Triad Today

Thanks to Donald Trump’s upset victory, and to the movement it represents, Republicans in Congress are not only in the majority, they are an entrenched majority. Perhaps their status will change if the Trump bandwagon loses steam by 2018, but for now, the GOP has a stranglehold on both houses of Congress. As a result, Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis have risen in prominence, and are regularly sought after by the national media for their views on various public policy issues. Burr in particular, as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has become more visible and more influential, thanks in part to increased threats of terrorism both here and abroad.

As federal office holders, both Burr and Tillis must balance the needs of their constituents with those of all citizens, and they must sometimes vote their conscious over provincial concerns. But when a United States senator’s conscience and his votes are compromised, then he must either recuse himself, or resign. Earlier this month, Senator Burr should have recused himself when it came time to vote on an important healthcare bill. Instead he dishonored himself and the American people, and now he should resign.

On January 11, Senator Amy Klobucher, a Democrat from Minnesota, proposed an amendment to a Senate budget bill, which would have allowed importation of drugs from Canada by pharmacists, wholesalers, and consumers with valid prescriptions. For many Americans trying to make ends meet, the measure meant they would no longer have to choose between food and medicine. Burr and Tillis voted Nay, and the amendment just barely failed. Fortunately, another vote was taken two weeks later, and the Senate passed the bill. Asked to explain their opposition to allowing Americans to purchase cheaper drugs from Canada, Tillis said such a provision might interfere with crafting a new healthcare law to replace ACA. Burr, meanwhile said that drugs from Canada might not be safe. Tillis’ reason made no sense. Burr’s was suspect, and had no basis in fact.

First to the facts about safety. As reported by the Winnipeg Free Press, Dr. Peter Rost, vice president of marketing for Pfizer, said there shouldn’t be any concerns with prescription drugs from Canada. Said Rost, “Drugs from Canada are absolutely, positively safe. What has been said about Canadian drugs is, quite frankly, insulting.” Why Dr. Rost broke with his own company is not clear, but he has been outspoken in setting the record straight, and dispelling myths that have been propagated by the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians it supports.

According to seniormag.com, Dr. Rost says that multinational pharmaceutical firms are using safety to disguise their real motive of protecting profits. But even if Senator Burr has total disregard for Dr. Rost’s analysis, and honestly believes Canadian drugs are unsafe, how then does he explain death-inducing side effects of so-called FDA-approved medicines? The fact is Canadian drugs aren’t dangerous, they are just cheaper, and that’s why Richard Burr voted Nay. But why should Burr care about the price of drugs? Because he is paid to care.

From 2009 until 2016, Senator Burr accepted nearly $420,000 from Big Pharma, and no one donates that much money unless they want something in return.

In Burr’s case, the payback seems to have been voting against any and all legislation that would allow the importation of prescription drugs. The fact that the most recent bill eventually passed is moot. Burr did his job to obstruct passage in the early going, and that’s all the cover he needs if his donors want to know what the heck happened. Of course, Richard no longer has to worry about donor backlash, because he’s already announced that this will be his last term in the Senate. Moreover, North Carolina is one of several states that does not allow for recall of a senator, so even if voters wanted to punish Burr for his insensitive action, they have no mechanism to do so. I suppose the Senate could censure Burr for not acting in the best interest of his constituents, but don’t hold your breath.

Anyway, all’s well that ends well. Richard gets to keep the $420,000 and his Senate seat, while millions of Americans will be able to buy cheaper drugs, in spite of Burr’s efforts to the contrary. The moral of this story is that the drugs we need can be more easily bought…and so can some politicians.
 
 

Republicans and Democrats in the General Assembly can’t seem to agree on much of anything. Just look at what has happened with HB2, or the squabble between the Board of Education and the state superintendent’s office, or the number of Gubernatorial appointees that have been slashed. But there may be common ground when it comes to one aspect of juvenile justice reform. That’s because North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Martin recently announced his support for raising the age that a juvenile can be tried as an adult, from 16 to 18. Some political pundits argue such reform is long overdue, citing that North Carolina is only one of two states (New York being the other) where a 16-year-old is tried as an adult. But that characterization is a bit misleading.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 allows states to set their own definition of “juvenile” as they see fit. According to a January 2016 article in The Atlantic, nine states, not two, have set the upper limit for trying kids as adults at 16 years of age. The distinction for North Carolina is that we “automatically” consider a 16-year-old to be an adult. That doesn’t make us an anomaly, it just means we’re in compliance with JJDPA regs. That aside, our image as a rebel state isn’t the driving force behind the push for reform.

Those who want change, first point to a flaw in the adjudication process itself. They say that a 16-year-old is not fully competent to stand trial, and that their decision making ability is different from that of an adult. But a study published in “Law and Behavior” magazine reports that juveniles age 16 to 17 are no less competent to stand trial than someone who is 18 or over. Moreover, I really don’t care about a 16-year-old’s capacity for decision-making. If he “decides” to murder someone, then his capacity in that regard is moot. Not convinced? Then let’s look at what these poor little juveniles are really capable of.

In 2001, a 12-year-old in South Carolina murdered his grandparents by blowing them to bits with a shotgun. In 2009, a 16-year-old boy in New York killed a man, but it was no accident. He stabbed the man 50 times in the throat. In 2013, a 16-year-old Las Vegas boy robbed and murdered a 71-year-old woman. He shot her multiple times. In 2016, a 16-year-old Pittsburgh boy shot another youth in the face, then took a selfie of himself standing by the corpse. And then there were the four female juveniles who last year tortured and killed a 12-year-old girl because they were jealous of her. They stabbed the little girl repeatedly, then set her on fire and burned her alive. These are NOT isolated cases.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance reports that 64% of juvenile arrests involve violent felonies, and a study by U.S. states attorneys says that the number of juveniles under 18 arrested for murder is on the rise. In fact, nearly 18% of all serious violent crimes are committed by juveniles, and homicide arrests of kids ages 15 and over is up by 24%. And there’s more. A 2008 report by the U.S. Department of Justice says that 34% of murders are committed by young people, and 11% of those are under the age of 17. In addition, 25% of all murders of sisters are committed by siblings between the ages of 13 and 18. Meanwhile, boys ages 16 to 19 were most often the perpetrators in parental killings.

Another argument given for why we shouldn’t try 16- and 17-year-olds as adults is that, if convicted, they are often placed in jails and prisons with hardened adult offenders. The Campaign for Youth Justice says that each year, 250,000 youths are tried as adults. But statistics differ on how many of those kids are actually incarcerated with adults. BJA says 14,500. The Atlantic says 10,000. Nevertheless, reformers point to a 1989 study published in the Juvenile and Family Court Journal, which says that kids kept in adult facilities are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and twice as likely to be beaten. And a study by the University of Illinois says youth prisoners are 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide if housed with adults. And just in case those statistics don’t convince conservative lawmakers in Raleigh to stop incarcerating 16-year-olds, the Justice Policy Institute says that it costs over $148,000 per year to keep these kids locked up. That’s 10 times the cost of giving them a K-12 education.

I’m all for isolating youthful murderers from older felons, but local sheriffs don’t currently have the funds to create and operate separate facilities. Perhaps, then, instead of raising the age that a youth can be tried as an adult, the General Assembly should simply allocate the necessary funding to house violent youth in segregated sections of our state’s jails and prisons. Regardless, we should not give 16- and 17-year-old murderers a pass just because they’re not yet 18. If you’re old enough to stab someone 50 times in the throat, shoot an elderly woman multiple times, or burn a child alive, then you’re old enough to be tried as an adult. To think otherwise is criminal.
 
 

In the 1950s Senator Joe McCarthy led us to believe that there was a commie behind every bush. Old Joe would feel right at home in Washington these days, because over the past several weeks, our government has become obsessed with and paranoid about Russia, the likes of which I haven’t seen since 1962 when nuclear war was imminent. That year our fears were justified because Russian missiles were placed in Cuba and poised to launch against us. But now, over a half-century later, fear of missiles has been replaced with fear of missives. Russians are now credited with hacking into the emails of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, the DNC, and other pro-Hillary folks, then arranging for those correspondences to leak to the media prior to last fall’s election. Democrats on the Hill, along with the liberal media have also gone so far as to characterize Russia’s alleged meddling as “hacking our election”, and blaming the Ruskies for Hillary’s loss to Donald Trump.

But facilitating the release of documents that reveals collusion, corruption and arrogance, is not meddling, it’s whistle blowing. Vladimir Putin didn’t help the DNC rig the debates and their convention in Hillary’s favor. Putin didn’t help CNN’s Donna Brazile give Hillary questions in advance of her debates with Bernie Sanders. Vlad didn’t tell DNC staffers to devise a strategy for discrediting Bernie over his religious beliefs. Mr. Putin didn’t help Hillary break the law by setting up private email servers in her home for the purpose of hiding pay-for-play schemes involving the State Department, her foundation, and foreign leaders. He also didn’t tell Jim Comey to investigate Hillary, nor did he tell Mrs. Clinton to call Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables.”

Hillary and her buddies brought this mess on themselves by being careless about how they communicated and schemed with each other. But if the Russians are responsible for helping to shine a light on systematic collusion and dishonesty, then Putin should be rewarded by our government for blowing the whistle on corrupt politics, and for pointing out security deficiencies upon which we need to improve going forward.

Of course, we can disagree on the politics of this fiasco, but it is important that we’re all on the same page when it comes to semantics. The truth is, I’m not sure that the media is fully aware of what hacking means, or how it might apply to either Putin, or to the folks who are blaming him for their failures.

The Urban Dictionary defines a hacker as “a person who gains unauthorized access to a computer WITHOUT the intention of causing damage.” U.D. goes on to say that someone who does the same thing WITH intent of causing damage is known as a “cracker”. Cracking, for example, would involve trying to shut down a power grid, or disrupt aviation traffic. Cracking is also what happens when someone breaks into a bank’s records, or to your personal account, and then steals money from either. In 2011 thousands of Bank of America customers had their debit card accounts cracked. In 2014, seven of the top fifteen banks were the victim of cracking. And last year, The Guardian reported that a Wisconsin security firm obtained over 270 million consumer emails accounts and passwords which allowed them to tap into all sorts of website transactions. By the way, 57 million of those accounts belonged to Russian consumers. I wonder what those folks think about us American meddlers?

Clearly then, what Putin is alleged to have authorized is not “cracking”. Whoever tapped into the unsecured emails of John Podesta did so to reveal data, not steal data. In that regard, the November 8 election was not cracked nor were votes compromised. Hillary lost because she ran a bad campaign, had high negatives, and because FBI director Comey went public (twice) about his concerns over her mishandling of government property while running the State Department. Meanwhile, the leaked emails from Podesta, the DNC, and CNN were just icing on the cake, but it was Hillary who cost Hillary the election. And so, if Putin helped to facilitate the transparency that American voters deserved, then we should be grateful.

To be honest, I never thought the Russians had interfered in our election. I know that because I voted at a precinct in Kernersville, and not once did I see a Russian messing with the voting machines. So yes, let’s be cautious and vigilant about Russia’s cyber capabilities, but let’s stop blaming Putin for putting Trump in the White House. That honor belongs to Hillary Clinton, whose schemes to discredit Bernie, rig the debates, hide emails, and insult millions of working class people, backfired. In a sense, then, she meddled in her own election, proving what we’ve known all along. Hillary is a cracker.
 
 

Last week America witnessed an unprecedented and remarkable lesson in governing. House Republicans were poised to vote on a measure that would have gutted the Office on Congressional Ethics, a watchdog agency which they believed had been overzealous in recent years. Truth be told, many Democrats probably felt the same way about the OCE, but they opposed the majority’s action because that’s what the opposition party does in D.C. They also knew that any attempt to neuter an independent body which protects us against corrupt congressmen wouldn’t play well in the court of public opinion.

For once, House Speaker Paul Ryan agreed with the Dems, and pleaded with his comrades to back off, but his pleas fell on deaf ears. It seemed that nothing or no one could derail this unethical vote about ethics. No one except Trump the Tweeter. The President-elect had campaigned on a promise to “drain the swamp”, and the last thing he wanted was to take office under a cloud of partisanship and business-as-usual. And so Mr. Trump took to his Twitter universe and took House Republicans to the woodshed for trying to place OCE under congressional control, a move that would have put the foxes in charge of the hen house. Within minutes of his tweets, the GOP caucus met and decided to cancel the controversial vote.

The liberal media complained that the next president shouldn’t govern by social media, but that’s not what’s really bothering them. Suddenly, mainstream news outlets feel their power slipping away because Donald Trump likes to communicate directly with the people. No longer will the fourth estate be able to filter and spin the president’s words so easily. No longer will they be guaranteed daily press briefings. No longer will the American people have to wait for the evening news to find out what President Trump thinks on any given issue. No longer will 24-hour cable news channels have the market cornered on breaking news.

No doubt Donald Trump will be an unconventional president, but his unconventional way of communicating is not so much revolutionary as it is evolutionary. FDR started bypassing the press as early as 1933, taking his message directly to the people with a series of fireside chats broadcast on the radio. Two decades later, Dwight Eisenhower used the new medium of television to communicate with the American people, including a speech he made in 1958 (the first ever in color) in which he foreshadowed the use of the internet and social media by future Presidents. Said Ike, “In these fast moving times, it is highly important that our nation’s capital should be attached to every single citizen in this country by the very fastest, best kind of communication. Decisions of a government that at one time could tolerate three or four weeks of study, now demand almost instantaneous reaction.”

John Kennedy held regular press conferences because he enjoyed the repartee with reporters, but he also spoke directly to the public with prime time television broadcasts when warranted. Neither Johnson nor Nixon were big fans of television, but both men used the medium when making important announcements about Vietnam or their own retirement. Gerald Ford, meanwhile, went on TV to tell us that he had granted a full pardon to Nixon for any crimes he may have committed in the Watergate scandal. That speech and the pardon came back to haunt Ford, who lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Then, one month after his inauguration, Carter channeled FDR with a series of televised fireside chats in which he tried to appear like a regular guy by wearing a sweater. Said Carter, “This series of talks is one of several steps I will take to keep in close touch with the American people.” But Carter’s lectures on energy and other topics did not ingratiate him with the public, and in 1980 he lost his job to “the great communicator”. Ronald Reagan, a former actor and TV host, was at total ease speaking on camera, and often used television to mobilize public support for his agenda. In that regard he not only bypassed the press, but he bypassed Congress. It was the first time television had been used effectively by a president for the purpose of subtle arm twisting.

Though the government had been developing internet technology since the 1950s, it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the internet was widely available to the general public. And in 2007, a young senator from Chicago became the first presidential candidate to harness the power of the internet for reaching donors and voters. In November of 2008, Arianna Huffington remarked, “Were it not for the internet, Barack Obama would not be president.” In 2012, Mr. Obama once again used the internet as a campaign tool, and was re-elected to a second term. And though he has recently criticized Trump for using Twitter, I’ll bet money that if Obama was able to run for a third term, he’d be tweeting now too. Instead it’s Trump who is breaking new ground by using Twitter to shape public policy. And in doing so, he’s merely following in his predecessors’ footsteps by using, as Ike said, the “fastest, best kind of communication” available.

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Trump will continue to tweet with such regularity once he becomes president, but if last week’s congressional fiasco is any indication, then social media could soon become the mainstream media, and the president won’t need a plunger to drain the swamp, he’ll just need an iPhone.
 
 

One summer night during the 1984 Presidential campaign, Tonight Show icon Johnny Carson quipped, “I guess both candidates will get some rest this week, Mondale in the Virgin Islands, Reagan in the Cabinet meeting.”

It was a good natured poke at his Republican friend Ronald Reagan, who was known for taking daily naps. But Carson’s barbs took aim at Democrats too.

And regardless of the intended target, his jokes were funny, and never mean-spirited. Unfortunately, the current crop of late night comedians can’t seem to grasp or embrace those standards. For example, compare Carson’s 1984 joke with Stephen Colbert’s attempt at humor on election night 2016. Said Colbert, “If Trump wins, how about screaming ‘f*#@’ for the next 45 minutes?” Not only was Colbert’s remark not funny, it was vulgar, and mean spirited. It’s sad to say, but Colbert and other late night lefties have increasingly lost their sense of humor, decorum, objectivity, and fairness.

Johnny Carson and other television hosts of his era also never took sides in political elections, nor did they predict outcomes. Not so today. Just weeks prior to this year’s election, Colbert said of Trump, “You’re not going to be President!” “The Daily Show’s” Trevor Noah said Trump had “the mind of a toddler”, and called him a “spoiled brat”. Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal”, joined in the name calling, telling her audience that Trump, “is a f%&#@ing liar.”

Today’s late night lefties are also poor losers, and just can’t seem to accept the fact that Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. Said Trevor Noah, “I cannot understand how America can be this hateful.” And Colbert proclaimed, “I can’t put a happy face on this, and that’s my job.” Yes it IS your job Stephen, and you would be able to do your job if you were a true professional.

But as bad as Noah, Bee, and Colbert are, the worst of the late night whiners is Seth Meyers, whose monologues have morphed into rambling commentaries on the evils of Trump. Meyers, you may recall emceed the 2011 National Press Club dinner where he and Obama went after Trump with a vengeance. In fact, Meyers’ over-the-top barbs have since been credited with convincing Trump to run for President in 2016. Meyers wasn’t funny then, and he isn’t funny now, mainly because he’s lost sight of his objectivity, and of the Carson standards for late night comedy. George Mason University professor Robert Lichter told the Daily Beast, “One element of a joke is surprise. That’s what makes it funny. When you just deliver a diatribe, you may be satisfying yourself, but you’re not going to influence many people.”

Prior to being given his own show, Meyers was the head writer on “Saturday Night Live”, where he also served up jokes as the anchor for “Weekend Update”. Then, as now, SNL had a decided left wing bias. In fact, in a 2012 interview with podcaster Bill Simmons, Meyers said of SNL, “Yes, there are more liberal people involved in the show.” Meyers was right. According to Downtrend.com, 67% of people who voted in the 2008 Presidential election had watched SNL, and of those, 59% voted for Obama over McCain.

But this year, SNL went off the rails and shot itself in the left foot by allowing co-anchor Michael Che to deliver a series of commentaries rather than jokes. Lichter’s theory held true. Che’s anti-Trump diatribes didn’t convince enough of his liberal millennial viewers to even vote, much less vote for Hillary. Recently, after viewing SNL, Donald Trump tweeted, “watched parts of SNL. It is a totally one-sided, biased show – nothing funny at all.” To his credit, Che admitted his approach was biased, telling Esquire, “Oddly I agree with him (Trump)…I think our show should show all views…”

Throughout history there have been stand-up comics who have used hate speech and obscenities to criticize politicians, but traditionally, late night hosts have always exercised a sense of balance and decency in their delivery, if for no other reason than they didn’t wish to alienate half of their potential audience. Today’s night owl comedians don’t seem to care who they alienate, so long as they get a cheap laugh from a mean spirited joke about Donald Trump.

Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Trump has said and done plenty of things that warrant comedic barbs, but those barbs should only sting, not stab. They should be funny, not angry. And they should be thought provoking not vulgar. My advice to the President -Elect is to do what I do when I want a late night laugh. Watch re-runs of Carson.
 
 

A few weeks ago I went to the eye doctor, or as Barney Fife would say, the “arculist”. He told me I was so far-sighted that I wasn’t a candidate for Lasik.

Being nearly blind in one eye, what I really need are lens implants, which could cost upwards of $7,000. No worries, though, because I pay a thousand dollars every month in extortion money to the insurance company, so I’m sure that lens implants would be covered. After all, restoring one’s sight is a medical necessity.

I was wrong. Turns out that I’ll have to live with limited sight. But so will millions of other people like me who were born with bad eyes. You are who you are, and sometimes there’s just nothing you can do to change it. Rules are rules, and fair is fair. Imagine, then, my surprise when I learned that, starting next week, every state employee is eligible for a sex change operation, and it will be fully covered by their health plan, which you and I pay for. It seems that the government has determined that sex change surgery is a medical necessity. But how is that possible? and how did it come about?

The Affordable Care Act, AKA “Obamacare”, now prohibits sex discrimination in health insurance cases involving gender identity. Specifically, federal law has determined that denying coverage for a sex change is “impermissible discrimination.” And so, earlier this month, acting in accordance with the new law, the board of trustees for the State Health Plan voted to remove gender changes from previously excluded procedures. Translation? Having sex change surgery is medically necessary.

When I read this I couldn’t believe my eyes, mainly because I’m nearly blind in one eye and need lens implants, which aren’t covered on MY health plan. It is not medically necessary for me to see, but if I were a state employee, I could have a sex change operation because that WOULD be medically necessary.

Our incoming State Treasurer, Dale Folwell, vows to fight this insane change in medical coverage, and if Obamacare is repealed, he might succeed sooner than later. In the meantime, however, if a male teacher thinks he’s a woman, or if a female magistrate thinks she’s a man, then you and I will pay for their sex change surgery. By the way, our incoming Governor Roy Cooper is fine with the sex change law. He’s also OK with letting a 15-year-old boy who thinks he’s a girl, shower with biological girls at the school gym. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it that way. Of course I don’t see anything any way.

Maybe I’ll go get a job with the state, request a sex change operation, and have the doctor sneak in some lens implants while I’m on the table. That way I’ll wake up with 20/20 vision, so I’ll be able to see the women I’m showering with much better. And none of it will cost me a dime. I know it’s a radical thing for me to do just to correct my eyesight, but I strongly identify with people who have great vision, and I should have the right to have what they have. As a bonus, the state will also cover all of my maternity costs. And, I won’t have to keep seeing my “arculist”. Thank you Mr. President! Speaking of whom, I recall that candidate Obama’s campaign slogan was “Hope and Change”. Now, thanks to his healthcare plan, North Carolina state employees can do just that. They can hope to change.
 
 

As we celebrate and enjoy this holiday season, let’s not forget that there are people beyond our immediate circle of family and friends who could benefit from our love and generosity. Over the past decade, I’ve been able to showcase scores of community organizations on my “Triad Today” television show, and in the process, I’ve learned that there are several ways we can help these agencies help others. The first is to donate goods. Second is to donate money. And, third is to donate our time. Of course, some nonprofit groups can benefit from all three types of giving. Here, in no particular order, are just a few organizations to which you might lend your support.

Second Harvest Food Bank of Northwest NC: Unfortunately, the Piedmont Triad has one of the worst hunger problems in the nation, and that includes the problem of childhood hunger. One reason is that we are still not fully recovered from the Recession of 2008, and many people are either unemployed or underemployed. That translates into an increasing number of families without money for food. The Second Harvest Food Bank distributes food to churches and nonprofit agencies that feed hungry people in an 18 county area. You can write a check directly to the food bank, and you can drop-off non-perishable food items at a number of locations in our area. For more information call 336-784-5770, or visit HungerNWNC.org.

Goodwill Industries of Northwest NC: Each year, over 45,000 people in Northwest NC are served by workforce development programs that are administered by Goodwill. Those programs are supported in part by the clothing and other items we donate, which are then sold at Goodwill retail stores. That means, the more items you donate, the more people will get back to work. Goodwill also welcomes monetary donations. For more information call 336-724-3621, or visit GoodwillNWNC.org.

Senior Services, Inc. operates an Adult Day Care facility, and offers a number of services to elderly citizens and their families. Their signature program is Meals on Wheels, and since 1962, volunteers of all ages have delivered over five million hot lunches to shut-ins, regardless of their ability to pay. Monetary donations are always welcome, and volunteers are always needed. For more information, call 336-725-0907, or visit SeniorServices.org.

Cancer Services, Inc.: Their stated mission is “to enhance quality of life for those living with cancer, and to provide the gift of life through education”. Their services include patient advocacy, medication and financial assistance, providing equipment and supplies, offering peer support groups, and much more. 90% of funds donated to Cancer Services, Inc. goes directly to providing client services. In addition to money, you can also donate used equipment and supplies. Call 336-760-9983, or visit CancerServicesOnline.org.

Greensboro Urban Ministry is on the front lines when it comes to providing emergency assistance. Greensboro Urban Ministry provides homeless families in Guilford County a safe, temporary environment. They also operate a food bank, and offer a chaplaincy service. Volunteers are needed to prepare and serve meals, manage shelters, tutor children, and perform a variety of other duties. Monetary donations are also much appreciated. Call 336-271-5959, or visit GreensboroUrbanMinistry.org.

Mtn. Valley Hospice: a non profit program that serves a sixteen county area in North Carolina and Virginia, and provides personalized care for patients at the end of life, as well as comfort to families. Due to the vast geographical area they serve, MVHPC maintains six regional offices, and operates the Woltz Hospice Home. They also specialize in care for terminally ill children and veterans. This spring, MVHPC will also open a new hospice home in Yadkin County, which will be funded by grants and local donations. To give money or inquire about volunteering, call 1-888-789-2922, or visit MtnValleyHospice.org.

The Winston-Salem Foundation, and the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro: Thanks to the generosity of donors, these two historic Foundations are able to issue scores of community grants every year which go to support a variety of organizations and activities engaged in everything from offering scholarships, to promoting economic development. Both Foundations assist families and individuals who wish to establish charitable trusts and special funds. For general information, visit CFGG.org and WSFoundation.org.

The Petty Family Foundation: NASCAR legend Richard Petty and his family support a number of charitable organizations and specialized programs, including Paralyzed Veterans of America and Victory Junction Camp, the latter of which provides an uplifting experience for children with severe disabilities and terminal illnesses. To make a donation or learn more, visit PettyFamilyFoundation.org.

The P.O.W.E.R. of Play Foundation: Founded by former NFL star Ricky Proehl and his wife Kelly, the Foundation works with at-risk youth, teaching them important life lessons in a structured, sports-centered environment. Daily programs are offered at Proehlific Park in Greensboro, which also offers state-of-the-art athletic facilities for adults. Each year, Ricky also teams with Richard Petty to distribute toys to needy children through their “Santa’s Helpers” campaign. To make a donation or for more information, call 336-665-5233, or visit ProehlificPark.com.

Carolina Donor Services and Red Cross … There can be no greater gift at this holiday season than the gift of life, and that’s why you might consider donating blood, and signing a donor card. Either gesture requires only a few minutes of your time, and will almost certainly result in saving someone’s life in the future. You can reach Carolina Donor Services at 1-800 200-2672, or at CarolinaDonorServices.org. You can call the Red Cross at 336-333-2111, or via the internet at GSORedCross.org.

Please remember that your donations of time, money, or goods to area community organizations is vitally important, not just now, but throughout the coming year. It’s also a way for us to expand the circle of people we care about, and that’s something worth celebrating in this season of giving.
 
 

These days all it takes to be famous is a sex tape or a great publicist. Bill Daniels has neither, and he’s been famous for eight decades without them. Instead, Bill’s fame has come from applying his multiple talents across every medium, including singing on stage and local TV as a youth, then graduating to Broadway, film, and prime time television as an adult. Daniels’ fame has also been enduring because he’s managed to remain relevant to each succeeding generation. Some fans know him as John Adams in the stage musical 1776, others as Dustin Hoffman’s father in The Graduate, or Dr. Craig in St. Elsewhere, Mr. Feeny in Boy Meets World, or the voice of KITT in Knight Rider. In real life, William Daniels is a quiet, private individual who is baffled by his own success.

Bill: I’ve never had a publicity agent. I’ve never pushed at this business, and I’ve seldom wanted to audition.

But Bill’s wife of 65 years, Emmy winner Bonnie Bartlett (who he affectionately calls "Alice Actress") says her husband’s longevity and appeal comes from within.

Bonnie: He has good instincts and he doesn’t even know where they come from.

Bill learned from Lee Strasberg to put elements of himself into whatever he was cast for. The luck came in that the roles were there, that’s the lucky part. But more than half of everything he does, is Bill.

Perhaps, but now Bill Daniels is putting all of himself into a new role, as author of There I Go Again: How I came to be Mr. Feeny, John Adams, Dr. Craig, KITT, and Many Others. The autobiography from Potomac Books will be released in March, on the occasion of Bill’s 90th birthday.

I first met Bill and Bonnie 20 years ago while publishing a magazine about St. Elsewhere. They took me under their wing, nurtured what writing talent I had, and made sure I had a good meal after a long flight. Recently I re-connected with Hollywood’s most respected married thespians, and began by asking Bill about his new book.

Jim: I know you don’t like to talk about yourself, much less brag about yourself. So what finally made Bill Daniels write a book about Bill Daniels?

Bill: First of all I wasn’t doing anything and had some time on my hands. But secondly, and this is suspect, I told myself, "Just write about the journey you’ve taken, and maybe your grandchildren who are totally uninterested now, and don’t know what the hell I do, might one day pick it up and read it, and find out what Poppy did with his life." Anyway, that’s what I told myself. Or maybe I just felt I needed to write it.

Jim: In your book, you wrote, "I went ass-backwards into everything." What did you mean?

Bill: I mean that I had a stage mother who put me into the business at a very early age, which I would have never done myself. And I didn’t have the ambition that most young actors had when they came to New York to conquer the town. I don’t have any of that push. I have always been ambivalent about the business.

I’ve never relished the applause. It just doesn’t mean much to me. I don’t have a great deal of self-awareness.

Self-awareness or not, Bill was in demand as a stage actor, and could have remained a successful fixture in New York theatre forever.

Jim: So what lured you away from your home turf to do films and television?

Bill: It was a time when Hollywood would hire New York actors, fly you out to do a show, and fly you back. And I kind of liked California.

Bonnie: That was mainly it, you wanted to work in California.

Bill: And I stayed in the play 1776 much too long. It got to the point after two years and two months, I didn’t want to see a backstage, I didn’t want to see a dressing room. I’m a native New Yorker, but I wanted to get out of New York.

The move to Hollywood was fortuitous for Bill, who never wanted for work. Early on he co-starred in highly acclaimed dramatic films like TheGraduate with Hoffman, and The Parallax Viewwith Warren Beatty. But he was also attracted to comedic roles, starring in the short-lived cult classic Captain Nice for NBC, in which he portrayed a mild mannered super hero who could fly, sort of.

In the 1970s, Bill pulled off a New England hat trick by portraying all three members of Boston’s most famous pre-Kennedy era family. In 1972 he took his John Adams role in 1776 to film, then played John Quincy Adams in the 1976 miniseries The Adams Chronicles and Sam Adams in the TV movie The Bastard. Bill was also a frequent guest star on a number of popular television series before landing the lead role of Dr. Mark Craig in NBC’s groundbreaking medical drama, St. Elsewhere. The ensemble cast featured veteran actors like Ed Flanders, Norman Lloyd, and Ed Begley Jr., as well as several newcomers like Denzel Washington, Howie Mandel, and Mark Harmon. Bonnie Bartlett was cast as Dr. Craig’s wife Ellen, and together, she and Bill made TV history by becoming the first real life married couple to win EMMYs on the same night for portraying on- screen spouses in the same drama series.

Bill: I’m glad she got the recognition she deserved, and she has two EMMYs to prove it. We have this relationship which works very well. We each take pleasure in the other’s success. There has never been one ounce of jealousy.

Bonnie: Except that night when someone called you Mr. Bartlett.

Bill: Yes.

Bonnie: You didn’t like that Bill.

Bill: No, I really didn’t like that.

And that, folks, is the kind of banter the two lovers have engaged in since meeting at Northwestern University. But I digress.

concurrent with his on-screen role for St. Elsewhere, Bill also became the off-screen voice of David Hasselhoff’s high-tech car, KITT, in the pop favorite, Knight Rider.

Jim: Glen Larson, the producer of Knight Rider, once said he wanted you to be the voice of KITT because you had a way of speaking that sounded aloof. Do you think of yourself as aloof?

Bill: Oh God no. No, I think the problem with the voice and the accent comes from the fact that when I was 15 years old, I got into the production of Life With Father, and I just naturally picked it up from being around, and I don’t think I’ve gotten rid of it.

In the 1990s, Bill was embraced by a whole new generation of fans with his portrayal as George Feeny, the school principal in Boy Meets World (on which Bonnie also played his love interest), then revived that role in the 2014 sequel, Girl Meets World. Between those two assignments he made cameo appearances on TV and film, and served as president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Jim: You’ve done it all, singing, dancing, acting, directing, now an author. Of all those things, which do you like the best?

Bill: It’s always been the acting.

Jim: On stage or in film and TV?

Bill: Definitely on stage. There’s that immediate satisfaction if you’re doing well, and if you’re not doing well, there’s that immediate silence.

Jim: Earlier this year you were the subject of an internet hoax in which rumors circulated that you had died.

Bill: The reports of my passing were greatly exaggerated. I stole that line. [laughs]

Jim: But the question is, have you ever died on stage. Have you ever bombed anywhere?

Bonnie: Only in summer stock when we were in school, not on Broadway.

Bill: Yes, I did a couple of things back then that, thank God, are not on film. [laughs]

Fortunately for the rest of us, most of Bill’s work IS on film, and much of it on DVD, so we can all enjoy his extraordinary talent. You can also enjoy his book, which is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com.

Jim: Hey the review copy you sent me has no photos.

Bill: There will be photos.

Jim: It will sell better if you have some dirty pictures in there.

Bill: You know that’s a very good idea. [laughs]
 
 

“We need the strongest men of the party in the cabinet. We needed to hold our own people together. I had looked the party over and concluded that these were the very strongest men. Then I had no right to deprive the country of their services.”

That quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln by author Doris Kearns Goodwin, and it reflects the 16th president’s justification for assembling a cabinet which included three of his former rivals. Lincoln thought it wise to enlist his political enemies in the fight to protect our union and emancipate slaves. But these weren’t just any men. All three were or had been governor of their respective states, thus had executive experience outside of Washington. They also happened to be the “strongest men” for the job. The question is, can we say the same about Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees? And, are his picks consistent with the promises, policies and philosophies which he espoused during the campaign? In both cases, the answer is “No.”

To the first point, Mr. Trump’s nominees are NOT the strongest candidates available. What they are is wealthy and well-connected to Wall Street and Washington. To the second point, his cabinet picks are not consistent with his campaign pledge to bring in outsiders who would help him “drain the swamp.” Instead, many of them are career insiders who helped fill the swamp in the first place. Granted, political connections and personal wealth are not inherently bad things to have, but they shouldn’t be the overriding criteria in selecting a cabinet for a president who promised to reform government.

What follows is a run-down on some of Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees and high-level appointees, along with my assessment of who should have been considered in their place.

WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR … Steve Bannon deserves shared credit with Kellyanne Conway for orchestrating a surprise electoral upset victory, but his association with Breitbart lends credence to the notion that Donald Trump panders to white supremacists, and is prejudiced against minorities. That’s because Breitbart will publish just about anything from just about anyone in the alt-right movement. By the way, following Bannon’s appointment as Chief White House Counsel, Kelloggs dropped all of its advertising from Breitbart, which is of no concern to the President-elect, but it reinforces the perception problem that Trump will continue to have, so long as Bannon is in and out of the Oval Office every day. Also on the negative side, Bannon once worked at Goldman Sachs. A better pick for the job would have been David Gergen, former advisor to three presidents. Not only would Gergen be the strongest candidate for WH counsel, he wouldn’t bring any baggage with him.

TREASURY SECRETARY … Speaking of Goldman Sachs, Steve Munchin was an executive for that firm when it helped to bring about the great recession of 2008, and throw millions of people out of their homes and jobs. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren call the nomination of Munchin, “hypocrisy at its worst.” Former BB&T chairman John Allison would have been a much better pick to lead Treasury. John is a Washington outsider who has dealt successfully with everything from TARP loans to student loans, and understands the struggles of small business owners.

EDUCATION SECRETARY … I suppose in some parallel universe, Betsy DeVos would be the logical choice to oversee public education in America. Her qualifications include never having attended a public school, and marrying a man who inherited his billions from Daddy’s AMWAY pyramid scheme. DeVos was a major contributor to Trump’s campaign, so it’s not surprising that she would be rewarded with a job in the new administration, but this is the wrong job. A better choice would have been North Carolina’s long-serving (and recently defeated) State Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson. Actually any state superintendent with her track record of success would be a good pick to oversee the nation’s education system. June, for example managed to increase graduation rates and lower drop-out rates while performing a perennial balancing act between state budget shortfalls and federal mandates.

DEFENSE SECRETARY … Retired General James “Mad Dog” Mattis distinguished himself by being fired as head of Central Command. His “Dr. Strangelove” style nick name fit him well. President Obama booted Mattis because the General kept foaming at the mouth for war with Iran. Yet for all his war mongering, Mattis has also been accused of leaving wounded men behind in Afghanistan. Trump should have tapped Colin Powell to head-up the Defense department. Powell has the respect of presidents and elected officials from both parties, and he has an Eisenhower-like reputation for viewing war as a last resort. And if Trump wanted to reach across the aisles, he could have picked General Wesley Clark, who had a successful military career, then made a brief run for the White House as a Democrat. There’s simply no place for a mad dog in the war room.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT … Senator Jeff Sessions is an amiable, seasoned lawmaker, but, like Bannon, he comes to the job with racial baggage. Though Sessions once prosecuted and sought the death penalty for some KKK thugs who murdered a black man, he made a statement that was taken out of context which later cost him a seat on the Supreme Court. Rightly or wrongly, Sessions has been painted as a closet racist, and that perception will not stand him well as America’s top cop, especially in these times of racial unrest between law enforcement and the minority community. There are any number of current and former state attorneys general who would have been better suited and better prepared to lead the Justice Department, but Trump went with his friend Sessions because the Alabama Senator was the first high profile elected official to endorse the President-elect.

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT … While I have no problem recycling folks like David Gergen and Colin Powell, I’m not comfortable with Elaine Chao returning to serve in a presidential cabinet which will have to deal with her husband, who just happens to be the Senate Majority Leader, and will vote on her confirmation. This isn’t just a perceived conflict of interest, it’s an actual conflict of interest. And what happens when Trump needs Mitch McConnell to come through for him on a particular bill, but McConnell’s quid pro quo is an increase in transportation funding? Trump should have brought in someone who has successfully run a regional transportation system, and who can navigate both federal and state regulations. Former PART chief, Brent McKinney would have been an excellent choice.

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES … Georgia Congressman Dr. Tom Price was chosen to head up HHS because he is a physician who vehemently opposed Obamacare. But Price either can’t or won’t think outside the healthcare box, and believes that the insurance industry knows best. Bernie Sanders says Price has a history of wanting to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What America needs is Bernie’s “Medicare for All” system, but that will never happen under Trump and Price, who don’t seem to care that the leading cause of bankruptcy is unchecked premiums and high medical bills. A savvy president would have tapped a current or former CEO of a major nonprofit hospital, preferably one who came from the nursing ranks and understands how to manage patients, budgets, and regulations with equal aplomb.

I’m basically OK with Trump’s picks for Chief of Staff, CIA Director, and United Nations Ambassador. Reince Priebus will be a good gatekeeper and political diplomat. Rep. Mike Pompeo will hit the ground running at CIA because of his Congressional experience with oversight of the agency. And South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley will represent America with grace and competence at the UN, though I hope her right wing bent won’t significantly skew her thinking at critical moments. Those notwithstanding, Trump’s cabinet picks are neither strong nor appropriate, given their backgrounds and his campaign promises. As such, the President-elect is refilling the DC swamp faster than he can drain it. Swamps stink to high heaven, and so do most of Trump’s cabinet picks.
 
 

Ask a diverse group of ten people why Hillary Clinton lost the election, and you’ll probably get ten different answers. Not surprisingly, all ten would probably be correct. Here then, in no particular order, are my ten reasons why Democrats lost the White House in 2016 despite all polling predictions to the contrary.

“Bernie, the DNC, and CNN”

The populist Senator from Vermont really deserves a category all to himself. After all, he won 22 primaries, and gave disaffected voters plenty of reasons not to be enthusiastic about Hillary in the general election. Still, for purposes of compiling this list, I’m lumping Bernie with the DNC and CNN because their collusion against him (and the news thereof) backfired, and, in the end, helped defeat the Democratic nominee. Thanks to various leaked emails, we know that former DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Shultz and her staff wanted Ms. Clinton to win the nomination. They scheduled televised debates on nights when viewership was lower. They disparaged Sanders behind his back, they did nothing to discourage super delegates from pledging to Hillary before the primaries even began, and they saw to it that about 90% of the committee chairmanships at the convention went to Hillary supporters, despite the fact that Bernie had garnered over 40% of the vote. And, we now know that former interim DNC Chair and CNN contributor Donna Brazile, gave questions to Hillary prior to at least two televised primary debates. No doubt, the knowledge of these offenses caused Bernie supporters to either stay home on November 8, or vote for Jill Stein, either scenario of which helped to deny Democrats the Presidency.

“The 16 Whining Republicans”

It’s easy to see why Donald Trump trounced 16 Republican primary opponents. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and the other establishment politicians never really understood why so many voters had so little faith in establishment politicians. After they all dropped out, the GOP contenders spent most of their time whining about Trump and the media instead of addressing their failures. Had Trump not been in the race, Hillary would have, by comparison, looked like a sympathetic populist. She would have run a different kind of campaign, and she might have won.

Jim Comey and the F.B.I.”

was first told that she was under investigation by the FBI for transmitting classified emails on a private server. But by July, FBI director Jim Comey announced that prosecution was not indicated. Still, he was critical of Ms. Clinton’s reckless handling of classified documents, so much so, that most Americans believed she was guilty of a crime. Then, just eleven days before the general election, Comey re-appeared and announced he was re-opening the Clinton email investigation based on new evidence being collected from Anthony Weiner’s lap top. Even though Comey later cleared Clinton, the damage had been done. In fact, Hillary and her campaign staff believe that Comey’s October surprise was the main factor leading to her defeat on November 8.

“Dr. Jill Stein”

As was the case in 1992 and again in 2000, support for a third party candidate helped to upset a presidential front runner. In 1992, Ross Perot garnered 19% of the popular vote (most of which would have gone to Bush 41), thus handing the White House to Bill Clinton. In 2000, Ralph Nader received enough votes in Florida (most of which would otherwise have been cast for Al Gore), to tilt the state to George W. Bush. This time around it was Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein who spoiled Hillary’s coming out party. In fact, Stein collected enough votes in several swing states to give Trump the electoral margin he needed to become president.

“Swing States and the Electoral College”

No one really loves the Electoral College because it elevates a handful of swing states to such importance, that every other state becomes almost moot. Hillary won the total popular vote nationwide by over a million votes, but because she lost Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin by slim margins, she lost the election. Some Democratic officials are now making noise about abolishing the Electoral College, but with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, plus 34 state legislatures, it’s unlikely that the party of Trump will do anything to upset his chances at re-election in 2020.

Millennials”

If you thought the sixteen defeated Republican candidates were cry babies, let me introduce you to America’s millennials. These clueless youngsters pride themselves on being able to multi-task, yet the one task they can’t seem to do is vote. Although there’s no empirical data available, an informal survey of the Portland protestors revealed that 7 out of 10 millennials didn’t bother to vote. Even if that statistic is off by 90%, there would have been enough young votes in swing states to propel Hillary into the White House, and they wouldn’t have anything to protest now. Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

“African Americans”

In 2012, black voters turned out in big numbers for Barack Obama, so Hillary expected that same coalition to turn out for her in 2016. It didn’t happen. On November 8, over one million African Americans who had voted for Obama four years ago, refused to support Hillary, and that cost Democrats the White House. The harsh reality is that Mr. Obama is likeable, and Hillary isn’t. The President’s positives are about as high as Hillary’s negatives, leading many pundits to speculate that while America is open to electing a woman president, Ms. Clinton just wasn’t that woman.

“Obamacare”

Despite his popularity, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act didn’t turn out to be the success he had hoped for. In the end, it’s failures helped to put Trump in the White House. Just weeks before the election, it was announced that ACA premiums would be rising to staggering levels next year. Many states will experience increases of over 40%, including Arizona, where customers will pay 116% more each month in health insurance. Throughout her campaign, Mrs. Clinton praised Obamacare, but those who live by the sword, die by the sword. In the waning days of October, Hillary was stabbed in the heart by a healthcare system she had enthusiastically endorsed.

“Basket of Deplorables”

Hillary spent most of her time bashing Donald Trump instead of explaining to voters how she would make their lives better. But while bashing Trump didn’t necessarily hurt Clinton, she made a major mistake by bashing his supporters and potential supporters, calling them a “basket of deplorables.”  Those were fighting words for people who are unemployed or underemployed, and who might have otherwise stayed home on election day. Instead the deplorables turned out in record numbers, and Democrats will no longer have one of their own sitting in the Oval office.

“HRC”

Hillary Rodham Clinton, or HRC, as she is referred to in staff emails, need only look in the mirror to blame someone for her loss. As we now know from leaked texts of her Wall Street speeches, Hillary once told a roomful of bankers that she can no longer relate to the middle class. What she COULD relate to is power, which she assumed was hers for the taking in 2016. But her private disdain for us common folk translated to a campaign that was fueled by arrogance and over confidence. For example, she spent little or no time campaigning in some of the Midwestern states which she took for granted. That alone cost her the election, even absent the other nine reasons.

Regardless of why they lost the White House in 2016, Democrats now have four years to regroup and re-examine. They need to come to terms with their mistakes, or else prepare for two terms of Trump.
 
 

Presidents are only human. They make mistakes. No, I’m not talking about George Bush’s decision to invade the wrong country after 9/11, or Barack Obama’s broken promise to let everyone keep their existing health plan. I’m talking about John Kennedy, and how he misread history, unintentionally insulted the State of Virginia, and was compelled to make amends.

The story begins on Wednesday December 4, 1619. That’s the day 38 English settlers from the London Company, navigated their ship down the James River and onto Berkeley Hundred (Harrison’s Landing), in what is now Charles City, Virginia, just 20 miles upstream from Jamestown, which had been settled twelve years prior. The landing party was led by Captain John Woodlief, who, as prescribed in the company charter, ordered a day of Thanksgiving to be observed upon their arrival, and every December 4 thereafter.

Over time, Berkeley became known for its historic firsts. The first bourbon whiskey was made there in 1621 (by a preacher no less). “Taps” was played for the first time while the Union army was encamped at Berkeley in 1862. And, of course, it was the site of America’s first Thanksgiving. More on that in a moment.

In 1907 Berkeley was purchased by John Jamieson who had served as a Union drummer boy during the army’s encampment at the plantation. Ownership later fell to his son (and my friend) Malcolm, who passed away in 1997. Mac loved Berkeley and was aggressive in marketing the historic site, including through the use of promotional videos and commercials which I helped to produce. He invited the public to tour the house and grounds, sold Berkeley boxwoods and bourbon, and held an annual Thanksgiving pageant which attracted tourists from across the country. But the celebration wasn’t always widely recognized.

One hundred years after his father beat the Yankee drums at Berkeley, Mac was upset by something another Yankee did. In the fall of 1962, President Kennedy issued his yearly Thanksgiving Proclamation in which he recognized his home state of Massachusetts as the site of America’s first Thanksgiving. And so, on November 9th of that year, Virginia State Senator John Wicker was prompted by Mac to write to the President and point out Kennedy’s faux pas. In his telegram, Wicker referenced historical records about Berkeley’s celebration, which took place one full year before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620.

Later that year, Kennedy confidant and noted historian Arthur Schlesinger sent a reply to Wicker with a tongue in cheek apology from the President. According to Berkeley records, Schlesinger “attributed the error to unconquerable New England bias on the part of the White House staff.”

The following year, on November 5, 1963, President Kennedy had to eat crow during his annual Thanksgiving proclamation, saying, “Over three centuries ago, our forefathers in Virginia and Massachusetts, far from home, in a lonely wilderness, set aside a day of thanksgiving.” Kennedy’s New England bias wouldn’t allow him to disavow Plymouth entirely, but Mac was happy that Berkeley finally gained official recognition for holding the first Thanksgiving, even if it was a shared honor. Sadly it was to be Kennedy’s last proclamation. He was assassinated seventeen days later in Dallas.

The holiday season is now upon us, and it’s a time for being thankful, celebrating with friends and family, and remembering fondly those who are no longer with us. And so I recall my visits with Mac Jamieson and his funny fervor over bragging rights to the first Thanksgiving. I remember him almost making me ill on two occasions, once when he drove his car erratically over the trails of historic Berkeley, and the other when, knowing I didn’t drink spirits, he shamed me into sampling some Berkeley bourbon.

Perhaps, though, it is appropriate that I am reminded of toasting America’s first Thanksgiving. Perhaps we all need to raise our glasses now and give thanks for the family and friends we love, and for the bounty we share. Perhaps we also need to pledge to help those who are less fortunate, and who continue to struggle in a still-weakened economy. Perhaps we would all do well to emulate those weary English settlers, and be thankful for just surviving another day of our long journey. So here’s a toast to Captain Woodlief, Berkeley, old Mac, and to that Yankee president who set the record straight. Happy Thanksgiving.
 
 

By 12:30 last Wednesday morning, we knew that Donald Trump would be our next president. We also knew that Richard Burr had won his final Senate campaign. In fact, we knew just about every outcome except one. The North Carolina governor’s race was too close to call.

Attorney General Roy Cooper and Governor Pat McCrory had traded leads throughout the night, then with only 14 precincts outstanding, McCrory held what some observers called an insurmountable 50,000 vote edge. But those precincts were in Durham county, where earlier in the evening some of the voting machines had malfunctioned, so polls were allowed to remain open for an additional hour. Suddenly, some 90,000 Durham county votes rushed in like water breaking through a dam, and just as suddenly, McCrory’s lead was washed away. Cooper went up by just under 5,000 votes out of nearly 5 million cast. McCrory told his followers that the race wasn’t over until all absentee and provisional ballots were counted. Cooper told his followers that the race was won, and declared himself the victor. It was yet another contentious moment in what had been an extremely contentious campaign.

During their debates, and in his television ads, Cooper had misrepresented the facts about a number of hot button issues. For example, he criticized McCrory because North Carolina was 41st in teacher pay. But Roy neglected to mention that we were 48th when Pat took office, and that we would be 33rd next year due to policies which the Governor enacted this year. Cooper also bragged that he had fixed the state crime lab, but failed to mention that he merely outsourced the backlog which still exists. Cooper’s ads also accused McCrory of giving Duke Energy a sweetheart deal with regards to the coal ash spill, saying that Pat stuck taxpayers with the bill. None of that was true. And there was HB2 which Cooper said McCrory had wrought upon our state, and cost us millions of dollars. But it was Cooper who, early on, could have prevented HB2 by declaring the controversial Charlotte bathroom ordinance unconstitutional. And it was Pat who tried to keep the issue out of the legislature.

Unfortunately, misinformation seemed to matter on election night. Had it not, McCrory would have won, and won big. Instead, he must wait until later this week to see if outstanding ballots have been cast in his favor.

Late last week I spoke by phone with Patrick Gannon, who works at the State Board of Elections in Raleigh. Gannon told me that his office had mailed out 35,000 absentee ballots, and that “tens of thousands” of provisional ballots (approximately 50,000) were also still outstanding. He said that while all provisional ballots will be counted, probably only “a fraction” of the absentee ballots will even be mailed back in. Based on 2012 returns, we can expect that around 6,000 such ballots will be counted this week, and they will include military ballots from overseas.

So let’s suppose that 6,000 absentee ballots and 50,000 provisional ballots will be counted by November 18. For McCrory to win the election, about 33,000 of the outstanding votes must be cast in his favor. Some pundits say that won’t happen because such ballots usually fall in line with voting trends in each county. If that happens, Cooper could conceivably end up with a wider margin of victory than he has now. Meanwhile, on Saturday, the McCrory campaign demanded that the 90,000 Durham county votes be re-counted because another machine failure had caused those votes to be tabulated by hand.

Irrespective of this week’s final tally, the real story of the gubernatorial contest is about the people who did not vote for Pat McCrory. To make my point, let’s look at vote totals in Forsyth and Guilford counties, from 2012 and 2016. Four years ago McCrory received 87,499 votes in Forsyth and 114,906 in Guilford. Last week those totals fell to 77,144 and 93,893 respectively. Translation? 31,000 residents of Forsyth and Guilford who voted for McCrory in 2012, abandoned him last week. To put things in even sharper perspective, in Forsyth county alone where Republicans fared very well, 5,200 people in just 14 precincts who voted for Pat in 2012, did not vote for him this time around. That would have been enough votes to keep McCrory in office.

So why the great migration away from Pat McCrory? Voters in Mecklenburg might say it was his support for toll lanes on I-77. Voters in Wilmington could have been angry about film industry revenues going out of state because Pat pulled back on incentive money. And voters in other areas are still concerned about pollution from the Duke Energy spill. But let’s be honest. Pat’s 2016 numbers are mainly down because of HB2, what it represents and what it has cost the state.

Ironically, Lt. Governor Dan Forest, who called the General Assembly into special session to vote on HB2, and was a principal architect of the controversial bill, won re-election in a landslide. Meanwhile Pat, who tried to prevent HB2, was unfairly thrown under the bus by members of both parties, the media, and, the voters.

I don’t mind someone being tossed out of office for malfeasance, corruption, or for doing a bad job. But losing re-election for not wanting boys and girls to shower together, defies common sense.

Since taking office nearly four years ago, Pat McCrory brought down unemployment levels, and grew the median average income by 21% while the nation as a whole increased by only 7%. He balanced the budget and left us with a substantial surplus to be used in case of another economic downturn. He paid off our debt to the federal government, and he banked a rainy day fund (which Cooper opposed) that is now helping flood victims get back on their feet. He also fought successfully for passage of the $2 billion dollar Connect NC bond, and did so with bipartisan support. Yet some of the very people who benefitted from his many accomplishments withheld their vote for him last week. I guess a lot of folks have short memories.

And what was it about Roy Cooper’s record that lured voters away from McCrory? Roy mismanaged the crime lab, left the Duke lacrosse team hanging for a year, waged war on nasal decongestants, was MIA when the Governor asked for help with Connect NC, did nothing to keep health insurers from price-gouging their customers, and dodged the press at every turn.

I don’t know how the final vote will look, but it would be ironic if absentee ballots propel a man into office who has been largely absent himself.