News-Record.com

The Decision 2008 blog and related election work has been keeping me hopping lately, but the wheels of government continue to turn here in Raleigh.

Some of those wheels can be found at the North Carolina Supreme Court, which has the lawsuit seeking to end the lottery on its docket for Monday.

The case was brought by the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law, a conservative legal think tank based in Raleigh, on behalf of several plaintiffs, including Rep. Paul Stam, the Republican minority leader in the House.

Click here for the institute's document library on the case, which includes filings from both sides.

The lawsuit doesn't allege that North Carolina can't have a lottery. Rather, it makes the case that the lottery is tax and a pledge of the full faith and credit of the taxpayers, and therefore needed to be passed as a "revenue bill," essentially requiring votes on two separate days in each chamber of the legislature.

For those who care to get in the way-back machine and head back to the 2005, the North Carolina legislature was a bit more rough and tumble than it is today. Rep. Jim Black, a Democrat now doing time in the federal pokey following conviction on corruption charges, was Speaker of the House. It passed the House on a 61-59 vote and was confirmed on a voice vote, rather than being voted on two separate days.

Months later, the Senate approved the bill after being deadlocked over the measure. Here's what I wrote at the time:

RALEIGH - North Carolina is about to join the lottery club thanks to a hastily called legislative session and a rare tie-breaking vote cast by the lieutenant governor.

Supporters of the game sounded more relieved than elated that Tar Heels would relinquish their status as the only state on the East Coast without a government-run game.

"I'm glad we passed it," said Sen. Katie Dorsett, a Democrat from Greensboro. "I wanted it to end. If people all around us are having the lottery , we might as well bring that money to our state."

[snip]

The House approved the lottery legislation in April, after which the issue cast a shadow over the Senate. As other business chugged through the chamber, speculation about lottery prospects and how it might come to pass has consumed staff members, lobbyists and senators themselves.

A coalition of five Democrats and all 21 Republican senators had blocked the bill.

Last week, that coalition held and Senate leaders sent their colleagues home and promised no more votes for the year.

But Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight, a Dare County Democrat, reversed that decision late Friday, recalling all 50 senators to meet this week.

Two lottery opponents - both Republicans - could not make the session Tuesday. Sen. Harry Brown of Jacksonville is on his honeymoon; Sen. John Garwood from Wilkes County was too ill to attend.

Neither took advantage of a Senate rule that would allow their votes to be counted in their absence. Although some lottery opponents complained leaders didn't give proper notice of the session or ample opportunity for Brown and Garwood to record their wishes, Basnight and Berger said that was not the case.

The two opponents' absences left the measure deadlocked at 24-24.

Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, a Democrat, cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the lottery . It was the first time since 1996 that a North Carolina lieutenant governor had played such a role in the Senate.

Lottery opponents still grumble about the way the Senate vote went down. So far, the courts haven’t sided with lottery opponents, but the Supreme Court oral arguments should be fascinating anyway.

Courts generally seem reluctant to tell other branches of government how to carry out their business, mindful of the separation of powers. But the Supreme Court took the case, so you have to figure there is some chance they'd rule against the lottery. Such a ruling would put official Raleigh in a tizzy, if for no other reason that outlawing the thing would throw the budget completely out of whack - not to mention all those lottery players who would be holding lottery tickets of dubious value.

Gov. Mike Easley says it's going to get windy. Click here for video from our friends at the AP.

If you want to make some last minute preparations but aren't sure what they should be, these guys are from the government and are here to help you.

Of course, the guys running the street festival outside my window say they're just going to batten down the hatches and ride out the storm. Big Mama E is sounding pretty good coming through my window right now, though.

Every year when Hurricanes start rolling into the state, Gov. Mike Easley goes through a predictable series of steps. He gets his emergency response guys together and holds press conferences telling folks to stockpile water and food and generally stay safe. As the storm gets closer, he switches from business suits to what we scruffy media types call "disaster casual," kaki pants and opened collared shirts with logos. After the storm, he goes riding about in a helicopter to survey the damage, declares disasters, etc... You know, governor stuff.

So a couple of news releases from Sen. Dole's office had us confused. Here's the latest:

Friday, September 5, 2008 6:15 p.m. MEDIA AVAILABILITY

Dole will meet with the North Carolina State Emergency Response Team (SERT) to discuss preparations for Tropical Storm Hanna and Hurricane Ike. Yesterday, Dole spoke with North Carolina Governor Mike Easley, Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary for Federal Emergency Management R. David Paulison, who heads the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and officials at the American Red Cross to help coordinate an effective response to the severe weather.

North Carolina Emergency Operations Center
Administration Building
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, N.C.

It's not just that senators don't have a whole lot to do in disaster given that whole lack of executive authority thing. Honestly, I can't remember her ever doing this before for any previous hurricane.

You don't think this could have something to do with it being an election year, do you?

Update: I had ask Dole's office this afternoon if she had ever done anything like this. I got a response back saying that she had and listing all the times. The problem with the list is most (if not all) are touring damage after the fact, not getting ready for it. But by way of full disclosure, I'll post the list after the jump. My point remains that there's not much for a federal (or state-level) legislator to do in preparation for a hurricane.

Update 2:And by way of fuller disclosure, Dole spokesman Wes Climer takes issue with my characterization, saying that Senators have a role in marshaling the resources of the federal government and "encourage and advise" on the placement of public resources.

"Senators work with state officials and federal officials to ensure a smooth response," he said.

Even after hearing that, I'm still am a bit dubious. But here's the jump, and you can look through this list yourself and decide.

Cross-posted from Decision 2008.

-=-=-=-=-=-

From Saturday's paper: this story laying out the U.S. Senate candidate's position on a couple of union-related issues.

The summary is this: Incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole is no fan of legislation that would make it easier for folks to unionize or any legislation that would force North Carolina to allow public employees to collectively bargain.

State Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, didn't offer up an absolute endorsement of either of those ideas, but was fairly friendly toward them.

Click here to listen to Hagan's answers.

Click here to listen to Dole's.

And then click here for thoughts from editorial writer Doug Clark.

Some after action notes: This difference in positions could bolster the NRSC's narrative that Hagan is seeking support from traditional national Democratic strongholds, including big labor. (Click here for an example of that.)

After my story ran, a spokeswoman with the campaign wrote to say she would not be in favor of a federal law over-riding North Carolina's law prohibiting collective bargaining for public employees.

I think Kay was confused by the premise of the question, and inferred that he was talking about EFCA and not the separate issue of the federal govt. mandating that states allow public employees to collectively bargain. She would support public employees being allowed to collectively bargain (NCAE for example) if state law allowed that and the employees voted to do so. But fundamentally she believes that public employees being allowed to collectively bargain is a state's right issue.

Respectfully, that's was not the case. Clark asked this question several different ways during the editorial board interview, which you can her via the link above. You can listen to the segment yourself, but here's one fairly clear exchange:

Clark: "This is (about) collective barging for public employees. So, North Carolina law doesn't allow that. But would you support federal legislation that would mandate recognition of collective bargaining writes for state employees?

Hagan: "Not mandate it, but I would look at having the collective bargaining process available if the employees so voted on that."

Clark: "If the employees...?"

Hagan: "They would have the authority to make that decision."

Clark: "So, if the NCAE wanted collective bargaining rights, you would support that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

Clark: "Even though current state law currently prohibits that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

I'm not seeing a whole lot of ambiguity or confusion in those answers. By way of fuller disclosure, she was asked about her answers after the main part of the editorial board interview was over (but before she left the room) and confirmed them.

Cross-posted from Decision 2008.

-=-=-=-=-

In this post from over the weekend, I talked about state Sen. Kay Hagan and her position on unions. Specifically, the Democrat who is trying to unseat Republican Elizabeth Dole told our editorial board she might favor a federal policy that would force states like North Carolina to allow public employees to collectively bargain.

Cutting to the chase, Hagan says she misspoke. But a little background: For those who might have missed it, there's audio in the original post. But this exchange between Hagan and editorial writer Doug Clark will give you a flavor of what I'm talking about:

Clark: "This is (about) collective barging for public employees. So, North Carolina law doesn't allow that. But would you support federal legislation that would mandate recognition of collective bargaining writes for state employees?

Hagan: "Not mandate it, but I would look at having the collective bargaining process available if the employees so voted on that."

Clark: "If the employees...?"

Hagan: "They would have the authority to make that decision."

Clark: "So, if the NCAE wanted collective bargaining rights, you would support that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

Clark: "Even though current state law currently prohibits that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

A spokesman for the campaign called me over the weekend to say Hagan was confused and didn't mean to say that, that in fact she would not support such a law. Because that was in direct contradiction of several direct quotes, I asked to hear from Hagan herself.

Hagan called me this morning while I was on the line with someone else, but left a voice mail. I've posted a portion of it here, so you can hear straight from here. It cuts off abruptly at the end because she launches into a phone number that probably doesn't need to be on the internets.

Click here for the audio of that.

"Once I'm elected to the U.S. Senate, I want you to know that I will never support a bill at the federal level that mandates states allow collective bargaining of state government employees. I truly believe that's a state's rights issue," Hagan said.

As the football announcers say: you make the call.

The state auditor's office put out a report today claiming the state paid $294,413 too much for office supplies to Office Depot during a six month period.

News release: claiming the state paid $294,413 too much for office supplies to Office Depot during a six month period.

Audit: claiming the state paid $294,413 too much for office supplies to Office Depot during a six month period.

Worth noting: this is not the first time the Auditor has found issues with Office Depot. More: here.

You might remember that the decision to give the office supply contract to Office Depot in the first place ticked off a lot of local sellers, who said that the large national company could undercut their prices but would be unresponsive when problems arose.

Click here for a copy of that story.

Update: From the Department of Administration:

RALEIGH – Administration Secretary Britt Cobb today directed the Division of Purchase & Contract (P&C) to develop an action plan to address deficiencies identified in a report by the State Auditor regarding the state office supplies contract with Office Depot.

"We are determined to develop more effective ways of managing this and all state contracts," Cobb said. "We are committed to providing goods vital to the function of state business in the most accountable and cost efficient manner."

Cobb said that P&C first notified Office Depot in March 2008 demanding repayment of overcharges. P&C has continued to monitor and pursue recovery of overcharges from Office Depot.

"We have been consulting with the Attorney General’s Office to ensure that all overcharges have been accounted for and credited," Cobb said. "We also have asked that the State Bureau of Investigation to review claims in the report to determine whether a criminal investigation is warranted into the pricing practices of Office Depot."

You can read that here.

Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue has brought the somewhat volatile topic of stem cell research into the gubernatorial campaign, both through a policy statement on the topic and a recent ad:

When asked about the ad last night, McCrory said, "I've never heard her bring up this subject in her eight years as Lt. Governor."

However, the topic has come up.

Greensboro Rep. Earl Jones, a Democrat, ran this bill, which was a tamer version of earlier proposals. The latest draft of the bill, which passed the House but died in the Senate, would only have led to research guidelines for stem cell research. Earlier proposals would have put state funding into embryonic stem cell research.

State funding is now something that Perdue says she favors.

More background on that legislative discussion here, here, here and here.

I asked Jones about the issue coming up in the campaign, and he said that Perdue was supportive when the bill crossed over from the House to the Senate.

"She called me directly," Jones said. "Perdue was very supportive; she was the first person in the Senate to call me."

Jones rightly said his bill got bogged down by the political debate surrounding embryonic stem cells. In particular, some people who oppose abortion tend to oppose embryonic stem cell research and bring intense and vocal pressure to bear.

You can find more on the topic from the National Academy of Sciences and the Boston Globe, which has a whole page dedicated to the topic. (It's a bit out of date now, but worth a read anyway.) Also, the topic seems to be bubbling up in the presidential campaign.

Let's say you're an average American who knows that two relatively important things called Fannie and Freddie have been put into government receivership. This seems to be bad, as in other companies you used to think were big will suffer bad; as in you better not want to sell your house, retire or send your kids to college in the next five years bad.

So you wonder to yourself: Self! How could two massive companies with implicit backing of the U.S. government be so poorly run and/or regulated that this could happen?

Well I'm no financial expert, but the Center for Responsive Politics might give us some hints:

If the same guys who created you and the rules that govern you are also heavily invested in your enterprise and get lots of campaign donations from you, maybe they're more likely to go easy on you. If not, there's always lobbying to fall back on.

Or as the Politico put it:

If you want to know how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have survived scandal and crisis, consider this: Over the past decade, they have spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.

But the political tentacles of the mortgage giants extend far beyond their checkbooks.

The two government-chartered companies run a highly sophisticated lobbying operation, with deep-pocketed lobbyists in Washington and scores of local Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored homeowner groups ready to pressure lawmakers back home.

As the guys on Mythbusters say: Well there's your problem.

Now let's be clear: Fannie's and Freddie's executives designed and prosecuted the policies that led to all of this, and they were buying into a larger pattern of doing business that in hindsight looks absolutely nutso. But one does not spend that kind of money without wanting something, and it looks like to me (sitting in the cheap seats here in Raleigh) what Fannie and Freddie wanted most of all was freedom in the way they did business while still clinging to the security blanket of taxpayer protection.

Would the Congress have been more skeptical if all that money wasn't sloshing around? You can't say for sure, but ... how could it not have been?

Worth noting that Sen. Barack Obama is #2 on the contributions list and McCain shows up on both the contributions and investment list. Also on the contributions list: North Carolina Reps. Brad Miller, Mel Watt, David Price, Walter Jones and Robin Hayes.

I've been away from the computer for a couple days, and wandered back in this morning to find an item from the Politico referenced a couple times among the bazillion e-mails waiting for me:

The House of Representatives had been slated to take up important work this afternoon: celebrating the legalization of booze. Passage of the resolution, though, is in question today, as one of its two sponsors, Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), might not make it to town in time to take part in the bipartisan celebration, an aide in the Democratic cloakroom says.

Co-sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, the resolution comes 75 years after the ratification of the 21st Amendment re-legalized alcohol. The resolution notes that "prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol." The ban, though, "resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws."

[snip]

UPDATE: Coble is in town and ready to go forward, but a Judiciary Committee aide says that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member of the committee, has concerns about the resolution and isn't ready to let it move just yet.

It seems the Politico didn't quite get it right. So just to be clear, I called Coble's staff this morning. According them, the skinny seems to be this:

• * Coble still thinks the repeal of prohibition is worthy of celebration.
• * He was in town in plenty of time for the vote that was probably scheduled before its time.
• * Coble has piped down about the bill because Smith, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, doesn't drink and doesn't think we ought to be celebrating prohibition's repeal.

Coble, according to his staff, will still support the resolution when it comes to a vote, but won't be "the lead" republican on the measure.

For those who are interested, here's the bill, a nonbinding resolution that holds virtually no force of law.

And while I plan to celebrate prohibition's repeal in my own quiet way, my liver and some others might think there are topics more worthy of attention at time when the financial markets are melting down around our ears.

Update: As the headline might suggest, I think there's a joke in here somewhere about Coble having been around for the repeal of prohibition, but I neglected to go for it. You're welcome to try in the comments link below.

Following the earlier angst over the prohibition bill, Congressman Howard Coble has thrown inhibition to the wind and taken over sponsorship of what is now H. Con. Res 415, but still has the same language as earlier. From Coble's office:

Someone who has been known to appreciate a beer or a glass of wine on occasion, U.S. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) tonight will introduce legislation to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the end of prohibition against alcohol consumption in the United States. Congressman Coble, along with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) will sponsor a House concurrent resolution celebrating 75 years of effective state-based alcohol regulation and recognizing state lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health community, and industry members for creating a workable, legal, and successful system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution and sale.

"After consultation with my ranking member of the House Judiciary committee," Rep. Coble stated, "I decided to move forward with a new concurrent resolution. Although Congressman Lamar Smith and I disagree on this particular bill, we will do so agreeably. Lamar will remain my good friend and sometime tennis partner. I am comfortable being the lead author of this resolution because of all of the fine work done by beer and wine wholesalers, not only in my district, but throughout North Carolina and the nation. Not only do they provide quality jobs to many of my constituents, all of the beer and wine wholesalers whom I know support outstanding charitable and community-minded programs throughout the 6th District."

In 1919, following the passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited "the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors," the United States experienced a dramatic increase in illegal activity including unsafe black market alcohol production, a growth in organized crime, and increasing noncompliance with alcohol laws.

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Cullen-Harrison Act, which once again, legalized the sale of 3.2 percent beer, signaling the beginning of the end of Prohibition. On December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition and restored the control of alcohol to the states.

With the ratification of the 21st Amendment, primary authority was delegated to the individual states, establishing the state-based regulatory system for alcohol distribution that we still use today. This system allows each state to adopt individual laws that fit the beliefs of its citizens.

Reps. Coble and Stupak will introduce H. Con. Res. 415 tonight, but it is unknown when a vote will be scheduled.

I'm down at the home office today and participated in a newly launched gab-fest. Also in the studio were columnists Ed Cone and Charles Davenport, and editorial writers Doug Clark, Allen Johnson and Elma Sabo. You can tell me because I'm the one who doesn't know how to shut the heck up.

Listen here:

Cross-posted from D-2008.

-=-=-=-=-

A couple weeks ago, the editorial board had the Democratic and Republican candidates in for interviews. They did not interview libertarian Mike Munger, and you can send your cards and letters to Editorial Page Editor Allen Johnson on that one.

At any rate, they put the candidates in our multimedia studio, turned on the spot lights and grilled while filming. Our tech boys (they're all men) turned out a few bits of film on each.

Both Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue, a Democrat, and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, were asked about their stance on the death penalty and the de facto moratorium.

McCrory

Perdue

And both were asked to talk about energy policy and drilling.

Perdue

McCrory

In addition, here's a bit with McCrory talking about gangs, something he has made a bit of a signature issue:

Finally, here's Perdue chatting a bit about education, community colleges and illegal immigrants.

Cross-posted from D-2008

-=-=-=-

As with the candidates for governor, the editorial board filmed their interviews with the Democratic and Republican candidates for U.S. Senate. The following are three segments our tech fellows turned out from the conversations with State Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat, and Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole. (The editorial board chose not to interview the libertarian in the race, so send your cards, letters and angry e-mails to Allen Johnson.)

In this case, the video segments don't match up on topic, so I'll give you Hagan's first, and then Dole's. Enjoy.

Hagan: Working across party lines

Hagan: Energy and drilling

Hagan: Healthcare

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Dole: Immigration

Dole

Dole: Iraq war spending

Dole: No Child Left Behind

The gold-truck will once again role through Mayberry as President Bush is due to come to town on Sept. 30.

The curious thing for me in reporting this story was that Democrats were a lot happier about the impending visit of a sitting Republican president than were Republicans. Here's a few relevant graphs from the story (published Saturday):

Bush canceled a fundraising trip this week in Alabama and Florida. If this one comes to pass, it will be just more than a month before the election, and some political observers say state-level candidates might have reason to be uncomfortable with the visit.

According to opinion polls, the president’s generic job approval rating is between 30 percent and 40 percent, dipping to 25 percent in some states such as California.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole “is the one who obviously is affected the most,” said Andrew Taylor, a political science professor at N.C. State. “She hasn’t explicitly tried to distance herself from the president, but there’s no real embrace of the president. It doesn’t help her that people will be reminded that she and the president share party affiliation.”

Dole is locked in a tighter-than-expected re-election campaign against state Sen. Kay Hagan , a Greensboro Democrat who has attracted national attention for her aggressive campaign and ability to keep pace with the widely known Dole.

When asked about the scheduled presidential visit, Hagan spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan cited Dole’s record of voting in concert with the president 92 percent of the time, a statistic that campaign has used for months in television ads and on the stump.

“President Bush may go, but his legacy will live on if we re-elect Elizabeth Dole to the U.S. Senate,” Flanagan said.

This earlier blog post from D-2008 had a copy of the invitation and a few other tidbits.

Back in July, I wrote about AG candidate Bob Crumley, a Republican from the Greensboro area, and his television commercials. What he described as an image ad struck me very much like a campaign commercial, a fact that Crumley disputed at the time.

Prior posts here and here. The ad itself:

After I wrote about the ad, the state Democratic Party filed a complaint about it.

Separately, Crumley and his law firm had asked the state board of elections another set of questions about law firm advertising. Primarily, they wanted to know whether a guy who owns a law firm can continue to appear in his law firms commercials in a 60-day window before the election, which is handled differently under election law.

As it turns out, whether you think the image ad is legit law firm solicitation or not, the answer to this second question is "no." That's according to the state board of elections.

Click here for today's story.

For background: This notice ran in the North Carolina Register on Sept. 15. And click here for more correspondence between the campaign and the SBOE.

Crumley contends that the SBOE ruling is wrong-headed but said he's not going to fight it so he can pursue his campaign and says he'll take it up after the election. He told me last week that it has cost him $10,000 to pull his image and name from the law firm's ads.

I'm told that there are legislative candidates, including at least one Democratic legislator, who this ruling may end up affecting.

For those searching for a relatively short macroeconomic explanation of what's going on in the economy right now, this Economics Bulletin by the UNC School of Government may help.

I don't know whether this forecast is overly rosy (keep in mind it was published before the latest round of economic manure hit the fan) but it does contain an interesting breakdown of how different parts of the state might be affected:

At this point there are two strong effects pushing the U.S. economy in opposite directions, and it is difficult to determine which effect will win out. On the one hand, the collapse of mortgage financing is causing the construction industry to contract. Most U.S. recessions begin in construction in general and in home building in particular. Slow construction spending leads to layoffs, which leads to lower spending in the rest of the economy. To the extent that this pattern holds, the unprecedented collapse in housing could be expected to lead to a very long, deep recession in the near future.

On the other hand, U.S. recessions historically hit their peak when manufacturing firms are forced to lay off workers. The falling dollar will increase demand for U.S. manufacturing goods abroad and make it more difficult for foreigners to compete here. This effect would tend to create a slowdown that is short and shallow, rather than a full-blown recession.

The most current data predict that the U.S. economy will experience something in between the two scenarios described above: a long, shallow recession. That is, unemployment will not rise to the highs that it did during the 1980s, but the slowdown could go on for eighteen months or more. This would mean that the U.S. economy would not start to recover until sometime in 2009 at the earliest. As a consequence, North Carolina governments will likely continue to experience revenues that fall short of trends. If the slowdown does last eighteen months, revenue would not begin to recover until 2009–2010.

The effects of the slowdown will likely be concentrated in service-heavy local economies, such as recreation and hospitality on the coast, technology in the Triangle, and financial services in Charlotte. Traditional manufacturing towns, as well as the Piedmont Triad, should be less affected by the slowdown. Indeed, some manufacturing-heavy towns could even see an upward trend. In addition, agricultural prices will likely continue to increase as the dollar falls and foreign demand increases, and towns heavily dependent on agriculture should weather this slowdown relatively well.

News that President Bush was due to visit Greensboro later this month got me thinking about why the Gate City is such as popular stop for pols. (Barack and Michelle Obama have been here and John McCain stopped by for a fundraiser earlier this year.)

Perhaps this interactive map from Men's Health provides an explanation. As my friend and colleague Mike Fuchs wrote recently:

Greensboro is pretty good at playing politics, so says a recent magazine survey.

Men's Health magazine ranked Greensboro as the sixth most political city in the nation.

That's based on factors including the percentage of citizens registered to vote, the percentage who participated in the most recent senatorial and gubernatorial elections, the 2004 presidential election and the 2008 presidential primaries.

So who's number 1? Raleigh.

"Clarence Lightner would be proud," the magazine says. "He was the pioneering politician who in 1973 became one of the first African American mayors of a Southern city - one in which a majority of voters were white. As it turns out, not much has changed in 35 years: Raleigh's residents will vote as if they're about to make history."

Yesterday I wrapped up a few details regarding ads aired by Attorney General candidate Bob Crumley's law firm. The SBOE ruled those ads constituted election speech and said he should cut them out, which he has.

A couple more loose ends to tie up here:

Rep. Bill Faison is in the same sort of business as Crumley and similarly has appeared in advertisements for his law firm.

The NC Republican Party has complained about those ads to the SBOE and the SBOE has written Faison to alert him to their rulings.

Click here for a PDF that has the complaint from the GOP and the SBOE's letter to Faison. Sorry, I haven't been able to find any video of the ads and have never seen on of Faison's on the television - I guess I don't watch enough daytime TV.

I also heard from Kim Westbrook Strach, an SBOE official who handles campaign finance matters and who was unavailable last week. She pointed to quotes in Monday's newspaper story from Crumley that suggested the sitting Attorney General, Roy Cooper, had been advising the SBOE on this matter. Strach said that the SBOE had separate council from the AG's office precisely because of the potential conflict.

I just sent the following to colleagues working on a story about the U.S. Government's proposed bailout of the financial industry:

Staffers for Rep. Howard Coble’s office report that reaction to the bailout plan has been steady and almost entirely negative.

“My first thought is, who’s going to bailout the taxpayer,” Coble said Tuesday afternoon.

Coble said Vice President Dick Cheney met with Republican House members Tuesday morning, encouraging them to back the plan.

“He was advocating for the bailout, but I didn’t get a lot of out that,” Coble said. Meetings with House members are due to continue this week. As of right now, he said, there’s not formal plan on paper that Congressmen can read or evaluate.

In particular, Coble said, he is bothered by the lack of oversight included in the outline drafted by the administration.

Given the choice between voting in favor of the bill and seeing the economy encounter more turmoil, “I may be obliged to vote for it, but right now, my heart ain’t in it.”

Photo credit: The Associated Press. Caption: Senate Banking Committee member Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., listens to testimony on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2008, during the committee's hearing on the credit market turmoil. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Dole's written statement to the committee:

I have very strong concerns that this "rescue" proposal will unfairly hold taxpayers responsible for the costly and reckless decisions of investment bankers on Wall Street. I, like the North Carolinians I am hearing from, am very skeptical of this proposal and frankly, I’m extremely frustrated that we find ourselves in this position.

So much of what is happening – with regard to the credit crisis, the housing slump, the bankruptcy and dissolving of major financial institutions – can be linked to the mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was made possible by weak oversight and little accountability.

(More after the jump.)

I spoke with Rep. Brad Miller late today about the mortgage bailout. Miller is a member of financial services committee, so he'll be a player when the bailout bill comes to the House side.

Click here to listen to my conversation with Miller from late this afternoon.

Miller has been pushing for a while now to allow bankruptcy judges to restructure first mortgages. Right now, they can clean up the mess of a second mortgage on an investment property, but on your own home where you live, the terms can't be changed.

Click here to read up on the particulars of Miller's bill.

This idea is now in vogue, but there are questions. The big one is outlined in the following graphs about allowing the Treasury Department to reset loan terms, which would apply to bankruptcy court judges as well (It's from a New York Times story):

But Democrats are insisting that the Treasury Department also help restructure many of those loans, by lowering the interest rate or the loan amount, to make the mortgages affordable and reduce the number of people who lose their homes through foreclosure.

The Bush administration has been lukewarm to that idea, but many housing and mortgage experts say the government would have a difficult time modifying mortgages even if it were eager to do so.

The vast majority of subprime mortgages - 90 percent or more, by some estimates - are inside giant pools, or trusts, which have in turn sold bonds with different levels of seniority to institutional investors around the world.

Even if the government acquires hundreds of billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities, finance experts say, the Treasury Department would be unlikely to acquire all the bonds tied to a particular mortgage pool. And if the government did not own all those bonds, it might not have the power to demand changes in the underlying mortgages.

I asked Miller about that. He said that this is done in a lot of cases right now with other kinds of debt. The mortgage servicing company would most likely end up in court representing the interests of those who would stand to lose from the restructured debt.

The financial industry has been opposed to this idea and said they would oppose including it in the bailout package. One lobbyist told Miller it was a "deal breaker," which made him laugh.

"What deal is this. They're drowning, it's they're own fault their drowning, and they're negotiating over the rope we throw them," Miller said.

Again, click here to listen to my conversation with Miller. And here's the feed I sent to folks working on a story for tomorrow:

When asked what the tone of calls and e-mails to his office had been, Rep. Brad Miller used one word.

"Fury. "

Then he thought of a second.

" Rage. "

Like Coble, he is still learning details of the plan and says it will evolve as the week goes on. Miller, a Democrat and member of the House Financial Services Committee, called the administration’s initial offer “not serious” and said it amounted to a negotiating position meant to start discussions.

At this point, he said, there are a few bright lines for him.

" I am not willing to vote for a $700 billion bailout … and come out of this with an industry just as crooked as the one that got us here, " he said.

Miller says he would favor restrictions on campaign giving by executives with companies helped by any new bailout fund.

“I know we’re not at the end of it,” Miller said, reflecting the anxiety of a lot of his constituents. “And I don’t know what other shoes are going to drop…I really want to know what else might be coming.”

There goes my weekend. Sens. Obama and Biden will be in Greensboro Saturday.

Cross-posted from Decision 2008.

-=-=-=-=-

From Sunday's story on education in the governor's race:

Should every high school student strive to go to college?

That seemingly academic question lies at the heart of what may be the fiercest education policy dispute between gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory.

"There's no data on that on either side," said Robert Serow, a professor of educational leadership at N.C. State. "It's really an ethical issue or a moral issue, or some would see it as a matter of common sense."

Whether a matter of ethics or common sense, it is a question that not only has immense implications for the state's $21.4 billion budget and your children, but also for the kind of economy the state will try to foster.

Click here to read the whole thing.

Hear from the candidates themselves:

• **McCrory talks education during the N+R editorial board interview. (McCrory talks a fair bit about "vouchers" for college students, which I would characterize as "scholarships" and not really the same thing.) He's a bit loquacious so I included a second clip here, where he talks about "academic elitism."

• **Perdue chats about education via phone.

• **Libertarian candidate Mike Munger chats about education via phone.

Now, some more linkage:

• * My handy clip-and-save graphic. It includes stances on various education issues. (This is a draft so a couple grammatical things have been fixed in the print version.)
• * My Governor's capsules.
• * AEI's Charles Murray makes his case for less college here and here
• * The more college argument from The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
• * Perdue's education policy page.
• * McCrory's education policy page.
• * Munger's page that talks about school choice.

Cross-posted from D-2008.

-=-=-=-

Sen. Barack Obama rolled into Greensboro with his running-mate, Joe Biden.

Sunday's main-bar.

Sunday's color story.

Prepared text of Obama's speech.

Audio of Obama's speech:

Pictures from the day:

It seems to me there's a lot of nose-holding going on with
the proposed financial industry bailout. President Bush issued this statement this morning:

Today, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, working with my Administration, reached agreement on economic rescue legislation that is urgently needed to address a crisis in our financial system that threatens the entire U.S. economy.

I appreciate the leadership shown by Members on both sides of the aisle, who came together to write a very good bill. This bill provides the necessary tools and funding to help protect our economy against a system-wide breakdown. The bill will help allow access to credit so American families can meet their daily needs and American businesses can make purchases, ship goods, and meet their payrolls. And this plan sends a strong signal to markets around the world that the United States is serious about restoring confidence and stability to our financial system. Without this rescue plan, the costs to the American economy could be disastrous.

Many Members of Congress contributed important ideas to improve the legislation my Administration proposed. I appreciate the negotiators considering those ideas and incorporating them in this agreement.

Members of Congress will vote on this legislation soon. This is a difficult vote, but with the improvements made to the bill, I am confident Congress will do what is best for our economy by approving this legislation promptly.

I'll be checking in with the local honorables (federal versions) today on what they're thinking right now.

From the governor's press office:

RALEIGH – Gov. Mike Easley will join Roy Underhill in the fall season national premier of the public television show “The Woodwright’s Shop,” to air at 4 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 4 on UNC-TV, North Carolina's statewide public television network. Some stations may air the show on Saturday, Sept. 27. The episode, “The First Woodworker,” was originally taped last October and had a special preview showing only on UNC-TV last December.

In the opening episode of the show’s 28th season, Easley and Underhill make a “Po-Boy” table. In less affluent times, before reuse and recycle were popular design concepts, Easley made this type of table by salvaging scrap walnut from a furniture maker and using different sized paint cans for a template. Easley is the first North Carolina governor to appear on the show.

For more information about “The Woodwright’s Shop with Roy Underhill,” go online and visit: http://www.pbs.org/woodwrightsshop. To view a clip from “the first Woodworker” episode, visit: www.governor.state.nc.us and go to the link highlighted on the lower right side of the homepage.

Regarding the bailout, Rep. Mel Watt says he'll vote for the package being pressed by President Bush.

"I'm voting for it because I don't feel like I have a choice. We were told a week ago Thursday by Sec. (Henry) Paulson and (Fed Chairman) Ben Bernanke that the consequences of not doing something would be catastrophic, probably worse than the great depression," Watt said.

He acknowledged that public sentiment was running heavily against the bill. Paulson and Bernankie, he said, had the credibility to sell the need for a bailout, at least to Congress. But, he said, only the president had the potential to really sell it to the American people.

"The problem is the President has neither the communication skills nor the credibility to convince the American people," Watt said. "Only the president has that kind of pulpit and he failed woefully when he went out there and tried to make the case."

Watt said callers to his office are not convinced that there needs to be a bailout, no matter what the details might be.

I also asked him about the impending sale of Wachovia's banking operations to B of A, which provoked a knowing groan from the Congressman.

"In the past 16 years I've been up here, I've seen other members of congress come up to me with a stressed look on their face saying, 'Your bank has bought my bank,'" Watt recalled. Usually, that has been Wachovia (or First Union before those two merged).

"Now, I'm on the reverse side of that distress and it's not fun," Watt said.

Asked about what impact the deal would have on North Carolina and Charlotte, Watt could say specifically but said the deal could have "a devastating impact."

He continued:

"It shows you how irresponsibility and greed really can cascade into real problems...This was one of the most solid banks in America until they bought that loan portfolio from Golden West ... Loans that shouldn't have been made in the first place," Watt said.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, a Republican of the Winston-Salem-based 5th Congressional district, said this morning she opposed the bailout.

"I'm going to vote no. I think it is a disaster for this country if the bill passes," Foxx said. "It starts us down the road to socialism. We're facing the most important vote any of us would ever take other than a vote to go to war. We're being asked to change fundamentally the way this country operates and I think it's a mistake."

The House voted down the bailout plan. Congressman Brad Miller, a Democrat, was on the losing side of that vote. A statement from his office:

Today, I voted to support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because I believe the compromise will help protect working and middle-class families from the crisis on Wall Street. I think the rescue plan will bring stability to the markets as we try to turn around our economy.

But, this bill is a very bitter pill for me. I probably have become the leading critic in Congress of the mortgage lending industry, including the financial institutions that bought predatory mortgages knowing full well the consequences of those mortgages for middle-class homeowners.

The industry has not always taken my criticism with good humor.

The industry hated the legislation that I introduced more than five years ago to prohibit predatory mortgage lending practices. And the industry really, really hated the legislation that I introduced last year to let bankruptcy courts modify predatory mortgages.

But I do think we are in a worsening financial crisis that will affect ordinary Americans, not just financial institutions. The economy will slow dramatically if every business and every American family has to operate on cash. If credit is not readily available and affordable, middle-class American families will have a hard time buying a new car, with disastrous results for the Americans who depend on the automobile industry for their livelihood. The story is the same in industry after industry.

This bill is a dramatic improvement on what the Bush Administration presented Congress not quite a week ago. There is now real transparency, and vastly improved accountability and oversight. The bill takes pains to shift the ultimate cost to the industry that made the mess, not innocent taxpayers.

I regret that this bill does not do more for families living in houses that they could afford, but are stuck with abusive mortgages that they can’t. Millions of families will lose their homes to foreclosure, and foreclosures are pulling down home values for millions of other families. I will push hard for bankruptcy reform early next year.

I wish the limitations on the compensation of top executives were tougher, another issue we need to come back to.

I wish there were real reforms in consumer lending practices that cheat middle-class families with deceptive penalties and fees, and trap struggling families in a cycle of debt.

And I know that no matter what Congress does, we are all in for several tough months, and maybe longer. Many financial institutions are carrying assets on their books for far more than the assets are really worth. Banks won’t trust each other enough to lend freely until insolvent institutions collapse, and taxpayers will foot much of the bill to pick up the pieces.

I reluctantly voted for this bill today, but I’m not finished with the fight against the heedless greed that is responsible for so much grief for so many Americans.

Congressman Howard Coble was among the Republicans who voted against the bailout plan. His vote was influenced by constituent comments.

"The phone just literally rang off the hook, and it ran 90-to-95 percent in opposition," Coble said.

Coble said that he didn't think the rush the administration was pushing was necessary.

"I just don't believe the sky is going to fall," Coble said.

Congressmen, he said, will likely be called back to Washington later in the week to take another crack at the bill.

Four of North Carolina's 13 representatives voted for the bailout. They were: Bob Etheridge, Brad Miller, David Price and Melvin Watt.

The nine no votes from NC were: G.K. Butterfield, Howard Coble, Virginia Foxx, Robin Hayes, Walter Jones, Patrick McHenry, Mike McIntyre, Sue Myrick and Heath Shuler.

Why is it that this:

made me think of this:

Perhaps some explanation is in order.

Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue, a Democrat, and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, a Republican (along with Libertarian Mike Munger) are running for governor. Perdue and McCrory have, in particular, been partaking in all the festive back-and-forth that has come to characterize our democratic process.

Among the things Perdue is doing is trying to tie McCrory to Bush. Bush has held fundraisers for the mayor and McCrory often talks about serving on the president's Homeland Security Council, so it ain't hard.

At any rate, Bush's approval ratings are pretty much in the dumps, so the political theory goes that if you tie McCrory to Bush voters will reject one because they don't like the other.

So today a nice young lady from the Perdue campaign dropped by the office to deliver ... wait for it ... as shrubbery...one that looks nice and is not too expensive.

The idea, of course, was to remind reporters of McCrory's ties to Bush. From our brief chat, I learned she was also stopping by the offices of other political reporting types.

At any rate, Ol' Shrub over there sent my mind wandering to the famous Monty Python sketch.

Come to think of it, Monty Python could have quite a time with any one of several elections 'round these parts. Of course, now I have to go consult the bosses on the ethical way to handle the delivery of a shrubbery to ones office.