Triad Today

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.

Every four years about this time, we hear politicians tell us that “every vote counts.” Concurrently we also hear stories of election fraud which make us wonder if that axiom is really moot. There were hanging chads in Florida in 2000, rigged machines in Ohio in 2004, and this year we were treated to partisan corruption by the DNC and CNN against Bernie Sanders. In addition to alleged fraud, the political system itself can also make us cynical about the importance of our vote. After all, the electoral college essentially tells voters in smaller states that their ballot doesn’t matter as much as those in larger states. But thanks to an already tightening presidential race, and the specter of the 12th amendment waiting in the wings, every single vote really will count this time. More on the 12th Amendment in a moment. First let’s examine who actually votes and when they vote here in the Tar Heel State.

In 2012, 48% of North Carolinians who voted early were Democrats, and 31% were Republicans. The actual tally was 893,000 to 585,000 respectively. As of last Friday, Democrats comprised 42% of early voters, and Republicans 30%, which means we’ve seen an increase in early voting for third party candidates this time. No surprise, given that both Trump and Clinton are highly unpopular. Early voting across North Carolina may also tell us about the strength of the Obama coalition.

In 2012, 520,000 African Americans turned out to vote early for the President, but this year that number dropped to 473,000. It’s one reason that the Triad in particular has been targeted by the Clinton campaign as a must-win region in a must-win state, and it’s why the President and his wife have made so many visits to our area. Michelle Obama recently reminded supporters at a rally that her husband won North Carolina in 2008 by just 200 votes per precinct, and lost the state in 2012 by 17 votes per precinct. It’s no wonder that one week later, speaking at a rally in Chapel Hill, the President himself told supporters, “the fate of the Republic rests on your shoulders!” Yet try as he may to protect his legacy and shore up support for Hillary, Mr. Obama may not be able to energize his urban base for a candidate with such high negatives. We’ll have to wait and see after today.

Speaking of today, you may not have to traverse long lines at the polls, because pundits have estimated that anywhere from 40 to 50% of North Carolinians voted early. I’m encouraged that so many people have come out to vote early, yet I’m concerned about the vote totals themselves. According to the State Board of Elections, only 68% of registered voters bothered to participate in the 2012 election. What does that mean in actual numbers? There are approximately 7.4 million people of voting age in North Carolina, but only 4.5 million of them voted four years ago. That means nearly 3 million registered voters stayed home instead of choosing between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Even worse, 18% of voting age residents have never bothered to register. So how do these discouraging statewide statistics translate to local data? In Guilford county, for example, there are approximately 350,000 adults of voting age, but in 2012, only 250,000 of them voted for president. That means over 100,000 people in Guilford county don’t bother to vote.

America is known as the “cradle of democracy”, yet our voting record says otherwise. In Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, 80% to 90% of people vote, compared to our 68%. We should be ashamed. With the convenience of early voting and the availability of absentee ballots, there is just no excuse for not voting, especially this year when every vote in North Carolina actually WILL count. As of this writing, Clinton and Trump are running neck and neck nationally, and Hillary enjoys a narrow lead in our state. So why are our votes so important this time? The answer is, the 12th Amendment.

Political pundits have focused on how Trump can reach the requisite 270 electoral votes needed to win, but they continually miss the point. Donald Trump doesn’t need to get to 270, he just has to prevent Hillary from getting to 270. If both candidates fall short of 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment requires that Congress settle the matter by polling all 50 states, each of which only gets to cast one vote. It’s a great system because it gives New Hampshire the same clout as California, or North Carolina the same status as New York. The actual vote is cast by the state’s House of Representatives, and is to be done in accordance with the political party who dominates that chamber. Republicans control 34 state Houses, and a simple majority vote wins, thus Donald Trump would become president by a vote of 34 to 16. But we can’t get to this scenario unless Trump first wins North Carolina, then wins the rest of the swing states, AND takes at least one or two states away from Clinton. It’s a long shot for the Republican nominee, but stranger things have happened. Clinton, for her part, is trying to make sure that doesn’t happen, thus the myriad of campaign stops here by her and her high profile surrogates.

UVA political science professor Larry Sabato once said, “Every election is determined by the people who show up.” His observation is profound. If North Carolinians, (and we in the Triad in particular) show up to vote today, we can play a major role in determining who will occupy the Oval Office come January. Ours is an awesome responsibility which demands that more than 68% of us show up. So put down this newspaper, and get to the polls now, because today, every vote WILL count.

Last week, I had Governor Pat McCrory as a guest on Triad Today. I had also invited Attorney General Roy Cooper to join us, but he declined. During the half-hour program, the Governor and I discussed a number of topics, including education, the economy, and HB2, the law that may threaten McCrory’s chance at a second term. This was the eighth time Governor McCrory has appeared on the show, and as always he was candid, and never dodged any questions, or gave sound bite answers. We taped the show on Wednesday, October 26 as he was winding his way back to Raleigh from Kinston, where he had made yet another tour of Hurricane Matthew’s destruction.

Longworth: Recap for us how you’ve reshaped our economy in your first term.

McCrory: Four years ago, North Carolina had the 5th highest unemployment rate in the country. We were at about 9.4% and were losing jobs left and right. We owed the federal government $2.6 billion dollars that we had borrowed for unemployment benefits, and I didn’t know that until I became governor. I also inherited a $500 million dollar misforecast on Medicaid spending. We had the highest income tax and corporate tax in the southeast, and government was very inefficient. I was an outsider coming in and we had to become change agents, and that meant stepping on toes on both the right and the left. But we’ve made a lot of changes, and the results speak for themselves. We paid off the $2.6 billion dollars in unemployment debt, and as of two weeks ago, I’m proud to report that we have $2 billion dollars in reserve for unemployment, so if we have another recession, we won’t have to tax businesses, we’ll be ready for it. And because of the hurricane, I’m waiving some of the unemployment rules and procedures. And guess what money we do that with? The $2 billion dollar reserve.

Longworth: Over the past three years, the median average income has risen 7% nationally, while under your administration, it’s risen by 21% in North Carolina. Why don’t we ever hear about that?

McCrory: Because Roy Cooper keeps changing the subject, saying, “I’ve talked to some people who say they’re working harder and longer than ever before.” But the fact is they’re WORKING now. They were not working four years ago. I try to talk about the facts, not rhetoric.

Longworth: Mr. Cooper has criticized you for putting so much money in our Rainy Day Fund, but didn’t that help out after the flooding?

McCrory: One week before the hurricane, Roy was in Lumberton (a place that would be hard hit by the storm) and he gave a speech saying that I put too much money in the Rainy Day Fund, and should have spent the money on education. Well, we had the Rainy Day Fund, and it rained. It rained.

Longworth: Roy also criticized you because teacher pay is 41st in the nation. Was there more to this story?

McCrory: (smiles) Yeah, we were 48th when I got elected, and next year we’ll be 33rd or 34th based upon policies we passed in the last three months.

Longworth: Cooper’s ads also say we’re losing teachers to other states.

McCrory: Actually we’ve lost a thousand teachers to other states, but we’ve gained 2,000 teachers from other states.

Longworth: Your opponent says he’s fixed the backlog in the state crime lab.

McCrory: All he did was contract the backlog out, so now the backlog is somewhere else.

Longworth: Speaking of crime, let’s talk about the recent unrest in Charlotte, where you used to be mayor. Their police department practices diversity in hiring, has community policing, and is a model system, yet when a black officer shot a black suspect, Black Lives Matter staged a protest, then riots ensued. BLM has a noble cause, but did they and the media exacerbate the situation?

McCrory: Absolutely. If you talk to anyone outside of the state, you’d think we had 3,000 protestors, but it was only 300. But among those 300, we probably had 50 or 60 anarchists, and it doesn’t take many anarchists to cause trouble.

Longworth: In the aftermath, you came under fire for putting restrictions on the release of body cam footage. Why the restrictions?

McCrory: Because we not only had to protect the public’s right to know, but we had to protect the constitutional rights of the victim, and of the person being investigated for shooting, which could include a police officer. A judge will determine when the footage can be seen, but, meanwhile, the new law lets family members see the video within three to four days of the incident.

Longworth: Your former employer, Duke Energy is responsible for arsenic-laden coal ash leaking into the Dan River and other tributaries. Earlier this year, the state sent a letter to residents telling them the drinking water now meets federal standards and is safe to drink. Did that letter in any way mislead people, and did you allow anyone to drink unsafe water?

McCrory: Absolutely not, in fact they’re the same standards that President Obama promotes in the Triad and all over. This was just another third party PAC creating a controversy. It’s a very sad commentary on how we’re misleading people about the safety of our water.

Our most involved discussion centered on HB 2, the so-called “bathroom bill”, which was triggered by the passage of a local ordinance in Charlotte that purportedly was designed to protect the civil rights of transgender persons. As it turns out, the ordinance was as much political as social and, if left in place, would have jeopardized individual privacy rights as well as the success of local businesses.

Longworth: Recap for us how we got into this mess.

McCrory: It started with a group called HRC, the Human Rights Campaign, a very powerful national group who helped Mayor Roberts get elected, then convinced her to pass a mandate on all private sector entities that have public facilities, restrooms, locker rooms, showers, that they must recognize gender identity. In other words, a man who thinks he’s a woman would be allowed to use the women’s shower. And if you didn’t obey the ordinance, you could get a $500 fine and a 30 day jail sentence.

Longworth: So did you rush to call the General Assembly back into session?

McCrory: No, I begged the Mayor not to pass the ordinance. I wrote her a letter saying, “You’re trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Longworth: So why didn’t you just refuse to sign HB2 when the legislature brought it to you?

McCrory: Because the Charlotte ordinance was going to go into effect within eight days if I didn’t sign our bill. I’m not going to allow an ordinance threatening a jail sentence to someone who doesn’t recognize gender identity, which is a whole new definition of man and woman, and of boy and girl in our schools. But I did issue an executive order prohibiting any types of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Longworth: Wasn’t the Charlotte ordinance unconstitutional?

McCrory:The Attorney General should have declared it unconstitutional, and intervened immediately, but he refused to do it because he was in the pocket, doing fundraisers with Mayor Roberts.

Longworth: You can’t legally repeal HB 2, so how does this get resolved?

McCrory: Most likely the Supreme Court will determine the definition of gender. It’s a federal issue. We don’t need every town having their own civil rights act. We have one civil rights act, the 1964 act.

Though I’m not supposed to make endorsements in this column, I can report and comment on facts. And the facts are that Roy Cooper has deliberately misrepresented Pat McCrory’s record of accomplishments, both at debates and in TV ads. Pat brought our state’s economy back from the brink, and managed to grow jobs and salaries while paying off our debts and building surplus and emergency funds. And, as it turns out, it was Roy Cooper who could have prevented the entire HB2 debacle by declaring the Charlotte ordinance illegal. Instead he allowed the controversy to develop, then tossed a grenade into Pat’s lap and waited for it to explode.

I believe Pat McCrory will eventually be vindicated and appreciated for his leadership. The question is, will that happen before or after November 8?

Ten years ago this month, the late Dennis Green, at the time head coach of the Arizona Cardinals, went on a now-legendary post-game rant about his team’s loss to the powerful Chicago Bears. Asked by a reporter why the Cardinals lost, Green replied emphatically, “The Bears ARE what we thought they were.” Truth is, Coach Green had always suspected how dominant the Bears were, but it took tangible evidence to confirm his worst fears.

It’s been the same way with how many of us view Hillary Clinton. For years we’ve suspected that she was dishonest, deceptive, duplicitous, and devious, but only recently have those suspicions been validated. Thanks to a series of books, articles, and leaked emails, we now have a more accurate depiction of how the former Secretary of State operates, or to paraphrase Coach Green, we now know “Hillary IS who we thought she was.” What follows are just a few of the many indicators and instances.

“DUPLICITY”

During the Democratic primary debates, Senator Bernie Sanders repeatedly called on Ms. Clinton to release the text of her private speeches to Wall Street fat cats. Bernie claimed that those speeches, each of which Hillary received $225,000 to make, would prove that his opponent is an advocate for the very same bankers and speculators who had caused the great recession, and cost millions of people their savings, homes, and jobs. Turns out that Bernie’s suspicions were right on the money (pardon the expression). Thanks to a Wikileak email dump earlier this month, we now know that Hillary professed two disparate sets of beliefs – one when she appeared at public rallies, and the other when speaking privately to her Wall Street buddies. Publicly Ms. Clinton claimed to be a champion of us little people, and she bragged about how tough she had been, and would continue to be on greedy Wall Street executives. Privately she was telling Goldman Sachs and other financial industry folks, that she couldn’t relate to the “struggles” of the middle class. She even suggested that the big banks should self-regulate. And, she told one group that the pressure on government officials to divest themselves of assets had become “onerous.” No doubt Hillary is a multi-tasker and can do two things at one time, but who knew she could also face two different directions at the same time.

“BERNIE BAITING”

According to the latest batch of leaked emails, Hillary expected that Elizabeth Warren would oppose her in the primaries. Instead it was Bernie Sanders who answered the call, and that caught the Clinton camp off-guard. They were unprepared for just how fast Bernie’s movement caught fire, especially among young people and first-time voters. But Bernie also appealed to disenfranchised people of both parties who were still struggling from the recession. Gradually Ms. Clinton was forced to move her public positions to the left in order to stop the erosion of her liberal base, and to the right in order to hold the middle class. She softened her position on NAFTA and disavowed her previous support for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the former of which had killed over a million jobs, and the latter of which promised more of the same. The problem is that her pandering strategy wasn’t working. But thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that Hillary and then DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Shultz were so worried about Bernie, that several DNC staffers devised a plan to smear the Vermont Senator, a man who Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta disdainfully referred to as a “doofus”. The biased DNC also scheduled primary debates for nights in which television viewers weren’t viewing. And, behind the scenes, Ms. Shultz arranged to appoint Clinton delegates to chair nearly all of the convention committees. But the leaked emails also show that in order to keep Bernie from bolting the party, Hillary “threw him a bone” by including some of his policy positions into the party platform, with no intention of acting on them after November 8. As president, she may come to regret her treatment of Sanders, who, if Dems take the Senate, could prove to be a thorn in her side as chairman of the budget committee.

“EMAIL SERVERS”

Earlier this year, FBI director James Comey concluded his investigation of Hillary’s use of private email servers to transmit classified documents. While he criticized the former Secretary of State for reckless mishandling of government materials, he did not recommend prosecution. That was then and this is now. First of all, Hillary and her minions erased over 30,000 emails which might have allowed Comey to reach a different conclusion, and second, a new batch of emails have been recently leaked which prove that Hillary and her staff ran a “pay for play” operation and tried to obstruct justice. At one point, Clinton tells her staff that Qatar is a major funder of ISIS, then turns around and accepts a $25 million donation from that nation to her family’s foundation. And, late last week another leaked email shows a disturbing $12 million transaction between Mrs. Clinton and Morocco. We also learned from other leaks that after Hillary received a subpoena for all of her emails, her Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy offered a bribe to an FBI agent in exchange for declassifying a key Benghazi document. The quid pro quo never materialized, but Kennedy’s attempt was criminal in itself. It’s no wonder that Hillary wanted multiple private servers in her home, away from the scrutiny of prying eyes. Unfortunately for her, collateral emails from her staff have now surfaced, giving us a clearer picture of why she sought such privacy.

These, of course, are only a few of Hillary’s many transgressions which have recently come to light. Others include her 2008 strategy to attack then Senator Obama for being a Muslim, a coke head, and for advocating gay adoptions. She also believed that the ACA would fail. And, she benefitted from having debate questions leaked to her by DNC Vice Chair Donna Brazile through TV One moderator Roland Martin, giving her yet another unfair edge over Bernie in the primaries.

If the polls don’t change over the next two weeks, Hillary Clinton will move back into the White House, this time as the most unpopular and most mistrusted commander-in-chief in history. Hillary IS who we thought she was. The question is: will she continue to be who we think she is over the next four years?

240 years ago Patrick Henry and his fellow founding fathers talked a lot of trash about the British Empire, and rightfully so. “Taxation without representation” wasn’t just a complaint, it was the rally cry of an entire revolution. But a funny thing happened on the way to independence. The more we distanced ourselves from England’s oppressive policies, the more we seemed to embrace them. For example, no sooner had we immigrated here to escape religious intolerance, than we began to burn women at the stake. Ironically, though, as time passed, England began to embrace the ideals we aspired to, while we gradually lost sight of them.

Today, England views war as a last resort, while our last five presidents have called for invasions and bombings like some sort of first responder to a burning building. England offers free healthcare for all permanent residents, while Americans struggle to pay premiums, then have to declare bankruptcy when faced with a catastrophic illness. Over the pond, violent crime is almost nonexistent, even though police routinely don’t carry weapons. On the other hand, there are more guns in America than there are Americans, yet we wonder why people are killing each other. But perhaps the most obvious disparity between us and the Motherland, is the way we go about electing our governing bodies.

In England, the campaign season usually runs for one month, which is about 23 months shorter than ours. British politicians cannot advertise on television, while our candidates saturate the airwaves. In England, the political parties cannot spend more than $29 million dollars, while over here, Hillary Clinton alone will raise close to a billion dollars. There’s also a big difference in what the down-ballot candidates can spend in our respective countries. In England, local candidates can’t spend more than $60,000, while here in America, congressional candidates are free to raise as much money as they like.

Last month, the Senate Leadership Fund spent $8 million dollars on TV ads for Senator Richard Burr. And while Burr’s opponent Deborah Ross is keeping pace, other congressional challengers aren’t faring as well. According to OpenSecrets.org, second district congressman George Holding has raised $2 million dollars while his opponent has only raised $26,000. The scenario in our 5th district is similar, with incumbent Virginia Foxx ahead by over a million dollars. And then there’s the D.C. super PAC that poured $1 million dollars into Ted Budd’s 13th district campaign, which assured him the GOP nomination, and gives him about a million advantages over his Democratic opponent Bruce Davis.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Congress could tackle campaign finance reform, but it won’t, because elected officials in both parties don’t want to kill the golden goose. In contrast, the political system in Great Britain has successfully evolved without involving big corporations and lobbyists who expect quid pro quo.

According to Matt Badcock of Leeds Beckett University (and adjusting for inflation), British politicians now spend less than half per vote than they did in the 19th century. That’s progress. Meanwhile, Justin Fisher of London’s Brunel University described America’s political system as, “the worst of all worlds—focused on raising money and not about getting ideas across.”

If you doubt that assessment, then just watch a few campaign ads, or catch a few minutes of a debate. Trump and Clinton mainly talk about obscene speech and groping. McCrory and Cooper spar over bathroom protocol. And Burr and Ross just want to talk about sex offenders. To paraphrase Mr. Fisher, the more money our candidates spend, the less they actually say.

Our only hope is to create impartial re-districting commissions, strike down Citizens United, and elect representatives who favor term limits. In the meantime, I’d like to see local broadcasters impose a cap on political inventory which would be a de facto move to limit campaign spending. I’d also like to see a joint FEC/FCC commission established to impose hefty fines on any candidate who airs a false statement.

Of course, if all else fails, we can always ask England to take us back. But it would be much easier and far less embarrassing if we simply tried to embrace the ideals that brought us here in the first place.

Last Friday evening while FOX news, the Weather Channel, and local TV stations throughout the South were keeping us updated on Hurricane Matthew, CNN devoted their broadcasts to Hurricane Donald. Earlier that day, the Washington Post had published the text of a video tape from 2005, on which Mr. Trump could be heard having a raunchy conversation with TV personality Billy Bush. CNN acquired the tape, and aired it over and over again, creating a perfect storm of controversy and outrage.

The now infamous recording was made on the Access Hollywood bus as Trump was about to visit the set of Days of Our Lives. Both Trump and Bush had been pre-wired for sound, but were not aware that the tape was rolling. In the few moments they spent together aboard the bus, Billy and Donald engaged in what can only be described as bombastic banter of sexual braggadocio. At one point Trump says, “When you’re a star, they (women) let you do it. You can do anything—grab ’em by the p*#%y…” Trump also referred to a time when he tried to “f*#k” a married woman, but was rebuffed. So there you have it. Two grown men were acting like college frat boys in a locker room, talking about women in a disgusting manner. To millions of men around the world who have ever participated in team sports, the Trump/Bush exchange was nothing they hadn’t heard before. But to CNN’s panel of holier than thou political analysts, Trump’s misogynistic language was shocking and appalling.

CNN anchor Don Lemon and his basket of deplorable panelists called Trump “lewd”, a “pervert,” and, a “sexual predator”. For hours they cast aspersions upon Trump, and feigned disgust over a tape which they hypocritically kept airing repeatedly. With each passing hour, CNN continued to grow the story as if to throw fuel on an eleven-year-old fire, all with the intention of increasing their ratings by stirring up a national frenzy. One of the panelists became so unhinged that she had to leave the set. Meanwhile, a parade of Republican congressmen who never liked Trump in the first place, responded to CNN’s morality play, and called for the nominee to step down.

Let’s be clear. I am not a Trump supporter, but I have several problems with how the Washington Post and CNN went about their business on October 7.

First of all, Donald Trump was a private citizen in 2005, not a presidential candidate. Second, he never admitted to Billy Bush or indicated in any way that he has ever raped or sexually assaulted a woman. He merely bragged about how women would let you grope them if you are a “star”, and how he once tried, but failed, to have sex with Nancy O’Dell. Third, even if the tape had been recorded yesterday instead of eleven years ago, Trump’s off-color remarks pale in comparison to the expletives of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and both Clintons.

So why the furor over a few words spoken a decade ago by a brash billionaire, who didn’t know he was being recorded? And why after all this time was the tape leaked? Let’s not be naive. My instincts and several decades in politics tell me that the Clinton camp probably knew about the tape long ago, and was waiting to unleash it at the right moment. That moment came last Friday, coincidentally just as some of Hillary’s bank buddy speeches were leaked to the press. The text of those speeches proved what Bernie Sanders had said all along—that Clinton was in bed with Wall Street, and that she only pretended to be an advocate for the middle class. Had those speeches and the DNC emails been leaked eight months ago, Senator Sanders would be the Democratic nominee today. Instead, Hillary’s deceitful duplicity has been buried under an avalanche of outrage over Donald Trump’s potty mouth.

Meanwhile, CNN’s panelists continually mused over what they should tell their daughters about a presidential candidate who talks dirty and objectifies women. Perhaps instead they should worry about how to explain to their daughters why CNN never questions Hillary over her villification of the women who slept with her husband, or why CNN ignored a hurricane that killed 900 people.

Again, I’m not excusing how Trump acts, or how he treats people. And now that California has eliminated the statute of limitations for rape and sexual assault, with more states to follow, Donald should go to prison if he is ever found guilty of aggression toward women. Until then, he is merely a childish, spoiled brat, whose erratic hate speech is turning America into an international joke. We don’t need Hillary’s covert political machine, or her buddies at the Washington Post and CNN to give us reasons not to vote for Trump. He gives us those all by himself.

Still, I hate to be lectured to by drama queen journalists with a political motive. Last Friday, CNN’s pro-Hillary team blew more hot air than Hurricane Matthew, and feigned concern over the long-term damage Donald Trump’s obscenities would do to children. In the process, they managed to sensationalize a private conversation, and build it into a national crisis. Lemon and company simply ignored a basic precept of common sense: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. Go tell that to your daughters.

I always thought my parents would live forever. That’s just how children think. But even as an adult, I still felt like a kid whenever I was around Mom and Dad. Sometimes those feelings can also extend to people outside of our immediate family. People who are so familiar to us, and so much a part of our life, that we can’t imagine a time when they wouldn’t be around. That’s how I felt about Arnold Palmer. Sadly, his time came on September 25. He was 87.

Arnold Palmer was a mythic figure who could do almost anything. He transformed and transcended the game of golf, and moved his sport into the television age. He took heroic risks on the course that sometimes led to disaster, but they also led to 92 tour victories, including seven majors. He flew his own jet. He invented products, designed golf courses, and created a business empire. He hadn’t won a PGA tour event since 1973, yet remained one of the world’s top money-making athletes until the day he died.

Three years ago this month, Mr. Palmer visited his beloved Wake Forest University for the unveiling of a commemorative statue. The impressive sculpture stands nine feet in height (sixteen feet if you measure from the tip of the club head), and it captures the powerful golf swing he made famous at the 1964 Masters. Immediately following the ceremony, I was granted the only private interview with Arnie. I had interviewed hundreds of big name celebrities over the past 40 years, but this was different. As a child I had been a vicarious member of Arnie’s Army every weekend, and now I found myself sitting next to the man. As the crew checked camera and microphone levels, I confessed to Arnold that I was nervous about meeting him. He reached over and put his right hand on my forearm and smiled as if to say, “Relax son, I’m nobody special”. But he WAS special. That’s why his alma mater erected a statue in his honor. And it’s why Senior Services asked him to deliver the five millionth Meals on Wheels lunch earlier that same day. It was not a publicity stunt, it was just another example of how Palmer had dedicated his life to helping others, including serving as national March of Dimes chairman, awarding college scholarships, and founding a women’s and children’s hospital. But Arnold Palmer never bragged about his public service, nor about his wealth, or his athletic abilities. It was a character trait he learned from his father Deacon Palmer, who taught Arnie to be humble. That humility was evident when he answered my first question.

JL: Everyone knows the story of how your father, Deacon Palmer put a golf club in your hand at age three, but at what age were you cocky enough to realize you were a great golfer?

AP: That’s a good question because my father was tough, and he kept me from becoming a cocky kid. His mannerisms, his teaching held me down, and at the time I thought, “Well, boy, he’s too tough on me”. But later on I realized that the things he was doing are the things that let me do what I did. He never got overwhelmed with what I was doing, or how I was playing, and he rarely ever told me how good I was. He would say, ‘Just show me, and that’s good enough for me’.

JL: I understand, but when did you THINK you were really good?

AP: (it was when) I came to Wake Forest and I was able to compete with the people I was playing against.

That’s an understatement. While attending Wake Forest College (then located in Wake County), Palmer captured both the Southern Conference crown and NCAA individual title in 1949 and 1950, led the Demon Deacon golf team to three Southern Conference championships, and won the inaugural 1954 ACC championship. Back then, there was no Arnie’s Army. That came after he turned pro. As Palmer’s fame grew, so did the crowds, thousands of whom followed him from hole to hole, cheering him on, and sometimes taunting his opponents. I wondered what impact those fans might have had on his game, and that of his competitors.

JL: Today we hear about the crowds at big football stadiums being the 12th man on the field, and affecting the outcome of a game. Did “Arnie’s Army” help you play better? And, conversely, do you feel it might have intimidated the men you played against?

AP: Well I think both are true. And I think it encouraged me because I felt a responsibility to the people, as I did to my father, to perform at the top of my profession.

JL:Did your competitors feel so intimidated that they missed a putt here and there?

AP: (smiling) Well I can only speculate on that and say, ‘I hope they felt intimidated’.

I know how they felt, because I was also intimidated by Arnie, but not for long. I will particularly remember his genuine warmth, and how he acted the same on camera as he did off, treating everyone in our crew like we were really special. It’s what made HIM so special. Still, the irony of the occasion didn’t escape me. We were there to commemorate an easily measurable statue of a man who never knew just how tall he stood in our eyes.

Immediately following incidents of high profile violence, like last week’s shooting deaths and riots in Charlotte, politicians are quick to say, “Now is not the time for assessing blame. Now is not the time to point fingers.” I disagree. Now is precisely the time we need to point fingers of blame. And since I have eight fingers, I will point them at eight different sources of blame for the death of Keith Lamont Scott, and subsequent civil unrest in our state’s largest city. First, some background.

Last week Keith Scott, a 43-year-old black man, was sitting in his car waiting for his child to get out of school, when several Charlotte Mecklenburg police officers rolled up on him. Actually they sort of stumbled onto him, because they were supposed to be serving a warrant on another man, when they noticed Scott had marijuana and a gun in his vehicle. We now know from videos released by Mr. Scott’s wife, and by the CMPD, that the officers repeatedly shouted, “Drop the gun!” Mrs. Scott then tells the police that Keith has no weapon (not true), suffers from a brain injury, and is taking medication. The police continue to demand that Scott drop his gun, but to no avail. At that point, Scott’s wife says, “Keith don’t do it! Don’t do it Keith!” A hail of gunfire follows, and Mr. Scott lay dead. Brentley Vinson, a young African American cop, reportedly fired the fatal shot.

Only days before in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Terence Crutcher, an unarmed black man, was killed in a similar incident. In that case, citizens of Tulsa responded by holding prayer vigils. Days later, Charlotte responded to its crisis in a very different way. Hundreds of people took to the streets in what they hoped would be a peaceful protest, but their assembly was hijacked by angry agitators, and a violent riot ensued. Confrontations with police left several officers injured and one protestor dead. Stores were vandalized and looted. Tear gas was dispensed, and dozens of arrests were made.

So why did residents of one city react responsibly, while residents of the other turn violent? No one seems to know the answer, least of all Mayor Jennifer Roberts, who told CNN, “This is not who Charlotte is”. Perhaps, but constructive finger pointing now could prevent a tragic encore in the future. Here then, are eight groups or individuals who I believe are most responsible for the violence which occurred in Charlotte last week.

1. Keith Scott

Fair or not, Scott is at least partially to blame for his own death. True, he was merely in the right place at the wrong time, but he also possessed marijuana and a handgun, both of which are illegal, especially for an ex-con with a history of violent crimes. We might not know for awhile, or ever, if his alleged brain injury and medication caused him not to respond to police commands, but if he was disabled by those factors, he shouldn’t have been operating a motor vehicle.

He also should not have been killed. Nevertheless, he still shares in the responsibility for his demise.

2. Police

A lot went wrong last Tuesday for the CMPD. For one thing, officers botched service of a warrant on one man, and instead confronted another (Scott) because they saw marijuana in his car. Second, whether true or not, once they were told that Mr. Scott had a brain injury and was on medication, the police should have remained behind the cover of their vehicles and held their fire. If Scott then advanced on them, then officer Vinson should have only wounded him. Either Brentley Vinson meant to kill Mr. Scott, or his aim was off. If the former, Vinson should be prosecuted. If the latter, he should go on desk duty until he can re-qualify with his weapon at a marksman level. No matter how well-intentioned, the police are partly to blame for the civil unrest in their city.

3. Rioters

Though inspired by the fiery rhetoric and involvement of others (see items 4-7), those who hijacked an otherwise peaceful protest, are, of course, directly to blame for the death and destruction that ensued during last week’s rioting. They vandalized and looted stores, set fires in the streets, and assaulted reporters, and none of it made any sense. Larry Elder, an African American radio talk show host, said it best when he told FOX News, “This is a black suspect who was killed by a black police officer, whose boss is a black police chief, and rioters are attacking white people. What’s wrong with this picture?” That question should be asked of the groups and organizations who fueled the riots.

4. Black Lives Matter

Perhaps in the beginning, BLM was a well-intentioned movement whose mission was to stop police from systematically mistreating and shooting African Americans in situations where such actions were not indicated. However, over time, BLM has devolved into a mob-like entity, with little tolerance for anyone of any color who doesn’t march in lock-step with their sociopolitical agenda. Earlier this year, BLM protestors vandalized police stations in California and called for the killing of police in New York. Not all BLM followers are violent, but their rhetoric has become increasingly inflammatory, so they must accept some of the blame for what happened in Charlotte.

5. Nation of Islam

No sooner had CNN turned on its cameras, than representatives from the Nation of Islam showed up to fan the flames. Standing before a gathering of the national media, Rev. B.J. Murphy shouted “There is no other God but Allah.” He also said what happened to Keith Scott was a “modern day lynching”, and he urged all black citizens of Charlotte, “Don’t spend no money with no white folks!”

Hours later, the riots started. Rev. Murphy must accept some of the blame for what happened that night.

6. Clergy and Peaceful Protesters

The people who first took to the streets of downtown Charlotte last week, did so in part to demonstrate their displeasure with what they believed was a growing national trend of unarmed black citizens being killed by police. Among the peaceful protesters were a number of local white church leaders, including Rev. Robin Tanner, who heads up the Charlotte Clergy Coalition. Once the violence started, she blamed police for using tear gas. Hey Rev. Tanner, you can’t stop looters and rock throwers by praying with them. Then there was Rev. Steve Knight of the Mission Gathering Christian church who implied to CNN that the police might have lied about who shot a civilian protestor. Comments like those did nothing to de-fuse the civil unrest, and only served to undermine efforts by the police to restore order. Unlike the epic marches of MLK, the one by Charlotte protestors was disorganized, lacked leadership, and offered no substantive path to reform. In the end, they did more harm than good, so they must accept some of the blame for how things turned out.

7. Social Media

Today, everyone who has a cell phone camera thinks he’s a veteran TV news reporter. Instead, what often gets videotaped is posted on youtube out of context, and can be damaging to innocent people, and obstructive to investigations. In like manner, people who tweet inaccurate and inflammatory information can cause great harm. Keith Scott’s family used social media to spread the message that their loved one had been murdered by police for no reason, and that Keith was a model citizen. Such video and tweets gave rioters and looters an excuse to do what they do best, and in the process, a civilian protester was killed. The DOJ and FCC need to work with Congress to pass and enforce new laws that would prosecute social media users whose actions incite violence.

8. Electronic Media

Asked about their role in the Charlotte protests, CNN’s Don Lemon said, “We have a duty to cover it.” Maybe yes and maybe no. It’s one thing to cover news, it’s another to help facilitate those who make it. In cases of escalating street violence, CNN might adopt the kind of on-air policy set by the NFL, who instructs their TV directors not to show bad behavior by fans, for fear that such coverage would only encourage more bad acts. CNN kept us informed about the unrest in Charlotte, but they also gave looters and agitators a world-wide forum. In that regard, CNN and other news media must accept partial blame for stoking the flames of unrest.

So there you have it. I’ve pointed all eight of my fingers at the people most to blame for the mess in Charlotte. I only hope it will do some good. And just in case you’re wondering which finger is which, my middle finger is the one pointed at the rioters. I hope they get the message.

Until last week the biggest sports story making news was about the San Francisco 49ers’ multi-millionaire quarterback Colin Kaepernick refusing to stand for the national anthem because he blames America and all police for isolated incidents of deadly racism. He also wears socks emblazoned with cartoon images of pigs dressed as cops. No doubt, young Mr. Kaepernick has the right to protest, and I have the right to wish someone would stick those pig socks in his mouth. In any event, Colin’s misdirected angst has been moved off of the front page and supplanted with another sports story which also has wide ranging social implications.

Last week the NCAA and ACC issued back-to-back press releases (can you say collusion?), in which they announced that they were moving championship events out of North Carolina because of HB2, a bill they say violates the civil rights of transgender persons who cannot use the bathroom of their choice. HB2 as you recall was enacted at the end of March in response to an illegal ordinance passed by the Charlotte city council which would have required all private businesses to accommodate Transgenders who desire to use bathrooms that correspond to the gender to which they identify. That was five months ago. Now suddenly, 60 days before a gubernatorial election the NCAA and ACC have decided that they should take punitive action. NCAA President Mark Emmert told the Associated Press, “The decision of course, occurred completely independent of what kind of year it was around politics.” Hey Mark, don’t pee down my back and tell me it’s raining! I’m not that stupid, and neither are the majority of North Carolinians who know when someone is playing politics. Last week’s announcements were clearly political. They were also misguided and unnecessary. Here’s why.

First and foremost, no matter how odious it is, HB2 does nothing to restrict the use of bathroom facilities at any of the venues where championship events would have been held.

Second, HB2 is not enforceable on any level. That was made clear by a federal judge who recently ruled in favor of the UNC system.

Third, HB2 has nothing to do with civil or gender identity rights under Title IX, a fact ignored by President Lame Duck, who issued a letter to every public school superintendent in the nation, and threatened to withhold federal funds if they don’t make accommodations for Transgender students. Fortunately, a federal judge in Texas has ruled that Title IX is clear about biological gender rights, and has halted Obama’s social engineering, at least temporarily. Nevertheless, The NCAA and ACC have mistakenly tied Title IX to HB2, and feel they have the moral authority to
punish fans and athletes for living in a State where a handful of gerrymandered politicians have passed a confusing, unenforceable law.

That brings me back to politics. If the NCAA and ACC were offended by what they thought was a restrictive bill, they should have let the law take its course before banning major sporting events from our state. Governor McCrory has said he wants the Supreme Court to weigh in on HB2, and it probably will. Meanwhile the Governor, who did not write or create HB2, has made repeated attempts to work out a compromise with Charlotte’s crusading Mayor Jennifer Roberts, but to no avail. Thus far, Mayor Roberts has been unwilling to scuttle her illegal ordinance , but if she does, then there is reason to believe that HB2 would be repealed in short order. In any event, Ms. Roberts’ chess move to embarrass the Governor by passing an ordinance that she knew was unconstitutional, has been a gift from heaven for Roy Cooper, whose poll numbers continue to rise with every new boycott. And now the NCAA and ACC are trying to put the final nail in McCrory’s political coffin by taking punitive action just weeks before sports fans go to the polls. If you doubt Mr. Emmert’s motives, then just ask yourself why the NCAA didn’t also ban events from all of the other states which have similar laws to ours.

It is an understatement to say that recent sanctions by the NCAA and ACC have a lot of people upset. After all, we’ll forfeit over $150 million dollars from the loss of those championship events alone. Even some of the Republican and Democrat legislators who voted for HB2 are now running for cover, and everyone seems to be blaming McCrory for the whole mess. It’s the first time I can recall that a sitting Governor has been thrown under the bus by both parties over the same issue, and the NCAA and ACC have provided the fuel for that bus to keep moving.

Of course, HB2 still has its defenders, and there are also those of us who don’t appreciate being bullied and penalized by a sports association for something we didn’t do. The NCAA, after all, has a history of imposing arbitrary sanctions, and often penalizes incoming players for a rule that was violated by outgoing players. That’s why it pleases me that several members of Congress are looking into the possibility that the NCAA has violated its tax exempt status by interfering with and trying to influence our upcoming election. Theirs is a legitimate concern, and a Congressional investigation could have an impact on curbing unfair sports sanctions in the future.

In time, things will work out, and HB2 will go away. But what worries me is the possibility that the Transgender movement will use HB2 as a launching pad to re-visit Obama’s threat, which would force public schools to allow a 16-year-old boy who thinks he’s a girl, to shower with a 14-year-old who is biologically a girl.

A week ago I never thought I would long for the day when a disrespectful quarterback was the big news story. Now, thanks to the NCAA and ACC, I’m worried about lost revenues for the state, and lost innocence for our kids. The NCAA has overstepped its authority, and should have stayed out of the HB2 battle, at least until after the election. Of course, Mr. Emmert has the right to speak his mind, but I also have the right to want to stuff one of Kaepernick’s socks in his mouth.

Up until the last few decades, if I saw a surrogate being interviewed on the news, she was there to talk about carrying a baby to term for a couple who couldn’t conceive. Or if a surrogate appeared on an edgy daytime talk show, she might be discussing the benefits of helping couples learn how to couple. All that changed thanks to CNN. More on surrogates in a moment, but first, some background.

When CNN first went on the air in 1980 I was hired as a freelance reporter to cover special assignments. I found myself standing alongside Sam Donaldson where I asked candidate Ronald Reagan about the upcoming election. I camped out in the lobby of the State Department to await news of the return of our hostages from Iran. I also recall being laughed at by reporters from the major networks who thought CNN couldn’t do real news. Slowly but surely, however, viewers began to gravitate to the fledgling network, especially whenever there was big political news or an international crisis. Back then CNN was run and staffed by actual journalists who double-checked their sources before breaking a story. On-air anchors didn’t editorialize, and reporters didn’t spin. All that changed over time as ratings and revenues became increasingly important. In 1995, Ted Turner merged his beloved CNN with Time Warner, and five years later the cable giant was gobbled up by AOL. Somewhere along the way, the CNN that I knew had ceased to exist.

Today, CNN feeds the 24-hour beast by making news as entertaining as possible.

Producers no longer care if a story is right, so long as they break it first and milk it forever. CNN’s manic on-air approach led to the misidentification of family members and suspects at Sandy Hook and at the Boston marathon. And the network led viewers on an all-day tour de farce when covering the 2009 Colorado balloon boy saga, at one point reporting that the child might have fallen to his death. As it turned out, he was never inside the rogue balloon to begin with.

But CNN’s fall from journalistic grace is never more evident than it is in an election year. That’s when the network trots out a stable of partisan surrogates to fill up the airwaves. Sometimes the surrogates are retired military officers. Sometimes they are current or former congressmen and cabinet members. Sometimes, they are even family members of the candidate. And while blood relatives are loyal, they are not always helpful. Rick Perry and Ted Cruz, for example, suffered majored embarrassments when their respective spouses misspoke. And just last week, Hillary took a hit when Bill said that Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” was racist. It seems that Bill used that same slogan in his 1992 campaign, and then again in a TV ad for Hillary in 2008. Oops! Perhaps that’s why presidential campaigns rely so heavily on professional surrogates who are paid handsomely to parrot the views of the candidate, and defend his or her positions and gaffes at all costs.

This year, Trump and Clinton have sent over thirty different surrogates to appear on CNN, so you have to think there’s a method to their madness. However, according to Dan Schnur, a former Republican campaign official, the strategy of using substitutes isn’t going to matter at the end of the day. As reported by Nora Kelly in the May 24 edition of The Atlantic, Schnur said, “There hasn’t been much research to quantify surrogates’ influence, but they certainly don’t win or lose elections.” Perhaps that’s because these surrogates frequently engage in frenetic, on-air fight fests with one yelling over top of the other until neither can be understood. Or perhaps it’s just because they don’t say or scream anything new. Or, most likely it’s because what we as viewers really want, is to hear the candidate speak for himself. Ana Marie Cox probably agrees. Earlier this year she was invited to appear on Poppy Harlow’s program, and found herself seated across from Boris Epshteyn, a Trump spokesperson. As dailykos.com reported, Ms. Cox listened to Mr. Epshteyn spew his bilge until she couldn’t take it anymore. Speaking to Harlow, Cox said, “Before you ask me anything, I want to respond to Boris. I am not a paid surrogate. I’m not a Trump supporter, and I didn’t support Hillary in the primaries. I’m a journalist, and you’ve got me sitting here trying to debate a paid shill who can’t even stay on point.” Ms. Cox then proceeded to destroy Epshteyn with surgical precision. I wish all of CNN’s roundtable discussions were like that one.

The Cox/Epshteyn encounter notwithstanding, CNN obviously thinks it has a winning formula by subjecting viewers to an endless parade of paid spokespersons who argue with one another at the top of their lungs. But what I don’t understand is why Clinton and Trump need so many surrogates in the first place. After all, It only takes one surrogate to help you get pregnant. I guess it has something to do with the size of the baby you’re working with.