Notes from the campaign trail
This week's column.
So perturbed was a Chapel Hill man that his yard signs were disappearing nearly as fast as he could plant them, he wired his next set to the power source for an electric pet fence.
A 9-year-old neighbor discovered the homemade hookup the hard way last week. No doubt the young man, who was caught on camera apparently attempting to substitute an Obama sign for a McCain-Palin one, was shocked in more ways than one.
For other slippery thieves of campaign signage, there may be a less painful deterrent: Vaseline. Slathering the signs with petroleum jelly apparently makes them harder to yank from the ground. At least that’s what I’m told.
It’s a shame to have to resort to such measures — and both sides have — but go figure. Does anyone really think pilfering other folks’ yard signs makes a difference in an election’s outcome?
It’s easy to dismiss these acts as silly pranks. But they insult the notion that Americans are free to vote however they choose without fear and intimidation ... and without having some idiot make off with their personal property.
Now that I’ve got that off my chest, more dispatches from the campaign trail.
McCrory for governor? Some readers were surprised that the News & Record endorsed seven-term Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory over Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue for governor.
But this wasn’t a close call.
McCrory articulated his vision for North Carolina much more clearly and forcefully. And his record of moderate leadership and working across party lines as a mayor has been impressive.
But isn’t McCrory a Republican?
Well, as a matter of fact, he is. So?
Neither of the above: The News & Record chose to endorse neither candidate in the race for state House in District 59.
The incumbent, Democrat Maggie Jeffus, was as underwhelming as her Republican challenger, Jim Rumley, and I mean that in a nice way.
We endorsed Rumley in 2004, but he seems less focused this time. As for Jeffus, the veteran lawmaker consistently rationalizes the ethical lapses of the Democrats in the legislature. And she lacks the fire and energy this seat deserves.
We don’t often check “neither of the above” in endorsement editorials. Actually, we hate to.
The last time was when Billy Yow opposed Phyllis Gibbs in the Republican primary for county commissioner in May of 2000.
We eventually endorsed Yow in the general election, on the strength of his growth as a candidate since the primary.
The merits of Merritt: I didn’t go into the endorsement process expecting to support Republican incumbent Les Merritt as state auditor. But based on a closer look at his record and the case he made for himself in a face-to-face interview, I changed my mind. My colleagues agreed.
Merritt sometimes has been too aggressive in how he has handled some audits, inviting charges of political motives.
But on the whole, he has cast a critical eye on areas that deserved it, among them the latest report on the costs of North Carolina first lady Mary Easley’s lavish European trips, which included taxpayer-financed caviar cocktails.
State government needs an aggressive watchdog, even one who occasionally barks up the wrong tree.
Bad timing for bonds: The four Greensboro city bonds face a queasy economy and a skeptical electorate. But if the voters look closely enough, and consider the broader picture, they won’t just say no.
Especially worthy of approval are the transportation bonds ($134 million), which make overdue improvements to roads throughout the city.
Some people blanch at the $50 million cost of the War Memorial Auditorium bonds, but the building already belongs to taxpayers and touches a significant cross section of residents.
Taxing to save: The proposed county quarter-cent sales tax increase is not an easy sell. But it would help pay for bond debt voters already approved and it opens the door to revenue from people who don’t live here but work or shop here.
The tax also would ease the burden on those who pay property taxes.
It’s a very good deal, even if it doesn’t sound like one.
Ads, lies and videotape: Free speech is a precious right. But the barrage of negative campaign ads this election season should make us all feel a little dirty.
Would it make sense to create an independent commission to vet ads before they air?
Something is seriously wrong when someone selling a car, a box of detergent or a treatment for erectile dysfunction is held to a higher standard than someone who wants to be governor, senator or even president.
Comments (11)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
So, about the movie "27 Dresses"::
the 'Runaway Bride' writers called: they want their script back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hollywood is SOOOOOOOOOO lame, that the young(er) actors/actresses just bite (steal!!) their famous predecessors quality stuff!!!!!
if you think that's funny, feel free to quote me. if not, i just had to tell somebody!!
Posted on November 2, 2008 8:29 PM
So, about the movie "27 Dresses"::
the 'Runaway Bride' writers called: they want their script back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hollywood is SOOOOOOOOOO lame, that the young(er) actors/actresses just bite (steal!!) their famous predecessors quality stuff!!!!!
if you think that's funny, feel free to quote me. if not, i just had to tell somebody!!
Posted on November 2, 2008 8:29 PM
It appears as though Skeet Club Savage's weekly harangues are finally paying dividends.
At this rate, you'll being joining the NRA before long--or at least subscribing to the National Review.
Hopefully, before the next election cycle, you'll see the impossibility of the free speech Komission you rather tentatively introduce at the end. Free speech is a precious right, period. Irrespective of the imbecility of political advertising.
Whether it's McCain and his blathering about campaign finance reform, the thought police promoting a "Fairness" Doctrine, or well-intentioned paternalists trying to protect the masses from bad commercials, it makes me very nervous when journalists start to question whether free speech is, in fact, a little too free.
Posted on November 2, 2008 11:59 PM
Liberals love free speech...as long as they get to decide who exercises it.
Posted on November 3, 2008 10:22 AM
I agree that free speech is sacred. But it has its limits, as in yelling fire in a crowded theater.
As for liberals vs. conservatives, it's easy and predictable to boil it down to that.
But both sides are culpable of false and misleading advertising.
And lots of people believe this stuff.
Posted on November 3, 2008 10:49 AM
Brian:
As for your point that we've seen the light, I don't buy that.
We simply did what we normally do: Evaluate each candidate based on his or her qualifications and positions on the issues.
As we saw it, McCrory was the best pick for govenor, regardless of party affiliation.
Posted on November 3, 2008 6:26 PM
Here's a great political satire website to help us through the last few hours of this interminable presidential race: http://fleetingmatters.wordpress.com/
Posted on November 3, 2008 9:40 PM
Actually, I wasn't surprised at many of your endorsements. You guys are generally thoughtful in your endorsements, and McCrory is a stronger candidate, as you say, in a non-ideological sort of way.
Posted on November 3, 2008 10:18 PM
censored?
Posted on November 4, 2008 5:48 AM
Brian:
I am shocked and appalled. Are you agreeing with us?
Posted on November 5, 2008 2:24 PM
Come again, Ben?
Posted on November 5, 2008 2:48 PM