NC FREE Executive Director John Davis, like a lot of prognosticators, says this will be a Democratic year.  HHHe also raises hopes there will be many more Democratic years.

I heard Davis give a presentation in Wilmington this week, and I got some ideas and information from him I haven’t heard anyplace else.

About this year, he said:

• The War is The Issue.  And Republicans can’t escape it.

• The U.S. House will go Democratic.

• The N.C. House will stay Democratic despite Speaker Black’s troubles (as Carter quoted him in an earlier post) and so will the Senate.

• Heath Shuler will beat Charles Taylor, but Robin Hayes will hang on against Larry Kissel.

• The next legislature will be more progressive and less business-friendly.

No great surprises there.  But his observations about the future were intriguing:

• As North Carolina continues to urbanize (and eventually become the 7^th-biggest state), it will become a battleground state in Presidential races.  We’ll be bigger than Ohio.

• The state’s population is exploding because Republicans are moving here.

• But they’re moderate, “pro-government” Republicans – not Jesse Helms Republicans.

• That will put North Carolina in play again for a Democratic presidential candidate – and presumably break the Republican lock on U.S. Senate races here.

Click to Read & Post Comments

We were asked to help promote a new website –  www.yallvote.com – which bills itself as an “ad-free, non-partisan web site promoting voter education and participation in North Carolina.”

Check it out.

Click to Read & Post Comments

There’s a lot to be learned from the News and Observer’s poll (10-24-06). Let’s start with the School Bond. Supporters say their poll shows voters support the bonds 56% to 37%. The News and Observer’s poll shows almost the exact opposite. Voters oppose the bonds 54% to 35%.

Every group in the News and Observer poll – men, women, young, old, Republicans, Independents, everyone except Democrats – opposed the bond, and even Democrats only supported it marginally.

Parents opposed to year-round schools argue that’s why the bonds will fail. But the News and Observer poll shows only 14% of the voters are opposed to the bonds because of the School  Board’s move to year-round schools. Overwhelmingly, voters say they’d vote against the bond because it will lead to a property tax increase. The tax and voters’ loss of confidence in the School Board are the two biggest reasons voters oppose the bonds.

The News and Observer also asked voters if they would support other tax increases to pay for school bonds. Voters sent back a clear answer: No. They oppose using Mayor Meeker’s impact fees to pay for bonds 59% to 27%. They also oppose a 1% real estate transfer tax and a sales tax increase. In summing up the News and Observer’s pollster said he would be “shocked” if the bonds pass.

The first two polls taken on the school bonds, months ago, showed a majority of voters opposed them. The voters didn’t think higher taxes were justified then and nothing bond supporters have said has convinced them otherwise. The most viable solutions, politically, would seem to be the ones proposed by the Locke Foundation and Americans for Prosperity: pass a smaller bond ($650 million) that would not mean a tax, then use the Hotels/Restaurant tax, the Ad Valorem Tax and cuts in non-priority spending to fund schools.

The President didn’t fair well in the News and Observer poll either. Wake County voters disapproved of the job President Bush is doing by 2 to 1 (61% to 30%). They also turned thumbs down on the State Legislature, disapproving of its job performance 59% to 31%. Congress, amazingly, did worse – a whopping 65% of voters disapprove of the job Congress is doing, while only one in five (23%) approve.

Lastly, the News and Observer asked voters what types of mass transit they preferred – buses, bicycles, car pools or trains. Trains won but that’s deceptive. Against bicycles, buses, and car pools they were only the choice of 39% of the people.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The ACLU is asking the courts to strike down the law Congress just passed (and the President signed) about the military’s interrogation of captured terrorists. They say the law allows interrogations and military trials that violate cherished traditions and civil liberties. Now, it is natural that anytime the American government passes a law limiting civil liberties – even if it is just for terrorists – it causes unease. But the broader issue here is what limits we put, voluntarily, on ourselves in the war against terrorism and that matters because to some extent, inevitably, those limits may provide comfort to our enemies.

Historically, this is an old debate. On one extreme Attila, Genghis Khan, and Stalin put no limits on war. They would have murdered or enslaved the entire population of Iraq, both the innocent and guilty, to win the war. On the other extreme – more honored in the breach than in the practice – is the view you only make war on enemy solders. Somewhere in between is the view we took in World War II when we decided bombing cities, factories, and oil refineries was acceptable – even with the inevitable harm to civilians – because it was necessary to destroy the Germans’ ability to wage war.

This, in a way, is the debate we are having now and here’s how Congress set the limits:

• The new law only applies to non-citizens who are declared “unlawful enemy combatants.” Enemy combatants is defined as those who fight against us and those who support them.
• ‘Enemy Combatants’ will not be granted the same civil liberties as American citizens; they can be ‘detained’ and tried by military courts.
• And the President is not allowed to authorize any interrogation technique that amounts to a war crime – torture, serious bodily injury, sexual abuse, rape and biological experiments are prohibited.

In other words, a captured terrorist comes up short on civil liberties but he won’t be tortured either. Critics, like the ACLU, say that’s not good enough, that America should maintain high legal standards to send a message to the rest of the world, which is a noble sentiment. And in a better world interrogation laws and military tribunals wouldn’t exist. But, there is also no doubt granting terrorists more civil liberties would provide them a help and comfort the current law denies.

So the question is, is giving our enemies greater comfort a rational act? Or is it trying to fight a war as if it is not a war at all? As if this whole mess is an inconvenience which we hope to put behind us with as few nettlesome disruptions as possible? The News & Observer recently carried a story about a sniper who wounded a Marine in Anbar province. Our soldiers were under orders, in effect, not to shoot back unless they could target the sniper without harming civilians. They couldn’t, so they didn’t shoot back. The problem is this makes life a lot safer for snipers – just as giving terrorist the same civil liberties as American citizens may help them.

Boiled down to its starkest form this dilemma leaves us between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place:’ We have soldiers fighting terrorists on battlefields in Iraq. When we try to limit the cruelty of war at the same time we increase their risk.

Click to Read & Post Comments

…is to give him a state airplane. The News and Observer reports (10-23-06) “eyebrows were raised” last weekend at the Democrats Vance-Aycock dinner when State Treasurer Richard Moore, who has a campaign chest bulging with money, showed up in a state plane.

Moore’s spokeswoman said his “official duties” that day included a “literary meeting,” a tour of an “office park” and a “children’s clinic” – which just happened to be in the same town on the same day as the Democrats’ fundraising dinner.

After the dinner, Moore climbed back onto the state plane and flew to an NAACP meeting in Goldsboro – which of course, had nothing to do with his campaign for governor.

                                    _______________________________________

Speaking of campaigns, is Governor Easley thinking about running against Elizabeth Dole? Under the Dome reports Easley, not known for his love of political events, is stepping up his public appearances, prompting “tongue-wagging about his political plans in 2008.”

The last time a sitting Governor took on an incumbent Senator was Jim Hunt verses Jesse Helms in 1984.

Of course, it’s possible the governor may be thinking about just skipping the Senate race and going on and running for President, instead. Dome also reported don’t be “shocked if Easley makes a trip to Iowa and New Hampshire early next year.”

I’m afraid my Democrats still don’t get it: politics is about character, not policy.

You think we’d learn after Al Gore and John Kerry.  But no.  The cycle repeats itself this election cycle.

Democrats all over the country, it seems to me, are running ads attacking Republicans on complex policy issues.

Republicans, in the final days, run ads that have one goal: make the Democrat simply unacceptable to voters.  And stir up the base.

That’s what the “white girl/Playboy party” ad against Harold Ford in Tennessee is about. 

That’s what Robin Hayes’ ad against Larry Kissell (“Wrong”) is about.

That’s what Vernon Robinson’s sexual-innuendo ads against Brad Miller are about.

Maybe the tide is strong enough that those attacks won’t work this year.  I hope.  Regardless, they’ll be back in 2008.

Democrats need to learn (how long, Lord, how long?) that politics is not an NPR, political science discussion.

It has become a reality show.  It’s about which candidate the voters like and trust.  It’s about character.

It’s about time we learned.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Unfortunately, there’s another piece of bad news for us Republicans when it comes to the impact of the lottery scandal on Democrats this election. NCFREE, a longstanding, respected, non-profit, pro-business organization has taken a poll. It asked which party is more likely to be corrupt? The answer: Both. John Davis, President of NCFREE, stated, “The average North Carolina voter probably listens to more news about what’s going on in Washington than…Raleigh. The issue for Republicans this year has been neutralized by problems with their own party in Washington.”

Right now, as a Republican, I’m waiting for a piece of good news about this election.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Last year, Congressman Walter Jones was met with a firestorm of criticism – much of it from fellow Republicans – when he spoke his mind about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq War. You may or may not agree with Congressman Jones – but you have to admit he has one attribute that is rare among politicians: Courage.

This year, the Congressman has gotten into another tangle with the Defense Department. They used to say that there are no atheists in the foxholes. But it seems these days the only praying in the foxholes must be politically correct. Military chaplains (Camp Lejeune is in Jones’ district) complained that new Defense Department rules prevented them mentioning Christ’s name in prayers, so Congressman Jones put language in the Defense Department Appropriations bill to change the rules (News and Observer; 10-11-06). Of course, like just about everything else, that hit a snag in the Senate and, in the end, a compromise only gave Congressman Jones part of what he wanted.

But you have to admire the touch of maverick in Walter Jones. He doesn’t march in lockstep, he isn’t politically correct, he doesn’t mind speaking out, and, in this day and age, that’s a breath of fresh air.

Click to Read & Post Comments

In 1940, the British had a debate about sowing mines in the Rhine River. Opponents of the plan said, No, because mines could harm innocent civilians.’ Three years later, the British and Americans were firebombing German cities; we decided we had to destroy the Germans’ ability to fight in order to destroy their armies.

Last month, the commander of the Marines in Anbar province in Iraq announced he did not have enough troops to defeat the terrorists. He said he could hold his ground. But he couldn’t win.

It now appears, the powers that be have given the Marines a new strategy: To persuade the enemy to quit. A crucial element in that strategy is to avoid hurting innocent civilians to win their good will and loyalty. Here is an example of how this works in practice: Last week a Marine on patrol stepped out of his Humvee in Anbar province and was wounded by a sniper. His commander, Lt. Col. Todd Desgrosseilliers, rushed him to a field hospital, he was treated, stabilized and flown to a larger hospital. (News and Observer; 10-19-06).

But what happened to the sniper? The Marines didn’t fire a shot at him. Lt. Col. Desgrosseilliers' battalion have been ordered not to return fire unless they were certain of their target, so, they would not harm civilians – so following orders, they didn’t fire.

Of course the problem is obvious: The new strategy is good news for the sniper and it means greater risk for our Marines fighting in Anbar province. The powers that be have decided that risk is justified. And they may have found a brilliant new way to win the war on terrorism. But, I’m afraid, it sounds like a strategy born of desperation. We don’t attack. We don’t pull out. We hold our ground and try to ‘persuade’ the enemy to quit. We can only hope we are not compounding our mistakes in Iraq by adding one more.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The November 7 election could be a big win for Wake County Democrats.  And it could dump a big problem into their laps.

Assume two things:

• The school bond issue loses.

• Democrats take control of the county commissioners.

First task for the Democrats will be figuring how to pay for more schools. 

The Democrats I talk to tell me the solution is simple: impact fees.  They say voters love the idea of imposing impact fees on developers.

But the WRAL/News & Observer poll raises a caution flag.

It asked the question this way: “Would you favor or oppose a countywide impact fee on new home construction that could add $3,000 to $5,000 to the cost of a new home?” 

Framed that way, 59 opposed impact fees, and only 27 percent favored it.

Also, no method of raising money for the schools won a majority in the poll:

• A half-cent increase in the local sales tax is supported by 43 percent and opposed by 47 percent;

• 39 percent favor a real estate transfer tax is opposed by 39 percent and opposed by 55 percent.

If Democrats push for impact fees and higher sales taxes in 2007, will they lose their majority in 2008?  And will the issue spill over into Raleigh City Council races in 2007?

Click to Read & Post Comments

I didn’t know what YouTube was until my wife and children introduced me to it.  Now, my 17-year-old, James, uses it to keep me current on what’s really happening in politics.  Once again, the potential power of the Internet amazes me.

Go to this link and you’ll see what I mean:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE-S1bA_Rsc

It’s a clip of Vernon Robinson being interviewed on Fox’s Hannity & Colmes about a particularly ridiculous attack ad he made, but claims never ran.  It is a stumbling, evasive performance worthy of Richard Nixon.

My suggestion to the Brad Miller campaign: Simply email this link to everybody you can.  Let them see for themselves the real Vernon Robinson.

And if you don’t have tens of thousands of email addresses, your campaign hasn’t done what it should in today’s New Media world.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The non-profit foundation that sponsored the North Carolina A & T “Aggie” vs. North Carolina Central University “Eagle” football classic has fallen on hard times. Attendance at Carter-Finley stadium fell in 2005 when the game was moved to Monday, to avoid a conflict with NC State’s first home game and the foundation ended up in the ditch. It owes the two schools roughly $150,000. No chicanery here, just bad luck.

But what hardly anyone knew, until the News & Observer reported on the foundation’s travails, is that the City has been subsidizing it with $80,000. The Aggie-Eagle game was a classic that lasted more than eighty years and the foundation’s goals were worthwhile. But, isn’t this one more example of the City Council’s free-spending ways under Mayor Meeker? Wouldn’t the money have been wiser used to pay for schools? Or roads?

Click to Read & Post Comments

In an odd sort of way it’s a tribute to House Speaker Jim Black that after the Video Poker scandal, the Optometrists scandal, the Lottery scandal and Representative Mike Decker’s bribery conviction, he has survived. But, in fact, the Speaker has more than survived. He has retained power without a single serious challenge.

Kevin Geddings said at his trial that he “disclosed his ties to Scientific Games to Black” the night before he was appointed. But Black insists that’s not so and House Democrats have continued to support him overwhelmingly, though, at last, some Democrats seem to be wondering how much longer Black can go on dodging hand grenades.

After Geddings’ conviction, former Speaker Joe Mavretic told the Charlotte Observer (10-13-06), “The oven’s getting hotter.” And Former Democratic legislator Bob Hensley added he thought former-Representative Michael Decker’s sentencing (for taking a $50,000 bribe) could also “lead to trouble for the Speaker.”

It seems more than possible, given the national trends, Democrats may retain control of the State House. But if they do, will they re-elect Jim Black Speaker? Black is an adroit master of the inside politics of the legislature. He has emerged victorious on dozens of hard-fought issues. But will he be able to pull the hat trick again? Or will he survive the election, and, maybe, the prosecutors – only to lose the support of his own caucus?

Click to Read & Post Comments

Parents who oppose mandatory year-round schools also oppose the Wake County school bonds.  But they may be the biggest losers if the bonds lose.

Especially if you look deeper into the WRAL/News & Observer poll on the bonds.

The bonds are losing 54-35, the poll says.  But the internal numbers are even more interesting:

• Most people oppose the bonds because they oppose a tax increase.  That is the reason given by 55 percent of the opponents.  Only 14 percent say they oppose the bonds because they oppose year-round schools.

• Among all voters, a majority – 53 percent – say the county should “avoid raising taxes, no matter how many schools are converted to mandatory year-round schools.”

In effect, the opponents of mandatory year-round have jumped into bed with their worst enemies. 

If the bonds lose, it’s obvious what comes next: more mandatory year-round schools.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Last month, the News and Observer reported the UNC Health Care system filed a lean on a man’s home when he was unable to pay his bill, after being struck by a crippling disease. Now, the newspaper reports the UNC system has paid executives $2.5 million in bonuses. Its CEO received a bonus of $110,000 (on top of his salary of $489,000), another executive received $103,000 and a third $101,000. These bonuses may be completely justified. But it does sort of leave you shaking your head.

Click to Read & Post Comments

In New York, they used to say of Senator Alfonse D’Amato, one of the legendary pork-barrellers, ‘He’s a crook, but he’s our crook.’ In other words it wasn’t the scandals it was the pork that mattered.

After House Speaker Jim Black’s debate with opponent, Hal Jordan, Black told the press, “This is not about Kevin Geddings, and it’s not about Jim Black or Hal Jordan. It’s about who can go to the legislature and get our fair share to the region. Do you want somebody who can? Or do you want somebody in the back row yelling: ‘Liar, liar, House on fire?’” (News and Observer; 10-11-06).

It sounds like Speaker Black has taken a page out of Senator D’Amato’s playbook. But why not? It worked for D’Amato for eighteen years.

Click to Read & Post Comments

When it comes to downtown Raleigh Mayor Meeker has his own version of political correctness – it could be called “urban correctness.” The Mayor and two of his allies on the City Council, Russ Stephenson and Thomas Crowder, have very definite – and rigid – views about what they do and don’t want downtown and the City is promulgating rules to enforce their ideas on everything from outdoor cafes to street performers. (News and Observer; 10-19-06). City officials are describing the new regulations with high-sounding rhetoric about people needing permits to use public property and making “sure everyone is treated equally.” But the bottom line is simple: The only diversity the Mayor and his allies want downtown is the diversity they approve of.

For instance, the owner of a café was cited for violating a city ordinance because he used ‘planter boxes’ as partitions around his outdoor café. And the News & Observer was told it can’t use its own newspaper racks (presumably the same racks it’s been using for years without causing heartburn). It has to use racks installed by the government that meet the Mayor’s specifications, instead.

These, of course, are small things. But they say something about a larger thing: 1) The rigidness of the Meeker-Crowder-Stephenson ideology and 2) how far Mayor Meeker and his allies are willing to go to force ‘urban correctness’ into neighborhoods – whether it’s wanted or not..

Click to Read & Post Comments

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow says the words “stay the course” may never pass his lips again. But does that mean the President’s policy in Iraq has changed – or is Mr. Snow simply abandoning what has become an unpopular phrase, two weeks before the election? It’s not exactly clear. Has the policy has changed – or just Mr. Snow’s way of describing it?

Do we have a new strategy for victory in Iraq – or the old strategy with a new name?

Click to Read & Post Comments

Excerpted from attached Morgan letter:

"If left unchallenged, Art Pope with his corporate millions, is a danger to the values North Carolinians hold dear.  If successful, Pope will destroy the integrity of the North Carolina House of Representatives.  "

"So I want you to be among the first to know that I have formally set up the "Richard Morgan Legal Expense Trust" for the sole purpose of accepting contributions to defray legal expenses in our efforts to stop Raleigh CEO Millionaire Art Pope from taking control of the legislature."

Click to Download/Read Morgan letter.

Exerpted from attached Pope letter:    

"At first glance, the attached  letter (in pdf format) appears to be a fundraising letter by a desperate Democrat candidate using typical scare tactics against a Republican member of the NC House of Representatives."

"But look, it is a letter from “Speaker” Richard T. Morgan, who has already lost his Republican Primary for the North Carolina House of Representatives. And it is attacking me, Art Pope, when I am not even a candidate for office."

"It is not even a fundraising letter for a campaign or PAC, or even a “527.” Instead, it is raising money for  the “Richard Morgan Legal Expense Trust.”
 

Click to Download/Read Pope letter.

I love to watch Republicans fight.  Because they benefited from so long from our fights in the Democratic Party.

So attached for your reading enjoyment are Richard Morgan’s fundraising letter attacking Art Pope and Pope’s email responding to Morgan.

If this election goes the way it looks like, these guys will be fighting over crumbs the next two years.

Click to Read or Post Comments

One of our readers asked us to post the news release below about TV forums featuring the statewide judicial candidates.

We’re happy to do it for a simple reason: Most voters don’t know a thing about these candidates.

Why?  Two reasons:

• Nonpartisan races.  So it’s hard to use party affiliation as an indication of where these candidates are coming from;

• Public financing.  So candidates can’t afford to tell many voters about themselves.

In our opinion, it’s “good government” run amok.  And it raises the question of whether “reform” is always a good thing.

That said, here’s the release:

Statewide Judicial Candidates to Appear on Televised Forum Presented by

 UNC-TV and the NC Center for Voter Education

RALEIGH – Which candidate for judge once convicted a woman for assault with a pancake? Which candidate claims the support of the leaders of both political parties?  Will women make up a new majority on the state Supreme Court?

Voters can find out the answers to these and other questions when all twelve candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals are featured in a three-part series of televised forums airing statewide on UNC-TV, starting this Thursday at 8 p.m.

“Judge for Yourself: Election 2006,” presented by the N.C. Center for Voter Education and UNC-TV, gives voters a first-hand look at the candidates for North Carolina’s highest courts.

The first episode of the series showcases the race for the state’s Chief Justice, airing on UNC-TV on Thursday Oct. 26 at 8:00 p.m.  The N.C. Court of Appeals races are highlighted in the episode following immediately afterward at 8:30 p.m.

The three races for Associate Justice of the N.C. Supreme Court are featured in the final episode on Thursday Nov. 2 at 8:00 p.m.

Studies by the N.C. Center for Voter Education show that the top reason North Carolina voters say they don’t go the polls is because they know little or nothing about the candidates.  The Center’s research has found this drought of information to be especially problematic when it comes to judicial races.  With a majority of state Supreme Court seats up for election this year, the aim of the judicial forum is to help voters cast an informed ballot.

“Voters tell us that they want more information about these candidates and, together with UNC-TV, the Center for Voter Education is proud to help provide it,” notes Chris Heagarty, executive director of the nonpartisan N.C. Center for Voter Education.  “With low voter-turnout expected, and more than half of the seats on the state Supreme Court on the line, voters have even more responsibility than ever to make sure they cast an educated vote, with solid facts on these candidates.”

Support for the forum was made possible in part by donations from numerous organizations, including the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers, the N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, N.C. Lawyers Weekly, Touchstone Energy, and the law firms of Maupin Taylor, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, Tharrington Smith, and Troutman Saunders.

Additional assistance for the programming was provided by the NC Bar Association, NC Mutual Life Insurance, NC Spin, State Government Radio and the law firm of Helms Mullis Wicker.

In addition to its partnership with UNC-TV in presenting “Judge for Yourself: Election 2006,” the N.C. Center for Voter Education has launched a series of online radio interviews on State Government Radio with the statewide judicial candidates, and offers a free online voter guide profiling the contenders. 

Episodes of the radio show and the online voter guide are available by visiting www.ncvoterguide.org.

The N.C. Center for Voter Education is a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.

Contact: Bryan Warner,

               N.C. Center for Voter Education

               919-839-1200

               warner@ncvotered.com

 # # #

The News & Observer says its poll with WRAL shows that voters are “leaning against” the Wake school bond issue.  It looks more like a tsunami to me.

Only 35 percent of the voters said they’ll vote for the bond issue.  The result could be nearly 2-to-1 against. 

School bond supporters sound like George Bush and Karl Rove.  They say their polls show the bonds with a chance of winning.

In truth, I hear that internal polls show the bonds with only 45 percent support.  Bond supporters say that result gives them hope.  I don’t know if that’s spin or spitting in the wind.

As a political junkie, I’ll be interested in whose poll turns out right.

But – as a bond supporter – I don’t have any hope.

Once this tidal wave recedes, the schools and their Wake County friends need to take a hard look at how this happened.

Not at the campaign.  That was a lost cause from the beginning.

But at how the schools lost public confidence so badly.  And at what they’re going to do to rebuild it.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Two years ago, when Governor Easley was campaigning hard for reelection the state paid $21.5 million for 5,600 acres of land in Caldwell County. Three weeks later, the Governor’s campaign received $40,000 from ten people with ties to the land owner. Later, three more donors gave $16,000. Two of the donors were nineteen and twenty years old. None had ever contributed to Easley before. Each gave $4,000. (Charlotte Observer; 10-22-06)

Governor Easley’s response to the story in the Charlotte Observer was a variation on his standard: ‘I don’t know.’ His office says he “knows none of them and knew nothing about the land buy.” His press secretary added “if there had been any hint of impropriety, Governor Easley would have stopped the deal dead in its tracks.’”

No hint  of impropriety? Ten different people, in ten different places, on the same day, suddenly decide to give Governor Easley’s campaign $4,000 checks – and that’s just a coincidence?

It certainly appears, three weeks after the deal closed, someone rounded up ten checks, put them in an envelope and sent them to Governor Easley’s campaign. But who? And, for that matter, who on Easley’s campaign solicited the contributions?

According to The Observer the Governor’s official staff actively lobbied State agencies for the land purchase the land. The Chairman of the state’s Clean Water Management Trust Fund, which put up $13.5 of the $21.5 million, told his colleagues, “I got a telephone call from the Governor’s office that relayed to me that this is the Governor’s top priority…”

In addition, The Observer reports an appraisal done by the group selling the land showed it “paid about $2 million for the tracks it sold the state.” But then the appraisal placed the market value of the land at a whopping $27.6 million – because that would be the value if the land were “being developed for resort homes.”

Is this another example of ‘pay to play’? If so, what happens next? Is Attorney General Roy Cooper going to launch a no holes barred investigation?  Probably not. Cooper’s probably no more anxious to tackle a scandal involving Governor Easley than he’s been to investigate the lottery scandals. When it comes to prosecuting fellow Democrats the state’s chief law-enforcement officer is well, politically, neutered. Which leaves the ball squarely in the Republicans’ court – but they have none of the vehicles of government at their command to conduct an investigation.

But they can do one thing: They can appeal to the court of public opinion. Republican State Chairman, Ferrell Blount, Republican State Senators and Representatives, can demand Governor Easley disclose who on his campaign staff solicited the contributions, who in his office lobbied for the land purchase and Republicans can demand a bi-partisan investigation, independent of Attorney General Cooper. Then, if the legislature and the Governor refuse, Republicans have two weeks to take their case to the voters.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The School Bond Referendum is caught in a crossfire. The opponents of the billion-dollar bond referendum seem to agree on one thing: Defeating it is the best way to send the School Board a message that it is headed in the wrong direction. But they differ on the right direction. (News and Observer; 10-22-06).

Americans for Prosperity supports a smaller bond (of $650 million), which wouldn’t require a huge property tax increase. It also supports reforms like building more neighborhood schools, dedicating the hotel/motel tax (which is now used to fund special projects like the Convention Center) to pay for schools, and using Raleigh’s share of the lottery money to build schools.

On the other hand, parents who oppose year-round schools, are opposing the bond because, well, it means the School Board will build more of the schools they don’t like.

Where does this leave the School Bond’s supporters, who find themselves under attack from two directions? A spokesperson for the group says if there were no conversions to mandatory year-round schools passing the bonds “would be a slam dunk.” But that may be overoptimistic. Two polls published months ago showed the bonds losing decisively long before year-round schools became an issue. So, it may be voters’ discontent with the school system runs deeper than just opposition to year-round schools. It may be the real problem is taxpayers seeing County and City government spending millions for convention centers and hotels, then saying we must raise taxes to pay for schools. Voters aren’t naïve. They may have figured out local governments are spending a lot of money on priorities that are less important than schools.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The question in the Foley scandal is not what former Congressman Tom Foley did but when House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republican leaders knew about it.

Foley’s former aide, Kirk Fordham, says he told the Speaker’s Chief of Staff “about Foley’s approaches to male pages” three years ago. (News and Observer; 10-13-06). Hastert and his Chief of Staff, say, Not so. They say the staff learned about Foley a year ago, and that Hastert only learned a month ago. But, then, Republican Majority Leader, John Boehner, contradicted that and said he discussed ‘the Foley situation’ with Hastert last spring.

So the explanations range from three years ago, to one year, to last spring, to last month. So, naturally, people are wondering, Did Speaker Hastert act promptly? That’s where the First Act of the Foley scandal has ended. Stay tuned for the Second Act. It’s titled: Who Knew What When.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Last week, in his newsletter, Dick Morris described the tidal wave impact the Foley scandal has had on Republican base voters. This week he proposes an imaginary ad for Republican to run before the elections. He describes the ad this way:

“We see and hear a wiretapped conversation, with a terrorist revealing his worst plans to his associate – and, inadvertently, to government eavesdroppers, too. Then, when he’s about to spill the beans on when and where the next attack is going to come, the line should go dead, with a dial tone, with a machine voice saying ‘This wiretap terminated in the name of privacy rights by the Democratic U.S. Congress.’”  (Dick Morris's weekley email @ www.vote.com)

Now that would surely get a response from Democrats.

Click to Read & Post Comments

No one outside of House Speaker Jim Black’s inner circle knows how much money corporations have given to the Speaker’s Legal Defense Fund. But the Charlotte Observer (10-16-06) has reported the name of one donor: The Teamster’s Union. According to the Federal Elections Commission, the Teamster’s PAC gave $5,000 to Black. The union didn’t offer any explanation for their donation, but The Observer reports the Teamsters are “often affected by issues before the General Assembly, including the regulation of commercial driver’s licenses for truckers.” The union also gave $4,000 directly to Black’s campaign and $20,000 to the North Carolina Democratic Caucus.

Last summer, Democrats passed legislation prohibiting lobbyists, personally, giving money to candidates; then, they proclaimed they’d cleaned up the ‘pay to play’ scandals. But that was a political flim-flam because they didn’t prohibit lobbyists raising money for them. Now, it might be interesting to know if the Teamster’s lobbyist in the General Assembly helped raise that $5,000 for Speaker Black’s Legal Defense Fund.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Last session, State House and Senate Democrats passed legislation to prohibit lobbyists giving money to candidates; then, in a political flim-flam, they proclaimed they’d cleaned up the ‘pay to play’ scandal. The Democrats eliminated the, say, 5% of the money lobbyists, personally, give them. But left in place the 95% lobbyists raise for them (mostly from their clients).

Republican State Senators have now staked out their agenda and at the top of the list are reforms that will really help end the ‘pay to play’ scandals. Specifically, Republicans prohibit lobbyists raising campaign contributions for legislators – which drives a spike through the heart of ‘pay to play.’ (It will also cost Democratic legislators hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, so expect them to fight it tooth and toenail.)

The Republicans also called for full disclosure of contributions to legislators’ legal defense funds. (It says a lot about the state of affairs in Raleigh that such funds have become political necessities). Of course, the leading Democrat with a legal defense fund is House Speaker Jim Black. In theory, Black can now raise a million dollars and never tell anyone where the money came from. It could come from video poker operators. Or lottery vendors. Or businesses with state contracts. No one would ever know. The conflicts of interest would never be exposed.

In addition, Republicans challenged Democrats on three issues: Passing legislation to discourage illegal immigration, making English the official language in North Carolina, and passing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The good news for Republicans if their Senate leaders have laid out a strong agenda going into the election. The bad news, unfortunately, is the Democrats used redistricting to create so many safe seats for their incumbents that only five of the fifty Senate races are competitive. And, in those five races, Democrats enjoy a huge financial advantage, in no small part due to ‘pay to play.’ The Republicans will be outspent four or five to one.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Two weeks from today, Democrats either win their biggest landslide in three decades (since Watergate) or Republicans celebrate the biggest upset since Truman-Dewey.  Either way, both parties will quickly see a war between their respective bases and everybody else.

Here are the scenarios:

• Win or lose, Democrats will start debating What It All Means for 2008.  Specifically, adopt the Clinton Triangulation strategy of reaching for the middle?  Or steal a page from Karl Rove’s playbook and Rally the Base?  (For a good analysis on these two strategic approaches, read the new book The Way to Win.)

• If Republicans lose, do Bush and Rove lose the remarkable loyalty they have commanded since 1999?  And who will the GOP turn to: Clintonians (in strategy) like Guiliani and McCain?  Or whoever is left on the Right?

• If Republicans pull out a victory, Bush and Rove go down in political history as the most skilled (or lucky) strategists of our time. 

• And Democrats will proceed to cut their own throats – and anybody else’s within reach.

Click to Read & Post Comments

America’s population – now 300 million – could top 400 million by the time my children start thinking about retiring (around 2040).  I believe that’s a good thing for our country.

Given today’s hostility toward immigrants, that probably wouldn’t be a popular political position.

But here’s why I say it:

• Population growth means economic growth – construction, retail, services, all of it.

• The rest of the world faces declining population – a sure sign of decline.

• Most of all, it’s good for our children’s and grandchildren’s retirement.

By 2050 in Europe, there will be fewer than two adults of working age for every person over 65.

But, in America, there will be three working adults – contributing to Social Security – for every person of retiree-age.

In other words, when you’re tempted to get angry at all the immigrants you see, remember: They and their children may pay for your retirement.

Click to Read & Post Comments

For the last couple of weeks Mayor Meeker’s been meeting with unhappy city garbage workers. Last week, in a show of bonhomie and empathy the Mayor spent the morning riding a garbage truck. He told the News and Observer (10-14-06) he “wanted to learn about the job as sanitation workers protest for better pay and working conditions.” But ask yourself: How did the Mayor’s excursion on the garbage truck end up in the newspapers (who described what he was wearing down to his blue cap). Could it be this was a political PR stunt – and the Mayor tipped off the press off in advance – rather than a show of empathy?

Click to Read & Post Comments

The Department of Transportation spends billions, but, in the last three years, its team of nine internal auditors has only produced “one complete report and eight memo’s or letters.” (Charlotte Observer; 10-13-06).

The DOT’s chief auditor told investigators that “his staff spent most of 2003 on training and did not produce any new reports after that because his office decided to wait until (2006) and start anew.” He added most of his staff’s time had been spent on “special projects,” but he couldn’t provide any documentation.

The Governor’s response, instead of his usual ‘I didn’t know’ was a resounding: No comment. His spokesman says his staff hasn’t reviewed the report. Now, the DOT’s a pretty big agency. Wouldn’t one audit in three years merit a bit of concern from the Governor? Or his staff?

In addition, a report issued by State Auditor Les Merritt says other state agencies and colleges, with total budgets of 5.85 billion dollars, don’t have even a single internal auditor. You can’t help but wonder what new scandals a few audits of that $6 billion might turn up.

Click to Read & Post Comments

House Speaker Jim Black was pretty vague at Kevin Geddings’ trial about his meeting with lobbyists for lottery giant Scientific Games the night before he appointed Geddings to the Lottery Commission.

But Black wasn’t vague at all about another meeting. He testified lobbyists for G-TECH (another lottery company) “brought an important visitor to his office before passage of the lottery” – Tom Shaheen, the current director of the Lottery, who “oversaw the awarding of major contracts to G-TECH.” Black added, “It didn’t surprise me when G-TECH got the contract.” (News and Observer; 10-11-06)

Shaheen’s response? He does not recall meeting Black. But he does recall meeting with an aide to Black, which seems odd. After all, if you were lobbying for the lottery who would you remember meeting: the most powerful man in the State House or his aide?

Click to Read & Post Comments

The Gallop organization has taken a poll about the impact of the Foley scandal on the election. Dick Morris writes on his website Vote.com that it shows “the Republican base…has moved out.”

“The Gallup poll of Oct. 6-8 shows that, in the wake of the Foley scandal, the number of "white frequent churchgoers" who are planning to vote Republican has dropped from 58 percent to 47 percent since last month. The margin of their support for Republicans over Democrats, 26 percentage points in September, has entirely disappeared and the parties are tied among this core element of the Republican base.

“The Gallup poll also reveals that Democrats now win all eight major issues, including terrorism and morality. Asked which party would do more to enhance "moral standards in the country," Democrats now win 47 to 36! And on terrorism, Democrats now have a 47-to-42-percent advantage.

“The Foley scandal has wrought extraordinary damage to the Republican Party and appears to have had a particularly negative impact …churchgoing whites are the core of the Republican base. The fact that they are now breaking even in the approaching midterm elections foretells total disaster for the GOP.”

“With this kind of defection, Republican Sens. Mike DeWine (Ohio), Conrad Burns (Mont.), Rick Santorum (Pa.), Jim Talent (Mo.) and Lincoln Chaffee (R.I.) seem likely to be gone. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-Tenn.) seat seems likely to go to Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.). And Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) may also be on his way out. In New Jersey, after trailing Tom Kean Jr. for most of September, Sen. Robert Menendez (D) seems to have moved out to a small lead that will probably grow.”

One more complication: When the scandal broke House Speaker Dennis Hastert told the press he only learned of Foley’s instant messages to pages last month. But, now, the newspapers report House Majority Leader John Boehner says he discussed “the Foley situation” with the Speaker last spring. (News and Observer; 10-19-06)

About once each decade (1974, 1982, 1994), there seems to be a ‘tidal wave’ election when voters decisively favor one party (or where the base voters for one party simply stay home). Republican pollsters and strategists have been afraid for months that would happen this election. Morris’ conclusion seems to confirm their fears. He says the Gallop poll is a sign of “a midterm disaster for the Republican Party.”

Click to Read & Post Comments

Jesse Helms used to warn about the dire threat posed by the “radical homosexual lobby.”  Now it looks like they’ve infiltrated his own party.  And a subtext to the Foley story is whether Republicans will start chasing gays out of the big tent.

Democrats are excused for taking satisfaction in the irony: The daddy party, the values party, actually has a pretty strong cohort of closeted (or not so closeted) gays in key positions in the Congress.

But anybody who opposes gay-bashing ought to be concerned about what happens next.

Some Christian conservatives in the Republican Party are calling for a purge.  They seem to assume that all gays are pedophiles.

But other Republicans worry about the reaction of moderate voters, who are growing ever more tolerant.

Well, the Republicans created this mess.  They can deal with it.

Here’s one thing they’ve already done: Their mantra used to be Taxes, Security, Values.  A recent GOP strategy memo changed it to Taxes, Security, Immigration.

Foley Values apparently don’t fit with Family Values.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Vernon Robinson's been know to stretch a fact when it comes to heated political rhetoric. But the other night at their debate Congressman Brad Miller beat him hands down. Miller said, "Mr. Robinson, most people think I'm most offended by your insinuations about my sexual orientation or your saying my wife and I can't have children shows we are out of the mainstream, but what offends me most is the contempt you have shown my religious faith."

Miller had to stretch pretty hard to claim Robinson had attacked his "sexual orientation" and his wife. But then he surpassed himself on religion. You'd think Vernon had said Miller was a member of a sect. But according to the News and Observer all Robinson actually said was Miller's church -- an Episcopal Church in Raleigh -- "has led the state in the promotion of the ordination of homosexual clergy, and I don't agree with that." (News and Observer; 10-18-06)

That's what Miller called an attack on his religion.

Robinson, for his part, criticized Miller's vote on an amendment to delete funding for a grant for the National Institute of Health to study "how college women respond physically to pornography." Miller voted for the study; he says researchers rather than politicians, should decide what grants should be funded.

Maybe, for once, we should be thankful for the politicians.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Two of Mayor Meeker’s allies on the City Council, Russ Stephenson and Thomas Crowder, cast the only votes against building a new Wal-Mart in southeast Raleigh.

Why?

In a sense the answer is ideology. Councilmen Stephenson and Crowder are two politicians who have an ideology. They want to convert Raleigh into a patch-work of neighborhoods filled with “walkability, mixed-uses, and visual appeal.” And like most ideologues (who happen to be politicians) they’re a little fanatical about their ideas. There’s no give in them. No exceptions. The government should be certain no one deviates. But does their idea make sense for southeast Raleigh right now?

Councilman James West, who represents the district, supported the Wal-Mart. Apparently, he believes, or thinks his constituents believe, it is a good idea. That it will create growth. But none of that mattered to Stephenson or Crowder. It’s ‘walkability’ that matters and southeast Raleigh had better get on the train or else.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Wake County Republicans may not walk the walk, but they’ve learned to talk the talk when it comes to top issues: Schools, jobs and health care.

This week I’ve seen ads by Paul Coble, running for county commissioner, and Nelson Dollar, running for N.C. House.  And their issues are right out of the Jim Hunt playbook: schools, jobs, health care.

But the message is all generalities.  As you would expect, since neither one would support Jim Hunt’s specific plans for schools, jobs and health care.

Shame on the Democrats if they let their opponents get away with this.

Click to Read & Post Comments

One way to think of the world of politics is as a small, unique universe with rules of its own. One of the rules – in this strange world – is it is legal to say almost anything in a political debate. Under the rules, politicians may paint their virtues a little bigger than they really are, camouflage their vices and vilify their opponents, telling the whole truth, half-the-truth, or very-little-of-the-truth.

During the lottery trial politicians, and political consultants, found themselves in a different world where the rules they knew no longer applied. The rules in courts of law are different. So, during the trial, we saw the gap between what politicians have said publicly (in the political world), say, about Kevin Geddings’ appointment to the Lottery Commission, and what appears to have actually happened.

Now that Geddings has been convicted what happens next? Will the scandal end? Is this just the first act? There may be two clues. First, House Speaker Jim Black said that he knew nothing about Kevin Geddings’ ties to lottery giant Scientific Games, last year, when he appointed Geddings. But, now, the prosecutor says, instead, Geddings was chosen at a dinner meeting attended by Black and two Scientific Games lobbyists. Second, former Representative Michael Decker plead guilty to taking a $50,000 bribe to change parties and vote for Black for Speaker of the House. If Decker is guilty of taking a bribe, who is guilty of giving him one?

These may be the next phase of the scandal.

Click to Read & Post Comments

How will the ‘pay to play’ scandals impact Democratic candidates this election? In most years, the answer would be a lot. But this year, there are several trends that may change that.

First, we Republicans have our own foibles to explain. Second, if the polls are correct, nationally, the war in Iraq is the dominant issue this election – and the tide is running in the Democrats’ favor. Third, as far as the State House and Senate races go, Democrats have one other big advantage: Money. Republicans will be outspent by three or four or five to one and the bottom line is blunt: Republican candidates may not have the financial muscle to compete with their Democratic opponents.

When it comes to matching Democrats financially, part of the Republicans’ problem is they are a minority in the legislature. But that’s not the whole story. ‘Pay to Play’ may have led Democrats into a quagmire of scandals, but it has also been a goldmine for them in terms of campaign dollars. It’s one reason for Democrats’ big financial edge. But that’s not the whole story, either. Give the Democrats credit, when it comes to raising money they leave few stones unturned. They do their homework.

Of course, it is possible voters may express their disapproval of the war in Iraq by voting for Democrats in Congressional races, and then turn around and vote against them in state races because of the scandals. But concern about the war may simply overwhelm every other issue and, in that case, Democrats may win despite the scandals.

Click to Read & Post Articles

Wake County school bond supporters say the bonds are “the best way to pay.”  But is that message enough to win?

Bond supporters were smart to hire Democrat Brad Crone and Republican Ballard Everett to run their campaign. 

Brad ran a smart campaign against school bonds some years ago.  His slogan was: “There’s a better way.”  That message enabled opponents to rationalize their vote: We’re not voting against the schools, we’re voting against this plan.

This year, though, Brad and Ballard are raking water uphill.

Supporters – facing strong voter opposition – argue that we’re going to pay for new schools one way or the other, and the bonds are cheapest in the long run.  They say the interest savings will be $56 million.

But that’s a complicated argument.  It’s aimed at the head.  The opposition is coming from the gut.  Human nature being what it is, gut usually beats head.

Fact is, the county will have to find a way to pay for new schools.

Wake’s school system soon will be the biggest in the state.  It has 128,000 students.  That’s two Carter-Finley stadiums.

Plus, 7,500 new students arrive every year. 

School officials say we need:

• 17 new schools – 11 elementary, four middle and two high schools;

• 13 major renovations and maintenance at 100 schools;

• A five-year technology upgrade

• Land and design for 13 new schools.

Opponents are being dishonest when they claim charter schools – or bigger schools, or smaller schools, or pixie dust, or whatever they say – will do the job.

But facts don’t help when people are mad.

If the bonds lose, we’ll be looking for somebody to pick up the pieces – and the mantle of leadership.  Any suggestions?

Click to Read & Post Comments

I’m looking forward to this year’s election not just because there will be a Democratic sweep, but also because it will destroy the myth of Karl Rove’s 72-hour voter-turnout machine.

While most Republicans expect to lose the House and hold the Senate by only one seat, The Washington Post reports that Bush and Rove are “almost inexplicably upbeat.”

Of course.  They believe the myth.  They believe Rove’s mythical machine will snatch victory from the jaws of Iraq-stalemate, Mark Foley-fed defeat.

We’ll find out.

Even Democrats have come to believe the myth.  They now spend millions on organization and voter-turnout programs that promise to do for the blue team what the 72-hour plan supposedly did in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

I’ve never believed it.  I’ve never seen empirical evidence that it works.  I still believe that candidates, character and causes motivate voters – not mechanics, phone banks and targeting.

I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.  Talk to me after this election.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The Wake County school bonds are winning the elites but losing the voters.

Supporters have organized an impressive list of business backers.  But that has not impressed voters.

No poll has shown more than 45 percent of Wake voters supporting the bonds.  And the bonds will not pick up undecided voters.  That means 45 percent is the ceiling for bond support.

A 10-point loss will be disheartening.  A 20-point loss, devastating.

But that is what the county faces.

People are mad for various reasons: mandatory year-round, transportation scandals, reassignment.  Then throw in the usual antitax crowd.

It pains me to say this.  I have two children in school – one at Ligon and one at Enloe.  I’m constantly amazed at the quality of teachers my children have.

They – the students and the teachers – deserve better. 

School officials will be tempted to blame the voters if the bonds lose.  Instead, they need to take a hard look at their own leaders.

Click