Madison Taylor

Our editorial today about what will likely go on record as “The Manning Affair.”

—–

Alamance County Commissioner Tom Manning is far from the first politician to be caught in a personally compromising position and he will be equally far removed from the last. To a watchful public it seems like a near-constant pitfall of the politically powerful.

But the sad truth is, things like this trip people in all walks of life. It happens to doctors, attorneys, entrepreneurs, teachers, administrators and yes, even folks in the reporting business. Men and women from the fields of carpentry, policing, firefighting, accounting, computing, painting and plumbing are not immune.

The difference? People outside of politics, professional sports or entertainment don’t usually face media — and as a result — public scrutiny.

Manning, a Republican who leads the Board of Commissioners as its chairman, isn’t so lucky. Last week, after being presented with evidence by the local weekly newspaper The Alamance News, Manning admitted to having an extramarital affair. He also told the publication he would resign from office if the story could be held and spare his family embarrassment. Monday, the leadership of the Alamance County Republican Party leadership asked that Manning resign as a member of the board.

“We believe that Mr. Manning has created a credibility gap that damages his ability to lead our county in an effective manner. Therefore, for the good of the Alamance County government, and for the reputation and effectiveness of the Alamance County Commission, we request Commissioner Tom Manning consider what is best for our community and resign from the Alamance County Commission, effective immediately,” the statement said. The message also received endorsement from Manning’s four colleagues on the Board of Commissioners in a Times-News story Tuesday.

We wonder if demanding Manning’s resignation is the proper course.

From all appearances so far, the issue at hand had nothing directly to do with Manning’s role as a publicly elected official. The woman with whom he was involved is not connected to the county’s local government in any capacity. Whatever occurred did not happen while Manning was conducting the county’s business. County money wasn’t spent because of the matter. And he has not been charged with a crime of any kind. For Manning’s part, he said he has no intention of resigning.

How such an intensely private story became public isn’t really the issue anymore. It did. The Times-News refrained from reporting about it until there was a direct impact on how local government operates, which occurred Monday when Manning’s own party asked him to leave office before his term ends in 2016. A vote of no-confidence in Manning by his fellow commissioners speaks volumes. But that they did so via a newspaper story, and not during a public meeting in Manning’s presence earlier the same day, muddies the message.

To be clear, what Manning has admitted to is wrong on every level and deserving of scorn. But it’s difficult to see how the county has been damaged in the long term as a result. The harm has been to Manning and his own family, who must now find their own answers and solutions. That will be difficult enough in a small community when a private matter becomes common knowledge.

If Manning wishes to resign to avoid more scrutiny going forward, then that’s his decision to make. But calling for him to leave office because of this sordid matter seems premature and short-sighted. We agree, however, that it would be prudent for him to step down as board chair. A public censure by his fellow commissioners might also be appropriate. It’s a punishment that befits the act.

And then in 2016, the voters can offer their own referendum.

Wrote this editorial published in print on Wednesday because the quote by a political contributor caught my eye. What a shock, people who give money to candidates expect something in return.

—–

The state Board of Elections was scheduled to meet by telephone on Tuesday to discuss an April 22 complaint filed by a campaign finance watchdog group over contributions given by sweepstakes business interests to some of North Carolina’s most powerful political leaders.

But a quote in a story filed this week by the Associated Press may prove a neat summation to what could turn out to be a rather untidy matter when all the stray parts are finally assembled by investigators.

“We didn’t give them money because we liked them,” William George, a sweepstakes operator who lives in Rock Hill, S.C. told the AP. “We just knew they were powerful people up in Raleigh and they could get done what we wanted to get done. You give them your money and they’re supposed to do what they say they’re going to do.”

Seedy and cynical business, political contributions. Always have been. Probably always will be.

That’s because a large number of those who contribute money in politics seek something in return — the old quid pro quo. What George and his colleagues in the sweepstakes industry — basically a large thread of internet cafes housed in formerly vacated buildings where games resembling casino slot machines are available — was to stay in business. The N.C. General Assembly voted to ban electronic sweepstakes in 2010, a move the state Supreme Court would eventually uphold.

The court’s ruling led to the closure of sweepstakes businesses in Burlington, Graham and practically everywhere else in the state earlier this year.

But prior to that, George says he was asked in March 2012 to write a $4,000 check to the campaign of Pat McCrory, then the prohibitive favorite to become the state’s next governor, which is what happened following the election in November of 2012. George said his colleagues in the industry wanted lawmakers to submit a new law reversing the ban and hired McCrory’s former lobbying firm Moore and Van Allen to help make that happen. George said he wrote the check and handed it to a business associate, who he then watched put it with a stack of checks from other sweepstakes operators.

That alleged action, if it occurred, could constitute a practice known as “bundling.” That’s when lobbyists are involved in collecting or delivering checks from multiple donors to a single candidate. It’s against state law.

Questions surrounding sweepstakes businesses and campaign contributions to North Carolina’s elected officials were raised earlier this year. Chase Burns, a sweepstakes software maker, was arrested on felony charges stemming from a Florida-based veterans charity prosecutors allege was used as a front for a $300 million gambling operation. Burns gave campaign contributions to a slew of state lawmakers, including Alamance County’s state Sen. Rick Gunn.

In all, donors with ties to the sweepstakes industry have given more than $520,000 to North Carolina politicians since 2010, the year the legislature passed the ban. The Associated Press reported that McCrory’s campaign received more than $82,000, according to disclosure reports. House speaker Thom Tillis received $87,000 in his re-election bid. Senate President Pro-Tem Phil Berger notched $60,000 for  his campaign.

McCrory, who has denied meeting with anyone to discuss sweepstakes legislation while working for the lobbying firm, has given $18,000 to charity to offset checks from Burns and other donors facing criminal charges. Tillis and Berger have also said their campaigns will donate Burns’ donations.

But really, it’s hard not to arch an eyebrow when this nugget is reported: A bill was introduced in the state House last month that would legalize and tax sweepstakes games. The representatives who co-sponsored the bill both received donations from sweepstakes interests, including Burns.

Looks like at least someone gets what they pay for in politics.

 My friends at the Gaston Gazette gave me a head start on this editorial we published on Monday – but CNN supplied the local angle. The situation supplied the rest. Politicians in Washington are so out of touch, brain damaged by non-stop beltway politics.

———-

For CNN, a group of fifth-graders from Eastlawn Elementary School in Burlington arrived at just the right time. Interviews by the cable news network in front of the White House with the students on a field trip made for good TV. And the political theater going on behind the gate that kept the students outside instead of taking a White House tour got scathing reviews.

As well it should

The Burlington students were disappointed, frustrated and irritated. As part of an annual class trip to our nation’s capital, they expected to tour the White House. In fact, they had reservations to do so. It was a planned highlight.

But those hopes were dashed by the White House decision to halt tours and blame budget cuts caused by sequestration as the reason.

In other words, Washington politics at work. This time, though, school children and their families are the victims. The trip cost $300 for each student. Fund-raisers were held to make the journey possible. Parents had to cut corners to make ends meet.

“I’m ticked off,” Eastlawn student Jakiah Sellers told the CNN reporter, an obvious look of agitation on her face. When asked by the reporter why the tour was cancelled she replied, “Obama doesn’t want anybody to see his beautiful house.”

Ouch.

Closing the White House — the People’s House — comes just when kids from Burlington and across the country are out of school for spring break, headed to Washington in droves with parents interested enough in their education to give them a first-hand lesson in American government.

If this is not political shenanigans at its worst, what is? Disappoint kids and take cover in blaming your opponents. Political leaders from both parties are not only out of touch with the rest of America, but tone deaf as to what constitutes responsible governing.

For example, the White House estimates that cutting the tours will save the government $18,000 a week, mainly in the cost of Secret Service security. This gives new meaning to the idea of whittling down trillions in federal debt a little at a time.

Stack that savings up to the estimated cost of the Obamas’ New York City date night. According to an article in Forbes, the taxpayers’ bill for Secret Service, Marines, the presidential motorcade, helicopters and jets necessary for that romantic outing came to an estimated $1 million — enough to keep the White House open for tours indefinitely. The use of Air Force One for the president’s trip to Las Vegas to deliver a policy speech? At a cost of $180,000 an hour, enough to keep the White House tours going for a year or more.

We’re not suggesting that the president’s protection isn’t of extreme importance, or that he should forgo time with his wife or stop taking vacations. But with other Americans cutting back, it’s time Washington did as well — and not at the expense of our nation’s children. Eliminating tours of the White House is an insult to the intelligence of Americans.

And for a group of children from Burlington, downright upsetting.

 “That was the highlight of our trip for our students. And it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity that some of us may not get again,” Eastlawn Elementary teacher Stacy Stallings told CNN.

Let’s hope the White House finds a way to reopen soon and closes the curtain on this wretched political soap opera.

Our editorial for the day after the election.

————-

Four years ago, a newly elected president stood before more than 100,000 people in Chicago’s Grant Park and pledged to bring together a nation fractured by nearly a decade of intractable partisan bickering and gridlock.

”As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, ‘We are not enemies, but friends … though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.’ And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn — I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too,” then president-elect Barack Obama stated to a raucous crowd on the night of his 2008 history-making ascent to the highest office in land.

So what happened?

Today, we stand even more divided, a people locked in a tiny room with partisan politics run amok. We’re a nation unable to sort fact from fiction as we sift through the rubble of irresponsible political rhetoric. It’s a world where leaders of both parties seem only interested in winning and not in improving the lot for the people who elect them or protecting America’s future for generations to come.

Tuesday, voters across the nation went to the polls again, this time with not just a referendum on the last four years of the Obama administration but with an eye on whether Republican challenger Gov. Mitt Romney has a plan in mind for how to solve the many problems that continue to nag our country daily.

No matter which candidate was elected on Tuesday — and as of this writing the matter was still up in the air — the challenges will be the same. The list includes continuing to rebuild or retool a U.S. economy that is just now emerging from what Obama four years ago called the “worst financial crisis in a century”; maintaining America’s place as a global presence; the looming “fiscal cliff”; advancing the cause of freedom at home; readdressing the sticky matter of health care; immigration reform; building the foundation for a solid future for our children; developing new fuel sources; and providing security for our citizens.

It’s not a list full of easily accomplished tasks to be sure. Many of these issues have dogged our nation for decades.

And none can likely be accomplished without first finding a way for our leaders to work together again.

Four years ago in this space we wrote the following advice for the newly elected President Obama:

“But perhaps the biggest hurdle ahead isn’t a matter of policy but leadership. It will be up to President Obama, for example, to curb the instincts of his own Democratic congressional leadership to overreach rather than find bipartisan solutions with an overwhelming majority in hand. The message of ‘change’ delivered by voters was not exclusive to Republicans — far from it. Democrats must change, too. And it will be up to President Obama to build a coalition based on the idea that partisan bickering for the sake of bickering must end before the nation can move forward and patch the many potholes ahead.”

In an election as tight as this one, it’s apparent that neither candidate will be handed a clear mandate. And with the Congress also likely to be split — Republicans in control of the House and Democrats a majority in the Senate — the clarion call for bipartisanship from an angry electorate should grow in intensity. It will be up the president — Obama or Romney — to lead a strident Congress to a place where America can prosper again.