(North Carolina) GOP smells victory in 2002

NEW BERN - The Guilford County Republican Party, anticipating a strong showing at the polls in November, already has reserved a room for an election-night victory celebration at the Koury Convention Center.

"I'm excited," said Marcus Kindley, a 47-year old stockbroker who is also the Guilford County GOP chairman. "I can't wait."

The 500 Republicans gathered here for their annual two-day convention were in a giddy mood Saturday, assured that the political stars are in alignment for a robust Republican year.

The latest omen was the decision by Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins of Smithfield on Friday to draw legislative district lines more friendly to GOP candidates.

But the Republicans already believed that events were going their way. Senate candidate Elizabeth Dole, the former two-time Cabinet secretary and former American Red Cross president, has a commanding lead in the polls in the race to succeed Sen. Jesse Helms. President Bush, while not on the ballot, remains extremely popular in North Carolina.

And Republicans believe they have some powerful issues with which to bludgeon Democrats in the fall -- from tax hikes to the budget crisis.

"The low-hanging fruit is heavy on the limbs," said J. B. Coram, a 55-year-old cattle rancher from Scaly Mountain, suggesting that the Democrats were ripe for easy pickings.

In fact, the scenario in June is viewed so favorably by Republicans they are beginning to compare this year with the Republican landslide in 1994, when the Republicans captured the state House and nearly secured the state Senate, and also picked up several congressional seats.

"I look for it to be better than 1994," said state Rep. Frank Mitchell, a chicken farmer from Iredell County.

The political climate did not look nearly as rosy for Republicans last summer. The country was headed into a recession, and historically the party in the White House loses congressional seats in the mid-term elections. The impending retirement of Helms, the founder of the modern Republican Party in North Carolina, created an open seat and an opportunity for Democrats.

But the national political climate has changed because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and polling for Republican and Democratic candidates in general has tipped more favorably toward Republicans.

President Bush has already been in North Carolina three times this year, and Vice President Dick Cheney will be in Raleigh and Charlotte later this month.

Although Bush will not be on the ticket this fall, most Republican leaders expect that Elizabeth Dole will. She has such a commanding lead in the polls that some GOP strategists think she will not only have coattails for other GOP candidates, but that her candidacy will draw more voters than usual to the polls.

Dole's candidacy was bolstered further Saturday when her famous husband, former Sen. Bob Dole, spoke to the convention. Other candidates complained bitterly that the party was giving Mrs. Dole an unfair advantage, but their protests were hardly a speed bump for her campaign.

Republicans think they got another break when the May 7 primary was delayed by the court battle over redistricting. While Dole seems to be breezing toward a primary rout against six little-known Republican opponents, the Democrats are engaged in a competitive, scrappy primary. The shortened general election campaign will also provide the Democrats with less time to attack Dole.

"Why am I worried?" laughed Jack Oliver, the deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, when asked about the delayed primary. "I've got Erskine Bowles, Dan Blue and Elaine Marshall telling everybody in North Carolina about the weaknesses of each other. Why do we need that to stop? Keep it going. Enjoy." He was referring to the three leading Democratic Senate candidates.

While the Helms seat has drawn most of the attention so far this year, the fight for control of the General Assembly is likely to move to center stage after the court ruling Friday.

The state House, where the Democrats hold a 62-58 majority, was already expected to be a battleground. Now, the new district maps -- assuming they are upheld on appeal -- are expected to put the Senate, where Democrats hold a 35-15 majority, in play.

"This will be a historic election for Republicans in the state of North Carolina," said Nelson Dollar, a GOP political consultant from Cary. "We will have an opportunity to take both houses of the General Assembly. Republicans are poised to take advantage of not only the new maps but also the issues, which are trending strongly toward the Republican Party."

The state budget crisis could also have a trickle-down effect politically, if Democratic county boards of commissioners are forced to raise taxes to make up for revenues withheld by the state.

But GOP leaders, while optimistic, also offer several cautionary notes. The economy remains a volatile X factor in the election. North Carolina, with its hard-hit manufacturing base, is likely to pull out of the recession slower than most of the rest of the country. No one knows who the voters might blame for the hard times.

The possibility of another terrorist attack might also introduce another powerful unknown into the election.

Despite more favorable districts, GOP strategists say privately that winning control of the General Assembly will not be easy. The Democrats have a stable of seasoned candidates and a much larger political war chest, and that will keep them competitive.

"All politics is local," said state GOP Chairman Bill Cobey of Durham County, quoting the old saw coined by former U.S. House Speaker Tip O'Neill. "You still have to have the right candidate at the right place at the right time at the local level."

The problem there may be the problem here in Virginia. Nobody is allowed to run for office under the banner of either party unless they are a politician. There are thousands of good conservatives from Virginia who would be fine two term Congressmen or one term Senators, but the parties want career "professional" politicians who will take office and fight tooth and nail to stay there for decades.

There are very few conservative politicians. Our system of government was designed to be run by amateurs not by professionals. The root word of amateur is amo, Latin for love. Amateurs are people who engage in a certain activity out of love for the activity or as an act of love for people they care about. I swear, if every professional politician in the US died in their sleep tonight, we could replace them all before the weekend and probably get a government many times better than what we have.

Honestly if Liddy Dole is the best the NCGOP can find, then the organizations is on its deathbed and good riddance to it. That's what I said during the governor's race here last year about the VAGOP too. It isn't that there are no conservatives who could be found to run, it's that the party organizations won't back anyone who isn't already a career politician, which translates these days as "liberal".

As would be expected from a purveyor of garbage you have many of your "facts" wrong. Just as an example, the founders wrote the constitution with no qualifications for voters whatsoever. Those were powers the states retained and they had varying requirements for the sufferage. In the South only a tiny percentage were allowed to vote even of the white males. New England allowed more.

Some states allowed blacks to vote when they met the qualifications. Not in the Slaveocracy of course but even in New York which allowed slavery blacks voted until they were disallowed around 1800.

When states restricted the voting rights to only men they were trying to prevent married men from having double voting power.

I suppose the reigns of Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great are something you know nothing of or else your dumb comment would not have been made so general.

It is only recently that women voters have become so socialistic and irrational. Not as irrational as your comment but less rational than I would like to see.

Your vote for the Dems is hurting the country more than my vote for the RINO, in both the short and long run. First, I'll never vote dim, OK. What I'll do in protest, and my next vote will be in protest, will be either a 3rd party or cast no vote at all. Which is why I chastise those that will vote RINO. The way I see it, if the dims get control again, they will run roughshod over what your RINO's are putting in place, and I can't think of a quicker way for this country to implode. The sooner that implosion takes place, the sooner we can put ourselves (that's you and me the citizen) back on a course for a Constitutional Republic. It will be messy, but I intend for my kids to grow up with Liberty and Freedom, and I intend to die a Free Man. I'm not much of a Rush Fan, too pompous sometimes for my taste, but I heard a caller today that made me think, so I'll pose the same question to you. If you were to have been in a coma before the 2000 Election, and I show you the track record of the President to date, who would you assume to have won that election? Answer if you'd like, otherwise I thank you for your civility! Blackbird.

The Founding Fathers were in NO way Libertarian not even Thomas Jefferson. Anyone who tries to put that nonsense out there is either ignorant, consciously lying or utterly misinformed about American history.

It is a complete falsehood that Americans lived in total freedom in earlier times. There were laws galore restricting freedoms mostly through the States and Local assemblies (not federal) covering everything from religious services to vagrancy. Of course, in the Slaveocracy white men could be drafted and forced to serve on slave patrols to control the two-legged livestock of the Slaveocrats who controlled those states totally.

Can't you make a decent argument without using falsehoods? America's earlier leaders were NOT amateurs in politics. Almost every single one of any significance served for decades in political offices. Washington was in the Va. HOuse of Burgesses for 15 yrs. Madison long time Representative; Jefferson Governor; Congressman, Burgess, Vice-Pres., Monroe Governor, Senator; Hamilton Representative, NY assemblyman; Adams Congressman, V.P., diplomat; Jackson Governor,Representative, Senator etc.

In fact, I defy you to tell me the name of a single prominent founder who did not serve in political positions for YEARS.

This myth that the Founders were not professional politicians is laughable to anyone who knows anything about American history.

While Liddy Dole is not an ideal candidate she will be vastly superior to any democRAT. What is not understood by the Holier Than Thou crowd is that this country (including N.C.) is not in any way conservative. Most of the realists understand this and that it is a long row to hoe before we can have politicians elected who are conservative. What is so difficult to understand about that?

In the past conservatives could be elected but were generally racist. This gave "conservatives" a bad name which they are still trying to live down. Thank you Southern Democrats!!

Your angry rant reflects a personal confusion, and not the profundity to which you aspire.

Libertarianism--i.e. the philosphy which puts Liberty above security, and recognizes that men have free will--is not the same thing as license or anarchy. Indeed, in the context of our Constitutional Republic, which involves the sacredness of oaths, honor and service, is almost the exact antithesis. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., were indeed Libertarians, however you deny it. They also believed that people were accountable--an obvious conclusion from the belief that man has free will--and favored punishment for various socially destructive activities, for which many anti-Libertarians in America today urge toleration.

Again Liberty is not license. And those of us who prize Liberty are often the most Conservative of all in the preservation of traditional values. Just what is your problem with basing political movements on defense of the traditional Liberty of a free people? That after all, is what "Libertarian" in the present context means.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

If you were to have been in a coma before the 2000 Election, and I show you the track record of the President to date, who would you assume to have won that election?

Truthfully, I'd momentarily have to pause to reflect on the record, but on the whole I see quite a few actions on Bush's part which Gore would never have done(e.g. cutting taxes, reforming the military, supporting Taiwan and Israel,refusing to sign off the ICC and Kyoto.) I see a lot of Bush's actions as political ingenuity in disarming the Dems from their issues, others see them as Bush being a socialist. I'll be honest and say I am willing to forgoe certain conservative values in my candidate of choice as a trade off for what I hope will prove to a GOP landslide in November. I may be proven wrong, but I truly hope that I'm not. Thank you. We may have to agree to disagree on this matter, but I respect your opinions and thank you for sharing them. It's always good to compare views, and examine those different from one's own.

There was nothing angry about my response.

None of the founders were Libertarian in the sense the term is used today. They were to a man republicans even the Federalists.

Their concern about personal liberty seemed to disappear when it came to the States which were controlling of personal life on a far greater scale than today. It was to control the excessive freedoms of the States that the constitution was written.

It is the easiest thing in the world to declaim about "freedom" and tyrants have done it from time immemorial. What is hard is to establish a government of laws and responsible government while its enemies are screeching about "freedom."

Using Jefferson as an example of personal responsibility is a joke. That "libertarian" owned other human beings and advocated the unilateral abrogation of state debts when inconvenient. He was not averse to using the press to destroy his enemies with a campaign of lies and falsehoods. When his hired flacks attacked Washington he forfeited the friendship and esteem of everyone with an ounce of integrity.

I have no problem with basing a government on freedom merely with incorrect ideas of an ideal past existent only in mythology.

None of the founders were Libertarian in the sense the term is used today. They were to a man republicans even the Federalists.

The term, today, is not defined by what you think of the platform of a party that uses that name. The term, today, means what it has always meant, a belief that liberty is more important than security--or the demagogue's appeal for egalitarianism--and that man has free will, and therefore must be accountable.

There is no way that the States were controlling of personal life, on anything like the scale today. That is absurd! The Founding Fathers were not concerned about the level of personal freedom in the States, but about irresponsible fiscal policies--leading to unstable currency, etc. (The Constitution reflects their concerns in the delegations of power. They mostly relate to providing sound money, uniform weights and measures, communications--the means for developing a stable commerce--and defending the lot of us from any foreign threat. There is absolutely nothing about limiting or extending personal freedom within the States, in the Constitution.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

If you are defining Libertarian as meaning "a lover of liberty" then I agree that the founders were such.

One of the significant events which finally tipped the balance toward drafting the constitution was the Shays Rebellion which was essentially a demand by farmers in W. Mass to the state to pass laws abrogating their debt. States repeatedly passed laws undermining contracts and giving debtor relief during the preconstitution era. This was one of the greatest national problems and led to the constitutional demand to stop such practices.

While it was possible in the past to escape to the west laws in the civilized states were horridly oppressive: people were taxed to pay for churchs, vagrancy laws restricted freedom of movement, personal morals watched and punished when out of the norm, blacks could not own guns or vote, women could not vote and had no standing in court, whites could be drafted to the Slave Patrols, mails were searched and offensive material removed, people were tarred and feathered for their opinions, newspapers were destroyed in the south for being abolitionist and taken from the mails, literature was censored and removed from the mails, voting was highly restricted. The myth of greater freedom (other than for slaveowners and the rich) was just a myth swallowed hook, line and sinker by those preferring to ignore the facts of history.

Your beef with early America is really with our more Conservative society then. When you equate freedom with the suffrage, you make a monster leap. Personal freedom and the suffrage are two very different things. One involves the lack of restraint upon the exercise of free will--so long as you do not injure another (i.e. fail to exercise personal responsibility for your conduct). The other involves an egalitarian pursuit of universal suffrage. We have already noted that Libertarianism is a contending ideology against Egalitarianism. They are eternally in conflict.

As for the taxing to support State Churches, that was far less onerous than the present tax burden to support a Welfare State. One of the most revealing passages in Jefferson's Notes On The State of Virginia, written shortly before he persuaded the State Legislature to adopt religious freedom, shows how Welfare was administered through the Church in Virginia. It is worth reading. (You can find the passage quoted almost in its entirety in A Constitutional Overview.)

I find your comments about the slaveowners and the rich, far too redolent of the class antagonism promoted by the Socialist world over the past 200 years, for me to dignify it as a serious point. Perhaps you also reject the whole of Western Theology, because at its root is the Law written down by Moses after he came down from Mt. Sinai, which deals at some length with rules governing the practice of bondage, and rules protecting the acquisition and enjoyment of wealth? Your complaint is really a much broader attack on the human past than just on those Americans whose willingness to sacrifice everything, made your good life today possible.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

Just shut up and deal with it. Look at the eligibility requirements for holding public office. Where are the requirements for training, education or experience?

Now, argue with what I said, not with what you wish I had said. When I say that none of the founders were professional politicians, then you can correct me. I claimed no such thing .

Careful when you body slam those straw men. You could trip over one and skin your soft little pink hands.

Those Americans who attempted preservation of slavery did nothing to make my life better today. Their treasonous defense of slavery using an ignorant and deluded class of poor whites cost our nation enormously and produced a lasting bitterness which exists to this day. The Slaveocrats willingness to destroy the American nation is one of history's blackest pages. Whether you dignify them with comments or not.

Much of the States' earlier history included many petty onerous controls of human behavior theoretically obnoxious to libertarians including jail for debtors as well as the long list I enumerated earlier which you preferred not to "dignify" by an attempt to deny their truth.

Of course, the freedom and liberty were to be safeguarded by the sufferage which is why there is a natural relation between liberty and sufferage no matter your sophistry in attempting to deny it. In fact, the Revolution was fought precisely because we had no sufferage which gave us a voice in Parliament.

We did not have a conservative society after the Federalists were driven out of office by the Jeffersonians. You might have a valid contention prior to 1800 but not after.

Recognition of facts with regard to the class structure does not make one a Marxist anymore than it did Hamilton. Blythe pretense that they did not exist and had no impact on social life in manifold ways is merely dishonest. In fact, today's class structural problems are atavistic holdovers of the creation and destruction of the Slaveocracy. My recognition of the fact that political power was held in a small minority of hands is indisputable and one would think abhorrent to a libertarian. As far as egalitarianism goes you can thank Jefferson for pushing that philosophy with all his ability as a propagandist. It was one of his greatest and most reprehensible lies in destroying Hamilton and the Federalists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.