Obama v. Bush: Close call

If President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush were running on the same ballot this year, it's would be a close fight. That's the conclusion of Public Policy Polling, which finds that about as many Americans would prefer to have Bush back in the White House as they would Obama, who has a slim edge.

Jensen notes that Democrats who plan to continue running against Bush as part of their platform probably should rethink that message. As unpopular as Bush was when he went out of office, Republican and conservative voters would prefer him to Obama. That's roughly the same proportion of Democrats who prefer Obama. Among independents, though it's a clearer choice for Obama.

The other day N.C. House Speaker Joe Hackney articulated at a party meeting in Orange County how Democrats here will shape their message. While Republicans have high hopes for capitalizing on Obama's unpopularity among conservatives and on Democratic corruption, Hackney says his party will portray Republicans as the party of "No."

Dome quoted Hackney as saying the other day, "If the Republicans won't cut, they won't tax, they won't govern." The speaker said Democrats had weathered a recession and protected education and have a positive story to tell while the Republican story had become one of saying 'no." "Let's take it to the polls and see if 'no, no, no' is what they want," Hackney said.

Read more here.

Meanwhile, here's PPP's analysis of the Obama-Bush story:

Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama while 46% say they would rather have the old President back.
Bush had atrocious approval ratings for his final few years in office, particularly because he lost a lot of support from Republicans and conservative leaning independents. Those folks may not have liked him but they now say they would rather have him back than Obama. 87% of GOP voters now say they would prefer Bush, a number a good deal higher than Bush's approval rating within his party toward the tail end of his Presidency. Democrats predictably go for Obama by an 86/10 margin, and independents lean toward him as well by a 49/37 spread.
These numbers suggest some peril for Democrats in making Bush a focus of their messaging this fall. A lot of folks who contributed to the former President's low level of popularity now like Obama even less. Figuring out a way to make voters change their minds about the current President would be a much more effective strategy for Democrats than continuing to try to score points off the former one.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/obamabush-nearly-divided.html

Basnight: Navy's "awful idea" for OLF is "WRONG"

Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting the idea that N.C. Senate President Marc Basnight doesn't like the Navy's handling of the search for an outlying landing field one little bit.

He's been opposing the Navy's plans to put an outlying landing field in Northeastern North Carolina for years. After the Navy abandoned its flawed plan to build the field in Washington and Beaufort counties near the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge -- where its Super Hornet jets and their pilots would be subject to potential collisions with the large waterfowl that spend their winters in the area -- the Navy turned to other sites in Virginia and North Carolina. The list includes sites in Camden and Currituck counties -- and when Basnight, a Dare Democrat, longtime Senate leader and N.C. political power -- found out about a recent meeting between Navy brass and a few hand-picked guests in North Carolina, he and Rep. Bill Owens, D-Pasquotank, let loose a broadside at the Navy. They called the OLF plan "awful" and said the Navy's proposal for a North Carolina landing field to practice aircraft carrier landings was plain wrong.

For those keeping track of this saga, here's the text of the Basnight/Owen volley:

April 12, 2010
Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr.
Commander, US Fleet Forces Command
Fleet Public Affairs (N02P)
1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250
Norfolk, VA 23551-2487

Dear Admiral Harvey:

For almost a decade, small, rural communities in northeastern North Carolina have been
in an epic battle with the United States Navy over the destruction and elimination of their way of
life. These are not wealthy with the monetary riches that the area in which you live is
accustomed to, but they are rich in family, heritage and tradition – all foundations of our great
nation and our United States Navy.
Over this past decade, the impassioned pleas of these rural residents have fallen on deaf
ears in the offices of this country’s Navy. Continuously, the Navy has refused to respect the
wishes of our state’s residents and has instead continued to steam forward to a goal that is neither
needed wanted or needed: the construction of an outlying landing field in northeastern North
Carolina.
Both of us have supplied several reasonable alternatives to this abhorrent idea of an OLF
in our area. Countless times we have written with suggestions ranging from an off-shore
platform to a parallel runway at Cherry Point Air Station. Again, these ideas have fallen on deaf
ears.
Now we received word that you visited our great state to discuss this awful idea of an
OLF in northeastern North Carolina in a closed meeting with local residents. We must say, it is
very rare for a four-star admiral to visit our great state, and we, as well as the local governments,
wish we had a little notice. Instead, it seems as though Virginia business groups were invited,
but that locally elected officials were not. In our humble opinion, that does not go very far in
creating feelings of trust.
We both welcome you to share with the Hampton Roads business community that
northeastern North Carolina does not want and will not accept an outlying landing field in our
communities. We thought that message was made clear last year when the North Carolina
General Assembly unanimously passed legislation not ceding jurisdiction to an OLF in our area.

North Carolina is the proudest military state in our great nation. Our citizens have
proudly served since before the formation of our country and have given tens of thousands in the
protection of it. We are not against the Navy, but what is right is right and what is wrong is
wrong – and Admiral, an OLF in northeastern North Carolina is WRONG.
Please do not let this plea fall on deaf ears and do whatever it takes to remove both sites
in northeastern North Carolina from the OLF study.
Sincerely,
Marc Basnight
Bill Owens

The stink over Chinese drywall

Sunday's column mentioned the widely reported misuse of coal fly ash in sulfur-bearing wallboard imported from China. Associated Press stories have repeated the assertion, but an official with National Gypsum in Charlotte says fly ash is not the problem with imported wallboard.

Gerard Carroll, senior vice president for manufacturing operations and engineering, says the problem with Chinese wallboard is that it contains naturally mined gypsum with a heavy concentration of sulfur. "It was produced from natural gypsum mined from a deposit in China that contained elemental sulfur. In certain environments the free sulfur reacts with ambient moisture and can cause the corrosion and other problems that have been reported. As far as I know, this situation of elemental sulfur contaminated gypsum ore is unique to China," Carroll said.

News reports for the last year or so have widely attributed the problem to misuse of coal ash in Chinese wallboard.

Reports, as the column noted, are that the wallboard, installed in Southeastern U.S. homes after Hurricane Katrina when domestic wallboard was harder to get, has sickened residents, degraded electrical wiring in homes across parts of the South and ruined the lives of many. The Consumer Product Safety Commission says the imported wallboard should be removed from U.S. homes.

Sunday's column also said, that U.S. producers of wallboard such as National Gypsum use some byproducts from stack emissions to produce calcium sulfate, the chemical name for gypsum, but they say they do not use fly ash in wallboard. The domestic wallboard has not caused problems.

Poll finds more support for N.C. campaign finance reform

The N.C. Center for Voter Education, which was instrumental several years ago in setting up the successful program for public funding of appellate judicial candidates who agree to fundraising and spending limits in political campaigns, is touting a new poll that shows increased support for campaign finance reform in N.C. elections.

Its results -- from the firm Public Policy Polling -- show support across the political spectrum because of a public perception that special interests control N.C. elections. Seven out of 10 voters favor reform; less than 1 supports the status quo.

And there's this: The poll found that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support a major overhaul of the campaign finance system. That makes sense, because Democrats have controlled the General Assembly as well as most executive branch offices for so long that Republicans have a hard time making headway in a state that has become known for corruption.

Here's a grab from the Center's news release a little while ago:

"An overwhelming majority of North Carolina voters are concerned by the role of special interest money in state politics and support bold reforms to the campaign finance system, according to a new poll from the nonpartisan N.C. Center for Voter Education.

"According to the survey, 71 percent of voters favor a major overhaul to the state’s campaign finance system. Just 6 percent favor the status quo.

"The poll finds that concerns about the role of special interest money in North Carolina elections are held across party lines. Republican voters are slightly more likely than Democrats to support a major overhaul of the state’s campaign finance system, with 75 percent and 69 percent in favor of such a change, respectively.

“'Regardless of party affiliation, North Carolinians see the need to ensure that our democracy works for everyone,' says Damon Circosta, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education. 'Good government is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike are willing to support candidates who look for bold solutions to this problem.'

"In addition to supporting significant campaign finance reform, 54 percent of voters would favor a candidate whose campaign was funded by taxpayer money over a candidate whose campaign was funded by special interests. Just 20 percent would favor a candidate funded by special interests -- 26 percent are unsure.

"The survey finds that 67 percent of state voters believe the power of special interests has increased in the N.C. Legislature over the past decade. Eight in 10 believe that state lawmakers listen more to groups that fund their campaigns than to average voters."

For more, go to http://ncvotered.com/releases/2010/4_7_10_reform_poll.php

Alcoa and 'The Edge of the Storm?'

Carter Wrenn has seen it all in N.C. politics during his time as a Republican strategist working for the well-known (Sen. Jesse Helms and former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot, for example) and the less-well-known, too. He's part of one of the most engaging blogs I follow about North Carolina politics at www.talkingaboutpolitics.com. His blogging partner is Gary Pearce, a Democrat who has worked for, among many others, Jim Hunt and in 1998 John Edwards. Between these guys there's a couple of encyclopedias worth of experience and judgment.

I was particularly taken with Carter's blog last week about what's going on in local elections in Stanly County. He says it's a case where the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission appears to have freed corporate interests to overwhelm political candidates without deep pockets. In a blogpost he headlined "The Edge of the Storm?" Carter notes that "we just got an example of what may be the front edge of the coming storm right here in North Carolina – down in Stanly County."

It's all about Stanly County commissioners opposing Alcoa's effort to get another license for its hydroelectric plants on the Yadkin River -- and how the company may be able to politically bury three commissioners running for re-election who had fought Alcoa and shown how the company had polluted the area back when companies dumped waste on the "back 40," as one company official put it. Carter wrote:

"Then last week, before the upcoming Primary where three of the Commissioners are seeking reelection, Alcoa launched an ad campaign using newspaper ads, billboards, mailings and the Internet to blast the Commissioners, saying they’ve been wasting taxpayers’ money…by, well, hiring scientists, lawyers and lobbyists to fight Alcoa.

"This is a pretty good example of what the “moaners” were worried about regarding the Supreme Court ruling. Alcoa’s an international behemoth conglomerate. Its Chairman is from Brazil, its President is from Germany, it’s partnered with the Chinese and its world headquarters is in Pittsburgh, old Andrew Mellon’s hometown. It smelts aluminum everywhere from Iceland to the Amazon Rainforest and its annual budget is bigger than the State of North Carolina’s – so what hope on earth do three local County Commissioners (who may raise $5000 in their entire campaigns) have of winning re-election if Alcoa with its $20 billion annual budget is dead-set on retiring them?"

Polling data still show favorable climate for GOP

It's still looking like 2010 could be a good year for the Republican Party in North Carolina, a new polls shows. Public Policy Polling -- which does work for Democratic candidates but which has high credibility because of its accuracy in assessing various races, says the atmosphere in this state remains favorable for the Grand Old Party. The situation is stable right now, and Barack Obama's disapproval rates bode well for Sen. Richard Burr's reelection campaign, the firm says.

That reinforces that conclusions of other pollsters and analysts that it's Republicans' election to lose. Not everyone is persuaded, of course. Some analysts think Republicans are overplaying their hand on opposition to the new health care reform bill, and that voters are much less interested in the Republican ideology than they are in electing people who will get things done. Of course, the GOP primary is a lot different from a general election in November, and a lot of things can change before then.

In any case, here's PPP analyst Tom Jennings's latest thoughts:

"Although plenty has happened in politics both nationally and in North Carolina over the last six months, there's been virtually no change in the major indicators that will predict what happens in this fall's elections.

"In September Republicans had a 43-42 lead on the generic legislative ballot. In March it was a 42-42 tie. The GOP continues to have its best chance since 1994 of reclaiming control of the General Assembly, thanks in particular to a continual strong advantage with independents. But Democrats are looking better here than they are in a lot of other states and still maintain a large degree of support.

"Feelings about Barack Obama will go a long way this fall toward determining both Richard Burr's fate and the balance of power in Raleigh, and his numbers are pretty static as well. In September his approval rating was 45% and now it's 46%. The prospects of North Carolina Democrats for this year took a nosedive over the course of last summer but the bleeding stopped in the fall and things have remained pretty much unchanged since then.

"In North Carolina's premier race for this year, Richard Burr's approval rating stood at 38% in September and is pretty much unchanged now at 35%. Burr's fate may end up being determined more by Obama's approval numbers than his own. If the majority of North Carolina voters continue to disapprove of the President, it's unlikely the state is going to elect a Democratic Senator this year. But if Obama gets back in positive territory or can just break even the prospects of the eventual Democratic nominee will be pretty good.

"Stability is the story in the North Carolina political landscape right now."

Now the Navy has ticked off the schools supe

The U.S. Navy has tackled some formidable opponents in its long and glorious history, but it has now run afoul of the state's schoolmarm. Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson, who last year won a courtroom constitutional fight with the Perdue administration over who's in charge of the state's public schools, has vowed to, um, stand in the schoolhouse door over the Navy's consideration of plans to put a practice jet landing field near 10 schools in northeastern North Carolina. Khaner Walker with the PR agency French/West/Vaughan, sends along Atkinson's remarks following a meeting with representatives of Camden and Currituck counties Wednesday to discus the potential impact of an outlying landing field (OLF) on schools in that area:

“There are approximately 10 schools located less than three miles from the proposed site in Camden,” commented Atkinson. “The impact on these children and costs to soundproof the buildings will be severe. In addition, the loss of tax base will be crippling… An OLF would disrupt the learning of our children and harm northeastern North Carolina’s school systems. I will not remain silent and allow this to happen.”

The Navy wants to build a practice jet landing field for aircraft carrier pilot training, and need a place in a rural area that's dark enough to simulate nighttime landings on a carrier. It earlier targeted a site in Washington and Beaufort counties near the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, but environmental and citizens groups challenged that plan in federal court and forced the Navy to look at new sites in Virginia and North Carolina that are not too far from the Navy's master jet base near Virginia Beach.