Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Articles

Search Articles


Here’s a point of view on the War in Iraq that is being, unfortunately, ignored.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in a commentary in the News and Observer today (3-6-06), argues that our problems in Iraq are a result of “President Bush’s decision to approach the Iraq invasion with the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which calls for just enough troops to fail, rather then the proven Powell Doctrine, which calls for overwhelming force to win.”

Mr. Friedman writes that the Bush administration’s “repeated claim” that it had enough troops in Iraq and no one was asking for more – is “Totally untrue.” He goes on to state that Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian administration in Iraq, reveals in his new book, My Year in Iraq, that “he repeatedly asked for more troops, but was ignored.”

According to Mr. Friedman, Bremer reveals that he told Condoleezza Rice in 2003, “The coalitions got about half the number of soldiers we need here, and we run a real risk of having this thing go south on us.” And that Mr. Bremer also states in his book, “On May 18, [2004] I gave Rice a heads-up that I intended to send Secretary Rumsfeld a very private message suggesting the coalition needed more troops. That afternoon I sent my message. I noted the deterioration of the security situation since April had made it clear, to me at least, that we were trying to cover too many fronts with too few resources.” Bremer concludes, “I did not hear back from him [Rumsfeld].”

This is the debate we need to have – and are not having – about Iraq in this year’s elections. Right now, the Democrats are arguing we are fighting the wrong war. The Bush administration is arguing we are fighting the right war and should stay the course. But no one – yet – is debating Mr. Friedman’s point that the real problem is we have fought this war the wrong way. With the Rumsfeld doctrine, not the Powell Doctrine.

Posted in: General
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


Carter and I spoke to a class of aspiring political operatives this week. Just before we started, CNN broadcast the story about Bush’s approval rating dropping to 34 percent. Apparently, he is about where Nixon was when he resigned.

But Democrats shouldn’t start celebrating.

Bush’s 10-point drop came because his administration wants to let a Dubai company run American ports.

Clearly, that was dumb politically. But it’s hard for me to see how Democrats take advantage.

My concern was heightened during our class. The students are running mock campaigns for Republican Congressman Robin Hayes in the 8th District and a mythical Democratic opponent.

The Democrats thought they have a fine issue with Hayes’ flip-flop on CAFTA. In a normal year, they’d be right.

Just like Washington Democrats who think Delay, Abramoff and the stench of corruption will make this a good year. In a normal year, they’d be right.

But the ports flap and the poll numbers make me think otherwise.

As I’ve said before, I still don’t see how Democrats get over a BIG hurdle: Americans don’t trust us to keep America safe from terrorists.

Until we solve that problem, our high hopes for this year are misguided.

A footnote about Bush:

The pundits I see on TV can’t understand how the Bush team made this mistake. Bush’s apologists want to say the White House didn’t know.


The answer is that the Bush family loves rich Arabs.

Remember, this is the President who didn’t mind being photographed walking hand in hand with Saudi royalty.

Fundamentally, it’s a sign that Bush is so intellectually incurious that he never learned anything more than what he brought into office with him. And that was precious little.

What he did bring is the idea – which he got from Daddy – that rich Arabs are our kind of people, son, and we can deal with them.

Somehow, the ignorant American people just don’t seem to agree.

Posted in: General
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


It looks like our crusade to get the Raleigh City Council focused on schools is making progress.

In his annual State of the City address this week, Mayor Charles Meeker laid out three goals for 2006: reduce fuel consumption, fight homelessness and – according to The News & Observer – “push Wake County to solve its school-crowding crisis.”

Click here to read the story.

It says:

Meeker said he realizes Raleigh government has no control over schools, but he felt the need to urge action.

It will take roughly $1.2 billion to renovate schools, move students out of trailers and handle the 12,000 new students estimated for the next two years.

Wake County’s tax base will increase enough that $400,000 to $500,000 can be committed now without a tax increase.

The rest of the money, Meeker said, should be left to voters to decide on this fall’s ballot.

“We’re behind,” he said. “We’ve been behind now for a couple of years. … I have confidence this community, as it always has done before, can solve our problem.”

That’s not much. But it may be a start. Maybe he’ll now join the outnumbered Council members who want the City to debate this issue.

Posted in: General, Raleigh
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


‘Pay to Play’ is the name the media has given the scandals that are going on in Raleigh. It means, roughly, lobbyists ‘pay’ (by making contributions) – if they want legislators to ‘play’ (listen to them or act on what they want) in Raleigh.

To be fair to the lobbyists, they aren’t enamored about raising and giving thousands of dollars (in political donations) to politicians. In fact, it is the politicians who created ‘pay to play’ – not the lobbyists.

And the politicians who created, and who have practiced ‘pay to play’ most, are Democrats – because Democrats control the State Legislature and the Governorship.

Now we have the chairman of the State Democratic Party calling for ‘Lobbying Reform.’ But what he is proposing is window dressing – not real reform. If what he proposes becomes law. It means a few helpful but basically cosmetic reforms will take place – that won’t end ‘pay for play.’ Because politicians will go right on raising money for lobbyists.

The way to end ‘pay for play’ is simple: make it illegal for politicians to ask lobbyists (or their clients) to give or raise money for them. In other words, anyone wanting something like a contract, a bill, a tax break, an incentive out of government cannot give a contribution to any politician who has a role in making that decision.

The problem is this is how Democrats fund their campaigns – so they’re not anxious to end ‘pay for play.’ In fact, only one major Democratic leader has come out for banning lobbyists’ donations: House Speaker Jim Black.

It will be interesting to see if Senate Leader Marc Basnight and Governor Easley – and for that matter, Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meeks – join Black in calling for banning lobbyist donations.

If they do, it will put a hole in ‘pay for play.’ If they don’t it means they (or at least Senator Basnight since the Governor can’t run again) will go right on raising money from lobbyists.

The Democrats gave us ‘pay for play’ and, right now, only the Democrats have the power to end it. That ball, for now, is in Senator Basnight’s court. Unless he joins Speaker Black in endorsing banning lobbyist donations it is hard to see how the Senate will pass any meaningful reforms.

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


For some time now, the political tide has been running against supporters of abortion rights.

That’s because the opponents got smart. They started focusing the battle on issues like parental notification and late-term abortions.

I’ve watched these polls for more than 20 years now.

Americans are fundamentally split about abortion. They don’t like it, but they recognize it is sometimes the right thing to do. But they want it restricted as much as possible.

They’re “pro-choice” and “pro-life” at the same time – unlike anybody in politics.

Now comes the South Dakota legislature.

In their wisdom, the distinguished South Dakota Legislators in Pierre decided to ban all abortions. Including in cases involving rape and incest and when the mother’s health is threatened.

I suspect that is a much more favorable debate for the abortion-rights supporters.

Posted in: General
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


The Democrats in Raleigh have been embroiled in a series of scandals over the last six months that the newspapers have dubbed ‘pay to play’ – and as a result we have a series of investigations underway by everybody from the U. S. Attorney to the State Board of Elections.

House Speaker Jim Black has been the focus of most of the press reports about these scandals but right now just about every politician seems to be talking about the need to clean up politics. But the truth is what they call cleaning up is just putting a fresh coat of paint over the same old fence.

They’re using words like “openness,” “access” and “transparency” in describing what they call lobbying reform – but that’s political double-talk for let’s do as little as possible and declare we fixed the problem.

The only way to end these scandals is to make it illegal for a politician to ask a lobbyist (or anyone else) who wants a government grant, job, subsidy, contract, etc., for money – for political donations. In other words, pass a law that says if a lobbyist (or a lobbyist’s client) wants something from government like a contract or a special tax break for their company they can’t give contributions to the politicians who get to make that decision. That eliminates even the appearance of a quid pro quo. And puts a hole in ‘pay to play.’

But, by and large, ‘pay for play’ was created, or at least practiced most, by Democratic politicians – because, after all, they’re the ones who control the legislature and the Governor’s office. And only one Democrat leader has endorsed banning lobbyists’ donations. Guess who: Speaker Jim Black.

Now, maybe, this is a case of the return of the prodigal son but whatever his reason Speaker Black has endorsed a real reform. The question is what are Marc Basnight – and Governor Mike Easley – going to do?

Because real reform is going no where unless Senator Basnight endorses it in the Senate. So the question now is will Senator Basnight and Governor Easley join Speaker Black in endorsing a real reform – that will help stop ‘pay to play’ – or are they going to pass cosmetic changes that will let them go on raising money from lobbyists?

Posted in: General
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


From the first taxpayers’ revolution in California in 1978, North Carolina has escaped a full-scale rebellion over local property taxes.

I predict that is going to change soon. Specifically, this fall. And specifically right here in Wake County over the school bond issue.

The issue is popping up all over the country again. South Carolina is considering a referendum this fall over rising property assessments.

Given some of the numbers we’ve seen connected with the Wake County school bonds, we’re ripe for the revolution here.

The new school superintendent and all the business and political leaders who support this bond issue had better put on their armor for this fight.

Posted in: General
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


I’m enjoying watching Republicans put President Bush on the hot seat for letting a Middle Eastern company run American ports.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that beneath all this hoorah – as one of the commenters on our blog suggested – there might be nothing wrong with the arrangement.

But you can’t blame me for enjoying the spectacle.

Ever since 2000, Bush has benefited from the right-wing media frothing machine – the talk TV and talk radio blowhards who are skewered so well by the “Colbert Report” on Comedy Central.

Now their target is Bush.

Plus, Bush has worked overtime since 9/11 to make us think there is no difference between those people – whether they’re named Saddam or Osama.

Now he has to explain why there is a difference.

Another irony: First Bush threatened to veto any effort to reverse his decision. Then he admitted he didn’t make the decision – or even know about it.

Who made it? A committee chaired by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt.

As the President himself might say: “Heckuva job, Kimmie.”

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


A painful lesson Carter taught me in the 1984 Hunt-Helms race was the power of using your opponents’ own words against him.

I thought of that when – for the first time – I saw Bill Graham’s ad against the state gas tax increase.

His last line – after saying the politicians want him to go away – was: “We’re not going anywhere.”

Well, if we follow him, he’s absolutely right. We won’t go anywhere.

Posted in: General
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |


I believe The News & Observer was dead wrong Thursday morning about Senator Elizabeth Dole, her husband Bob Dole and the Dubai ports fiasco.

The N&O, like other news outlets, reported that Bob Dole “has been hired by Dubai Ports World to help shepherd the company through a $6.8 billion deal to control terminals at six U.S. ports.”

Then the N&O whitewashed her blatant conflict of interest:

“Despite her husband’s work for Dubai, Elizabeth Dole wrote in a letter Wednesday that she is concerned about turning port operations over to a Middle Eastern company.”

Senator Dole said in her letter:

“I do not believe that a transaction of this importance should be finalized until the Administration and the Congress have had an opportunity to thoroughly examine, understand, and resolve these concerns.”

Contrast that with N.C. Rep. Sue Myrick’s one-sentence letter:

“Dear Mr. President: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO — but HELL NO!”

In fact, Senator Dole – in the language of politics – is carefully leaving the door wide open to eventually support the deal.

But – as the mainstream media has done since she first ran for the U.S. Senate – the N&O continued to give her a free pass on her husband’s role as Sellout Former Senator Turned Big-Bucks Lobbyist No. 1.

Just as the North Carolina media has given her a free pass on her striking absence both from the state and from any leadership in the Senate. Not to mention her time spent as chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee – a role that I hear is being roundly criticized by Republicans in Washington.

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

Page 473 of 484« First...1020...472473474...480...Last »
Carter & Gary
Carter Wrenn
Gary Pearce
The Charlotte Observer says: “Carter Wrenn and Gary Pearce don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But they both love North Carolina and know its politics inside and out.”
Carter is a Republican. 
Gary is a Democrat.
They met in 1984, during the epic U.S. Senate battle between Jesse Helms and Jim Hunt. Carter worked for Helms and Gary, for Hunt.
Years later, they became friends. They even worked together on some nonpolitical clients.
They enjoy talking about politics. So they started this blog in 2005. 
They’re still talking. And they invite you to join the conversation.
Follow Gary

Follow Carter


Order The Book


Carter's Book!

Purchase Carter's Book:

Spirits of the Air

Support independent publishing: buy this book on Lulu.

Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :   Terms Of Use   :   Privacy Statement