News-Record.com

It's going to take a little longer, but Jim Black will resign as speaker of the N.C. House of Representatives.

His defenders, meanwhile, are saying some of the most incredible things, as reported today by Mark Binker.

Rep. Nelson Cole, D-Rockingham: "Speaker Black has been the victim of character assassination. No one has said yet he's broken the law."

Rep. Earl Jones, D-Guilford: "All of this is simply character assassination that's politically motivated."

Are these guys reading from a script provided by Black himself? How could anyone say these things with a straight face?

Character assassination? I'd call it character suicide.

No one has said Black has broken the law? Well, yes, the State Board of Elections has said it believes he did, which is why it referred its findings to the Wake County District Attorney's Office for further investigation and possible prosecution.

Politically motivated? Who is politically motivated? The Democrat-majority elections board? The Democratic attorney general, who's got Black in his sights? Virtually all of the state's daily newspapers? That statement couldn't be more ridiculous. But, then, it comes from the same man who says the N&R's investigation of Project Homestead was racist.

Here's Rep. Maggie Jeffus, D-Guilford: "I guess I feel like he (Black) will make the right decision when the time comes."

Sadly, that seems to epitomize the utter spinelessness of House Democrats. Whatever Black decides will be the right thing.

OK, Maggie, Earl, Nelson and the whole bunch. By standing with Black, you are hereby telling your constituents that YOU support:

-- the eye exam requirement that would have kept kindergartners out of school unless their parents forked out $100+ to their local optometrist for tests that most medical professionals say would be unnecessary (and adopting that provision without a hearing or debate);

-- video poker;

-- the Michael Decker payoff, and the backup strategy of raising money for a possible Steve Wood payoff;

-- giving inside access to Meredith Norris while she was on the payroll of a lottery vendor, during consideration of lottery legislation;

-- asking donors to write checks for campaign contributions but leaving the payee's space blank, to be filled in later by the speaker.

Do these people really believe all that's OK? Are they willing to live by the standard that, as long as unethical behavior isn't yet proven to be illegal, it's acceptable?

Or is their support for Black what's really politically motivated? Is it not safe yet for them to stand up to him? Do they think there's a chance that he can hang on and reward them with some of the million bucks he has in his campaign coffers?

If so, I predict that's a gamble they're going to lose. And they're inviting the inescapable conclusion that, by condoning Black's methods, they're no better than he is.

Addendum, 2:30 p.m. Monday:

Rep. Alice Underhill, D-Craven, didn't mince words in her letter to Jim Black asking him to resign, as reported by the AP.

His political troubles, she wrote, are "severe and irreparable."

Can anyone honestly deny that?