Poll: S.C. voters want Sen. Stephen Colbert

We think this is funny, but we're not sure it's supposed to be: 

A Public Policy Polling survey of South Carolina voters shows that comedian Stephen Colbert tops the wish list of who South Carolina voters would like Gov. Nikki Haley to appoint as a replacement for the departing Jim DeMint.

Haley, with an appropriate wink, already has nixed that possibility.

The PPP survey had no such tongue in cheek. Colbert, who got 20 percent of the nods in the PPP survey, was followed by Tim Scott at 15%, Trey Gowdy at 14%, Jenny Sanford at 11%, Henry McMaster and Mark Sanford at 8%, Jeff Duncan and Joe Wilson at 5%, and Mick Mulvaney at 4%.

Haley, who ranks 35th in popularity among the 43 sitting governors PPP has polled, might want to consider appointing a potential threat to her job. Says PPP's Tom Jensen: "Jenny Sanford ...really could probably get elected to office if she wanted to. 44% of voters have a favorable opinion of her to only 25% with a negative one and her popularity holds true across party lines. She's at 48/21 with Republicans, 43/31 with Democrats, and 39/26 with independents."

Peter St. Onge
 

Police cameras in high-crime areas? Yes

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police Chief Rodney Monroe will explain today to Charlotte City Council his department's plans to use more than 500 wireless cameras, license plate readers and advanced sound technology, some of which were purchased with the $50 million the city received to enhance security for the Democratic National Convention.

We called on CMPD in October to explain to the council and the public how it will use the technology. At the time, council members told the Observer they hadn't even been briefed on CMPD's plans for all the gadgetry it had. Today's meeting, at 4 p.m. at the Government Center, is a good first step.

There are two issues here. First - are the cameras and other equipment worth the price? Until recently, most of the evidence was anecdotal, but the Washington, D.C.-based Urban Institute studied three cities that used cameras in downtown and high-crime areas. The results: In two of the cities, Baltimore and Chicago, the analysis found enough crime reduction from the cameras to declare them worth the investment. In the third, Washington, the conclusion was maybe - there was significant crime reduction in areas that had surveillance, but researchers weren't certain how much other factors might have contributed.

The second issue is more delicate: The cameras are most sensibly used in areas that have high-crime, but civil rights leaders worry that means they will be concentrated in low-income, high-minority neighborhoods. That's probably true, and that's a good thing. Police already devote a higher level of resources to those communities. Surveillance technology is one more crimefighting tool for the places that need them most.

Monroe's job today is to calm legitimate concerns about the technology by outlining a policy that addresses the cameras' potential to peek into private spaces and encourage racial profiling. The City Council shouldn't be a passive participant in this process. In Washington, the council designed guidelines on technology use after consultation with the public, the ACLU and the American Bar Association.

The cameras are a promising tool, but they will be most effective if everyone has a voice in how they are used - and an understanding of how they will not be.

Peter St. Onge

Jesse Helms and the 'University of Negroes and Communists'

Did Jesse Helms ever call UNC the "University of Negroes and Communists"?

That line has been attributed to the late longtime U.S. senator for many years by many sources. John Dodd, president of the Jesse Helms Center in Wingate, says it is "a fabrication."

I included the reference in a column last Sunday opposing the idea of naming a federal courthouse in Raleigh after Helms. Dodd called and emailed me to say the quote "has zero basis in reality." Dodd says he can find no evidence that Helms ever said or wrote it.

"It's one more in a long, false list of made-up 'quotes,' out of context half-truths and deliberate mischaracterizations that have entertained the Senator's enemies over the years," Dodd wrote.

Many sources that have cited the quote over the years attribute it to an editorial or editorials Helms delivered on WRAL-TV in Raleigh, where he opined on-air in the 1960s. WRAL included the reference in its obituary of Helms, which has been on its website for more than four years. Monday, the station removed the reference after Dodd complained.

The quote and its attribution to Helms has been around for decades. Among those who have included it in their reporting on Helms: CBS News, Newsweek, The Nation, syndicated columnist Richard Reeves, the Washington Monthly, the Washington Post, conservative commentator Michael Graham, the Observer (by many different reporters and columnists), Yahoo!, Mother Jones, the Florida Times-Union, the South Bend Tribune and countless blogs. Some citations say Helms "once called" UNC that. Others say Helms "repeatedly" or "frequently" used that moniker.

Some references cite Helms' on-air editorials. Others say the phrase emerged years earlier, in fliers circulated in the race-tinged 1950 U.S. Senate race between Willis Smith and Frank Porter Graham. Helms was Smith's publicity director.

For many long-time North Carolinians and Helms observers, the phrase, and Helms as its author, is something they've heard for as long as they can remember. But no one seems to be able to point to the original source material.

Did Helms say it? Or did someone make it up long ago and it took on a life of its own? At this point, we can't say, and more research is required. What is not in question: Helms repeatedly used race to divide his constituents and the country. His bigoted comments and actions inflamed racial tensions for decades, and he never apologized for that.

-- Taylor Batten

On least corrupt scale, U.S. ranks 19th

There's actually something called the Corruption Perceptions Index, and the United States ranks 19th. And that's good. In fact, the U.S. is perceived as even less corrupt this year than last year when it ranked 24th, notes the Weekly Standard.

Transparency International, a nonpartisan group made up of members worldwide, compiles the rankings of 176 countries released this week. The U.S. scored 73 out of 100 - with 100 being the least corrupt. The rankings take into account public sector behavior such as bribery, fraud, cronyism and perceived levels of corruption in countries. It also takes into account perceptions about public sector leadership, government transparency and accountability, and the effectiveness of public institutions and agencies.

The U.S. made the top 20 but trails many of the leading developed countries. In the survey it falls behind, in order, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, Singapore, Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Canada, Netherlands, Iceland, Luxembourg, Germany, Hong Kong, Barbados, Belgium, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Coming in 20th is Chile; 22nd is France. Spain is 30th , Italy is 72nd, and China is 80th.

Bringing up the rear as the most corrupt are Sudan, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Somalia. Iraq is at 169th. Syria is 144th.

"While no country has a perfect score (Denmark and Finland came close with scores of 90), two-thirds of countries score below 50, indicating a serious corruption problem," Transparency International notes. "Corruption destroys lives and communities, and undermines countries and institutions. It generates popular anger that threatens to further destabilise societies and exacerbate violent conflicts," the group says.

Politicians in the U.S. might be tempted to feel smug that across the world this country is perceived as among the least corrupt. But here at home the public's view of politicians and others working in the public sector is not so rosy. Many citizens say they don't trust public officials. A Gallup Poll taken last week showed that only 10 percent of respondents said Congress has very high or high honesty and ethical standards, second only to car salespeople. An Elon University poll a couple of years ago showed that here in North Carolina, 65 percent thought elected officials look out more for their own interests than the public’s interest, 73 percent thought corruption is common among elected officials, and 67 percent thought corrupt behavior among N.C. public officials was becoming more common.

Those are not good findings. And 19th internationally shouldn't be good enough either. On a corruption scale, being No. 1 as least corrupt surely is the goal.

Posted by Fannie Flono

Will Hillary run? Are Rubio, Ryan already doing so?

Enough about the fiscal cliff, Benghazi, Susan Rice and drone strikes. What Americans really want to know is will Hillary run in 2016.

In a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll, a majority of Americans say she should. According to the Post, overall, 57 percent of all Americans say they would back a Hillary Clinton candidacy, with support peaking among younger women. Among all women, 66 percent say they would support Clinton as a candidate for president in 2016; it is 75 percent among those under 50 and 54 percent among those aged 50 and up. Forty-nine percent of men back a Clinton bid, regardless of their age.

 The poll attributes some of the enthusiasm for another Clinton run to her popularity as Secretary of State: 68 percent approve of the job she's doing as the nation's top diplomat. None of the fallout from the embassy deaths in Libya seems to have touched her though diplomats' security clearly comes under her department's purview.

Republicans, not surprisingly, aren't so keen on another presidential bid from the former first lady: in the poll, 23 percent of Republicans would support a run in 2016; 73 percent would oppose it. Some 82 percent of Democrats would back her candidacy, with most saying they would do so “strongly.” A majority of independents, 59 percent, also support another Clinton run.

Republicans, of course, already have their eyes on recapturing the White House after a loss in November that stunned some: How could their man, Mitt Romney, lose to a sitting president who presided over a lagging economy and in whom many Americans are disappointed, they lament?

Two possible GOP candidates are already out of the blocks, some say, trying to become the party's frontrunners. Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), Romney’s running mate and the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.). Both spoke at the Jack Kemp Foundation dinner - Rubio was the foundation's Leadership Award recipient and Ryan was the keynote speaker. The foundation is a charitable nonprofit organization named for the late GOP congressman and Housing and Urban Development secretary.
 
Both spoke about the party putting emphasis on inclusion and a renewed focus on growing the middle class. It was a stark contrast to John Sununu's comments at a GOP forum on Tuesday. The former New Hampshire governor and Romney adviser atributed Romney's loss to President Obama's ability to turn out his base - people dependent on the government. Interestingly, Ryan's speech later that night seemed to repudiate such comments, noting: "Both parties tend to divide Americans into 'our voters' and 'their voters... Republicans must steer far clear of that trap. We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American. I believe we can turn on the engines of upward mobility so that no one is left out from the promise of America."

Well said.

As for 2016, it's way too early to be scoping out the next presidential election just weeks after the 2012 race ended. Yet if there's speculating, what about the specter of another Clinton-Bush face-off - meaning Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor who many Republicans wanted to run this time? Could happen, though the Republicans and maybe even the Democrats might be looking to go younger the next time around.

In any case, we'd like a breather from presidential campaigning. What's needed now is some governing. A lot of critical work awaits.

Fire Bob Costas? For what?

So Bob Costas appears at halftime on NBC's "Sunday Night Football" telecast to talk about the biggest news in football last weekend - the murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher. Costas begins by rightfully ridiculing the "mindless sports cliche" that "something like this really puts it all in perspective." He then quotes extensively from a piece by FOX Sports columnist (and Charlotte Observer alum) Jason Whitlock. That piece includes this line, which Costas reads: "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would still be alive today."

Cue the outrage. Not at the substance of what Costas said. At the fact that he dared soil a sports event with his gun commentary.

"You tune in for a football game and end up listening to Bob Costas spewing sanctimonious dreck," tweeted former presidential candidate Herman Cain. On Fox's Morning Show "Fox & Friends," the hosts read letters from viewers critical of Costas. On the network's afternoon show, anchor Megyn Kelly led a debate about whether Costas should be fired for his out-of-place monologue.

Except that this is what Costas has been doing for years now, including on Sunday nights at halftime. He's talked about Jerry Sandusky and child molestation. He's criticized the International Olympic Committee for failing to honor the 11 athletes killed at the Summer Games in 1972. He regularly examines topics at the intersection of sports and society, sports and culture, sports and law. Often, it's worth a listen.

The uproar this time, of course, is about Costas and gun control, not Costas having an opinion. But just in case, a tip for future viewing: Costas might talk again Sunday about an issue that's not strictly sports-related. If you don't like it, take that time to tuck your kids in, refill your beverage, whatever. The game will be back on soon enough.

Peter St. Onge

   

Why the fiscal cliff impasse doesn't matter - so far

Any discussion about the “fiscal cliff” back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans needs to be put in this frame: It’s Dec. 4. There’s almost three weeks to go before Congress heads home for the holidays. It’s too early for outrage about the White House proposal last week that was designed to appeal to Democrats. It’s too early for scorn at the Republican proposal Monday that did the same for the GOP base.

What’s happening now is what happens with most negotiations. Each side is in the wish list phase, declaring the items they want most and drawing the lines they say they won’t cross. This serves to both publicly reafffirm a philosophy and, more importantly, to provide a place at which both sides might later point and show how much they were willing to compromise.

For Republicans on Monday, that again involved defiant declarations about not raising tax rates – although most everyone expects GOP leadership to bend some, given the election results and the fact that tax rates will go up, anyway, if a deal isn’t struck this month. Democrats, meanwhile, are scoffing at any semi-specific suggestions of social spending reform.

“That’s just a kabuki theater,” debt guru Erskine Bowles told PBS NewsHour on Monday. “If they got to agreement – the way Washington is – too quickly, their own side would just kill them because they wouldn’t think they had negotiated hard enough. They got to go through this exchange.”

But beneath all the posturing, a framework of a serious deal might emerge. With their proposals on Social Security and Medicare, Republicans are laying the groundwork for social spending reform – not merely trims around the periphery that solve little long-term. In return, they will have to give on tax rates on the rich going up – at least a little – but that also would be accompanied by an examination of tax deductions and loopholes. Those are the baby steps of the tax reform we need.

One thing we do know about both proposals thus far: Neither comes close to the kind of savings we need to make a real dent in the deficit. Bowles has long said that the $4 trillion the Simpson-Bowles plan saves over 10 years is about the minimum the country needs to do. The most recent Democrat and Republican proposals are hovering near the $2 trillion mark.

That’s not nearly enough, and three weeks won’t likely get us much more in the way of deficit reduction. But the foundation might be built for something more, so long as neither side decides that a win is more important than a compromise.

Peter St. Onge       

North Carolina's own fiscal cliff

While President Obama and congressional Republicans negotiate toward a Dec. 31 deadline, North Carolina faces its own fiscal cliff.

The state owes the federal government about $3 billion that it borrowed to pay unemployment benefits. That's a big chunk of change -- it's the fourth biggest unemployment debt of any state in the nation -- and the number grows daily because the feds assess penalties until it's paid off.

The problem has been bubbling for a while (to read my column on it from last May, click here), and has finally gotten bad enough that it should be near the top of the legislature's to-do list when it convenes in a couple of months.

Lew Ebert, CEO of the North Carolina Chamber, stopped by the Observer editorial board Wednesday to talk about it. Ebert said the unemployment debt -- not taxes, not regulations -- was the single biggest cloud hovering over the state's economy. Those other issues can't really be tackled until state leaders deal with the debt, he said.

Ignoring it, Ebert said, is actually a tax hike, because the federal penalty on businesses keeps accruing -- to the tune of $400 million this year, he said.

The Chamber, representing businesses, advocates a three-step approach:
-- First, bond out the debt. That means issuing bonds to pay off the feds. The debt's still there, but then is owed to the bondholders, not the federal government, erasing the federal penalties. It also puts all N.C. taxpayers on the hook. Ebert says Treasurer Janet Cowell, a Democrat, indicated she would be open to the bonding. The Treasurer's office has not returned my call asking about that today.
-- Raise rates on employers.
-- Cut benefits to the unemployed.

Ebert acknowledged that businesses enjoyed generous tax cuts in the good times, and those cuts contributed to the system's insolvency. So do people getting benefits who shouldn't and, of course, the Great Recession.

For more detail on the Chamber's approach, click here.

Everyone will have to share in the pain to fix the problem. It's good that Ebert recognizes that higher rates have to be part of the solution. No one's getting rich off their unemployment benefits, but as part of the fix, liberals will have to acknowledge that millions are paid out improperly.

-- Taylor Batten

Secession petitions surge after Obama win?

Seceding from the United States? One pundit wise-cracked, "Hasn't that been tried before?"
Yes, but a story Monday pointed out that North Carolina had collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition introduced by Randy Dye of Pittsboro to secede from federal government as a separate and sovereign entity. On that day, it was said to be one of 24 states with petitions on the White House website  website
http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions. The website is a vehicle
established by the Obama administration to allow citizens to take their
concerns directly to the White House. If the petitions get 25,000 signatures the Obama administration will issue a formal response to them.
As this week nears an end, reportedly all 50 states have now secession petitions on the website. Some like South Carolina have two or more, worded slightly differently but with the same intent.

Petitions from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, according to the Inquisitr, had received at least 25,000 signatures as of Wednesday. Palm Beach Post writer Frank Cerabino said the secessions were sparked by President Obama's presidential win: "Since President Barack Obama was re-elected ... online petitions of secession have popped up in more than two dozen states," he wrote.

It's not clear when the petitions started or whether Obama's win was the impetus. But it's wishful thinking to hope the petitions will result in any secessions. Remember, we had a Civil War to settle that issue nearly 150 years ago. The new movie "Lincoln" could be a good flick to see as an apt reminder. Better yet go online or get a book and read the Gettysburg Address, delivered by President Abraham Lincoln on Nov. 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldier's National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pa., four months after the Battle of Gettysburg which helped end the war.  

Particularly poignant are these words: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure...It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion."

The Civil War ended and the union was kept intact. Even Gov. Rick Perry, who has talked about a Texas secession in the past, now speaks more circumspectly: “Gov. Perry believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it," his spokesman said this week. "But he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government,”

 The petitions appearing on the White House website do affirm a basic tenet of the U.S. government that was preserved in that great war. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every citizen's right to petition your government. On the website is a ragtag array of petitions. There's one to outlaw offending prophets of major religions - 37,134 have signed that; there's one supporting mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods - 43,065 signed that; there's even one to deport anyone who has signed a petition to withdraw or secede from the U.S. -16,374 signed that. The ones supporting federal legalization of marijuana get the most signers - more than 85,000 have signed the three or more petitions on that subject.

A perfect union, this is not. But it's still pretty good.

What do you think about secession talk?

Posted by Fannie Flono