There is talk around the legislature that some veteran Democratic Senators will not run for reelection again – and that Marc Basnight may be serving his last term as President Pro Tem.

Republicans certainly would welcome that.  Some restive Democrats might even say good riddance.  But the Democrats need to ponder their chances of keeping majorities in both the Senate and House last year. 

Basnight built a modern political machine – and I use the word admiringly – that kept Democrats and him in power for more than a decade.  It’s built on prodigious fundraising and campaigns that are both professionally run and tightly controlled by the caucus.

Ex-Speaker Jim Black had a similar system in the House.  It ended the Republican majority in 1998 and kept slim but effective control since.

Black is no longer there.  Can Joe Hackney run the same kind of campaign?  Republicans, of course, will say that Democrats kept the House majority through bribery and lawbreaking.  And they’ll try to say that in next year’s elections.

Democrats in both houses, on the other hand, will say that Republican control will mean devastating budget cuts for education, for health care, for mental health and for other people programs.

It’s no sure thing that message will win.  2008 looks good for Democrats – for now.  But a lot of good-looking years have turned sour before.

One problem with being in the majority a long time – witness Republicans in Washington last year – is complacency.  North Carolina Democrats had better start worrying about next year’s elections today.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

It’s probably not another blockbuster scandal. But a tiny black cloud just floated over the Lottery Commission’s horizon.         

The Charlotte Observer (5-19-07) reports that the firm hired to conduct one of the lottery audits is not registered to do business in the state and was not investigated by state officials before beginning the work. It also reports the firm – Alabama based Tidwell LLC – is battling a $4 million negligence lawsuit in Atlanta.

Tidwell shrugs off the charge. It says it didn’t have to register “because an information technology expert, not a CPA, was in Raleigh doing the work.”    

But Robert Brooks – executive director of the North Carolina State CPA Board – disagreed. He said:

“It doesn’t matter if they sent monkeys in here, they have to be registered.” 

He added, “Tidwell did try to register in January, but its application was returned because it filled out the wrong paperwork.”

So the firm the Lottery Commission hired to do an audit couldn’t fill out a form properly.

Maybe all this will come down to is a petty argument about the difference between CPAs and monkeys. It’s all probably just a tempest in a teapot. But a different kind of alarm bell went off when The Observer asked the Lottery Commission for an explanation. The consultant who recommended Tidwell promptly pulled up the drawbridge. He said: No comment. Ask the state.

The Observer did just that. But official lottery spokesperson Alice Garland was no more forthcoming. She said:

“Whether they are registered or not does not impact the quality of their work.”

That is a time honored political tradition press spokesman use when dealing with nosey reporters. A dodge. It works like this: argue about something else. But don’t answer the question.

The Observer then asked Tom Shaheen, the state lottery director, to comment. This time the lottery spokesperson resorted to another time-honored tradition. A stonewall. She said the issue wasn’t important enough to ask Shaheen about.

This probably isn’t a scandal. But with all its no commenting and huffing and puffing the Lottery Commission is certainly making it look like it has something to hide. Why not just say, ‘We screwed up and we’ll fix it?’ And put everyone’s mind at ease?

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Last week I received the following email newsletter from Dick Morris Reports (www.dickmorris.com). It’s a whale of a story about Bill Clinton.

BILL'S UGLY BUDDY: PAYMENTS FROM SCANDAL-TIED FIRM

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

This is a more detailed version of a column that was published in The New York Post on May 24, 2007.

Since he left office in 2001, former president Bill Clinton has been paid by InfoUSA, an Omaha, Nebraska company that has been identified as a key provider of specially designed databases that are sold to criminals who use the detailed information to defraud the unsuspecting elderly.

Because Senate financial disclosure rules do not require Hillary Clinton to reveal exactly how much -- or for what -- the company has paid her husband  over the past five years, we don’t know all the details. But we do know this: former presidents – especially Bill Clinton – don’t come cheap. And, just months after he left the presidency, Bill Clinton was paid $200,000 for a speech given to InfoUSA in Omaha. Since then, he has been paid an undisclosed amount each year, listed only as “more than $1000” for ‘non-employee compensation” on Senator Clinton’s Senate financial disclosure form.

Accordi ng to the The New York Times, InfoUSA compiled and sold lists that disclosed the names of elderly men and women who would be likely to respond to unscrupulous scams. The lists left no doubt about the vulnerability of the elderly targets. The Times reported, for example, that InfoUSA advertised lists of  “Elderly Opportunity Seekers,” 3.3 million older people “looking for ways to make money,” and “Suffering Seniors,” 4.7 million people with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. “Oldies but Goodies” contained 500,000 gamblers over 55 years old, for 8.5 cents apiece. One list said: “These people are gullible. They want to believe that their luck can change.”

The relationship between Bill Clinton and Vinod “Vin” Gupta, the CEO and Chairman of InfoUSA is both long-standing and deep.  A frequent Clinton donor, he has stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom, admitted to donating $1,000,000 to the Clinton Library and told the press that he’d consider an additional donation. Again, since  the Clintons refuse to disclose who donated money to the library,  we don’t know the total that he actually gave. In late 1999, Gupta gave $2,000,000 for Hillary Clinton’s Millennium New Year’s Eve bash. (They party cost $16 million and was closed to the press!)

 The links between Gupta and the Clintons are extensive:

•    Gutpa raised over $200,000 for Hillary’s Senate campaigns and contributed thousands to the DNC and Democratic House and Senate campaigns.

•    InfoUSA was one of the sponsors of the Aspen Festival of Ideas last summer where Bill and Hillary Clinton both spoke.

•    Gupta built the Bill Clinton Science & Technology Center  and the Hillary Clinton Mass Communications Center in his hometown of Rampur, India

•    Bill and Gutpa traveled to India together

•    Gupta reportedly paid for a golf outing for Bill at a legendary Scottish course

•    InfoUSA appointed Terry McAuliffe, the  Clinton’s longtime money man to the Board of Directors of its subsidiary company videoyellowpagesusa.com

•    Clinton appointed Gupta to the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees only a few days be fore he left office

•    Clinton also nominated Gupta as Consul General of Bermuda and U.S. Ambassador to Fiji, but Gupta was never confirmed

•    Gupta’s company co-sponsored the 2006 Clinton Global Initiative

•    Gupta sent a $7000 treadmill to Chappaqua days after the Clintons left the White House. After the NY Post disclosed the gift, the Clintons returned the gift.

Gupta’s generosity to the Clintons is only matched by his generosity to himself. InfoUSA has lately been attacked by some of its  shareholders, particularly by the Greenwich, Connecticut company Cardinal Capital that went after Conrad Black. Lord Black is now on trial in Chicago for corporate fraud.

Cardinal Capital objected to Gupta’s purchase of a $600,000 skybox at the University of Nebraska, his family’s charges of $13.5 million in private jet charges, and $2.5 million for the long term lease of a yacht – all with corporate funds.

In addition to his 2001 visit to the company’s headquarters, Bill Clinton was back there to speak at a conference on privacy issues in September 2006. Senator Clinton’s disclosure statement for that period has not been publicly released, so we don’t know how much he was paid.

This connection between the Clintons and InfoUSA only underscores the necessity of full disclosure of income sources and amounts by all the presidential candidates and the release of their income tax returns, a step Mrs. Clinton has, thus far, refused to take.

(From DickMorrisReports@dickmorris.com  www.dickmorris.com)

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

You think about heroes when you sit in the hot sun at a Memorial Day ceremony.

The ceremony Monday was in Murfreesboro, a tiny town in Hertford County in northeastern North Carolina.  I went with my mother and my two children, because my dad’s name is on a veterans’ memorial the town’s residents built this year.

They raised the money, designed the monument and chased down the names of as many Murfreesboro residents they could find who served during all the wars since the Civil War.

The ringleader is a little guy named Joe Dickerson.  He became one of my dad’s best friends after the war.  Joe was at D-Day, a radioman.  When he stepped off the boat, he sank straight to the bottom.  Two taller guys beside him lifted him up and saved his life.

Joe earned a Silver Star.  And five Purple Hearts.  One for a bayonet wound he suffered in hand-to-hand combat.

You don’t think hero when you meet Joe.  He’s over 80 now, spry and with a twinkling smile.

You don’t think hero when you see the World War II vets stand up to be honored at the ceremony.  A lot of them are bent over now.  It takes them a few seconds to stand up – and then be seated again.

You think about the young men – boys, even – that they were when they went to war.  About the age of my son sitting beside me.

You think about what some of them lived – and fought – through.  And some who didn’t come back.  The ones on the monument with stars beside their names.

You think about all the Memorial Day services going on all over the country.  All the aged, bent vets standing to be honored.

You think about how lucky this country is to have boys like that.  Heroes.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Here in North Carolina the Democrats poll (Public Policy Polling) shows President Bush’s popularity continues to be low (News and Observer, 5-21-07).

President Bush Job Approval

Approve – 41%

Disapprove – 52%

And, if anything, the numbers in the Republican (Civitas Institute) poll are worse.

 Approve – 39%

Disapprove – 57%

The good news is oddly – according to the Democratic poll – none of this seems to be helping Hillary, Obama, or John Edwards. When the Democratic pollster asked, “Are you more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket if John Edwards is the nominee” – 33% of the voters said Yes. But more, 46%, said no. (It was worse for Obama and Clinton.)

In other words 52% of the people disapprove of the job President Bush is doing. But, curiously, a lot of them are less likely to vote for the Democratic ticket if the candidate is John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. That logic seems to be odd. But maybe there is an explanation. Voters face a double negative. A Hobson’s choice. And they’re saying to themselves, President Bush hasn’t done a good job, but, let’s face it, it could be worse.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

The Iraq-money vote turned out to be a winner for everybody in Washington.

George Bush and his diminishing band of supporters got their money without any real strings.

Nervous congressional Democrats inoculated themselves against campaign charges that they voted against money for the troops.

Hillary and Obama and Pelosi and Reid get to tell the antiwar Democratic base they voted against the war.

Everybody wins.

Oh, how about the troops?  Well, they get their money.  We hope.

And we can pray they get home safely from Bush’s disastrous war.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

That’s smart.  It’s also smart to jump on another issue that resonates at Memorial Day: gas prices. 

A very smart North Carolina Democrat asked me this week, “Why haven’t we heard a peep from Democrats in Washington about gas prices?”  After all, the price at the pump is higher today than it was after Katrina.

The only politician he had seen talking about gas prices was a Republican: Florida Governor Charlie Crist.  (For more on Crist, see my earlier blog “Bicoastal GOP.”) 

What about it, Democrats?

You sure aren’t going to hear that great Texas Oilman George Bush complaining about high gas prices. 

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

The Democrats want to give North Carolina’s Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide. Instead of to the candidate who wins North Carolina. The Republicans of course are up in arms, making the Electoral College sound as sacrosanct as the College of Cardinals.

Is the Democratic plan partisan? Yes.          

Does it help Hillary, Obama, and Edwards? Yes.     

Would it have elected Al Gore? Yes.

Does it mean – as the News and Observer says – the triumph of direct democracy over the Founding Fathers Federal Republic. Yes.

But should Republicans argue that the candidate who receives the fewest votes in 2008 should be elected President? If I were a Democrat I’d welcome that debate.

I looked at the comments on the News and Observer’s blog about its editorial. One said, ‘Since our President will now be elected the same way Idol winners win (popular uninformed vote), you can expect all sorts of good candidates NOT to be elected.’

Imagine that debate.

Republican: The Electoral College will elect more qualified candidates.

Democrat: Let me get this right. A candidate wins a majority vote. And the Electoral College elects the loser. Because you say he is more qualified.

Another comment said, ‘Four candidates could split the vote in North Carolina and in theory the candidate who came in last could get all our state’s Electoral College votes.’      

Think about that.

Republican: We’re looking out for North Carolina. We put North Carolina first.

Democrat: That sounds fine. But what about the other 300 million Americans? Are you saying we should force our candidate on them? Even if they voted against him?

Yes, this is a political power grab by the Democrats. But they’ve got a point. Do Republicans really want to argue that the candidate who loses should be President?

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

North Carolinians need look no further than Wednesday’s action by a state House Committee to confirm that the representatives are clueless about public dissatisfaction with the legislature.

                                      - Winston-Salem Journal
                                                       May 21, 2007

Last week the State Board of Elections said Representative Thomas Wright had failed to report $220,000 in campaign donations. And that he may have put the money in his pocket.

The next day “The House Election Law Reform Committee” met and made its latest anti-corruption recommendations. And it was like the Wright scandal never existed.

The Committee – appointed by the House leadership – took a step back from even the tepid reforms the House passed last year. It proposed legislators report fewer campaign contributions. And it voted to keep State Election Board records secret, specifically ‘Advisory Opinions’ the Board gives to candidates. In effect, the Committee’s response to the Wright scandal was less disclosure and more secrecy.

Later as the scandal grew – and the press turned up the heat – the House blinked and began to backpedal. But, still, it’s hard to argue with The Journal that in the midst of the worst series of scandals in state history House Democrats are clueless.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

With the passing of Jerry Falwell and the rise of Rudy Giuliani, is the Republican Party moving to the center while the Democratic Party moves to the left? 

That’s my nightmare scenario.  Because the party of the center usually wins: witness Republicans in the 70s and 80s and Democrats in the 90s.

I’ve reassured myself that’s there no way the GOP will nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, squishy-on-abortion presidential candidate.  But why does Rudy keep leading the polls?

Now there’s more reason to worry because of Florida and California.  Not just that both states have moved up their presidential primaries.  But also that both states have Republican governors who aren’t governing like Republicans.

Everybody knows about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s transformation from macho-talking Republican to Democratic fellow traveler.

But not as many know about what Charlie Crist is doing to follow Jeb Bush in Florida.  Mainly, he’s doing everything opposite of Jeb.  Letting felons vote.  Taking on corporate interests.  Endorsing Democratic causes like paper ballots.  Talking about global warming.

The result: Crist has approval ratings in the 70s.  And he’s being talked about as a national candidate – something the Austrian-born Arnold can’t do.

Crist figured out how to win election in Florida last year against a Democratic tide.  Partly he did it by ducking an election-eve trip by President Bush. 

When the other side starts stealing your issues, you can take it as a compliment.  Or take it as a threat to be watched.  We’d better watch.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Whatever fig leaf of credibility John Edwards had left is in tatters. Consider this report from a California blog. 

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty.

 

Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged “every financial barrier” be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself – as a high paid speaker – his financial records show. (SF Gate.com.) 

The blog also asked University of California at Davis’ press spokesman why Edwards didn’t give his speech – on “Poverty the Great Moral Issue Facing America” – free for a public university. The press man was probably more candid than Edwards liked. He declared:

“As with any other performer, the speaker fee had to be negotiated.”

Think about that for a moment. What would happen if a state university paid a rock band $55,000 with taxpayers’ money?

Edwards has spoken at nine colleges in all.

Stanford University paid him $40,000.

American Hebrew University paid $40,000.

The University of Texas (Pan American Foundation) paid $40,000.

Vanderbilt paid $40,000.

About a week ago, NPR asked John Edwards what his dream job would be. You might think after making $285,000 making nine speeches about poverty he’d have said speechmaker. But you’d be wrong. He answered (with a straight face), ‘I want to be a mill supervisor.'

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

In the last week gas prices have risen seventeen cents. They’ve risen thirty-four cents in the past month. The last time that happened the oil industry said it was Hurricane Katrina. Which made sense. The Gulf of Mexico is full of oil rigs. So the solution was to grin and bear it.

But why are gas prices soaring again as we enter what the News and Observer (5-22-07) calls the “busy summer driving season”?

Is it coincidence? Or price gouging? Or has the American oil industry suddenly lost its touch so it can no longer deliver gasoline at inexpensive prices.

In search of opinions I went on the Internet. Here are a few by various pundits. And a few rebuttals by critics.

- The government is about to issue this year’s hurricane predictions. That’s spooked the market.

- That’s wrong. The real answer is there was a terrorist attack on an oil refinery in Nigeria.

- That’s silly. The attack failed. Only two barrels of oil spilled. It didn’t impact production at all.

                                - Demand for oil is soaring because of China.

- Even with China supply has gone up faster than demand.

                                - There are too few refineries.

                                - There’s too much regulation.

                                - Refineries across the nation broke down unexpectedly.

- It’s pretty damn odd all the refineries broke down at the same time just before summer.

                                - I think Al Gore is making the gas prices so high somehow.

                                - Crude oil is going up in price.

- Crude oil is $10 a barrel lower now than it was the last time prices were this high.

- Exxon made the highest profit in history in 2005. Then topped it in 2006. Making $39.5 billion.

- That may be true. But as a percent of gross revenue oil company profits are lower than pharmaceuticals or real estate.

- Oil companies profit is just ten cents a gallon. In New York the tax is 68 cents. They ought to cut the tax not the profits.

- There’s plenty of oil out there. But our companies are not allowed to go after it. (The President of Shell oil said this).

- It doesn’t have to have a reason. (Forbes.com quoting a Wall Street oil industry analyst).      

- The oil companies have taken a page from Enron’s book. They’re manipulating crude oil prices through a loophole in the futures trading laws to make billions. (Senator Carl Levin said this).

I was sunk in befuddlement (and there were still 1.2 million Googled opinions yet to read). Was it China? Or stock manipulation? Or taxes? Or the inescapable laws of supply and demand? Then I read this report on ABC News website. And stopped.

                        This week Exxon gave its retired Chairman a $400 million golden parachute retirement package.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team sure looked beaten when they went before the press to explain – and defend – their deal with President Bush and the Republicans on Iraq.  It’s easy to see why: they had surrendered on the fight for troop-withdrawal deadlines.

Pelosi said she might vote against it herself.  Congressmen Obey and Hoyer tried to confuse everybody with Congress-speak about “supplemental 07” and “supplemental 08” and how it’s time to move on.

Rahmbo Emanuel, who increasingly looks like Speaker-in-Waiting, put the best face on it: He called it the beginning of the end of Bush’s Iraq policy.

Yes, Bush will claim victory.  The Democratic hard-liners will claim sellout.  John Edwards – isn’t it great to be out of the Senate? – will chime in.  Hillary and Obama can safely vote against the deal – and hope to polish their anti-war street cred.

But Rahmbo is right.  The end of this war is coming.  The American people are demanding it.  Even Republicans are demanding it.

If Bush were Prime Minister, he’d be like Tony Blair – headed out of office.

Unfortunately, Bush has more than 18 months to go.  That’s 18 months more of war, 18 more months for Americans to die in Iraq and 18 more months for Americans to lose faith in their government.

Can we stand 18 more months?

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

Russ Stephenson, the at-large Raleigh city councilman, told my mother he hopes I’ll say something nice about him in my blog.  So here goes.

I’ve had some criticism of Russ.  I think he – and too much of the current council – is too downtown-focused.  As a Democrat, I’m concerned that Russ and some of his colleagues are giving Republicans too much campaign fodder.

But here is where my mother comes in.

She lives in a modest neighborhood inside the Beltline.  Not long ago, she was having trouble getting some storm-related trash picked up, branches and the like. 

No shrinking violet, and not being sure whose district she was in, she started calling people on the City Council.

Here is where Russ comes in.

He returned her call.  They had a nice chat.  Russ said he would see that the trash got picked up.  And it did get picked up.

He even stopped by her house one day to make sure.  That’s when he mentioned my blog.

And I’m glad to oblige.  Because making my mother happy is more important than politics.

I’d like to say it won’t make any difference in my blogs about the City Council. 

But I’m not sure.

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

The stables badly need cleaning in the North Carolina House of Representatives.  And Speaker Joe Hackney needs to step up to the job.

So far, he hasn’t.  It’s past time he did.

In a way, the situation is unfair to Hackney.  He spent decades building a reputation as a clean, hard-working legislator.  He finally achieved his dream of becoming Speaker.  Then, as soon as he moved in, the housing inspectors uncovered years’ worth of political guano.

But it’s Hackney’s job to clean up the mess.  He took on that responsibility when he took the oath as Speaker.

So far his response has been hesitant and half-hearted.  On one hand, he says Rep. Thomas Wright can’t be effective in light of the charges against him.  On the other hand, Hackney won’t call for Wright to resign from the House.

Hackney has offered no cleanup plan, no sign of outrage and no public reassurance that a new sheriff is on the job.

That’s what leadership is supposed to be all about.

Simply put, Speaker Hackney has to get ahead of this story.  Or his Speakership – and the Democrats’ majority – may be lost.

House Democrats did not pay a price in the 2006 elections.  It looked then like the problem was limited to Jim Black, and Black was assuring everybody he had done nothing wrong.

Since then North Carolinians have been fed a steady diet of headlines about Black, Michael Decker and Kevin Geddings.  Now it’s Reps. Wright and Mary McAllister. 

And the Speaker is woefully behind the news curve.

One problem with great “inside” politicians is that they often don’t understand the “outside” world of public opinion.  That’s where power ultimately comes from.  And where you can lose your power and position.

It may be unfair that Joe Hackney has to learn the outside game so fast.  But, like the ad says, life comes at you fast.

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

Two more reasons why George Bush reminds me of Richard Nixon more and more every day:

• His aides pressured an ailing and hospitalized Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004 to sign off on a domestic-eavesdropping plan that the Justice Department believed was illegal.  (I never thought it was possible to make Ashcroft a hero, but Bush & Co. proved me wrong.)

• Bush has nominated a National Association of Manufacturers’ lobbyist to serve on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which will enforce laws against members of his old association.  Plus, Bush will let the appointee, Michael Baroody, take a special $150,000 payment from the association when he takes the government job.

This may also explain why Bush’s approval ratings get closer and closer to Nixon’s nadir.

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

Last week something unusual happened on the City Council. Mayor Meeker recused himself from a vote. 

Why unusual? Well, for years, the Mayor’s been voting on city agreements with the downtown developer his son works with. So, what changed? The Mayor says the problem is his law firm is representing ‘a Fayetteville Street building owner who is negotiating with the city.’ But he’s still straddling the fence. He may not have voted but what happens if a lawyer calls a city official and says, ‘I’m representing ‘John Doe’ and I’m the mayor’s law partner and let’s talk.’ How likely is it for the official to say back, ‘Well, I don’t give a toot who your law partner is?’

The Mayor’s carrying on the political equivalent of ‘insider trading.’

Granted it’d be pretty tough for him to tell his law partners the firm can’t represent anyone who does business with the city. But he can go a step further than he has. He can make everything public. He can disclose all his firm’s contacts with city officials on behalf of clients.   

Recusing himself was a step in the right direction. But Mayor Meeker’s only gone halfway. If he is going to have his law firm lobbying the city he should disclose it. All of it. In detail.

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

Mayor Meeker’s passion for spending money downtown knows no bounds.  It tests the borders of the infinite.

First, he gets the city council to increase spending on his pink elephant Convention Center to $220 million.  No sooner is that done than he gets the Council to spend three or four million on his English-style Roundabouts for Hillsborough Street.  Then in the blink of an eye he turns around and says lets spend $20 million more on an art plaza for Fayetteville Street.  The Mayor’s like a perpetual motion spending machine.

Last year, when there was uproar over Spanish artist Jaume Plensa’s proposal to charge $2.5 million for ‘sculpture’ for Fayetteville Street the city balked.  $2.5 million sounded pretty extravagant.  But at least businessman Jim Goodman was willing to pay for part of it.

Since then the Mayor’s had his ‘Planning Department’ working feverishly to come up with a new proposal and we’ve jumped from the frying pan into the fire.  Now the Mayor wants to spend $11 million on his art plaza.  Plus $10 million more on adjoining projects.  A total cost of $21 million.

The mayor’s new design includes four light towers, power lines, phone lines and water pipes under the Plaza floor – and, oh, yes, supporters are already saying cutting costs even one penny will spell disaster in the future.  Anything less than $21 million means ruin a year from now. 

The Mayor usually gets what he wants from the City Council but this time he’s got some stiff opposition.  Councilman Phil Isley says flat out, “I don’t think I’m going to support writing a big check.”  And Councilman Tommy Craven agrees.

Councilwoman Jessie Taliaferro had the best idea of all.  Mrs. Taliaferro wants to put the Mayor’s new project to a vote, saying, “Everything we’ve done [downtown so far] has been without the vote of the people.”

Amen.

Want to make a guess?  Charlie Meeker may think his plaza is a grand idea.  But he probably doesn’t think it’s a good enough idea to sell to voters.  Mr. Isley, Mr. Craven and Mrs. Taliaferro may have found a way to restrain the Mayor’s passion at last. 

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

As the Bush administration’s politics-in-Justice scandal mounts in Washington, one would be naïve not to wonder about recent federal prosecutions in Raleigh.

No, I’m not defending Jim Black, Michael Decker or Kevin Geddings.  They clearly broke the law, betrayed the public trust and deserve punishment. 

But the harshness of their sentences does raise your antennae.  And the news out of Washington does give you pause.

Clearly, Bush political appointees at the Department of Justice put a priority on politics.  The unraveling scandal has forced out several top appointees – the latest a deputy AG.

One political appointee, Monica Goodling, a 31-year-old, played a key role in Justice personnel decisions.  She asked prospective employees questions like: “Which President do you most admire and why?”

Gee, I wonder what the right answer is to that one.

The evidence shows that Republican U.S. attorneys across the country were let go because they didn’t prosecute Democrats vigorously enough.  That apparently was not a problem in North Carolina.

That, in turn, raises questions about the tough sentences handed out by Judge Jim Dever.  I know Dever casually, and I hear good things about him from Democratic lawyers.  But he has opened himself up to criticism in the current climate.  When he sentenced Decker, he cited a redistricting case in which Dever was one of the attorneys while in private practice.

There is no evidence that shows Dever or U.S. Attorney George Holding has done anything wrong.  They threw the book at people who deserved it.

But the political smell is troubling.  And it feeds a political arms race.  I suspect plenty of Democrats are plotting revenge when their day comes.

And that day usually comes.

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

Watch for a John McCain comeback in the Republican presidential campaign.

Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have taken their star turns.  And the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party can’t be happy.

Giuliani is taking them on directly.  He says his support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights should not matter. 

Good luck.

Romney looks phonier and phonier every day.  At least Giuliani has the guts to stand up for his beliefs.  Romney either claims he changed his mind (abortion), never really believed what he said (gun rights) or never really said what he said (gay rights).

Romney’s is a shameful, groveling approach.  It puts one in mind of what Gene McCarthy said after George Romney, Mitt’s father, claimed in 1968 that he was “brainwashed” on Vietnam.  “A light rinse would have done the job,” jibed Clean Gene.

So the door reopens for McCain, who has done his share of shameful groveling the past eight years.

But there is something authentic about McCain, a toughness and an independent streak.  And he clearly has been a conservative – albeit a maverick – for a long time.

Giuliani has built his campaign on toughness and authenticity.  But it’s time somebody asked what’s really behind the 9/11 mask.

I’m not sure what Rudy did then that was so great.  He did look brave and decisive compared to George Bush, who – once he finished reading to schoolchildren – flew all over the country looking for a safe place to hide.

But was that mayoral theater truly presidential-level leadership?  Why was Rudy’s popularity down the tubes when 9/11 came?  And what about his short-lived effort to cancel elections and keep himself in office like some South American dictator?

The rhythms of politics would seem to dictate that Giuliani and Romney are due to go down, so McCain should go back up soon.

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

The other day two radio commentators on NPR were joking about a survey they’d  taken of presidential candidates. One of the questions each candidate was asked, What is your dream job?

The first commentator said, I love Congressman Tom Tancredo’s answer best. Tancredo – a dark horse candidate – when asked what his dream job was said, Well, President.

Tancredi’s candor elicited a few laughs then the commentator asked, Want to guess John Edwards’s dream job?

Second commentator: What?

First commentator: Mill supervisor.

Second commentator said, puzzled, Not a baseball player? Or a missionary? Or a Nobel Prize winner? But mill supervisor?

John Edwards’s pandering was so transparent it left even the liberals laughing.

The first commentator had the last word. He said, Well, John, there’s good news. There’re plenty of openings. But, John, you’d be surprised how many hours you’d have to work to pay for a haircut.

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

It just seems like just yesterday that the newspapers reported the Democrats in Congress were about to pass legislation to let pharmacists and consumers buy prescription drugs in Canada.
 
The pharmaceutical industry quashed that idea like a bug. It was alive one day and dead as a doornail the next. Why? The big pharmaceutical companies said if the bill passed we would be flooded with counterfeit drugs.
 
Think about that a moment. Are Kerr Drugs, Walgreens, Eckerd’s or CVS naïve enough to buy – and then resell – counterfeit drugs? In addition, the Democrats’ bill would have required that the foreign drug sellers be licensed by the FDA, the same people who approve domestic drugs.
 
Of course, what the pharmaceutical companies really mean is we may be flooded with cheaper drugs and it shouldn’t be a surprise anyone they opposed the bill. They, naturally, want to protect their profits. It’s what their shareholders expect, and it’s what keeps them in business.  

A better question to ask is how can drug companies afford to sell the ‘little purple pull’ in Canada for $2.20 per tablet – when it cost $4.50 here.

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

It’s all a vast right-wing conspiracy.  And it’s about to wreck the Wake County schools.

The plotters started by opposing a school-construction bond issue in 1999.  They beat it.  Then they targeted the school board elections, but lost.  So they targeted election of the county commissioners, who control the school money.  They won there.

The commissioners then forced the school board to make unpopular decisions in an effort to handle overcrowding.

The right-wingers created a climate that forced the schools to seek a smaller bond issue than was needed last year.  Fortunately, it passed – despite the conspirators.  But it was coupled with an unpopular school-assignment plan that included mandatory year-round schools.

So the school-wreckers pushed parents to sue.  They got one of those “activist” judges, the kind the right-wingers used to hate for forcing schools to desegregate.  Judge Manning may or may not be part of the conspiracy, but he surely sees himself as something of a Schools Czar in North Carolina.

Manning issued a ruling that wrecked the school board’s plan.  The schools now are forced to offer unpopular choices to parents – choices that only increase public hostility.

One thing gets lost in all this: education.  And it’s happening in one of the best and most successful schools systems in the nation.

But it should come as no surprise.

For more than 50 years, since the Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education, right-wingers in North Carolina have been out to wreck the public schools.  Some of them, who later ended up in the Beverly Lake and Jesse Helms campaigns, actually tried to shut down the schools.

They’ve tried whipping up the busing issue.  They’ve tried school vouchers.  They’ve tried starving the school budgets in the legislature.  Every one of their candidates for Governor in 2008 will talk about “cutting waste” in government.  That’s code for slashing school spending.

And they’ll blame the public schools for not raising SAT scores for a population that is heavily weighed down by poor kids from broken families.

It reminds me of an old story Bert Bennett tells about Terry Sanford.  At an overly long political dinner one night, Bert wrote Terry a note on a napkin asking why he put up with it all.  Sanford wrote on the napkin: “To keep the SOBs out.”

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

Imagine this. Your employer loans you $12.5 million to build a country-western music theatre, pays you $1.5 million a year to manage it, then tells you when the debt is repaid you can buy the theatre for $1. And as a perk he gives you a house to live in.

That would never happen you say? Probably not unless your ‘employer’ happened to be the government.

In fact, it recently happened right here in North Carolina. Local government officials in Halifax county borrowed $21.5 million (in bonds) so country music impresario Randy Parton – country legend Dolly Parton’s lesser known brother – could build a 1500 seat music theatre in Roanoke Rapids. They spent $12.5 to build the theatre; the rest will go to related expenses – such as $3 million put in a reserve fund to guarantee Parton’s annual $1.5 million “artist fee.” (Carolina Journal; 4-26-07).

Here’s the bad news: Parton has not booked a single act for the theater. It’s sitting empty.

This is a little (relatively) part of a big trend. Today, it is routine for government to subsidize private businesses. Washington subsidizes everything business from oil companies to widget makers. State governments subsidize banks. Local governments subsidize country-music theatres. As a result government has created a new breed of entrepreneurs who profit not by their productivity but by their ability to get their hands on taxpayers’ money. Couple this with a natural propensity for greed and it spells fiscal disaster for taxpayers.

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

If the Democratic presidential race was the Kentucky Derby, John Edwards would be the third-place horse hoping for Hillary and Obama to stumble – or leave him a gap to run through.

Edwards’ best chance for a breakthrough is on the war.  No other issue matters: health care, global warming, none of them.  It’s all about the war.

That’s why Edwards is taking the hardest possible line on war-funding legislation. 

That’s also why Hillary proposed withdrawing the original war authorization, which she and Edwards voted for.  Edwards has apologized for that vote, but Hillary has refused.  Now, in true Clintonesque fashion, she’s found a third way.

So Obama is facing one of those critical campaign decisions that could make or break him, Hillary and Edwards – all at once.

The choice for Obama: hard line or compromise.

My advice to him would be simple: Draw the hardest possible line to the left.  Demand an end to the war firm deadline.  Demand that other Democrats stand their ground. 

Don’t listen to your advisers who say that’s not a responsible position.  Or that it will come back to haunt you in the general election.

You don’t get to the general election and you don’t get to be President by being “responsible” now.  You can be responsible when you’re President. 

Obama is in the strongest position because – unlike Hillary and Edwards – he opposed the war from the start.

If Obama seizes this opening, he can cut off both his opponents.  He can take the rail in this horserace and put himself in position to win.

All three candidates have image problems: Edwards for changing positions since leaving the Senate, Hillary for being calculating and Obama for being content-lite.  The candidate with the most room to maneuver – and solve his problems – is Obama.

We’ll find out whether he’s bold enough to seize the opportunity.

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

Two things jumped out from the pictures taken of George Bush senior, Bill Clinton and Vladimir Putin at Boris Yeltsin’s funeral: Putin’s cold killer’s eyes.

Which reminds us what George Bush junior said when he met Putin: he looked in his eyes and saw his soul.  And decided it was good.

Which explains why Bush was also capable of peering into the Middle East and plunging America into its worst foreign-policy disaster in history.

When it comes to sizing up foreign leaders and crises foreign and domestic, Bush is a disaster.  How many days until January 20, 2009?

Driving along U.S. 64 to the Outer Banks – through Martin, Washington and Tyrrell counties – you see an endless string of “No OLF” signs.

Handmade, in various sizes, shapes and lettering, they make clear residents’ opposition to the Navy’s Outlying Landing Field.

Now virtually every politician in Raleigh has jumped on the “No OLF” bandwagon.

So it’s ironic that, a few more miles down the road, you see a big billboard with this message:

“North Carolina.  The nation’s most military-friendly state.”

I wonder if the Navy agrees.

President Bush calls himself “the decider.”  Now he has a new wartime title, bestowed upon himself by himself.

Bush met with congressional leaders Wednesday on the war-spending bill.  Then he gave a speech criticizing Democrats for their get-out-of-Iraq deadline.  He added:

“The question is, ‘who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?’  As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”

So be it.

Former CIA Director George Tenet (in his new book) says the debate within the Bush Administration before the invasion of Iraq ‘was not about imminence, it was about acting before Saddam did.’

In other words, President Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam was on the verge of giving al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction but because he wanted to act before Saddam decided that was a good idea. That sounds reasonable. Preventing a threat is a legitimate foreign policy aim of the United States government.

Unfortunately, that was not the reason the Bush Administration gave for invading Iraq. Then after the invasion Iraq turned into a quagmire and by the 2006 election the Bush Administration’s policy had plummeted in popularity in voters’ eyes.

Worse, in the long run, President Bush’s failure in Iraq leaves the Republican candidates for President facing a deeper dilemma.

Iran is building nuclear weapons. That is the major foreign threat we face today. But because of Iraq any politician who urges any action in Iran less anemic than negotiations or sanctions takes his political life in his hands. No one wants to risk being accused of sowing the seeds of another Iraq. So Iran is a non-issue in the presidential campaign.

Last weekend the Civitas Institute held a conference in Raleigh on polling. Someone asked: ‘How do voters perceive the Republican Party?’ Someone said: ‘As George Bush.’ Then one of the pollsters said bluntly: ‘And the big secret this election is Republicans voters want a candidate who is not George Bush.’ Then he mentioned the word incompetence.

What he is saying is simple: Today George Bush defines the Republican Party in the public mind. The Republican presidential primary is about changing that. Republicans voters are looking for a candidate who offers a different vision – or, perhaps, a different execution is a better description – of the war on terrorism than the President. That candidate does not have to be ‘softer’ on terrorism than President Bush or even disagree with his goals. But he does – clearly – have to offer a plan to win the war that is his and not Bush’s.

First, State Treasurer Richard Moore hired Quellos money management to help him invest state pension funds, then he paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, then he solicited their executives for contributions to his campaigns.

Now the Charlotte Observer reports Quellos has some problems of its own. It has been sued for violating federal money-laundering laws and the Observer reports in 2001 the IRS said Quellos had marketed improper overseas tax shelters. (Charlotte Observer; 4-26-07).

This landed another political hot potato in Moore’s lap. He dealt with it by conducting a ‘review’ to determine if his contributors at Quellos should continue to manage state money. His conclusion: Yes. They should.

When Moore’s critics asked if their wasn’t a conflict between his accepting donations from Quellos executives and deciding they should manage state funds Moore, in effect, said, No. Absolutely not.

At a recent forum held by Civitas Foundation a group of conservative leaders were lamenting the Republican parties sagging political fortunes and blaming the liberal media. But virtually every fact about Richard Moore’s version of pay-to-play is the result of reporting by two newspapers. Compared to The Charlotte Observer and the News and Observer Republicans have barely uttered a critical word of Moore.

Moore and other Democrats have handed Republicans numerous opportunities to revive their sagging fortunes. But Republicans have not spoken out.   

For instance, why don’t Republican leaders in the legislature introduce a simple bill and see if the Democrats oppose it. All it needs to say is that no firm whose executives contribute to Richard Moore can manage state pension funds.

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

I’m ashamed of my fellow Democrats.  They shut the press out of last weekend’s Jefferson-Jackson Day speech by Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.

What could Rahmbo have said that was so hush-hush?  A secret plan to end the war in Iraq?  A secret plan to take over the White House and increase Democratic congressional majorities in 2008?  Bush-is-a-dummy jokes?

State party chair Jerry Meek says it was all a misunderstanding.  According to Meek, Rahmbo saw the TV cameras and said he was told “no press.”  So party leaders hopped to and shooed away cameras and reporters.

Well, that explanation makes no sense at all.  Who told him no press?  And does Rahmbo think that a big shot like himself, crowned by the media as the man who heroically won back the House in 2006, could come to little old North Carolina and not be surrounded by reporters eager to broadcast his every word?

Why didn’t somebody tell him:  “No press?  Hell, man, we need all the press we can get!”

Give me a break.

This is the kind of thing that Republicans used to do routinely in North Carolina.  Democrats should set a higher standard.

Nothing is more suspicious to Americans than secrecy in government.  And for good reason.  That’s how Bush-Cheney got us in this mess.

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