Thousands are expected to march Saturday in the state capital as part of the annual HK on J March. In its sixth year, HK on J—which stands for Historic Thousands on Jones Street—aims to make voters aware of issues which could impact state programs and citizens' rights. Organizers say this will be a big year for North Carolina when it comes to issues such as education, voting and civil rights. Among the many issues participants will be demonstrating on are voting rights, tax breaks for the rich and education.
For more information, visit the North Carolina News Service website.
See what ended up on The News of Orange County's cutting room floor.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Column: Opening ever so slightly
By D.G. Martin
UNC-TV host
It is the kind of surprise for which every ambitious politician must be prepared: the unexpected decision by an incumbent elected official to retire.
It is, my friend Jay Rivers told me, the kind of window of opportunity that opens ever so slightly and rarely. Be ready to decide quickly and pounce on the unexpected opportunity before the window closes as a result of others’ decisive action.
John Spratt, the former South Carolina congressman, once told me about his first campaign. It started when his congressman dropped the bombshell that he would not run for reelection. Many other ambitious politicians would have loved to go to Congress, but all were surprised and unprepared to gear up a campaign. Spratt, though surprised, was ready. Sometime earlier he had made a telephone list of key people in his district. Before the day was over, he called everybody on the list.
First, he asked for their support. He tried to get them to make a solid endorsement. When seasoned political leaders make such early commitments, most try to keep them. There are exceptions, but whatever their failings, such leaders like to have a reputation for keeping their word.
Politicians, like the rest of us, have a hard time turning down a request for support from a friend. Although the people on Spratt’s list had other friends who might have wanted to run, Spratt got their commitments because he was first to ask.
Some on Spratt’s list would be more cautious, saying something like, “I am not ready to commit.” Spratt would try to get them to promise not to support anyone else until the dust settled and “we’ve had a chance to visit again.”
Others might tell Spratt that they liked him but that he would not be their first choice, saying, “I really hope Joe Blow will decide to run, and, if he does, I will have to support him.”
Then Spratt might ask, “If Joe doesn’t run, can I count on your support?”
All this early work garnered Spratt important supporters, some of whom might have gone to other candidates if he had not asked first.
Spratt’s first campaign was 30 years ago, but being first to make the calls is still critical.
Today, however, there is something even more important: Being ready, willing and able to raise or give the multimillion dollars necessary to conduct the campaign.
When today’s political candidate makes these early calls for support, the first questions from many people will be, “Where is your money going to come from? Do you have enough personal money to put in the pot? Where are you going to get the millions and millions it takes to win?”
After Gov. Beverly Perdue’s announcement that she will not run this year, Lt. Governor Walter Dalton and state Rep. Bill Faison were ready. They have the advantage of being first to make the public request for support.
But as they are making calls and asking for commitments, they have to respond to the money questions. Faison has some personal wealth, but he will have to persuade prospective supporters that he has enough money and is willing to spend it. Dalton has shown he can raise funds to win a statewide race, but he will have to convince people that he can step up the fundraising to a much higher level.
Both are getting some cautious responses from people who think Erskine Bowles would be the strongest Democratic candidate or those loyal to one of the many other possible candidates.
But there is something nobody can take away from Dalton and Faison. They were ready. They are out there, making early calls. And they have a better chance to win than if they had waited until that window of opportunity started to close.
D.G. Martin hosts UNC-TV’s "North Carolina Bookwatch," which airs Sundays at 5 p.m. For more information or to view prior programs, visit the webpage at www.unctv.org/ncbookwatch.
UNC-TV host
It is the kind of surprise for which every ambitious politician must be prepared: the unexpected decision by an incumbent elected official to retire.
It is, my friend Jay Rivers told me, the kind of window of opportunity that opens ever so slightly and rarely. Be ready to decide quickly and pounce on the unexpected opportunity before the window closes as a result of others’ decisive action.
John Spratt, the former South Carolina congressman, once told me about his first campaign. It started when his congressman dropped the bombshell that he would not run for reelection. Many other ambitious politicians would have loved to go to Congress, but all were surprised and unprepared to gear up a campaign. Spratt, though surprised, was ready. Sometime earlier he had made a telephone list of key people in his district. Before the day was over, he called everybody on the list.
First, he asked for their support. He tried to get them to make a solid endorsement. When seasoned political leaders make such early commitments, most try to keep them. There are exceptions, but whatever their failings, such leaders like to have a reputation for keeping their word.
Politicians, like the rest of us, have a hard time turning down a request for support from a friend. Although the people on Spratt’s list had other friends who might have wanted to run, Spratt got their commitments because he was first to ask.
Some on Spratt’s list would be more cautious, saying something like, “I am not ready to commit.” Spratt would try to get them to promise not to support anyone else until the dust settled and “we’ve had a chance to visit again.”
Others might tell Spratt that they liked him but that he would not be their first choice, saying, “I really hope Joe Blow will decide to run, and, if he does, I will have to support him.”
Then Spratt might ask, “If Joe doesn’t run, can I count on your support?”
All this early work garnered Spratt important supporters, some of whom might have gone to other candidates if he had not asked first.
Spratt’s first campaign was 30 years ago, but being first to make the calls is still critical.
Today, however, there is something even more important: Being ready, willing and able to raise or give the multimillion dollars necessary to conduct the campaign.
When today’s political candidate makes these early calls for support, the first questions from many people will be, “Where is your money going to come from? Do you have enough personal money to put in the pot? Where are you going to get the millions and millions it takes to win?”
After Gov. Beverly Perdue’s announcement that she will not run this year, Lt. Governor Walter Dalton and state Rep. Bill Faison were ready. They have the advantage of being first to make the public request for support.
But as they are making calls and asking for commitments, they have to respond to the money questions. Faison has some personal wealth, but he will have to persuade prospective supporters that he has enough money and is willing to spend it. Dalton has shown he can raise funds to win a statewide race, but he will have to convince people that he can step up the fundraising to a much higher level.
Both are getting some cautious responses from people who think Erskine Bowles would be the strongest Democratic candidate or those loyal to one of the many other possible candidates.
But there is something nobody can take away from Dalton and Faison. They were ready. They are out there, making early calls. And they have a better chance to win than if they had waited until that window of opportunity started to close.
D.G. Martin hosts UNC-TV’s "North Carolina Bookwatch," which airs Sundays at 5 p.m. For more information or to view prior programs, visit the webpage at www.unctv.org/ncbookwatch.
Rep. Hackney announces retirement
Editor's note: The following is Rep. Joe Hackney's words on his retirement according to a press release.
I have decided that I will not be a candidate for re-election to the North Carolina House of Representatives this year.
At the end of this term, I look forward to a more predictable schedule for my family, my law practice, my family farm and for the recreational activities I've been missing.
I will serve out the remainder of my term with enthusiasm. As Minority Leader, I will work actively this year for a Democratic majority and a new Democratic Speaker for the NC House in 2013; I will continue to assist our candidates' campaigns and will actively raise money for them, as I have in the past.
I am very grateful to the voters of Chatham, Orange, (and more recently a small part of Moore) who gave me the high privilege of representing them in matters of public policy for 32 years; to the members of the House who elected me Speaker Pro Tem, Majority Leader, Speaker and Minority Leader; and to the legislators across America who elected me as President of the National Conference of State Legislatures. I enjoyed all of it immensely, and gave it my all. I think I made a contribution.
I have been fortunate to have the assistance of able and dedicated legislative staff throughout this time, and I do not have words sufficient to express how appreciative I am for their dedication to our State.
Betsy, Dan and Will have been unfailingly supportive, as have my law partners, and my brother Jack at the farm, and I thank them for their sacrifices.
I have decided that I will not be a candidate for re-election to the North Carolina House of Representatives this year.
At the end of this term, I look forward to a more predictable schedule for my family, my law practice, my family farm and for the recreational activities I've been missing.
I will serve out the remainder of my term with enthusiasm. As Minority Leader, I will work actively this year for a Democratic majority and a new Democratic Speaker for the NC House in 2013; I will continue to assist our candidates' campaigns and will actively raise money for them, as I have in the past.
I am very grateful to the voters of Chatham, Orange, (and more recently a small part of Moore) who gave me the high privilege of representing them in matters of public policy for 32 years; to the members of the House who elected me Speaker Pro Tem, Majority Leader, Speaker and Minority Leader; and to the legislators across America who elected me as President of the National Conference of State Legislatures. I enjoyed all of it immensely, and gave it my all. I think I made a contribution.
I have been fortunate to have the assistance of able and dedicated legislative staff throughout this time, and I do not have words sufficient to express how appreciative I am for their dedication to our State.
Betsy, Dan and Will have been unfailingly supportive, as have my law partners, and my brother Jack at the farm, and I thank them for their sacrifices.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Column: Does time heal all wounds?
By D.G. Martin
UNC-TV host
Will John Edwards someday be the new Newt Gingrich?
Where did this crazy question come from? To get the answer, read on.
First, we should wrestle with the questions political experts have been stuttering over since Gingrich’s stunning upset of Mitt Romney in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary last weekend.
How can a candidate like Gingrich get over the deathblows his campaign suffered in Iowa and New Hampshire?
How can he sidestep the disgrace from the damning condemnation of his colleagues in the House of Representatives who censured him for misconduct 15 years ago?
How can he get around the moral consequences of his conduct in the breakup of two earlier marriages?
How does he get around the lack of support from people who worked with him when he was House speaker?
How does he get around the panic shown by so-called establishment Republicans who believe his nomination for president would lead to a disaster for their party in the fall?
How can these questions be answered? It would be easy to say, simply, that South Carolina voters are different. From John C. Calhoun to Strom Thurmond, South Carolinians have shown a fondness for brilliant, confrontational, no-holds-barred, attack- dog politicians. Newt fit their bill. But what about other states?
Both Calhoun and Thurmond had fans in other states. How about Gingrich? We will begin to find out next week in Florida.
Whatever the results in Florida and elsewhere, Gingrich has shown that time really can heal old wounds in politics. Even the most conservative religious voters in South Carolina showed that they were willing to forgive the sins of a seemingly penitent person.
The South Carolina results show us that, after the passage of time, voters are not bound by earlier judgments about a politician’s sins.
John Edwards may be trying to take advantage of this lesson.
The health problem that was the basis for the delay in his trial is a real one. An irregular heartbeat has bothered Edwards for many years. Still, delay may be part of his trial team’s strategy.
Every delay puts the management of the trial further away from the influence of the zealous investigation and prosecution led by former U.S. Attorney George Holding. He is running for Congress rather than continuing to lead the determined effort to put Edwards in jail.
Greater and greater distance from Holding increases the possibility that less-driven prosecutors will see the benefits of making a deal with Edwards that would free them to concentrate their efforts on getting other criminals off the streets.
Every delay works to distance the minds of potential jurors from the heavy and negative publicity that accompanied Edwards’s downfall. With the passing of time, jurors may be less likely to punish Edwards simply for being the bad person the news stories made him out to be.
Every delay lessens public interest in the case and the strength of any public demand that he be held accountable.
Every delay puts the public’s memory further away from his relevance as a public figure whose extraordinary gifts almost made him a vice president, almost a president.
Thus every delay could increase the chances that Edwards will win an acquittal if the case ultimately goes to trial or, even more likely, that there will be an acceptable plea bargain offer from prosecutors.
Back to our opening question: If Edwards does walk away from his legal troubles, could he, with the passage of time—say 10 years from now—bring his gifts of persuasion and charisma back into the political arena and have some of those who have written him off today declare him to be the new Newt Gingrich?
D.G. Martin hosts UNC-TV’s "North Carolina Bookwatch," which airs Sundays at 5 p.m. For more information or to view prior programs, visit the webpage at www.unctv.org/ncbookwatch.
UNC-TV host
Will John Edwards someday be the new Newt Gingrich?
Where did this crazy question come from? To get the answer, read on.
First, we should wrestle with the questions political experts have been stuttering over since Gingrich’s stunning upset of Mitt Romney in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary last weekend.
How can a candidate like Gingrich get over the deathblows his campaign suffered in Iowa and New Hampshire?
How can he sidestep the disgrace from the damning condemnation of his colleagues in the House of Representatives who censured him for misconduct 15 years ago?
How can he get around the moral consequences of his conduct in the breakup of two earlier marriages?
How does he get around the lack of support from people who worked with him when he was House speaker?
How does he get around the panic shown by so-called establishment Republicans who believe his nomination for president would lead to a disaster for their party in the fall?
How can these questions be answered? It would be easy to say, simply, that South Carolina voters are different. From John C. Calhoun to Strom Thurmond, South Carolinians have shown a fondness for brilliant, confrontational, no-holds-barred, attack- dog politicians. Newt fit their bill. But what about other states?
Both Calhoun and Thurmond had fans in other states. How about Gingrich? We will begin to find out next week in Florida.
Whatever the results in Florida and elsewhere, Gingrich has shown that time really can heal old wounds in politics. Even the most conservative religious voters in South Carolina showed that they were willing to forgive the sins of a seemingly penitent person.
The South Carolina results show us that, after the passage of time, voters are not bound by earlier judgments about a politician’s sins.
John Edwards may be trying to take advantage of this lesson.
The health problem that was the basis for the delay in his trial is a real one. An irregular heartbeat has bothered Edwards for many years. Still, delay may be part of his trial team’s strategy.
Every delay puts the management of the trial further away from the influence of the zealous investigation and prosecution led by former U.S. Attorney George Holding. He is running for Congress rather than continuing to lead the determined effort to put Edwards in jail.
Greater and greater distance from Holding increases the possibility that less-driven prosecutors will see the benefits of making a deal with Edwards that would free them to concentrate their efforts on getting other criminals off the streets.
Every delay works to distance the minds of potential jurors from the heavy and negative publicity that accompanied Edwards’s downfall. With the passing of time, jurors may be less likely to punish Edwards simply for being the bad person the news stories made him out to be.
Every delay lessens public interest in the case and the strength of any public demand that he be held accountable.
Every delay puts the public’s memory further away from his relevance as a public figure whose extraordinary gifts almost made him a vice president, almost a president.
Thus every delay could increase the chances that Edwards will win an acquittal if the case ultimately goes to trial or, even more likely, that there will be an acceptable plea bargain offer from prosecutors.
Back to our opening question: If Edwards does walk away from his legal troubles, could he, with the passage of time—say 10 years from now—bring his gifts of persuasion and charisma back into the political arena and have some of those who have written him off today declare him to be the new Newt Gingrich?
D.G. Martin hosts UNC-TV’s "North Carolina Bookwatch," which airs Sundays at 5 p.m. For more information or to view prior programs, visit the webpage at www.unctv.org/ncbookwatch.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Column: Replacing elections with lotteries
By D.G. Martin
UNC-TV host
There has to be a better way.
Some of us reached that conclusion after discussing the mess our congressional and legislative governing systems have come to.
Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government “except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
I wonder if he would agree today, after taking a look at the U.S. Congress deadlocked by political divisiveness and mean-spirited partisan competition that stifle almost every effort to deal with challenges crying out for practical responses.
Instead of being free to work fulltime with their colleagues on the nitty-gritty work of crafting legislation, our representatives are slaves to a system that requires them to spend most of their time on electoral politics and fundraising.
Taxpayers pay them to be legislators. But keeping those jobs requires them to do something else altogether.
The time spent raising money and the obligations that come with begging money from people and organizations that want something takes more than just time away from the job. It drains away the independent judgment of the legislator.
So does the extreme loyalty to political parties, to the caucus and to the legislative leadership. The demands to stick together handicap the prospects for working on solutions that do not fit into the agenda of one of the political groups.
Efforts to maintain control lead to ugly games of gerrymandering and pandering to voting groups.
How could we find a system that frees our elective representatives from the servitude of full-time fundraising, from the draining of energy and spirit that go with permanent campaigns and from the tribal commitments to political caucuses and parties? How could we free them from these things so they could spend full time working on legislation to make our state and nation better?
Somebody asked, what about a lottery? Why not just select our representatives by lottery?
That suggestion sounded like a joke.
At first.
What could be more antithetical to democracy than putting aside citizen participation and simply choosing representatives by lot?
But, after I thought about it a minute, some advantages were apparent. No need to raise money. No permanent campaigns. No automatic partisan divides on every question. And, with modern computer techniques, a legislature that could be composed of people that would closely reflect the population, geographically, ethnically, gender, age and otherwise.
Of course, somebody said, you would have a whole bunch of people who would have no idea what they were doing. Then, somebody else said, neither do most newly elected legislators!
Still, making important selections by chance is just not the way we do things in America, is it?
One person quietly mentioned that we get our jury pools by random selection. The jury system is not perfect. But Americans have a pretty strong commitment to it. It works without the problems of partisan bickering and gamesmanship, fundraising or time-consuming political campaigns.
All this may be true, but selecting representatives by lottery would be an unprecedented violation of the democratic tradition that began in ancient Greece.
Or would it?
Actually, the selection of many major officers in Athens was by allotment or a random process. According to the “New World Encyclopedia,” “Election was seen as less democratic and open to corruption because it would favor the rich (who could buy votes) and the eloquent, whereas a lottery gave everyone an equal chance to participate and experience, in Aristotle’s words, ‘ruling and being ruled in turn.’ ”
So, am I ready to lead an effort to replace elections with a lottery selection process?
Not today.
But check with me after Nov. 6.
D.G. Martin hosts UNC-TV’s "North Carolina Bookwatch," which airs Fridays at 9:30 p.m. and Sundays at 5 p.m. For more information or to view prior programs, visit the webpage at www.unctv.org/ncbookwatch.
UNC-TV host
There has to be a better way.
Some of us reached that conclusion after discussing the mess our congressional and legislative governing systems have come to.
Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government “except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
I wonder if he would agree today, after taking a look at the U.S. Congress deadlocked by political divisiveness and mean-spirited partisan competition that stifle almost every effort to deal with challenges crying out for practical responses.
Instead of being free to work fulltime with their colleagues on the nitty-gritty work of crafting legislation, our representatives are slaves to a system that requires them to spend most of their time on electoral politics and fundraising.
Taxpayers pay them to be legislators. But keeping those jobs requires them to do something else altogether.
The time spent raising money and the obligations that come with begging money from people and organizations that want something takes more than just time away from the job. It drains away the independent judgment of the legislator.
So does the extreme loyalty to political parties, to the caucus and to the legislative leadership. The demands to stick together handicap the prospects for working on solutions that do not fit into the agenda of one of the political groups.
Efforts to maintain control lead to ugly games of gerrymandering and pandering to voting groups.
How could we find a system that frees our elective representatives from the servitude of full-time fundraising, from the draining of energy and spirit that go with permanent campaigns and from the tribal commitments to political caucuses and parties? How could we free them from these things so they could spend full time working on legislation to make our state and nation better?
Somebody asked, what about a lottery? Why not just select our representatives by lottery?
That suggestion sounded like a joke.
At first.
What could be more antithetical to democracy than putting aside citizen participation and simply choosing representatives by lot?
But, after I thought about it a minute, some advantages were apparent. No need to raise money. No permanent campaigns. No automatic partisan divides on every question. And, with modern computer techniques, a legislature that could be composed of people that would closely reflect the population, geographically, ethnically, gender, age and otherwise.
Of course, somebody said, you would have a whole bunch of people who would have no idea what they were doing. Then, somebody else said, neither do most newly elected legislators!
Still, making important selections by chance is just not the way we do things in America, is it?
One person quietly mentioned that we get our jury pools by random selection. The jury system is not perfect. But Americans have a pretty strong commitment to it. It works without the problems of partisan bickering and gamesmanship, fundraising or time-consuming political campaigns.
All this may be true, but selecting representatives by lottery would be an unprecedented violation of the democratic tradition that began in ancient Greece.
Or would it?
Actually, the selection of many major officers in Athens was by allotment or a random process. According to the “New World Encyclopedia,” “Election was seen as less democratic and open to corruption because it would favor the rich (who could buy votes) and the eloquent, whereas a lottery gave everyone an equal chance to participate and experience, in Aristotle’s words, ‘ruling and being ruled in turn.’ ”
So, am I ready to lead an effort to replace elections with a lottery selection process?
Not today.
But check with me after Nov. 6.
D.G. Martin hosts UNC-TV’s "North Carolina Bookwatch," which airs Fridays at 9:30 p.m. and Sundays at 5 p.m. For more information or to view prior programs, visit the webpage at www.unctv.org/ncbookwatch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)