Guarino

City Council Election Tuesday: Knight, Thompson, Rakestraw, Hartzman

Tuesday is Election Day.

My recommendations for this election are as follows:

Mayor: Bill Knight

At Large: Danny Thompson

District 4: Mary Rakestraw

District 3: George Hartzman

Natural Science Center Bonds: Vote No

It is imperative that conservatives residing in the city of Greensboro get out and vote.  What happens during this election cycle can mean a huge difference for the future of our home town.  

Greensboro was once a very good city.  However, more than a decade of bad government has taken its toll. Taxes and fees have gone way up; and rampant crime has spread to previously safe neighborhoods.  Our police department is now revealed to be substandard, and has become the refuge of an assortment of bad actors.  Jobs have been driven away from the city.

This is therefore an important moment in the history of the city of Greensboro.  Voters will decide whether the city will continue to decline, or whether present trends can be reversed.  But if the city continues to decline, it will be much more difficult to recover in the long run.

We cannot continue doing things as we have in the past.  In the future, jobs will be much more difficult to attract because of international competition.  Employers are going to be much less likely to countenance the type of nonsense we have seen in Greensboro-- unless we make a decision to change.

In the city of Greensboro, the best candidates are almost always disadvantaged.  They often face formidable institutional forces that favor the election of candidates who cater to special interests.

While it is important that conservatives vote on Tuesday, it is also important that they let their family, friends and neighbors know they should vote also.  We each have an opportunity to spread the word to those around us.  And we have a cluster of candidates around whom we can rally. 

I would also suggest that conservatives consider sending a link to this post around to their friends by e-mail, if they feel led to do so.

For Mayor, Bill Knight has demonstrated he is the right man for the job.  He has appropriately focused on crime, the police department, jobs and fiscal conservatism during the campaign.

His opponent, Yvonne Johnson, is a machine politician who has been entangled with various special interests through her entire career as an elected official.  She has made decisions on the basis of identity group politics.  She has undermined the police department and allowed crime conditions to deteriorate.  She has repeatedly voted to raise taxes and fees.  She is a quintessential liberal who has repeatedly made the wrong choices for the wrong reasons.  And she has allowed conditions to fester that continue to cause distrust of our local government.

Knight, on the other hand, promises to restore trust and ethics in the city of Greensboro.  He wants to transform the police department into a premier crime-fighting institution.  And he wants to create an environment in which employers will want to create jobs in Greensboro.

The At-Large race is a tricky proposition.  I have recommended that conservatives only vote for one candidate in this race-- Danny Thompson. 

Even though we are entitled to select up to three choices, we must take note of the likelihood that Mr. Thompson will be competing for the third spot in this race.  If conservatives vote for more than one candidate, they risk undermining Thompson's electability.

Thompson is the only true conservative in the race-- and he is a moderate conservative.  But he brings a passion for limiting governmental spending and restoring a proper civic tone on the city council.  He also wants to see our area transformed to become a place where businesses would eagerly want to locate and expand and hire more people.

I wish to make one negative recommendation in the At-Large race.  I urge conservatives to refrain from supporting Robbie Perkins.  He has turned out to be, by far, the biggest disappointment on our city council-- barring none.

In the district 4 race, Mary Rakestraw is the obvious choice.  She has been very good on police department issues, and is a genuine fiscal conservative.  Ms. Rakestraw has also been very responsive to her constituents.

Her opponent, Joel Landau, is a nice man.  But he is ideologically way over on the left side of the political spectrum; and has been endorsed by the Simkins PAC.

In the district 3 race, as noted above, I have recommended George Hartzman.  Mr. Hartzman brings almost a libertarian sensibility to the city council race, with impassioned discourse about the poor choices we make when we allow government to spend too much. 

Hartzman is not the kind of guy who suffers fools gladly; and that is precisely the type of person we need to help straighten out our police department.

The record of his opponent, Zack Matheny, has been a mixed bag during his first term.  He appears to be a responsive council member in many ways; but he has made some bad choices.  Matheny has also been endorsed by the Simkins PAC.

I also recommend voting against the Natural Science Center bond issue.

In any case, we have some good candidates to support this election season.  Local conservatives need to spend the next two days spreading the word in any way they see fit.

I intend to make this my last post until Election Day, unless a surprise or two materializes in the meantime.  Let's hope for the best.

Cops, DA's, and PAC's, Chapter 6

I had previously informed readers that I was contemplating the publication of a fictional novel.  The previous chapters of this novel can be accessed by clicking the "category" found in the upper right hand corner of this blog page.  Inspiration has struck once again:

It had been a relatively mild summer in the Politically Virtuous City.  A new election season had arrived, and some interesting developments surfaced. 

The ongoing case of Officer Quake reached a crescendo.  Recall that he had been charged with domestic assault after having been caught in a drunken rage toward the end of a police party.  He was convicted in a non-jury trial.  But he appealed the case, and obtained a jury trial.  His fiance, whom he had assaulted, was prevailed upon to deliver testimony on his behalf at the trial.  This introduced the element of reasonable doubt, and Officer Quake was acquitted.  Remember that the office of attorney Ren Flea had been involved in representing Quake.  DA Pug could not get a ruling that upheld the initial conviction.

But that was not to be the end of the issue.  The police department had to decide whether to allow Quake to return to duty as a cop.  The machine police chief surprisingly recommended against it; and it was presumed this was because of all the publicity the incident had attracted. 

Recall that the Politically Virtuous City had a group of black ministers called the Sons of Sharpton.  This group had been interested in undermining police for many years.  A gang leader named George-Ay had affiliated himself with this group; and used them to circulate claims that the machine-controlled police department's gang unit had been discriminating against Hispanic gangs.  The Sons of Sharpton, George-Ay and Officer Quake held a press conference jointly on this topic. 

When the filing season opened for the city council election, it was astonishing for local residents to learn that gang leader George-Ay had filed to run for City Council.  He received nearly five hundred votes in the primary, but did not survive it.

The Sons of Sharpton held a demonstration on behalf of Officer Quake, and even met with the interim City Manager, Rob Dorgan, on his behalf.  Quake had appealed his termination to Dorgan.  Dorgan was swayed by the Sons of Sharpton, and reinstated Quake.

Unfortunately, this decision by Dorgan provoked a reaction.  A large group of officers within the police department was fed up with the city and the department because of their history of covering up the activities of corrupt, misbehaving officers.  An emergency city council meeting was held, and these officers attended to display their unhappiness over the state of affairs.

It was then learned that a number of high-ranking male officers in the department had been having sexual relations with female subordinate officers.  And in a couple of these instances, the officers involved were married to other officers.

The principals in the PAC had been observing over a prolonged period the activities of the Sons of Sharpton; and sometimes felt the need to cringe privately over some of the things they did.  The Sons of Sharpton had created problems for the members of the PAC.  Their arrangement with the city's development interests and its "downtown business establishment" would be threatened if they were consistently perceived as being extraordinarily provocative, and as being way over to the "looney left". 

But the PAC and the Sons of Sharpton had maintained a political alliance of sorts over the years for mutual benefit.  The highly publicized incidents with Officer Quake and George-Ay, however, were the collective straw that broke the camel's back for the PAC. 

Lourdes Beige had been a principal in the PAC, a leader of the local NAACP, and one of the instigators of the grievances previously filed by minority officers at the police department.  He also was the pastor of a black church that routinely violated IRS rules regarding political activities of non-profit organizations.

The PAC decided to force Lourdes Beige out.  Lourdes then started a new PAC largely consisting of ministers belonging to the Sons of Sharpton.  This new PAC, however, would endorse many of the same candidates as the old PAC.

The US Department of Justice had been considering whether to litigate the grievances of minority officers against the police department.  It ultimately decided to refrain from taking the case.  A new black city manager had been hired by the City Council; and certain aggrieved black officers, including Dames Stinson, publicly announced they would temporarily suspend their litigation against the city. 

It was learned that the new city manager had previously settled some discrimination complaints filed by minority officers in the midwestern city he had previously served.  The Politically Virtuous City's black officers were still expecting some kind of settlement also.

The white officers who had been wrongfully accused, including Officer Flanders, were reinstated to active duty and received all their back pay and benefits.  However, they were assigned to undesirable jobs within the police department, and were still having to fight to get the city to cover their legal costs.

A local blogger named Bolder who had extensively written about the police department also decided to run for City Council against Councilwoman Gall.  At an election forum, Gall defended the reinstatement of Officer Quake as the natural conclusion of a legitimate process.  Gall had been closely identified with the Sons of Sharpton in the past; and ultimately lost the endorsement of the PAC.  Bolder unfortunately did not survive his primary; and Gall was to be pitted in a general election contest against a PAC-endorsed candidate.

Curl Bones was one of the principals in the PAC.  And he had a longstanding grudge against Councilwoman Gall.  She had failed to help him with his fried chicken concession at the homecoming of the local Historically Black University several years back.

Meanwhile, crime continued to rage throughout the city.  The machine-controlled police department allowed a certain proportion of its officers to be unproductive; and burglaries were now commonplace in affluent neighborhoods that previously had not experienced much crime.  These burglaries were arousing considerable concern.

The epidemic of crime in the city was blithely tolerated by the PAC and also by the white power groups with which it was allied, including the aforementioned development interests and "downtown business establishment".  The white power groups ironically tended to shade left politically.  And the PAC was advancing the interests of a group of local black defense attorneys.

These defense attorneys depended on the fees generated by the city's lucrative illegal drug industry.  But they also depended on a steady stream of cases to defend.  If the city's crime levels were to go way down, they would have much less business.

The existence of officers within the police department who would protect the drug industry was therefore important to maintain. 

But within the local African-American community, there was also a prevailing belief that "arresting people" was not the solution.  Police had long been considered the adversary in minority communities; and a crime-fighting approach that would cause more unwanted interactions with police would be unacceptable.  And so the PAC would strenuously resist any aggressive, proactive anti-crime approach.

A reactive approach, such as that taken by the machine-controlled police department, would assure a certain number of "solved cases" and arrests.  Those arrested would be represented by the local defense attorneys, who would be able to work with the DA and the inadequate criminal justice system to get them acquitted, or to assure minimal sentences. 

The defense attorneys would get paid; the revolving doors in the criminal justice system would continue to turn; a steady stream of criminal defendants would be assured for the defense attorneys; the local illegal drug industry would continue to be protected; and the PAC would continue to be able to advance its own interests.

An election was soon to be held.  The city's mayor was strongly identified with the PAC.  At Large candidates often had to secure endorsement by the PAC in order to win.  This was the means by which the PAC was able to assure machine control of local government.

The challengers this election season, as always, would face an uphill battle.

Again, the above chapter is entirely fictional.  It required an extremely fertile imagination to develop such a story line.  I certainly solicit the constructive comments of readers to help me develop a better final product.

Cops in Black and White, Part LXXXVIII

Jerry Bledsoe continues his series in the Rhino Times with a discussion of the next set of conclusions in the RMA report.  The following represents a summary.

1. The RMA report stated a 2005 investigation of James Hinson was authorized by David Wray, and was not related to a federal investigative effort.  But Wray did not learn about the investigation until after it had begun.  It was related to a federal drug investigation that discovered Hinson's phone number was found in the possession of a drug kingpin.

2. The RMA report indicated that Hinson found a tracker on his vehicle and discovered he was under investigation.  But it failed to point out there was nothing inappropriate about placing the tracker on the vehicle.

3. The RMA report indicated Wray was misleading and deceptive with Ed Kitchen, the city manager, when he reported to him about the Hinson investigations during 2005.  But the report provided no evidence, and Wray maintained otherwise.  Wray felt he was truthful and told Kitchen what he needed to know.  RMA suggested Hinson should not have been related to the federal drug investigations; but at one time Hinson's involvement with a drug kingpin was of high interest to the feds.

4. RMA indicated Randall Brady during June 2005 had obtained the 2004 Internal Affairs investigative file on Hinson.  But this was untrue.  The Ryan Walton file had vanished.  Walton had performed a review under the direction of one of Hinson's friends in Internal Affairs, and it turned out to be inadequate.  It was not a true investigation. 

5. RMA said Wray suspended Hinson without having reviewed any written files that would support his action.  Wray had read some of the files, and had been thoroughly briefed by his subordinates regarding the various investigations and reviews.  After doing these things, he knew there had been sufficient basis for investigating Hinson.

6. RMA claimed there had been a federal review of Hinson and an internal investigation by Walton, but neither of these were true.  RMA further claimed Wray knew or should have known the various investigations did not support Hinson's associating with criminals.  But in fact, investigations had uncovered evidence that Hinson had associated with criminals.  

7. RMA claimed Wray did a rush job investigating when Hinson's estranged wife made the allegation she was being monitored in her neighborhood.  RMA further said his findings could not be supported.  In fact, all the essential information was obtained in an efficient way, and disproved Ms. Hinson's allegations.  RMA offered no evidence to prove its contentions.

8. RMA said it was not possible to conclude the undercover officer monitoring Ms. Hinson's neighborhood was not doing this for the GPD.  But in fact, Wray's investigation demonstrated that he was working for a private attorney on a different matter. Again, RMA offered no evidence.  And RMA failed to report that Matt Lojko passed his polygraph on this matter when they grilled him under duress, in violation of proper procedure.

Rhino on District 4 Election

The Rhino had some interesting comments about the District 4 City Council election:

(Mary) Rakestraw has been a leader on this council. She has led through persistence. Rakestraw made the first motion to remove former City Manager Mitch Johnson from office a few months after being sworn in, when she discovered that Mitch Johnson was not being honest with the council. To her credit she maintained a cordial working relationship with Mitch Johnson while he was manager.

The entire Police Department scandal, where former City Manager Mitch Johnson forced the resignation or retirement of former Chief David Wray and his entire command staff, with the exception of current Police Chief Tim Bellamy, came down to the trial of Police Detective Scott Sanders. Rakestraw was the only councilmember who attended the entire trial, to hear testimony under oath of what really happened. When Sanders was found not guilty and all of the other charges were dismissed, Rakestraw asked for Mitch Johnson to resign. He did not resign but was fired less than two weeks later.

Rakestraw is the councilmember who has insisted on seeing information firsthand rather than relying on the report on that information from Mitch Johnson, who she discovered time and time again was misleading the council. Some members of the council, like Mayor Yvonne Johnson and Councilmember Robbie Perkins, continue to deny the reality of what Mitch Johnson had been doing.

Rakestraw is currently serving as an at-large councilmember representing all of the people of Greensboro, and people in every district have discovered that Rakestraw can get things done. She knows how the city works, and people who have had problems with one department or another rave about the way Rakestraw was able to get results in hours when they had been mired in red tape for days, weeks or months. Some councilmembers serve for years and have no more idea of how to get something done at city hall than the man on the street. The people of Greensboro need Rakestraw advocating for them in city hall.

Joel Landau is making his third run for the City Council. He is a nice guy but has shown his true colors in the whole episode over having Signe Waller Foxworth as a campaign supporter. Waller Foxworth was a Communist Workers Party member and one of the instigators of the Death to the Klan March, which lead to the shootout between the communists and the Klan in Morningside Homes on Nov. 3,1979. Her first husband was killed in that shootout. You cannot get any further left than Waller Foxworth. Landau put her on his list of supporters and then took her off the list. He said that she was a friend but he took her down because he was concerned she might be controversial.

Landau responded to questions about Waller Foxworth by linking Rakestraw with E.H. Hennis. You can link any two people, but Rakestraw has never listed Hennis as one of her supporters...

Landau's route to free television exposure has been through his appointment as co-chair of the Greensboro Sustainability Council. Because Mayor Johnson is a big supporter of Landau, the Sustainability Council has been on the agenda for meetings during the campaign.

What the Sustainability Council is doing is attempting to bring the industry restrictions of the Kyoto Protocol to Greensboro. The Kyoto Protocol treaty was rejected by a unanimous vote of the United States Senate...

Landau is far left, and if he is elected Mayor Johnson puts another councilmember in her pocket, which is not what the City of Greensboro needs.

Rhino on At-Large Election

The Rhino had some interesting comments about the Greensboro City Council at-large race:

(Danny) Thompson is the new candidate in the City Council race this year who has really impressed people. His enthusiasm is contagious, and he has a lot of ideas. He also seems to have grasped the essence of the issues quickly. On controversial issues he has been promising, not what he would do but how he would vote. It's a subtle difference that indicates he understands he can't do anything without the votes of four other councilmembers. He appears to be the kind of candidate who could bring the council together.

Thompson is a small business owner who was just annexed into the city. He's a fiscal conservative who is not in favor of raising taxes and in favor of cutting city expenses. It is his enthusiasm that sets him apart and the council could really use it. Thompson has that ability to connect with people, and in our opinion will be able to turn some of his good ideas about sound fiscal management of our city government into reality...

If the (Simkins) PAC gets out the voters and makes sure they vote for the candidates the PAC has endorsed, then (Marikay) Abuzuaiter has a chance at being elected. It is more likely that she will move up a spot or two but not make it on to the council.

She has noticeably moved left since she ran in 2007, and appears to have aligned herself with Mayor Johnson.

At a recent forum, Abuzuaiter did an unusually complete job of avoiding the questions...

This year (Robbie) Perkins received the Simkins PAC endorsement and has good name recognition and will most likely win. But his old District 3 supporters should take a good long look at whom Perkins has been supporting in this last term.

It is a poorly kept secret that Perkins wants to be mayor. He has said that he ran for City Council in 2007 because Mayor Yvonne Johnson asked him to. He has certainly been her right-hand man. Perkins has voted with Yvonne Johnson and Councilmembers Dianne Bellamy-Small and Goldie Wells so consistently that other councilmembers call them Perkins and the Perkinettes.

Perkins supported former City Manager Mitch Johnson and still supports his actions, even though much of what Mitch Johnson told the council has proven to be untrue.

Perkins has suggested that the city loan the money to the state to buy the land for the interstate highway that is planned to go north of Pisgah Church Road and south of the lakes – the northern leg of the so-called outer loop. It is far inside the Greensboro city limits now, so calling it the outer loops seems misleading. Whether loaning the state money is a good idea or not is certainly debatable. That the loop would be a boon to those in the commercial real estate business, like Perkins, is not.

Perkins is a huge proponent of regional initiatives and is one of the driving forces behind the Heart of the Triad regional development effort. Once again, whether or not developing land in the area around Colfax and Kernersville is necessarily good for Greensboro is debatable; whether or not it will be good for a commercial real estate company named NAI Piedmont Triad, headed by Perkins, is not.

Perkins will no doubt be back, but hopefully other councilmembers will keep a watch on Perkins, like Councilmember Mike Barber did in this last term, when Barber found that Perkins had bypassed normal channels to get a $1 million sewer line needed for the development of the old Pilot Life property that Perkins was selling as the real estate agent for Lincoln Financial.

Rhino on Mayoral Election

The current issue of the Rhino is filled with some good commentary regarding the election on Tuesday.  I am going to excerpt heavily those portions that resonated with me, or that I found most interesting.

First, regarding the mayoral election:

Greensboro is in desperate need of leadership, and the person who was elected leader refuses to treat her fellow councilmembers fairly.

Mayor Johnson does use her power to do favors for friends. She wanted to get the restaurant/bar Alexander Devereux reopened despite the fact that the owner who had caused constant problems and owed the city $29,000 in fines was still involved. The new club was granted a liquor license by the state because the mayor intervened by writing a letter asking that it be granted.

Mayor Johnson also went down to Raleigh to lobby for the right of government workers to have full-fledged unions that negotiate contracts. It would cost the taxpayers a fortune to have government workers under union contracts, but Mayor Johnson felt so strongly about supporting unions for government employees that she made a rare trip to the legislature to appear on the podium with the other supporters. There was only one other mayor in the entire state who appeared in support of full-fledged government unions, the mayor of Carrboro, the most liberal city in the state.

Mayor Johnson said it was unusual for her to go to Raleigh to lobby the legislature, but she said she felt strongly about the right of workers to be represented by the union. She evidently didn't feel that strongly about many of the issues affecting Greensboro, because she didn't go to Raleigh in support of them...

(Bill) Knight would bring some decorum and sensibility to the City Council. Knight is a retired accountant. He is going to insist on getting some real budget figures from the city staff. The Mickey Mouse budget figures that the City Council accepts are so general that it is impossible to tell where and how money is being spent. In fact, when looking at the budget, Knight said he was surprised to learn that the City Council doesn't get an accounting of how the money was spent, just what was budgeted in the current year...

Mayor Johnson still supports the actions of former City Manager Mitch Johnson, whose solution to dealing with Wray was to lock him out of his office while he was still police chief. She defends what Mitch Johnson did, which has been devastating to the Greensboro Police Department. This is not surprising, as Mitch Johnson got his marching orders from the Simkins PAC and Mayor Johnson is a member of the Simkins PAC.

Other councilmembers have pressed for information about what really happened. Mayor Johnson was always content to accept the misinformation that she was being told by Mitch Johnson.

Mayor Johnson has time after time voted for tax increases. This year there was no tax increase, but Greensboro currently has the highest tax rate of any comparable city in North Carolina, and Yvonne Johnson says that she has voted in favor of the last 16 budgets that have given us this high tax rate.

Former Sheriff "Sticky" Burch Endorses Knight Because of Police Issues

The following letter to the editor appeared in the News and Record this morning:

Former Sheriff Burch backs Knight for mayor

Though there are many fine law-enforcement officers in the Greensboro Police Department, for whatever reason a small group has been allowed to impugn the excellent reputation the department enjoyed for years.

I don’t understand why they’re still in uniform and being paid by our tax money.

I know firsthand what good law enforcement is and is not. I served our citizens as deputy chief of police and later as sheriff of Guilford County.

I think the most important concern of Greensboro citizens is having an efficient and professional police department.  I worry about the large number of residential burglaries and that response time to a  911 call has increased from seven to 14 minutes within the last four years.

Bill Knight has personally promised me that he would do all that is possible to restore integrity and professionalism to the Greensboro Police Department.

I have known Bill for many years; he is the breed of man that his word is his bond.

Vote for Bill Knight for mayor and for a strong police department.

Walter “Sticky” Burch

Greensboro

Our municipal election non-partisan? No way...

Tony provides evidence that the non-partisan status of our municipal elections here in Greensboro is illusory.

Democratic Deception on Health Care

Here is a brilliantly conceived video that demonstrates how any Democratic conception of "health care reform" is intended to lead to "single payer"-- i.e., the federal government acting as the only health insurer.  That would, indeed, be socialized medicine:

Rakestraw Appropriately Raises Questions About New Coliseum Facility

The News and Record reports this morning that Interim City Manager Bob Morgan authorized--without City Council input-- an amphitheater to be constructed at the Greensboro Coliseum.

It is inappropriate that a major new facility like this gets slipped through without City Council foreknowledge.  It will need to be maintained well into the future; and the city now faces a recurring operating expense even though its elected body had no input, or even the courtesy of a formal notification.

Mary Rakestraw is absolutely right to raise questions about this.

Greensboro City Council Candidate Danny Thompson on "Value"

Danny Thompson compares the City Council to a Board of Directors.  I think it can also be viewed as a mini-legislature.  But in either case, his message rings true:

Natural Science Center Bonds: Vote NO

It seems that nearly every year, we have at least one expensive bond issue on the ballot for the city of Greensboro or Guilford County.  This election is no exception, and an expensive bond proposal to fund renovations and upgrades at the Natural Science Center is on the ballot.

My own family once used this facility heavily, when our children were small.  In fact, we were "members".  It was-- and probably still is-- a great facility; but I can see how it can become outdated.

There are a couple of issues associated with funding an expensive new bond proposal, however.  First, it seems more wise to adopt a pay-as-you-go approach in pursuing this type of project, if it is to be funded.  Second, the avalanche of bond-related spending is going to create problems for taxpayers.  Third, the mission of the center, if truth be told, is not central to the functions of local government.  And fourth, we would be making new financial commitments at a time of serious economic contraction-- nationally, and at the local level as well.

We need to remember that we are a community of only 250,000 people.  We can't have every amenity that might be proposed.

The wisest course at this time is to vote "no" on the bonds.

Easley Story Getting Pretty Deep

Some banner, front page treatment is seen of the situational amnesia displayed by Mike Easley cronies before the state election board; and the story is getting considerable play statewide.

It might be necessary to hound someone after they no longer hold public office.  But the duty of the media is to adopt a skeptical, adversarial stance long before elected officials leave office.  Unfortunately, that did not happen during much of the extended time period since the state Democrats have held control of the state legislature and the office of governor.

We are now paying the price associated with insufficient journalistic oversight.

Bill Knight, the GPD, the PAC and the Pulpit Forum

A fascinating, well-written letter to the editor, penned by Rudy Binder, appeared in the News and Record this morning:

Mayor Candidates Differ on Chief Wray 'lock-out'

There is a huge elephant in the room that hasn't been mentioned by local media pertaining to the mayoral election.  The subject is the position of each candidate on former Police Chief David Wray and the way he performed his duties.

The story moves to another level.  Specifically, the stance of each candidate on the action of then-City Manager Mitch Johnson in the "locking out" of Wray.

This decision ultimately resulted in Wray's leaving and subsequent revelations pertaining to Johnson's questionable motives on this matter led to turmoil in city government.

Where does each candidate stand?

Mayor Yvonne Johnson has been a steadfast supporter of Mitch Johnson.  She voted against the council majority to replace him.

By contrast, candidate Bill Knight denounced Mitch Johnson's actions and firmly supported Wray in attempting to eradicate from the police department those who are unworthy of wearing a badge.  It appears Mayor Johnson followed the nod of the Simkins PAC and the Pulpit Forum, which disliked Wray and supported Mitch Johnson. 

Vote for Bill Knight for mayor.

Rudy Binder

There is a new narrative emerging about the Simkins PAC and the Pulpit Forum.  We are beginning to hear implications that the Pulpit Forum has been the real problem in the past, and that the Simkins PAC is not nearly as much of a problem. 

Such a position, however, ignores the history of the PAC and some of its principals.  And it ignores the disproportionate influence it has, the gutter identity politics, and the nefarious effect bloc voting has had locally.  If elected officials do not vote with the PAC, they risk losing their endorsement.  Look at what happened to Sandra Anderson Groat, on just a couple of key votes.

Let's not do historical revisionism regarding the SImkins PAC on the eve of the election. 

Opt Out Public Option

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest incarnation of "health care reform" includes a public option-- i.e., a governmental insurance plan for the uninsured.  But it also includes an "opt out" provision that allows the individual states to refrain from participating. 

The appearance created by this proposal is one of flexibility and federalism and allowing creativity and innovation at the level of the states.  It gives the illusion of reasonableness.  However, the truth is a bit different than the appearance.

From the Heritage Foundation:

1. States could only op-out of the public plan, not of the entire bill.

This is only an “opt-out” of one section of the massive health care proposal. There are literally hundreds of provisions that the states may find unacceptable, like the costly Medicaid expansion...

2. A state opt-out does not eliminate the public plan.

The federal government would likely require the any state wishing to opt-out to still meet federal conditions. It could come, for example, as an explicit requirement that a state set up a public plan “option” that mirrors the federal public plan or as a public plan masquerading as a “co-op” that is in effect controlled, funded and accountable to the government...

3. Experience shows that a federal public plan would likely be the easiest option for state officials.

With the typical bureaucratic red tape and administrative complexity accompanying a state opt-out, states would likely discourage states from opting-out. Moreover, the federal strings that follow would likely strangle states ability to administer an option that does not closely follow the federal public plan model.

Crushing State Innovation.

The massive bills in the House and Senate- with individual and employer mandates, federal control over health insurance benefits, new boards and commissions micromanaging what taxpayers get or don’t get, new fees, taxes and insurance costs- is a challenge to the citizens of the states. Bright and innovative state officials would prefer to embark on their own reforms, but these bills would crush creativity, innovation and experimentation under the weight of federal control and conformity.

There is one other aspect of this issue that is very important.  States would feel a competitive need to participate in the federal program rather than opting out-- if it was a true opt-out.  Why?  Because some employers will be eager to dump their employees on the public plan, and would be less likely to locate in a state that does not offer that alternative.

In summary, very few states would likely opt out; and those that do may find themselves facing draconian requirements imposed by the federal government. 

"Opt out" is not all that it is cracked up to be.

Greensboro City Council At-Large Race: Danny Thompson

The Greensboro City Council At Large race has six contenders, three of whom will be elected.  Voters get to choose a maximum of three candidates.

I have studied the field with some level of detail.  Of the six contenders, five have responded to my questionnaire.  (The questionnaire responses are found in the "category" found in the upper right hand corner of this blog page.)  I have read most of the press reports and the blogs.  And I attended the at-large forum last week.

Three candidates have been endorsed by the Simkins PAC: Robbie Perkins, Nancy Vaughan and Marikay Abuzuaiter.  Perkins and Sandra Anderson Groat have historically fit the "Melderec" profile.

The conventional wisdom is that Robbie Perkins is likely to be re-elected, and that Nancy Vaughan is also likely to be among the top three vote-getters.  That theoretically leaves a field of four candidates vying for the remaining slot.  Abuzuaiter will have a potentially large base of unthinking support through her Simkins endorsement.  Groat has all the advantages of an incumbent, with high name recognition.  Danny Thompson showed some strength during the primary; and Gary Nixon has impressed some observers.  

What is the best approach for the conservative voter to take?

I would argue that it is not necessary to vote for three candidates.  When I go to the polls, I am only going to vote for Danny Thompson in this particular race.  He is the only verifiable conservative among the entire bunch.

If conservative voters cast a ballot for Abuzuaiter, Groat or Nixon, they run the risk that they will contribute toward one of these candidates' vote totals exceeding that of Thompson.  Abuzuaiter is running leftward this year, and Groat is center-left.  It is tricky to pin down Nixon's ideological persuasion, because he has not responded to a couple of key questionnaires; but based on what we do know, it is difficult to label him as conservative.

Perkins is a liberal Republican, and has been inextricably linked to the Simkins PAC for a number of years.  Nancy Vaughan is a moderate with some good positions, but her Simkins endorsement is a deal-breaker for me.

There was not a single candidate in the field with whom I agreed on the vast majority of questionnaire responses. 

However, at the candidate's forum, Danny Thompson's conservative sensibilities shone through.  He is a moderate conservative-- not "far right" by any means.  He demonstrated himself to be a good communicator.  He has some policy ideas that are creative for Greensboro-- a city that has heretofore tended to require that candidates follow a certain mold. 

Zero-based budgeting?  Egads!

Conservative voters who want to see a conservative at-large candidate elected should strongly consider voting only for Danny Thompson; and refrain from making two other choices.

Greensboro City Council District 5

I will not be making a recommendation in Greensboro City Council district 5.

Art Boyett, the challenger, is very articulate and has some good ideas.  However, I disagree with some of his stated positions on the questionnaire he graciously completed.  And he has only lived in our city for a relatively short period of time.

Trudy Wade, the incumbent, has seemed to have performed well in office overall.  However, she has sought and obtained the Simkins endorsement.

Voters in that district will obviously need to choose between those two candidates.

Greensboro City Council District 4: Mary Rakestraw

I recommended Mary Rakestraw during the primary season, and she continues to be my choice during the general election season.

Tony Wilkins just posted about this race; and pointed out a recent News and Record editorial that, ironically, rebuts some of the criticisms that have been made of Ms. Rakestraw in the past.  She has been made a target because it is alleged that she is too quarrelsome; but those who have observed her during council sessions know this is not even remotely true.  She has, however, raised concerns when things have seemed amiss; and this has often required swimming against the tide.

I think she has been a conscientious council member who has, for the most part, voted right on the issues.  She is a fiscal conservative, and has done a good job on the various police department controversies.

Joel Landau seems like a nice guy.  His positions on the issues place him well over to the left on the political spectrum; and he has received the Simkins endorsement.

Next Tuesday, I will be casting my ballot for Mary Rakestraw.

French Food (vs. Italian)

John Pinette is an American comedian of Italian descent.  He relates when he was on an extended assignment in France, during which he was longing severely for Italian food. 

This is pretty funny stuff, but I need to give a fair warning-- it is a bit in-your-face: (HT: Tony Grapes)

Greensboro City Council District 3: George Hartzman

I had already recommended Hartzman during the primary season. 

In response to that recommendation, I heard from various commenters and readers who expressed their concern and disagreement.  But for the general election, I think I need to stick with Hartzman.

He performed very well during the recent Greensboro Neighborhood Congress candidate forum, which I attended.

Then we learned last weekend that Zack Matheny, his opponent, got the endorsement of the Simkins PAC. 

In addition, we have seen during the last council meeting the type of pattern that gives me mixed feelings about the incumbent.  He admirably made the right call, and advocated his position well, when he shot down the demands for a vote to move forward with the expensive, fanciful landfill proposal.  But he erred severely when he refused to vote in favor of the city paying the legal expenses of David Wray and his men.

In any case, I still feel that if I lived in district 3, I would vote for Hartzman.