News-Record.com

My column today:

Some of our most important elected officials get the least attention from voters and the media: judges.

They represent the third branch of government and carry tremendous power, settling questions of law affecting vast amounts of money, people’s freedom or sometimes life and death. They also handle smaller matters that touch the lives of ordinary people daily — traffic cases, divorces and child support, petty crimes, drug offenses and juvenile justice.

In the federal system, judges are appointed. But in North Carolina, voters choose judges at all levels — District Court, Superior Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Except that, when vacancies occur, the governor appoints replacements with no system of confirmation. But those judges can serve only until the next election.

The terms of District Court judges are four years, but at higher levels the judges are elected for eight years — the longest tenure granted by voters in any branch of government. So it’s important to choose the right ones.

But how?

I appreciate Leonard Pitts' apology today for ill-considered comments in an earlier column. I, and apparently a lot of other people, had challenged him on his disparagement of people who hold certain literalist religious beliefs.

Pitts probably should stay away from biblical subjects. Even in his follow-up, he shows he's treading on ground that's unfamiliar to him, referring to the "Christian creation story."

The creation story comes from the Bible's Book of Genesis. That's Jewish scripture, pre-Christian by several centuries. True, Christians accept it as part of their canon, but the account did not originate with Christianity.

I wonder if Pitts even knew he was belittling fundamentalist Jews as well as Christians.

He ends today's column with some moralizing: "Where is the debate about ministering to the broken, lifting the fallen, tending the sick?"

Is he serious? Does he pay any attention to the faith communities in this country? I'm sorry he's apparently missed all the good works they're doing. Maybe he should get involved.

On the subject of religion and politics ...

Where does this fit?

What's next, a geriatric glee club for McCain?

The N.C. Family Policy Council today posted responses to its questionnaire to state appellate judicial candidates.

I'm pleased to see that most submitted no responses.

Many of the questions touch on hot-button social issues like abortion and homosexuality. As I discussed in my column today, the candidates ought to steer clear of them.

Most candidates returned polite letters explaining why they should not answer. The exception was Bob Hunter of Greensboro, running for Court of Appeals. But he respectfully pointed out that some of the questions were faulty, and not all his answers were what the Family Policy Council would want to hear.

Three cheers for judicial elections that don't produce the wrong kind of debate.

Little known candidates ... a lot of territory to cover ... not much money.

One N.C. Court of Appeals judge addresses the challenge by launching a virtual door-to-door campaign ... here.

Getting back to the subject of the N.C. Family Policy Council questionnaire ...

N.C. Supreme Court candidate Suzanne Reynolds, a Wake Forest law professor, made an issue of it in an address on judicial politics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City law school last month:

"The Family Law Policy Council sent the questionnaire I just described to the judicial candidates who were on the ballot in NC’s May primary, and at least one of them for our intermediate appellate court was only too happy to oblige the Council and completely filled out the questionnaire. Here’s how he filled it out: on the question on the current justices who reflect his judicial philosophy, he could not bring himself to narrow his choices and marked Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas (I think Stevens slipped by him.)

"On the scale of 1-10, since 11 was not an option, the candidate marked 10 to describe his judicial philosophy as a strict constitutionalist and originalist. He marked that there was a right to display the 10 commandments in his courtroom, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky notwithstanding. He said that he did not agree with Lawrence v. Texas, which he and the Family Law Policy Council had interpreted to recognize a right to homosexual sexual relations under the US constitution, rather than, as some of us thought, to hold that a state could not impose criminal sanctions on one’s expression of her sexual identity in private with a consenting adult. The candidate also indicated that he disagreed with Roe v. Wade, agreed with Lofton, the 11th cir. opinion on adoption by gay and lesbians, even though that issue has not been addressed by the appellate courts of North Carolina. He also said that he disagreed with the Santa Fe Independent School District decision on student-initiated invocations at football games and disagreed with Kelo on eminent domain powers to take private property for economic development purposes.

"I might add, however, that this candidate did not make it out of the primary, an incumbent defeated by two other candidates who declined to address these specific questions.

"The Family Policy Council has sent the questionnaire to judicial candidates in the general election. I also declined to answer the questionnaire, and the Family Law Policy Council will post my letter declining to participate on its website."

The incumbent Reynolds referred to is Court of Appeals Judge John Tyson, who finished third in the primary behind Sam J. Ervin IV and Kristin Ruth.

Some of Tyson's colleagues consider him the most partisan judge on the bench and won't be sorry to see him go when his term expires at the end of the year.

Reynolds is running against incumbent Justice Bob Edmunds, who likewise did not answer the Family Policy Council's questions. His response is here.

Susie Sharp biographer Anna Hayes has postponed a visit to Greensboro this evening because of tonight's vice-presidential debate.

I wrote about Hayes' fascinating book, "Without Precedent: The Life of Susie Marshall Sharp," a couple of weeks ago.

The late Susie Sharp, from Reidsville, was North Carolina's first female judge, state Supreme Court justice and chief justice.

Sharp led an extraordinary life, with numerous connections to Greensboro, but Hayes found she was even more complex and interesting than almost anyone suspected.

The author planned to be at the Friendly Center Barnes & Noble at 7 this evening to discuss the book and sign copies, but then there's the debate that everyone wants to see (and not because of Joe Biden).

The folks at the store feared no one would come, Hayes told me today. Plus, and maybe more importantly, she wants to be home at 9 when the debate airs. She lives in Orange County.

She's rescheduled for Oct. 30.

Our interview with AG Roy Cooper today included a discussion of price-gouging. As everyone knows, he launched an investigation of gas stations pointed out in complaints for bumping up prices on Sept. 12.

This is the first test of the state's 2006 price-gouging law, and I suspect the law may earn an F when the first case goes to court.

Its major weakness is its imprecision. It prohibits charging prices that are "unreasonably excessive under the circumstances."

What's that?

Cooper's answer: The courts haven't determined that yet.

The courts? What happened to the idea of judicial restraint? Here the state expects the courts to fill in a big blank in this law.

This is like passing a law to prohibit crime, then leaving it to the courts to determine what the crime is and whether you've broken it.

Different courts aren't even likely to agree with each other.

Maybe a court in Guilford County will decide that a gas station in Guilford County was charging an unreasonably excessive price at $4.20 a gallon, and a court in Mecklenburg County will decide that a station there wasn't charging an unreasonably excessive price at $4.25.

What the heck! Let the Court of Appeals sort it out.

I understand the drafters of this law didn't want to get precise because that would invite retailers to gouge right up to the legal limit. The problem here is that the legal limit now is what a judge says it is.

Isn't that how they determine what's pornography? Have we all agreed on that yet?

If the legislature wanted to declare price-gouging obscene, it should have defined what it is.

Tonight's vice-presidential debate, in substance, was a blowout. Joe Biden's a policy big-leaguer, Sarah Palin's not. Period.

But even in style, Biden outperformed his rival. He was emotional, warm, sincere and, at times, aggressive.

Yes, Palin's folksy and likable. But the act wears a little thin when she talks around questions and repeats a few familiar points.

Palin didn't fall on her face or stammer incoherently beyond tangling her words once in a while. So it wasn't a disaster for her. It's just that, judged against Biden, she was second best on the important standard: who's ready to be a credible president, if need be, from day one. I'm not sure she even scratches on that scorecard.

A big reason for the mismatch, though, was that Biden was so strong. Frankly, he was better -- a lot better -- than Barack Obama in last week's presidential debate. As I said when Obama picked Biden, it's a ticket that ought to be turned upside down. Biden's obviously more experienced and knowledgeable than Obama. I guess the difference is that, for some reason, he doesn't inspire the same avid following and doesn't have a knack for raising money, so he's never gotten far out of the starting gate in his own presidential runs.

Bottom line: Biden's strong showing validates Obama's decision to put him on the ticket; Palin's doesn't doom John McCain's chances by any means but sure won't give him another bounce.

Steve Arnold brought his complaint about early voting sites to last night's commissioners meeting but was backed up only by his three fellow Republicans. He proposed denying funding for locations except at courthouses and town halls because he views so many of the others as favoring Democrats.

The Board of Elections has set up quite a few polling places around the county for early voting. I can't really assess the political geography in most cases, but I can in regard to the two High Point locations: the Roy Culler Senior Center and Washington Terrace Park.

They're fairly close together, about a mile apart, in the east-central part of the city. Voting in that section of High Point runs heavily Democratic. So Arnold is right, at least when it comes to High Point.

But the same would be true if High Point's early voting sites were the courthouse and city hall. It wouldn't even make sense to use both those facilities because they're within sight of each other.

On the other hand, fair access to early voting locations would call for a site several miles to the north, in the Oak Hollow Lake area, where voting tends to run Republican.

Given the two locations chosen, I'd say early voting in High Point will go the Democrats' way big time.

Addendum: High Point's courthouse has been used for early voting in the past but access is a bit of a problem. The Enterprise quoted Commissioner Bruce Davis, a High Point Democrat as noting the security issue: "because people get strip-searched there and have to go through a metal detector."

Strip searches? Haven't seen that myself, but I guess it might chill early voting on some of these cool October mornings.

I mentioned the other day that the least credible judicial endorsements are those made by the political parties.

Here's what I'm talking about:

The N.C. Democratic Party has a page on its Web site explaining why voters should elect "Democratic judges."

Why?

"Under Republican judges, corporate power and immunity has expanded.

"We need to elect democratic judges to the bench to protect consumers' rights, defend environmental protections, and allow the opportunity for individual citizens to find justice."

This is referring to state courts, not federal.

Of course, the N.C. Democratic Party doesn't offer a single example of how, "under Republican judges, corporate power and immunity has expanded."

I challenge the NCDP to back up its statement. I challenge it to show a case in North Carolina courts where there's been a difference in the quality of justice rendered by "Republican judges" as opposed to "Democratic judges."

I submit this will be difficult to do. One reason is that our judiciary is nonpartisan. Another is that, even if you want to make an issue of judges' personal party affiliation, you'll find "Republican judges" and "Democratic judges" agreeing much more often than they differ.

Some years ago, the state legislature made the wise decision of removing the party labels from the ballot in judicial elections. That requires voters to determine which candidates are most qualified rather than which ones are D's and which are R's. I know, that's a challenge beyond the abilities of many voters and all party officials, but it's intended to remove politics from the bench.

Unfortunately, the parties can't let it go. The N.C. Republican Party lists "Republican" judicial candidates on its Web site, too.

But it doesn't mimic the idiocy of the Democrats' blatantly insulting declaration that the cause of justice in this state depends on the election of judges of their political affiliation.

Not only is that untrue, but it slanders the entire judicial system in North Carolina to insinuate that the courts have allowed the expansion of "corporate power and immunity," whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

Fortunately, people who really know something and care about the integrity of our courts don't go along with this nonsense. That's why you'll see good judges drawing bipartisan support. The judicial candidates who are backed only by their own parties are the ones you probably ought to worry about.

North Carolina's defense and special teams kept Connecticut in the dark at Kenan Stadium last night, making the Tar Heels look like a real contender this season.

Meanwhile, SoCon powers Elon and App make statements, while Duke falls back to earth after building high hopes in Durham.

A&T's loss to previously winless Central compels the Aggies' exit from our ranking.

Tar Heel Top Eight

1. UNC, 4-1 (No. 1 last week)
2. Wake, 3-1 (2)
3. Elon, 5-1 (6)
4. App, 3-2 (7)
5. State, 2-4 (4)
6. ECU, 3-2 (5)
7. Duke, 3-2 (3)
8. Wingate, 6-0 (8)

We're gradually replacing our 19th-century Thomas Edison light bulbs with new cfl bulbs to reduce electricity use, cut emissions, reverse global warming, restore the polar icecap, saving the polar bears and all mankind.

Makes me feel great about myself.

But what's with all the plastic packaging on these bulbs? Minimizing the danger of mercury contamination? The old bulbs come with just a little bit of soft cardboard packaging, which probably breaks down to nothing pretty quickly in the landfill. Is this progress?

Addendum: I see this has been addressed. Sylvania (which is what we bought) claims to have more environmentally friendly packaging. Guess we're not looking hard enough.

EnviroWoman is way ahead of me on this complaint.

High Point City Council should approve three "street abandonments" requested by High Point University.

Here's the wording on today's agenda:

"Resolution - Street Abandonment 08-14 - High Point University A request by High Point University for the abandonment of a portion of an improved 50 foot wide right-of-way known as Fifth Street between Montlieu Avenue and Woodrow Avenue, an improved 55 foot wide right-of-way known as O. A. Kirkman Way, and an improved 40 foot wide right-of-way known as West College Drive between O. A. Kirkman Way and the southern boundary of E. Farriss Avenue."

Basically, this amounts to privatization. HPU will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for the streets. They won't be closed to the public, the university pledges. But speed limits will be lowered, speed humps will be installed and pedestrian crossing zones will be established.

The main artery among the three streets is West College. It once formed the western boundary of the campus, but with the university's westward expansion it now runs through the center. There are classroom buildings and dorms on both sides, which means students are walking across the street all day and evening -- and lots of them between classes. It's safer to let the university control traffic.

It's important to guarantee the public's right to use these streets, but it's also reasonable to ask motorists to proceed slowly and carefully.

Addendum: I called over to Elon to find out the status of the several streets that cross through that attractive campus. All the major streets are public, although Elon has added speed bumps, pedestrian crosswalks and other safety improvements at its expensive and with the approval of the town of Elon. So, HPU probably could work out a similar arrangement with the city of High Point if the council turns down the street abandonment proposal. Still, I don't really see a downside for privatization of streets or segments of streets that are completely surrounded by campus.

Update, Oct. 7: High Point City Council approved the request by a 6-2 vote.

Our endorsements in statewide judicial races are running this week.

The Asheville Citizen-Times made its recommendations yesterday, as follows:

Supreme Court: Bob Edmunds over Suzanne Reynolds

Court of Appeals:

John Arrowood over Bob Hunter

John Martin (unopposed)

Doug McCullough over Cheri Beasley

Linda Stephens over Dan Barrett

Kristin Ruth over Sam Ervin IV

Jim Wynn over Jewel Farlow

Dispel this courthouse rumor:

If Robert Enochs is elected to the District Court bench next month, his wife, longtime Judge Wendy Enochs, will resign to be a stay-at-home mom.

Not true, Wendy Enochs told me today.

She wants to stay on the bench for as long as the voters elect her, she said.

She was re-elected (without opposition) to her fourth four-year term in 2006.

Judge Enochs says she's heard the rumor but doesn't know its origin.

Maybe politics? Wendy Enochs is considered one of the best judges on the Guilford County District Court bench. Maybe voters would be reluctant to elect her husband if they thought it meant losing her.

Robert Enochs is an assistant district attorney who ran for judge once before, unsuccessfully.

This time, both he and Angela Foster finished ahead of Judge Linda Falls in the May primary. Voters will choose between Robert Enochs and Foster in the general election. (We'll offer our recommendation next week.)

Would it be a conflict of interest for a husband and wife to both serve on the bench? I can't really think of how unless one were in a position to overrule the other. But that would be more likely if one were a Superior Court or appellate court judge. They would serve as equals on the District Court bench

Really, voters simply should weigh the qualifications of the two candidates in this race without consideration of who's married to whom.

And throw out the idea that Wendy Enochs plans to resign. She says absolutely not.

My column today:

(Oops. This was supposed to go up tomorrow.)

Milt Mild’s campaign manager, Ax Grinder, leveled with him.

“Milt, the election is less than four weeks away and we’re stuck in quicksand. It’s time to change our tactics.”

“I really like our 'Wild for Mild’ fliers. Aren’t they making an impression on voters?”

“Nobody’s reading them. And voters don’t care about your qualifications to be a judge, anyway. We’ve got to take a page from all the big candidates and go on television in full attack mode.”

“I can’t do that, Ax.”

“Why not?”

“With our campaign spending limits, we don’t have enough money for TV ads. And, even if we did, I don’t want to go on TV and say, 'I’m Milt Mild and I approved this scurrilous slander.’ ”

“Boss, don’t worry. We can solve both of those problems. I’d like to bring in Jess Lyon, who can set up an independent organization that can raise big dollars and run attack ads without your name being any part of it. She’s right outside. Let me ask her to come in and explain.”

“Hello, Mr. Mild. Nice to meet you. I’ve operated a lot of these independent organizations that exist outside the control of election-finance laws. I’d propose calling this one 'North Carolinians for Honest Courts.’ I’m already running a similar outfit that’s active in the governor’s race.”

“I’ve seen the ads. They’re nasty and not very truthful.”

“My candidate’s opponent has dropped 5 points in the polls since they’ve aired.”

“Please continue. Where does the money come from?”

“The usual special-interest groups that support our party.”

“But my race is nonpartisan.”

“Officially, yes, but we tell them the courts will favor their issues if we get our judges elected. We can raise at least a half-million dollars, maybe twice that much.”

“Then what?”

“We tear your opponent to shreds with a series of hard-hitting criticisms of his performance on the bench.”

“How so? I mean, I think he’s been a good enough judge. I’m just running against him because I’d like to have the job.”

“People will think he’s a travesty of justice when we’re through with him.”

“Jess, tell Milt some of your ideas.”

“Sure, Ax.

“Mr. Mild, I’ve been studying the judge’s record and have come up with some disturbing things he’s done.”

“Really? Like what?”

“He associates with criminals.”

“He’s a judge! Who do you expect to see in court?”

“He lets some of them out of jail ... for money.”

“You mean he sets bond for suspects awaiting trial?”

“We don’t have time for details in a 60-second spot. He has never once ordered the deportation of an illegal immigrant.”

“State judges can’t do that.”

“A technicality. He takes children away from their parents and gives custody to the government.”

“Sometimes judges have to remove children from their homes in cases of abuse and neglect.”

“Voters don’t want to hear excuses. He lets witnesses swear an oath on the Quran.”

“The law allows that option.”

“I don’t think the good Christian people of this state want Islamic radicals taking over our courts. And he doesn’t even have the Ten Commandments displayed in his courtroom.”

“I wouldn’t, either. I believe in separation of church and state.”

“He’s had Christians thrown into prison.”

“You mean if they’ve committed crimes?”

“He’s heavily invested in Big Oil.”

“How so?”

“Through the state pension fund.”

“Sounds good to me.”

“He tortures people.”

“What?”

“What do you call it when a dozen men and women are held in a box all day long?”

“A jury?”

“Every day, he suppresses the First Amendment right to free speech.”

“By enforcing order in the courtroom?”

“And Second Amendment rights.”

“No firearms in the courthouse?”

“He’s dangerous.”

“To felons?”

“They call him Fibber.”

“Who does?

“They do.”

“They’ll be calling me Fibber if we run ads filled with garbage like this.”

“No, they won’t. Because these ads won’t have anything to do with your campaign. You’ll have deniability.”

“I’d rather have plausible deniability.”

“It’s your choice, Mr. Mild. Do you want honest courts, or do you want to win?”

Thanks for reading. Feel free to give me a call at 373-7039, email me at dgclark@news-record.com or post a comment.

It's probably safe to say that Deborah Bird and Michael Scott Cooper didn't know anyone was spying on them back in February and March of last year.

But, because someone was, their activities are described in a Court of Appeals decision released today, Bird v. Bird.

In the divorce case from Greensboro, the appeals court reversed a decision by Guilford County Chief District Court Judge Joe Turner. Judge John Arrowood was the author.

James and Deborah Bird married in 1985 and separated in 2004. In 2006, she was granted alimony for 15 years with the provision that the money would stop in the event of her cohabitation.

In May 2007, James Bird filed a motion seeking termination of alimony for exactly that reason. His motion was supported by an affidavit from private investigator Ann Cunningham.

A key statement in that affidavit noted: Cooper had been observed at Plaintiff's (Deborah Bird's) house “for a minimum of eleven (11) consecutive nights”; that Plaintiff and Cooper were observed driving each other's vehicles; that Cooper was observed moving furniture into Plaintiff's house, walking Plaintiff's dog, parking in Plaintiff's garage, and carrying groceries into Plaintiff's house; that Cooper had been observed letting workmen into and out of Plaintiff's house; and that Cooper's house in Hillsborough appeared neglected “as though no one lived in the house.

Nevertheless, Deborah Bird requested summary judgment of her ex-husband's motion -- in effect, a dismissal without a finding of fact. Judge Turner granted it.

The Court of Appeals majority said he was wrong. He should have heard the motion on its merits.

Arrowood's ruling doesn't draw a conclusion on the facts. It doesn't say whether Deborah Bird's relationship with Cooper did or did not amount to cohabitation. The issue is, that's what Judge Turner should have determined, the court said. (A District Count judge's lot in life can sometimes be a trial, if you'll excuse the expression.)

One appeals judge, Barbara Jackson, did not agree and wrote a dissenting opinion. In her view, P.I. Cunningham's affidavit was not admissible because it did not establish that Cunningham herself had direct personal knowledge of the observations she recounted (she may have employed someone else to do most of the actual snooping). Therefore, Turner made the right call, Jackson said.

Because this was a split decision from the Court of Appeals, there is an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court. It hardly seems like an issue of sufficient gravity to trouble the supremes, however. Maybe all parties can agree to give the District Court another crack at it. It shouldn't be that hard to decide whether two people were spending enough time in close company to count as cohabitating.

In the meantime, the furtive couple has been warned: Someone might be watching.

One bit of economic good news: Gas prices are falling ... but not as much in North Carolina, which now has the HIGHEST average price in 48 states (Alaska and Hawaii are always out of sight), according to AAA. Our average is $3.765, compared to the national mark of $3.447. Georgia, the other state with recent supply problems, has slipped to $3.725.

Bev Perdue is ducking another UNC-TV debate. Voters really ought to question whether they should elect a governor who refuses to appear on the state's public television network. Pat McCrory and Mike Munger will proceed tonight without the company of the shy lieutenant governor.

I'd like to report on last night's presidential debate, but I dozed off about halfway through. If John McCain needed to deliver a riveting performance, well, he didn't hold my attention.

The Las Vegas furniture market is crowding High Point -- an aggressive move.

Vegas will open just a month before the October High Point Market, beginning next year.

The change seems likely to force more buyers to choose one or the other. The Vegas promoters must think they come up winners in this gamble. Or they're admitting August just wasn't working out. Cutting back to four days from five, while adding showroom space, looks like a retreat.

The winter show is shifting to February, instead of late January. That still leaves breathing room before High Point in April.

I've thought this might happen. Vegas is out to take market business from High Point. Now High Point has to work all the harder to make sure customers wait for October and April.

When somebody gets in your face, you've got to push back.

You might want to tune into UNC TV to hear an outstanding discussion of important state issues between gubernatorial candidates Pat McCrory and Mike Munger.

Both these men offer excellent, well-informed presentations of their views, without acrimony or attacks.

Not there, sadly, is the third candidate, Bev Perdue.

It's no small irony that, earlier today, Perdue announced a "First Day of Change" agenda, including her proposal for a "North Carolina Endowment for Positive Gubernatorial Campaigns."

Now, it's certainly a concern that campaigns are costly and negative. An alternative financing scheme, coupled with a bar on negative campaigning, is worth discussing.

But consider: Perdue had an opportunity to appear on statewide television at this very moment and present a positive agenda. On the state's public TV network, no less. It would cost her campaign absolutely nothing.

And she turned it down. For the second time. So I have difficulty taking her idea seriously.

Furthermore, a positive pledge by a candidate means nothing if surrogates for that candidate conduct an expensive, negative campaign on her behalf ... which is exactly what is happening in this campaign. If Perdue would renounce and demand a stop to the attack ads on McCrory by a surrogate group, I might believe she's sincere on this issue.

She's also pledging to hold televised "gubernatorial town hall" meetings if she's elected. Maybe she would. But, again, is that more important than participating in a televised discussion of the issues of concern to North Carolinians now? If she won't do it now, will she really do it later?

Does Sarah Palin deserve credit for getting rid of another state jet?

I recommend the film "as we forgive," which deals with reconciliation after the Rwanda genocide. I saw it at my church last night. It's very powerful.

You meet people on both sides of the atrocities -- killers and victims.

Can they reconcile and live together in peace so soon after the 1994 slaughter?

This is a story of overcoming fear ... fear of people who committed terrible acts of violence ... and fear of facing those who have every reason to hate and seek retribution.

The process of forgiveness and reconciliation in Rwanda, as presented in this moving documentary, is driven by faith and trust in God.

By coincidence, I just received an email notice about a new book, "Conflict & Reconciliation: The Contributions of Religions," edited by John W. Bowker.

A news release says it "includes chapters written by experts in different religions, who met together to write and discuss the chapters of this book, in order to share with others how different religions understand and practice reconciliation." I hope the public library gets a copy soon.

There aren't many greater challenges for advocates of reconciliation than the Rwanda genocide, where neighbors destroyed neighbors. Filmmaker Laura Waters Hinson traces the process of confession, seeking pardon and finally granting forgiveness in the lives of suffering people. It is a lesson for all of us, whether people of faith or not, who seem to have so much trouble letting go of petty grudges and grievances.

UNCG Chancellor Linda Brady sat down for a chat with our editorial board this morning, then she and I continued the discussion on video. You'll be able to read a Q&A in print on a future Sunday, and the video ought to be up on the Web site before long.

She's a very good interview, with brilliant recall of facts, figures, policies, people, places, and, impressively, she's developing really serious ideas about making UNCG increasingly relevant to the state, community and nation in challenging times. Plus, she's relaxed and personable.

Best of all, she and I have a link: We both spent some of our younger years in the small town of Hillsdale, N.J. She graduated from Pascack Valley High School in 1965, where I attended ninth and 10th grades in 1969-71 before my family moved to North Carolina.

I'm the first person she's met in Greensboro with that Hillsdale connection. Come to think of it, she's the same for me. Anyone else around here?

We didn't have a chance to trade Pascack Valley recollections. Maybe the next time.

This drumbeat of acorn acorn acorn is rattling my nerves.

No, I'm not talking about Barack Obama's days as a radical leftist community organizer.

Maybe I'm the only one who's not.

I mean the hailstorm of acorns bombarding my roof, my car and, when I'm standing under one of my oak trees, my head.

There is a load of them this year ... after practically none last fall. Isn't that supposed to warn of a harsh winter? Maybe not. Anyway, it means all those gray, bushy tailed little critters will have plenty to eat.

I can also expect a tougher time raking and bagging when there are millions of nuts lurking below the layers of leaves ... and digging their way into the soil.

Can't wait for the crop of oak seedlings next spring.

Squirrels love 'em, but acorns are nothing but trouble for the rest of us. Right, Sen. Obama?

Angela Foster, a candidate for Guilford County District Court judge, was disciplined in July by the committee that oversees court-appointed attorneys.

I learned about this when I began seeking information about all the District Court candidates. As part of our endorsement process, I solicit confidential comments from people who work in the court system. Further inquiries led me to public documents in the records of the Committee on Indigent Appointments.

On May 2, Public Defender Wally Harrelson informed Foster: "I am temporarily suspending you from any additional appointments to represent defendants and or respondents pending any action by the Committee on Indigent Appointment. I have determined that such action is needed to assure quality representation of indigent persons in Guilford County."

On May 6, Greensboro attorney Charles A. Lloyd, chairman of the committee, followed up with a letter to Foster, citing her failure to appear in court April 28 on behalf of client Christine Hinesley. "Unfortunately, your failures in Hinesley's case are all too typical of failures in other cases for which you have been counseled and against which you have been warned by the Committee," Lloyd wrote.

He informed Foster the committee would meet in July to consider action, including permanent removal from the indigent appointment list.

A June 24 memo to Foster from Lloyd titled "Notice of Basis for Removal from Court-Appointed Lists," included alleged deficiencies in several instances in addition to the Hinesley case.

In response, Foster submitted a number of documents showing she was active in representing Hinesley and including testimonials from a deputy sheriff, a private investigator, clients (not those cited in the complaints) and an attorney.

The committee did meet and, on July 17, Lloyd wrote to Foster informing her of its decision:

"The committee for the appointment of indigent counsel for the Eighteenth Judicial District has unanimously decided to remove you from all criminal appointment lists. You may remain on all juvenile and non-criminal lists. You may reapply for criminal lists at the July 2009 meeting of the indigent committee.

"I feel I must give you a word of caution: Because of past problems with communications between you and clients and court officials and you, you must be acutely sensitive to possible issues in those areas for the remainder of your career. In other words, you should go out of your way to make sure that you receive communications from the court and that you respond to clients in a timely manner.

"I hope you take this as good news ..."

I met with Foster this morning. She concedes that, with running for office (she had a primary in May), "I was overwhelmed." She missed some contacts with clients. Some were not her fault, she said.

"Have I had missteps? I have and I've tried to correct them."

She also handed me the following statement:

"It is with great humility that I respond to the events surrounding my temporary removal from the criminal indigency defense list. I am happy to report that the phenomenal support of my constituents, as well as my thorough and immediate response to the committee's concerns, enabled me to remain focused on my service to the citizens of Guilford County. When I initially learned of the committee's concerns regarding my ability to handle the substantial caseload to which I was assigned for cases in High Point and Greensboro, I recognized that perhaps the compaign demands of the primary race were increasing at a rate I had not anticipated. As a result, I voluntarily tendered my resignation to Richard Wells (assistant public defender) for temporary removal from the criminal indigency defense list for all High Point cases. Notwithstanding, Wally Harrelson and Charlie Lloyd notified me only days before the primary of their contemplation to permanently remove me from the indigent appointment list. The timing of their action seemed calculated to me then, and even more so now.

"I am happy to report that after the indigency committee hearing addressing these issues in July, Richard Wells informed me that I would remain an active attorney on the indigency defense list for juvenile and child support enforcement cases. Likewise, Mr. Lloyd wrote to advise me of this 'good news' with assurances that I had not been permanently removed from the criminal indigent defense list. I thank my colleagues for submitting letters of support and for sharing my concerns regarding current procedures for representing Guilford County citizens on the court appointed list.

"Throughout my seven years of representing citizens on the indigency list, I acknowledge that I have not always agreed with the manner in which these cases are calendared, scheduled and heard. Much of my dissatisfaction with the system has motivated me and been the catalyst to my seeking the position of District Court Judge. I believe that reform in this area is necessary to improve the overall quality of representation these citizens receive. The overcrowded dockets, requiring attorneys to be present on multiple cases in both Greensboro and High Point on the same day, has not only affected me, but also other attorneys on the criminal indigency list. One of my primary goals upon election is to address this issue from the bench by making every effort to communicate with the attorneys and courtroom personnel to create a more harmonious and fluid approach to the manner in which cases progress."

There are several issues there.

* Foster acknowledges her campaign activities were interfering with her ability to do her job.

* She implies that Harrelson and Lloyd were acting for political reasons (although Lloyd's letter was dated on the day of the primary, not "only days before.")

* She says she was assured she was not permanently removed from the criminal appointment list. The committee gave no such assurance. It said she may reapply for reinstatement next year.

* She blames the system for her problems and says her candidacy was motivated by her desire to fix the system. Yet, I am reliably told that the committee's action against Foster was very rare. Other attorneys are managing to work with the system without experiencing the same problems.

Foster may try to turn herself into a victim and use this episode to strengthen her campaign. I can't see it that way. I believe this does speak to her qualifications to serve as a judge.

She strenuously disagreed during our conversation today and insisted she is better qualified than her opponent, Robert Enochs, an assistant district attorney who is assigned to Superior Court cases. Her practice has been in District Court.

But the pertinent question is, how reliable has her work there been?

I am told she does a good job in juvenile court, which is very difficult for many attorneys. She can work passionately on behalf of her clients and tries to help them find long-term solutions to their problems rather than just get them out of their immediate trouble. Foster is well-liked personally.

But there are too many red flags.

I have a transcript from the Superior Court session of April 28 before Judge Richard Stone (a visiting judge) when courtroom personnel couldn't locate Foster. She told me she did not know her client was scheduled to be in court that day and did not receive communications from the court. More important than the details of one case, however, were the comments by Walter Jones, the top assistant district attorney for High Point:

"This has been something of an ongoing problem, Your Honor. I believe the Court would find that out if it made inquirty of other persons in the courthouse. ... But it has been, I'm sad to report, something of an ongoing problem in various and sundry cases."

I've done what Jones suggested and made inquiries of other persons in the courthouse, and the answers I've heard don't support the idea that Angela Foster should be elected to the bench.

The last time Notre Dame played in Chapel Hill, the Irish brought in a young quarterback named Joe Montana who filled the air with long touchdown passes. The Irish passed plenty yesterday but couldn't outscore the Tar Heels this time. Carolina wins and keeps its top ranking in our poll.

Wake Forest stuffed Clemson on Thursday, pointing to a big showdown with the Tar Heels ... no, wait. The too-big-for-its-own-good ACC didn't schedule a Carolina-Wake game this season. The Heels and Deacons will have to set one up themselves, Dec. 6 in Tampa.

Meanwhile, what has happened to East Carolina?

Tar Heel Top Eight

1. UNC, 5-1 (No. 1 last week)
2. Wake, 4-1 (2)
3. Elon, 6-1 (3)
4. App, 4-2 (4)
5. State, 2-4 (5)
6. Duke, 3-2 (7)
7. ECU, 3-3 (7)
8. Wingate, 7-0 (8)

Having spent last night in downtown Greenville, S.C., I have a complaint:

It attracts way too many people.

OK, Furman's Homecoming weekend (I'm an alumna spouse) happened to coincide with the St. Francis Fall for Greenville festival. I have no idea how many thousands of people were packed into the downtown area. We weren't able to get a feel for the city at a typical time.

But the fact that a small city could host such a huge event says a lot.

Greenville has a lot going for it. Certainly, it's become a national model for downtown redevelopment. Larger cities, like Greensboro, can learn a lot. Indeed, city leaders took a bus trip to Greenville a few years ago for just that purpose.

A stroll down a seven- or eight-block stretch of Greenville's Main Street reveals an amazing variety of restaurants, bars, galleries, shops, hotels, banks, government buildings, residential complexes, theaters and more. The architecture, in many cases, is stunning. Public art and statues attract the eye. There are nearby sports facilities and the Reedy River parks, gardens, bridges and walkways. Beautiful.

I usually do most of my sightseeing while jogging. Much of my run this morning followed the Swamp Rabbit Trial, which traces the river from the Falls Park. It led past new residential developments, older neighborhoods and a series of small parks. I'm a big fan of greenways. Greenville's greenways, though, don't strike me as central at all to downtown development or activities. If Greensboro does build a greenway looping around downtown, it seems to me it would have to serve as a boundary rather than an attraction in its own right. It's what's in the middle that counts.

I haven't studied how Greenville created such a vibrant downtown, although I see it's still considered a work in progress. I don't know what holds up the Greenville economy and keeps all those restaurants, bars, shops and hotels in business, especially those of outstanding quality. All I can say is what others already have observed: Greenville has an exciting, vibrant and busy downtown.

Too darn busy sometimes.

Democratic attack ads have tarred Pat McCrory for Charlotte's crime rate.

That's politics.

A Charlotte Observer editorial today provides some reality: The story of a man arrested last week for allegedly raping a 12-year-old girl. He's been arrested more than 30 times in the past 10 years but never dealt with effectively.

Here's the point: Police make the arrests. That's a city function. Prosecution is up to the state -- and that's where the failure lies in this case, the Observer writes.

McCrory has been so frustrated that he and other municipal leaders have pushed the state for years to step it up. This year, Charlotte put $2 million of city money into the local court system -- a state responsibility -- to help see to it that criminals, once arrested by the police, aren't simply let go again to commit more crimes.

The Democrats are bashing the Republican mayor of Charlotte because he happens to be running for governor. But, because Democrats run state government, they would be more fair and truthful with the people of Charlotte and North Carollina if they acknowledged that fighting crime requires a bipartisan effort by state and local governments.

Last night's Candidate Forum on Education sponsored by Guilford Education Alliance had some good discussion and a spark or two.

The sparks came from Eddie Souther and Kirk Perkins, opponents in the District 4 county commissioners' race.

Souther, a Republican, zinged Democrat incumbent Perkins for saying in 2005 he voted for a budget without knowing what was in it. Perkins denied it.

Today, Souther emailed a citation. It was actually one of our editorials. Here's the best link I could find quickly. Souther wasn't entirely accurate in his statement, but Perkins did admit he agreed to funding agencies he knew little or nothing about.

Souther seemed to rub Perkins a bit raw with another comment, contending commissioners needed to devote more than just 30 days to their budget process. Perkins said they spend several months preparing the budget each year and go over it line-by-line.

On the whole, candidates were cordial. All school board candidates except Amos Quick attended the event at GTCC in Jamestown. He's unopposed, but so are Kris Cooke, Carlvena Foster and Paul Daniels, and they participated.

The question eliciting the most disagreement was about taxing authority for school boards. The tally:

Michael McKinney (at-large): FOR
Sandra Alexander (at-large): AGAINST
Foster (District 1): AGAINST
Darlene Garrett (District 3): FOR
Mike Stone (District 3): AGAINST
Daniels (District 5): AGAINST
Cooke (District 7): FOR

If you're keeping score, that's one proponent of taxing authority and two opponents assured of election out of this group. Voters at-large and in District 3 can consider the positions of McKinney-Anderson and Garrett-Stone, respectively, when they choose.

Commissioner candidates weighed in on the same question, but from their own perspective. Commissioners would have to sign off on taxing authority for school boards, if the General Assembly granted that option. Would they?

John Parks, Democrat at-large, said maybe. If majorities of both boards were agreeable, he'd favor putting it to a referendum.

That did not answer where he stood on the question.

Paul Gibson, Democrat at-large, then gave the same non-answer.

Larry Proctor, Republican at-large, said NO.

Souther said NO.

Perkins was not asked the question and didn't go out of his way to answer. (Proctor wasn't asked, either. Moderator Rebecca Klase had moved on to another question, which Proctor dodged in order to return to the taxing authority issue.)

Not attending the forum were Wendell Sawyer, Republican at-large, Paul Elledge, Libertarian at-large, Billy Yow, unopposed Republican District 5, Mike Winstead, unopposed Republican District 7, and Skip Alston, unopposed Democrat District 8.

Several District Court candidates attended: Avery Crump, Betty Brown, Chuck White, Tabatha Holliday and Angela Foster. They only got to say hello. Is anyone putting on a forum for them? They deserve a chance.

Pat McCrory added another newspaper endorsement this week: The Asheville Citizen-Times:

"Though we disagree with him on some issues, we recommend McCrory because we believe he is best suited to lead the state in meeting the challenges that confront it as a result of rapid growth."

The AC-T follows the Charlotte Observer, News & Record and Winston-Salem Journal. Is the Charlotte mayor heading for a sweep of major daily endorsements? For a Republican, that's amazing.

The same four newspapers have endorsed Democrat Kay Hagan over Republican Elizabeth Dole in the Senate race.

Bev Perdue gets a final chance to answer McCrory face-to-face in tonight's TV debate. She will attend this time after skipping the last two -- a decision that really set her back.

Update, 8:15 p.m: Contrary to some expectations, maybe even her own, Bev Perdue did better by participating in tonight's debate than she did by missing the last two. But not well enough to appear more gubernatorial than rivals Pat McCrory and Mike Munger. They argued their positions well, with both presenting views opposing Perdue's. The set-up made her look like the odd gal out. Even the placement of her podium, to the right and slightly to the back -- maybe just an unfavorable camera angle? -- tended to marginalize her. Nevertheless, voters who are already committed to supporting her likely will stay. She is going to be a tight one.

My column today:

It usually takes a constitutional amendment or activist court ruling to establish a new right.

Barack Obama hasn't said how he hopes to create a right to health care for all Americans. Maybe we'll hear more during tonight's debate. It would take the full 90 minutes to address all the questions.

I don't expect meaningful discussion from John McCain, who seems to be sinking into a Bob Dole 1996 sort of aimlessness. If he had the energy, he could force Obama into a lively exchange about the nature of rights vs. benefits. ...

Hoping for a killer political film from Oliver Stone?

Miami Herald reviewer Rene Rodriguez says don't expect too much:

"W. is passably interesting, occasionally riveting, and largely superfluous."

That pretty much describes the Bush administration in its closing months.

Stone reportedly rushed to get the movie out before the election, but maybe he was an election too late.

If you see 'W," please post a thumbs up or down.

Just received an email from a group called "Change to Win" with a Washington, D.C., phone number. As follows ...

Photo Opp: Dozens of workers with empty six packs and name placards stating “My Name is Joe,” protesting outside a private fundraiser for Sarah Palin at a multi-million dollar residence in Greensboro, N.C.

What: Members of Change to Win, a coalition of seven unions and six million members, are holding a protest outside a private fundraiser for Sarah Palin in Greensboro, N.C. Workers are dressing as the Change to Win “Joe Six-Packs” and demanding straight talk from Sarah Palin about why she and Senator McCain support giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. The private fundraiser is being hosted by Louis DeJoy and his wife Aldona Wos. Wos is the former US ambassador to Estonia, a position she was appointed to after both she and her husband raised significant funds for George W. Bush in 2004.

When: 5:00 PM, Thursday, October 16, 2008

Where: 806 Country Club Dr

Greensboro, NC 27408

So, what the heck is this group protesting? The fact that Sarah Palin is appearing at a private fundraiser for Republicans in Greensboro?

Joe Biden did the same for Democrats in Charlotte last month. Big deal.

Oh, but Change to Win is "demanding straight talk from Sarah Palin about why she and Senator McCain support giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas."

They want straight talk? Well, here it is from PolitiFact.com: That tired line is bogus.

The St. Pete Times/CQ truth-seekers put it to rest when fact-checking Biden's accusation back in August:

"Does John McCain support tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas? Not really. He supports retaining a long-standing principle of the U.S. tax system that encourages some companies to move operations overseas. The world is far more complicated than Biden's catchphrase makes it seem, and that makes his argument Barely True."

That's the bottom line. But read the entire explanation. "Barely True" strikes me as generous.

This Change to Win "protest" is just partisan politics as usual.

TV ads for Kristin Ruth, a candidate for N.C. Court of Appeals.

She's currently a Wake County District Court judge.

It's too bad we don't see more of these. Judges don't attack anyone in their ads.

Jerry Mingo is 61 and has lived in High Point's inner city most of his life. Now he's a candidate for City Council in Ward 2.

We got together for a conversation this morning, and he impressed me with what he names as his No. 1issue:

"Truancy. There are too many of our youth not attending school or who are not attending on a regular basis. They are seen roaming the street during school hours and also late at night. There should be meetings with parents, schools, community, local businesses, social services and other groups to come up with solutions."

Obviously this is terribly disturbing. Kids staying out of school aren't getting an education and they are likely getting into trouble. They're certainly potential recruits for the gangs that Mingo sees slowly creeping into the area

A community response definitely is needed. But it starts with parents. They've got to be held accountable for their kids' actions.

It can be done. A judge sent a High Point woman to jail last month for her children's repeated absences from school. It shouldn't take that drastic action to get a parent's attention, but they have a legal responsibility to see that their kids go to school. The law has to be enforced.

The city has an interest, too. I can't think of much worse for any community than to have kids running loose during the day when they should be at school and at night when they should be in bed.

There's a forum for City Council candidates at the Baldwin's Chapel education center on Leonard Avenue in Ward 2 next Tuesday evening. The whole program could focus on this issue.

Do you care where judicial candidates received their legal education? Does it matter?

You decide.

But I'd like to hear some opinions, especially from lawyers.

Here are the facts. I'll list the school where the candidate received his or her law degree and, if applicable, a second school if the candidate earned an advanced law degree.

N.C. Supreme Court

Bob Edmunds: UNC-Chapel Hill, Virginia
Suzanne Reynolds: Wake Forest

N.C. Court of Appeals

John Arrowood: UNC-Chapel Hill
Bob Hunter: UNC-Chapel Hill

Cheri Beasley: Tennessee
Doug McCullough: South Carolina

Dan Barrett: Wake Forest
Linda Stephens: UNC-Chapel Hill

Sam J. Ervin IV: Harvard
Kristin Ruth: Campbell

Jewel Ann Farlow: Wake Forest
James A. Wynn: Marquette, Virginia

Guilford County District Court

Susan Burch: Wake Forst
Tabatha Holliday: N.C. Central

Robert Enochs: Campbell
Angela Foster: N.C. Central

Avery Crump: N.C. Central
Robby Hassell: UNC-Chapel Hill

Betty Brown: N.C. Central
Chuck White: Wake Forest

Polly Sizemore: Wake Forest
Barbara Washington: Rutgers

Not-George-Bush, won't-raise-your-taxes, balance-the-budget-in-four-years, school-choice John McCain came out swinging tonight.

Maybe you didn't buy it all, but the feisty old fighter pilot was taking his shots. He showed passion, he showed desire ... he showed some of what got him here in the first place.

Barack Obama was laid back, cool, controlled ... I'd say presidential in tone and demeanor. He looked like he knows he's got this thing won and could only blow it by letting McCain goad him into a shootout. He didn't.

I thought McCain scored points talking about all the money Obama's pouring into negative ads, promising to nominate qualified judges without any litmus test, arguing for giving families a chance to put their kids in better schools and strongly defending his choice of Sarah Palin.

He misfired a few times, too. His hurt feelings about some John Lewis remarks seemed contrived. His riff on trade with Colombia likely just confused people. The Bill Ayers link isn't going to turn any undecided voters away from Obama.

Still, McCain made clear he's not quitting. He can push issues that will resonate with many Americans. He's running to the finish line.

So what? McCain's fighting spirit might make the difference between a blowout and a respectable loss. And that might mean he edges Obama in a few toss-up states like North Carolina, giving Republicans a chance to hold on to a shaky congressional seat or pick up a governorship.

Sometimes good soldiering means hanging on long enough to cover your friends. That might be McCain's mission now.

I agree with Rosemary: The courts should be an important concern for voters in the presidential election.

Maybe not a decider, given all the other pressing issues, but something to take into consideration.

The topic came up during Wednesday night's presidential debate, and I thought John McCain came across as much more sincere.

Both McCain and Barack Obama said they would nominate judges on the basis of their qualifications, not ideology.

Really?

McCain pointed out that he voted to confirm Clinton nominees Ginsburg and Breyer, while Obama voted against the confirmation of Bush nominee Roberts.

All three were well-qualified jurists. Ginsburg and Breyer are liberals, Roberts is a conservative.

Clearly, McCain set aside ideology when making his decision, while Obama did not.

Obama was one of only 22 senators opposing Roberts' confirmation, all Democrats.

Voters can expect that a President McCain would nominate more conservative judges, and a President Obama would nominate more liberal judges. That matters to a lot more issues than abortion.

One big difference, because the Senate will be controlled by Democrats: If McCain is president, he won't likely see a conservative judge confirmed, no matter how well qualified. Sen. Obama might lead the opposition.

The Charlotte Observer today endorses Bob Edmunds of Greensboro for N.C. Supreme Court and Jim Wynn for N.C. Court of Appeals.

The paper will make more Court of Appeals recommendations tomorrow but singled out Wynn's race today as particularly important.

That was our view, too. Among all the appellate judges on the ballot this year, Wynn is most deserving of re-election. His defeat would be a big loss for North Carolina.

Our headline today said, "Palin keeps it positive."

That wasn't true for all her supporters at yesterday's Elon rally.

As Mark recounts, one of them kicked our reporter Joe Killian to the ground.

Apparently for being a reporter.

The incident made The Daily Kos, which is only too happy to use it as proof that Republicans are violent animals driven to attack mode by John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Unfair? Sure.

But what happened to Joe happened, and there's no defending it.

The assailant should be turned in and charged. The last people willing to tolerate violent behavior, or even threatening language, at a McCain-Palin rally should be their supporters.

The ugly incident has also been reported by Under the Dome (Raleigh N&O), BlueNC (North Carolina liberals), Romenesko (Poynter Institute), Isaac Hunter's Tavern (WUNC), and probably will go MSM before the day is out.

I hope the McCain-Palin campaign will take note and make sure future events are policed better. The candidates should start each rally by encouraging followers to behave decently.

And it wouldn't hurt if Palin sent Joe a nice note thanking him for turning in a professional report despite being attacked.

The N.C. Democratic Party has struck the first blow of the year against nonpartisan statewide judicial races with a newspaper ad campaign supporting candidates Suzanne Reynolds, John Martin, Jim Wynn, Sam J. Ervin, Kristin Ruth, Linda Stephens, Cheri Beasley and John Arrowood.

The independent expenditure report filed with the N.C. State Board of Elections is here.

This is vexing for two reasons.

First, judicial races are NONPARTISAN. The Democratic Party didn't object when the legislature decided these races ought to be nonpartisan. After all, Democrats controlled the legislature. So the Democratic Party should respect the spirit of nonpartisanship and butt out.

Second, the Democrats' spending triggers the rescue funding provision of the state's public financing system for participating judicial candidates.

In this case, that means -- because the Democrats spent $12,883.90 on behalf of each of the candidates listed above -- their qualifying opponents will receive a check from the public finance account in an equal amount.

That's money from the PUBLIC. So this Democratic expenditure is forcing MORE public spending.

Actually, only four candidates are receiving the rescue funds. That's because:

* John Martin, the chief judge of the N.C. Court of Appeals, us running unopposed;

* Sam Ervin and Kristin Ruth are running against each other, although both happen to be registered Democrats;

* and Wynn's opponent, Jewel Farlow, is not participating in the public finance system and therefore does not qualify for rescue money from that fund.

The candidates with checks coming are Bob Edmunds, Doug McCullough, Bob Hunter and Dan Barrett.

I would implore the Republican Party not to follow this bad example. Put your money elsewhere. Partisan politics is bad for our state's judiciary.

Looks like the Democrats don't care. I hope the Republicans will do better.

One other thought, courtesy of a judicial campaign insider:

The Democrats are doing "their" candidates no favors. In effect, they're giving their opponents additional campaign money to spend as those campaigns choose. And they're spending money on behalf of "their" candidates in ways that those candidates themselves might not choose or regard as effective.

So, how about it, Democrats? Want to think again?

Adding to JR's comments about Marse Grant, who died yesterday.

Marse was a proud High Point native, but in a sense his real hometown was a smaller community within High Point: Highland Village, the little company town built around a cotton mill. Marse remembered it as an idyllic place to grow up, a sort of mill town Mayberry. Of course, everyone with a chance to gain some education moved up and out. Marse worked his way through High Point College and went on to a stellar career as editor of the once-influential Biblical Recorder.

Marse was a fine gentleman who maintained warm feelings all his life for the old cotton mill culture of Highland Village.

The Charlotte Observer's Court of Appeals endorsements today echo ours:

Doug McCullough, Sam J. Ervin IV, Linda Stephens and John Arrowood.

As I noted previously, the Observer endorsed Jim Wynn in a separate edit yesterday.

Linda Stephens TV ad here.

Other judicial candidates: If you have TV ads, send them to me at dgclark@news-record.com

Democrat early voters outnumber Republicans by 3-1 statewide Thursday and Friday, The N&O reports today.

The ratio might have been more lopsided at High Point's Washington Terrace Park location, one of the two Guilford County early voting sites open Thursday and Friday. WTP is in the heart of a heavily Democratic part of the city.

Republicans, off to a slow start, have their work cut out for them.

Unlikely? Sure. But after yesterday's performances by Carolina and Wake, can you make a case for either of them?

Sadly, we have to drop previously undefeated Wingate from our rankings after the Bulldogs' loss to Newberry. And State's finally out, too.

Tar Heel Top Six

1. Elon, 7-1 (No. 3 last week)
2. UNC, 5-2 (1)
3. Wake, 4-2 (2)
4. App, 5-2 (4)
5. ECU, 4-3 (7)
6. Duke, 3-3 (6)

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama today makes me wonder what might have been ...

... had Powell himself run for president in 2000.

Can anyone doubt he had the qualities and qualifications to be an outstanding chief executive and commander-in-chief?

Maybe he would have led a stronger response to the 9/11 attacks, crushing al-Qaida, stabilizing Afghanistan and bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Maybe.

Certainly he would NOT have launched an ill-conceived war in Iraq, sparing five years of American blood, treasure and international esteem.

The question: Could he have wrested the 2000 Republican nomination from George W. Bush? Like all historical what-ifs, we'll never know.

But, had he done so, and then more convincingly defeated Al Gore in the general election with significant support from black voters and independents, he could have transformed the Republican Party and national politics for a generation.

Assuming a popular and successful presidency, by 2008 he would have a ready successor, allowing no opening for Barack Obama's message of hope and change. That already would have been achieved by the country's first black president, Colin Powell.

Only dreams and might-have-beens, of course.

Powell likely will influence the presidential election of 2008, but not in the profound way he could have if, in 2000, he had offered his own candidacy for the nation's highest office.

N.C. Supreme Court candidate Suzanne Reynolds ...

N.C. Court of Appeals Judge John Arrowood ...

N.C. Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds ...

I have a little problem with Edmunds' ad because it implies he'll rule to put criminals behind bars. That comes across as a bit prejudicial. In criminal cases that come before the Supreme Court, the question isn't guilt or innocence but whether the defendant received a fair trial. When a fair trial has been denied, and errors were prejudicial to the case, justice demands a remedy. Sometimes that's vacating the conviction. Legal subtleties don't fit into 15-second TV spots, but it's important not to give voters the wrong idea.

What's your impression of these ads?

Barack Obama's campaign announces a staggering $150 million fundraising haul for September ...

... and they're still dunning me with daily email donation requests:

"It's not too late to own a piece of this campaign. In fact, your support is needed more urgently now than ever before."

Needed more urgently? They must be joking.

Obama is on track to take in a half-billion dollars for his general election campaign, Bloomberg reports today.

I support the sentiments of CNN's Campbell Brown. In a commentary last week, she called on the Obama and McCain campaigns to start giving money to charity.

McCain, on the public funding system, has much less campaign cash than Obama so he might be excused. But how much more TV saturation does Obama need at this point? It seems to me most of his ads are just bashing McCain now, so his tens of millions could be better spent.

Give the money to The Salvation Army, Senator! You might win even more votes if you do.

Meanwhile, Obama gets a boost from the Cumberland County Board of Elections, which opens additional early voting sites Sunday to accommodate the crowd at an Obama rally.

And some Obama supporters get their tires slashed.

The Sarah Palin-Tina Fey opening on SNL was OK ... but once that was over, we remembered why we don't watch SNL anymore. Seriously No Laughs.

An e-mail from the campaign of N.C. Court of Appeals Judge John Arrowood, pointing out that his opponent, Bob Hunter, is not another judge also named Bob Hunter.

"Dear Friend,

"My name is Claire Hunter and I am a law student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I wanted to send you this email to make sure there is no confusion this election year. My father is Court of Appeals Judge Robert C. (Bob) Hunter. In 2006 you were kind enough to support Dad for re-election to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Thanks to your help he won and is currently serving a term that will continue until 2014.

"This year another Bob Hunter, an attorney who practices in Greensboro, has filed to run for the Court of Appeals in an attempt to unseat Judge John S. Arrowood from the Court. As I have spoken with folks I sense there has been some confusion and some people think Dad is on the ballot again. Rest assured he is not and I will be voting to keep my friend Judge Arrowood on the Court of Appeals. I hope you will do the same. Remember early voting has already started so vote to keep Judge John Arrowood on the North Carolina Court of Appeals and please go to www.judgearrowood.com to see Judge Arrowood's new TV spot that will soon be airing statewide.

"Best Wishes,

"Claire Hunter"

This is signed "Claire Hunter" because, as a sitting judge not up for election this year, the Bob Hunter who's her father isn't allowed to make an endorsement.

Addendum: The candidate Bob Hunter's TV ad.

Compliments to the League of Women Voters for hosting a forum for 6th District congressional candidates today and to moderator David Olson.

Republican Rep. Howard Coble and Democratic challenger Teresa Sue Bratton both did very well before a large and attentive audience.

This race has drawn relatively little attention with all the noise surrounding the presidential and statewide races. Also, the strong Republican tilt of the 6th District normally makes it less than compeitive. Coble, first elected in 1984, was very closely challenged in 1986 but has breezed to re-election every two years since.

Coble's success has to do with more than the district's partisan leanings, however. He's a friendly conservative, in tune with constituents on most issues, but also folksy and charming. And he was darn near his best today, showing a firm command of detail and a terrific sense of humor, some at his own expense. An example: Talking about an uncle who passed away earlier this year, Coble allowed at the funeral as the man only grudgingly voted for him. A cousin corrected him: "He never voted for you."

Bratton, a pediatrician running for political office for first time, might appear as the familiar overmatched Coble opponent, someone who runs because more experienced Democrats don't want to waste their time. There's been a long list of them in the 6th District.

However, Bratton is very bright, poised, personable and definitely in tune with the political tide flooding much of the country and probably spilling into the 6th District at least a little. In other words, she's making a bigger splash than the typical Democrat running against Coble.

Today's exchange was polite, even amiable. Coble referred to Bratton as a "worthy adversary." She disagreed with him on some things, of course, but never in a harsh manner.

Both presented opening statements, then answered questions, offered responses and wrapped up with closing statements. The event lasted about an hour. It was well-attended by other elected officials and candidates. including state legislators Maggie Jeffus, John Blust and Pricey Harrison.

There were distinctions in the positions of the rivals.

Coble explained his votes against the first bailout bill and for the second, which he said contained improvements such as raising the FDIC limit on bank deposits to $250,000. Bratton said she would have voted for the first but agreed the second was better.

On immigration, Bratton called for a means of documenting illegal aliens and said there should be a visa program to let in seasonal farm workers. Coble spoke for tighter border security and said more accommodations should be made for guest workers, especially skilled workers. Bratton agreed about border security and that there's a need to allow in more skilled and unskilled workers in some industries in a legal way.

On health care, Coble lamented the amount of money spent, said more focus should be placed on prevention and managing chronic illnesses, added that too many lack health insurance. He estimated the number at 40 million but noted, "Teresa Sue, you may know this better than I do." He was right. Health care is her bread and butter, and she spoke very knowledgeably about the need for prevention, portability of coverage, protecting people from the economic calamity of catastrophic illness, shifting the focus from emergency rooms and eliminating cost-inefficiencies.

On energy and the environment, Bratton called for reducing dependency on oil. Don't subsidize it, she said. Instead, subsidize alternative, renewable energy industries. Offer tax incentives to individuals incorporating energy efficiencies at home. Coble cited good news -- much of our imported oil comes from friendly neighbors Canada and Mexico -- and the bad news that much of the rest comes from countries "that want to do us in," including Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Nigeria? Coble called for increasing domestic supplies, including offshore if states approve. We'd be in better shape if we'd drilled in Alaska's ANWR, he asserted. But he also supports development of solar, wind and nuclear. Bratton answered that East Coast reserves don't amount to much, and the money would be better invested in renewables that could serve us "for hundreds or thousands of years."

On Social Security solvency, Coble said many alternatives should be on the table, including raising the retirement age. But he doesn't have a plan, he said. Bratton said one bad plan would be privatization. She favors removing the cap on the SS tax and added "we have to consider age." Also, more younger workers are needed to fund the system, she said, pointing to immigration as an answer. Then she delivered her laugh line of the event: In Germany, which has a declining birth rate, young people are paid to have sex at rock concerts so they'll have more babies. Coble declined to comment on that, but assured that Social Security "won't go belly up tomorrow."

On campaign finance, Bratton said she favors public funding; Coble said he doesn't. He would like to see the U.S. adopt an aspect of the British political system where campaigns last only a few weeks but said the First Amendment would prevent that sort of limitation.

On the wars, Coble noted he supported the invasion of Iraq, believed then and still believes now that Saddam Hussein was an international terrorist who had WMDs. Coble repeated his contention that the post-entry strategy was flawed, said he wants U.S. troops out sooner rather than later but opposes any timetable other than what the military commanders say is doable. He opposed the surge, he said, because he didn't think it would achieve political and diplomatic progress, and he's not so sure he wasn't right about that. Bratton lamented all the money going to Iraq while we're in a recession at home, refuted Coble's claim about WMDs and terrorists in Iraq and said U.S. troops should disengage as quickly and safely as possible. In regard to Afghanistan, six months ago she would have agreed with the idea that more troops are needed there, Bratton said, but she isn't sure now because we don't want to repeat the same mistakes we made in Iraq.

On free trade and NAFTA, Bratton said some states have prospered but Mexico's farm economy was detroyed, sending illegal immigrants across the border. Should subsidies for U.S. agricultural products be removed to level the playing field? she asked. She's for provisions on trade deals that contain worker and environmental protections. Coble said he's for free trade if it's fair trade and still supports NAFTA.

Both candidates said they could work across party lines if the next president happens to carry the opposite political label. Coble regrets the level of partisan rancor and said people are fed up with it. Bratton compared politics to medicine. As a physician, she strives for the remedy she wants for her patient that her patient is willing to accept.

For listeners sick of negative political ads, Coble and Bratton offered an hour of positive prescriptions. Congratulations to both of them and to the League.

My column today (online only):

There’s an undercurrent in High Point’s Ward 2 City Council race: Beat the white guy. ...

Those of us who blasted Mike and Mary Easley for their first-class jet-setting at taxpayer expense can't give Sarah Palin a pass.

She stuck Alaska taxpayers with bills for her children's travel, including "a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel," AP reports.

That's just wrong, no two ways about it. It's not what you'd expect from a "reformer" set on cutting wasteful government spending.

As for North Carolina's governor, we haven't heard the last about his travels. Carolina Journal's Don Carrington has been tracking the "Secret Easley Air Service."

Given the setting of last night's forum for Ward 2 and at-large High Point City Council candidates, you would expect a nod to the role of churches in building communities.

Baldwin's Chapel SDA Church hosted the event in its education center, "The oldest and only African-American operated private school in High Point."

The church is still an influential institution, and the candidates on stage last night all supported a strong role for faith-based organizations in addressing community problems. Absolutely!

Some went considerably further in promoting the role of religion, or at least prayer, in public affairs.

The candidates were asked whether they would support a policy to allow sectarian prayers before City Council meetings.

That's a loaded question in High Point. Last year, prayer -- with sad irony -- was the loudest, most contentious and time-consuming issue that came before the council.

Ward 3 Councilman Mike Pugh, supported by many churches, proposed a policy to allow individual council members on a rotating basis to open meetings with the prayers of their choice. In Pugh's case, that would be a specifically Christian prayer.

After some research, City Attorney Fred Baggett advised the council that would not be lawful. When Pugh formally offered his motion, there was no second. Instead, a motion was approved by an 8-1 vote to follow a different policy. In part, it stated that "prayers should refrain from sectarian references or other appearances of affiliation with or approval of any one religious viewpoint.”

That policy, in my opinion, should not be disturbed.

Pugh, however, running unopposed for re-election, is likely to return to the subject next year. Now it looks like he'll have a second, because the four Ward 2 candidates who attended last night's forum -- Julius Clark, Foster Douglas, Pride Grimm Jr. and Jerry Mingo -- all said they would support sectarian prayer. Tony Davis was not present.

Another questioner turned up the heat: What will you do to put prayer back in the schools? He noted that society in general, and especially the black community, has suffered since prayer was removed from public schools.

At-large Councilman Latimer Alexander, after revealing that "three or four of us" get together for private prayers before meetings, responded -- correctly -- that the City Council can't direct policies about prayer in school.

Clark answered by quoting Proverbs 22:6, adding that children should be taught to prayer at home.

Grimm didn't promise to return prayer to schools in elected to the City Council but took note of a "testering evil in our society." First prayers are removed from school and then children will be taught it's OK "to experiment with homosexuality." This drew "amens" and other expressions of approval from the audience.

Mingo said he agreed with Clark and Alexander.

Douglas said we not should let anyone deny our children the right to pray, adding "We've strayed away and it's caused a multitude of problems."

At-large candidate Jason Cox said voluntary, student-led prayers at school are allowed, recalling prayer-at-the-flagpole gatherings when he attended High Point Central. He offered a personal testimony to his Christian faith, and said the home and the churches aren't doing all they can for children.

At-large candidate Mary Lou Blakeney said the City Council must follow the law but also said parents in some cases have fallen short of meeting their responsibilities to children, with one consequence being "so many babies having babies."

Finally, at-large write-in candidate Al Campbell really laid out some truth: "As an elected official, I would do nothing to return prayer to the school. That is the job of the family, not the government." Amen to that, Al.

I hope Pugh and whoever is elected to the Ward 2 seat think again about the prayer issue.

I'm for prayer. I belong to a prayer group at my church. I pray privately. But I don't expect my representative (I live in Pugh's ward) to pray according to his own beliefs in his capacity as an elected official of the city. That shouldn't be part of his job. Nor should he reignite a debate that, frankly, promoted disharmony and distracted the council's attention from more pressing business.

Even at last night's forum, the candidates initiated discussions about jobs, crime, housing and other high-priority concerns. Not one of them raised the subject of prayer. They discussed prayer when prompted.

The forum was opened and closed with Christian prayers -- appropriate given the church setting. A City Council meeting, though, deals with secular matters, and that's where its focus should be.

Addendum: I should have made clear I have no objection to churches and church people getting involved in city affairs. I believe they should. High Point's West End Ministries has worked miracles in its part of town.

Today's offers from the Obama campaign:

For a $10 donation, they'll send me an Obama/Biden car magnet.

For $30, a T-shirt.

For $100, I can sponsor an ACORN voter registration worker.

Sorry, just kidding on that last one.

By the way, I never get any offers from the Republicans. I'm not buying from either side, but I'll bet the McCain stuff is going for less. ...

... I'm right: 17 bucks for a T-shirt here.

Hey, wait. I can get an Obama T-shirt for less than 20-25 bucks on his Web site here.

Here's a prediction: One campaign's stuff is going to be worth a lot more than the other's after Nov. 4.

Crystal Gail Mangum still claims she was assaulted at the Duke lacrosse team party in 2006, and now she's peddling a book, the N&O reports. She's holding a press conference in Durham later this morning.

When Attorney General Roy Cooper, after an investigation by his office, branded her accusations totally false and pronounced the Duke defendants innocent, he noted charitably that Mangum probably couldn't tell truth from fiction.

At the time, I thought he was right in not charging her for making false allegations. But now that she's apparently trying to sell the same old story, it looks like she was let off too easy.

Too many people believed her original accusations. I hope no one's buying her line now, or her book.

A decision from the N.C. Court of Appeals this week warns school systems to be careful when writing gang policies ... which the Guilford County school board has been doing.

The case comes from a lawsuit filed against Durham school officials regarding actions taken under the gang policy there and the policy itself. For technical reasons, the suit had been thrown out by Durham County Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, and the appeals court mostly agreed with him.

It sent an interesting aspect of the plaintiffs' claim back to the lower court, however. That had to do with whether the policy is impermissibly vague in defining who is a gang member. The ruling, written by Judge Martha Geer, didn't explicity agree, but it cited other court opinions that lead me to believe it thinks that part of the policy could be struck down.

Basically, the Durham policy says gang members can be identified by how they dress and how they communicate. But it doesn't specify exactly what kind of clothing or colors or jewelry, or what precise language or hand signs, are associated with gangs.

I spoke with Jill Wilson, the Guilford County school board attorney, this morning. She had read this case with keen interest. The Guilford board is well aware of the problem the court spotted in regard to the Durham policy. Guilford's draft policy tried to set criteria that indicate gang membership, such as style of dress, hand signals and so on. But these indicators can change over time, or even very quickly. This week a gang wears black sneakers, next week it switches to red. A policy can't keep up. Furthermore, what about the innocent kid who accidentally wears the wrong kind of ballcap and ends up identified as a gang member?

Look, gangs pose serious problems in school and out. Kids need to be steered away from them. But the real issue isn't status. It's conduct. The schools have to deal with dangerous, threatening, disruptive behavior, whether the perpetrator is a gang member or not.

The last thing anyone should want is a court case over the question of how you define a gang member. The time to get the courts involved is when kids commit crimes, not when they file lawsuits because they've been unfairly labeled.

Today's email message from the Obama campaign:

"The race is tight, and we simply can't slow down.

"We need to keep fighting right up until the end, and your donation today will strengthen this campaign in the final push."

This daily dunning for donations is going to stop after Obama's elected, right?

Here's my video interview with UNCG Chancellor Linda Brady, recorded by N&R videographer Michael McQueen.

Update: I've embedded here:

">.

Interesting Q&A with state Court of Appeals Judge James A. Wynn at North Carolina Appellate Blog.

Wynn is tremendously thoughtful. In addition, I've always found him to be very candid and forthright ... especially for a judge.

Today's email solicitation from the Obama campaign comes from Michelle:

"Millions of people are counting on Barack and Joe -- and you -- to bring the change this country needs.

"It all comes down to Friday morning when we make the last, tough choices about where we can fight -- and how hard.

"Please take a minute and think about what's at stake in this election. Your support can help strengthen our team for the final push."

At this point, I think the "final push" must be an effort to set the all-time record for campaign spending.

Bev Perdue plays the Charlotte card in her latest attack ad on Pat McCrory, which is running in the Greensboro market and in Eastern North Carolina.

Charlotte Republicans dare her to run it there. Of course she won't. She's trying to build and benefit from Charlotte resentment in less successful parts of the state.

The N&O's Under the Dome blog dissects the ad here, noting it "makes a leap" in its contention that McCrory questions whether rural roads should be paved.

As mayor of Charlotte, McCrory naturally has lobbied for more transportation funding for the state's largest city. What mayor wouldn't? He's also pushed for transportation funding reform, which is badly needed. As we've seen, the typical North Carolina funding formula is: Big campaign contributor to gubernatorial candidate wins appointment to state transportation board once his candidate's in office, then gets his area's "share" of road money whether it's needed or not. Yes, that could stand to be changed.

An even more outrageous attack ad run by the National Republican Senatorial Committee targets Kay Hagan. It asks (I'm paraphrasing): Had you ever heard of Kay Hagan before she began her campaign against Elizabeth Dole? Of course not. Kay Hagan is a "creation" of Washington liberals.

Had we heard of Kay Hagan? Heck, yes. She's represented Guilford County in the state Senate for nearly a decade. She's been a civic leader in Greensboro for a lot longer than that. She's not a "creation" of anybody, certainly not "Washington liberals." That's about as insulting and untrue a charge as I've heard during this election season. And that's saying a lot.

Press release from N.C. Court of Appeals candidate Kristin Ruth:

"Raleigh – Today, Judge Kristin Ruth, candidate for NC Court of Appeals, will return nearly $13,000.00 of public financing rescue funds to the people of North Carolina. 'This was an unintended consequence of North Carolina’s excellent system of public financing that led to an unnecessary expenditure of public money,' said Judge Ruth.

"Judge Ruth calls on her opponent to do the same with the money he received. Judge Ruth takes the non-partisan nature of judicial races very seriously. 'In keeping with my years of working to save money within the court system, I am returning these funds to the taxpayers,' added Judge Ruth."

This is a commendable gesture by Ruth, and her opponent, Sam J. Ervin IV, ought to match it.

But it would not have been necessary except for the foolish meddling in nonpartisan appellate judicial races by the N.C. Democratic Party -- which I wrote about last week.

At that time, a State Board of Elections official told me only Bob Edmunds, Doug McCullough, Bob Hunter and Dan Barrett were receiving rescue funds after the Democrats bought advertising for their opponents.

Ruth and Ervin also were promoted by the Democrats. Both happen to be registered Democrats ... who are running against each other.

Someone at SBOE obviously decided that the independent expenditure FOR Ruth and Ervin also amounted to an expenditure AGAINST Ruth and Ervin, triggering the rescue funds. If the law requires that, it needs to be changed. It's silly.

In addition to returning the money, Ruth is restating her support for nonpartisan judicial races. Maybe the Democratic Party will think about that and butt out.

Update, 3 p.m. Friday: Ervin tells Mark Binker he'll give back the money, too.

Area bad guys are getting nasty aggressive lately, as the following examples illustrate:

"Taser used in abduction ...

"Store employee beaten ...

"Women shot in both hands during robbery ...

But once in a while you see a more encouraging headline, like:

"Air Force sergeant shoots N.C. intruder."

More of that might make the bad guys think twice.

Native Tar Heel and self-described progressive Bob Moser, writing in The Nation, chronicles North Carolina's political shift toward the Blue.

It ain't Jesse Helms country anymore, Moser notes with considerable satisfaction in an article titled "Obamalina."

Indeed, it was only a dozen years ago that Helms won election to the Senate for the fifth time. Since then, George W. Bush twice carried North Carolina by wide margins.

Now there's a good chance voters here will give liberal Democrat Barack Obama the state's coveted 15 electoral votes -- and replace Helms' successor, Republican Elizabeth Dole, with "scrappy Democratic State Senator Kay Hagan."

An amazing turn of events.

But, reports Moser, North Carolina Democrats might not grab all the prizes at stake on Election Day:

"This year moderate Republicans and independents have one GOP candidate they can cheer wholeheartedly: former Charlotte mayor and gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory, the sort of Republican who raised taxes in his city to pay for mass transit. McCrory is quick-witted, accent free, like so many new North Carolinians, and despite some unpopular stances (including on education, where he has talked about rolling back innovative Democratic programs), he has a good chance to knock off Lieutenant Governor Bev Perdue, an awkward debater and spawn of the corrupt Democratic machine in Raleigh. That's the bright spot for Republicans. Elsewhere it's gloom, doom and desperation for the NC GOP."

Moser is wrong that McCrory is the "former" mayor of Charlotte. The Republican is serving his seventh term.

I think he's also unduly harsh in his assessment of Perdue as a "spawn" of the Raleigh power structure.

But he's dead-on in calling it a "corrupt Democratic machine." Fortunately, some of its top players have been brought to justice in the last few years.

The irony, though, is that North Carolina voters so far haven't made state Democrats pay any real political price for this corruption.

Certainly Washington Republicans are about to get their due. The Bush administration and the go-along Republicans who controlled Congress for most of the last eight years delivered blunders, miscalculations, incompetence, arrogance and irresponsibility. The American people put Democrats in charge of Congress two years ago and they're in the process of awarding the White House to Obama. North Carolina voters just might go along with the trend.

What's frustrating, though, is that North Carolina Democrats deserve no less. Republican McCrory is the candidate who represents hope and change on the state level. He's proven over 13 years in progressive Charlotte that he can work with both parties and get things done without arrogance and dishonesty. Yet, voters who support Democrats for national office, with justification, might at the same time reward Democrats with another four years of absolute power in Raleigh -- an unwarranted gift.

This isn't a novel circumstance. People often vote for a single party from the top of the ballot all the way down. That's exactly what happened when Republicans Jim Holshouser in 1972 and Jim Martin in 1984 and 1988 were elected governor.

McCrory has no Ronald Reagan building a Republican tide to carry him to victory. On the contrary. George W. Bush Republicanism is a whirlpool pulling its candidates down the drain all across the country. McCrory is showing tremendous individual strength as a candidate to even have a chance to win. But, in the end, I don't think he'll make it.

If he loses, it will take more of the same Democratic machine politics in Raleigh before voters figure out they need change there, too.

Carolina rides a huge win over Boston College to claim the No. 1 position in our weekly rankings, while Elon plummets after a crushing loss to Wofford.

Wake disappoints at Miami, while Duke picks up a nice win at Vandy.

Tar Heel Top 6

1. UNC, 6-2 (No. 2 last week)
2. App, 6-2 (4)
3. Wake, 4-3 (3)
4. ECU, 4-3 (5)
5. Duke, 4-3 (6)
6. Elon, 7-2 (1)

The News & Observer of Raleigh -- historically the "Old Reliable" mouthpiece of N.C. Democratic Party views but a fresher independent voice in recent years -- today endorses Republican Pat McCrory for governor.

This is the latest, but by far most significant, newspaper endorsement garnered by the Charlotte mayor, following the News & Record of Greensboro, Charlotte Observer, Winston-Salem Journal, Asheville Citizen-Times, High Point Enterprise, Durham Herald-Sun and Wilson Times.

The Wilmington Star-News, Greenville Daily Reflector and Southern Pines Pilot have endorsed Bev Perdue.

Today's N&O editorial sounds some of the same themes I expressed in last night's post:

"Would the invigorating winds of change blow through the halls of North Carolina's state government if a Republican -- specifically, Pat McCrory, for 14 years the mayor of Charlotte -- were elected governor? You betcha, says McCrory, vowing to dispel what he calls a culture of corruption that has afflicted the capital under Democratic rule."

The N&O agrees.

"Perdue's change agenda is commendable. McCrory's, however, is the more credible. He has not been a cog in the system that has misfired so disappointingly in recent years. ...

"Bev Perdue is a good candidate, but McCrory suits the moment. He's loaded with energy and fresh ideas. On several levels, he could be just what this state needs."

Which state is going to be the Florida of this year's presidential election? The New York Times already has picked out a candidate:

North Carolina.

In an editorial today headlined, "This years butterfly ballot," the NYT writes:

"Eight years later there are still far too many badly done ballots. North Carolina may have the country’s worst. It is already causing confusion with early voters. And if the presidential race is close, it could change the outcome."

You may be wondering: What the heck is the NYT squawking about?

It's all about the fact that a straight-party vote on our ballot doesn't include a vote for president. Voters have to cast that separately.

This very confusing circumstance is going to cause a presidential undervote, the Times warns. And that could change the outcome in a close election.

The not-exactly-hidden implication is that it could hurt Barack Obama's chances of winning North Carolina.

Please let me know if I'm making an incorrect assumption about what's got the Times so worked up.

If I'm right, that indicates the Times also is inferring that Obama voters are more likely to be confused than John McCain voters. Why would that be? They're not as smart? They can't read as well?

This is ridiculous. First, this is how our ballot has been for 40 years. (It was Democrats who set it up this way because they didn't want voters' preference for Republican presidential candidates to carry down the ballot.) Second, it's stated clearly and prominently on the ballot itself that a separate vote for president is required. It's posted at the polling places. Poll workers tell voters right at the voting table that they must vote separately for president.

I suggest that anyone who doesn't cast a vote for president doesn't want to. Voters just cannot fail to understand the need to cast a separate vote for president.

North Carolinians are not the idiots the New York Times thinks. Whether Obama or McCain carries North Carolina, we can be sure the outcome is the result of the voters' will, not their inability to comprehend our ballot.

It was just a matter of timing: Joe Biden was going to arrive at downtown Greensboro's Price Bryan Performance Place for his rally this afternoon, or it was going to start raining.

In the case of the latter event, it would be questionable how many of the few hundred supporters actually would hang around rather than run for cover.

Folks already were cold and wary as the first drops began to fall. Two o'clock, when the outdoor event was supposed to begin, had come and gone. Kay Hagan had done a credible job of warming up her homeys before retreating to a tent set up behind the stage.

The invocation had been said, a pitch had been made for early voting and still no Biden, who spoke earlier today all the way down east in Greenville.

Finally, as the sky turned more gray, his motocade rolled up North Davie and the Delaware senator exited his SUV and strode into the tent as the national press corps filed from its bus to set up coverage.

The crowd waited some more, some shouting "We want Joe" with measured enthusiasm.

Biden took the stage at 3 on the dot and immediately asked the question on everyone's mind:

"Think we can beat the rain? I know we can beat the other team, I just want to beat the rain."

Without an overcoat or hat, he seemed pretty confident of the answer. Hey, everything's going right for this campaign.

Biden gave nice shoutouts to locals like former Congressman Robin Britt (knocked out of his seat by Howard Coble way back in 1984), Guilford party chairman Paul Mengert, Congressman Mel Watt, Mayor Yvonne Johnson and especially Hagan.

"We're holding on to her skirt tails to win here," he said, to laughs and applause.

Don't joke. She may lead North Carolina Democrats in votes come Election Night.

Then Biden launched into his familiar stump speech, with some punch lines, some jabs at John McCain, expressions of optimism about the country's future if the politics change and predictions that Barack Obama will be a great president.

By 3:15 he was off stage and shaking a few hands ... although most in the crowd departed quickly.

It still hadn't rained, but no point in pushing one's luck.

It's not only the TV attack ads that are driving down the tone of this campaign season.

The garbage delivered by mail stinks, too.

Two examples that arrived yesterday:

* A flier headlined "2008 North Carolina Voter Guide" makes you think at first it contains useful nonpartisan information. Open it up and you quckly find out otherwise. It offers a one-sided comparison of gubernatorial candidates Pat McCrory and Bev Perdue, totally unfavorable to Perdue. Paid for by the Republican Governors Association. Hey, RGA. You're entitled to mail out whatever you want, but don't try to hoodwink voters by dressing it up as something it's not.

* A flier featuring a large close-up picture of Liddy Dole (with a very unflattering expression) and the word MISSING stamped in red across her forehead. "Tacky," said my teacher wife, even though she definitely doesn't support Dole. "It's from NCAE," I tell her. "Your dues paid for it." Tacky AND embarrassing. Come on, NCAE. Have a little respect for your membership.

The N&O endorses Greensboro's Bob Edmunds for N.C. Supreme Court but likes Suzanne Reynolds, too.

Much like our take.

"His written opinions are generally clear and do not evince an overriding ideological agenda," The N&O writes today. "His candidacy this year is endorsed by four former chief justices of our Supreme Court, including both Democrats and Republicans. Edmunds, 59, is both personable and serious."

About his opponent: "Suzanne Reynolds, also 59, is exactly the kind of candidate that publicly financed elections were meant to produce. She has not been notably active in partisan politics, instead becoming an expert in North Carolina family law -- yes, she wrote the book -- and an admired law school professor. Before joining the faculty she practiced civil law with a Greensboro firm."

Bottom line: Edmunds wider experience, including 10 years on the appellate courts, gives him the edge, The N&O says.

It will makes its endorsements in Court of Appeals races tomorrow.

Few newspapers are even weighing in on these important elections. Too bad. They need much more attention. I fear some voters aren't casting informed ballots.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies invited N.C. Supreme Court candidates Justice Bob Edmunds and Professor Suzanne Reynolds to participate in a forum in Raleigh yesterday.

You can see the video here.

I guarantee it's more interesting than watching a World Series rain delay.

Also at the Web site of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a "special issue report" on the N.C. Supreme Court.

Authors are Scott Gaylord, associate professor at Elon University School of Law, and Joshua Davey, an attorney with McGuireWoods in Charlotte.

They're writing in the context of next week's election with the goal of further acquainting North Carolinians with the role of the courts. Maybe, since it's too wet and cold for baseball in Philly tonight, reading this will give fans something else to do.

Gaylord and Davey provide "an overview of important recent decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court that highlight the different views that the Justices have regarding the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional system. In particular, this Report focuses on those decisions that reveal differences in the Justices’ judicial philosophies and that have a significant impact on the rights of North Carolinians in five areas: redistricting, the First Amendment, workers’ compensation, criminal law, and contracts. It is the authors’ hope that this Report will help (1) foster public debate and discussion about the proper role of the judiciary in our system of checks and balances, and (2) provide a better understanding of the current judicial philosophy of the North Carolina Supreme Court."

The authors cite seven cases, all split decisions by the court, which are always more interesting. In six of the seven, Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson was a dissenter; Robin Hudson joined her in three. Chief Justice Sarah Parker dissented twice, and Ed Brady and Paul Newby once each.

Because Mark Martin did not participate in one case, Bob Edmunds was the only justice in the majority each time.

I can't say whether there's any significance to that. Edmunds happens to be the only justice up for election this time, and the authors do let it be known that -- while the court is nonpartisan -- its 4-3 Republican majority will flip if Republican Edmunds is beaten by Suzanne Reynolds, "who is considered to be a Democrat."

I'd urge readers to look at the case summaries and see how well you can discern the supposed Republican/Democrat positions. It's not always so easy.

The authors themselves point out:

"The long-term impact of non-partisan elections is not yet known, though it is worth noting that the decisions discussed above do not uniformly break along the current justices’ party affiliations. The majority opinions and dissents in these cases frequently consist of varying combinations of Republican and Democrat justices."

To me, the value of this report is simply gaining some familiarity with the types of cases the Supreme Court decides and looking at the different approaches taken by the majority and dissenting justices. Assuming few people actually read the full opinions, these summaries offer welcome insight.

The N&O's editorial endorsements in N.C. Court of Appeals races:

John Arrowood
Doug McCullough
Linda Stephens
Sam Ervin IV
Jim Wynn

Same as ours.

Addendum: The Greenville Daily Reflector endorses Suzanne Reynolds over Bob Edmunds for the Supreme Court seat, and for Court of Appeals seats:

Jim Wynn,
Linda Stephens,
John Arrowood,
Cheri Beasley
and Kristin Ruth

They went against Doug McCullough solely because of his DWI conviction. Their reasoning behind Reynolds over Edmunds boils down to this:

"While Edmunds is a capable judge, Reynolds offers experience in an area of the law that is needed on the court."

The reference is to family law. It's interesting to base an endorsement on one candidate's expertise in a small portion of the cases that come before the court.

Update, 12:55 Thursday: Hagan answers with a TV ad ... professes her faith in God ... makes a reference to bearing false witness.

Another update, 4 p.m. Thursday: The Indy's Barry Yeoman finds a second casualty of the Dole ad: Rick Stone, who appears in the video. He's not an atheist, either, but a former instructor of biblical studies at Greensboro College.

Latest update, Friday a.m.: Mark has info about a follow-up ad by the Dole campaign. What's the idea here: When you can't defend your tactics, offend some more?

--------------------------------------------------

I don't know if Kay Hagan's ancestors came from the Emerald Isle, but I can tell she's got her Irish up.

And that's not a good thing for Elizabeth Dole.

Dole's campaign crossed a bright red line last night when it started broadcasting TV ads that make out Hagan to be a champion for Godless Americans, if not an atheist herself.

You can get the background from Mark's story published this morning (and he'll update).

Hagan responded today by gathering family, friends and fellow church members at Greensboro's First Presbyterian Church, giving testimony to her Christian faith and works and denouncing Dole in very strong terms.

The Hagan camp rushed off toward the next stop, but Hagan called me a short time later to talk further.

I gleaned there are two levels to Hagan's reaction.

One is that some people will believe the Dole ad, costing votes in a close election.

Much beyond that, though, Hagan is offended and disappointed.

She has a right to be. There's no question the Dole ad is a personal misrepresentation, casting aspersions on Hagan's faith in a way calculated to do her harm. In more polite times (before yesterday), that was considered beyond the pale in North Carolina, to use an Irish term. Which explains the disappointment: Before this increasingly negative campaign began, although Hagan had never met Dole, she said she had a much more favorable impression of the Republican senator once known for her Southern charm and graciousness.

That has changed drastically. Now, says Hagan, "I think she's made a huge mistake."

Hagan told me she and her campaign advisers are discussing how to respond, but I got the idea it's going to be strong. This can be turned against Dole, portraying her as so desperate to keep her seat that she would attack the faith of a devoted elder in the Presbyterian church.

I asked Hagan if she plans to call Dole about the ad.

"I actually thought about it," she said. She would tell her directly to take the ad off the air.

Instead, she's going to answer through the campaign.

To use another Irish term, Dole has walked into a donnybrook.

Dole would be wise to back out and ditch that ad immediately.

Here's Allen's post on this issue.

Mark captured audio from Hagan's press conference this morning.

Sen. Obama sent me an urgent email message at 10:42 last night:

"The next 6 days are going to be the toughest we've seen, and I need your support to reach as many voters as possible."

He asked -- again -- for a donation.

My guess: He wants to buy ALL the TV time between now and Tuesday.

New development, Friday: The Easleys hire powerful state Sen. Tony Rand, a lawyer, to attack State Auditor Les Merritt. (N&O report here.)

One point of contention: Merritt says Mrs. Easley wouldn't talk to him; Rand says he didn't want to talk with her.

Very odd. The auditors interviewed everyone else. Why wouldn't they want to hear from the first lady?

At any rate, the line of defense is still the same: Mrs. Easley didn't make any of the over-the-top arrangements. She just did what she was asked to do.

Which means, of course, she apparently took no interest in how much any of it was costing the taxpayers. Maybe she just didn't want to know.

-------------------------------------------------------

The Mary Easley European travels audit highlights not just excessive spending but arrogance.

Here's a news story ... and the State Auditor's report.

The report nails down the fraud and abuse in dollars-and-cents terms.

As I read it, though, it's not so much about the money as the attitudes.

The state's first lady and her little band of jet-setters thought they were entitled to charge any extravagance to the taxpayers.

In response to the audit, the governor's spokesman said: "The first lady was asked by Cultural Resources to attend, and while there, she did what she was asked to do by the department."

Right. Actually, it seems that the first lady's executive assistant made many of the extravagant arrangements. Who works for whom? Does the first lady have to do what her executive assistant tells her?

The idea is absurd in light of what they did on their travels:

"Mrs. Easley, we're going to order a $332 caviar cocktail for you."

"Do you think you should?"

"Absolutely. It's cultural."

Maybe most amazing of all was the official reply from the Department of Cultural Resources. Despite being pinned on its violations of state policy, it had the nerve to tell the auditor:

"While the Department disagrees with your conclusions regarding 'unreasonable costs,' after thoughtful consideration of your observations and recommendations, the Department will expend private contributions to pay for any costs you have characterized as 'unreasonable.' Please note that costs listed as 'unallowable' have been previously re-paid to the Department."

Yes, we should note the repayment of "unallowable" expenses ... otherwise this whole case should have been turned over to the Justice Department for prosecution.

And thanks so much for deciding, after all, not to stick us taxpayers with your unreasonable charges. We'd really rather not pay for a caviar cocktail, not even for the cultural benefits.

This afternoon's Obama email, this one from Michelle:

"I know this campaign has asked a lot of you.

"But in the next 5 days, Barack will need you more than ever before.

"Together, we can make sure all voters head to the polls and make their voices heard in this election. And we can get Barack's message of change out to millions and millions of Americans in these final hours.

"That's why I'm asking you to dig deep and make one final donation to help get us across the finish line."

But will they remember me after Election Day?

Is this story about ...

an underhanded ambush by a McCain bully ...

or a sneaky little Obama operative getting what he deserved?

My view: Rigging an electric current to a yard sign is stupid. Something could go wrong ... like shocking a kid.

And: The boy's parents are equally to blame. It seems that a family discussion gave him the idea that a McCain sign just wasn't acceptable in their neighborhood. And now the parents are telling the unbelievable story that their son was just trying to see how the McCain sign was constructed. Right. The evidence indicates he planned to replace it with an Obama sign.

This is the sort of thing we're teaching our kids about politics. Not shocking, just sad.