News-Record.com

From N.C. House Speaker Joe Hackney's office:

North Carolina House Speaker Hackney has issued the following statement with respect to action in Washington on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008:

"I am encouraging members of Congress to act quickly on a plan that will restore confidence in the U.S. economy. The ongoing crisis is driving down the value of homes, college saving funds and retirement accounts. Small businesses continue to suffer and some local governments are unable to carry out capital projects because of the tightening credit market. Added delay will only lead to more complications and doubt about the strength of our economy."

Translation: get your sorry back-sides back to work.

Regular readers know I like me some polar bears. But what do polar bears, a local Congressman and the Republican's vice presidential nominee have in common?

Glad you asked.

A story from the Guardian popped into my news reader last night, that said:

"The Republican Sarah Palin and her officials in the Alaskan state government drew on the work of at least six scientists known to be skeptical about the dangers and causes of global warming, to back efforts to stop polar bears being protected as an endangered species, the Guardian can disclose. Some of the scientists were funded by the oil industry."

Right, but why was it showing up in a feed reserved for local federal officials? Because:

The citation by Palin and her officials prompted complaints from Congress. One member, Brad Miller, dubbed the polar bear study phony science.

Palin told Miller: "Attempts to discredit scientists ... simply because their analyses do not agree with your views, would be a disservice to this country." Miller now says that Palin's use of the paper shows she differs greatly from John McCain, the Republican presidential contender, who has pressed for scientific integrity. "Turning to the cottage industry of scientists who are funded because they spread doubt about global warming is not integrity," Miller said.

I'm not sure this is exactly breaking news, but it is interesting how something going on in a Science subcommittee that has a local connection (through Miller) can wrap back into the presidential campaign. I'm not sure any of this discussion will change the minds of those who take global warming or the lack thereof as an article of faith.

The upshot here is this: Miller was calling out Palin for using research funded by oil companies in Alaska's state-sponsored effort to fight the placement of polar bears on the endangered species list. Palin contended the research was just fine, while Miller and others on the Science Committee in Congress contend that global warming is happening and we should look out for the polar bears. Polar Bears were listed as a threatened species in May, 2008.

For those inclined to step into the Wayback Machine:

• * You can get video of a Congressional hearing on the topic here. The video link is on the right. There's lots of other nifty background there as well.

• * Here's a news release from Miller on Exxon and polar bears.

• * This is a letter from Miller to the Interior Department saying he's worried about the administration moves to keep government scientist from talking about the threat to polar bears.

• * This is a letter from Palin telling Miller he ought not to be picking on the oil-company-funded scientists.

• * Miller also asked Exxon mobile to make with some information regarding the funding they put toward global warming research.

• * And this is a letter from Exxon blowing off Miller's request for grant information and saying that at least one of the studies in question is just fine.

Earlier this week, Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican, voted "no" on the financial industry bailout bill.

When the House votes later today, Coble says he will vote yes:

Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican, said he will switch his vote on the financial industry bailout bill after voting against it earlier this week.

"I'm voting aye when the vote is called later," Coble said on the House floor shortly after 11 a.m. today.

Coble said that he initially voted against the bill because he thought the vote was called in haste.

"By having waited, I think we did improve the bill," Coble said.

In particular, Coble praised a new provision that raised federal insurance on deposits from $100,000 to $250,000.

A vote on the legislation is expected later today.

Click here for bootleg audio from C-Span. From keeping one-ear on things, it sounds like backers of the bill are rounding up enough support to get it passed.

Update: Dome says Rep. Sue Myrick will change her vote to yes as well.

From the weekend papers:

• *The Agriculture Commissioner race: Republican Browns Summit (that's in Guilford County, y'all) farmer wants to hold his seat against Democrat Ronnie Ansley.

• *Crime and punishment in the Attorney General's race: Incumbent Democrat Roy Cooper hopes to fend off Republican challenger Bob Crumley, whose law firm is based in Greensboro.

• *Polar bears and politics: a piece that held (read: sat around and got stale) about Sarah Palin, Brad Miller and polar bears.

Also of interest to political folks: the News & Record editorial board endorsed Kay Hagan in the U.S. Senate race. (Disclaimer: I have absolutely nothing to do with endorsement decisions.)

Gov. Easley chatted with reporters after yesterday's Council of State meeting. AP moved a story yesterday with Easley's comments that he may ask state agencies for further reductions in spending as a hedge against a weakening economy.

North Carolina, Easley said, finished the fiscal year that ended June 30 with a bit of a surplus, which was uncommon except for states that don't produce oil. But caution is warranted.

"We've got to believe we're not going to be immune from the impact of the national recession and this downturn," he said. "So what I want to do is hold back enough so that I know the next governor will not step into an unmanageable mess, keeping in mind unlike '01 when I came in we do have a rainy day fund."

Actually, when Easley came into office he had "negative reserves," a nice way of saying the back account is empty and you've put some big purchases on the ol' credit card. Right now, the state's rainy day fund is about $800 million.

The idea, he said, is if all this turns out to be unnecessary, the next govern can give back the money to agencies. If belt tightening is called for, then the next governor will have 12 months of savings to work with rather than just six.

"It's a whole lot easier to be Gov. Santa than Gov. Scrooge. If the next governor comes in and I have held too much and they're able to release that money to the agencies and the projects, that would be good for them," he said.

Easley said he is waiting to see numbers for September before ordering further cuts or deciding to stand pat. A decision could come before the end of the week, he said.

The current cuts, he said, ad up to about $700 million that would be available in addition to the rainy day fund if tax collections really tank.

For a look at what has been held back so far, click here for an MS Word document. The table shows both percentage cuts and real dollars.

The governor's office also made a memo on the economy available, which you can read by clicking here. That memo has two rays of sunshine. One is that the state gained jobs over the past year, measured from August to August. I'm betting those gains are going to be wiped out by the Wachovia mess. And there's this:

National and state forecasters anticipate the economy will strengthen in early 2009 as the credit crunch stabilizes. This would allow the next Governor to loosen restrictions and release additional funds if revenues begin outperforming expectations.

I'll let you evaluate whether you think that's a bit too hopeful or not.

One other note from Tuesday's council of state meeting:

The state issued some non-voter-approved debt, borrowing to do things like build buildings and put sprinklers in dorm rooms at UNC-CH.

"The total debt of the state is still within acceptable levels," said Treasurer Richard Moore.

Other members of the Council of State asked Moore if now was the best time to be putting limited obligation bonds on the market and Moore said he wasn't having any problems moving the debt. That's despite a credit crisis that making it difficult for businesses, homeowners and just about anyone else to get a loan. North Carolina, I guess, is a safe haven for investors.

And by the way: we're doing "limited obligation bonds" now rather than "certificates of participation." What's the difference? Not a whole lot. It's still debt issued by the state without the full faith and credit of its taxing power, which means the interest rate is a bit higher.

"It's essentially the same thing," Moore said. "It's just got a little better label on it." That better label knocks a few basis points off the debt issue. You still don't get to vote on it, though.

This New York Times story has gotten people's attention this morning. It suggests that North Carolina is somehow using Social Security numbers to exclude people form the voter rolls.

State and local election officials I talked to this morning say that's simply not the case. I just posted this to online:

A report in the New York Times this morning saying that North Carolina is improperly using Social Security Numbers to vet voters was called “very misleading” by the state’s chief election official this morning.

The Times story said that North Carolina had been warned that it was checking an abnormally large number of social security numbers against a federal database and that federal officials were worried the state could be improperly excluding voters.

But Elections Director Gary Bartlett said Social Security Numbers were only being checked in the case where a drivers’ license or other acceptable form of identification has not been provided.

“We believe we’re in full compliance and they’re providing misinformation and stirring up the public and that is not good,” Bartlett said. The story, he said, has caused a non-stop stream of calls and e-mails to his office this morning.

North Carolina has registered more than 700,000 new voters since the beginning of the year and may top 800,000 by Nov. 1. Of those, about 400,000 have been run through the federal Social Security database.

The state, Bartlett said, had a high number of universities, military personnel and businesses that bring people in from out of state. Often those people don’t have drivers’ likenesses when they register to vote and therefore use their Social Security Number to verify their identity.

No one is denied registration if their Social Security number does not match said Bartlett and local elections officials.

“The worse case scenario is they show ID at the polls when they show up,” said Charlie Collicutt, deputy elections director in Guilford County.

If a voter still doesn’t have identification on Election Day, Bartlett said, they would be allowed to vote a provision ballot that will be counted once their information is confirmed.

Names are not removed from the voter rolls based on a Social Security number mismatch, said both state and county officials.

Bartlett said the state was contacted by neither the New York Times nor federal officials and today’s story was a surprise.

“No one has called us, no one has suggested we’re not in compliance,” Bartlett said.

Update: Three bits of updates for you:

• * A news release from Bob Hall at Democracy North Carolina taking up for the State Board of Elections:

  The harder problem continues to be cynical rumors and false information from ill-informed, sometimes well-intended, sources, now including the New York Times (and local re-printers who failed to check the story with state election officials). Certainly, there have been serious problems with lost ballots and election manipulation. The public should remain vigilant, and individuals with any doubts should confirm their registration status through websites like 2008ElectionConnection.com or by calling their local board of elections. What we don’t need are inflammatory stories about stolen elections or cheated voters that have no basis in fact.

• * A news release from Elections Director Gary Bartlett who gives in detail, and three part harmony, why the Times story was incorrect, at least as it pertains to North Carolina:

  No reporter for either publication contacted any one in this office to verify North Carolina’s procedures. Nor did the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration contact us before he released his allegations that North Carolina may be preventing voters from registering; instead he sent a letter to the Secretary of State, who does not administer elections in North Carolina, and we had to obtain a copy from a national organization.

• * And for you fun with numbers types, click here for the spreadsheet that started the mess.

Regarding that last bit, the folks at the Social Security Administration sent me that Excel file in response to my questions about what exactly they were thinking. Their press release is here, but essentially they said higher than expected usage of the database caught their attention.

Those higher volumes, according to administration spokesman Mark Lassiter, prompted worries that states may be improperly keeping people from registering to vote.

“It really was an issue of saying, ‘Look, we want to be sure that nobody who is registered to vote is prevented from doing so,’” Lassiter said.

Fair enough, I guess, but it basically sort of cast aspersions on the whole electoral process here in North Carolina without producing any evidence that anything was done wrong.

A few notes from the numbers game:

• * If you look at that spreadsheet, you'll see less than a quarter of the checks are coming up mismatched. So, if you're looking to exclude folks, this social security method wouldn't be the best way to go about it.

• * One thing that neither the New York Times nor Bartlett pointed out today was that this is North Carolina's first time as a battleground state in a presidential campaign. So in addition to military voters, college students and new people moving to the state, you're going to be registering a higher than normal number of people who have never voted before.

From today's paper:

If television commercials are to be believed, the U.S. Senate campaign features a Republican ne’er-do-well incumbent in league with an unpopular president versus a snippy state senator with a penchant for raising taxes and apron strings tied to powerful Democratic figures.

It’s hyperbole, to be sure.

Neither U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, the Republican incumbent, nor Democratic state Sen. Kay Hagan live up to the images on TV ads of late — for good or ill.

But who are the women portrayed in these ads? Have they been effective legislators?

Is there some truth in advertising?

Click here to read the whole thing, although the best bit about the story is the illustration on the front page:

(Click for a PDF) The illustration was by designer Ben Villarreal.

Update: Click here for the story from Tuesday's paper.

Cross-posted from D-2008.

-=-=-=-=-

I trucked down to Wilmington for John McCain’s appearance there today. I had forgotten how well the man can deliver a speech because his debate performances have been very average. But today, he was in good form and had the crowd fired up.

There’s one odd thing that had my colleagues in the local and national media puzzled after the event. From the story I’m working on for Tuesday’s paper:

McCain’s appearance was marked by an unannounced shift in plans. The occasion was to be a “town hall meeting” according to publicity that preceded the event. And McCain himself started his remarks by saying, “My friends, I’d like to make some remarks to you and then I’d like to open it up for some questions or comments you might have.”

But at the end of his speech, speakers blared “Gonna Fly Now,” the theme from Rocky, and McCain moved about the front rows of the audience shaking hands. Then he left the auditorium, well before the next appointment - a media interview - listed on the schedule given to members of the traveling press.

A spokesman who talked to pool reporters traveling with the McCain Monday said the decision to shift to a rally rather than a town hall meeting was made on Sunday and could not explain why McCain said he would take questions. A second spokesman, contacted after the event, said the campaign wanted to emphasize the new speech, which offered “a different tone” than had prevailed over the past several weeks.

The response from the campaign isn’t all that satisfying and leaves one to speculate if one is so inclined. What could explain the change? Some options:

• * McCain was short on time. This seems unlikely because, according to my friends in the traveling press corps, he didn’t have anything on his public schedule until well after he strolled out of the auditorium at Cape Fear Community College today. He did two media interviews (both with television types) and shot a commercial before leaving the state.

• * McCain forgot about the switch. Actually, I’m willing to buy this one in part. The guy has done so many events his opening lines become sort of reflexive. He was working from a teleprompter today but it sounded like he was ad libbing a bit at the beginning of his speech. Still, you’d think someone on staff would have said, “Now remember boss, today’s all about the new stump speech, no questions.”

• * The audience might not have accommodated that "different tone" and once the campaign workers took the temperature of the crowd they decided they didn’t want to give anyone openings to call Sen. Obama a terrorist.

As the Associated Press noted in this story, even some Republicans have grown uncomfortable with the tenor of attacks leveled by McCain at Obama in recent weeks. From the AP story:

NDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Three weeks before the election, Republicans are growing increasingly concerned about John McCain's ability to mount a comeback, questioning his tactics and even his campaign's main thrust in a White House race increasingly focused on economic turmoil.

"He has to make the case that he's different than Bush and better than Obama on the economy," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one of more than a dozen prominent Republicans who in interviews during the past week expressed concern over the course of McCain's bid. "If he doesn't win that case, it's all over, and it's going to be a very bad year for Republicans."

Several Republicans, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid angering McCain, said the campaign should have sought to plant doubts about Obama's associations with 1960s-era radical William Ayers and others months ago, rather than waiting until the campaign's final weeks. Doing so now, they said, makes the 72-year-old McCain come off as angry, grouchy and desperate, playing into Democrats' hands.

But if you read my blog post from earlier today, you know there were people in the crowd willing to sing from that more hostile hymnal.

So what was going on? Was it a last-minute switch designed to avoid stories about how rabid the crowds at McCain rallies have become or truly contemplated a day in advance and McCain just misspoke? Well, more than one person told me today that it was fruitless to ask since, as one put it bluntly, “They’re all going to lie to you anyway.”

Your speculation welcome at the comments link below.

Newspaper stories from Palin's rally from myself and Joe Killian.

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

Update: Bloggers note: there is editing throughout this post at 10 a.m. or so this morning to clean up grammar and spelling errors committed at the end of a 16 hour day. As well, some fixes have been made with regards to quote marks that did not publish correctly. My apologies to the English teachers in the audience.

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

There are certain things that get me really concerned when I hear them from someone I'm working with. Joe Killian (who blogs for the paper here and on his own time here) added a new one to my list:

Joe was working with me on a package for tomorrow's newspaper covering Gov. Sarah Palin's visit to Elon and Greensboro.

"Dude," he says when I called to check on him. "Some guy just kicked me in the back of the leg."

Let me just digress for a second. I sometimes supervise people. Much more often, I work in teams with folks. I'm usually the old fart in the group so I feel responsible for them. The last thing I ever want to hear is that one of my people got hurt on assignment. Usually the worry has to do with covering a traffic accident along a highway or a natural disaster like a flood, where conditions are inherently dangerous.

What I don't expect is for some troglodyte at a campaign rally to decide that the proper way to express his frustration with Democrats, Barack Obama or the "left-wing liberal media" is to commit assault on a colleague.

Here's the back-story:

As you probably know, the crowds at McCain-Palin events have gotten, um, saucy as of late. My boss blogs about that here.

Covering Sen. John McCain's appearance in Wilmington Monday, you could definitely sense some of that vibe.

Cut to today, Palin in town. In general, I walked in sensing the crowd had a more positive vibe than the McCain rally.

That changed when I heard a ruckus behind me. A couple folks there for the rally called campaign staff over, complaining about people several rows back chanting "Obama" when the rest of the crowd cheered at Palin's applause lines. Obnoxious? Yes. But I dig me some First Amendment.

The campaign staff dutifully fetched a couple of police officers who dutifully threw the handful of individuals out. I watched just to make sure ruckus didn't develop into something more. That apparently gave other McCain-Palin supporters license to yell at me.

"Hey! Hey you! The story's up there," yelled one point at the stage. "You don't need to worry about that. The story is up there."

The presence of a barricade, the more pressing need of gathering a story and, well, that whole First Amendment thing just led me to ignore them. They can pop off if they like.

Joe was near a second group of protestors who got tossed. And he got some push back for investigating as well. After the rally wound down, he went to find some Obama folks and see if he could talk to who got put out.

That's when at least one guy from the crowd decided he needed to interject his opinion into the conversation. As Joe tells it:

I sidled up to one of the Obama supporters and asked why they were there, what they were trying to accomplish.

As he was telling me a large, bearded man in full McCain-Palin campaign regalia got in his face to yell at him.

"Hey, hey, " I said. "I'm trying to interview him. Just a minute, okay? "

The man began to say something about how of course I was interviewing the Obama people when suddenly, from behind us, the sound of a pro-Obama rap song came blaring out of the windows of a dorm building. We all turned our heads to see Obama signs in the windows.

This was met with curses, screams and chants of "U.S.A" by McCain-Palin folks who crowded under the windows trying to drown it out and yell at the person playing the stereo.

It was a moment of levity in an otherwise very tense situation and so I let out a gentle chuckle and shook my head.

"Oh, you think that 's funny?! " the large bearded man said. His face was turning red. "Yeah, that 's real funny…" he said.

And then he kicked the back of leg, buckling my right knee and sending me sprawling onto the ground.

There was no cop or security officer around to report this lugnut to, and Joe resisted the temptation to smack the guy back, which I commend. But let me say this: the guy who attacked Joe is a criminal, no better that the lunk-head who steals your car stereo or snatches a purse.

Do I hold the McCain campaign responsible? Not entirely. No one on their staff said, "Hey, after the event, go smack around a reporter."

Although, I will say that complaints about "the media," "mainstream media," "Eastern media elite," etc... have become a pervasive in Republican talking points, increasingly so as we get closer to the election. I've heard the complaints from folks like U.S. Sen. Richard Burr and certainly both Palin and McCain have used those phrases in their speeches. Then, there are the opening lines of Hank Williams Jr.'s campaign theme song for McCain-Palin: "The leftwing liberal media have always been a real close-knit family, but most of the American people, don't believe them anyway you see."

Fair enough. We're big boys and girls who put ourselves out there and part of the job is tacking flak from both sides. Certainly I have heard complaints from Democrats about "the media" and have been accused of being too conservative. But I have never had the sense that a Democrat was going to get physical in that kind of way. Even though McCain and Palin have taken a kinder gentler tone in their speeches, there was still a real undercurrent of anger at the rallies I covered this week.

After today I'm wondering - and this is just wondering at this point - whether Republicans aren't in some respect giving their supporters license for this sort of crap. If the story you peddle is that your guys are the good guys and all those who stand against them are the bad guys, and the "liberal media" is in that second column, might there be a message there – even if it is one that is misconstrued and carried to a stupid extreme in some cases?

Full disclosure: I'm not real happy with the McCain campaign today. After the Elon event Palin did a fundraiser and I was told the local pool would be able to cover that. It's a major reason I took the pool assignment. I was told mid-way through my day that the fundraiser would be closed. And I just found out that the campaign tossed a one-on-one to an out-of-town competitor rather than to the paper that staffed their pool today.

But that's peanuts, mere whining, an issue of protocol. This other thing with Joe reflects something far more troubling. I just hope it's not a trend.

From Decision 2008: this is a look at voter registration figures in the state's 13 Congressional districts and what they may portend in terms of results.

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

Back when voter registration closed, I asked the Board of Elections for a spreadsheet with each Congressional District broken down by party affiliation. The numbers will move somewhat between now and Election Day because of those who will register during early voting, but the percentages should hold up pretty well.

Click here for my handy-dandy spread-sheet, doctored up somewhat since the SBOE sent it along.

The thing that should jump out at you is that where one party has a majority of voters in the district - cases where more than 50 percent of voters are registered to one party - their party holds and is likely to keep that Congressional seat.

Cases where a party holds a plurality - they have more voters than the other guys but not more than 50 percent - is a good but NOT perfect predictor of which party holds the Congressional seat.

As an example: In the districts that claim pieces of Greensboro, Democrats have majorities in the 12th and 13th Congressional Districts and those districts are held by Reps. Mel Watt and Brad Miller, both Democrats. Further, it is unlikely that either of those men are going to lose their seats this year and if they do expect their losses to be picked apart by political scientists and the national media for months.

In Greensboro's other Congressional District, Republicans hold a plurality of voters and Republican Howard Coble has held the seat for the better part of two decades. It's important to know that there are plenty of Democrats who vote for Coble because they've met him or he's provided them some constituent service or they just like his style. Also, more than 20 percent of the voters in the district are unaffiliated, which means they may have political leanings but they're not showing their hands for whatever reason. A loss by Coble to challenger Teresa Sue Bratton would be surprising but you could, maybe, construct an argument for it in the context of a national wave - but writers like me would be using words like "stunning" to describe the upset.

The two districts in North Carolina that have run counter to party registration advantage are the 3d Congressional District, a Democratic leaning district held by Republican Walter Jones, and the 8th Congressional District, a Democratic leaning district held by Robin Hayes.

In the 3d, the Democratic plurality is relatively weak, only 42 percent. That leaves plenty of independent voters for Jones to win over. Historically, Democrats down there are moderate-to-conservative, which means they are open to voting Republican for national offices. And Jones has taken some cross-party/moderate stands as of late, possibly endearing him to some Democrats. For example, earlier this year he was one of only three Republicans who voted to hold Joshua Bolten and Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress for failing to testify and provide documents relevant regarding the firing of federal prosecutors.

Hayes nearly lost his 8th District seat two years ago and the registration numbers tell me he's darned closed to the tipping point. Democrats are within rounding error of having a majority of voters in the district, while Republican voters make up only a quarter of the district. That means if unaffiliated voters break even slightly against Hayes, he could be in big trouble. And, of course, this is the one Congressional race in the state where either national political party is dumping big money.

Based on the numbers and historical voting patters, the only Congressional district I would expect to see flip this year would be the 8th, where Hayes may lose to school teacher Larry Kissel. Numerically, a Jones loss in the 3d shouldn’t be a surprise but I think there is more going on locally there than the numbers reflect. Any other incumbent losses would be surprising.

Local to Greensboro, the numbers and historical trends say that Coble will win but maybe not with the 60-plus-to-70-plus percent of the vote he is used to pulling down. Bratton has given Coble a good run, but something fundamental in the numbers or the campaign that I just do not see right now would need to change in a hurry for her to pull off the upset.

From the D-2008 blog:

• * Things Robin Hayes and Sarah Palin have in common.

• * Clubbing U.S. Senate candidates with their own clubs, or what a whisper campaign might look like.

From the lede of my story in Sunday's paper:

Everyone needs a haircut now and then, no matter whom they want to be the next president. That’s why Jackie Ruggiero tries to steer clear of politics when she works the second chair at Rob’s Barbershop on Main Street in Jamestown. Heated discussions don’t make for good haircuts — or repeat business.

But there’s always that one customer determined to chew over the subject, like an older gentleman whose haircut was in its final snips. He asked a younger man who had just stepped into the shop how he might vote. The younger man allowed as how he would probably back Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain.

“The older man, you could see it, he turned red and he just went off ... about the differences and how Obama was a bad person,” Ruggiero said. “He got so riled — and he was just in this young guy’s face telling him he was not American if he voted that way. He ran out without his jacket and without paying for the haircut.”

For the record, the older man did go back to pay, collect his coat and dispense another volley of opinion. Such scenes, Ruggiero said, are becoming more common as Election Day approaches.

Throughout the state, supporters are turning out to candidate rallies by the hundreds and thousands. Folks who never so much as donned a campaign button are canvassing for votes. Simple chitchat can turn heated in a flash. At an Obama rally in Fayetteville, the tires of about 30 cars were slashed, and police arrested an Obama supporter for disorderly conduct when Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin spoke at Elon University. On both sides, emotions are running high.

Click here for the whole thing.

As per usual, the best thing about the story is the art that went with it. In this case, Tim Rickard provided the illustration:

One day, the campaigns will end and I will go back to covering what these scurvy political critters actually do in office. Until then, here is another wacky – or is it? – political theory for you to ponder:

If Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, a Republican, wins the governor's mansion next week, he might have Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to thank.

"A lot of Obama voters are not excited about him because he's a Democrat and they're not excited because he's a liberal," said John Davis, who studies elections for the pro-business group N.C. Free. "It's an anti-establishment thing. In the parlance of this election, it's change."

Plenty of voters going to the polls will vote for Obama and stick with Democrats down the ballot, Davis acknowledges.

But there's another group, he said, upset with how things are running in Washington and Raleigh and interested in new management. Democrats such as McCrory's rival, Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue, have held the governor's mansion for 16 years. Davis argues the "change voters" Obama is bringing to the polls in the presidential race might favor the Republican running for governor.

Andrew Taylor, a political science professor at N.C. State, agrees that McCrory could be getting help from Obama's change-focused campaign.

Click here for the full story.

Cross-posted from D-2008

-=-=-=-=-

Remember the story about state Sen. Kay Hagan taking money from "Godless Americans?"

It's back.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, who is defending her seat against Hagan, has put an ad on the air, starting with newscasts that aired at 5 p.m. Tuesday night, that draws connections between Hagan and Godless Americans PAC.

The ad is based on the fact that Hagan attended a Boston fundraiser that was hosted by more than 30 people. Click here to see the invite.

It took place at the home of Wendy Kaminer and Woody Kaplan, who are leaders in secularist/atheist circles. Kaplan is a founder of Godless Americans PAC.

You can click here to see the text of the ad the Dole's campaign back-up for the claims.

Hagan, who is a church elder, said the ad misrepresents her views. In particular, she says she is incensed by a piece of the ad that shows her picture on screen while a woman's voice says, "There is no God."

I'll have a story on this in tomorrow's paper - you can read a draft after the jump of this post. I'm working on pulling down a copy of the 30-second spot, but you can see a longer non-televised spot by a National Republican Senatorial Committee here:

As I explain in the story, a politician just cannot get elected in North Carolina begin godless. Yes, on behalf of some voters there is a prejudice against different points of view. But far more, I have the sense, take it as a sign of arrogance or a lack of a certain moral barometer. (Note: I am NOT endorsing that view, just saying it is held by some voters.) It just does not play here.

With less than a week before Election Day, this is an aggressive move by Dole - who had to put her "I approve this message" line on the ad. The lack of time makes it harder to push-back against an ad, and the message is pretty severe.

On a side note, I've been writing stories that involved Hagan since 2001 and covered her in the legislature since 2005. This, bar none, is about as angry as I've ever heard her. The newspaper story is after the jump.

Jim Neal, who faced Kay Hagan in the U.S. Senate primary, is weighing in on the general election campaign. In particular, he takes aim at Dole's ad on Hagan suggesting Hagan may sympathize with a "Godless" agenda. From his piece on "The Daily Beast:"

Florence Nightingale unleashed her fangs yesterday. The Dole campaign lit up the airways with a stinging commercial suggesting that Democrat challenger Kay Hagan was other-than Godly and Democrats are seething. Kay is in fact an active member of the First Presbyterian Church in Greensboro. She attends Sunday School class regularly. She has served as a church elder. Dole’s attempt to smear her as a secularist is none other than just that. Local television and YouTube should be running a Hagan counter-attack ad tomorrow. I expect Kay will express outrage at anyone who would impugn her faith and then pivot back to her message emphasizing Dole’s voting record, absences from the state and high points of the 2008 Democrat Party economic playbook (i.e., knot a Bush around Dole’s neck.)

Click here for the whole thing. One wonders what kind of ads Dole may have launched based on Neal’s fundraising and endorsements.

From today's paper:

RALEIGH - Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue said Thursday that she would talk to her bitter rival from the Democratic primary about helping to manage the state's fiscal problems if she should win the election next week.

State Treasurer Richard Moore and Perdue fought a tough battle laced with personal attacks, including one in which Moore suggested Perdue might be racist. Moore has endorsed Perdue but has not appeared on the campaign trail for the Democratic nominee.

Perdue is now locked in a tight battle with Republican Pat McCrory, the mayor of Charlotte. In recent days, the two have argued over who best can handle the flagging economy and its impact on the state budget. Slowing tax collections are likely to force the next governor to find cuts, Perdue said.

"Maybe Richard (Moore) will have a role to play after the election," she said.

When asked if she was saying her former primary rival might serve in a Perdue administration, she said she had not talked to him about specifics. "I intend to have that conversation with him, because I think he's a good leader and a good man," she said.

Moore did not return calls to his office seeking comment Thursday afternoon.

On one level, the choice is logical. Moore is familiar with the state's finances, especially its borrowing. And he has served in the state legislature, so he is familiar with the somewhat Byzantine state budget process. But given the animus between Moore and Perdue during the primary, it is hard to imagine the pair working together.

Click here for the whole thing.

Over at D-2008 we have Sen. Elizabeth Dole's new ad on Kay Hagan and the Godless Americans PAC as well as Hagan's push-back to the original ad and other good stuff.

Y'all come by.