McCrory accepts Observer's challenge; Dalton ducks

Pat McCrory, the Republican candidate for N.C. governor, this afternoon accepted the challenge we posed in our editorial this morning: To keep his political ads fair throughout this campaign. His opponent, Democrat Walter Dalton, ducked the question.

The Observer editorial board urged McCrory and Dalton, and candidates in other races, to pledge "not to run ads that are clearly unfair (and) to denounce sleazy ads from independent groups."

This afternoon, McCrory, a Republican who is ahead in the polls, agreed and called on Dalton, a Democrat, to as well.

“This election should be about the serious issues facing our state and two competing visions for North Carolina,” McCrory said. “There’s enough that differentiates Lt. Governor Walter Dalton and I [sic] without having to resort to airing sleazy and unfair ads that don't tell the truth in an attempt to tear down the opponent."

Dalton spokesman Ford Porter then issued a statement that declined to take a position on the pledge.

"We're glad McCrory's got an opinion on something," Porter's statement said. "This election should be about the serious issues facing our state and two competing visions for North Carolina. Pat McCrory should stop talking out of both sides of his mouth and join Walter Dalton in debating the issues that matter in North Carolina: jobs and education."

UPDATE: Walton Robinson, a spokesman for the N.C. Democratic Party, issued a statement this afternoon saying McCrory had made and broken the same promise in 2008. He said McCrory "has a history of negative campaigning," but could point only to one radio ad McCrory ran late in the 2008 campaign that accused then-Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue of seeking to spend road money on a teapot museum, a charge that was not accurate.

McCrory's campaign is challenging a TV ad paid for by the Democratic Governors Association that suggests McCrory unethically tried to help a company on whose board he sat. The campaign has asked the FCC to intervene and is threatening to sue stations that continue to air it.

Shortly after that ad hit the airwaves, a Raleigh pollster, Dustin Ingalls, told a Democratic group in Fayetteville:
“To win, we have to raise a lot of money, first of all, and we have to absolutely eviscerate McCrory. There’s no way to prop up Dalton enough. We have to just slash McCrory – death by a thousand cuts.” He added: “It’s going to have to be a very negative campaign.”

For their part, the Republican Governors Association launched the first TV ad of the campaign with a spot that makes very selective use of statistics to link Dalton to job losses, in a way that experts told WRAL was “lazy economic analysis.”

That was all a bad sign to us, prompting the editorial challenging the candidates to have a little more respect for voters. Negative ads have their place; highlighting an opponent's record is fair game, and can be helpful to voters -- if it is true. But often those ads cross a line, using innuendo or lack of context or other tricks to mislead.

Where that line lies is in the eye of each viewer, of course. We're encouraged that McCrory has agreed to run a fair campaign and denounce those groups that don't, and wish Dalton would as well. Now we just hope that McCrory's idea of where to draw that line is not wildly different from where most North Carolinians would.

-- Taylor Batten

Are Republicans intentionally sabotaging the economy?

That's the question asked by the AP's Charles Babington, who writes that top Democrats believe House Speaker John Boehner's saber rattling on the debt last week has a purpose: to cause economic anxiety and stall growth in advance of November's election.

Among those Democrats is N.Y. Sen. Chuck Schumer, who said in a statement: "The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer's debacle that nearly brought down our economy."

That "debacle" was the parties' inability to agree on anything regarding the debt - other than to punt it to a supercommittee that also couldn't come up with an agreement. The result: a hit to the country's credit rating, plus looming Draconian cuts set to trigger in January.

Those cuts are prompting this early rush to capture a new debt narrative with the election approaching. For Republicans, led by Boehner, that means announcing that this time, there will be no raising the debt ceiling without "dramatic steps" to reduce spending.

Boehner again isn't publicly entertaining the possibility of revenue increases/taxes to go with those spending cuts - a curious strategy given that last summer, Americans were largely scornful of the GOP's stubborn resistance to a debt plan that included both. (Americans also weren't terribly pleased that President Obama eventually chose to tsk-tsk both sides of the debt debate, rather than take the political risk of leading them toward a consensus.)

But is Boehner's new posturing an attempt to slow the fragile but growing economy? (It's not the first time one party has accused the other of fiscal sabotage.) Boehner says no, but it certainly won't calm the anxiety businesses are already feeling about our shaky economic landscape. The Washington Post reported last week that firms, hospitals and contractors already are delaying hiring and readying for cuts if Congress can't resolve debt, cuts and tax issues by January.

At the least, Boehner's remarks and the Democratic response add to the overwrought, unproductive political theatre we see from both sides, on most every issue, in what's become a perpetual election season.

Should Charlotte snub Amendment One on same-sex benefits?

Our first instinct, as opponents of North Carolina's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, is to challenge it any way possible and show the harm it inflicts. So we understand those who encourage the Charlotte City Council to offer same-sex benefits to its employees - even if it gets the city sued.

But council members made a smarter decision last night, voting 9-2 to get an opinion from the N.C. Attorney General on the issue before including the benefits in the next fiscal year budget. The city doesn't currently offer benefits to same-sex partners, but Curt Walton recommended doing so in his budget proposal earlier this month.

Most of us know the basics at hand: North Carolina's same-sex amendment says that the only union the state recognizes is a marriage between a man and a woman. That jeopardizes benefits for same-sex partners - as well as heterosexual, unmarried domestic partners - offered by local governments and state universities. A UNC study published last November said there's no iffyness about it - based on what courts in other states have ruled, same-sex benefits in Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro, and Mecklenburg and Orange counties would become illegal when the amendment passed.

Mecklenburg County commissioner Bill James, in the wake of last week's vote, already has asked the board to eliminate those benefits.

The problem facing the City Council: The AG's office probably won't get back to the city with an opinion by the time the council has to approve its budget in June. That would leave council members with a new question - do they plow ahead with the benefits and invite a lawsuit challenging their legality, or do they wait a city or county already offering the benefits to have their inevitable day before a judge?

We think Charlotte should wait. The amendment's language clearly makes same-sex benefits from governments illegal. Offering them might make a momentarily satisfying statement, but a lawsuit would surely follow, and that would result in a costly defense for a losing effort. We've criticized N.C. Republicans in the past for their costly pursuit of mandates involving abortion visits that already had been struck down by a federal judge. Same principle applies here. Conscientious objection might be a fine tool for individuals, but governments shouldn't be in the business of snubbing the law.

The best the City Council can do for now is ask the attorney general about alternatives. Amendment One author and House Majority Leader Paul Stam suggested that local governments can get around the amendment by allowing homosexual employees in partnerships to designate another person to receive benefits. It's not an ideal solution - and it's potentially more costly. But North Carolina voters have made their decision. The City Council should abide by it.



Peter St. Onge

Yes, yes, to N.C. sterilization compensation

We're glad to see that N.C. lawmakers, back for their short session, got to work immediately in righting a wrong done to thousands of North Carolinians with the state's eugenics program - a sterilization program that lasted to the 1970s, the longest-running such program in the nation. A bipartisan group in the N.C. House filed a bill today to compensate victims. Primary sponsors included Rep. Larry Womble,D-Forsyth, Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg and Rep. Earline Parmon, D-Forsyth and House Majority Leader, Rep. Skip Stam, R-Wake. Rep. Martha Alexander, D-Mecklenburg, was a co-sponsor. A Senate companion bill was also expected to be filed.

As we said this morning in an editorial, this action is long past due. It was shameful that the state conducted such a program. There were more than 7,600 victims of the program that ran from 1929 to 1974, including and adults and children. Males and females were victims. Many were lied to about the operations; others were given explanations they were unable to understand. Currently, 132 individuals have been verified by the N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation, of which 118 (about 90 percent) are living.

Titled HB947: Eugenics Compensation Program, the bill reflects the recommendations of the Governor’s Eugenics Compensation Task Force, which filed its final report in January. It will establish a $10 million fund from which to issue a lump-sum, tax-free payment of $50,000 to eligible recipients and sets a deadline of Dec. 31, 2015, to file a claim.

Additionally, the bill provides continued funding for the Sterilization Victims Foundation, which serves as a clearinghouse for verification requests and will be empowered to advocate on behalf of verified victims.

If the bill is signed into law, the state would become the first in the country to give money to living victims of sterilization.

We commend Rep. Womble, who was an early and persistent supporter and sponsor of compensation legislation. “There are some folks who doubted that this day would finally come. It’s taken too long, but we now stand ready to open the door and financially acknowledge the suffering the state brought to so many.”

He's right. Today's bill is a first step. By the end of this session - July at the latest, we hope - this bill should be law, and sterilization victims will be on the way to getting their justified compensation.

The sterilization bill was just one of the bills lawmakers moved quickly on. A bill to allow fracking - horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas, also moved forward. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is now in favor of fracking but the bill being pushed by Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, is said to be controversial even among Republicans. A more moderate approach is being pushed by Sen. Mitch Gillespie, R-McDowell, who favors greater public safeguards. We think more research and regulations are needed before fracking is allowed.

Here's what pundits across the state are saying about the short session of the General Assembly that started at noon:

From the Wilmington Star News: Surprisingly, Perdue and Republican leaders actually do agree on some things, including capping the tax on gasoline. But it is state Sen. Bill Rabon who has injected some reality into the conversation.

From the Fayetteville Observer: Push for fracking defies common sense.

From the (Raleigh) News and Observer: No to Voter ID

From the Greenville Daily Reflector: Seek common ground

From the Winston-Salem Journal: Compensation for sterilization victims now.

Posted by Fannie Flono

DNC CEO Steve Kerrigan talks convention -- sort of

Steve Kerrigan, the CEO of the Democratic National Convention Committee, stopped by the editorial board this morning. Kerrigan is bright and engaging, a guy with whom it'd be fun to have a beer. But for the leader of "the most open and accessible convention in history," he sure dodged a lot of questions.

When, for example, will Charlotte residents and uptown businesses be informed about security requirements and how their lives will be affected?

"Months in advance," Kerrigan said. How many months? Kerrigan declined to be more specific. For families and businesses trying to plan for summer, yesterday would be good.

How much have you raised toward the $37 million the convention needs?

"We're right on track." How much is that? "We're right on track."

Are you concerned about any potential damage to Democrats resulting from the mess with David Parker, the chairman of the N.C. Democratic Party who promised to resign after a sexual harassment scandal at party headquarters but has decided to stay on?

"David Parker is a good Democrat," he said, preferring to let the state party sort out its own matters.

Kerrigan was more talkative on other issues. He repeated that he was proud of the Democrats' promise not to raise money from corporations or lobbyists for the convention. When we pointed out that the host committee is raising millions of corporate dollars to pay for an array of expenses, he said that the host committee and the DNC committee are separate, and if the host committee wants to raise corporate dollars, that's their business. When we suggested that to the public that may appear to be splitting hairs, he said, "It's an important hair to split."

Kerrigan was also refreshingly open about the fact that politics was a major consideration in bringing the convention to Charlotte. "This is going to be a nail-biter of a state, a nail-biter of an election," he said, and that swing-state status was one of the main reasons Obama is coming here in September. Kerrigan said that when he worked to bring the DNC to safely Democratic Boston in 2004, he argued that where the convention is held matters little when it comes to winning a state. Now he argues the opposite, and says that's because the convention has changed -- from just "a TV show" to a tool for recruiting volunteers, registering people to vote and otherwise engaging with voters.

Asked how a proposed new voter ID law could affect President Obama's chances in North Carolina, Kerrigan said: "It's people playing politics with people's rights. Voting is a fundamental American right."

-- Taylor Batten

Perdue won't apologize to Mississippi governor

N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue is not backing down from taking a shot at Mississippi.

After N.C. voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, Perdue told WITN in Greenville on Friday: "People are saying, 'What in the world is going on in North Carolina?' We look like Mississippi."

That irritated Mississippi's governor, Republican Phil Bryant, as well as some former Mississippi residents (read a letter from one of them on Wednesday's Opinion page).

Perdue talked with Bryant on the phone Monday, but didn't apologize, WRAL reports.

It's a fact "that Mississippi, for years, tended to be more conservative and North Carolina tended to be more progressive," Perdue said, WRAL reported.

"I thought we had a really good conversation about public policy between North Carolina and Mississippi."

Bryant, who opposes same-sex marriage, called the conversation with Perdue "disappointing" and said Perdue is mischaracterizing his state.

Meanwhile, Rob Schofield, who writes about state government for the Progressive Pulse blog, defends Perdue's comment.

"Think about it," Schofield writes. "If one of your main jobs was selling North Carolina to businesspeople from all over the nation and the world, you too would feel embarrassed by having to explain such nonsense."

What do you think? Was Perdue out of bounds to say the Amendment One vote makes North Carolina look like Mississippi?

-- Taylor Batten

National Republicans dive into N.C. gov race

And we're off!

Republicans today  launched the first TV ad in the race for N.C. governor, pursuing an expected -- and possibly effective -- strategy: Tying Democrat Walter Dalton to unpopular Gov. Bev Perdue.

The Republican Governors Association is believed to be spending at least $865,000 to air the ad in Raleigh, Greenville and the Triad. It labels Dalton as Perdue's right-hand man, and portrays him as a big tax-and-spender. The ad should be an early boost for Republican Pat McCrory, the former Charlotte mayor who is expected to be the favorite.

It also raises this question: Will the Democratic Governors Association jump in to support Dalton, despite the lack of trust between Dalton and the chairman of the N.C. Democratic Party, David Parker? Parker assured Dalton he would resign after a sexual harassment scandal at the party, but then went back on that promise.

Here's the script to the Republican ad:

“Walter Dalton is Bev Perdue’s right-hand man.

Now, Walter Dalton is running away from Perdue.

But, under Perdue and Dalton’s high tax policies, 40,000 more North Carolinians are out of work.

Unemployment is 9.7 percent; one of the nation’s highest.

The Dalton-Perdue new 15 percent sales tax increase will kill 8,000 more North Carolina jobs.

Walter Dalton can’t escape the failed Perdue-Dalton record: Higher taxes – job killing policies.”

Perdue temporarily raised the sales tax and pushed to keep that hike in place, but Republican legislators let it expire. Perdue and Dalton both support restoring it now. But, with Republicans blocking that, taxes aren't higher right now than when Perdue and Dalton took office.

-- Taylor Batten

Mitt was mean. What does that mean?

So we're not sure what to do about today's Washington Post story on Mitt Romney being a bully almost a half-century ago. The story, published the morning after President Barack Obama endorsed gay marriage, recounts how Romney tormented a private high school classmate for his "presumed homosexuality."

Already, the report has prompted some serious buzz, and it's sure to be affirmational for many who see a troubling lack of compassion in Romney's conservatism. But should it be?

First, a few details. The incident happened 46 years ago at the prestigious Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. Writes reporter Jason Horowitz:

John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

Romney, through a spokesman, initially said he didn't remember the incident. Five classmates, including one who has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan, say it happened, and moments ago Romney offered an apology for doing "dumb things" in high school.

Does it matter? The story is emblematic of a time where society's attitudes about bullying and homosexuals were starkly different than today. That certainly doesn't excuse an incident that clearly traumatized the victim, as the story goes on to say.

But is it a window into Romney's soul - or the ugly immaturity of a teenage boy? Considering our teen years, we'd be inclined to lean toward the latter, but Romney nevertheless was smart to take another sweep through his memory and find some regret.

Peter St. Onge

Bill James: County needs to end domestic partner benefits

It didn't take Mecklenburg County commissioner Bill James long after Amendment One passed to start targetting eliminating benefits the county provides same-sex and other unmarried couples. In an early morning email to County Attorney Marvin Bethune and County Manager Harry Jones, he made his pitch:

"Since Amendment One has passed when will we get a memo or something that outlines what changes we need to make to our health plan to be in compliance? I recall when the Democrats on the Commission forced the issue and added these benefits for homosexuals that a number of legal experts said it was illegal then – including the City attorney. Now that Amendment one has passed it obviously is illegal to offer this benefit as there is now only one ‘domestic legal union’ recognized in the state.

"Prior to the vote most scholars (left and right) said that Amendment One would eliminate local faux ‘marriage’ benefits for homosexual employees. I would cite them but you know them all too well.

"Still, I would like to know when the Board can expect information on the changes Amendment One wrought (or are we going to break the law and spend scarce resources on litigation we will likely loose)?"

In a reply, Harry Jones said:
"Bill
This will acknowledge receipt of your email regarding the above subject. Our legal and human resources staffs are evaluating the Amendment, as well our policy, to determine what, if any, potential impact the Amendment will have on Mecklenburg County. As soon as we complete our evaluation we will brief the board at a future meeting on our findings, conclusions, and policy options available to you."

James also tweeted hours after the vote: "Now that #4Marriage #amendment 1 has passed - we need to eliminate those illegal benefits."

This is, of course, one of the fallouts many legal scholars predicted would occur if N.C. voters approved the constitutional ban lawmakers put on the ballot, one that not only banned same-sex marriage which was already banned in the state by law anyway, but also declared invalid as a "domestic legal union" in the state any relationship other than that of one man and one woman married to each other. Hopefully, other commissioners won't follow James' lead in trying to eliminate domestic partner benefits. They should look to Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Asheville whose leaders have reportedly already vowed to stand strong on keeping such benefits in place.

They also should pay attention to what the city of Charlotte is doing. City Manager Curt Walton included same-sex benefits in his budget proposal outlined today. The benefits would start in Jan. of 2013. Good for Walton in sticking to this proposal, the day after the amendment vote.

It's hardly surprising to see James once again hawking intolerance and prejudice. He said that voters in his district, by making him the winner in his District 6 primary race Tuesday night, showed they like what he does so he'll keep on doing it.

The rest of us - especially his colleagues on the commission - should keep telling and showing him WE don't like what he does and we will fight to keep him from getting his way.

Posted by Fannie Flono