I’m not much of an international-news buff.  But something about the hellish descent of Zimbabwe has captured my interest for months now.

Partly it’s the sheer horror of that nation’s fall into the abyss.  Partly it’s the riddle of national liberator Robert Mugabe turned murderous tyrant.

But it’s also about elections and politics.

We complain in America about politics being too negative and too rough.  Voters whine about the candidates not talking about issues when their computers give them instant access to more issue information than they could ever read. 

And people don’t vote.

At least in America you don’t have President Bush or President Clinton ordering thugs to kill opposition politicians, burn them alive, maim their wives and cripple their children.

At least in America you don’t feel compelled to vote and get your finger marked with ink so you’ll be safe from rampaging police and soldiers.

We’ve had our moments in America.  Like in Wilmington in 1898.

But we forget how lucky we are.  And we wonder how thin is the veneer of civilization.

So, this Friday, raise a glass to American politics.  Flawed it may be, but nobody’s trying to kill you.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

I take back what I said yesterday about Mike Easley. There is nothing loveable about the governor. He’s the slickest con man since Harold Hill descended on River City or Flem Snopes rode out of the backwoods.

First, he spends $269,000 on three trips to Italy, France and Russia – including $77,000 to rent Mercedes limousines for two weeks – then Mrs. Easley finagles an $80,000 pay raise (from $90,000 to $170,000) to be something called an “executive in residence” at North Carolina State University.

The governor has grabbed for the loot – but not just another $80,000 a year. Mrs. Easley’s new five-year agreement with N.C.S.U. means her state pension will double – so taxpayers could still be paying for the governor’s piece of artful footwork twenty years from now.

A howl went up from the newspapers, but the governor had a pat answer. He looked the reporters in the eye and said with a straight face the folks who oppose paying his wife $170,000 a year are sexists. “If she were a man, it wouldn’t be an issue.” The legislature should take his wife’s $170,000 salary and pay it to two female professors at N.C.S.U.

Here’s a hint to Pat McCrory. It isn’t every day an issue like this comes along.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

It’s hard to find a problem in America Barack Obama can’t blame on a corporation. Public opinion has whip-lashed against big business so viciously it’s like some genie popped out of a bottle and turned back the hands of the clock to the Era of the Trustbusters. The corporations – the politicians say – are melting the ice caps and wreaking havoc on the middle class and, by God, they’re going to stop them.

The corporations, for their part, are having a hard time adjusting to their new role as a political football. For years businessmen have been the good guys. They’ve been wearing white hats. Now, suddenly, they’re wearing black hats.

Political warriors – like Obama – thrive on controversy. Obama’s got no qualms about hammering away at corporations. But corporations have a different chemistry. They don’t like fights or debates. They like to minimize risks and go on about their business. They don’t want to hammer back – they want the politicians to go away and leave them alone. But, the way the politicians see it, corporations not shooting back makes them the political equivalent of sitting ducks.

Politically American businessmen face a pretty tall order. They have to figure out how to get their white hats back. But there’s hardly a political trend anywhere they can grab onto. The days of “What’s good for General Motors is good for America” are gone; we’re back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt having a “filet of grilled millionaire” each morning for breakfast.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

This year’s presidential race reminds me of John Edwards’ Senate race 10 years ago.

You have a fresh – but inexperienced – face (Edwards, Obama) running against an old – but experienced – face (McCain, Lauch Faircloth).

As we did in Edwards’ campaign, Obama sees his chance in the public’s disgust for Washington and desire for change.

As Faircloth’s campaign did, McCain’s advisers see their chance in persistent doubts and questions about their challenges.

Faircloth targeted Edwards’ past as a trial lawyer. But we learned from focus groups that voters saw being a courtroom advocate as good training for the Senate.

Faircloth tied Edwards to Bill Clinton, then in the clutches of Monica-gate. But the Republicans overplayed that hand, and voters saw it as more Washington.

Faircloth eventually tried to paint Edwards as a Liberal Lying Lawyer. We tried to paint Faircloth as Old Politics.

But we had an advantage Obama lacks: Edwards was – and looked like – the All-American Boy.

Obama, unfortunately, has to counter the persistent perceptions that he’s some kind of Muslim Manchurian Candidate.

Like Obama, Edwards needed a huge black turnout. Democratic consultant Brad Crone of Raleigh notes that the high-water mark for black turnout in North Carolina was in that race: 18.5 percent of the total vote.

It’s one reason Democrats retook the state House.

Ultimately, the best frame for the choice voters made that year – and face this year – came from our pollster, Harrison Hickman. He gave Edwards the first line of his victory speech:

“Tonight the people of North Carolina voted their hopes instead of their fears.”

That’s the same choice Obama and McCain offer.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

It’s hard not to like a lot of things about Mike Easley. After all, how often do you meet a governor who doesn’t take himself too seriously? But His Honor also has a way of stumbling into the worst messes and yesterday he stumbled into another one, trying to explain away North Carolina’s version of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. He’d have done better to have plead insanity and given up.

The Governor strained mightily to explain with a straight face how he spent $170,000 to go to Italy and how Mrs. Easley spent $53,000 to go to France and $56,000 to go to St. Petersburg. One thing he said was, “…Let’s be honest about it. A cheeseburger and onion rings is $60 over there. The dollar is very, very weak now.”

The governor could have had lunch at the Hard Rock Café on the Via Vittorio Veneto in Rome for twenty-five dollars. Or gotten a Bic Mac at Rome’s McDonald’s for ten dollars.

He also spent $50,000 to rent a chauffeured Mercedes limousine in Italy. And Mrs. Easley spent $27,000 to rent a Mercedes during her trip to France. Why on earth didn’t he just buy the car and ship it home?

Next the Governor set about digging the hole deeper, trying to explain how $35,000 for five first-class airline tickets to Russia, $800 a night for hotel rooms, and $1000 for dinners was going to attract tourists to North Carolina.

Then, after digging the hole, he changed directions and tried to climb out by saying he didn’t plan the trips or rent the cars. “It’s not something that either her or I have anything to say about or do with. I don’t order cars… I don’t pick out the menus.”

Right. He just picks the people who do.

Larry Wheeler, the irrepressible director of the North Carolina Museum of Art who accompanied Mrs. Easley to Russia, probably meant well (but didn’t help much) by telling the News and Observer, “I don’t know how we could have done it much differently.” Of course not. How can anyone go to Estonia and St. Petersburg without $7,000 first-class airplane tickets or $800-a-night hotel rooms?

The only one who’s covered himself with glory amid all this bacchanalia is the highway patrolman who accompanied Mrs. Easley. He generally stuck to the standard state reimbursement rates: $7.50 for breakfast, $9.75 for lunch and $19 for dinner. So how’d he manage to cope when Mrs. Easley and company spent $625 to dine at the exclusive Palkin Restaurant in St. Petersburg?

Wheeler explained, “He didn’t eat much.” Then effused, “It’s a great restaurant… You’re probably looking at the bill, which I’m sure was outrageous… We wanted to try one of the good restaurants and wanted to show Mary a good Russian experience.”

Now, what’s this “we” stuff? Who’s “we?” The “we” who showed everybody a good time is the taxpayers.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

I’ve been suspecting it for years and, now, my worst suspicions have been confirmed: The Democrats are holding Satanic rituals. Right here in North Carolina. Reported in the News and Observer (which no Republican should ever call biased again).

This gives a whole new meaning to Democrats saying, Change We Can Believe In.

Click here to find out how Democrats can help you cope with “past-life regression” and “spirit guide communication.”

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Governor Easley may well be right that the trips he and First Lady Mary Easley took to Europe are worth it to North Carolina.

But some dogs just won’t hunt when people are paying $4 a gallon for gas. Like: 

• $27,000 for a round-the-clock chauffeured Mercedes-Benz

• $34,388 for five business-class plane tickets

• $800 a night for a hotel

• And unfortunately for Art Museum Director Larry Wheeler, a $175 food and drink bill at a hotel after dinner. The N&O quoted Wheeler as saying he wasn't sure what that was for. "It could have been for hors d'oeuvres and drinks. I don't know."

Worst of all for the Easleys and Wheeler, the state trooper who went with the First Lady “typically billed the $7.50 for breakfast, $9.75 for lunch and $19 for dinner allowed under the state's policy,” the N&O reported.

From my experience as Governor Hunt’s press secretary, let me assure everyone involved with the state that there is no explanation that will wash with the public.

And you – and Bev Perdue – can expect Pat McCrory & Co. to wrap every bill around your political neck this fall.

You have to watch the little stuff.

A rule of thumb is that the smaller the expenditure the greater the outrage.

It’s not the $109,000 total tab that people will remember. Just as few people got exercised over the $400 million the N&O says the state wasted on mental health. It’s the cars, plane tickets, hotels and meals that stick in the public’s craw.

Witness the excitement over the (former) Wake County employee who traveled far and wide on the taxpayers’ dollar.

The little stuff adds up.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

I’ve been puzzling over why Bev Perdue isn’t doing better in the polls.

Now I have a theory: It’s Richard Moore’s fault.

Last week I saw one poll that showed Perdue leading Pat McCrory by only two points. The same poll showed Barack Obama only two points behind John McCain in North Carolina. Both Obama and Perdue are in the low 40s.

How can the Democratic candidate for Governor be running only four points ahead of the presidential candidate?

One answer lies in the black vote. Obama is getting 90-plus percent. Perdue, only about 70.

She’ll almost certainly get to 90.  If the black vote is 20 percent of the total (it’s usually about 18) that’s four more points here.

Still, that’s short of where Jim Hunt was in 1992 and 1996 and where Mike Easley was in 2000 and 2004. Both were over 50 percent at this point.

This is where Richard Moore comes in.

During the primary, I thought Moore’s ads made him look and sound like a Republican. They were about managing money and fighting crime. And he ran a lot of ads on Fox News, the home of the Republican primary voter.

Maybe it’s that – while Moore’s positive ads and his ads attacking Perdue didn’t hurt her in the primary – they hurt her with general election voters.

And maybe that’s where she hurt herself by not attacking Moore at the end.

In fact, McCrory and Moore look and sound a bit alike. Maybe Moore’s positive message was a good setup for McCrory.

Maybe this explains why Moore hasn’t endorsed Perdue.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

House Republican Leader ‘Skip’ Stam is turning thumbs down on North Carolina casting its electoral votes for the candidate for President who wins the popular vote – but it may turn out to be a political gamble that backfires.

Last year – when Democrats put electing the President by popular vote on the table – the Republican powers that be in Washington quickly did the math and said, Well, there’s a chance we could lose the popular vote but win in the Electoral College. Why give that up? So they want Republican legislators in North Carolina to stop the bill – which is fine if you’re, say, a Washington politico. You’re not running for office. Your name’s not on any ballot. But there may be a risk if you’re a Republican legislator seeking reelection.

Every election in America – Senators, Governors and Congressmen – is decided by popular vote. So how safe – politically – is it for a Republican legislator to vote to make the one exception – the only race where the candidate who loses can win – the President?

Here’s what Skip’s betting on: Right now the bill’s buried in a House committee; like a lot of bills hardly anyone – outside the legislature – even knows it exists and Skip’s betting in November no one will either. The theory works like this: What voters don’t know can’t hurt us.

But what if, say, in five key races Democrats decide to tell voters what’s going on?

Skip sent an email to legislators telling them three ways to explain to constituents why they oppose the bill. But none of Skip’s arguments solve legislators’ political problem – or lessen their risk. And each argument has other holes in it as well.

For instance, Skip blasted the bill (in the News and Observer, 5-19-08) saying, “That thing tells our voters that the state would support the very candidate they repudiated.” Politically that sounds fine – until you stop a minute to think about it. Looked at another way what Skip’s saying is if a majority of the American people elect a candidate President we should tell them, We don’t give a toot who you voted for – we’re going to elect the other guy. If you think about it Skip’s saying it’s right for Republicans to make the candidate who lost the election President.

Skip also says the bill is an end-run around the Constitution. But Republicans just tried to change the way California picks its presidential electors – so they’d be picked by congressional districts, not statewide. How could they do that without a constitutional amendment? Because Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” That’s the same clause supporters of the popular vote base their bill on. So, how can Republicans argue the Constitution means one thing in California and another in North Carolina?

Beyond that Democrats can just say, Presidential electors were once chosen by the State Legislatures – not voters. That was changed without a Constitutional Amendment. Thirty states (starting with Wyoming in 1869) gave women the right to vote for President – without a constitutional amendment – before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920. Let’s get down to brass tacks. This is really about one thing: You’re thinking what happened in the 2000 election may happen again.

And that’s right. We are.

But how on earth does a Republican candidate explain to swing voters he’s for electing the candidate who lost the popular vote for President?

Polls show almost all Democratic voters, almost all Independents and a majority of Republicans favor the bill. Skip’s gambling Democrats are so dumb they won’t run ads in October saying, Listen to this. It’s hard to believe. My opponent actually voted against electing the candidate for President who receives the most votes.

My question is, How could they resist?

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.

Winner: Campaign Symbols

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are holding their Unity Rally in – no kidding – Unity, New Hampshire.

Apparently they could not find a place called Change. And Bill Clinton owns the deed to a place called Hope.

Loser: Edwards for Veep

Elizabeth Edwards publicly questioned whether Obama should have opted out of the public campaign financing system.

She made the remarks from the Edwards home in Chapel Hill during a video conference hookup about the Internet in politics.

The New York Times reported that “toward the end of the interview, her husband wandered into view, seemingly surprised to find his wife being interviewed.”

Loser: Charlie Black Tells the Truth

Black, a senior adviser to John McCain, proved the truth of Kinsley’s Rule.

Propagated by commentator Michael Kinsley, the rule says, basically, that politicians usually get in more trouble for telling the truth than telling a lie.

In this case, Black said another terrorist attack on the United States would be an “unfortunate event,” but “certainly it would be a big advantage to him,” him being McCain.

Actually, that may not be the truth. What would Americans think if there is another terrorist attack after McCain/Bush assured us that their Iraq strategy is making us safer?