Politicians aren’t the only ones who know how to ‘spin’ facts. The City of Raleigh is doing a pretty good job too. The headline of its latest newsletter is an example: Officials Approve Increase of Less Than 3 Percent in Convention Center Funding.

The city ‘spinners’ made it sound like that little ole’ 3 percent spending increase was barely a drop in the bucket. You’d never guess it was $6.4 million. And you’d never know from the Raleigh’s spinmeisters that Mayor Meeker’s Convention Center, which is only one-fourth built, is already 23 percent over budget. (The cost has soared from $180 million to $221 million.)

You may be thinking the city didn’t have much choice about spending the latest $6 million. After all, they’re in the middle of construction and they can’t stop when they find out the roof costs more. Think again. The additional money isn’t for the roof or shoring up footings – it’s for a stone floor in the lobby (a million dollars), kitchen equipment, skylights, canopies and so on.

It’s hard to find the silver lining in this cloud but, maybe, there is one. Hopefully, next election, Charles Meeker’s opponent will ask him bluntly, Why did you spend $6 million on canopies and a stone floor, instead of schools or roads? The Mayor will need a lot more than just ‘spin’ to answer that question. And, if he can’t, maybe that will save us from Meeker’s latest boondoggle – developing Dix Hill with $40 million of taxpayers’ money.

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

In November of 2004, after People Magazine named John Edwards ‘the sexiest politician alive’ and John Kerry lost, I thought Edwards’ fifteen minutes of political fame were over. Instead, he leads Hillary Clinton in two polls in the crucial Iowa Caucus and may be elected President.

John Edwards’ campaign is a study of style over substance. He’s charming, charismatic and takes glib stands on safe issues like the virtues of home – but, relentlessly, dodges speaking out on any controversial issue.

Lately, he’s been posting videos of himself on his website. ‘Webisodes’ of John grinning on a private jet; John riding in a truck in Uganda, with natives lining the road waving palm fronds at his passing caravan; John at a podium above the words Inspiring Politics. These vignettes of a charming but an extraordinary self-absorbed, vain, narcissistic candidate are the ‘beef’ of Edwards’ Presidential campaign. But Gary keeps telling me it’s a mistake to underestimate John Edwards, and Edwards’ relentless courtship of the unions and the Iowa polls seem to say Gary’s right.

Edwards also has one peculiar blessing the fates bestow on certain politicians. He’s lucky. I don’t mean that facetiously. Some politicians are just lucky. Jesse Helms was lucky (except for Jim Hunt) in the opponents he drew in his five Senate elections.

Edwards was lucky in 2004. The Democratic Presidential primary split into two elections: One for the leadership of the liberals, the other for the leadership of the moderates. Half a dozen candidates – Kerry, Dean and others – battled to be the liberal’s choice. Edwards ran virtually unopposed – except for Wesley Clark – to lead the moderates. He won which made him the only alternative to Kerry after the Iowa Caucus, which propelled him to political stardom.

This election Edwards did draw two real moderate opponents: Senator Evan Bayh and Governor Mark Warner of Virginia. But both dropped out of the race before it even started. That’s political luck. As a result, Edwards is now moving left to attract voters in the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party, rather than defending his base.

The other day Gary sent me the link to http://www.americanrhetoric.com/, a website that publishes speeches: Lincoln’s speech on slavery at the Cooper Union, FDR’s speech on the Depression, Reagan saying, “Mr. Gorbachav, tear down this wall.” In comparison, John Edwards’ most daring stand is calling on Americans to drive smaller cars. That’s a harsh comparison, but the question is can John Edwards be elected President without taking serious stands on controversial issues?

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

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

Gerald Ford proved that a leader’s character can be more important than brains.  Right after Richard Nixon proved that brains without character can be dangerous.

The TV coverage I’ve seen rightly emphasized Ford’s role as a healer after Watergate.  Lord knows, the nation needed it.

But a fuller picture needs to be drawn:

• Even I think he did the right thing when he pardoned Nixon.  But he did it the wrong way – springing it without warning early on a Sunday morning.

• Ford was the last of the Rockefeller Republicans.  He nearly lost the Republican nomination to Reagan in 1976.  That was thanks largely to North Carolina, Tom Ellis and my blogging partner Carter.

• Ford also was the first target of real TV satire – from Chevy Chase on “Saturday Night Live.”  That proud tradition lives on with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Obviously, I didn’t like Ford’s politics.  And it’s hard to forgive him for giving us Cheney and Rumsfeld.

But those were tough times.  You had to be there to understand. 

After Watergate, it was reassuring seeing the President toast his own English muffins.  And we got out of Vietnam. 

Thanks, Jerry.

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

Four Democratic candidates for Speaker of the State House – Jim Crawford, Bill Faison, Hugh Holliman and Drew Saunders – have pledged to limit the new Speaker to two terms. The other three candidates are dodging the issue – but they’re being plenty careful about it.

Representative Dan Blue says, “A limitation on terms is a reasonable discussion and one that ought to be aired vigorously…” Translated from political-speak into English that’s called adroitly implying you favor the term limit, while leaving the door open to oppose it later. But Blue may be forgiven on the grounds of necessity. He already served two terms as Speaker in the 1990’s.

Joe Hackney was even less candid. He opined, “I have no objection with term limits, but it has to be done in conjunction with Senate term limits…so that we don’t have an imbalance of power between the two houses.” Translated, that’s an outright no. Hackney knows as well as anyone that his eminence Marc Basnight is now in his fourteenth year as leader of the Senate and no one is about to limit his terms.

The third Democrat, Mickey Michaux, was concise, but vague. He said, “I’m sort of ambivalent about it.” Translated that means he’s against it but is waiting to see which way the wind is blowing. He’s leaving his options open. Michaux can now go either way.

Does it matter? Well, ask yourself: If Dan Blue, Joe Hackney and Mickey Michaux can’t tell you where they stand on one simple issue like this – how much candor can you expect from them as Speaker when the time comes to face a really controversial issue? Not much.

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

It came as a surprise when Representative George Holmes landed in the News and Observer with his photograph beneath a headline, Representative Holmes Beat Deadline on Checks. After all, George Holmes has served in the State House thirty years without a hint of scandal. But, now, it seems George has succumbed to temptation. He transferred $79,000 out of his campaign account to himself, personally. That was perfectly legal. The law prohibiting legislators putting campaign contributions in their pockets didn’t take effect until October 1; Representative Holmes made the transfers in August and September.

But, even if it’s legal, it’s another – small – scandal in the State House. Technically, campaign contributions are not ‘bribes’ because they are not income to candidates. They go to campaign committees. Not into legislators’ pockets. George Holmes landed in the newspaper because he shredded that fig-leaf. Of course, you could say,  Does it matter? After all, it’s illegal now. It can’t happen again. But ask yourself this question: Why didn’t legislators outlaw what Representative Holmes did when they passed their ‘Ethics Reforms’ legislation last summer? Why did they say the law would not take effect for months? The answer is so any legislator like Representative Holmes – who might succumb to the temptation of putting campaign money in his pocket – had plenty of time to do it. This is the latest chapter in the story of what passes for ‘Ethics’ in the State House.

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

News reports suggest that President Bush may overrule military commanders and order more American troops into Baghdad.

Which makes sense.  After all, he and Rumsfeld overruled military commanders and sent fewer troops when the war started.

So at least he’s consistent in ignoring military advice.

If Bill Clinton had done this, Republicans would have started new impeachment proceedings.

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

It comes as a shock: After the Mayor has spent $215 million on the Convention Center he says that’s only enough to build a “grade-B facility.” (News and Observer 12-15-06).

Mayor Meeker wants – and he’s gotten –$6.4 million more. For what?

He got a cool million for stone floors.

Two million for kitchen equipment.

And $350,000 for canopies and skylights.

The Convention Center is only a quarter built – but it’s already a quarter over budget. Mayor Meeker told us, originally, it would ‘only’ cost $180 million (presumably for a grad-A facility). It’s now up to $221 million. The costs skyrocketed $30 million in the last year. Five City Council and County Commissioners finally said no and voted against the Mayor’s latest $6.4 million. They were Republicans Philip Isley, Tommy Craven, Paul Coble and Tony Gurley, and Democrat Russ Stephenson. But a majority of the councilors and commissioners overruled them and voted to spend the money.

The principal at East Millbrook Middle School can be forgiven if he is watching all this and scratching his head, puzzled. A year ago, after one of his students was struck by a car crossing Spring Forest Road, he asked the City to assign a crossing guard to the street in front of the school. He must be wondering about the city’s priorities. The Council just voted to spend a million dollars on stone floors – while he’s still waiting for his crossing guard.

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

Democrats nationally and in North Carolina are zeroing in on Senator Dole in 2008.  She is vulnerable – to the right opponent.

Beating an incumbent Senator is tough.  I learned that working for Jim Hunt against Jesse Helms in 1984 and for John Edwards against Lauch Faircloth in 1998.

Democrats need a tough, well-funded opponent who will tell voters the truth behind the plastic façade:

• Dole is a creature of Washington and the Watergate, not North Carolina;

• She comes to North Carolina rarely – and then only for highly scripted photo ops;

• She proved in her TV appearances this fall as Chair of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee that she cannot handle herself in tough, face-to-face exchanges.

Governor Easley will not run.  He’s positioning himself to be Barack Obama’s running mate.

So here’s a suggestion: Recruit one of the General Assembly’s bright and experienced female legislators.

There are several possibilities.  Pick your favorite.

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

From the News and Observer: “Chuck Williamson was mad, already, about Interstate 40 repairs expected to suck up $20 million that taxpayers planned to spend for other Triangle road work. He was mad about the prospect of waiting another 18 months, if we’re lucky, to get the I-40 paving job unbotched. Now, after a personal encounter with a bouncing, baseball-size chunk of bad concrete, he’s even madder.” (News and Observer; 12/12/06)

According to the newspaper, Mr. Williamson added, “It just outrages me that no one has been held accountable.”

It’s easy to understand how he feels. The I-40 paving snafu – the concrete is breaking apart just a year after it was laid – raises a serious question about the Department of Transportation’s competence.

A legislative oversight committee asked DOT Secretary Lyndo Tippett the same question. He vacillated like a weather vane. He promised to provide a full explanation and said he’d name-names. But then a DOT spokesman “backtracked” and said the names – of the people Mr. Williamson wants to hold accountable – would remain secret. Last Friday, after saying yes, then no, Secretary Tippett said yes, again. He issued a six page explanation, named-names, saying, “I am confident that the changes we are implementing will strengthen our program, provide better project delivery and insight, and ensure that such a problem does not occur again.” (News and Observer; 12/16/06).

But DOT Board member Kenneth Spaulding didn’t buy that. He said, “Quite frankly, I would have thought that these priorities were already in place.”

We’ve had plenty of scandals in State government but most of them have been about campaign contributions, lobbyists and conflicts of interest. This one is different. The issue is not chicanery, it’s competence. Last July, to celebrate the Fourth, DOT officials took a state ferry out of service to sail legislators and VIPs’ around Beaufort Harbor (with a mariachi band, lobster and shrimp hors d’oeuvres) to watch the tall ships – at taxpayer’s expense. That raised a question about the DOT’s judgment. The I-40 paving snafu raises that question to a higher level.

In the Triangle we have severe road needs. So far, the reason we’ve been given is the lack of money. But with the I-40 paving snafu you also have to wonder if part of the problem may not be incompetence.

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

Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”  He was right.  George W. Bush said he looked into Vladimar Putin’s soul and saw a man he could trust.  He was wrong.

One side effect of Bush’s Iraq disaster is his lack of attention to what’s happening in Putin’s Russia: murder, war crimes and growing economic power fueled by oil and natural gas.

Ben Stein, the comedy action and former Nixon adviser, made this point well on Fox News this week.  He said Putin’s energy sword is just as dangerous to Europe – and to the world – as the old Soviet military sword.

What is our policy?  I don’t know.  And I suspect that most of the big shots in Washington – Republican and Democratic alike – are in the dark themselves.

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

The other day Governor Easley boasted North Carolina’s quarter-cent cut in the sales tax meant North Carolinians “will see their hard-earned tax dollars can stretch a bit further.” On Tuesday, he turned into the Grinch who stole Christmas and said going ahead with the rest of the tax cut (another quarter-cent) might be unwise. (If you think quarter-cent doesn’t sound like much consider this: it’s $200 million.)

Governor Easley also acknowledged that when the legislature raised the tax a couple of years ago it made an iron-clad promise to repeal it when the budget crisis passed. But this is politics. So, what’s a promise?

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

I was struggling to grasp two developments in Washington last week:

• The gay daughter of the Vice President of an anti-gay administration – along with her lesbian partner – will be a mother soon.  Bless her. 

• That Vice President hailed Don Rumsfeld as “the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had.”

But one thing Cheney said about Rumsfeld explained it all:

“I would not be where I am today but for the confidence that Don first placed in me those many years ago.”

So Rumsfeld is to blame for that, too.

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

The Iraq Study Commission’s hinting we need a grand diplomatic strategy, involving Iran and Syria, to get us out of the war in Iraq. But it’s hard to believe we’re going to talk our way out of this mess. The idea that there is a diplomatic, magical wand Jim Baker (or anyone else) can wave over Iraq to solve our problems is wishful thinking. Iran and Syria are not our friends. The key to getting them to help us isn’t going to be talking, it’s going to be paying a price. What will that price be? Taking the Golan Heights from Israel? Or allowing Iran to proceed with building nuclear weapons?

Behind the scenes politicians have another motivation for negotiations. Some sort of diplomatic agreement – even one as paper-thin as the Paris Peace Accords at the end of the Vietnam War – will give them a political fig leaf. Then as they bring the troops home, like Nixon, they can declare they have negotiated a ‘peace with honor.’ Of course, like in Vietnam the honor may be ephemeral and the peace may only last a few months. But at least that puts some soft edges on losing the war.

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

Two years and one month from now, America will inaugurate a Democratic President.

Why am I so certain?

Reason No. 1: History.

Since 1950, the Presidential party typically serves two – or one terms – and then is kicked out: Democrats in 1952, Republicans in 1960, Democrats in 1968, Republicans in 1976, Democrats in 1980, Democrats in 2000.

The only exception: George H. W. Bush won what was in effect Reagan’s third term in 1988.

Reagan was popular.  George W. Bush isn’t.  So historical odds favor Democrats.

Reason No. 2: War.

Bush is not going to take the life raft Jim Baker threw him.  He’s likely to send more good troops after bad.

If that doesn’t work, no Republican has a chance in 2008.  Especially the Republican who worries me most: John McCain.  McCain is the most vocal proponent of the “surge” strategy in Iraq.

Reason No. 3: It’s time for a change.

The public will be ready for a change of policy – in Iraq, on the economy, on health care and on the environment.

That thirst for change drove the 2006 elections.  It won’t pass quickly.

But which Democratic Party will win?

There are two Democratic Parties today:

• The pro-trade, business-friendly wing of Bill Clinton and Jim Hunt.

• The anti-trade, union-friendly wing that John Edwards is poised to lead.

The struggle between those two wings will have to do more with our country’s future than battles between Democrats and Republicans.

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

It comes as a shock but waste dumps can be built in North Carolina without an environmental study to determine the potential harm when they are put in flood plains or near a water supplies. The Environmental Review Commission (which is studying four mega-trashdumps out of state companies plan to build here to bury garbage from New York, Massachusetts, and other states) is considering urging the legislature to toughen the regulations – before the moratorium on the dumps expires next year.

In the meantime North Carolina still looks like the easiest place to call home for corporations seeking a new spot to bury their trash. It’s also no wonder the waste companies have put a battalion of lobbyists to work courting legislators.

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

This is a peculiar twist. The ACLU and anti-torture activists want the Governor, the Attorney General and just about everyone else – including the Johnston County Commissioners – to investigate Smithfield based Aero Contractors, which provides charter flights to the CIA.

No one – including the Global Transport Authority – has taken them up on their request. So, last week, an ACLU ‘senior rights advisor’ flew to Raleigh and threatened the Legislature by saying federal and state governments are obligated to investigate under the United Nations convention against torture. (News and Observer; 12/13/06).

Now, the North Carolina Legislature has a lot of failings. But (except maybe for Jim Hunt) no one has ever been able to dictate to it. If the ACLU thinks legislators are going to hop up, salute, and take orders from the United Nations they’ve never seen Marc Basnight in action.

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

No, it’s not George Bush.  Not even Dick Cheney.  Or Harry Reid.  Or a woman – Nancy Pelosi.

How about Mike Rounds?

Who?

Rounds is the Republican Governor of South Dakota. He could end up with the power to put Republicans back in charge of the Senate if the ailing Senator Tim Johnson can’t serve.

This shows how unpredictable – even ephemeral – politics can be.

I assume that Rounds, who already planned to run against Johnson in 2008, would appoint a Republican.  (There is a question about whether a special election would be required immediately after the appointment – or whether the appointee would serve until 2008.)

I also assume that Democrats will do all they can to keep Johnson voting as long as possible.  After all, Republicans kept Strom Thurmond voting his last few years, when he was living at Walter Reed Hospital.

Of course, this may mean the balance of power rests in the hands of Johnson’s doctor.

He’s probably a Republican, too.

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

Presidents should know they’re in political trouble when members of their own party break with them, especially U.S. Senators.  That has happened now on Iraq.

The Republican Senator is Gordon Smith from Oregon.  CNN quoted Smith – “in an emotional speech on the Senate floor” last week – as saying the U.S. military's "tactics have failed" and he "cannot support that anymore."

Smith, who had been a supporter of the war, said:

"I am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day.

"That is absurd.  It may even be criminal."

Some columnist – I wish I could remember who – predicted this several weeks ago.  He or she said “when these things start to break, they break from the inside” – that is, inside the President’s party.

It’s starting to break.

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

With only 52 votes Republicans don’t have much voice in choosing Jim Black’s successor as Speaker of the House. But here’s a suggestion: Challenge the Democrats to elect a new Speaker who is not part of the current House leadership. Why? Because a ‘fresh face,’ without ties to the current leadership, can best clean up the corruption in the legislature. Of course Democrats may turn thumbs down on that in a heartbeat and tell Republicans to mind their own business and start acting like the minority they are. But what have Republicans got to lose? There are worse fates than Democrats telling them no when it comes to cleaning up corruption.

Republicans should also make reforming the power of the Speaker a part of their agenda. Today the House Speaker is a virtual dictator. He, single-handedly, can kill any bill he wants by ruling it out-of-order or by burying it in the Rules Committee. He also appoints every member of every committee in the House. Instead, members should be chosen as they are in Congress or by some other system that includes checks and balances.

The challenge to legislators, today, is putting an end to business as usual in the State House. Democrats can take a step in that direction by electing a ‘fresh face’ Speaker. If they don’t there is very little chance Republicans can pass any real reforms on their own with Democrats enjoying a 68 to 52 majority.

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

Last year, an eighth grader on her way to East Millbrook Middle School was struck by a car. The principal immediately asked the City to put a crossing guard on Spring Forest Road in front of the school. Months passed and nothing happened as the Mayor and City Council debated issues like new regulations on hot dog venders downtown. Then a few days ago, finally, the City responded with a half-measure, putting in a pedestrian stoplight. The principal is still working on getting his crossing guard.

All this is befuddling. Why can’t city schools get on Mayor Meeker’s radar screen as a government priority?  Let me paint a picture for some aspiring candidate: Run for Mayor next year on a platform of making city schools your priority. Point out that the Mayor wants to spend $40 million to develop Dix Hill, but he hasn’t found a way to give Millbrook Middle School its crossing guard. Then just hope he says the schools are someone else’s responsibility.

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

Speaker Jim Black did not invent the political system that embroiled him in the scandals that led to his announcement, yesterday, that he will not seek an unprecedented fifth term as leader of the State House. Instead he inherited the system (the press calls it ‘pay to play’) just as other Democrat and Republican leaders before him.

So, who did invent ‘pay to play’? Some say it was Senate kingpin Marc Basnight. But I suspect the relationship between money, lobbyists and legislation is indigenous in our democratic system. No matter who is in power, unless they have the character of, say, George Washington, this form of corruption, driven by the combination of politicians’ need for money and special interest need for legislative favors, grows each year and its tentacles dig deeper and deeper into the political world.

Today, I expect Black is asking himself, What did I do that other Democrats and Republicans haven’t done? The answer may be nothing. Black just happened to be in power when the corruption grew so pervasive there was a backlash. And in a way, no matter how unfortunate it is for him personally, Black’s fall from power may serve a useful purpose. His squeaker reelection in a safe Democrat district, sagging popularity statewide and the press’s relentless pursuit of the scandals involving him has sent a clear message to other elected officials.

Corruption gets out of hand then driven by public outrage the pendulum swings back in the other direction. That is part of the equilibrium of the system righting itself. Black’s misfortune was he became the focal point of the backlash.  

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

The political pot is boiling for Raleigh’s elections next year.  Here’s a sampling of what we’ve heard – via emails and conversations – since we first blogged on the topic:

• There is talk of a Republican running for Mayor – maybe Tom Fetzer or Phillip Isley.  But with registration 50-35 Democratic, I don’t see it as likely.

• Mayor Meeker will run for reelection, and so will every other Council member.  Several will face spirited challenges, especially at-large.  Russ Stephenson is vulnerable.

• As we’ve said before, impact fees will be an issue.  The question is how much more increase voters will stand for before they feel the pain.

• The Chamber of Commerce and the business community are steaming over recent developments, like the increasing profile of unions in city business.  There may be a pot of money available for pro-business candidates.

• Raleigh got a good dose of nasty, negative attacks in 2005.  Look for more this time.

Here’s how you can tell how much trouble George Bush is in because of Iraq: he’s comparing himself to Harry Truman.

I always know a Democratic candidate is doomed when he starts comparing his race to Truman’s upset over Dewey in 1948.  It’s a sure sign of sheer desperation.

Now Bush is comparing his place in history to Truman’s. 

The President told congressional leaders last week that, like Truman, he’s sticking with an unpopular war and, like Truman, he’ll be vindicated by history.

A sure sign of sheer desperation.  Especially for a Republican.

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

Four waste disposal companies propose to build mega-dumps in North Carolina and haul, literally, mountains of garbage from New York, Massachusetts and other states here and dispose of it.

Democratic strategist Joe Sinsheimer has filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections against Representative Thomas Wright, which gives a glimpse of how the ‘backstage politics’ of one of the dumps worked in the legislature. Representative Wright, from Wilmington, supports allowing Hugo Neu corporation to build a mega-dump in Navassa. Last session, four bills were filed to stop the dump; two passed the Senate, but none passed the House where Wright, an ally of Speaker Jim Black, serves. What no one knew back then (around the time the House killed the bills) was that Representative Wright, who faced a primary challenge, was receiving donations from Hugo Neu executives and lobbyists. Why didn’t they know? Because Wright failed to report the contributions to the Board of Elections. (Later, after his primary, Wright did report the donations, but he made sure they wouldn’t be an issue in his General Election by failing to disclose the occupations of the executives.) As Mr. Sinsheimer says in his complaint, Wright effectively guaranteed that there would be no press coverage of these contributions until after his November 2006 general election.

Representative Wright also ‘guaranteed’ something else; when a special legislative committee was mandated to study the dumps he was eligible to serve as no one knew of his conflict of interest and, in fact, he was appointed to a committee by Speaker Black.

This is how ‘backstage politics’ works in the legislature: A representative blocks a bill for a waste company, refuses to tell the press where he stands on the waste dump (in his primary) and doesn’t report the donations from executives and lobbyists, so the voters in his district never know. Then he is appointed to the special committee so he can, presumably, oppose regulations that would stop the landfill. That’s the mixture of politics and money in the State Legislature that the press calls ‘pay to play’ – and it’s become business as usual in Raleigh.

What are the consequences? If the four dumps are built (one, in Hyde County, is actually in a flood plain) North Carolina becomes one of the largest trash importers in the nation, and no one has done a study of the environmental or economic consequences.

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

Contributions to political campaigns are not bribes, because the money is not personal income to elected officials. But what if a Congressman puts his wife or a relative on his campaign payroll? Technically, that’s perfectly legal, too. But it’s harder to argue a Congressman has no personal benefit when his wife is on his campaign payroll. Here’s a list of Congressmen who’ve hired family members (Vote.com; 12/7/06):

Congressman Richard Pombo (R) – wife and 2 brothers

Congressman Zoe Lofgren (D) – husband’s law firm

Congressman Bernie Sanders (I) – wife and step-daughter

Congressman John Doolittle (R) – wife

Congressman Ralph Hall (R) – daughter-in-law

Congressman Pete Stark (D) – wife

Congressman Buck McKeon (R) – wife

Congressman Ron Lewis (R) – wife

Congressman Bart Stupak (D) – wife

Congressman Jim Costa (D) – nephew

Congressman Chris Cannon (R) – three daughters

Congressman Lincoln Davis (D) – sister-in-law and daughter

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R) – wife

Congressman Dave Reichert (R) – nephew

Congressman Louie Gehmert (R) – wife

Congressman Tim Bishop (D) – daughter

Congressman Bob Filner (D) – wife

Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R) – wife

Congressman Bob Inglis (R) – wife

Congressman Elton Gallegly (R) – wife

Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R) – wife, nephew

Congressman John Sweeney (R) – wife

Congressman Jeff Flake (R) – wife

Congressman Ed Pastor (D) – nephew

Congressman John Shadegg (R) – son

Congressman Howard Berman (D) – brother’s consulting firm

Senator Barbara Boxer (D) – son

Other Congressman and Senators have family members who are lobbyists; among them are House and Senate leaders:

Congressman Dennis Hastert – son (lobbyist for Google)

Senator Harry Reid – son and son-in-law

Congressman Roy Blunt – wife (for tobacco companies)

If the new Democratic Majority in Congress wants to put its best foot forward when it convenes in January, a good first step would be to ban both practices.

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

The Washington-focused national press corps has anointed Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama as front-runners in the Democratic presidential race.  They’re making a mistake overlooking John Edwards.

Here’s what Edwards has going for him:

• Strong labor ties, which are important in the early Iowa and Nevada contests;

• A good glow left in Iowa from 2004, when he nearly beat John Kerry;

• South Carolina’s primary is early;

• He’s not pinned down by a Senate schedule or controversial votes.  He can run the way he’s comfortable – as an outsider.

Edwards approaches this campaign with his normal meticulous preparation.  He and his team know what they’re doing, and they’ve run a presidential campaign before.

(Note: I’m not involved in his presidential campaign, so I claim some objectivity.)

Hillary and Obama are getting all the attention now.  That’s fine.  The media will look for another story soon enough.

The only real negative I see for Edwards: Democrats may be determined this cycle to make history by nominating either a woman or someone who is half African-American.

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

Mayor Meeker’s said some unkind things about developers (especially when it comes to higher impact fees) in the past, but, now, the Mayor’s about to try his hand at the development business himself. He’s gotten the green light from the City Council to proceed with his plan to spend $40 million (most of it from higher taxes and new bonds) so the City can buy and develop the Dix Hospital site.

Of course the question to ask is why does the Mayor want the City (and taxpayers) in the development business? Don’t we have builders in Raleigh who’ll do the project, without costing taxpayers a cent? Doesn’t the city have plenty other needs it could spend $40 million to pay for, like schools and roads?

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

Now that we seem to have started down the path of getting out of Iraq, let’s ask ‘what if’ the worst happens. We won the military war in Iraq in a matter of weeks. But we lost the ‘post-war peace’ to the terrorists. Why? According to one analysis recently declassified documents show British Prime Minister Tony Blair and British Generals in Iraq warning it would be a mistake to ‘disenfranchise the ‘Baath Party.’ It’s not that the British loved the Baathist; their point was in Iraq everyone from the manager of the power station to the head of the water works was required to be a member of the Baath party. Where would replacements be found? Worse, ‘disenfranchising’ every Baathist meant alienating most of Iraq’s intelligentsia. As the British said, Don’t alienate them, co-opt them. What did we do? We removed them all plus we disbanded the Iraqi Army, creating a second corps of dissidents.

That’s all water under the bridge now. But ‘what if’ the worst happens after we withdraw? Well, the worst could be a terrorist backed government coming to power, which would give Al-Qaeda a weapon it now lacks – a nation-state under its ‘control’ as a source of income and a base of operations. If that happens the terrorists will have the money to buy modern technology and weapons.

And  ‘what if’ that happens?

The first ‘worse case’ is the Shiites and Sunni’s start slaughtering one another in a full-blown civil war. The next ‘worst’ case is every nation around Iraq is drawn into the battle, turning it into a regional war involving Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And what’s the absolute ‘worst’ case? Iraq becomes the base for the export of terrorism to the United States and Europe.

Again, British Prime Minister Blair is warning of a potential disaster. His focus is on Europe. Blair has pointed out the problem of unassimilated immigrants in European nations. For years, population has been declining in most of Europe. One result  has been the influx of millions of immigrants from the Middle East. But in this case multiculturalism failed. The immigrants, instead of being assimilated, were gheto’ised. Across Europe millions of people live in enclaves where they share little or no cultural empathy – and no loyalty at all – to the nation that hosts them.

In the 1950’s when rioting and terrorism, spillover from France’s colonial war in Algeria, erupted in French cities the government of the Republic of France collapsed. Then there were only a fraction of the unassimilated immigrants in France that there are today.

And, of course, add to that Iran building a nuclear weapon. The one thing Israel can never allow is a nation that is dedicated to its destruction having nuclear weapons. So, it’s hard to see that Israel has a choice. They’ll strike first. And, if they do, that could be the spark that ignites the whole powder keg. It’s nice to think we may get out of Iraq and life will return to normal, but it may be naïve. Instead, we may find lost wars have consequences.

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

The City of Raleigh’s passed so many new regulations (it now regulates everything from hot dog stands to newspaper boxes) the Council is considering exemptions – but not for everyone.

It seems City Hall has discovered regulations are driving up housing costs, so the Council is looking at giving a special exemption from storm water, tree preservation, parking and open space regulations – to Mayor Meeker’s pet enclave downtown. Of course, the obvious question is wouldn’t making housing more affordable be of benefit to the rest of Raleigh, too?

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

In an odd way Conservative Republicans may be looking at Democrats with something like envy. Because Democrats have so many viable candidates for President. The Moderates have Evan Bayh and John Edwards. The Liberals have Hillary, John Kerry, Al Gore and John Edwards (who’s trying to appeal to everyone). But what about conservative Republicans?

Right now, the leading Republican candidates are Rudy Giuliani  and John McCain. Conservatives have reservations about both. Giuliani showed great leadership on 9-11, but he is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control and pro-affirmative action. Senator McCain is a legitimate war hero, but along with Ted Kennedy he co-sponsored the Senate bill to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. That leaves Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator Sam Brownback.

But Brownback’s stand on immigration is similar to McCain’s, and in a 1994 TV debate against Ted Kennedy, Romney changed his pro-life stand, saying after “a dear, close family relative…passed away from an illegal abortion…Since that time, I have been committed to the belief that…we will not force our [pro-life] beliefs on others. You will not see me wavering on that.” (Dick Morris Reports at Vote.com)

Governor Mike Huckabee is more in step with mainstream conservatives on these issues, but, right now, to say the least he’s a long shot.

How did the movement which has dominated Republican Presidential primaries since the 1970’s suddenly find itself unable to even muster the strength to put forward a strong candidate for President?

A few conservatives are now writing books about the Bush Presidency. Bruce Bartlett published a withering criticism of Bush’s record on government spending. In another book a former White House aide describes how the Bush White House has publicly courted the ‘The Christian Right,’ while privately mocking its leaders and agenda. But those are recent exceptions. For years, since Bush was elected, poll after poll has showed him more popular with conservatives than virtually any political figure ever, including Ronald Reagan. After his election in 2000 election George Bush in effect became the conservative movement. Since then, except for isolated voices, no conservative leader (if he was elected) dared to criticize Bush’s spending or his conduct of the war. Conservative leaders went along or remained silent and, somewhere, during the Bush presidency the conservative movement lost its moorings.

In a way it has floated back downstream to the era before Reagan ran, when conservatives were members of a party dominated by leaders who did not share their values. Back then the crisis of the Cold War (after our defeat in Vietnam) created the political windchange that swept Reagan into power.

Today it appears we are on the verge of losing another war. No one has used the phrase ‘peace with honor’ to describe our retreat out of Iraq, as they did our retreat in Vietnam, but the parallels and rhetoric today have an eerie familiarity.

But The Cold War didn’t go away after we lost Vietnam; it got worse. And the War on Terrorism isn’t going away. President Bush’s policy of ‘staying the course’ has hit the equivalent of political bankruptcy and in the short term it’s also taken any hope of doing more to win the war in Iraq with it. But the next few years may show ‘retreat’ is equally impractical when dealing with terrorists. But, unfortunately, no conservative leader – at least in a Presidential campaign – has evoked that theme.

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

The Jim Baker report on Iraq is a stunning indictment of George Bush’s Iraq war.  For that, I’m thankful.  But it’s a dishwater-weak response.

The report is like too many bipartisan, blue-ribbon reports: mush.

The strategy it proposes doesn’t rise to the crisis it describes:

“The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.  There is no path that can guarantee success….”

So the commission recommends:

• “New and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts”

• “A change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.”

That means by early 2008 – more than a year away.  But U.S. military commanders don’t think Iraq will be ready to take over then.

The real problem here is a lack of political will – not in Iraq, but right here in America.

 No American politician – especially the ones running for President – want to be blamed for what happens if we leave now.

So nobody is raising the Emperor-has-no-clothes heart of the issue:  We are not able to prevent chaos in Iraq.  The country is in chaos.  Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other right now.  And we are not willing as a country to send in the huge number of troops it would take to stop them.

So the Big Shots in Washington are basically saying: Let more American troops die in Iraq so we our political careers won’t be hurt.

No.  No more.  It’s time to get out.  Get out and leave the Iraqis to themselves.  Let the Syrians and the Iranians deal with it.  Better they fight with each other than with us.

And don’t fall for the canard that leaving increases the terrorism threat in the United States.

Incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates settled that when he said in his confirmation hearing that the threat to us is not from Iraq, it’s from Osama.  And we’re too bogged down in Iraq to protect against – and destroy – the real threat.

My presidential candidate is the first one who has the courage to speak the truth. 

American troops have shown enough courage and paid enough of a price.  It’s time for the politicians to stand up.

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

Organized labor was a big winner in the 2006 elections.  Not that it was on the ballot.  But it strongly supported Democrats.  And it will play a major role in the 2008 presidential race – as shown by John Edwards’ recruitment of David Bonior of Michigan to lead his campaign.

Unions could also play a major role in Raleigh’s elections this year:

• Mayor Charles Meeker set Chamber of Commerce CEO Harvey Schmitt on edge when the mayor met with a union representing sanitation workers.

• The Service Employees International Union, which paid for mailings against John Odom in 2005, apparently did mailings supporting Ty Harrell in his victory over Russell Capps.

• Raleigh police voted to affiliate with the Teamsters.

Organized labor is focusing aggressively on public employees across the nation.  With the manufacturing sector shrinking, government employees are viewed as the most fertile future field for organizing.

Business leaders in Raleigh may start organizing themselves to oppose this trend.  And the clash could come in the coming city elections.

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

The next time you look up tenacity in the dictionary you may see House Speaker Jim Black’s picture beside the word. Black’s been hauled before the Board of Elections, the Grand Jury, the federal courts and his nominee for the lottery commission was convicted of fraud but, despite it all, as improbable as it sounds, he has a fifth term as Speaker within his grasp.

Usually, by now, the Democrats in the State House have caucused and selected their choice for Speaker. This year they haven’t. Why not? Democratic legislators say they are waiting to see if Black is indicted. But, instead, the delay is proof of something else: Black doesn’t yet have the votes to win a fifth term, but he is working on it. He postponed the caucus to give himself a little more time and, you can bet, when he does have the votes he’ll hold the caucus in a heartbeat.

Oddly, Black’s opponents – there are seven of them – seem content to wait too. Of course they hope the U.S. Attorney will indict Black and save them the ordeal of battling him. But the other reason is ironic: They fear if they attack Black for the scandals, when he is indicted he will throw his block of votes to someone else. So, at least in the short term in an odd way the prospect of getting indicted is keeping Black’s opponents off-balance. Only one, former Speaker Dan Blue, is even remotely talking about corruption and he is doing it with kid gloves, speaking generically of the need for ‘reform’ but not mentioning Black’s role in the scandals.

It’s an odd type of chemistry. If Black’s indicted he’s out. But if there’s only the prospect of his being indicted it’s his opponents who are stymied. With Speaker Pro-Tem Richard Morgan yet to testify before the Grand Jury it seems less than likely the U.S. Attorney will decide whether or not to indict Black by January, when the legislature returns. So the odds look better than even that Jim Black wins a fifth term.

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

My joy over Democratic victories in 2006 is tempered by my fear over what we might do to screw it all up in 2007.

Politicians’ instinctive reaction to victory is too often hubris.  When they win, they assume they have license to do everything they’ve ever dreamed of doing, regardless of whether the voters voted for all that.

So that’s why I’m worried about the 2007 Raleigh municipal elections.

The only way a, say, Tom Fetzer could come back and be elected Mayor – or to the City Council – would be for the present council to give him an already-wrapped campaign gift. 

Like:

• A $4.4 million increase in the cost of the parking deck.  (Oops, already did that.)

• Or another increase in the cost of the new Civic Center, once estimated at $192 million, now at $215 million.  (Ooops, already did that one, too.)

• Or an increase in “impact fees” or a real estate transfer fee that opponents successfully paint as a tax increase.  (Not yet.)

Some progressives tell me there is nothing more popular with voters than impact fees.  Make the developers pay, they say.

But I hear counter-rumblings from the development community that people turn against the fees when they find out that the homeowner ends up paying the fee.

I don’t know who’s right.  But we may find out.  And who wins depends on who best frames the argument, which is hard to predict – and on the tenor of the times, which is even harder to predict.

All I know is that Carter and his Republican friends may be salivating.

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

The latest Gallop Poll of the Democratic and Republican candidates says:

Democrats

Hillary Clinton                                    31%

Barack Obama                                   19%

John Edwards                                     10%

Al Gore                                                 9%

John Kerry                                           7%

 Republicans

Rudy Giuliani                                     28%

John McCain                                      26%

Condoleezza Rice                               13%

Newt Gingrich                                      7%

Mitt Romney                                        5%

Pollster Dick Morris (http://www.vote.com/) observed that the poll shows the ‘gender gap’ widening: “Both Democratic and Republican women disproportionately support their parties female candidates.” Hillary Clinton receives a whopping 15% higher vote from women than men; twice as many women as men vote for Condoleezza Rice.

Morris adds that “nineteen million single women voted in 2000 and 27 million came out in 2004 and 27 million came out in 2004. If a woman runs for President, it stands to reason that such turnout will rise still further. If single women vote in proportion to their share of the population, they would account for 32 million votes in 2008. Since women who are either divorced, widowed, or never married voted Democratic by a two-to-one margin in 2004 and 2006, it is likely that this influx of single women will be crucial to Hillary’s candidacy (or to Rice’s if she decides to run).”

The Iraq Security Group led by former Secretary of State Jim Baker is about to release it’s report, and despite all the window dressing about finding a ‘new way forward’ it looks like the bottom line is simple: Let’s get out of Iraq. Of course the politicians and diplomats aren’t putting it quite that bluntly, but anyone who remembers the rhetorical fig leaves brandished at the end of the Vietnam War has a feeling of ‘déjà vu.’

The question the pundits are speculating on is whether President Bush will go along. Will he reverse course or stick to his guns?  That’s naïve. It’s hard to believe Bush would have selected Secretary Baker (a long-time family loyalist) to lead the new commission unless he was confident Baker would do what he wanted.

We’re losing the war in Iraq, and the option of ‘staying the course’ was killed by the election. Doing more is not even a possibility because, as John McCain says, it means sending more troops to Iraq; politically, no one even dares propose that. So, getting out with all the fig leaves the best political brains can dream up, today, seems the best option. The problem is it leaves one question unanswered: Where will the terrorists strike next?

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