North Carolina Democrats had a good year, but it could have been better.

Talkingaboutpolitics.com has learned (now, doesn’t that sound pretentious?) that Rahm Emmanuel’s vaunted Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee missed a chance to take out Robin Hayes.

A group of North Carolina Democrats were poised to raise last-minute money for Democrat Larry Kissell’s campaign, if the DCCC would come in too.

But Rahm said his pollster – who I still haven’t been able to identify – told him the race wasn’t winnable.  So the DCCC stayed out.

Well, if Kissell does lose, it was by about 300 votes.

The last-minute money could have changed that.

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

People used to say, I don’t care which party straightens out our country as long as one does. But times have changed. The Charlotte Observer (11-13-06) reports “straight ticket voting” increased 20% in Mecklenburg County this election. Of course, it’s possible that every, say, Democratic candidate in every race was more qualified than his Republican opponent. So voting a straight ticket meant voting for the best man every time. But is it likely? For years, the key people in elections were ‘ticket splitters.’ But, unfortunately, the era of “I vote for the man not the party” is passing.  Today, over half the people in elections vote for the party, regardless of the candidates.

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

We may be about to get another glimpse into “backstage politics.” Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed House Speaker Pro-Tem Richard Morgan to testify before the grand jury. What they want to ask Morgan about is a $100,000 donation “a small cigarette manufacturer” gave “a political group” he created in 2004 – a year after Morgan stopped legislation the manufacturer opposed. Morgan has also been asked to “provide information on 37 individuals or entities,” everyone from video poker interests to lottery venders. (News and Observer;11-14-06).

Prosecutors are following a ‘money trail’ from corporations (and donors) through the labyrinths of the legislature to elected officials political committees. This should lead them into the dark corners of ‘backstage politics’ and give us another unique glimpse how the legislature works.

No one has accused Representative Morgan of doing one thing illegal. So let’s use ‘the cigarette manufacturer’ giving him $100,000 as a hypothetical example.  It was perfectly legal for them to give to Morgan’s political committee. What would be illegal was if  it turned out Morgan said (which no one alleges he did), Give me $100,000 and I’ll stop that bill. That type of ‘quid pro quo’ is illegal but those words are seldom, if ever, spoken. Indeed, they are not necessary. Both sides already know what’s at stake when a donor has a bill pending in the legislature. And, if any explanation is needed, it can be explained in codes.

For instance, the CEO of a trade group – say a lottery vender – might go to a legislator and say, My group wants to stop a bill. How can we do that?

The legislator might say, The first thing you have to do is get active. Get involved in politics.

CEO (puzzled), How do we do that?

Legislator, One way is to give money. And get your members to give money. And, if anyone missed the point a few days later, an invitation to the legislator’s fundraiser arrives in the mail.

This happens almost every day. It’s perfectly legal. The law says ‘quid pro quo’s’ are illegal, but the system allows them as long as they are never explicitly stated, as long as the words, ‘You give this and I’ll do that,’ are never spoken.

Practically there is not much difference between a spoken and unspoken ‘quid pro quo’ – but legally the difference is immense. What’s the solution? No one’s come up with on other than prohibiting donations from people lobbying (or hiring lobbyists) to pass bills. But there’s one big problem with that. The legislators receiving the donations are the ones who get to vote on the law. So far, that idea has been DOA in the legislature.

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

Nothing starts a fight quicker in Congress than the scramble for power. It’s an old story and it’s just happened to Democrats. The election was barely over when they started fighting among themselves to see who will be the ‘powers’ in the new Congress. The big tussle – between Congressman Jack Murtha and Congressman Steny Hoyer – was over who would be the Majority Leader. It was no gentleman’s disagreement. Congressman Murtha’s opponents said he’d used his position on the House Appropriations Committee to trade “federal spending for campaign contributions,” that he’d stood “in the way of ethics investigations”, and even dredged up his involvement in the Abscam scandal. According to Murtha’s critics he is one of the ‘twenty most corrupt’ members of Congress. (News and Observer; 11-14-06)

So, the brawl for power in the Democratic Congress has started and the kid gloves have come off. The post-election honeymoon lasted less than a month.

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

UNC President Erskine Bowles is going to ask the legislature to increase the UNC System’s budget 11%. But Bowles has done something unusual. He’s backed his request by cutting what amounts to $440 million in other university spending. For example, he’s cut his own staff 10%. It’s hard to recall anyone else, anywhere else, in government doing that.

Bowles cuts give his request for a budget increase credibility. He’s asking for more money, but he’s also saying he’s going to spend the money he has more wisely. Of course, he still has to work his way through the political labyrinth of the legislature and the politicians may maul his plans. But he’s started with a proposal that should have a little appeal to even the most tight-fisted Senators and Representatives.

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

Politics is odd but Elizabeth Dole must feel the world turned upside down in the three weeks after the election. The Sunday before the election she was on TV defending Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, saying he didn’t need to resign. Three days later President Bush fired Rumsfeld.

Senator Dole was also Chairman of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee during the campaign, so she’s been getting flack for Republicans losing the Senate – which is a little like shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message. Some Republicans, apparently, would rather blame their defeat on Elizabeth Dole than the War in Iraq.

Anyway, Senator Dole’s tenure as Chairman of the Senate Fund is done now and according to the News and Observer (11-10-06) she’s going to work on “her priorities for North Carolina.” What are they? According to the newspaper Senator Dole “is trying to get federal recognition for the Lumbee tribe and is pushing community college legislation.”

Now there are great challenges facing North Carolina but federal recognition of the Lumbee Indian tribe is hardly one of them, and I expect Senator Dole knows it – so that final miscue must have seemed like a fitting end to a bad three weeks.

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

I’m singing one of my favorite songs again: Winning campaigns spend money on media, not turnout.  And I have judicial proof in this year’s elections.

There appeared to be little pattern in who won the judicial races, which are now officially nonpartisan.  Democrat Sarah Parker won big.  But Republican Donna Stroud edged Linda Stephens.

Here’s the pattern: the candidates who ran good TV ads – and a lot of them – won: Parker, Stroud, Patricia Timmons-Goodson and Robin Hudson. 

Candidates who put their faith and their money into get-out-the-vote campaigns lost.

Too many candidates have a romantic belief in turnout operations.  Or they’ve been drinking Karl Rove’s Kool-Aid.

To me, GOTV always means Get On Television.

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

A recent story in The New York Times asked: “Is the South Truly a Dead Zone for Democrats?”

You’d have to be politically brain dead to believe that.

Look at North Carolina after the November elections:

• We’re one of only 15 states with a Democratic governor and Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature;

• Across 14 Southern states, Democrats picked up 21 legislative seats.  Six (or seven, if Jim Black eventually wins) of those were in North Carolina;

• We elected a Democratic Chief Justice and two Democrats to the Supreme Court, after years of GOP dominance in court races.  It helped, of course, that the legislature made the races nonpartisan and publicly funded.

• The 11^th District tossed out a veteran Republican congressman in favor of the Democrat.  And we almost beat Robin Hayes.

I wouldn’t argue that all the South is so open to Democrats.  And we could lose it all in two years.

But North Carolina and Virginia (see Senator-elect Jim Webb) are Southern states that Democrats can win.  Maybe even in a Presidential election.

If we win in the South, we win nationally.

The Democrats have a huge opportunity before them.  Republicans, a huge problem.

More on this in future blogs.

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

Will Democrat-turned-Republican Congressman Walter Jones turn back to the party of his father?

That’s the rumor in Raleigh this week.

Jones was a Democratic member of the State House and a Democratic Congressional candidate before he became a Republican and won his U.S. House seat in 1994.  Before that, Jones worked for Governor Jim Hunt.  Jones’ father, of course, was a long-time Democratic congressman.

Jones has been on the outs with GOP leaders in Washington since speaking out against the Iraq war.

We’d welcome you back, Congressman.

The war between James Carville and Howard Dean reflects a long-running divide inside the Democratic Party.  I suspect Republicans suffer it, too.

Carville speaks for the political pros – the consultants, pollsters and media mavens.

Dean speaks for the grassroots – the state chairs, county chairs and precinct chairs.

The battle is over money.  The Carvillians say give us more money and we’ll elect more Democrats.  The Deaniacs say give us more money and we’ll elect more Democrats.

The problem this year is that every Democrat can claim that what they did worked, because most every Democrat won.

But my vote is with Carville.

The Dean crowd basically says organization wins elections. 

In other words, they say Karl Rove is right.

But he wasn’t right.  The much-hyped 72-Hour Plan wasn’t what it was hyped up to be.  Not this year, not last time and not 2000.

Organization may – may, I say – make a 1 or 2 point difference in a tight race.

But information – media, that is – can make a 10 or 20 point different with the same amount of money.

That’s my two-cents worth.

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

Now that House Democrats saved Nancy Pelosi from the self-inflicted wound of John Murtha, it’s time to take up real ethics reform.

Nobody has made that case better Bruce Thompson, who I think is one of Raleigh’s best lawyer-lobbyists.  He’s also a good Democrat, I should add.

Bruce wrote an op-ed in Monday’s Charlotte Observer that says it better than I can.  Click here: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/opinion/16056465.htm

One excerpt:

“Clearly, with exit polls showing corruption and scandal as one of the most important factors for voters in the recent House races, Congress has some catching up to do. The lame-duck session would be a great time to start.”

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

Nancy Pelosi got off to a good start after Election Day.  But she’s about to blow it.  Here is hoping the Democratic caucus saves her from herself today.

What is she thinking: Supporting the ethically challenged John Murtha for the No. 2 caucus position?  The man who told the Abscam bribers he wasn’t interested “at this point.”

This after Pelosi promised the “most ethical Congress in history.”

Yes, she may owe Murtha.  He took one for the team on Iraq.  But she doesn’t owe him this much.

But don’t chortle too much, my Republican friends.  Trent Lott is back in power in the Senate GOP caucus. 

Yes, the same Trent Lott who thought this country would be a lot better off if Strom Thurmond’s 1948 views – i.e., segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever – had prevailed.

Lott, like Murtha, has never confessed and atoned for his sins.

It’s not a good start for either side.

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

The talk-show blowhards want to know if Republicans and Democrats can work together in Washington.  I want to know if Democrats can work together.

•  Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who is pro-life.

•  Health Shuler in North Carolina, who is pro-life and pro-gun.

 
Will the netblogs turn on them the way they turned on Hillary Clinton?  If they do, the Democratic majority will be short-lived.

People in Raleigh and Eastern North Carolina need to pay more attention to Shuler’s victory.  And so do people in Washington.

North Carolina Democrats like Jim Hunt put a lot of work into recruiting and helping Shuler.  They knew Democrats needed to pick up 15 seats nationally, and they wanted one of those 15 to be from North Carolina.

It was.

Shuler’s signal should be a sign for national Democrats.  We can win in the South.  And we can win in North Carolina.

That bodes well for whoever challenges Liddy Dole in two years – and for Democratic presidential candidates in 2008, 2012 and beyond.

Here are some of the reasons Shuler won:

• He’s a local hero, a football star and a successful businessman.

• He was active in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, so it was hard to paint him as a Washington liberal.

• He’s personally a centrist, maybe even conservative.

• He’s not from relatively liberal Buncombe County, but from the conservative western part of the district.

And he ran a smart, aggressive campaign – tying Charles Taylor to the corruption and arrogance that voters saw in Washington.

Here is what 2006 says about the (potential) future of the Democratic Party:

• We’re no longer just a bicoastal party, though we have that base.

• We don’t just have to win in the Midwest, like Ohio, although we did.

• We can raid the Republicans’ own turf in Virginia and North Carolina.

But it’s going to take discipline – and tolerance for ideological and cultural differences.  Washington Democrats haven’t shown that before.

Will they now?

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

Why not get out of Iraq now?  Immediately.  No phased withdrawal.  No graceful exit.  No fig-leaf of victory.

Here’s the first argument: Iraq will fall into chaos.

Well, it’s already in chaos.

Argument No. 2: America will be humiliated in the world.

Could we be more humiliated?

Actually, I’m not sure getting out is right. 

But I suspect that all the foreplay with the Iraq Study Group is about finding a politically palatable way to get out – with both Democrats and Republicans escaping blame in 2008.

I respect Senator John McCain for saying we ought to put in more troops and win. 

But I don’t think that’s quite the political risk it is made out to be.  We’re not going to do what he suggests, so McCain can always say I told you so.

If we don’t follow McCain’s advice – and if Bush and the Democrats come up with a fig-leaf strategy – aren’t we going down the same road as Nixon in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972?

And will that road be paved on the bodies of more dead American men and women?

As John Kerry once famously asked: Who wants to be the last person to die for a mistake?

I hope the politicians spend as much time thinking about those lives as they do about their own political hides.

The risk for Republicans is obvious: Pay the same price in 2008 that you paid this year.

The risk for Democrats is also obvious: Be painted again as weaklings who won’t protect America, like 2002 and 2004.

But the risk to our troops is far greater.

There is a theory about that The News & Observer/WRAL pre-election poll on the Wake County school bonds lulled opponents into complacency and spurred supporters to victory.  Whether or not it did, the newspaper needs to take a hard look at why the poll was so far wrong.

The explanation by the pollster – Del Ali of Research 2000 – was that the poll was accurate when it was taken two weeks before the election.  But voters’ opinions changed.

I don’t buy it.

The same outfit had a poll several months ago showing the same result.

Plus, my experience is that voters who say they’ll vote against a bond issue don’t change their minds and then vote for it.

Two local polls – by Public Policy Polling and by the Home Builders of Wake County – got it right.  (Public Policy Polling is run, by the way, by Justin Guillory, son of Ferrel Guillory.  The Home Builders poll was by Conquest Communications out of Virginia.)

There’s one question I’d ask the N&O about its poll: How much did you spend on it?

Too often, media outlets buy polls on the cheap.  And they get what they pay for.  They’re more interested in a headline than real analysis.

Good campaigns, on the other hand, spend what it takes to get a good poll.  Bad research means bad campaign strategy.

Polls are like anything else you buy.  Some are good, and some are bad.   Any number of things can cause a wrong poll: poor turnout sampling, poor-quality callers and just overall sloppy work

So, if I was editor of the N&O, I’d fire Research 2000 and hire another pollster.

Of course, this all may just be sour grapes: I relied on the Old Reliable’s poll.  If I hadn’t, I’d have gone 9-1 on my election predictions instead of 8-2. 

My other miss: I said Roger Koopman would beat Paul Coble for county commissioner.  But Paul and Tom Fetzer did a good job of painting Paul as a pro-education Democrat.  Let’s see if he votes that way on the board.

Also, a salute to Brad Crone and Ballard Everett, the two local consultants who ran the school bond campaign. 

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

This has nothing to do with politics. The News and Observer reports (10-25-06) two scientists have determined millions of years ago the Amazon River flowed in the opposite direction.

I know it’s akin to heresy to question anything scientific but, sometimes, it’s hard not to wonder about scientists. How can they be so certain what happened a hundred million years ago? They say they proved the fact by testing alluvial mud. But you have to wonder, couldn’t there be a dozen or a hundred or a thousand explanations for the minerals in that sediment they’ve never dreamed of?

I guess one thing’s for sure: when scientist says with certainty he knows what happened a hundred million years ago, it’s going to be tough to prove he’s wrong.

During the Republican primaries, former State Representative Art Pope contributed heavily to a group opposing Representative Richard Morgan. Morgan lost but, now, according to the News and Observer, he’s launching a ‘Legal Fund.’ Morgan says he’s afraid left unchecked, “Pope will destroy the integrity of the North Carolina State House.”

We’ve had the Lottery scandal, the Optometrist scandal, the Video Poker scandal, Michael Decker’s bribery conviction, and four guilty verdicts in court. The Democrats have already ‘destroyed the House’s integrity’ without Mr. Pope’s help.

According to Representative Morgan, Mr. Pope also is a “threat to our liberties.” Naturally, Representative Morgan is unhappy about Mr. Pope’s decision to spend several hundred thousand dollars criticizing him during the primaries. But Mr. Pope isn’t threatening our liberties – he’s exercising one of them – freedom of speech. And Morgan is exercising the same liberty with his ‘Legal Defense Fund.’

Richard Morgan has every right to argue that what Mr. Pope said about him in the primary was wrong. But, instead, he is arguing how Pope said it is wrong. He is trying to limit Mr. Pope’s freedom of speech – which in Morgan’s eyes may be protecting our liberties but, in the broader sense, has the opposite effect.

It boils down to this: Do we want Mr. Pope – and others like him – to have their say? Or do we want to stop them whenever they criticize an elected official we support?

It sounded like love in bloom on the cable political shows last night.  Democrats and Republicans alike were talking about a new era of cooperation.  Bush and Pelosi were making nice.  The pundits pontificated about how the politicians of both parties had heard the voters’ yearning for partnership to replace partisanship.

As Jon Stewart would say, not so much.

I predict this will last until everybody gets a good night’s sleep and comes to their senses.

Politics is about combat.  It’s about disagreement.  It’s about a struggle for power.  It’s about doing the things you promised to do – and stopping the other guy from what he wants to do.

Let’s get on with it.

George Bush ran a terrible midterm campaign, but he made a fast recovery the day after the election by dumping Rumsfeld.  He stole the cable headlines and the front pages from Nancy Pelosi.

In 1994, President Clinton stumbled and staggered for weeks while Newt Gingrich dominated the news.  Bush was savvy enough to avoid that mistake.  He put himself back into play with one bold, audacious stroke.

In politics, speed kills – the other guy.

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

There’s a beautiful thing about elections – whether your side wins or loses.  Suddenly the politicians have to shut up while the people speak.  And, the next day, the world is a different place.

It may be better or worse, depending on your viewpoint.  You may think, as Republicans did in 1994, that all has now been set right in the world.  Or you may think, as Democrats do today, that the stars have returned to their right alignment.

Whatever, it is decisive.  And everything changes.  The winners start writing inaugural speeches, budgets and new laws.  The losers polish up their resumes.

This year, the people spoke and:

• Donald Rumsfeld got the heave-ho;

• Democrats started smelling the White House;

• The Wake County schools started spending bond money;

• Republicans started worrying that they are being politically marginalized.

But – for the winners and losers alike – let me remind you of this:  How did you feel at this time two years ago?  Would you have predicted this then?

You can count on this: You’ll be just as surprised two years from now.

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

Something strange has happened in our struggle to bring democracy to Iraq. Last week, our Marines raided a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad’s Sadr City – and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, who is a Shiite, let us have it with both barrels. It appears we may have offended a few of his supporters.

He went further a few days later, telling the Marines to take down barricades they’d put up around Sadr City and to stop searching automobiles (looking for an American soldier believed kidnapped by Shiite militia). The barricades came down, and Sadr City residents stood in the streets, cheering as U.S. soldiers “drove away in armored vehicles.” (News and Observer; 11-1-06)

So here’s the picture: We got rid of Saddam (the Shiite’s enemy), the Shiites replaced him and, now, they’re attacking us.

What’s next?

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

Maybe I’m quoting Dick Morris too much, but Dick’s interesting and entertaining, especially, when he’s talking about Hillary Clinton. He reports (http://www.vote.com/) Hillary’s flip-flopped on gay marriage. I always assumed Senator Clinton was for it but it turns out while President Clinton was in the White House he signed “The Defense of Marriage Act.” Now, gearing up to run in 2008, Hillary says that it was a clever political strategy to “derail a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage.”  But Morris writes:

“Nonsense. I was in the room at the White House strategy meeting and was sitting next to the President when he decided to promote and sign the bill. Nobody was even talking about a constitutional amendment back then – 1995-96 – and no one in the meeting so much as mentioned the possibility. His decision to sign the bill closely followed my announcement of polling data that suggested overwhelming support for the legislation. His announcement… that he would sign the bill was, indeed, a strategic decision, but one that related to his re-election prospects …Hillary supported her husband’s decision…”

Morris adds, that “when the President told us he would sign the bill, adviser George Stephanopoulos cautioned President Clinton to ‘give us several days’ to break the decision to White House staffers who might object. ‘Tell them we’ve created 4 million new jobs,’ the President said sharply, ‘and that they ought to go out and take a few of them.’

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

Gary, there’s not much I’ll argue with in your blog today except, of course, Republicans going left. (And I do tremble at the thought of John Edwards winning Iowa, even if it is at Hillary’s expense).

I admire President Bush for trying to fight a war on terrorism. But, now, after a series of defeats voters have said to him, You are losing the war so we are electing Democrats. What went wrong? Perhaps the fatal decision happened, even before we invaded Iraq, when the President substituted the Rumsfeld Doctrine for the Powell Doctrine. The Powell Doctrine said to use overwhelming force in Iraq; the Rumsfeld Doctrine said to use just enough, which turned out to be too little. Rumsfeld is now the first post-election casualty.

Will Democrats correct the mistakes the President made? Or commit new mistakes of their own? The peace-wing of the Democratic Party seems likely to reject any strategy short of military disengagement. But does that offer any real hope of defeating terrorism?

It is hard to see how. But we may now have to walk the road of ‘no war at all’ until that strategy fails. Then we may find ourselves back where we started: with the Powell Doctrine and the use of overwhelming force.

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

Here are my random observations from a night and morning of watching results – a refreshing change, I might add, from sitting in an election headquarters with a candidate:

We’re out of Iraq. 

Maybe Dick Cheney won’t get it, but I bet George Bush does.  Not since Carter lost over Iran in 1980 have the American people delivered a clearer verdict on a foreign policy failure.  Bush now looks to Uncle Jim Baker to save him from Iraq the same way Baker saved him in Florida in 2000.

Hang Osama

Bush/Rove thought Republicans would gain from Saddam’s sentence.  But it just reminded Americans that we went after the wrong target.  When you’re attacked by terrorists, kill the terrorists, not another bad guy down the street.

Bill Clinton looms over Hillary

It was a striking visual metaphor: Hillary giving her victory speech while Bill towered over her from behind.  It will be that way from now on.  And they obviously think it helps.

Yes, she’s electable

Stop saying that she – or any other Democrat – can’t be elected President.  All they need is every state John Kerry (remember him?) won – plus Ohio.  And that looks good today.

Iowa is 14 months away

My bet right now: It’s a Hillary-John Edwards race.  And Edwards wins.

Democrats go right

Democrats win a majority in the House – and maybe Senate – because Rahm Emanual and Chuck Shumer were smart enough to recruit candidates not like them, like Bob Casey and Heath Shuler.  That’s why Democrats not only held the Northeast, but won in the South, Midwest and West.  We’re the national party now.

Republicans need to go left

The GOP lost everywhere but the South.  Ideologues lost: Russell Capps and Phil Jeffreys in Wake County.  Rick Santorum and J.D. Hayworth nationally.  Moderates won.  Charlie Crist won in Florida after snubbing Bush the last day of the campaign.  But will the Right let it happen?

Rick Santorum’s Class

Former Senator Bob Kerrey once said that “Santorum” is the Latin word for “asshole.”  But Santorum’s concession speech last night was one of the most gracious and graceful I’ve ever seen.

Liddy Dole at Risk

She may not be to blame for Republican losses.  But she was awful on television.  Shrill and clueless at the same time.  North Carolinians haven’t seen that side of her.  Her charmed political life may be doomed.  My bet: Governor Easley runs against her in 2006.  And wins.

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

The Democratic Party had the cash in the State Legislative elections this year. They outspent the Republicans five to one – $5.8 million to $1.1 million. It’s a truism in politics that nine times out of ten the candidate with the most cash wins and Democrats gained seats in both the House and Senate.

Post election, we Republicans face two serious problems. We need to jettison the toothless ‘lobbying reforms’ the Democrats passed earlier this year and, at least, try to replace them with legislation to dismantle the ‘pay to play’ money machine that funds Democrats. Then, if we’re going to win the legislative elections, we need to roll up our sleeves and get serious about the business of raising money. That’s not easy. No candidate or party official enjoys the grind of fundraising. But it’s an unavoidable hurdle a serious political organization has to overcome to win elections.

So how did I do on my 10 election predictions?  Right on four and a half.  Wrong on two (happily wrong on one of those).  And we’re still counting the votes on three and a half.  So I’m hoping I come up 8-2. 

My predictions from yesterday and the results:

1. Democrats sweep nationally.  It’s the war, stupid.  (Listen up, Mr. President.)

That turned out right.  It was Iraq, with an assist from corruption. 

2. Democrats take Congress. We pick up 30 U.S. House seats and a Senate majority.

Half right so far, and the Senate is still in play as I write this.

3. Webb wins Virginia. George Allen completes the greatest job of political self-destruction since Nixon in 1962.

Maybe right.  They’re still counting, but Allen has fumbled the ball every time he’s had it this election.  His father is tossing in his grave.

4. But Ford loses in Tennessee.  Race still rules in the South, thanks to the racist but deadly RNC “Playboy” ad.

Right again, regrettably.

5. Democrats keep N.C. legislature.  A no-brainer.  Look at our financial edge in the N&O’s outstanding graphic today.

Right.  We did more than keep it.  We increased our margins.

6. Jim Black survives.  As a member of the House, not Speaker.

Maybe right.  Still counting the votes in his district.  But scandals hurt here just like they did all over the country.

7. Dems take Wake.  We win majority on the county commissioners.  Here come impact fees!

Wrong.  We picked up a seat, but the board is still 4-3 Republican.  Why did Republicans win when school bonds also win?  Because the Republicans were smart enough to portray themselves as pro-education.  They’d better walk the walk now.

8. Heath Shuler wins.  Can Democrats make room in the tent for pro-life and pro-gun candidates?  Yes, if we want to win in 2008.  (Robin Hayes and Brad Miller also win.)

Right on all three races.  And for the next two years, I will use Heath Shuler’s victory to argue to my Democratic friends around the country that we can’t concede the South.  Based on yesterday’s results, the Democratic Party is far more of a national party today than the Republicans.  And Hayes barely won despite a huge spending advantage.

9. School bonds lose.  My heart makes me hope the Democratic tide will help.  But my head says the combination of anti-tax and anti-mandatory year round is too much to overcome.

Wrong again, happily.  It will be a long time before I believe Mason-Dixon polls.  Memo to the N&O: review that contract.

10. Voter confidence loses.  With no exit polls until 5 pm, cable spends all day hyping alleged irregularities, fraud and voter intimidation.  What happens when Americans no longer trust the vote count?

Right or wrong?  Fortunately, there were no disasters.  But maybe that was only because it was a landslide and there was no Presidential race.  These problems, like most things in life, are probably the result of incompetence rather than a conspiracy.  How can you expect a bunch of old geezers like us to operate 21^st century voting equipment?  The answer: teenaged poll workers.

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

Governor Easley may have just sent a huge signal he’s thinking about running for the Senate in 2008. Just before the election the Governor spent $100,000 – in ‘leftover campaign funds – on TV ads promoting his ‘prescription drug plan for low-income senior citizens.” (News and Observer; 10-31-06). Maybe, this is just the Governor’s way of helping senior citizens, as the Governor’s spokesperson implies. But, on the other hand, how often does a politician (or anyone else) do a good deed by spending $100,000 on TV ads? It’s natural to wonder if the Governor’s ads are the curtain rising on a Senate campaign?

The last time a sitting Governor and Senator clashed head on was when Jim Hunt ran against Jesse Helms. Just a precaution, Senator Dole might be wise to start girding for battle.

Mayor Meeker wants the City to set up a development corporation to buy the Dix Hospital site for $40 million. (The money would come from bonds, new taxes and donations.)

Voters just passed a billion dollar school bond. Are they likely to favor another bond so the City can go into the land development business? We have many first-rate builders in Raleigh. Instead of competing with them why shouldn’t the City allow them to develop the land and save the taxpayers the costs of bonds and new taxes? Surely, Raleigh has enough regulations to insure any private development is a benefit to the community.

Taxpayers have already paid $60,000 for a study to help Mayor Meeker plan the development of Dix Hill – but wouldn’t the money have been better spent renovating a city school or paving a street?

Last month the newspapers reported Governor Easley’s state ABC Board Chairman taking a junket to Ireland, courtesy of Irish whiskey distillers. It turns out that trip was the tip of the iceberg. ABC Board Chairman, Doug Fox, has also taken junkets to Guadalajara, Mexico, Aspen, Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale, Marco Island, Florida, and a second time to Ireland. (Charlotte Observer; 10-25-06).

Fox says the trips are tough work, telling the Observer, “You’re working from eight until ten o’clock at night or later…You’re meeting with people from the Mayor of Guadalajara to the city council, people from the tequila industry.” Now that’s an image to savor. Our ABC Chairman discussing tequila with the Mayor of Guadalajara.

Fox, an attorney, is paid $103,000 by the state. He says of his work as ABC Chairman, “It’s a job that is 24-7.” But, the Observer also reported Fox “still does real estate work at his law practice.” Apparently, on weekends.

What is Governor Easley doing about all this? Not much. His spokesperson defended Fox, saying, “The state ethics board staff did not believe the Ireland trip violated current ethics guidelines.”

Governor, if the Chairman of the ABC Board accepting junkets to Ireland and Mexico from whisky and tequila distillers doesn’t violate your ethics guidelines – what does?

Michael Decker pled guilty to taking a bribe to vote for Jim Black. Black’s appointee to the Lottery Board was convicted of fraud. Black’s aide, Meredith Norris, plead guilty to lobbying Black illegally. And a lottery vender’s Vice President was also convicted of illegally lobbying Black.  

Defending himself, Speaker Black argues stoutly he can’t recall ever discussing Kevin Geddings’ appointment to the Lottery Commission with the two lottery lobbyists and never offered Decker a bribe. But, the other day, in federal court Decker named Black as one of his ‘co-conspirators.’ I don’ know exactly what that means but it doesn’t sound too good. During the first four rounds of the lottery trials we learned a lot about how politics works behind the scenes in state government. We got a peak behind the curtain. If round five involves Jim Black in a trial we’ll get a look at politics, behind the curtain, at the highest level. It might be the most revealing political trial in state history.

We pay 48¢ a gallon gas tax (30¢ state; 18¢ federal) but almost every day we read the state is delaying crucial road projects – like I-540 – for years. The News and Observer (10-29-06) has identified one reason: Earmarks.

Perks for Congressmen. If you’re a Congressman building the most needed roads in the state may not make sense, politically, unless the roads happen to be in your district. But North Carolina Congressmen have found a way around that. They have shanghaied $135 million in federal transportation money and spent it in their districts – rather than letting the state spend it. One local Congressmen, David Price, ‘earmarked’ $2.8 million for a bike path. In the meantime, it looks like I-540 may be built by the turn of the century.

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

My Democratic campaign friends are cautiously ecstatic.  My Republican campaign friends are nearly suicidal.  So here – based on hearsay, guesswork and a dose of wishful thinking – are my Election Day predictions.

1. Democrats sweep nationally.  It’s the war, stupid.  (Listen up, Mr. President.)

2. Democrats take Congress. We pick up 30 U.S. House seats and a Senate majority.

3. Webb wins Virginia. George Allen completes the greatest job of political self-destruction since Nixon in 1062.

4. But Ford loses in Tennessee.  Race still rules in the South, thanks to the racist but deadly RNC “Playboy” ad.

5. Democrats keep N.C. legislature.  A no-brainer.  Look at our financial edge in the N&O’s outstanding graphic today.

6. Jim Black survives.  As a member of the House, not Speaker.

7. Dems take Wake.  We win majority on the county commissioners.  Here come impact fees!

8. Heath Shuler wins.  Can Democrats make room in the tent for pro-life and pro-gun candidates?  Yes, if we want to win in 2008.  (Robin Hayes and Brad Miller also win.)

9. School bonds lose.  My heart makes my hope the Democratic tide will help.  But my head says the combination of anti-tax and anti-mandatory year round is too much to overcome.

10. Voter confidence loses.  With no exit polls until 5 pm, cable spends all day hyping alleged irregularities, fraud and voter intimidation.  What happens when Americans no longer trust the vote count?

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

House Majority Leader John Boehner made this pre-election prediction on George Stephanopoulos’ TV program Sunday a week ago: Boehner explained most Congressional races aren’t about federal issues, they’re about local issues. So, he says despite the war, Republicans will win. He admitted Independent voters are a problem, but added they don’t vote in off-year elections. So again, Republicans win.

We’ll see tonight if he’s right. But even if he is, it’s an odd rational for victory, sort of like saying, We Republicans may be unpopular but we’ll win anyway because the people who don’t like us won’t vote.

One last thing. Boehner also said 99% of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are honest. We’ll see how that plays out tonight too.

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

Every morning I go out, pick up the newspaper, then sit down and read it. One day last week almost cured me of the habit. When I opened the paper, Iran was enriching more uranium to build bombs, Korea had tested a bomb and the Prime Minister of Iraq, who’s a Shiite Muslim, had attacked our Marines for a raid into Sadr City (to capture the head of a Shiite death squad). We’ve had seventeen good years since ‘The Cold War’ ended, but, now, I’m beginning to get the idea the peace dividend is about over.

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

City Councilman Thomas Crowder, apparently, takes the City’s new regulations on the height of grass, outdoor cafes and hot dog stands pretty seriously. He sounds like a dedicated advocate of Urban Correctness. The problem is, sometimes, he sounds like a killjoy too. When the City fined Lew Barnes $236 for not cutting his grass to specifications, Barnes explained he didn’t receive notice of his ‘violation’ and asked the City Council to wave the fine. The Council didn’t exactly let him off but did vote to cut his fine – everyone, that is, except Councilmen Crowder. In effect, he told Barnes, no how, no time, no way. Not mowing your grass is a serious offence.

Here are some more examples of Urban Correctness:

• ‘The Halloween Queen,’ a lady who owns a costume shop downtown, was threatened with a $200 fine “if she didn’t stop sending her costume clad children to wave at cars from the sidewalk.” (News and Observer 10-29-06)
• A coffee shop owner was cited for using the wrong kind of planter boxes at his downtown sidewalk café.
• Last year, Raleigh handed out 4721 tickets for the crime of parking too far from the curb.
• A man put a ‘twig pile’ in his yard (his grass was too high, too) and was fined $400.
• A café owner, who’s outdoor tables were “too far from the building,” was threatened with two $500 fines. He told the News and Observer, “We’ve lost that kind of genteel way that Raleigh was. Before someone would come and say, ‘You need to move that chair. Now, we feel like we’ve got to threaten folks with a $500 fine.”

Since Mayor Meeker opened Fayetteville Street, he (or the City) seems set on regulating everything from cafes to newspaper racks to awnings and street performers and hot dog stands. Which led Councilman Phil Isley to comment, “You look at somebody wrong, and you’re going to get a fine.”

Regulating awnings and newspaper racks are small matters. But they’re part of the bigger matter. Freedom tends to get a little messy. People are eccentric. Some like twig piles. Some like costume shops. The News and Observer likes one type of newspaper rack. Maybe what we need from Mayor Meeker and Councilman Crowder is a little less Urban Correctness, and a little more live and let live.

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

Since 2004, reformers have intensified their efforts in North Carolina and nationally to stop the flow of political money.  What are the results?

According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, campaign-ad spending this year will top $2 billion, $400 million more than in 2004.

You can’t stop money.

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

You’ve got to give it to the Democrats they’ve got ‘hutzpa.’ Last summer, Governor Easley’s minions in state government arranged a cruise around Beaufort Harbor (with a steel drum band, shrimp, lobster and plenty of liquor) to see the tall ships, spending $30,000 of taxpayers’ money. But that’s not what took ‘hutzpa.’ This is: Now, the Democrats have dubbed their soiree ‘The Booze Cruise,’ and they’re attacking Republican legislator Nelson Dollar for accepting their invitation to go along with them. Dollar, of course, was foolish. But you’d think Democrats would be too embarrassed by the whole imbroglio to even bring it up, much less put it in a political ad. This attack should win an award for hypocrisy. Governor Easley’s minions sponsor ‘The Booze Cruise,’ pay for it with taxpayers’ money, then run ads blaming a Republican legislator as if the whole thing was his idea.

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

Dick Morris reports the Zogby poll shows, since September 22, the percentage of Independents voting Republican has risen from 15% to 26% (DickMorris@vote.com). That’s the good news. But there’s bad news too. Morris reports the percentage of Republicans voting for Republicans dropped from 75% to 68% - so, overall we Republicans are no better off than we were in September.

The reason? It seems the Foley scandal knocked the props out from under Republicans, just as they started an uptide with the polls.

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

The News and Observer (10-26-06) reports the long-knives are out in Washington for Senator Elizabeth Dole. Critics say she “hasn’t measured up in her role as the party’s chief recruiter, coach and fundraiser,” that she’s responsible for Republicans being outspent three to one ($6.6 million to $21.2) in key states and “for tactical errors in states like Tennessee.”

It appears we Republicans may need someone to blame after this election – but Senator Dole’s only real miscue was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Republican fortunes have been going south for months and, politically, there wasn’t much Senator Dole could do about the tidal wave of anger voters feel about Iraq. That wave, headed towards Republican candidates, is a lot bigger than tactical questions like which ads were run in Tennessee. Rather than blaming Senator Dole, we Republicans need to face two facts: we’re losing the election because of the war, and if we don’t convince voters we’ll do a better job of defeating terrorism we may lose the next one, too.

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

MoveOn.org, which was created to save President Clinton from impeachment, is the liberal behemoth on the Internet. It just has targeted North Carolina Congressman Charles Taylor for defeat, opening “a storefront office in downtown Asheville” where “more than 400 volunteers have come to work the phones.” (News and Observer; 10-26-06)

Let’s put that in perspective. After working in five Senate Campaigns I can say based on experience, on our best day, not once, not even for Jesse Helms, did we put 400 volunteers into a phone bank in Asheville.

MoveOn has 10,000 members in Congressman Taylor’s District, and it’s put a list of every voter in the district online where each member can read it on his home computer. Now, I guess, MoveOn’s 10,000 members are contacting those voters, urging them to defeat Congressman Taylor.

That is Internet politics with a passion.

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

With all the major scandals (like Kevin Geddings’ conviction), minor scandals (State ABC Board junkets to Ireland), and possible scandals, here’s a little sprout that’s not so much a scandal as an unusual fact.

When a Community College needs to hire a new President it retains a professional ‘search’ firm. Several firms compete for the business but one, apparently, has a special relationship with the Community Colleges Trustees Association. The firm – Hockaday and Hunter – apparently, ‘rebates’ part of its fee to the Trustees Association whenever it is hired to do a search. Reportedly, ‘the rebate’ has been $66,000 so far this year.

It works like this: the Trustees Association recommends ‘Hockaday and Hunter to its members,’ the firm is paid (with the state funds from the Community Colleges), then it pays the Trustees Association (which is not a state agency) a ‘rebate.’ Technically, there may be nothing wrong with that. But it seems unusual. Why would the Trustees recommend one company over another – instead of just letting competitive bidding take its course? Why wouldn’t Hockaday and Hunter discount its prices to the Community Colleges – rather than giving what amounts to a commission to the Trustees Association? If the colleges want the Trustees to have more money, why not just pay them more dues?

Maybe this just seems odd and it’s not untoward at all. But, maybe, the State Auditor ought to look at it to be sure it’s the more efficient way to hire Community College Presidents.

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

A Florida congressman resigns after sending suggestive emails to teenage male pages.

A national evangelical-church leader is accused of paying another man for sex.

Wake County’s own Sheriff admits to an affair with a married women 25 years younger than himself.

Politics does make strange bedfellows. 

Let’s watch the reactions local Republicans have to Sheriff Harrison’s highjinks – and how that compares to what they said about Bill Clinton.

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

It’s bad enough that John Kerry ran one of the worst Democratic presidential campaigns in history, leaving America in the hands of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

But now he pops up in the final week of this campaign – potentially the Democrats’ best year ever.  And he’s apparently determined to sink our swift boat again.

After refusing at first, Kerry finally had to apologize for his joke about lack of education leading to Iraq.  The fact it took him 24 hours to apologize shows how ham-handed he is.

Kerry protested that it was a botched joke.  But, even read correctly, it was a lame and arrogant joke.

Kerry apparently still wonders: how can somebody as smart as me lose to somebody as dumb as George Bush?

Answer: It’s good to be smart.  But it’s bad to be smart, arrogant and elitist.

My advice to Kerry: Stop trying to prove how smart you are.  Go back to Massachusetts and stay there through the election.  Of 2008.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker is taking the lead on the future of the Dix property in downtown Raleigh.

That’s a good thing.  The Mayor gets criticized for sitting back too often, rather than standing up.

But we ask the Mayor: What about North Raleigh?  What about, for instance, the Horseshoe Farms debate?

People in North Carolina would appreciate it – and it would help the Mayor’s apparent re-election campaign – if he showed the same kind of leadership on issues beyond downtown.

Click to Read and Post Articles

One reason I’ll watch the Wake school bonds vote is to see whose polls are accurate:

The News & Observer published a Mason-Dixon poll strongly indicating the bonds would lose.  That poll showed support at only 35 percent.

But two other polls show the bonds winning.  Public Policy Polling said last week the bonds were getting 49 percent support.

This week, a poll by the Home Builders Association of Raleigh Wake County shows the bonds passing 53-33.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Gary, I’ll go along with you and John Davis this far: The Republicans moving to North Carolina are not Jesse Helms Republicans. But then we part company. Here’s why: Republicans and Democrats are highly polarized, ninety percent (election after election) vote for the major candidates of their party. More people vote ‘straight tickets’ today than twenty-years ago when Jim Hunt ran against Jesse Helms. So, I suspect the real impact of the new Republican voters will be in primaries, where they’re changing the Republican Party from the party of Jesse Helms to the party of Elizabeth Dole.

The greater challenge for Republicans (and Democrats) are the new Independent voters, who’ve replaced the ‘ticket splitters’ of the World War II generation as swing voters in elections. The old ‘ticket splitters’ were Democrats, rural, conservative and mostly men. The new Independents are urban, moderate and mostly women. They agree with many Republican stands on family values, but they also agree, strongly, with Democrats on issues like prescription drugs for their parents and education (they supported the lottery). At the end of recent elections roughly 15% of the voters have been undecided – and two-thirds were women. These are the new swing voters.

John also says the issue this election is the war – and Republicans can’t escape it. The polls certainly back him up. But the war may be the issue next election, too, and I hope, by then, Democrats won’t be able to escape it.

Republicans have made mistakes in Iraq (I’d argue, our biggest mistake wasn’t fighting the war – it was not winning it). But, at some point, hopefully, in the next election we are going to have a meaningful debate about the war. That won’t be easy for Republicans. We’re going to have to say, We’ve made mistakes, learned from them and here’s what we’re going to do differently.

Democrats face a tougher challenge. What happened to Senator Joe Lieberman is instructive. Senator Lieberman is no Republican sympathizer. He’s never hesitated to criticize Bush. He was Al Gore’s running mate. But because he recognized the threat of terrorism and the need to defeat the terrorists the ‘peace-wing’ in the Democratic Party bounced him out on his ear. But in the long run saying, If we stop fighting the terrorists will too, won’t cut the mustard. Because the threat of terrorism is not going away. Next election, the Democrats’ challenge may be convincing a large, and ascendant, group of their base voters that there is a war that needs to be fought and won. If Democrats can’t do that are voters likely to decide it’s prudent to ignore the threat of terrorism?

Click to Read & Post Comments