news-record.com

Public Policy Polling's Tom Jensen finds evidence  suggesting that Republicans could win as many as 10 U.S. Senate seats currently held by Democrats in next year's elections.

He doesn't believe that's likely to happen but notes that the GOP could make "a big dent" in the Democrats' Senate majority in 2010 "and finish the job in 2012 when Democrats will have a lot more to defend."

That takes a lot of heat off North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr and, in my opinion, goes a long way toward ensuring his re-election next year.

To see why, think back to last year's big win by Democrat Kay Hagan over Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

There were four reasons that happened:

1. Dole had a lackluster record in the Senate and wasn't seen in North Carolina very often in six years.

2. Hagan ran a vigorous, effective campaign.

3. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee made it a high priority to unseat Dole and poured millions of dollars into the race.

4. Barack Obama's candidacy pumped up the turnout of Democratic voters.

How will circumstances be different for Burr next year? Let's count the ways:

1. He doesn't have Dole's problem, or at least not nearly to the same extent.

2. Unknown because the Democrats don't have a leading candidate yet.

3. With no Obama on the ballot, fewer Democrats will vote.

4. With so many incumbent Democrats in trouble, the party's priority and big bucks will be on defending the seats they have rather than winning new ones.

Factors 3 and 4 likely will be enough to give Burr a relatively easy re-election.

The Charlotte Observer today says S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford should be impeached.

In addition to citing the 37 alleged ethics violations a state commission tagged Sanford with Monday, the Observer argues these grounds for impeachment, with which I concur:

"He vanished from the state for five days last summer. He lied to state employees and citizens about where he was. He did nothing to put someone in charge in his absence. He left the state with no leader and no way to find him in case of an emergency."

Curiously, the Observer's sister newspaper in Columbia, The State, has not come to that editorial conclusion. In an interview with NPR yesterday, an associate editor offered a very weak reason why not: The editorial board isn't sure Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is fit to take over if Sanford is removed from office.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Either you believe Sanford's actions warrant removal or you don't. If you do, then you must call for his impeachment or resignation.

Saying, "Well, Bauer might be worse," is a cop-out. It's like a football coach saying he can't bench his star quarterback for flagrantly violating team rules because the backup isn't so good. No. You get rid of the problem, then worry about what to do next.

Besides, Bauer hasn't had a chance to screw up. Maybe he's not worse than Sanford.

It's really hard to believe he could be. 

There are definitely different narratives about California, a state blessed with so many riches but which also has fallen into a desperate financial condition. Why?

A letter writer today blames "30 years of relentless tax-cutting."

She cites the damage done to the state's university system. As a result of that decline, she implies, California no longer will be generating jobs in high-tech industries.

Another narrative is that California remains a high-tax state, and that this and an oppressive regulatory climate actually are driving out industry.

Neither of those narratives is true, although I think the second has more basis in fact.

A recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California addresses some of the issues. I've selected a few key statements:

* "California consistently scores poorly on business climate rankings. These rankings, however, focus primarily on tax and regulatory costs, which are only one part of the business climate. The business climate should instead be defined to include all costs and benefits that businesses face from locating in California. The business climate also should take into account the skill level of the workforce, the availability of capital and support for new business, and the amenities that make California an attractive place to live."

* "In fiscal year 2005–2006, the latest year for which comprehensive data are available, California’s state and local governments collected $237 billion, or $6,528 per capita, from taxes, fees, charges, and other miscellaneous sources. By this measure, California had the tenth-highest revenue burden in the nation. However, as a high-income state, California also has a large tax base. When state and local general revenues are expressed as share of economic activity or personal income, California’s ranking drops to 18th nationally."

* "Many of California’s public programs have larger caseloads, or workloads, because of demographics—in particular, more school-age children and low-income families. Also, the state has also made policy decisions to expand program eligibility and use in some areas—health and social services and higher education, for example. In addition, California pays some public employees—such as those in K–12 education, public safety, and administration—more generously than other states do."

* "Rhetoric aside, California loses very few jobs to other states. Businesses rarely move either out of or into California and, on balance, the state loses only 11,000 jobs annually as a result of relocation—that’s just 0.06 percent of California’s 18 million jobs. Far more jobs are created and destoyed as a result of business expansion, contraction, formation, and closure than because of relocation. Business relocations, although highly visible, are a misleading guide to the overall performance of the California economy. The employment growth rate, which takes into account job creation and destruction for all reasons—not just relocation—is a much better measure of the state’s economy."

* "Even before this decade’s real estate bubble, housing in California was much more expensive than in the nation as a whole. And although housing prices have fallen more in California than in the nation during this recession, housing remains far more expensive in California, especially in its coastal cities. At the end of 2008, the average U.S. home was worth $192,000; in metropolitan Los Angeles, the average home was worth over $400,000, and in the Bay Area, over $500,000, according to Zillow. Expensive real estate makes it harder for some businesses to locate in California and attract workers, pushing growth out of state. The growing gap between high house prices on the coast and rapidly falling prices inland could accelerate the movement of businesses and households inland."

There's lots more, including a section about dealing with climate change. California is a leader in that initiative, which means it's undertaking very costly measures to try to mitigate what the report's authors think will be very damaging effects. Whether such expenditures net any real benefit, or worsen California's economic woes, will play out over many years.

More people have been fatally shot at a single Greensboro motel in the last five weeks (3) than have been murdered in High Point in all of 2009 (2).

Here's a good idea for motels: When you check in, please check your guns.

February 28, 1945 -- The White House announced today that President Roosevelt will make a decision soon whether to order an invasion of Nazi-held western Europe across the English Channel.

The president concluded his 10th meeting with top military leaders, including Chief of Staff George Marshall and Supreme Allied Commander Omar Bradley, who replaced Dwight Eisenhower last month.

Eisenhower's plane went down in a North Atlantic storm as he was flying to Washington for his ninth meeting with Roosevelt to discuss strategy.

Roosevelt has insisted on making a deliberate decision as he's weighed future action aimed at dislodging the Germans from occupied France, Belgium and Holland. Eisenhower had strongly urged a massive invasion across the Channel as early as last June, but Roosevelt delayed giving the order until he could evaluate alternatives.

Critics have said the enemy has used the additional time to both strengthen their Atlantic defenses and push back Allied progress in Italy. Meanwhile, the Soviets, disillusioned by inaction on the Western front, have halted their advances from the east and seem prepared to conclude a separate truce with the Hitler regime.

Roosevelt said his focus is not only on concluding the war, but devising an "exit strategy" for American troops and leaving liberated European countries in the hands of reliable political partners.

"After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Roosevelt has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days," a White House spokesman said.

I understand a lawyer has to do what he has to do for his client.

But I hope attorney John Galligan goes nowhere with a possible insanity defense for Fort Hood mass-murder suspect Nidal Hasan.

Galligan told the Associated Press yesterday that the court must consider his client's mental status because the allegations against Hasan contradict his lifestyle and military career.

From what we've learned about Hasan so far, I'd say prosecutors will try to make the case that Hasan's alleged actions were motivated by attitudes that could be detected in his background, beliefs and associations and were not therefore contradictory or inconsistent.

Yes, the actions of the perpetrator of this heinous crime were crazy, in the same way the actions of a suicide bomber are crazy. But can Hasan's defense attorneys show he had lost his hold on reality to the point of not knowing what he was doing? That will be quite a stretch.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 50a, says:

"It is an affirmative defense in a trial by court-martial that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense."

"She's not a political figure per se ..."

Believe it or not, that's what a Fort Bragg spokesman said today ... about Sarah Palin, AP reports.

The former Alaska governor and John McCain running mate signed books on the Army base at what AP called a "campaign-like gathering."

Fort Bragg brass stipulated that she was only signing books, not using the event as a political platorm, which would be prohibited at a military installation. But ...

"But the bus parked nearby encouraged donations to her political action committee and supporters made clear that she should run for president. ...

"Palin's father, who greeted supporters as his daughter signed copies of the book, said in an interview that Obama's handling of the military was 'scary.' "

A 58-year-old veteran wore a T-shirt that said, "Impeach Obama."

Fayetteville Observer has video.

South Carolina Ethics Commission tags Gov. Mark Sanford for 37 alleged violations.

Most of them sound like Mike Easley stuff.

Only partially addressed is going AWOL to Argentina for rendezvous with girfriend. That's not the sort of thing anyone could pin on Easley, who was devoted to his wife ... to a fault.

The S.C. legislature should have considered impeaching Sanford for his way-south-of-the-border escapade ... when he told everyone he was hiking the App Trail. He never informed the lieutenant governor, who should have been empowered to act as governor in case of an emergency but would have been clueless while Sanford was pursuing his South American paramour.

These charges should trigger new calls for Sanford to resign. But, since he obviously has no idea how to do the decent thing, further legal action will be required to get him out of office.

The California Energy Commission, fresh from its decision to restrict sales of plasma televisions, is considering a ban on Christmas lights.

"Power consumption skyrockets every year from Thanksgiving through January 1," Chairman Ebenezer Green said in a statement today. "We understand that decorating homes with electric light displays is a holiday tradition, but the practice is becoming environmentally unsustainable. The irony is that every illuminated Santa's sleigh accelerates North Pole melting."

Green noted that in many residential areas, neighbors compete to display the brightest, most dazzling Christmas decorations, some utilizing hundreds of thousands of bulbs.

"I suspect some can be seen from outer space," he noted. "The drain on our power grid is tremendous."

Power companies, on the other hand, oppose a ban on Christmas lights.

"These seasonal displays, literally and figuratively, are our Christmas," CalEnergy spokeswoman Meg A. Watts said, noting that December revenues account for most of the company's annual profit.

Another concern seems to be driving the energy commission's proposal, however.

"We've heard complaints about the religious aggression that over-the-top Christmas light displays present," commission member Cal A. Clu said. "Although people are decorating their private homes, anyone walking or driving down a residential street is practically blinded by the glare, like Paul on the road to Damascus. Citizens have a right not to have a conversion experience forced on them."

A ban would go into effect in 2010.

"We don't know how state judges are chosen, and that's the way we want to keep it."

In so many words, that's the finding of last week's Elon Poll.

It shows how hard it will be to improve the judicial-selection process in North Carolina.

For those who don't know, we elect judges here except when there's a vacancy. Then the governor makes an appointment to fill the unexpired term.

Most voters don't know anything about the candidates and often make poor choices, which is what you'd expect occasionally when people vote more or less at random.

But, as the Elon Poll shows, most people oppose changing to an appointment system.

That's understandable. The principle of electing public officials is a cherished one even if most people don't care personally to participate in the process.

For example, if you asked people in Greensboro whether the mayor should be elected or chosen in some other way, just about everyone probably would say the mayor should be elected.

Yet, in this month's election for mayor, about 80 percent did not bother to vote.

The problem with suggesting that someone should appoint judges is deciding who that someone should be.

If it's the governor, well, that's not entirely acceptable. We've learned enough about Mike Easley to suspect he wouldn't appoint anyone to anything without expecting something in return.

So the governor's options would have to be restricted.

As I noted a few weeks ago here, the process for filling a vacancy at the District Court level is a good one. The local Bar picks three candidates and the governor chooses one. The Bar, which basically consists of all the attorneys within the district, has an interest in putting qualified people on the bench. In the recent case, its leading candidate by a huge margin was High Point attorney Jan Samet, who's a highly respected lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. The governor would be unwise to ignore that strong recommendation, and the result will be the addition of a good judge to the local bench -- which has not always been the outcome of local judicial elections. But in elections, you often end up with the person who runs the best campaign, not necessarily the person who is best qualified. When voters don't pay much attention, any result is possible.

We can find a better way, but the Elon Poll tells us it will take a lot of convincing by leaders who understand how important an issue this is.