter, in the broader war on terrorism.

The President argues sending 21,000 more men to Iraq will give us the hope of victory – but he is not talking about military victory. Instead victory depends on both the military and other factors; he is sending 21,000 more men to buy time for the political stars inside Iraq to align in our favor. So victory depends on the government of Iraq becoming strong and stable.

Senator Webb is not counting on military victory either. He says clearly his new direction includes a combination of military and diplomatic solutions.

The President has apparently concluded the price and pain of military victory – which would require sending a lot more than 21,000 more men – would be so unpopular it is out of the question. It is not politically viable here at home. So, he is reduced to buying time and hoping for the stability of the government in Iraq – while his opponents are reduced to gambling on diplomacy – hoping to persuade the Iranians and Syrians to stop supporting the Islamic radicals and insurgents in Iraq.

Our leaders are trying to thread a pair of needles.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

The right-wing, anti-school crowd lost in November when the Wake County school bonds won, but they’re taking aim again.

One of our readers emailed:

“Looks to me like the County Commissioners are trying to take over the school board - a Billion dollar school bond with 4 school board seats on the same ballot.”

Bingo, reader.

The News & Observer’s T. Keung Hui and Ryan Teague Beckwith reported Tuesday:

Most Wake County school board members think it's a poor idea to ask voters to approve another $1 billion in school construction bonds this fall so soon after last year's bruising victory.

County commissioners shocked school leaders last weekend by saying they want to put the next bond issue on the ballot this year instead of 2008 or 2009 as originally planned. School board members fear voters won't be ready to approve another bond issue -- and the increase in property taxes -- so quickly.

I see the fine hand of Paul Coble behind this.  But don’t accuse me of seeing a vast right-wing conspiracy.  It’s half-vast.

The plot: Put a huge bond issue on the ballot again, when it’s most likely to lose.  And hope the bonds sink board members up for reelection who have defied the Republican-majority commissioners.  Then the anti-school crowd will have full sway.

Commissioners Chairman Tony Gurley admitted as much in the N&O:

Gurley said commissioners did not discuss the political implications of putting the bond issue on the same ballot as other local races, but he acknowledged it is a factor in the group's thinking.

"I think that's probably understood," said Gurley, who was re-elected in November. "It was very trying to have [bonds] on the same ballot as a re-election. I did it last year, and I'm sure it cost me a bunch of votes."

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

I consider myself an expert on strengthening executive offices, though some cynics might call it power-grabbing.  I learned from the master: working with Governor Hunt when he passed succession in 1977 (before that, Governors could serve only one term) and veto in 1996.

So maybe Raleigh needs a stronger mayor.  But Charles Meeker’s campaign for a full-time mayor got off to a weak start.

The Mayor and his spokesman even sounded weak.  The News & Observer reported:

"I'm sure that he is disappointed he has not always gotten the support from his council members, both Democrat and Republican," said Perry Woods, who has managed campaigns for Meeker and other Democrats. "Ask Trent Lott what that's like. I think he has a book called 'Herding Cats.' "

Meeker lobbies members hard and sometimes urges them to line up for the sake of Democratic unity. "I've attempted that one or two times, and it doesn't work," he said. He also admits that he has used the acronym "DINO" -- Democrat in Name Only.

Calling Council members cats and DINOs hardly helps.  Nor does surprising them with this proposal.

Meeker also told WRAL:

"It is a challenge," he said of wrangling support. "Sometimes the council doesn't agree on the merits."

Well, that’s what City Councils – and Congress and state legislatures – are for: to debate the merits.

Meeker added:

“People expect the mayor to get things done, yet the mayor doesn't have any formal authority to do so,” Meeker argues.

So what does this mean in practical terms?  Giving the mayor a veto over council decisions?  Giving him the power to single-handedly make decisions that now require council action?

The primary power of any office – President, Governor, legislator or mayor – is the power to persuade.  To sell this idea, the Mayor will need to be a lot more persuasive.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

A study by a local government agency in Raleigh reports that over a 15 year period (1991-2005) Wake County paid “about $186 million” a year in transportation taxes – while the DOT only spent “$132 million per year” to build roads here.

In other words DOT took $54 million a year in highway taxes – paid in Wake County – and spent them elsewhere. Over fifteen years that’s almost a billion dollars that could have been spent to build roads in Wake County. (News and Observer; 1-18-07).

What happened? Politics.

DOT has a formula which guides its “spending for road construction” – and after legislators finished scrambling for money for their districts, when the smoke cleared, Raleigh ended up on the short end of the stick.

How are local governments and DOT dealing with the problem? One way is toll roads – which means people in Wake County send $54 million a year in transportation taxes to other counties – then pay tolls to build roads here.

So, when driving down I-540, as you pay your first toll, remember, the politicians sent almost a billion dollars in Wake County transportation taxes – somewhere else.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

Some pollsters have a gift for reading hundreds of pages of statistics and finding a nugget of truth. Others have a different talent: Flexibility. They can poll one day and say with absolute conviction the public is, for instance, adamantly against President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq. Then a month later, they poll again and say, lo and behold, people have changed their minds.

The problem, if you’re a candidate, is you’re never quite sure if people did suddenly change their minds, or if the pollster just woke up on the other side of the bed that morning.

Two polls in the Governor’s race are examples. Two different pollsters surveying North Carolina voters at roughly the same time came up with completely different answers.

The first poll (published in the newspapers) showed that, after he spent a million dollars on television, Republican candidate Bill Graham led in the primary.

                                    Bill Graham                24%

                                    Bob Orr                      13%

                                    Robert Pittenger        10%

                                    Fred Smith                  9%

It appeared Graham had leapt into the lead.

                                    Bill Graham                  8%

                                    Bob Orr                        3%

                                    Sue Myrick               23%

                                    Fred Smith                  5%

So which poll is right? For the candidates for Governor the answer to that question makes a big difference. If the first poll is correct Graham, by spending another million on television, could widen his lead, making it difficult for his opponents to catch up.

On the other hand, if the second poll is right Graham just spent a million for 8% of the vote – and needs a course correction. Maybe TV is not his medium or maybe there was something wrong with the ads. Whatever the explanation he’s a million dollars poorer and no better off, statistically, than Senator Fred Smith or former Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr.

It would be unusual in a primary where the candidates aren’t well known, for Graham to spend a million dollars and only end up with 8% of the vote. But it has been known to happen.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

A week ago the Mayor was saying he was going to run for reelection because he could do more as Mayor than as a United States Senator. Now (see Gary’s post below) he says the Mayor doesn’t have enough power.

This proves one thing: Mayor Meeker’s lost control of the City Council. His solution is to put more power in his hands. Then he can ignore the Council. But consider this: five of the seven Council members, like Meeker, are Democrats. Maybe the real problem, and why the Council voted down the Mayor’s roundabouts on Hillsborough Street, is they weren’t such a good idea.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

We hear that Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker will propose changing city government to give mayors more authority.

He wants Raleigh to abandon its long-time “strong city manager” government and replace it with a “strong mayor” system.

Sounds great.  Many Meeker supporters will like it.  But beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.  We might get Strong Mayors Fetzer or Coble.

The Mayor could be frustrated that the City Council has blocked Hillsborough Street roundabouts.

And this could become his reelection campaign theme: Raleigh needs a strong mayor to stand up to developers.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

It was almost certainly a coincidence, but the same day the newspapers reported Hillary is off and running for President they also reported that, for the first time, a majority of American women are unmarried.

This is one of the dramas to watch as Hillary sets her sights on the White House. Will her campaign, swelled by the growing ranks of unmarried women, roll through American politics like a juggernaut? One analyst, Dick Morris, suggests her candidacy could bring five to seven million women – who don’t usually vote – to the polls.

Another unfolding drama is presidential politics as reality TV. John Edwards’ campaign is broadcasting unscripted ‘webisodes,’ little scraps of a day in the life of a presidential candidate, on his web-site. And Hillary is holding folksy ‘chats’ with the American people on the Internet.

Of course the overarching drama is the war. Four years ago the Democratic primaries turned into two elections: One for the leadership of the liberal wing of the Democratic party; the other for the leadership of the so-called ‘new Democrats’, who are more moderate.

The war has fractured that paradigm. First, the liberal wing of the party has split. The younger, Howard Dean-type liberals are now the virulently anti-war, peace-wing of the Democratic Party. The more traditional liberals, like Nancy Pelosi, oppose the war too, but are not ready to go as far as the ‘Deaniacs’ by immediately voting to pull out of Iraq.

Barack Obama adds another element of change. Obama is running as an anti-politician, but his greatest impact may be uniting African-Americans behind a viable candidate for President. If that happens there may be four key groups in the Democratic primaries: traditional liberals, peace-liberals, moderates and African-Americans – plus unmarried women. This is turning the Democratic primary into a political labyrinth. John Edwards, who was the moderate choice four years ago, is now trying to flank Hillary on the left by appealing to the peace-Democrats with his strong anti-war rhetoric. It’s an odd coalition – uniting two extremes of the Democrat primary – but Edwards is running ahead of Hillary in polls in Iowa.

Hillary, who in recent years has tried to reach out to moderates, suddenly finds herself moving in the opposite direction, stepping up her own anti-war rhetoric to counter Edwards. And Obama – with one of the more liberal records in the Senate – is creating a powerful base for his campaign that cuts across ideological lines. In the meantime, Joe Biden, and Al Gore are waiting in the wings, trying to figure out where they fit in the melee.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

With the exception of John Edwards in 1998, Democrats have lost every U.S. Senate race in North Carolina since 1986.  That’s one win, five losses.  Not very encouraging.

But the climate may be changing.  Especially if you pay attention to Public Policy Polling of Raleigh, which I do.  You should pay them a visit: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/.

It’s not just that their latest poll shows Governor Easley would beat Senator Dole 44-41. 

It’s the approval/disapproval ratings of the Republican incumbents:

• Dole approval 36/disapproval 36
• Burr approval 32/disapproval 34

Those are very weak ratings.  Especially compared to Easley’s 50 percent approval rating, against 33 disapproval.

Burr’s and Dole’s ratings probably won’t improve much, given their support for Bush’s Iraq policy.

Maybe that’s why more names of possible Democratic candidates are floating around (and not just Mike and Mary Easley):

• Senator Kay Hagan
• Representative Grier Martin (whose dad D.G. ran in 1998)
• Representative Bill Faison
• Congressman Brad Miller

North Carolina politics is changing.  Witness Congressman Heath Shuler and should-be Congressman Larry Kissell.  We could be trending Democratic in national races, as well as state-level.

John Edwards took a chance in 1998, and look where it got him.  Fortune favors the bold.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

North Carolina has a new “Ethics Commission” to clean up the corruption in Raleigh. But guess who appointed its members? The same people who’ve been in charge all along.

Governor Easley, who according to the press just enjoyed a $650,000 windfall by buying beach property from political appointees, picked four members of the Commission. Speaker Jim Black, who is at the center of the lottery scandal, picked two more. And Senate kingpin Marc Basnight appointed the last two.

It all sounds a little like letter the fox be in charge of the hen house.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

Years ago, when I was young enough to be drafted, I supported an idea called “Vietnamization” which is all but forgotten today. Vietnamization was President Nixon’s plan, at the end of the Vietnam War, to make the South Vietnamese responsible for defending their own country – so we could pull out. (And I wouldn’t get drafted.)

The rest is history. We ‘Vietnamized’ and when we pulled out, in the blink of an eye, South Vietnam fell to the Communists. ‘Vietnamization’ sounded fine but in the end it was just a political fig-leaf.

In an odd sort of way, eventually, it did all work out. The communist became so aggressive after they won the Vietnam War, they tried to take over Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Angola and a dozen other countries and the American people got so shaken up about losing ‘The Cold War’ they elected Ronald Reagan – and we won the war.

 Today a lot of the talk coming out of Washington – about giving the Iraqi’s deadlines, goals and timetables to govern themselves – sounds a little like ‘Vietnamization.’ Let us hope the result is not the same. But if it is, hopefully, just as happened thirty-years ago, the shock of defeat will lead to an awakening that, in time, will lead to victory in the war on terrorism.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

In politics as in football, speed kills – the other guy.  Today we see a dramatic example of how fast modern presidential campaigns have to move.

Word is that four BIG states – California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey – may shift their presidential primaries to early next February.

That means the race may not be over in January – after Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

That means John Edwards – and other underdogs – may face a very different scenario from what they anticipated.

And the real primary may be this year: the money primary.

For years, conventional strategic doctrine has been that candidates who win the early states catch a wave of publicity and momentum that their opponents never overcome.  That happened in 2000 and 2004.

But that first wave may crash on the rocks of four big – and expensive – states in February in 2008.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

Pollster John McLaughlin – who’s a smart guy for a Republican – has an interesting theory about the 2008 presidential race.  He calls it Bush-Clinton fatigue.  After 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush; John thinks, Americans need a break.

If true, that is Hillary Clinton’s biggest obstacle to the White House.  And a boost for Edwards, Obama and Giuliani.  (Not McCain; I suspect we’re all getting tired of him, too.)

Obama especially seems sensitive to this feeling.  His talk about new politics plays off not only Bush and Clinton, but the whole Baby Boomer war that has dominated politics since 1992.

We Boomers split in the 60s and 70s.  On one side, with some exaggeration, were radical hippies and war protesters (Bill and Hillary).  On the other side, with some exaggeration, were right-wing preps and suits (W).

Our parents have been sick of us for 40 years.  Now our kids and grandkids are sick of us.  Hell, we’re getting sick of us.

Maybe a change would be good for us all.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

Beaten in Iraq and beaten at the polls, President Bush looked beaten in his speech last night.

His Iraq policy is such a disaster – eight Republican Senators, including Virginia’s John Warner, have cut and run – that he was forced to talk about domestic issues.  And his tepid speech served up tepid ideas.

I’m struck by the eerie mirror image between Bush 43 and Bush 41 – or maybe more of a photographic negative:

• Bush 41 won his war in Iraq, then failed to address domestic issues and lost his presidency.

• Bush 43 is losing his war, so he flails at domestic issues and is losing his presidency.

The political chickens have simply come home to rest.  The Education President (43, that is) turned himself into the Terror-Fighting President for ideological and political reasons, not for national-security reasons.  But his gamble failed.

Now it’s too late to reshuffle the deck.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

In the past the Mayor has pretty much had his own way on the City Council. It voted to fund his hotels, spend more on his convention center and to let him use tax-money to buy Dix Hill. But recently the Council voted down his push for English-style roundabouts on Hillsborough Street, and, now, on top of that, the Council has deferred action on new regulations downtown that cover everything from news racks to street venders to street performers.

We all know how the Mayor feels about downtown. He’s been trying to regulate everything from the types of planters people use to fining them for not cutting their grass. Is this a second clink in Mayor Meeker’s armor? Are there cracks opening in his once solid control of the City Council? Is Charlie Meeker about to become just one of eight votes on the Council?

It’s too early to say. But, according to the newspaper, the Mayor lobbied hard for his roundabouts – but even several of his fellow Democrats on the Council told him no.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

Our generals, like the good soldiers they are, are loyally fighting the war in Iraq with the weapons the politicians are giving them. But if those weapons are not sufficient, or, conversely, if sending 21,000 more men to Baghdad is a fool’s errand, their loyalty should not prevent them from saying so.

According to Bob Woodward in his book, Plan of Attack,  there was a furious debate in the Bush Administration before the war started. Colin Powell had misgivings about the number of troops we were sending into Iraq and other issues. Secretary Rumsfeld, on the other hand, repeatedly asked our generals for plans that used fewer troops. How much better off might we be today if that debate had been public?

There were probably similar debates about the President’s plan to send 21,000 more men to Iraq. Did everyone agree? Were there two – or three – sides to that debate? We are, hopefully, learning from our mistakes in Iraq and charting a wiser course. But our generals can add a clarity to the debate about Iraq that has been lacking. If they need more men – especially if they need a lot more – to win, by speaking out they can help avoid another error.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

The new Democrat choice for House Speaker, Joe Hackney, just inherited his first scandal.

Two years ago Ms. Ann Lassiter, who headed the House page program, landed in hot water. First, in a lapse of judgment she has apologized for, she had the page program pay her son rent (so pages could live in his house). Second, her son had a record of convictions for drug abuse.

Speaker Jim Black removed Ms. Lassiter, then deftly slipped her into a new job – which hadn’t existed before – as House Historian with a salary of $50,000. Since Ms. Lassiter is not a historian that led to speculation the job was a political sinecure. Adding to the appearance that Ms. Lassiter’s role as House historian lacked credibility, her history – including a separate study of House Speakers since 1963 – was not completed. Worse, when the News and Observer asked for copies of the research – presumably to see how much work was done – Black refused to release the records. (That led one wag to comment that Black has changed his mind and decided he’d rather not have a history of his last two years as Speaker.) Black’s lawyer, one of the House legal counsels, backed him up by citing what appears to be a loophole in the public records law – but with a less than ringing affirmation, saying, “I didn’t read the history. I didn’t want to. I don’t even want to know what happened last year.”

Now, Black says he is going to turn the research “over to the new Speaker” to let him decide what to do with it. So the mini-scandal has ended up in Joe Hackney’s lap. The question the newspapers have raised is simple: What did the public get for almost two years of research at $50,000 a year? Joe Hackney can ‘clear the air,’ and send a clear signal he is not going to continue business as usual in the State House, by reversing Black’s decision.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

It’s the season for hard hits – both in football and politics.

Two political hits, in particular:

• A Washington Post story that John Edwards sold his D.C. mansion for $5.2 million to Paul and Terry Klaassen, “wealthy founders of the nation's largest chain of assisted-living housing for seniors” who are “currently cooperating with a government inquiry in connection with accounting practices and stock options exercised by them and other company insiders. They are also the focus of legal complaints by some of the same labor unions whose support Edwards has been assiduously courting for his presidential bid.”

• A report, debunked by CNN, that Barack Obama attended a radical Muslim school as a child.  The report appeared in Insight magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times.  The magazine’s website reported that “associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.”

The question, class, is this: Were both hits generated by the Clintonistas, who learned something about personal-foul politics in the 90s?  Or did the vast right-wing conspiracy pull one over both the media and the Democrats by engineering the reports and pinning the blame on Hillary?

Regardless, both Obama and Edwards now are on notice that they’ll need full pads and helmets at all times.

 Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles in our Forum. 

As Americans watch President Bush’s speech tonight, they can enjoy the spectacle of Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi sitting behind him.

As Bush tries to justify wading deeper into the Iraq quagmire, Americans should also ponder these words of wisdom from Cheney.  They are from a BBC interview in 1992, and this passage is from an excellent history of modern America, Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore, by James T. Patterson:

“…Defense Secretary Cheney laid out the administration’s rationale for not taking Baghdad, capturing Hussein and trying to reform the country….Hussein, Cheney said in 1992, would have been very hard to find.  Moreover, would the United States be able to accomplish significant reform in Iraq?  Though Iraq had a sizeable middle class, and might in time establish democratic institutions, such a process might take many years.  Given the fratricidal hatreds that divided Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds…in Iraq, it was difficult to conceive of a stable alliance of factions that might arise to rule the country.  How long would American and coalition forces, besieged by guerrilla fighters, have to remain before Iraq – a product of long ago boundary-making by the British – could become anything like a constitutional republic? 

“As Cheney put it at the time, ‘Once we had rounded him (Saddam Hussein) up and gotten rid of his government, then the question was what do you put in his place?’”

Good questions, Dick.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

The City Council has sent a wish-list of programs it wants the federal government to fund to Raleigh’s Congressional delegation. (News and Observer; 1-18-07).

Let’s classify the six projects the newspaper reported three ways: Necessary Projects, Nice Projects (but not immediately necessary) and Luxuries.

Necessary Projects

$5.6 Million – in “homeland security grants to upgrade a communications network.”

                                                Nice Projects

$14 Million – to “develop Leesville Community Park.”

$5 Million – for “a new Raleigh Senior Center.”

                                                   Luxuries

$250,000 – to “make the Chavis park carousel a year-round attraction.”

$3.3 Million – for “furnishings, public art and trees on Fayetteville Street.”

$1.4 Million – for “a climate controlled building around the Pullen Park carousel.”

That’s 29.5 million in programs: 19% of the money to be spent on necessities, 64% on nice projects and 17% on luxuries. (Note: The City Council is spending almost as much on luxuries as necessities.)

With the Mayor proposing to spend $3.3 million for trees on Fayetteville Street it’s no wonder critics say he’s on a six-year spending spree.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

There is not much, politically, I see eye to eye on with defense attorney Joe Cheshire. But, years ago, Joe and I worked together when one of my clients hired him as their legal counsel. At a hearing before the State Board of Elections he gave the final argument. Instead of theatrics, he made a carefully researched, clear, articulate explanation of the issues in a case which involved the First Amendment and the right to freedom of speech.

The newspapers report Joe Cheshire recently stated that Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong, had made “potentially false” statements about his client. He certainly did his homework just as carefully before making that charge.

The Duke Lacrosse case, since it started, has been plagued by extremes. At first blush it appeared to be a case involving extreme racial bigotry. At second blush, it appeared Nifong went to the extreme of using the racial overtones in the case to help win election. Now, with the backlash against Nifong’s mistakes snowballing, the extremes may be swinging in still another direction.

Are there any more twists in this case? The other night a young black woman, talking about the case, raised an interesting question. She said, Alright, let’s assume those three boys are innocent – but do you really think nothing at all happened at that party?

We’ll have to wait to hear from the Attorney General to find out.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

As if the President didn’t face enough problems with Congress over the war in Iraq – now he has the Iraqi government sniping at his plan too. Or, at least, a crucial part of it.

It appears Iraq’s Shiite government isn’t anxious to crack down equally on Shiite and Sunni terrorists. So Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants control of the campaign to clean-up Baghdad. Maliki says bluntly that he should be in charge – with an Iraqi general of his choice running the campaign. One of our generals says equally bluntly that the government in Baghdad is now “part of the problem.”

Our diplomats have been negotiating a compromise that seems to work like this: Prime Minister Maliki’s general will be in charge – but will report to a council made up of Maliki, his Defense Minister, Interior Minster and the U.S. Commander in Iraq.

So, now, we are planning to fight the war in Baghdad by committee, with a Shiite general in charge and, I’m trying to remember: When was the last time a war was won by a committee?

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

Mayor Meeker’s plan to put a series of charming English-type traffic circles on Hillsborough Street – just sank like the Titanic.

The Mayor, for several years, has been pushing to transform Hillsborough Street by widening the sidewalks, putting a seven foot median down the center of the street, and reducing the traffic from four to two lanes. His solution to the subsequent traffic jam – 19,000 cars drive down Hillsborough Street a day – was roundabouts.

It’s been a long time since the Council told the Mayor no on any of his pet downtown projects – but last week something unusual happened. The Council said no to roundabouts. Maybe the Mayor’s grip is slipping. Councilman Phillip Isley said the Mayor’s plan was like “giving a shot of penicillin to a person with diabetes.” Councilwoman Jesse Taliaferro – one of Meeker’s fellow Democrats – was kinder, but equally firm, explaining that she had tried but “could not find another example of a roundabout in a place with on street parking.” (News and Observer; 1-13-07).

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

Before the election the Democrats had a lot to say about cleaning-up the corruption in  Congress – which was a good thing because Congress is past due for a little housecleaning.

One of the items to be cleaned is Congressmen’s spouses working as lobbyists.

Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana – not a state known for its pristine politics – introduced a bill to stop the practice last year when the Republicans were in charge. It went nowhere.

So, Senator Vitter introduced his bill again – now that the Democrats are in charge. But the new Majority leader, Harry Reid, threw him a curve ball. Reid opposes the bill – unless Vitter changes it to exempt spouses who were already lobbyists.

Senator Reid’s logic is peculiar: It is wrong for spouses to be lobbyists in the future – but it is alright for them to be lobbyists now.

Here’s another way to look at it: Senator Reid is going to clean up the corruption that may exist in the future – but do nothing about the corruption that exists now.

 At best, if Senator Reid’s version of ‘ethics reform’ passes, every spouse who was lobbying Congress last year, can continue to this year. Nothing will have changed.

One last point, which is not very pleasant, but which needs to be stated: Senator Reid’s son and son-in-law are both lobbyists.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

The Democratic leaders in Congress – such as Speaker Pelosi –  made it clear during the election they believe President Bush is sacrificing the lives of young men in Iraq for no good purpose.

So it comes as a shock when President Bush asserted he can send more troops to Iraq without Congress’ approval, by and large, with the exception of Ted Kennedy, not a Democrat leader took him to task.

 Granted, enough loopholes have been punched in the Constitution during our ‘non-wars’ in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (the first time) that the President may be right. But it’s hard to believe that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind, since they wrote into the Constitution that a President cannot declare war without a vote of Congress.

So why are the Democratic leaders – believing as they do that young men are dying in vain – refusing to assert Congress’ right to end the war?

One pundit says they have decided “to give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq.” But look at the moral issue that raises from the Democratic leaders’ perspective. They are allowing the bloodshed to continue in a war that they have said – repeatedly – serves no purpose.

For that matter, is it really wise for the President to, unilaterally, continue the war? Shouldn’t he make Congress decide now to continue the war by asking for a real vote – rather than the meaningless non-binding resolution Democrats propose? What does he gain by waiting? The worst that can happen, if he loses, is he will learn now he does not have the support in Congress to go on – rather than learning it in six months. The best that can happen is a majority in Congress will go on record that there is a purpose to the war.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

A year ago, Governor Easley’s critics called his purchase of a lot near the beach in Carteret County a “sweetheart deal.” The press also reported Governor “Easley’s broker, the project’s developer and the man who helped finance the development are all friends and contributors whom the Governor had appointed to high-profile state boards. One appointment came while Easley was in the process of buying the property.” (News and Observer; 1-18-07).

Governor Easley paid $550,000 for the property. Today, one year later, the press reports it is valued at $1.2 million (according to the Carteret County tax assessor).

The Governor made a whooping $650,000 in a year. But was it “a sweetheart deal?”

The Governor – through his press spokesman – refused to answer “questions about the transaction.” (Carolina Journal; 1-17-07).

Governor Easley and the Democrats in the legislature have talked a lot about ethics reform. But how much can the Governor’s reforms really mean if they allow him to buy land from his appointees, made a $650,000 profit, and not have to answer a single question about it?

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

Over the last year, Salisbury Attorney Bill Graham, who has never run for public office, has spent a million dollars of his own money on television ads to build a foundation for his campaign for Governor. According to a recent poll he has been successful. He now leads in the Republican primary:

                                    Bill Graham                24%

                                    Bob Orr                      13%

                                    Robert Pittenger        10%

                                    Fred Smith                  9%

Two of Graham’s potential opponents, State Senators Bob Pittenger and Fred Smith, also enjoy strong – or at least relatively strong – support in their home bases, giving them one advantage Graham lacks – a geographic base of support for their campaigns.

Pittenger actually leads Graham in the Charlotte area, and Smith is tied with him in Raleigh. Charlotte and Raleigh represent sixty-percent of the vote in the Republican primary and with Smith running strong in one, and Pittenger in the other, it argues, ultimately, for a close race.

What to watch? The key is who moves quickest. Roughly 45% of the vote is undecided. If Graham launches another round of ads and picks up a quarter of the undecided vote – bring his total vote to nearly 40% - his lead may be insurmountable.

In political campaigns there are two lines of thought about when it is wisest to advertise. One is to advertise early (Graham’s strategy). The other is to wait until the end, so as not to be outspent during the critical time just before the election, when voters are making up their minds. That sounds logical. But this is a case common sense is misleading. Traditionally, three-fourths of the voters decide long before Election Day. In fact, in this race 55% have already made a choice. For Senators Pittenger and Smith, and former Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr, a fourth possible candidate, the risk of waiting outweighs the risk of being outspent later.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

There may be cause to celebrate. It seems, according to one TV critic, Donald Trump has had an ulterior motive for his knock-down, drag-out, cat-fight with Barbara Walters (he says she lied) and Rosie O’Donnell (he says she’s an idiot). According to the TV analyst, Trump has been cleverly reaping a media windfall to pump-up the sagging ratings of his television program.

The good news? The ratings of Trump’s new show are down. It seems a little of Donald Trump goes a long way.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

A year ago it appeared, with any luck, John Edwards’ drive for the White House would die a quick death. Today, Edwards’ fortunes soaring. What happened? 

Edwards was on Jay Leno the other night and, I have a feeling, he’s stolen a page from Barack Obama’s play book. Obama is an unusual politician. Because of the way he talks. He explains a problem by holding a debate with himself, examining both sides with a curiosity which is – or appears to be – almost entirely unpolitical. At the least, it’s not the kind of rhetoric we usually hear from our candidates for President.

John Edwards has started doing something which is not exactly the same – but which is similar. Imitation can backfire as a cheap reflection of the original, but that is not the case with Edwards. He has adapted so deftly, even though it seems incredible, rather than collapsing like an empty tent, his campaign is off and rolling. In fact, he’s doing so well he’s leading Hilary in some polls in Iowa – which means the fireworks are about to start. Which means Edwards may soon face a tougher test.

John Edwards has been a fortunate candidate. In his races for Senate and President, luck or fortune has spared him the kinds of withering personal attacks many candidates endure. But John Kerry is already sniping at him, and when Hillary focuses the fire of the formidable Clinton ‘PR’ machine on him that will change.

 To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker hasn’t started the new year with a bang.

First there were stories about mounting costs at the Civic Center.  Then his partisans got into an ill-advised overreaction to a newspaper column.  And now he can’t get the Council to approve his Hillsborough Street roundabout plan.

For better or worse, the Mayor will have to live with the Civic Center.  He’ll have to persuade Raleigh residents it’s a good investment for the city’s future.  An opponent like Tom Fetzer could make that a difficult sell.

On the roundabout, it’s not good when the Mayor can’t win a key vote.  Once your opponents sense weakness, you can face some bloody days in politics.

But most surprising was the overreaction to a column in the N&O by Dennis Rogers, which poked fun at reports Meeker might run for the U.S. Senate.

Meeker and his friends should have laughed it off.  Instead they unleashed a barrage of letters to the editor criticizing Rogers’ column and protesting – a bit much – that the Mayor is Senatorial material.

He may be.  But that’s not how to prove it.  Instead, start by winning some votes in the City Council.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

The powers that be have given our Marines in Iraq a new “counter-insurgency manual.” One of the greatest fighting forces on earth is about to start wooing civilians, “learning social networks, building personal relationships and creating jobs” – for Iraqi’s. (News and Observer; 1-9-07).

The Marines may never be the same.

The new plan – which has been described as “armed social work” – takes the Marines out of their big bases, where they are relatively safe, and puts them in the suburbs to live among the Iraqi’s (to make the civilians feel safe). We’re even going to rent houses – rather than commandeering them – so as not to offend Iraqi landlords.

“On this battlefield,” explains one counter-insurgency expert, “popular perceptions and rumor…are more powerful than a hundred tanks.”

Does our new policy sound like sweet reason – or desperation?

One Marine Commander in Anbar Province sounded a little desperate. “We have to quit trying to shoot all the bad guys,” he said. “I don’t have enough Marines to win that fight. I’m just trying to persuade the insurgents to put down their guns.”

We abandoned the Powell Doctrine – of using overwhelming force – for the Rumsfeld Doctrine which failed, and now we are going to try ‘armed social work.’ The logic here is perplexing: We’ve gone from too much force, to too little, to persuading our enemies to give up. What a way to fight a war!

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

President Bush said on “60 Minutes” Sunday night that Americans must understand “we’re in an ideological struggle.”

That’s precisely the problem, Mr. President.  We understand that.

We Americans will fight a war for our national interests and survival.  That’s why we fought the Nazis and the Japanese.  That’s why we fought the Cold War.  That’s why – for a long time –we supported the Vietnam War.

We are willing to fight and sacrifice when an enemy poses a threat to our freedom.

Just as Americans were – and are – willing to fight and sacrifice to destroy Al Qaeda and Osama.

But the President has never made clear why we have to make war against an “ideology.”

What does Iraq have to do with that ideology?  Those who believe in that ideology (read religion) seem hell-bent on murdering each other.

Why should our troops be in the middle of that?

The will of the American people is not at issue here.  George Bush’s judgment is.  He can’t persuade us this is a war worth fighting because – very simply – it’s not a war worth fighting.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

In Pakistan “outraged in-laws slashed the nose and ears of a college student who married a woman without the consent of her higher caste family, and then fractured his legs with blows from an ax.” (News and Observer; 1-4-07)

 The newspapers report thirty male relatives of Mohammed Iqbal’s wife ‘stormed into his mother’s village home, set on vengeance for the dishonor the marriage had brought on their family, chanting, You have mixed our honor with dirt, and slashed him with a dagger and an ax.’ They also “slit his brother’s ear and shot his mother in the thigh.”

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan this was not an isolated incident, about 1000 women die each year in this kind of honor killing in Pakistan.

Not long ago the pope – gingerly – raised the issue of violence in Islamic cultures. For that act of political incorrectness he was immediately pummeled. But he had a point.

Instead of this type of violence being universally despised in Pakistan, according to the Human Rights Commission offenders are rarely punished as many people see it as a legitimate way to defend their family honor. Is this an example of multi-culturalism run amuck or old fashioned evil?

We, Americans, of course, do abhor this kind of violence. And that’s one reason the Islamic fundamentalists abhor us. What passes for honor in Pakistan in our eyes is infamy.  This conflict lies very near the root cause of their war on us. More sobering, consider this:  What could happen if people who believe breaking a student’s legs with an ax is honorable get their hands on nuclear weapons?

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

There is a new twist in the Duke Lacrosse case: Duke University has been sued by a lacrosse player over a failing grade.

At times, the rhetoric coming out of Duke’s spokesman has sounded like they were overly concerned with not being as violating the standards of ‘political correctness.’ But Duke’s major responsibility during the scandal has been to the parents with children at their University, and it has taken prudent steps to fulfill that obligation. When the scandal broke it suspended the three students accused of rape and parted company with the lacrosse coach. Some alumni have criticized it for that but given the seriousness of the allegations it’s hard to see what else Duke could have done.

Now, a former lacrosse player, Kyle Dowd, has sued the University and a professor “charging the professor unfairly gave him a failing grade” because of the scandal. The Professor, Kim Curtis, specializes in “political and feminist theory” and  Dowd’s attorney says, “Kyle Dowd and his family feel very strongly that he was given a grade not based on his performance, but rather upon the political agenda of the professor.” (News and Observer; 1-5-07).

So on top of everything else, Duke must cope with a lawsuit over a failing grade because of the lacrosse scandal. There must be days when Duke’s new president wishes he had never left Yale.

As we watch President Bush try to unscramble the eggs he broke, we should reflect on the political cowards who now require more sacrifice from courageous troops.

The cowardice of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, who sold us war on the cheap.

The cowardice of Colin Powell, who knew better, but saluted and kept silent.

The cowardice of Democrats who voted for the war to start with, not because they agreed with it but because they were afraid to risk their political skins.

How do they sleep with themselves?

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

With North Korea building missiles and Iran building nuclear bombs it looks like the time has come for us to build the Strategic Missile Defense. After all, if Korea or Iran are dead set on building nuclear weapons, there doesn’t seem to be a way to stop them – short of launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike of our own and God knows what will happen if we open that Pandora’s Box.

We had better get serious about SDI, otherwise, we may end up depending on ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ again with our enemies being not what appears now to be the imminently rational Russians, but some fanatic in Tehran who seems likely to put a warhead on a missile and aim it at Israel.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has consistently opposed to SDI. I’m delighted she and the Democrats passed ‘Ethics Reform’ their first day in power, particularly banning Congressman flying ‘here and yond’ on posh corporate jets.

Now, President Bush should step to the plate and challenge Mrs. Pelosi to pass SDI. That way when the North Koreans finally build a missile that shoots straight we’ll have an answer.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

Now all the Big Shots have an exit strategy – politically speaking, of course.

Bush: He apparently will link the surge – or escalation, if you prefer – with deadlines for the Iraqis to take over.  If his plan doesn’t work, he blames them.

John McCain: He’s always called for more troops.  If it doesn’t work, he says, it came too late.

The Democrats: They want to pass a totally symbolic resolution, instead of doing something real.  If the surge doesn’t work, they told you so, too.

The Republicans: If everything goes to hell, the Democrats undercut the Commander-in-Chief and abandoned our brave troops.

The Military Brass: If Bush’s plan doesn’t work, they’ll say they never liked the idea and Bush forced it on them.

The only ones without an exit strategy are the American men and women serving in Iraq.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

President Bush goes on TV tonight to discuss Iraq. The Democrats in Congress, who oppose President Bush’s ‘surge’ just got some help form unexpected quarters: Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al Maliki. Maliki’s spokesman told the press that when “President Bush told the prime minister he was ready to send additional troops” instead of saying, ‘Yes. Great. Anything to help end the bloodshed,’ Maliki balked, saying he’d have to “talk it over with his military advisors” first.

Why? It seems Prime Minister Maliki’s Shiite allies, including cleric Mugtada al-Sadar’s Shiite militias, are ‘gaining ground’ in their fight to cleanse Baghdad neighborhoods of Sunnis – and may not welcome more American troops right at the moment.

We have now come full circle in Iraq. First, the Shiites welcomed us with open arms because we deposed Saddam. Now it looks like we may interfere with their slaughtering the Sunni’s, so they’re saying, Thank you. But you’ve done enough.

Think back to all the noble talk about bringing ‘democracy to Iraq.’ It turned out to be naïve because in Iraq being in power means something much simpler than justice. It means it’s your turn to punish your enemies.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

I must admit the primordial male in me is having a little trouble coping with all the gushing over ‘the first female Speaker of the House.’ It seems to me we are having another pop-culture moment – a media feeding frenzy not as intense as like Tom Cruise’s wedding or Angelina Jolie’s baby – but intense enough to make us feel like we should all fall over in a swoon because Mrs. Pelosi is a woman. It is as if there has been a great secular triumph of the glorious sisterhood over the dark side of the force.

All this high-flown rhetoric about the eyes of two hundred years of history being riveted on the first female Speaker was leaving me certain I must be a troglodyte, until I asked a woman how she felt about Nancy Pelosi. She shrugged and said, Well, she’s Bella Abzug without the hat.

To comment, send us an email to comment@talkingaboutpolitics.com.

Here are two stories from the newspaper about how government works – or doesn’t work.

Trees

It took three years for Raleigh to approve Mayor Meeker’s tree ordinance. Two more years have passed since then, and, now, the city is getting ready to take another look at the thirty-three section ordinance. So, with the new year, Raleigh City