Some Buyers' Remorse Regarding Kay Hagan?

From Tom Campbell of NC Spin:

North Carolina's Junior Senator Kay Hagan is experiencing a bumpy take-off, to say the least. She is still occupying a two-room temporary office in the Senate basement, we're told. Cramped, hidden, and living out of boxes is not a good way to start a new job.

But she has staffing problems and has made some tactical mistakes in her first few weeks, especially among African Americans, one group that provided major support in her election. They are upset over two firings of staff African Americans. Fred Aikens, who stumped the state on her behalf during the campaign, was hired and fired after a day and a half on the job. Aikens, you might remember, was a candidate for State Auditor in last year's primaries. He is a former DOT Deputy Secretary, longtime legislative staffer, and former Colonel in the NC National Guard. Many are speculating that NC National Guard Adjutant General William Ingram had something to do with his firing.

Ingram and Aikens have a long history and it is contentious. It began several years ago when Aikens, then on active duty in Iraq with the Guard, sent a personal e-mail to a friend that was critical of top leadership in the Guard, only to find out his message had been intercepted and given to the AG. Aikens contends his rights of privacy and First Amendment rights were breached. Aikens was later relieved of his duties with the Guard and initiated a lawsuit which is now in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

But not only was Aikens fired from Hagan's staff but so was Muthoni Wambu, Hagan's state director. Chief of staff Crystal King didn't tell either of them why they were fired. The speculation is that Aikens' hiring has something to do with the state director's firing. The fact that two black staffers were summarily fired has set off a firestorm among African American leadership in the state. We understand that the Legislative Black Caucus and NAACP are looking into the firings. 

Perhaps all these angry, concerned parties are unaware of the $2,500 donation to the Simkins PAC.

But another separate issue is Hagan's support of union card-check (HT:Keith).  This is inconsistent with the "pro-business progressive" culture within the local media, and within some influential portions of the North Carolina Democratic establishment.   Some of these folks are going to find Hagan's position a bit difficult to reconcile. 

And some illusions regarding Hagan perhaps are being shattered.

Comments

[Fred Gregory]

Joe,

Disabuse yourself of that futile notion.

Democrats like one noted local blogger who champiomed Hagan's bid almost daily for the Senate at every turn are incapable of remorse on things of this sort unless of couse their heros are caught in flagrante delicto doing bathroom sex with a minor. Maybe. Yellow dogs to the bitter end !!

[Joe Guarino]

Maybe you're right, Fred. But I somehow detect the air of celebration in certain circles is not nearly as overt as it was previously. Perhaps it is just the passage of time. But perhaps it is also reality setting in.

[Bubba]

"Democrats like one noted local blogger who champiomed Hagan's bid almost daily for the Senate at every turn are incapable of remorse on things of this sort...."

Now just WHO could you possibly be talking about, Fred?

Isn't it amazing how some people's mindless cheerleading for a particular cause or candidate conveniently goes silent when the situation changes for the worse?

[Stormy]

For those of you that missed Rush Lilmbaugh's national address to the nation on FNC today, you missed an electrically-charged time at CPAC. Rush was on fire. It is safe to say that he has regenerated the conservative cause. Before Roch says it, yes, I am a Rush believer, because he speaks the truth. If you are a conservative, you need to catch a rerun of it. It wouldn't hurt a few moderates or independents to watch it as well. It' not necessary for liberals to watch it, as noting is likely to change your mind.

[keith]

stormy, i am sure it will be all over
you tube to embed or link to the speech.

[Bubba]

"....as nothing is likely to change your mind."

To think those folks change their mind is to presuppose that there is an actual mind to change.

Based on the contributions by most of our local and national Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" Usual Suspects, that particular point is debatable.

I think you are too generous here, Stormy.

[Roch101]

Hagan, while consistent, was self-contradictory with her positions on legislation regarding unions during the campaign. Her inability/unwillingness to explain her thinking was bothersome. I disagree that illusions are being shattered about Hagan. She was not an inspiring candidate who inspired any great promise, she won however because Dole was an even worse choice.

[Bubba]

"....she won however because Dole was an even worse choice."

She won because Chuckie Schumer created her, and Barry O carried her, regardless of what you and Ed Cone want us to believe.

It's the same basic scenario, with different players in the Schumer/Barry O roles, that we saw playing out locally in the Zack Matheny victory for City Council in 07.

[Stormy]

Truthfully, neither Hagan nor Dole was a good choice for Senator. Dole had the seat for four years and did little with it. Nothing in Hagan's track record suggested that she was qualified or would be successful in the seat. Hagan had to be asked to make the run against Dole. Hagan was fortunate to ride the coattails of Obama in North Carolina. If she had run in 2004, she wouldn't have scratched. We are saddled with a weak Senator for several years. We should not expect anything of substance from her. Hagan said and did as little as possible in her run last year, hoping for the coattail ride on Obama, which she got.

[Joe Guarino]

I think during elections, we have to choose the better of two candidates. I think Dole was that person primarily because I knew that her voting record would be much better than Hagan's. But that election is now history.

Bubba, I think Hagan won because of the support of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. You are right that she was anointed and carried by others. The analogy with Matheny is apt.

And Stormy, I think you are right that we will be stuck with her negative contributions for a while.

[Roch101]

"She won because Chuckie Schumer created her, and Barry O carried her, regardless of what you and Ed Cone want us to believe." -- Bubba

I'm not asking you to believe anything, Bubba but your assertions are contrary to the facts. Obama won NC by 14,000 votes, Hagan defeated Dole by over 361,000 votes. More McCain voters voted for Hagan than Obama voters did. Mmmm. Facts.

[Delow24]

I guess this is what she means by "when I get to Washington I will let you know" as publicized during the campaign.

I guess only the ignorant did not "know" that she was bought and sold by people outside the state to the detriment of actual citizens of NC.

[Roger Greene]

I'd like to know where Liddy Dole lives now? Is it Kansas or DC? I bet it's not North Carolina. I thought her a carpet bagger and she acted like one by rarely visiting her once home state and having a staff of DC insiders instead of North Carolina folks. The outside money that bought Hagan her office knew this and made great use of her out of touch with NC ways.

I voted for Liddy and have always liked her, but she brought this on herself and Roch is right on this one. It's an easy point to make with the vote results. I still say it was that and not her attack on Hagan's visit to an atheist group that cost her in the end.

[Stormy]

"Obama won NC by 14,000 votes, Hagan defeated Dole by over 361,000 votes. More McCain voters voted for Hagan than Obama voters did. Mmmm. Facts."

Given Roch's facts, you have to ask why voters would have done that. What were those 361,000-14,000=347,000 voters thinking that Hagan could do that Dole couldn't? What in Hagan's track record indicated that she could be more successful than Dole? The truth is not much (actually not anything). Hagan basically cruised on the mindset established by O and the Dems that everything wrong with the economy was the Republicans fault. As Hagan said as little as possible and waited until Dole took a position to counter, she rode the wave of unhappiness with the Republicans in general, and Dole specifically. Certainly state newspapers provided cover for Hagan with their criticisms of Dole, especially the N-R. Hagan never had to respond to any relevant criticisms. She painted herself as something of a moderate, when in truth she is very liberal. As I said, if she had run in 2004, she would have been crushed. Timing is everything, and she took advantage of an uninspired campaign by Dole.

[Stormy]

Roger,

You are right that Hagan exploited Dole's lack of "roots" in North Carolina. Joe is right, Dole's voting record was better, but her lack of presence in, and association with, NC, even during her campaign, cost her mightily.

I also believe that the financial events in August and September cost her dearly, along with many other Republicans. The bank collapse sent shock waves through country and turned voters to the Dems. It seems that the voter wisdom was that Dems would be better on fixing the economy. Now, let's see, with the DOW dropping below 7,000 today, how good was that wisdom? And, what is Hagan and the Dems doing to correct that trend of people's 401Ks now becoming 201Ks, headed toward 101Ks, but passing a massive pork-spending bill, and proposing a tax increase during a recession which is deepening?

[Joe Guarino]

Delow, Stormy and Roger, I think the early ads produced by the senatorial campaign committee were critical in terms of altering public opinion of Dole. The ads were very effective. Yes, Dole was vulnerable because she did not maintain a high profile or presence in the state. But that particular attribute is not really a good indicator of what makes a good US Senator.

The national political tide did not help Dole either.

With Hagan, we now have a US Senator who is thoroughly objectionable. Have we really improved upon things by electing her?

[Stormy]

No, like O, we are much worse.