News-Record.com

Voterspeak is discussing what they want in a Guilford County commissioner.

Ths question: What are the main issues that you’re using to weigh candidates in the county commissioners races? Are you most concerned about infrastructure? Economic development (or the lack of it)? Taxes, spending and government efficiency? County services? Another issue? Why?

Join the conversation in the comments section at the bottom of the page.

Jeff Bartolet, 38, Republican: Who will promote fiscal responsibility and accountability? We need commissioners who will invest the mind power to think through board decisions before making them; people who will research ways to prosper the county without increasing taxes. We need commissioners who will be creative, proactive, and humble, willing to think outside the box of tax and spend.

Phyllis Davis, 64, Republican: I would be most concerned about government efficiency and the total operations of government. A fair tax increase that would generate revenue from all and not just property owners. And of course we will have commissioner Yow to insure a watchful eye for the majority of the citizens in the county of Guilford!

Kendall Garvin, 29, unaffiliated: One thing I look at with the incumbents is their effectiveness in meeting. If the candidate spend their time in meetings making rude contacts and/or arguing with someone then they are not being an effective mature commissioner.

Trevor Hamm, 25, Democrat: Spending and efficiency are important to me. I think that it’s important to know a commissioner’s priorities when it comes to what they’re willing to approve. For instance, I 'd like to see someone vote to put more money into education before he/she votes to build another prison. Overall, I think we should elect commissioners who really put the long-term best interests of the people first.

Mike Kelly, 60, Republican: This year’s election allows the voters of Guilford County to rid itself of six commissioners, two of which (and we know who they are!) have been a toxic presence on the board. We have the opportunity to begin to change this theater of the absurd into at least a semblance of what public service should be. My point being that incumbents have gotta go.
In view of the on-going global financial crisis all attention must be focused on fiscal responsibility. Those programs which are sort of nice to have but are not essential to the efficient management of county government business should no longer be funded.
The citizens of this county can begin these belt tightening measures by voting “No” for the bond proposals. It is no longer “Morning in America”, at least for the nonce and we must realize that all non-essential services must be shelved until our economy has been righted.

Marlene Costa Nielsen, 67, Democrat: I would like to see less partisan bickering and more cooperation among the commissioners. Guilford County is facing shortfalls in revenue from property taxes and retail sales and will need to find ways to provide essential services as efficiently as possible.

Kate Peeples, 27, unaffiliated: I kind of think the new folks running for commissioners’ seats (and maybe incumbents as well, and those not up for re-election too) perhaps ought to take personality tests, and voters should use that information. Then maybe we can put together a group of county commissioners who can spend more time governing properly and less time bickering.

Joking (and wishful thinking) aside, if we should be so lucky to get a group that gets along, the issue I’d most like them to address is economic development. Guilford County has done a so-so job in attracting some companies to create jobs here in an admittedly difficult economic climate. I’d like to see the commissioners put more effort into that, and into supporting those new jobs by supporting better technical training and living wages.

Deonna Kelli Sayed, 34, Democrat: Ah, the local races! How many people actually know who is running for these seats without referring to the N&R first? Most know amazingly little about local races.

I’m new to Greensboro so I asked other residents about this one.

Local government has done well fostering an environment to bring high profile companies to the area. Greensboro is a well-planned, green city with admirable parks and recreation. I’d vote to keep what we have in good shape but not to add any new projects during these pitiful economic times. I’ve spent time in New York state where some public schools systems are horrible so I appreciate Guilford county schools. However, the change in school bus services due to fuel cost has affected my children (and no one in the Guilford County School Transportation office has returned my 10 calls).

This leads to another point: despite all the good things about Greensboro, many people feel county and city government stinks. There seems to be inefficiency, corruption, dishonestly, and lack of professionalism among local government. I’d like to see candidates have a more public personality, engage with average citizens. For example, county commissioners could visit high school civics classes to inform youth about local issues. Show some transparency regarding local decisions. I’d like to see a candidate bring local government out in the open, rebrand local government into something more engaging. I I will look for integrity and insight when it comes to the local races.

Mike Sigmon, 61, Republican: I looking for candidates who are working for the taxpayer and not playing of game of “us & them” and “gotcha” politics, The district/ward system of election enables people with views on the outer edge of politics to hamper working for the good of the entire county.

Guilford County needs a smaller, and balanced, budget. There are too many sacred cows in the budget line items.

We need to continue the recruitment of good paying jobs (FedEx, BioTech firms etc).
Greater oversight of grants to nonprofit organizations is needed. Too many of them are related to the folks mentioned in the first paragraph or are not properly reported and administered for the proclaimed objective.

Ruth Mary Weston, 54, Democrat: I’ll be casting one vote in the County Commissioners section: Paul Gibson, At-Large.

He dropped by my house during his first race, and I liked his idea of building up a surplus to cushion budget problems. He’s a pragmatist, a consensus-seeker, and practical while working out of an idealistic vision. I think that results in good ideas. Also a biggie for me, he acts like a responsible adult!

In my District, Mike Winstead is unopposed. Nothing against him personally, but as a former home builder/developer, I’d say my ilk is already over-represented in both city and county government.

It’s obvious our economic meltdown will substantially reduce revenues from sales taxes. Property taxes are likely to remain unpaid as household budgets are strained. Balancing the budget will be the biggest challenge. Fund the must-haves generously, the like-to-haves cautiously. Take this opportunity to carefully review the performance of all programs and agencies, and study how County Departments can support each others’ work. I.e: A problematic railroad crossing was fixed after long struggles with the railroad. A few months later a different department had to tear it up for another project, never to be fixed right again - that’s just stupid!

I’d like to see any business incentives targeted at new small, local businesses, especially in alternative energy development. With our colleges and universities, available business parks, empty commercial property, transportation infrastructure and new school superintendent, there’s a huge opportunity to be a key hub for this new industry.

Cross-posted from Capital Beat.

-=-=-=-=-
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.

I have been meaning to get reaction to something in the U.S. Senate race from out there in the blog-o-verse about this but it has slipped my mind until this blog post (from Minnesota no less!) reminded me of the topic this morning:

Elizabeth Dole is continuing her campaign in North Carolina of smearing her opponent, Kay Hagan, for simply associating with atheists. We atheists are the "most vile, radical liberals in America," out to wage war on Christmas and stock boy scout troops with homosexuals, and we actively support political candidates who are atheists. I know … how dare we.

I have a personal reason to be offended, however. The Dole ads cite endorsements by two atheists, FriendlyAtheist.com and DaylightAtheism.org. Now hang on…what's so scary about the Friendly atheist? And Daylight Atheism sounds positively pleasant. Couldn't they find one mean, cruel, truly frightening atheist to give a testimonial, like maybe one with an obscure and somewhat intimidatingly intellectual name?

The entire post is here. Dome has written about this here.

I asked Hagan about this fundraiser back when she was in the building for an editorial board interview. Hagan described herself as a "devout Christian" and said she's working with folks of all different religious stripes.

"I believe the people you're talking about typically have Democratic fundraisers and (they asked) to support me from a standpoint and I agreed," she said.

Click here to listen to her full answer.

So does this matter to you? Would you base a vote on this association? Or this merely a distraction in a race that has a lot of other issues to deal with?

This is an ad running against Sen. Elizabeth Dole in her re-election campaign against state Sen. Kay Hagan right now:

Sponsored by VoteVets.org, it is substantially the same commercial used in the 2006 U.S. Senate campaign against George Allen:

Back in 2006, here's what FactCheck.org had to say about it:

Granato says of the newer armor, "Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this. Now it's time for us to vote against him."

That's false. Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor. What the ad cites is a vote on an amendment April 2, 2003, just days before the fall of Baghdad, that would have appropriated just over $1 billion for unspecified "National Guard and Reserve Equipment." It made no mention of body armor. And when the amendment's sponsor, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, took the Senate floor to give examples of the kinds of equipment that might be purchased with this money, she cited "skin reduction exposure paste," "mobile chemical agent detectors," and "collective shelters" for chemical attacks – but didn't once mention buying body armor. Neither did any other senator. Her amendment was killed by a mostly party-line vote.

It is true that in a press release Landrieu quoted the Marine Corps Reserve as saying it needed more "bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests" before another wave of reservists went to Iraq, among many other items. But neither Landrieu nor any other senator mentioned that during debate.

More importantly, there was already money for buying body armor. As we explain in more detail later in this article, the Pentagon was already in the process of vastly increasing its orders for the latest-model armored vests, and the shortages that plagued some units in Iraq for the first few months of the war were due not to a lack of money, but to the inability of Pentagon contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet the sudden spike in demand, and problems getting the gear shipped to the troops.

The Dole ad cites two votes in the 108th Congress. One is the same as cited in the Allen ad. The other is this one, which appears to have been the same sort of amendment and failed along the same kind of party-line vote.

Draw your own conclusions, but I tend to view this ad as suspect.

A few Voterspeak members gave us their thoughts about the second presidential debate on Tuesday, the town hall-style meeting at Belmont Univeristy with Barack Obama and John McCain, moderated by Tom Brokaw.

Here's the transcript, as well.

Kendall Garvin, 29, unaffiliated: I did not like the blatant disregard of the rules that the senators agreed upon. I understand that each candidate wanted their side of the issue to be heard, but rules should be followed. I also didn't like how some questions were not clearly answered by both candidates.

One issue that I clearly agree with Obama on is his platform on conserving our fuel usage. It is a very simple thing that each American can do and will also improve the environment. I also agree that the answer to the fuel crisis is not to simply produce oil, but to invest in alternative energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal and others. Drilling is just a short term fix of the crisis we are in right now.

I also agree that proper health care should be a right and not a responsibility. A country like America should not have just a health disparity among the "rich" and the "poor". I like the idea of offering all Americans a federal health plan. Many lower income people will avoid going to the hospital because of lack of insurance and/or the knowledge of how much the doctor bill will cost even with insurance.

Kate Peeples, 27, unaffiliated: I didn't think many of the audience's questions got answered, sadly. Seeing as this is the only debate format that includes any sort of audience input, it's pretty disappointing that their questions weren't really answered - even as each of them walked over to address the audience member in particular. It seemed both McCain and Obama spent most of their time attacking one another's reputations. At this point, I can't imagine that this evasiveness, whether on purpose or not, could possibly sit well with voters, both committed and undecided ones. That being said, I thought Obama was the clear winner in this debate. He appeared much more "presidential," and as at least one commentator put it, appeared more like a "calm leader," which is something I appreciated seeing from him.

Deonna Kelli Sayed, 34, Democrat: Both McCain and Obama seemed to be in good form. I tensed when either candidate criticized the other. Give me facts and insights, not side swipes! I appreciated Obama's method of breaking down and listing his actions (even though we know a politician's promises never go very far). Obama quoted facts and figures, particularly regarding energy, allowing the viewer to actually learn something during the debate.

The segment on health care and insurance just confused me. Obama seemed to be more informed but I'm unclear how his policy will work. McCain commented that one state may have cheaper health care options than another, but how can families afford to cross state lines with
fuel so expensive?

Obama is right about how the rest of the world perceives America. Having lived overseas, I can attest that being an American carries a lot of baggage that wasn't there before Bush was elected. Most people do not see us as a "force for good" as Obama and McCain suggested.
I'm sad that many see American foreign policy as downright malevolent. Obama needs to calm down when it comes to Pakistan. That country is about to explode due to US presence and their own internal issues. If Pakistan goes, all bets are off for any stability in the region. Neither candidate really gets what is going on in Afghanistan. The US needs to involve the Taliban in government and invest deeply in developing the country rather than putting in more combat troops. McCain was absolutely right about Russia and Putin's KGB mindset. Thankfully, Obama linked our energy policy to Russia, which shows insight.

The last question asked was probably the most important. Obama said unexpected challenges are the biggest obstacles. His comments on the American Dream? Is that still around? McCain's comments were too general for my taste. I wanted a personal answer, not a political one.

I felt a little bad that McCain's few attempts at humor throughout the debate fell flat. I hoped Tina Fey would pop up in the audience to give him some support. But honestly, we didn't gain any new insights regarding candidate positions on the issues. Same stuff, different day. Is anyone ready for election season to be over?

This has got to be crazy-making if you're trying to intervene in a U.S. Senate campaign:

In the last week, Kay Hagan -- Democratic challenger to Sen. Elizabeth Dole for North Carolina's U.S. Senate seat -- has been hammered by critical robo-calls from two operations: Freedom's Watch, a non-profit founded by GOP operatives in 2007, and the Free Enterprise Alliance, an offshoot of the Associated Builders and Contractors, whose PAC is the third-biggest contributor to Republicans in the country.

But instead of calling North Carolina voters, maybe the anti-Hagan robo-callers need to get on the phone and talk to each other. Because on at least one of the key issues Hagan is being attacked over -- immigration -- the two groups are sending voters a mixed message.

The News & Record’s Voterspeak panel reviews the Greensboro bond referendum.

The question: Will you vote for any of the issues on Greensboro’s $205 million bond package? Is $50 million worth it for a new auditorium? Is $134 million worth of road bonds the only way to pave roads and build greenways? How about $20 million for Parks and Recreation, which will include a $12 million pool complex? If all the bonds pass, it would take an extra 2.5 cents on the property tax rate to fund all those projects. Will you be thinking with your wallet when you vote?

And they said:

Jeff Bartolet, 38, Republican: How much of a tax burden can the average citizen bear? In times of economic downturns, our leaders should be finding ways to do more with less. Yes, there is a desire to make this city look like a contender for businesses and investments, but at what expense? Auditoriums and pools have unknown financial returns to the city and are even more risky considering the average consumer will now have to cut back on wants to pay for needs. Why not look for investors who have the money and passion for these special projects instead of making every homeowner pay the price for a luxury few can afford right now? Why not find a way to improve our roads with less cost?

Phyllis Davis, 64, Republican: I don’t live in Greensboro, so would not be able to vote on these issues. However if I did live there I could not support all of the bonds. With the downturn in the economy and being in the business to sell homes, the 2.5-cent increase in taxes would impact the ability of a major segment of homeowners to complete a transaction.
While some of the bonds are probably necessary and in the long run would benefit the citizens of Greensboro, it might be best to put these on hold until taxpayers feel more secure.

Kendall Garvin, 29, unaffiliated: I plan on voting for the street improvement, housing and the War Memorial bonds. The first two bonds will enhance the appearance of the city. Although spending money on the park will also improve the appearance of the city, it will not have as much effect as the previously mentioned bonds.
War Memorial is in a state where it either has to be fixed or be torn down. It will be much easier to fix it now vs. wait and have more to fix later.

Trevor Hamm, 25, Democrat: I’m considering voting for the housing bond and the parks and recreational facilities bond. For me, it’s not necessarily how much money a bond is for as much as it’s about what we’re getting for that money. I think the auditorium bond is unnecessary and I think that the street improvement bond is inflated.

Mike Kelly, 60, Republican: I will vote only for the street improvement bonds as maintenance and upgrades to our infrastructure benefit all of our citizens. Safe streets and bridges are necessary components to a city’s commerce. Further, with the construction of additional walkways and bikeways, people may opt to eschew traditional modes of transportation and resort to cycling and walking as means of commuting.
The housing bonds proposal is a tough call. Many people would benefit from its passage. However, I do not think that those of us who pay taxes should be called upon to further underwrite the needs of the disadvantaged of our community.
I probably would have voted for the parks and recreation bonds had not the swimming pool rider been added. Although producing the heir apparent to Michael Phelps may bring notoriety to our fair city, a natatorium will be of little use to most of us. The same can be said for the improvements to War Memorial Auditorium. Nice to have? Sure. Necessary? Not really. Does our “quality of life” suffer? Relative to what we have become accustomed, yes. However, we must face the reality of hard financial times getting harder and that taxpayers are just about tapped out.

Marlene Costa Nielsen, 67, Democrat: With this economic environment, it will be difficult to pass these bonds. We need to separate wants from needs and may have to find other ways to finance these projects.

Kate Peeples, 27, unaffiliated: I definitely think there are some bond projects that are more important than others (a pool complex??). Even amongst the school bonds, I can point to some that I would prioritize over others. I'll be voting for a lot of the bonds again - even though that property tax hike affects me, and not so much the rest of my voting demographic, and filling my tiny gas tank all the way to "F" is now a luxury. But not all of them. It may seem unfair to judge a need for road improvements against a need for a pool complex, and I certainly don't want my action as a voter to stifle the local arts scene, or economy. Like everyone else, I will vote based on what sort of progress I would most like to see the city make.

Deonna Kelli Sayed, 34, Democrat: Parks are a wonderful thing, as are new auditoriums, but Greensboro isn’t lacking in these departments. It is a marvelously green city with many swimming pools and recreational facilities. It is financially irresponsible during this economic crisis to spend on things which are more or less OK. No one wants their taxes raised but if it has to happen, I’d rather see that 2.5-cent tax go to assist those struggling due to the economic crisis or toward any city infrastructures in dire need of repair.

Mike Sigmon, 61, Republican: I would prefer the pool complex be a separate item. As I recall it was defeated in a prior election cycle. Merging it with the Parks and Recreation bonds appears to be a “back-door” attempt at passage. Where is the other $8 million being spent?
Since the auditorium money is to be spent for renovations to the existing building, I would be concerned about the acoustics.
What new roads will be constructed and where? If this is for repair and maintenance only?
The City Council and County Commissioners need to make the case for a “yes” vote. Without more information I’m hesitant to approve any of these.

Ruth Mary Weston, 54, Democrat: I’ll vote for the housing bonds. I think the best use of this money would be energy-efficiency upgrades on older rental housing stock. I’ll consider it one last chance to see our tax revenue used wisely under a properly supervised, well-targeted program. Tenants should benefit through reduced energy costs. Only properly licensed and insured contractors should participate under a “lowest conforming bid” scheme, and all work should be inspected before payment. A small amount for use of existing government staff should be the only expenditure outside of actual work performed.
The rest of the bonds get a “No.” C’mon, guys! You’d like a line-item veto on budgets; so would we. Let us vote on the merits of separate projects where possible.

On huffingtonpost.

From the site:

Want to know if a celebrity is playing both sides of the fence? Whether that new guy you're seeing is actually a Republican or just dresses like one?

FundRace makes it easy to search by name or address to see which presidential candidates your friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors are contributing to. Or you can se if your favorite celebrity is putting money where their mouth is.

The tracker lets you break it down easily. For example, back in 2007, Kay Hagan gave $1,000 to Edwards' campaign.

You can track by name, address or location on the map.

That's what our friends at the HPE said recently about the quarter-cent sales tax.

The editorial board there now supports the quarter cent sales tax that they didn't back in May. Our editorial board supported it in May.

But on the first go 'round, the tax failed by a big margin in Guilford County. Now, supporters are getting back out and hope to see it through.

They're pounding on the benefits they perceive would come with the added tax: a revenue stream that's not linked to property tax that would bring about $16 million a year, and a way to pay for school bond debt that's not a property tax rate increase.

Supporters can get behind that point by saying that the Board of Commissioners pledged to use that revenue to pay for the school bond debt with that money in a nonbinding resolution this past summer.

Opponents of the sales tax have said that voters already said no to the tax in May, and that the sales tax would impact the poor more than the rich.

Overall, it means that someone spending $100 would spend another 25 cents in sales tax. And groceries, gas and drugs would not be affected.

The N&R editorial board will run a piece on the sales tax on Oct. 19.

And for others, here's the N&R endorsement schedule.

With one month to go before Election Day, state Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, has to be feeling good about her chances to unseat Republican Elizabeth Dole. Consider:

• * PPP, a Democratic-friendly polling firm shows her with a lead. (PDF)

• * Rasmussen, a Republican-friendly firm, also shows her with a lead and editorializes: "it’s never comfortable for an incumbent to be trailing this late in the campaign season. Adding to Dole’s problems is the fact that John McCain finds himself in a very tight race with Barack Obama for North Carolina’s Electoral College votes. That means Dole can’t count on the lift from the top of the ticket usually enjoyed by the state’s GOP candidates."

• * Politico waded into the race recently, writing a piece that is the equivalent of intellectual catnip for Democrats: "Top Republicans say they have no hope for Dole in North Carolina. “There’s no point in even counting the votes,” said a top McCain official."

So should we stick a fork in this thing?

No.

Just as it would have been dumb to write this race off in Dole's favor back in May, it'd be silly for Hagan to start doing victory laps now.

If for no other reason, Hagan has gotten to where she is by running a pedal to the metal campaign. Letting up would just give Dole and opening.

Also, we all learned from the primaries this year that polling can be thrown off. And while the 30 day window before the election is closing fast, there's still time for this thing to move once again.

So, if it's all the same to y'all, I really think we ought to count the votes on Election Day.