|
|
|
Entries for January 2010
Gary Pearce posted on January 14, 2010 12:07
A reader says my blog about Governor Perdue and Treasurer Janet Cowell “is a misread.”
Here is the reader’s take on Cowell – and her battle with Perdue and DOT over Charlotte loop funding:
“She's a straight shooter, Gary, as close to pure and simple as you'll find at that level of political leadership. This was, as Gene Conti himself acknowledged recently, a communications screw up, but not one based in a need to grandstand by Janet or her advisors. Perdue, on the other hand, has long viewed Cowell as a competitor, and certain staff close to the Gov. have a grudge that goes back to Janet's days in the senate….the fact that Janet was siding with pro-environment faction against the pro-development faction did not endear her to the old guard.”
The reader goes on to say that an unnamed Perdue staffer has conducted “a mini-campaign to discredit Janet with capital press corps, but repeated exposure to her seems to have changed reporters' minds.”
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Gary Pearce posted on January 13, 2010 08:51
You’d think Governor Perdue had enough problems with Republicans. But two of the biggest obstacles in her first year have been Democrats – Council of State members.
This is nothing new. All Governors get to where they want to call a constitutional convention to abolish the Council of State.
The conflict is inherent in (a) the very existence of an independently elected Council of State and (b) the tendency of Council of State members to act like little brothers and sisters jealous of an older sibling who gets all the attention and all the best stuff.
Last year, Perdue’s problem was Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson.
Now Treasurer Janet Cowell has waged a running battle with Perdue’s DOT over funding the Charlotte loop.
Perdue and Secretary Gene Conti are struggling mightily to shore up her standing in Charlotte – with some success. And they have to drag Cowell every step of the way.
Fortunately for Perdue, AG Roy Cooper – who seems to have escaped the urge to gnaw on the governor’s leg – sided with DOT.
At the bottom of all this, you’ll probably find that Cowell didn’t think DOT and the governor’s staff paid her enough attention – and respect.
It’s just the way Council of State members are wired.
Take it from me, Bev and Gene: They may be family, but they’ll never be satisfied.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Carter Wrenn posted on January 12, 2010 15:10
My friend down in Columbia, Chris Neely, is a captain in the ‘Swamp Fox’ Field Artillery of the South Carolina National Guard.
And he just got called up.
My first thought – other than the obvious concern about danger – when he told me he’s going to be spending the next year in Afghanistan was, He’s got house payments to make and two children in school and how on earth is his wife going to make ends meet for a whole year?
So, I asked him, Look, I don’t want to pry into your business – but how are you going to get by financially?
He hesitated. Then said: It’s alright. The folks I work for are going to pay the difference between what I’ll make in the army and what I’d have made if I could stay here and keep working.
You seldom hear a kind word said about the folks Chris works for – but my estimation of Wal-Mart Corporation just took a quantum leap upwards.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Gary Pearce posted on January 12, 2010 15:02
As the N&O noted this morning, excerpts from the book Game Change have tarnished Elizabeth Edwards’ halo.
People have been reluctant to criticize Elizabeth. She lost a son. She is battling cancer. And she suffered the public humiliation of her husband’s infidelity.
But she long had a reputation for being startlingly harsh with people, especially campaign staffers.
It’s one thing to disagree with someone. It’s another thing to ridicule and attack them personally, as she did routinely. Her caustic comments and emails stunned people. Even John Edwards was not immune.
That’s one reason there was constant turnover in the Senate and campaign staffs.
Note that David Axelrod, who guided Barack Obama to the White House, worked for Edwards in 2004. But Elizabeth apparently stripped Axelrod of his authority to make campaign ads.
The result was a politician who was increasingly isolated – deaf to dissent, disagreement and even constructive criticism.
John Edwards was a good listener in the 1998 Senate race. But that apparently changed after he went to Washington.
He – and Elizabeth – are paying a high price now.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Gary Pearce posted on January 11, 2010 14:09
The new revelations about John Edwards’ 2008 campaign – from the book Game Change by John Heilemann & Mark Halperin – raise this question: Didn’t he learn anything in his Senate race?
When Edwards ran in 1998 – and I was one of his strategists – we struggled with how to handle the firestorm over Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.
And the very first thing Edwards did in the Senate was participate in Clinton’s impeachment trial.
Didn’t he learn that – when you’re President, or run for President – there are no secrets?
I won’t judge Edwards’ personal behavior. To err – and to sin – is human.
But his political behavior is another matter.
What he did in 2008 was politically reckless. And Elizabeth was complicit by letting him run when she knew he had a secret that could destroy the campaign.
Suppose he had won the nomination in 2008 – or been on the ticket. Suppose his affair had come out in the fall.
Sarah Palin could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency today.
That’s irresponsible.
He betrayed the people who voted for him, gave him money, worked for him and believed in him.
That is his political sin.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Carter Wrenn posted on January 11, 2010 10:51
It’s hard to get your arms around but Bev Perdue has surpassed Hunt when it comes to taking stands on both sides of issues. Our Governor’s taken firm stands on both sides of spending cuts. Tax increases. Offshore drilling. Negative political ads. And now – oddly enough – adultery.
It seems our State Highway Patrol Commander had an affair 25 years ago – a fact the Governor knew (and said didn’t matter) when she appointed him four months ago. In fact, at the time, she got a bit testy and preachy with reporters, telling them, “I will have to be very honest with you. I never once in any interview for any position asked anyone about their sexual preference, their sexual orientation or their past marital history. I didn’t figure it had a thing to do with the job they could do for the people of North Carolina.” News and Observer, 1/08/10
That was clear enough.
Until the other day.
When another wandering Highway Patrolman was caught having an affair – and demoted.
Which, naturally, led the newspaper to ask, why this patrolman’s infidelity mattered and the Chief’s didn’t.
The Governor, without missing a beat, shot back that she never said the Chief’s affair was irrelevant; then she got preachy again (on her blog) and added, “I would never condone an extramarital affair.”
The News and Observer took that in stride and, apparently, decided to ask the obvious question: ‘Okay, so the Chief’s affair does matter. Will you just explain one thing: How?
But, as they say in the entertainment biz, Elvis had left the building. The Governor had vamoosed and signed off the Internet – she wasn’t answering anymore questions.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Gary Pearce posted on January 09, 2010 12:00
Is everybody in state government crooked?
No, they’re not. But the average person might think so when – in one skinny issue of the paper – they see ABC boards investigated, the ex-DMV director accused of wiretapping and the State Highway Patrol questioned about missing records and sexual misconduct.
Does this ever end?
Well, you know where the buck will stop: Right on Governor Perdue’s desk.
She’s not to blame. But she has to take charge and clean up the stables. Or she – and the Democratic Party – will pay a price this year and in 2012.
Just as the airplane-bomb scare was President Obama’s crisis wakeup call – one he answered well – this is the Governor’s.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Gary Pearce posted on January 08, 2010 11:38
Democrats need to stop wringing their hands and worrying about November. And start fighting back on health care.
Here’s the message:
This year – over the opposition of every single Republican in Congress – we did something that Americans have needed for 50 years.
When the health-care bill passes, every American will be able to get insurance. Every American will be able to see a doctor. No American will get turned down.
And if the Republicans win big this fall, you can be sure of one thing: They will take that health care guarantee away from you.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Gary Pearce posted on January 07, 2010 08:44
There is a natural rhythm that usually governs politics. And it suggests that 2010 will be a Republican year.
But not so fast.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote The Cycles of American History about those political rhythms.
In recent years – as both parties have migrated to their political extremes – the cycle has become more volatile.
After Republican dominance in the 1980s – they won three straight presidential elections – the country went Democratic in1992, then sharply Republican in 1994, then Democratic again in 1996 and 1998.
Then came Bush and two good Republican cycles in 2002 and 2004. Then two Democratic cycles in 2006 and 2008 – and Obama.
The reason is simple. Both parties – either quickly or eventually – overreach their mandates. And the voters pick the other party to bring things back to the middle, where neither party has its center of gravity any more.
So what could keep 2010 from being a Republican year? The answer: Republicans.
This could be a replay of 1998. That should have been a Republican year, coming after Clinton’s reelection and his Monica Lewinsky impeachment scandal.
But Republicans – led by Newt Gingrich – overplayed their hand. Voters decided that the GOP was more interested in its power than their problems.
Democrats – including John Edwards in North Carolina – won big.
Republicans’ stridency, negativity and hypocrisy today stun me. But they don’t bother me. I hope they keep it up. It’s the Democrats’ best hope.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
Gary Pearce posted on January 06, 2010 10:15
As the health-care battle resumes in Washington, some history may be just what the doctor ordered.
Most people believe this battle traces back to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s failed effort to reform health care in 1993-1994.
Actually, it goes back to 1991 – and a now-forgotten special election for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.
Harris Wofford, who had been a civil rights adviser to John Kennedy, was appointed to the Senate by then-Governor Bob Casey (father of the current Senator Casey) to succeed John Heinz (who was married to Teresa Heinz – now Teresa Kerry) after Heinz died in a plane crash..
When Wofford ran in 1991, he was an underdog to former Republican Governor Dick Thornburg, who was seen as a potential presidential candidate.
Wofford’s campaign was run by two then-little known Democratic consultants: James Carville and Paul Begala.
They found that Pennsylvania voters were worried about paying for health care. And they adopted as their battle cry something a voter said in a focus group:
“If every criminal has the right to see a lawyer, every American should have the right to see a doctor.”
Thanks to that issue, Wofford won.
The next year, Carville and Begala ran Clinton’s presidential campaign. Everybody remembers Carville’s famous war-room sign: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
But few know what else was written on the sign: “Change vs. status quo. And don’t forget health care.”
Democrats should remember that lesson now. Their reform message must be just as simple and strong.
If it is, the Republicans’ rock-solid opposition may come back to haunt them this November.
Click here to read and comment on what others are saying
|
|
|