Cross-posted from D-2008.

-=-=-=-=-

A couple weeks ago, the editorial board had the Democratic and Republican candidates in for interviews. They did not interview libertarian Mike Munger, and you can send your cards and letters to Editorial Page Editor Allen Johnson on that one.

At any rate, they put the candidates in our multimedia studio, turned on the spot lights and grilled while filming. Our tech boys (they're all men) turned out a few bits of film on each.

Both Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue, a Democrat, and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, were asked about their stance on the death penalty and the de facto moratorium.

McCrory

Perdue

And both were asked to talk about energy policy and drilling.

Perdue

McCrory

In addition, here's a bit with McCrory talking about gangs, something he has made a bit of a signature issue:

Finally, here's Perdue chatting a bit about education, community colleges and illegal immigrants.

I'm down at the home office today and participated in a newly launched gab-fest. Also in the studio were columnists Ed Cone and Charles Davenport, and editorial writers Doug Clark, Allen Johnson and Elma Sabo. You can tell me because I'm the one who doesn't know how to shut the heck up.

Listen here:

Following the earlier angst over the prohibition bill, Congressman Howard Coble has thrown inhibition to the wind and taken over sponsorship of what is now H. Con. Res 415, but still has the same language as earlier. From Coble's office:

Someone who has been known to appreciate a beer or a glass of wine on occasion, U.S. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) tonight will introduce legislation to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the end of prohibition against alcohol consumption in the United States. Congressman Coble, along with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) will sponsor a House concurrent resolution celebrating 75 years of effective state-based alcohol regulation and recognizing state lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health community, and industry members for creating a workable, legal, and successful system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution and sale.

"After consultation with my ranking member of the House Judiciary committee," Rep. Coble stated, "I decided to move forward with a new concurrent resolution. Although Congressman Lamar Smith and I disagree on this particular bill, we will do so agreeably. Lamar will remain my good friend and sometime tennis partner. I am comfortable being the lead author of this resolution because of all of the fine work done by beer and wine wholesalers, not only in my district, but throughout North Carolina and the nation. Not only do they provide quality jobs to many of my constituents, all of the beer and wine wholesalers whom I know support outstanding charitable and community-minded programs throughout the 6th District."

In 1919, following the passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited "the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors," the United States experienced a dramatic increase in illegal activity including unsafe black market alcohol production, a growth in organized crime, and increasing noncompliance with alcohol laws.

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Cullen-Harrison Act, which once again, legalized the sale of 3.2 percent beer, signaling the beginning of the end of Prohibition. On December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition and restored the control of alcohol to the states.

With the ratification of the 21st Amendment, primary authority was delegated to the individual states, establishing the state-based regulatory system for alcohol distribution that we still use today. This system allows each state to adopt individual laws that fit the beliefs of its citizens.

Reps. Coble and Stupak will introduce H. Con. Res. 415 tonight, but it is unknown when a vote will be scheduled.

I've been away from the computer for a couple days, and wandered back in this morning to find an item from the Politico referenced a couple times among the bazillion e-mails waiting for me:

The House of Representatives had been slated to take up important work this afternoon: celebrating the legalization of booze. Passage of the resolution, though, is in question today, as one of its two sponsors, Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), might not make it to town in time to take part in the bipartisan celebration, an aide in the Democratic cloakroom says.

Co-sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, the resolution comes 75 years after the ratification of the 21st Amendment re-legalized alcohol. The resolution notes that "prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol." The ban, though, "resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws."

[snip]

UPDATE: Coble is in town and ready to go forward, but a Judiciary Committee aide says that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member of the committee, has concerns about the resolution and isn't ready to let it move just yet.

It seems the Politico didn't quite get it right. So just to be clear, I called Coble's staff this morning. According them, the skinny seems to be this:

• * Coble still thinks the repeal of prohibition is worthy of celebration.

• * He was in town in plenty of time for the vote that was probably scheduled before its time.
• * Coble has piped down about the bill because Smith, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, doesn't drink and doesn't think we ought to be celebrating prohibition's repeal.

Coble, according to his staff, will still support the resolution when it comes to a vote, but won't be "the lead" republican on the measure.

For those who are interested, here's the bill, a nonbinding resolution that holds virtually no force of law.

And while I plan to celebrate prohibition's repeal in my own quiet way, my liver and some others might think there are topics more worthy of attention at time when the financial markets are melting down around our ears.

Update: As the headline might suggest, I think there's a joke in here somewhere about Coble having been around for the repeal of prohibition, but I neglected to go for it. You're welcome to try in the comments link below.

Let's say you're an average American who knows that two relatively important things called Fannie and Freddie have been put into government receivership. This seems to be bad, as in other companies you used to think were big will suffer bad; as in you better not want to sell your house, retire or send your kids to college in the next five years bad.

So you wonder to yourself: Self! How could two massive companies with implicit backing of the U.S. government be so poorly run and/or regulated that this could happen?

Well I'm no financial expert, but the Center for Responsive Politics might give us some hints:

If the same guys who created you and the rules that govern you are also heavily invested in your enterprise and get lots of campaign donations from you, maybe they're more likely to go easy on you. If not, there's always lobbying to fall back on.

Or as the Politico put it:

If you want to know how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have survived scandal and crisis, consider this: Over the past decade, they have spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.

But the political tentacles of the mortgage giants extend far beyond their checkbooks.

The two government-chartered companies run a highly sophisticated lobbying operation, with deep-pocketed lobbyists in Washington and scores of local Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored homeowner groups ready to pressure lawmakers back home.

As the guys on Mythbusters say: Well there's your problem.

Now let's be clear: Fannie's and Freddie's executives designed and prosecuted the policies that led to all of this, and they were buying into a larger pattern of doing business that in hindsight looks absolutely nutso. But one does not spend that kind of money without wanting something, and it looks like to me (sitting in the cheap seats here in Raleigh) what Fannie and Freddie wanted most of all was freedom in the way they did business while still clinging to the security blanket of taxpayer protection.

Would the Congress have been more skeptical if all that money wasn't sloshing around? You can't say for sure, but ... how could it not have been?

Worth noting that Sen. Barack Obama is #2 on the contributions list and McCain shows up on both the contributions and investment list. Also on the contributions list: North Carolina Reps. Brad Miller, Mel Watt, David Price, Walter Jones and Robin Hayes.

Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue has brought the somewhat volatile topic of stem cell research into the gubernatorial campaign, both through a policy statement on the topic and a recent ad:

When asked about the ad last night, McCrory said, "I've never heard her bring up this subject in her eight years as Lt. Governor."

However, the topic has come up.

Greensboro Rep. Earl Jones, a Democrat, ran this bill, which was a tamer version of earlier proposals. The latest draft of the bill, which passed the House but died in the Senate, would only have led to research guidelines for stem cell research. Earlier proposals would have put state funding into embryonic stem cell research.

State funding is now something that Perdue says she favors.

More background on that legislative discussion here, here, here and here.

I asked Jones about the issue coming up in the campaign, and he said that Perdue was supportive when the bill crossed over from the House to the Senate.

"She called me directly," Jones said. "Perdue was very supportive; she was the first person in the Senate to call me."

Jones rightly said his bill got bogged down by the political debate surrounding embryonic stem cells. In particular, some people who oppose abortion tend to oppose embryonic stem cell research and bring intense and vocal pressure to bear.

You can find more on the topic from the National Academy of Sciences and the Boston Globe, which has a whole page dedicated to the topic. (It's a bit out of date now, but worth a read anyway.) Also, the topic seems to be bubbling up in the presidential campaign.

The state auditor's office put out a report today claiming the state paid $294,413 too much for office supplies to Office Depot during a six month period.

News release: claiming the state paid $294,413 too much for office supplies to Office Depot during a six month period.

Audit: claiming the state paid $294,413 too much for office supplies to Office Depot during a six month period.

Worth noting: this is not the first time the Auditor has found issues with Office Depot. More: here.

You might remember that the decision to give the office supply contract to Office Depot in the first place ticked off a lot of local sellers, who said that the large national company could undercut their prices but would be unresponsive when problems arose.

Click here for a copy of that story.

Update: From the Department of Administration:

RALEIGH — Administration Secretary Britt Cobb today directed the Division of Purchase & Contract (P&C) to develop an action plan to address deficiencies identified in a report by the State Auditor regarding the state office supplies contract with Office Depot.

"We are determined to develop more effective ways of managing this and all state contracts," Cobb said. "We are committed to providing goods vital to the function of state business in the most accountable and cost efficient manner."

Cobb said that P&C first notified Office Depot in March 2008 demanding repayment of overcharges. P&C has continued to monitor and pursue recovery of overcharges from Office Depot.

"We have been consulting with the Attorney General's Office to ensure that all overcharges have been accounted for and credited," Cobb said. "We also have asked that the State Bureau of Investigation to review claims in the report to determine whether a criminal investigation is warranted into the pricing practices of Office Depot."

You can read that here.

Cross-posted from Decision 2008.

-=-=-=-=-

In this post from over the weekend, I talked about state Sen. Kay Hagan and her position on unions. Specifically, the Democrat who is trying to unseat Republican Elizabeth Dole told our editorial board she might favor a federal policy that would force states like North Carolina to allow public employees to collectively bargain.

Cutting to the chase, Hagan says she misspoke. But a little background: For those who might have missed it, there's audio in the original post. But this exchange between Hagan and editorial writer Doug Clark will give you a flavor of what I'm talking about:

Clark: "This is (about) collective barging for public employees. So, North Carolina law doesn't allow that. But would you support federal legislation that would mandate recognition of collective bargaining writes for state employees?

Hagan: "Not mandate it, but I would look at having the collective bargaining process available if the employees so voted on that."

Clark: "If the employees...?"

Hagan: "They would have the authority to make that decision."

Clark: "So, if the NCAE wanted collective bargaining rights, you would support that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

Clark: "Even though current state law currently prohibits that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

A spokesman for the campaign called me over the weekend to say Hagan was confused and didn't mean to say that, that in fact she would not support such a law. Because that was in direct contradiction of several direct quotes, I asked to hear from Hagan herself.

Hagan called me this morning while I was on the line with someone else, but left a voice mail. I've posted a portion of it here, so you can hear straight from here. It cuts off abruptly at the end because she launches into a phone number that probably doesn't need to be on the internets.

Click here for the audio of that.

"Once I'm elected to the U.S. Senate, I want you to know that I will never support a bill at the federal level that mandates states allow collective bargaining of state government employees. I truly believe that's a state's rights issue," Hagan said.

As the football announcers say: you make the call.

Cross-posted from Decision 2008.

-=-=-=-=-=-

From Saturday's paper: this story laying out the U.S. Senate candidate's position on a couple of union-related issues.

The summary is this: Incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole is no fan of legislation that would make it easier for folks to unionize or any legislation that would force North Carolina to allow public employees to collectively bargain.

State Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, didn't offer up an absolute endorsement of either of those ideas, but was fairly friendly toward them.

Click here to listen to Hagan's answers.

Click here to listen to Dole's.

And then click here for thoughts from editorial writer Doug Clark.

Some after action notes: This difference in positions could bolster the NRSC's narrative that Hagan is seeking support from traditional national Democratic strongholds, including big labor. (Click here for an example of that.)

After my story ran, a spokeswoman with the campaign wrote to say she would not be in favor of a federal law over-riding North Carolina's law prohibiting collective bargaining for public employees.

I think Kay was confused by the premise of the question, and inferred that he was talking about EFCA and not the separate issue of the federal govt. mandating that states allow public employees to collectively bargain. She would support public employees being allowed to collectively bargain (NCAE for example) if state law allowed that and the employees voted to do so. But fundamentally she believes that public employees being allowed to collectively bargain is a state's right issue.

Respectfully, that's was not the case. Clark asked this question several different ways during the editorial board interview, which you can her via the link above. You can listen to the segment yourself, but here's one fairly clear exchange:

Clark: "This is (about) collective barging for public employees. So, North Carolina law doesn't allow that. But would you support federal legislation that would mandate recognition of collective bargaining writes for state employees?

Hagan: "Not mandate it, but I would look at having the collective bargaining process available if the employees so voted on that."

Clark: "If the employees...?"

Hagan: "They would have the authority to make that decision."

Clark: "So, if the NCAE wanted collective bargaining rights, you would support that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

Clark: "Even though current state law currently prohibits that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

I'm not seeing a whole lot of ambiguity or confusion in those answers. By way of fuller disclosure, she was asked about her answers after the main part of the editorial board interview was over (but before she left the room) and confirmed them.

Friday, September 5, 2008 6:15 p.m. MEDIA AVAILABILITY Dole will meet with the North Carolina State Emergency Response Team (SERT) to discuss preparations for Tropical Storm Hanna and Hurricane Ike. Yesterday, Dole spoke with North Carolina Governor Mike Easley, Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary for Federal Emergency Management R. David Paulison, who heads the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and officials at the American Red Cross to help coordinate an effective response to the severe weather. North Carolina Emergency Operations Center Administration Building 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, N.C.