News-Record.com

It’s less than a week before the elections and two things that could qualify as a state-level October November surprise have popped:

• Former state Rep. Michael Decker has identified Jim Black as one of the people who bribed him to switch parties. Those who have thought the worse have thought this all along, but this is the first time someone has come out and said it.

  Update:From Speaker Jim Black's office:

  "I never gave, promised or offered anything to Michael Decker to get him to switch parties or for his vote, and I'm appalled that he said something different today," Speaker Black said. "He was asked numerous times by reporters and people in his district in 2003 and 2004 why he switched parties and why he supported me for speaker, and it's unfortunate that he's saying something totally different and completely untrue now."

  Below is a statement from Ken Bell, attorney for Speaker Black:
  "As Speaker Black has testified, Michael Decker informed the Speaker of his intention to vote for him. Many individuals are able to testify that Michael Decker decided all on his own to vote for Dr. Black as Speaker in 2003 because the Republican Party insulted him and Decker despised his party's leaders.

  "Jim Black neither gave, promised or offered Michael Decker anything for his vote. After Decker told the Speaker he intended to vote for him, Speaker Black offered to help Decker raise funds for what was sure to be a tough re-election campaign, just as he would do for any member of his caucus. Michael Decker's testimony today and the things he has told the government as part of his plea agreement are simply not the truth."

• The state has delayed its scheduled release of test score results, which are expected to show a roll back in improvements. Yes, we knew the results were going to be sub par already, but parents don't have their child's school information yet. Could that be a favor from a Democrat-controlled school system to Democratic legislative candidates running as education-friendly? Republican legislative candidates certainly think so.

  Update:John Locke sees a conspiracy.

  UPDATE: Well, somebody smelled a political miscue: the state has released the ABC data. So one of our two surprises now goes by the wayside. Except, now the data itself might turn voters. You gotta love the silly season.

Is this enough to turn the tide for the GOP? That’s what we’ll be trying to figure out today.

I got a question from Sue about what homes on the Do Not Call list can do about political calls that are so popular during campaign season.

The short answer: nothing.

From the FTC’s website:

Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Because of limitations in the jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC, calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted, as would calls from companies with which you have an existing business relationship, or those to whom you’ve provided express agreement in writing to receive their calls.

Of course, the more couth campaigns will get a copy of the DNC list and remove people as a courtesy. But courtesy and politics don’t always go together.

Update: More from Lux.Et.Umbra here and here, although I don't think taking political callers to court will work.

County Government Reporter Nate DeGraff received a question about the following paragraph in his story on the Guilford County Sheriff's race:

Blanks' recent financial supporters included developer Harry Falk, who contributed $4,000; mortgage broker C. Grady Patton, who contributed $1,000; and N.C. Supreme Court candidate Rachel Lea Hunter, who contributed $500.

The contributions shows up on both Hunter's(PDF) and Blanks' third quarter reports. Hunter's campaign reports also show contributions to Congressional hopeful Larry Kissel, Guilford DA candidate Julia Hejazi and a handful of others.

The problem is this: The NC Judicial Code of Conduct says it is permissible for judges and judicial candidates to:

identify himself/herself as a member of a political party and make financial contributions to a political party or organization; provided, however, that he/she may not personally make financial contributions or loans to any individual seeking election to office (other than himself/herself) except as part of a joint judicial campaign as permitted in subsection B(2); (Ed note: Bold added)

However, this is not as straightforward as it may seem.

There is no question that judges and judicial candidates are prohibited from writing a check from a personal checking account to someone's campaign. But does writing a check from a campaign account mean that someone has "personally" made a financial contribution.

For an answer, I turned to Paul Ross, the executive secretary of the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission. His answer was that there was no firm answer.

"That's something that hasn't been specifically addressed in the past, because most of them (judicial candidates) haven’t had the excess funds to do it," Ross said.

He laid out arguments for and against it being a violation.

For: “I can see an argument to be made that a campaign fund is an alter ego of you as an individual,” Ross said. He later added that giving a donation from a campaign account could be seen as an attempt “to get around the rule.” That may be particularly so in Hunter’s case, since her campaign is 100 percent self financed.

Against: “The board of elections treats a campaign committee and a candidate as separate.” The Board of Elections is seen as authoritative and prescient setting on a lot of campaign questions, but their General Council referred questions on this matter to Ross and the Judicial Standards Commission.

Ross did add this:

"If a judge calls me and says to me 'I'm thinking of doing this, should I?' my advice to him or her is going to be no. I would err on the side of caution."

I've put all this to Hunter in an e-mail this morning and will publish the response here if I get one.

For background: Hunter is running against incumbent justice Mark Martin. Hunter has made it an interesting campaign by doing things like trying to get "Madame Justice" added to her name on the ballot and comparing her opponent to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda minister.

For those trying to get a sense of what’s going on in state legislatures around the country, check out The Thicket’s roundup on the topic. While you do, listen in on NPR’s take.

Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina has been looking at third quarter campaign finance reports, and he doesn’t like what he sees. From a news release today:

"There's an orgiastic flurry of money moving around, from PACs to candidates, between candidates, and from candidates and special-interest groups to party committees and then to candidates in hot contests," Hall said. "Legislative candidates with little or no opposition this November are sending big checks to their colleagues or political caucus in order to gain personal power and partisan control in the legislature."

Hall said legislators are on track to raise over $30 million, which is a lot considering both the old record ($26 million in 2004) and the fact there just aren’t that many races.

Guilford County won’t see a lot of this spending, mainly because none of races rate terribly high on the state parties’ radar.

The one exception so far seems to be Maggie Jeffus, who reports spending $89,258.16 as of Oct. 1, with a big bite of that coming from the N.C. Democratic Party.

I have a story running Sunday about the seven factors I expect to influence the election. (Update: Click here to read the story.) It’ll be worth checking out the newspaper page, by the way, if only for Tim Rickard’s cartoons, which aren't showing in the online version.

There’s no huge insight or revelation, no secret decoder algorithm to tell you how the election will turn out. Basically, it’s my attempt to sum up the political environment based on what I’ve been hearing from people in the street on up to national pollsters.

Now it’s your turn to sound off. What did I get wrong? What do you see driving Tuesday’s election? When the smoke clears, what are we going to slap our foreheads and say “gosh, how did we miss that?” Click the comment link and have your say.

The Institute for Constitutional Law, a conservative-leaning legal nonprofit, is suing to stop Amendment One from becoming part of the state’s constitution.

What’s Amendment One?

Amendment One was the title of a constitutional amendment put to voters in 2004 that would allow cities and counties to use what’s broadly known as Tax Increment Financing. I wrote in a 2004 story:

Currently, cities and counties must ask voters' permission before issuing bonds repaid by property tax dollars. Amendment One, so named because it is the first of three constitutional amendments on the ballot, would allow government to bypass voter approval in some of those cases.

Specifically, it would allow local governments to designate certain areas as particularly in need of redevelopment help. A business looking to relocate or expand in that area could get government help with everything from clearing environmental problems to repaving streets. To pay for those improvements, governments could issue bonds without taxpayer approval.

Ideally, the value of the property in question will go up, meaning the taxes charged on that property will go up. The increase in taxes collected would then be used to repay the bonds.

Proponents argue that there are sufficient safeguards in place to keep local governments from overspending and that cities and counties have this ability in 48 other states.

But detractors caution that if the government-funded projects fail, taxpayers will be stuck paying the debts, a line that draws objections from advocates.

It was a hard fought campaign and groups that backed the idea, like the N.C. Association of Realtors and Blue Cross Blue Shield, dumped something to the tune of $1.6 million into the effort. That money produced widely broadcast commericials that basically said voting for Amendemnet One would produce more jobs. Although there was an opposition movement, it didn't have the same kind of backing.

The amendment passed.

The Institute is alleging that the way lawmakers went about putting Amendment One on the ballot violated the state and federal constitutions. Specifically, the suit will allege:

the Text of Explanations adopted by the State to summarize the amendment was misleading and confusing, and that neither the ballot question nor the Text of Explanations clearly informed voters that Amendment One, if passed, would abolish their constitutional right to vote on certain types of local bond issues. The complaint further alleges that the submission of Amendment One to the voters violates the Voting Rights Act in that the State did not properly preclear the proposed amendment and resulting changes to voting procedure with the Attorney General as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I don't know whether the legal arguments will hold up, but it should be an interesting ride.

Neither Greensboro nor Guilford County has taken their new Amendment One powers for a spin. However, at least one North Carolina city (Kannapolis) is making noise like it plans to issue bonds under the Amendment’s authority.

More to come.

The Rothenberg Political Report has just moved the N.C. House from a “toss up” to leans Democratic.

That probably reflects in some part the bad mojo Tar Heel Republicans are absorbing from their national brethren.

It also reflects rough waters for the GOP in several individual races, such as Republican incumbent Russell Capps finding himself in a political dogfight (complete with television commercials) in what once was considered a safe Republican district.

Good morning. It's Election Day, and after casting my ballot I’m heading down to Greensboro to poke around. Then I'll be firing up our coverage over at Inside Scoop for the afternoon and evening. Come visit me there as I try to fake being a pundit.

This blog will return to its normally scheduled nonsense on Wednesday.

From our friends at the Associated Press, who are keeping busy this election evening:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — State Republican Party chairman Ferrell Blount will step down from his post after Election Day, saying he's considering a future run for elected office.

The party released a letter Tuesday evening from Blount, a Pitt County farmer who became chairman in August 2003, saying that he would offer his resignation to party officials Thursday.

As I prepare to leave the office the morning after Election Night, House Speaker Jim Black lead by seven votes in his re-election bid. We may not know the answer in that race for a few days.

Out in the western North Carolina environs of the 11th Congressional District, Democrat Heath Schuler beat Republican incumbent Charles Taylor last night. Schuler is a Democrat but is by no means a liberal on every issue. The state’s pro-life Democrats sent out this release today:

"Last night was a glorious night for the Democratic Party. The only thing bluer in our nation today is the sky. That happiness was shared by NC Pro-Life Democrats. We now have a new pro-life Congressman, Heath Shuler. He will join Mike McIntyre as another voice for all life in our Congress. Mr. Shuler's victory in the 11th District proves that pro-life candidates are winning candidates and they reflect the nation's conservative view on abortion. Welcome Mr. Shuler to our growing group of pro-life representatives in North Carolina."

Meanwhile, the closely watched 8th Congressional District may still be too close to call. The state Democratic Party had this to say this morning:

“Since last night, Larry Kissell has picked up 122 additional votes. With only 346 votes separating the candidates and many provisional ballots uncounted, this race is clearly undecided. Under North Carolina law, a recount can be requested if the margin is less than one percent. The North Carolina Democratic Party is working closely with legal counsel to make sure that every vote is counted. As provisional ballots tend to favor Democrats, we are very optimistic about our chances in the 8th District.”

I think we'll all be digesting what the outcome of the General Assembly elections mean for a while. But here are a few nuggets as the smoke clears:

• Democratic House Speaker Jim Black's troubles were his own. While it's remarkable he only leads his race by seven votes, it doesn’t look like his problems bled over to any other state House races.
• Current accounting says Democrats will hold at least 67 of the Houses' 120 seats. Democrats look to control 31 of the 50 senate seats next year. In both cases, they’ve build on their majorities.
• Just because Democrats have cushy majorities, don't expect everything to be all peachy. There are different flavors of Democrats, from pro-business conservatives on down to save-the-whale liberals. Caucus meetings might get more raucous, not less so.
• Following from the last point, just because the Republicans hold a smaller minority, they aren't irrelevant. If the GOP could tolerate working across the isle with some conservative dems (and visa versa), you could wind up seeing some interesting votes.
• For sheer character and amusement value, Alamance County Republican Sen. Hugh Websters' defeat is a great loss to the Senate. The man is a very funny, smart guy, even if he was on the losing end of a lot of 49-1 votes.
• It will be very interesting in two years to see if Democrats can hold onto Republican leaning districts that they picked up Tuesday. There are some mountain counties one doesn't expect to buck the GOP swimming in the Democratic wave.

For a guy who just saw his party switch from uncontested majority control of Congress to loosing the House and maybe the Senate, Republican Congressman Howard Coble was an upbeat guy today.

“I’ve ridden in this rodeo before,” Coble said.

And so he has. Before the Republican revolution of 1994, they were the minority party. Coble says he remembers those days and doesn’t think the adjustment for him will be too hard. The bigger problems, he said, may come for Republicans who were elected in 1994 and who have never been in the minority and will need time to adjust to life in the loyal opposition.

Toward the end of our phone call, I asked Coble whether he had given any thoughts to retiring from the gig he has held since 1984.

“A guy told me a month ago, ‘Howard, I want you to stay up there until you die.’ Well, I don’t plan to die there,” Coble said. At age 75, Coble said he’s still in relatively good health and still enjoys the job. But he cracked the window on retirement more than I’ve ever heard him do so before.

“I don’t anticipate spending a whole lot more time in Washington. I don’t want to set a deadline for myself, but I’m 75 … I will certainly fulfill this term, but I won’t be up there eternally. In two years, we’ll see how things are.”

I wrote a story today looking at the new roles of our local Congressman in the newly Democratic U.S. House. Basically, Mel Watt and Brad Miller gain some power, Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican, looses some influence.

The news out of Virginia looks more and more like Democrats will pick up that seat and gain control of U.S. Senate as well, although there’s still a small window open that would allow things to turn or for us to have a protracted recount. (Update: The GOP has thrown in the towel.)

For North Carolina Sens. Dole and Burr, both Republicans, that means they’ll be in the same boat as Coble, losing a few notches in the ol’ power rankings as well. However, the Senate traditionally has been a more collegial place where the minority party still can tug at the levers of power every once and a while, the recent experience with the “nuclear option” not withstanding.

From our friends at the Associated Press:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — There are still 1,492 provisional ballots to be counted in the undecided race for the 8th District U.S. House seat between Robin Hayes and Larry Kissell, state elections officials said Thursday.

Democratic challenger Kissell expressed optimism that he would be able to make up a 465-vote deficit in the unofficial count.

Stop already. I’m still working off the caffeine buzz from Tuesday night and already people are talking 2008.

Oh, fine, if we must. Anyone want to talk about local lawyer Bob Crumley running for Attorney General? Or should we save that for another day?

Yes, Mr. Thigpen? You have something for us?

Mike Easley vs. Elizabeth Dole.

You heard it here first....

Sorry, Jeff, that one has been going around for a while. (I kid Jeff, I kid.)

Easley started the chattering class to chattering by coming out and playing nice with the state party this campaign season, something he’s been disinclined to do for much of his term in office. And columnist Scott Mooneyham writes:

Easley, though, has never served in a legislature. People who know him well question whether, given his independent, quirky personality, he'd really enjoy life in Washington as a U.S. senator.

Yeah, “quirky,” that’s a word for it.

And there was his December 2005 sit-down with reporters in which he said, essentially, he had no interest in serving in any legislature of any kind. Of course, the man could change his mind, but he sounded pretty darned emphatic last year.

So why the buzz?

Well, for one, Easley is going to need a new gig after the 2008 elections. He’s constitutionally prohibited from running for governor again until 2012.

And there’s the fact that the Democrats don’t seem to have anyone else handy for the job. In a way, it’s similar to the Republicans’ problem in the 2008 race for governor. (Yes, there are couple GOP candidates out there, just no one west of Carry or as far east as Fayetteville has heard of either of them.)

Easley is well known, has won even in years when Republican President Bush won the state handily, is a business-friendly moderate and has show the ability to raise truck loads of money when needed.

Of course, there’s nothing to stop him from going into private law and lobbying practice, cashing in his connections and making gobs of money like any other self-respecting former politician.

Speaking of gobs of money, Easley hasn’t been out raking in the dough for his campaign committee. His 3Q report for this year shows no donations. However, he has $666,151.26 in the bank still, more than enough to build on for some sort of run in 2008.

And if you want to really start a buzz, take a look at that campaign report and tell me what all those media buys are about.

It is the Veterans Day holiday today, and downtown Raleigh is quiet…too quiet… with state offices closed in observance.

Click here for some history of the holiday.

And Click here for this year’s presidential proclamation.

Marcus Kindley, now chairman of the Guilford County Republican party, is running to replace Ferrell Blount as state party chairman.

Blount resigned earlier this week, saying he wants to run for another office.

• Click here to read Kindley’s news release.
• Click here to read Kindley’s blog, “The Chairman’s Corner.”

There is at least one other candidate in the race. Linda Daves of Charlotte, a vice chair under Blount and the interim chairman now, says she is seeking the job. Daves headed up the Republicans “Victory 2006” organization this year.

The party’s state executive committee will choose the new chairman Dec. 2 in Charlotte.

Update: When I wrote this post at 4:28 p.m., "The Chairman’s Corner" was up and running at the link above. However, when Roch checked in to the comments below at 11:04 p.m., it was gone. But for better or worse, the Google cashe remembers all.

Update 2: Click here to read Saturday's newspaper story on this.

Update 3: Since there seemed to be discussion at Ed’s and Sue’s I decided to do a couple things.
First, I looked up Marcus’ blogger profile, which no longer lists “The Chairman’s Corner” but does list a newish one called Romans 8 Prayer Warriors.
Second, I put in a call to Marcus to ask whether he took it down or whether something else happened. I’ll report back here when he gets back to me.

I caught up with Marcus this morning. He confirmed that he took his blog down. Click here for prior post.

"When I'm successful for this office, any comments that I have will come from that office," Kindley said.

He continued: "I didn't think it was good to have a personal blog out there … I didn’t want anyone to mistake what I had to say in a personal blog for the official position of the party."

Kindley said he was also worried about being quoted out of context.

Update: Until I was going through an old file, I had forgotten about Kindley's old political action committee.

You may have seen the AP update about former Rep. Richard Morgan’s appearance before the federal grand jury and the documents he’s been asked to turn over.

Click here to read Morgan’s release on the subpoena, which includes a copy of the subpoena itself. It's a PDF file.

If you were to choose one legislative election this year out of all 170 seats that you would get 100 percent, scrupulously right, which one would it be. Say a magic genie came to the Board of Elections and said, “I’ll grant you one district where absolutely nothing will go wrong and you can be assured the county will be handled accurately,” which one would they have chosen.

Yeah, I’m thinking the race between Democratic House Speaker Jim Black and Republican Hal Jordan might have been their pick too.

Which makes this report from our friends at the Associated Press all the more, what’s the word, perplexing maybe?:

RALEIGH (AP) — The outcome of the close legislative race between House Speaker Jim Black and Republican Hal Jordan became more uncertain Tuesday after Mecklenburg County election officials said that nearly 450 ballots were cast by people outside of their district.

Meeting in an emergency session, election board officials said voters in a split precinct received ballots with the Black-Jordan race when they should have received ballots for another House district, Mecklenburg deputy elections director Jo Winkler said.

The N.C. Center for Public Policy Research put out its annual rankings of the 50 most influential lobbyists in Raleigh. (Full disclosure, I was one of those who filled out surveys upon which the rankings were based.)

According to the center’s analysis of the report, video poker and the state lottery were helped drive some people up the list. “(S)ix of the 11 newcomers in the latest rankings of the Most Influential Lobbyists in the N.C. General Assembly worked for or against lotteries and video poker.”

Of course, there was your usual helping of tobacco and alcohol-related lobbyists as well and folks representing various medical fields. And at the top of the list there were a hand full of guys like Don Beason, Zeb Alley and Roger Bone who represent a laundry list of groups. There were also some real estate industry specialists, but they were kind of far down on the rankings.

Theresa Kostrzewa, the only woman in the top 10, represents the video poker, specialty beer and pork industry (pork as in pig not as in legislators bringing home the bacon). Beer and poker were hot issues last session, and in the quote she gave the center Kostrzewa acknowledges their affect on her ranking.

“Rankings are often correlated with issues that are front and center,” she says.

Looking through the rankings I don’t see any real strong Greensboro or Guilford County connection, which is to be expected since most of the lobbyists set up shop down here in Cap City.

Based on the “hot issue drives up the lobbyist’s stock” theory, those with health insurance and other health care industry connections can look for their rankings to rise next session.

The conservative-leaning Civitas Institute did themselves some exit polling following last weeks election. Despite the partisan nature of the group (no doubt they were rooting for Republicans to win) their polling seems to have been conducted in a pretty straight up fashion.

Civitas surveyed 800 folks who actually voted in the election. Basically, they were trying to figure out why exactly Republicans lost en mass in races from Congress on down the ticket.

Update: Click here to see the powerpoint of the poll results.

Here’s what they found:

• The war in Iraq locked in a lot of voters early and those voters didn’t move from their opposition to President Bush or his Republican allies.
  
• Republican voters, even self-identified “very conservative” voters, did some ticket splitting in this election. The “very liberals” remained more solidly in the Democratic camp.
  
• Only 33 percent of actual voters said the Jim Black scandal made any sort of difference in how they voted.
  
• Among actual voters, improving education, making health care affordable and illegal immigration were the top three issues in state-level races. Illegal immigration was particularly important to conservative voters.
  
• The problem Republicans had in those state legislative races was that voters only heard them talking about illegal immigration. Voters said they heard Democrats talking and doing something on the health care and education fronts, but not so much the Republicans on either of those issues.

It’s an old saw in political circles that in order to win elections, you have to tell the voters a story. What the Civitas data appear to show is that the voters in the state legislative elections wanted to hear three stories. Democrats did an adequate job of telling all three while Republicans did not.

Sen. Andrew Broch has entered the race for N.C. Republican state party chairman.

He joins Guilford County Republican Party Chairman Marcus Kindley and Linda Daves, who hails from Charlotte and has been the state party’s vice chair. (Click here for previous coverage of those two.)

In a news release sent Thursday afternoon, Brock writes:

It was a tough year for Republicans, and great frustration exists in our ranks because even with the Democrat corruption scandal looming, we managed to lose - not gain - seats in the state legislature and were outspent by the Democrats 3:1.

In recent days, I have been encouraged by many conservative activists to consider running for North Carolina Republican Party Chairman. It has become apparent that business as usual at our state party isn’t working, and that more of the same is not what our party needs.

Republicans must be proactive and make the positive changes we must have in order to become the majority party in our state. We need a change of direction, and simply cannot have more of the same at our party headquarters. As a campaign consultant by trade, as well as serving as the Republican Senate Deputy Whip, I believe it is time to apply professional expertise to improve and upgrade party operations to an entirely new level -- the level we deserve.

We must have improved fundraising, outreach to the business community, upgraded candidate recruitment efforts, and a pro-active communications strategy to keep the Democrats on their heels. For these reasons, and with the importance of re-districting right around the corner, I have decided to run for Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party and will not rest until we are the majority party in our great state!

Broch is circulating a letter from former U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth.

So who else is going to pile in here before Dec. 2?

If history is a guide, I’ll hear from a goodly number of people about this story from Saturday’s paper which talks about cell phones and driving. From the story:

Yes, driving while talking on a mobile phone is dangerous, said respondents to an Elon University Poll released Friday.

And yes, they said, using a hands-free device might make things safer.

But no, a majority of those polled who use a cell phone while driving don't use a headset or speakerphone.

For the poll release click right here. For data, click right here.(MS Word File).

I’ve written and blogged about bills that would restrict mobile phone use while driving before:

• Click here to read about a failed effort to restrict cell phone use by adult drivers.
  
• Click here and then here to read about a somewhat successful effort to restrict the practice by under-age drivers.

I was in Greensboro today to hear former U.S. Senator John Edwards pitch his new book and chat with some other folks for a story I’m working on for later this week. (My colleague Sonja Elmquist is writing a story about his stop in Greensboro for Sunday’s paper.)

Update: Click here for Sonja’s story.

As The Charlotte Observer’s Mark Johnson wrote in his story today, “A click of the television remote this week should have erased any doubt -- small as it would have to be -- that former U.S. Sen. John Edwards is running for president again.”

To be fair: Edwards hasn’t said he’s going to do it.

But he sure sounds like a guy who is running, even if he’s not willing to come right out and say it. He spent as much of his time in Greensboro Saturday hashing over policy as he did highlighting his book. As one gentleman who sidled up to me quipped, “It sure sounds like stump speech to me.”

The former Senator has been saying for a while now that “something interesting” will show up on his web page sometime in the next few weeks. It’s widely expected that will be the official kick-off to his campaign.

In an odd sort of way, he’ll now be something of a Washington outsider, two years removed from elective office. As he was leaving the building Saturday afternoon, I asked him whether he ever wished he had run again for Senate rather than give up the seat, which is now held by Richard Burr.

“No,” he said very firmly, needing prompting to deliver the rest of the answer. “With what I can do now I have the freedom to focus on the things I care most about,” Edwards said.

Basically, he said, not being a Senator means he’s not tied to the issue of the moment.

So, I asked, would you want to give up that freedom, say for another job in Washington?

“It depends on what for.”

Right. Check the web site.

More to come later this week.

State Rep. Pricey Harrison and Congressman Howard Coble thanked their supporters on our letters page Sunday...in two separate letters, of course.

...pretty soon we’ll be talking about real money.

It’s just about Thanksgiving and I’m finishing up a few items for the print edition before jetting out of here for the holiday. I may check in if news breaks out. Otherwise, consider this an open thread until I get back next week. And everyone out there please have a happy Turkey Day.

Good Sunday morning. Here are a couple stories that ran in today’s paper:

• Former N.C. Sen. John Edwards is widely expected to be a candidate for President in 2008, not that he’s saying quite yet. What was really striking to me is how pretty much everyone I talked to for this story had an opinion about Edwards’ run. At least a few people refuse to chat because they don’t know enough about the subject of a story. If nothing else, Edwards has got some big time name recognition working.
• Legislators around the state are lining up for the chance to be Speaker, although why they want the job is beyond me.

As always, the comment lines are open. Capital Beat will return to regular blogging this week.

From today’s paper, Bob Crumley wants to be AG.

From our friends at the AP:

RALEIGH (AP) — The state Board of Elections has agreed to certify House Speaker Jim Black as the winner over Hal Jordan in state House District 100.

Update:And now, more from the Associated Press:

The state Board of Elections unanimously agreed Tuesday to certify House Speaker Jim Black as the winner in his unexpectedly close re-election race against Republican challenger Hal Jordan.

Black, one of the Legislature's most powerful Democrats, led Jordan in the Charlotte-area district by 30 votes — 5,340 votes to 5,310 — after last week's recount. The board agreed that it had found nothing to indicate that the margin wouldn't hold up despite voting problems in one voting precinct.

Jordan said after board's vote he would decide within the next two days whether to appeal the ruling to Superior Court, but he agreed it appeared that he had fallen short in his bid to unseat the Mecklenburg County Democrat.

"The math says I would have fallen short by more than 100 votes," Jordan said.

In a way, Black’s apparent victory is good news for Democrats looking to move beyond his troubled past couple years as Speaker.

That’s because Democratic leaders haven’t been willing to get together and talk about who will be Speaker next year until all the races for the next House session were settled. Black’s was one of those races.

If Jordan doesn’t appeal, this will clear the way for the Dems to get together and at least begin talking formally about leadership next year. And if their caucus could settle on a consensus candidate they could stick with, they could start talking about Speaker Whoever-it-is rather than Speaker Black.

Of course, given the number of people who want the job, the various and shifting alliances within the party and the vagaries of intramural legislative politics, it’s just as likely they’ll drag things out until session begins on Jan. 24.

Journalism 201: whenever you have to pitch a story and you’re beginning with, “well, this court case involves some tenth amendment issues and a concept known as pre-emption but it really has to do with the way lending companies can treat their customers ...” the editors’ eye just sort of glaze over. Probably you're readers too.

If you're still awake, click here for my somewhat shortened story on a case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. From the story:

Certain companies would be able to skirt laws designed to curb predatory lending and other shady financial dealings in North Carolina and other states if prior rulings are upheld in a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The case — Watters v. Wachovia Bank N.A. — pits regulators from all 50 states and consumer-protection advocates against the banking industry and federal government.

At the heart of the dispute is whether federal agencies can block states from passing and enforcing regulations on the subsidiaries of 1,900 national banks, those that have been chartered by one of four federal agencies.

If you’re still reading, bless you. And here’s some more background for you:

• Click here for a very good Washington Post story that ran in their business section this weekend. And here’s their story from today.
• There are a lot of places to find briefs in Supreme Court cases. The most reliable I have found is FindLaw. And the service appears to be free for SCOTUS cases, so you can’t beat that. Click here for the briefs in the Watters case.
• Click here to read the transcript of yesterday’s arguments. (PDF) For government junkies like me, this service is just the bee’s knees.

We’ll probably see a decision come out in the case in the Spring.

One bit of context that didn’t make it into the story: There are folks who will be in charge of financial services law in the newly Democratic Congress watching this case very closely. Both Rep. Brad Miller and Rep. Mel Watt, North Carolina Democrats on the financial services committee, have been pushing a federal predatory lending law.

One has to think that if this case goes against the state, the Congress may step in and “clarify” itself.

A couple housekeeping notes:

• You may have noticed the N+R blogs have been kind of slow to load as of late, depending on when you tried to log in. I’m told we’ve had some intermittent problems but the appropriate beatings have been administered and things are (mostly) back on track.

• You may have noticed that posting has gotten right spotty on this page. That has to do not only with the first item but a nasty little cold that has kept me working at half speed. (Things are clearing up, I think, thank you for asking.)

In the mean time, if there’s something you think I ought to be getting to, let me know: mbinker@news-record.com

My friends and neighbors at the Charlotte Observer are reporting that North Carolina’s two U.S. Senators asked for a postponement in the selection of a new state chairman.

The short version: they didn’t get it. So I’m sure the festivities this Saturday will be oh, so not awkward in the least.

Update:By the way, the GOP Executive Committee has moved their meeting from Charlotte to Greensboro. It will be at the Koury Center at 1 p.m.

Kindley sounded none-to-happy about Dole and Burr getting involved.

"There's not even words to say how disappointed I was in those two," Kindley said.

Previously and even more previously.

One thing that clutching your pillow asking the fates to have someone come and lop your head off so the sinus headaches will stop keeps you from doing is checking the ol’ e-mail bag. So let’s do that now:

• The state’s sales tax rate goes down by a quarter percent on Friday. (click here for release) That’s a savings of 25-cents per $100. Don’t spend it all in one place.
• The NAACP is organizing “direction action” this weekend (click here for release) in support of the workers at the Smithfield plant.
• Roy Cooper is just tickled pink that meth lab busts are going down, (click here for release), which really, probably is a good thing even if it does make the decongestants that really work a pain to buy.
• Those whacky kids at the state GOP are burning their mortgage tonight. (click here for release)
• From the office of the Banking Commissioner: “Mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers will have new guidelines for so-called “non-traditional” or “exotic” mortgage loan products under proposed guidance issued today by the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks (NCCOB).” (click here for the full release)

Hate mail, after the jump.