Richard Moore is about to become the new “pay to play” poster boy in Raleigh’s campaign-finance scandal.

And he was fingered by no less than Forbes magazine, the capitalist tool.

Moore – who is North Carolina’s State Treasurer and a 2008 gubernatorial candidate – has raised over $700,000 from investment firms that handle the state’s pension fund, which he runs.

The Charlotte Observer says Moore has received campaign contributions from 42 of the 88 companies that have contracts with his office. 

The only surprise is that the other 46 haven’t given – at least, not yet.

Moore, of course, will insist there’s no quid pro quo.  He will say that 42 mostly out-of-state investment firms gave to him just because he will give North Carolina good government.

(I’m reminded of the old politician who was asked what his supporters would get if he won.  “Hell, they’ll get the jobs, the roads and the money.”  And what would his opponents get?  “They’ll get good government.”)

There are two other strategies Moore could use:

• Leak to the media information about how his likely opponent, Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue, has funneled Health & Wellness Trust Fund money to some of her contributors.

• Or return the money – and not take any more.

He probably won’t give back the money.  Because here is what Moore would say if he took a truth serum: “I have to take money from people who do business with my office because that’s the only way I can raise the money it costs to run for Governor.”

Which is precisely the problem.

The real scandal often is not what’s being done that’s illegal, but what’s being done that is perfectly legal.

And it’s perfectly legal in politics to raise money from people who want something from government – or do business with you.

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

When Carter assessed Hillary and Obama last week, he identified a key factor in campaigns: the political skills of the candidates and the people around them.

The first weeks have shown that Hillary – right now – has the best team when it comes to winning the weekly media wars.  But it may not be the best team for the long run.

Here’s my assessment so far:

Hillary: She won the early skirmishes because she dirtied both would-be Mr. Cleans, Obama and Edwards.  She won the short-term exchange with Obama over David Geffen.  And I’ll bet lunch that her team was behind the Big House and Bad Blogger stories that plagued Edwards.

But Hillary and his sprawling, aggressive team of consultants are taking a big gamble.  She’s not going to apologize for her Iraq war vote, as Edwards did.  She’s betting she can tough it out.  The question is whether the press will let her get by.  If reporters keep asking her, “was your vote a mistake?”, Hillary may fade like Ed Muskie in 1972 and Howard Dean in 2004.

Obama: He needs to fire his campaign spokesman.  And learn some campaign discipline himself.  Immediately after Hillary’s camp fired the first shot – demanding that Obama disavow Hollywood producer David Geffen for criticizing the Clintons – Obama’s spokesman fired back in kind.  In the now time-honored tradition of war-room politics, the spokesman took note of the Clintons hosting Geffen in the Lincoln Bedroom.

That was a mistake.  Even worse, the campaign hadn’t cleared the statement with Obama.  He was traveling and taking his kids to school, according to reports.

Here’s what Obama should have said:

“I don’t agree with what David Geffen said.  And we don’t need any more of this war-room politics.  Let’s all lower our voices and talk about the real lives of Americans and our future.”

One of the big problems we have in Democratic politics today is that every campaign operative wants to be James Carville.  They all want to prove they are the toughest, meanest hombre in town.  Too often, an aide with a happy trigger-finger ends up shooting his or her own candidate in the foot.

Obama’s greatest asset is that he looks like a different kind of politician.  His campaign nearly squandered that advantage.  But he did gain in one sense.  More Democrats see this as a Hillary vs. Obama contest now.

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

It may be a sign of the apocalypse that the first real clash in the Democratic presidential race came not over Iraq or universal health care or taxes, but over a multi-million dollar Hollywood producer.

Here’s a quick recap for those of you who were following the Anna Nicole Smith story instead:  David Geffen, big-time Hollywood producer and one-time Friend of Bill and Hillary who now supports Barack Obama, is quoted by big-time columnist Maureen Dowd as attacking Bill and Hill big time.  Among other things, he called them liars.

The Clinton campaign, ever aggressive, demanded that Obama distance himself from Geffen’s “negative attacks.”

Obama’s campaign fired back that the Clintons never minded Geffen’s negative attacks when Mr. Hollywood was sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom.

To which Hillary retorted that she wants to stay out of the gutter and run a positive campaign.

Give this round to the Clintons.  They tarnished the Obama halo.  And they showed once again – as they did to John Edwards over his house and his in-house bloggers – that if you stand in their way you’d better strap on your helmet.

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

Governors and Presidents usually start thinking about their legacies as their terms near the end.

Mike Easley should start thinking.  Because his legacy is at risk.

The Governor has been roundly criticized for not mentioning the Jim Black scandal in his State of the State address.

Perhaps he should have begun:

“Tonight, members of the Senate and House, I report to you that the state of our state is – corrupt!”

You can understand why Easley didn’t take the bat off his shoulder.  Especially after some articles called Black his “right-hand man.”

But the Governor missed a golden opportunity.

Easley is capable of making a compelling – even moving – speech.  He should have turned that skill to denouncing the crime, defining the problem and dedicating himself to cleaning up the stables before he leaves Raleigh.

After all, this is a man who made his mark as a corruption-busting DA.

On today’s market, here’s what will be written about Easley when he leaves office in two years:

• He was a hands-off executive, far less aggressive than Jim Hunt.

• His main achievement was the lottery, which contributed to the biggest state-government scandal in history.

Easley could have started changing that story line Monday night.  But he didn’t.

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

Robert Penn Warren said it best in All the King’s Men:

“Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud.  There is always something.”

There was something on Jim Black.  And, as Warren’s Willie Stark would say, it stuck.

So now Raleigh is abuzz: Will Black name more names?  Will they be Republicans or Democrats?  Lobbyists or legislators?

Whether he does or not, this is clear: Both Raleigh and Washington are awash in a fundamentally corrupt fundraising system.

Politicians need millions of dollars to run for office.  Hundreds of millions, if you’re running for President.

Where does that money come from?  Where it always comes from: people who want something from government.

That means more and more pressure to raise more and more money.  More and more opportunity to do something wrong.  And more and more temptation.

As one wise veteran reminded me this week: “Human beings are always vulnerable to temptation.” 

Witness Jim Black. 

Republican legislators, of course, leapt to the microphones in indignation.  But they have no room for self-righteousness.  I don’t recall them being indignant about the Abramoff-DeLay-Cunningham affair in Washington.

Their crowd took corruption to new heights of organization, efficiency and ruthlessness.

The Democrats in Raleigh need to take up this issue now.  It’s time to stop pretending that all is well, the cancer has been removed.  It’s time for leaders to step forward, acknowledge the problem and wrestle with a solution.

For myself, I’m beginning to think that public financing of campaigns – for all its problems – is the only answer.

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

Political campaigns are built around six basic resources:  1) money; 2) time; 3) a candidate; 4) the people who work – or volunteer – in the campaign; 5) issues; and 6) demographics. Let’s compare Hillary’s campaign to Barack Obama’s.

1.     Money – Hillary has more.

2.     Time – Both started early; even playing field.

3.   Candidate – Obama is more articulate; Hillary is more experienced. This is her third Presidential Campaign, his first.

4.      People – like Hillary her campaign leaders have more experience.

5.      Issues – Obama is flanking Hillary on the left on the war.

6.   Demographics – Hillary has an edge as a woman.

Of course, money is the be-all and end-all in Presidential campaigns. It’s hard to defeat someone with a hundred million dollar megaphone in a business where volume matters. But experience may be Hillary’s other big advantage. Knowing how to do a thing – instead of learning as you go – can be half the battle. Obama’s announcement is an example. 

Obama is running for President as an outsider. An anti-politician. A new kind of leader. But he announced for President standing in front of a row of archetypical granite columned government buildings in Chicago, speaking at a podium, with the archetypical political image of him holding his daughter with his wife at his side. He looked like anything but an anti-politician. By comparison Hillary announced on the internet with a video of her sitting in her living room. It is hadn’t been Hillary she would have looked like the non-politician.

I once worked with a lady who kept a sign on the wall in her office: Old age and cunning will beat youth and enthusiasm every time. Hillary’s certainly not old, but in the Democratic primary experience and cunning may be a lethal combination.

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

Global Warming has joined ‘the earth is flat’, ‘the sun revolves around the earth’, and ‘disease is caused by humors in the blood’, as a scientific fact. The polar bears are dying, the penguins are going into exile, the seas are rising and the land will disappear beneath a flood greater than Noah’s.

The dilemma this causes most of us is we are not clever enough to judge if the ‘climatologists’ are right or wrong. But a certain natural skepticism (about Nostradamus or anyone else who says with absolute certainty they can predict what will happen a hundred years from now) is natural.

Granted, today’s scientists don’t see visions or read tea-leaves (they use computer models) but when I hear a ‘climatologist’ explaining the blizzard in Baltimore is due to global warming it’s hard not to remember that in the 1960’s prominent scientists were arguing with equal ferocity that the ‘population bomb’ was about to destroy the world, saying ‘the battle to feed all humanity is over… in the 1970’s and 1980’s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in worldwide famines.’

Could it be sixty-years later those scientists have morphed into climatologists?

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

A collection of progressive groups (some even call themselves liberals) says a recent North Carolina poll found strong public support for some of their issues.

The poll was done by OnPoint Polling and Research of Raleigh.  That’s the group that got the Wake County school bonds vote right last year.

The most striking results:

• More than 60 percent of likely voters supported spending “millions of dollars” to provide health insurance for uninsured children;

• And more than 60 percent would support a universal health insurance plan like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s in California, in which the cost would be shared by taxpayers, insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and people who have insurance.

 Among groups involved in the poll were AARP, Academy of Trial Lawyers, AFL-CIO, Conservation Council, Planned Parenthood and Equality NC.

Other, less surprising, findings:

• 87 percent support requiring chemical plants to publicize lists of dangerous products they have.  (You have to wonder about the 13 percent who are opposed.)

• 69 percent support letting counties charge impact fees on developers to help pay for new schools (although developers say they have differently worded polls that show the opposite).

• 64 percent favor making the income tax deduction permanent for people who use the North Carolina college savings plan.

• 62 percent support requiring hog farmers to replace lagoons with new technology.

• 61 percent favor an annual cost-of-living adjustment for the minimum wage.

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

Bill O’Reilly, interviewing a young lady defending John Edwards, asked with his usual bombast: Would you have fired the bloggers if you were Edwards? The young lady – a spokeswoman for the Young Democrats – evaded. He pursued. Finally, cornered, she admitted, No, she wouldn’t. O’Reilly pounced: If they had attacked blacks – the same way they attacked Catholics – would you have fired them? The young lady promptly demonstrated she is not cut out for politics. She gave a blunt, truthful answer: Yes. Big O’Reilly grin, followed by another pounce, That’s hypocritical.

Despite O’Reilly’s, shall we say heavy handed, assault on the young lady, he has a point. She is saying there is nothing wrong with attacks on ethnic or religious groups – until they violate her own peculiar the standards of political correctness. He had another point too: John Edward’s response to two young bloggers in his campaign excoriating Catholics was peculiar.

Edward’s choice was simple. If he thought the messages the two young women sent sailing into cyber-space were egregiously wrong he could have terminated them. Instead, he put his finger to the political wind. At first, he decided, his safest course was to fire them. But, then, a howl of outrage swept through the left-wing blogsphere. Determining he had miscalculated Edwards promptly reversed course, giving us a portrait of a Presidential candidate buffeted to and fro by political winds, lacking the conviction to take a stand for fear he would offend the sensibilities of a gaggle of left-wing bloggers. The ‘affair of the bloggers’ is a tempest in a teapot — but Bill O’Reilly’s second point is more serious: Can you imagine President Edwards dealing with Iranians?

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

Here’s a commentary on the state of Presidential politics. John Edwards has chosen the theme song for his campaign: John Mellencamp’s “This is Our Country.” Ford – or is it Chevrolet – is using the same song to sell trucks. Senator Chris Dodd, risking the appearance of vanity, choose “Get Ready (Cause Here I Come)” by the Temptations as his theme. But Hillary topped that. She choose two songs – one for walking onto the stage, another for her exit (“Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” by Bachman-Turner Overdrive). Poor Barack Obama choose nothing at all. He wants a somber campaign. In case you think I made this up, I didn’t; it was in the News and Observer, right alongside the latest news about Anna Nicole Smith.

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

We have given the Iraqi Army the best weapons, the best training, the only air support in Iraq – so why can’t they defeat the terrorists? The answer we are told is they need more time to train. But that seems to defy common sense. They’ve had as much time for training as the terrorists – and more of everything else.

Well, you can argue, someone is giving the terrorists rifles, machine guns, armored cars, anti-aircraft batteries, ground to air missiles and training too – but still that can’t be a fraction of what we have spent on the Iraqi Army.

You can also argue the terrorists are fanatics, more dedicated, fiercer, more willing to sacrifice – but shouldn’t Iraqi army with a modicum of dedication and a preponderance of arms be able to hold its own?

We have spent three years in Iraq looking for an ally to help us build a democracy. Instead we have found ourselves allied with a government bent on doing what governments in Iraq have done for years – punishing its enemies. The Shiites, on the bottom for so long under Saddam, are in the saddle now. The problem in Iraq isn’t training; its that the ally we imagined – we’d find yearning for democracy – doesn’t exist.

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

 

A marine officer on patrol in Baghdad sees five Iraqi soldiers clustered beneath a streetlight, an easy target for snipers; certain something is wrong he rushes across the street. He finds the Iraqi ‘s staring at pornography on a cell phone. (News and Observer; 2-10-07).

An Army Lieutenant on patrol with Iraqi soldiers captures three prisoners, takes them to an Iraqi army intelligence center, then turns to leave. Behind him, he hears the Iraqi soldiers talking to the prisoners. He asks his interpreter what they were saying. The interpreter grins, “They’re asking how much they would pay to be released.”

The United Nation’s Atomic Energy Commission announces it is suspending half the technical aid it provides Iran – only half and only if all thirty-five nations on the IAEA Board agree.

And here at home the major news is ninety-year-old Zsa Zsa Gabor’s fifty-nine-year old husband, Prince Frederic von Anholt, may be Anna Nichole Smith’s baby’s father.

Sometimes it seems the war on terrorism has run hopelessly amuck and our fascination with starlets is a neverending obsession. But, recently, I read a reason for hope – at least in the war on terrorism.

In 1941, General Dwight Eisenhower wrote a speech to give to airmen at Kelly Field in Texas on December 12. He never gave it. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he was ordered to report to the War Department in Washington, instead. But his description of America in 1941 sounds a bit like America today. He said dictatorships easily achieve the unity needed to fight a war, then added bluntly, “You follow the dictator’s orders, the alternative is the firing squad.” Then he went on to explain:

“In democracy the result is achieved more slowly. The overwhelming majority of its citizens must come to realize that a common danger threatens, that collective and individual self-preservation demands the submission of self-interest to the nation’s welfare. Because this realization and this unification comes about so slowly, often only after disaster and loss of battles have rudely awakened a population, democracy is frequently condemned by unthinking critics as the least efficient form of government. Such criticism deals with the obvious factors only, it fails to throw into the balance the moral fibre, the staying qualities of a population. A democracy resorts to war only when the vast majority of its people become convinced that there is no other way out. The crisis they have entered is of their own choosing, and in the long, cruel ordeal of war the difference is likely to be decisive. The unification and coordination achieved in this way is lasting.”

                                                           
So our current dilemma (Congress and the President at loggerheads, the war running amuck) may not be permanent – or even unusual. It may just be the shocks of defeat and disaster leading us to unity.

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

Jim Black crossed the line – and fell off a cliff.

Like too many politicians, Black didn’t see that some old political plays are out of bounds today.

North Carolina politics has long been built on friends helping friends, as Rob Christensen pointed out in The News & Observer.  But the rules have changed.  Some politicians understand that, and some don’t.

There are two kinds of politicians:

• The ones who know where the line is between political friendship and corruption, and don’t cross it. 

• The ones who are too busy, careless, clueless, overconfident – whatever – and go too far.

One thing is always true of those who cross the line.  Like Black, they don’t understand the power of the press.  Black never was comfortable with the press.  He was an inside player, oblivious to how inside politics looks to the outside world.  That made reporters and their editors suspicious.

What’s more, Black, like a lot of politicians, didn’t learn how an aggressive press could actually help him.

When a reporter starts sniffing, something stinks.  And a smart politician cleans it up right away.  Black didn’t have that sixth sense. 

Had he acted years ago, Black might have forestalled all this.  When the press first suggested that he was protecting the video poker industry in exchange for campaign contributions, he could – and should – have cut the cord.  He should have told the video poker boys:  I can’t help you anymore.  Neither of us can afford even the perception of wrongdoing.

But he didn’t.  So reporters kept digging.  And the digging attracted the attention of powerful political appointees in the United States Department of Justice.

So now Jim Black is disgraced.  His end will eclipse the good he did: the good bills and the good budgets he got through a fractious House – and his rescue of House Democrats after the 1994 debacle.

It is an epic, even Shakespearean tragedy.  And a warning.

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

John Edwards says he was wrong on Iraq.  Barack Obama says he was right from the start.  So should Hillary Clinton apologize for her vote – along with Edwards’ – to authorize the war?  Does she have to say now that she made a mistake then?

She is resisting.  She says the mistake was Bush’s.  And she pivots to talk about what she would do now.  In other words, let’s forget the stupid things I did then and talk about the smart things I’ll do now.

Clearly, the politics are different for Clinton and Edwards.  He is making a hard play for antiwar Democrats.  She thinks she can be more mainstream.  She may also fear that a female candidate can’t afford to look weak.

But experience shows that – once a politician is being hounded about whether to call a mistake a mistake – he or she eventually has to give in.

What we probably will see is classic Clintonian parsing, courtesy of the “full-time campaign strategist” she calls Bill.  Something along the lines of “I didn’t inhale,” “mend it, don’t end it” (re affirmative action) and “it depends on what the definition of is is.”  (But probably not something like: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”)

Some suggestions:

• “The mistake now would be to harp on what’s done.  Let’s talk about what we must do to get out.  And I have a plan….”

• “If I was mistaken, most of the Senate was mistaken, the intelligence community was mistaken, the military was mistaken and a lot of the American people were mistaken.  But we cannot afford to make mistakes now….”

• “I’m not ging to apologize.  I did what I thought was right.  I’m not going to second-guess just to play politics.  And as President I’ll always do what I think is right….”

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

John Edwards enjoyed a surge in popularity after his announcement, even leading Hillary in polls in Iowa. But a new poll raises questions.

A month ago Edwards led Hillary by 13 percent in the polls in North Carolina. But, now, the latest Public Policy Poll (News and Observer; 2-9-07) shows Hillary surging, cutting Edwards’ lead by ten points.

John Edwards                          34%
Hillary Clinton                         31%
Barack Obama                        18%

The sudden shift of Democrats in Edwards’ home state – where he is known best and where his base should be strongest – to Hillary may be a sign of a fatal flaw in John Edwards’ campaign. Edward’s support may be a mile wide – but it may also only be an inch deep.

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

The head of the Optometrist PAC, who gave former speaker Jim Black blank checks, which Black in turn gave Representative Michael Decker (some says as a bribe for Decker’s vote) entered an ‘Alford Plea’ in court last week.

The News and Observer described how an ‘Alford Plea’ works in another case, involving a school teacher accused of having sex with a student: She “entered an Alford Plea, meaning she plead guilty because it was in her best interest given the charges but didn’t admit the charges were true.” It’s sort of like saying, I’m innocent, but I’ll accept the punishment.

In a sense that’s no more than a fig-leaf. But it does sound a bit like the description of the church in Laodicea in the New Testament: Thou art neither hot nor cold. It’s an odd definition of justice: Allowing defendants to both plead guilty and deny the charges against them at the same time.

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

Barack Obama is out to steal the mantle of optimism from John Edwards.

In 2004, Edwards ran with a smile.  He positioned himself as the positive, uplifting, optimistic candidate.  He has even called his political committee the New American Optimists.

But the stagecraft and tone of Obama’s announcement hit the very note that served Edwards so well four years ago.  Obama deliberately draws a contrast:  I’m the candidate of hope, change and new politics.  The rest of the crowd represents old, tired partisan bickering. 

That very same message won Edwards a Senate seat in 1998.  But his message this year sometimes borders on anger.  Justified anger, for sure – at poverty, injustice, discrimination and neglect.

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

State and local government have made a deal to give Google $260 million to put 210 jobs (with average salaries of $48,000) in Caldwell County. Do the math: $260,000,000 in ‘incentives’ is greater than the total salaries Google will pay over the next 24 years.

Supporters of these deals say that government subsidizing corporations is the cost of new jobs. Opponents call it corporate welfare. Either way there’s a troubling twist. Government says to most North Carolinians, Here’s what it cost you (in taxes) to live here – to pay for the roads, schools, police and health care we need. But, then, it turns around and tells Google, You can live here for $260,000,000 less – and still use the roads and schools.

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

The Air Force jet former Speaker Dennis Hastert used can’t fly all the way to California without stopping to refuel, so Speaker Pelosi wants a bigger plane. The Air Force said no. The Speaker shot back, “I’m not saying that I am being discriminated against because I am a woman. I’m just saying as the first woman speaker, I have no intention of having less respect for the office I hold than all of the other speakers that have come before me.”

Of course, precisely what Speaker Pelosi is inferring is that since she is a woman she is getting less respect than former Speaker Hastert. Sexism, rearing its ugly head, is denying her a bigger jet.

This is a tempest in a teapot but it has a humorous side. Only in America can we enjoy the spectacle of our Congressmen (and women) defining their “respect” – by the size of their jets.

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

Like children, presidential candidates can get into trouble on the Internet.  Ask John Edwards.

His campaign spent several days dealing with a contretemps over two campaign bloggers who – on their personal blogs – had said unkind things about the Catholic Church.  The story made it to the front page of The New York Times Friday.

Anytime you open the doors and windows to let in fresh air, you’re going to get some flies.  So you better have good screens.

One political blogger said you can’t vet everything every blogger in your campaign said.  Well, if you don’t, your opponent will.

And this episode may say something about Hillary Clinton’s ability to play hardball.

Edwards – who likes playing basketball – threw some sharp elbows at Hillary and Barack Obama on Iraq.

Now Edwards has been on the receiving end of three shots himself: over the sale of his Washington house, the cost of his North Carolina house and the bloggers.

Hillary’s got elbows too.

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

For decades Democrats have lived by two rules of political survival: Support the death penalty.  Don’t raise taxes.

So now Lieutenant Governor – and would-be Governor – Beverly Perdue calls for a death penalty moratorium.  Though she hastens to say she still supports capital punishment. 

And John Edwards says he’ll raise taxes to pay for health care.  "You cannot have universal health care without a revenue stream,” he said.

Obviously, they’re talking to Democratic primary voters.  More liberal, more anti-death penalty and more pro-tax than your general election voter.

Perdue and Edwards are playing the Final Four strategy: You can’t win Monday night if you don’t win Saturday.

Edwards is also wrestling with the ghost of Howard Dean.  Like John Kerry and the other 2004 presidential candidates, he had calculated then that the place to be was in the center – where he could beat George Bush.

Then Dean scared the pants off centrists by speaking for “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”

Edwards isn’t making that mistake again.  And he’s putting himself in far better position to win the hearts of minds of “real Democrats” than Hillary and, so far, Obama.

Perdue’s move causes problems for Richard Moore – especially among Democratic liberals and African-Americans.  His counter will be to question her credibility: She was for the death penalty before she was against it.

Many Democrats will like what they hear from Edwards and Perdue.  They consider it truth-telling.  They think rich people ought to pay for better health care for all Americans.  And they think prosecutors may be railroading innocent people onto Death Row.

It may be a losing game plan Monday, but it’s a winner Saturday.

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

Senator Claire McCaskill, the newly elected (with a boost from Michael J. Fox) Missouri Democrat, won “election last year with a populist campaign bashing special interest and corporate lobbyists.” (News and Observer; 1-29-07).

That was before the election. After the election Senator McCaskill invited dozens of those same lobbyists “to a fundraiser: $1,000 per political action committee, $500 per individual. Hosting the fundraiser: Blackwell Sander, a law and lobbying firm that Richard Martin, McCaskill’s campaign manager, just went to work for as a ‘government affairs specialist.’

The Democrats in Congress made much a-do about their ‘Ethics Reform’ bills. But, in fact, the House Democrats banned the use of corporate jets – their Senate colleagues didn’t. And while the Senate banned hiring family members – the House did not. When the smoke clears it’s a safe guess despite ‘Ethics Reform’ Senators may still be flying in corporate jets and Congressmen may still be hiring family members.

The more things change the more they remain the same – at least in Congress.

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

The News & Observer published a story last week about how blogs are changing local politics.  It’s by Jesse James DeConto (you gotta love his name), and we point it out because it quotes me and mentions our blog.

Click here to read it: http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/538855.html

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

Why does Mike Easley do it?

Why – with all his communications skills – does he work so hard at not communicating?

As Governor, he commands a big microphone.  But Mike won’t use the mike.

Two recent examples:

• He spoke out publicly against the Duke lacrosse DA.  But it turns out he spoke out last month.  In New York. 

• The Governor’s Press Office announced he was making two speeches – with less than an hour’s notice both times.  Reporters had little time to get there.  So the Governor didn’t have to answer many pushy questions.

I know at least one company that invited the Governor to dedicate its new plant.  He agreed.  But that morning – just hours before the event – his office cancelled. 

I’m one to complain.  I worked for Dennis Wicker against Easley in 2000, and he beat us like a drum.  In part because Easley is one of the most articulate, charming and funny people you will meet in public life.

So why not use that big microphone?

Governor Hunt did.  And it helped him make big changes for the state.

Hunt also learned the value of answering tough questions.  He found out things the bureaucrats were hiding from him.

But that’s not Easley’s way.  And he’s obviously comfortable with what he does.  He remains popular.

But his legacy will suffer.  History may say he did not speak out strongly enough on the big issues of his time.

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

It’s an old PR trick: Put out bad news on Friday.  Hope it gets lost over the weekend.

That’s what the Bush Administration did last Friday with the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

I can’t fault them.  I used the same trick when I worked for Governor Hunt.  But we don’t have to fall for it. 

The Chicago Tribune described the estimate as

…painting a dire picture of violence in Iraq that the term "civil war" cannot "adequately capture."

According to the Tribune, the NIE concludes:

• Unless efforts to reverse conditions in Iraq show "measurable progress" in coming months, the situation will continue to "deteriorate."

• Even "if violence is diminished," Iraqi leaders will be "hard-pressed" to achieve sustained political reconciliation over the next 12 to 18 months. But "stronger Iraqi leadership" could help the situation.

• U.S. forces remain an "essential stabilizing element" in Iraq. Yet, despite "real improvements," Iraq Security Forces will be hard-pressed to operate independently.

• If the U.S. withdrew, Iraqi forces could not withstand the ensuing violence, which would probably lead to "massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement."

• While Iraq's neighbors are interfering, "outside actors" are not a "major driver of violence" inside Iraq.

• Nevertheless, Iranian "lethal support" clearly "intensifies the conflict." And al-Qaeda in Iraq continues to act as a very effective "accelerator" of sectarian violence, which also has become "self-sustaining."

Democrats seized on the report to support their criticism of the Bush-Cheney “surge.”

But that poses a dilemma.  At a time when some Democrats say we should intervene in Darfur, how do we rationalize an Iraq pullout?  After all, the same report says that would lead to – again – "massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement."

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

We Democrats are chatty folks.

Our presidential candidates launch their campaigns with web-side chats.  Hillary sits on the couch for a chat.  Then she flies around the country for more intimate chats recorded by forests of cameras. 

She invites us to join in: “Let the conversation began.”  Actually, she and Bill have been having this conversation since they met at the Yale library.

(Some men react like they do when their wives suggest they talk more, open up more, share more:  “Do I have to?”)

Obama had his no-tie chat.  Edwards is talking to everybody.

Now Joe Biden’s campaign gets blown out of the water by one of the most dangerous Weapons of Mass Destruction in American politics: Biden’s mouth. He’s impressed because Obama is “clean” and “articulate”?

In 1988, Biden talked himself out of being a viable presidential campaign by cribbing other politicians’ speeches and making up his own biography.  Apparently, the definition of a nanosecond is the length of time it takes for a thought to hit Biden’s mind and then come out of his mouth. 

Obama should have responded by complimenting Biden’s hair transplants.

You’ll hear none of this warm-and-fuzzy conversation from the current administration.  Bush, once the “decider,” is now “the decision-maker.”  No time to talk. 

Cheney, asked by CNN about his gay daughter’s pregnancy, growls: “You’re out of line with that question.”  Asked about Congress’ objections to the Iraq surge, Cheney can’t be bothered with time-wasting congressional debate: “It won’t stop us.”

No mollycoddling, tea-party chats for these men of action.  They’ve got a war to screw up.

It makes me feel almost like opening up, sharing more and joining the conversation.  Can we talk?

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

When President Bush met with House Republicans in a closed door session to defend his new troop deployment, he said, “I’m the decision-maker.” (News and Observer; 1-27-07). Only, when it was leaked to the press it sounded a bit like Al Haig charging into the White House press room after President Reagan was wounded and saying, “I’m in charge here.”

The President and the Democratic majority in Congress are on a collision course about who is going to make the decision to continue the war. Rank and file Democratic lawmakers, it seems every day, introduce new legislation to withdraw from Iraq. But, oddly, Democratic leaders haven’t embraced these bills – instead, so far, all they propose are non-binding resolutions.

It’s hard to understand the Democratic leaders’ reasoning. If they are dead-set on ending the war why wait? They have said loud and clear, in their opinion young men are dying in a war that serves no purpose – so, surely, from their point of view, ending the war now is preferable to ending it in six months.

So why won’t they go ahead and hold a real vote? They are trying to have it both ways. They’re trying to avoid sharing the responsibility for sending more men to Iraq – if it turns out to be a mistake. And they’re trying to avoid the consequences of ending the war – if that turns out to be a mistake. So, straddling the fence, instead of taking a stand, the Democratic leaders are telling President Bush, We don’t like it, but we’re going to let you do it anyway.

But what would have happened last fall if, before the election, Democrats had said, candidly, Of course, we want to end the war – but all you can count on from us is non-binding resolutions?

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

It may be a coincidence and not the vaunted Clinton PR machine at work, but since Hillary announced there have been two attacks on John Edwards (see Gary’s post below: The Orange County White House.) and one on Barack Obama in the media.

The attack on Edwards went like this: How can he build a 29,000 foot mansion, on a 102 acre estate in Chapel Hill, and run for President as the candidate of the poor? Edwards’ critics drew blood when Mrs. Edwards, inadvertently, dug the hole deeper by trying to explain that the 29,000 square foot mansion, which has an indoor basketball court, racquetball court and swimming pool – isn’t “grandiose” at all. It doesn’t even, Mrs. Edwards said, have “a grand staircase.” (It does have a $190,000 corridor, which costs more than a lot of homes in Raleigh, linking the two wings of the house.)

By then the News and Observer reporters’ ears must have been spinning. But, oddly, Mrs. Edwards kept on digging the hole by explaining the Edwards don’t take fancy vacations, then added, Why, once, when they went to Europe they had to use frequent flyer miles. (I’m sure Edwards’ critics will be quick to point out he also owns a million dollar beach house at an exclusive resort.)

Of course, Gary has a point. There is no reason Mr. Edwards can’t live in a mansion and be concerned about poverty. Being both wealthy and compassionate certainly doesn’t necessarily make him a hypocrite. But responding to his critics by saying, Oh, no, a 29,000 square foot mansion is not a mansion won’t wash.

When it comes to politics Bill and Hillary Clinton came from a tough school. They shoot real bullets. And John Edwards just loaded their gun.

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

The most eloquent – and effective – Democratic spokesman today may be a former Marine and Reagan Cabinet member: Jim Webb.

If you missed the Virginia Senator’s response to Bush’s State of the Union speech, you can see it on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVXMU43Qhow

Webb eviscerated Bush on Iraq and the economy.  He hit the perfect tone on Iraq.  If Bush won’t change course, he said, “we will be showing him the way.”  And he did it without sounding weak.

Webb’s no wimp.  He graduated from the Naval Academy and was a Marine combat officer in Vietnam.  He earned the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts.

His father was a career Air Force officer who flew B-17s and B-29s during World War Two and cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift, then was a pioneer in the United States missile program.  Webb Senior worked in the Pentagon under Robert McNamara, until he retired – in part to protest political micromanagement of the Vietnam War.

Jim Webb himself served in the Pentagon under President Reagan – as Assistant Secretary of Defense and then Secretary of the Navy.  He resigned in 1988 after refusing to agree in the reduction of the Navy's force structure during congressionally-mandated budget cuts.

His son serves today as an infantry Marine in Iraq.  Senator Webb had a famous dust-up about his son with the President.

But it’s not just that the Webbs wore the uniform.  Webb was against the war before it started.  He predicted exactly what has happened.  He does not have the baggage of a Clinton or Edwards who voted for war in the first place.

Here is another intriguing fact: Webb is a professional writer.  The author of novels, a history and numerous articles.  He even taught literature at the Naval Academy.

I had an interesting interview this week with Jesse DeConto of The News & Observer, who is writing an article about local politicians who have blogs.

Jesse made me think that – in today’s Internet world – the ability to write can be as powerful as the ability to speak well on TV.  Webb’s State of the Union response was well-crafted, like his books.  It was clear and remarkably free of political B.S.

We had another President once whose ability to write clearly and compellingly made him a great leader.  That was Abraham Lincoln.

Webb may be no Lincoln, but he has a command of words.  Ronald Reagan was no Lincoln, either, but he was a good writer.  That’s part of what made him the Great Communicator.

As for Webb, I’ll be paying attention from now on.  And the Democratic presidential candidates should be eyeing him as a running mate.

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

It seemed peculiar: After former Speaker Jim Black had the State House pay one of his political appointees $80,000 to write a ‘history’ of the State House, he refused to make it public.

Compared to the other House scandals – Lottery Commissioner Kevin Geddings’ trial, allegations of bribes, illegal lobbying – the ‘curious affair of the House Historian’ is a small imbroglio. But, nonetheless on his third day in office he decided to clear the air – which doesn’t often happen in the House.

Hackney reversed Jim Black’s decision and made the $80,000 ‘history’ – which turns out to be just 23 pages long – public. Explaining his logic, Hackney said, “It looked like it was a product [the history] produced with public money and it’s only possible use, if any, is for the public to read.” He added, “So there you have it.” (News and Observer; 1-27-07).

Give Joe Hackney credit. That kind of common sense is a rare commodity in the House.

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