newsobserver.com projects - Brent Woodcox - Comments

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

mountainman — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:22:55 -0400

Brent Woodcox for governor 2012.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

scharrison — Sun, 17 May 2009 19:04:26 -0400

That's nice Brent, but it doesn't do anything about the corruption you're worried about. Attacking corrupt individuals without addressing the money that corrupts them is akin to feverishly bailing out your basement every time it floods, and hoping your diligence will convince the creek to not overflow its banks.

And here's another quote by TJ:

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents... There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency."

Whether a person uses his wealth to gain public office, or uses his wealth to manipulate an office-holder, it makes no difference. The bottom line is, money speaks much louder than the voices of the people, and nearly every single election victory can be attributed to money acquired and spent. Now, who do you think will get the most money: someone who will do the job right, or someone who will return favors?

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

woodcox — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:36:56 -0400

In my view, publicly financed campaigns are not an acceptable solution from a constitutional standpoint to the corrupting influence of special interests. The First Amendment won't allow it. Garnering public monies to support incumbents won't eliminate corruption. It will fan the flame. (For instance, publicly financed campaigns would have done nothing to curb the alleged abuses of power by the former Governor. Providing favors in place of campaign funds would become the preferred way of gaining influence and power.) Republicans aren't "duped" by constitutional arguments. We just refuse to negotiate or ignore constitutional mandates based on whether or not they are inconvenient in regards to achieving our policy preferences.

With regard to First Amendment arguments against public campaign financing, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." It was James Madison who argued in the Federalist No. 10 that restraining liberty in order to restrain "factions" or special interests was an unacceptable solution. Madison wrote that, "liberty is to faction what air is to fire." Liberty is essential to American political life. Restraining it through the rules associated with these incumbency protection schemes contradicts the whole reason to have a political system in the first place: to preserve liberty. It is likely here that our opinions truly diverge. Most liberals/progressives believe that the reason for creating a political system is to preserve order, or to control people by giving the government power to restrain them. Most conservatives believe that the reason for creating a political system is to preserve liberty, or to control government by giving the people power to restrain it.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

scharrison — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:17:04 -0400

"The die is cast, friend, and the day is quickly approaching when the people will seize back power from the political elites running state government by using their votes. All the sweetheart deals, political kickbacks, and special interest money in the world won't be enough to stop it."

Brent, I think you're familiar enough with my point of view to know that I don't condone or appreciate the influence of money-wielding special interests in the operations of state government. But you know what? It's not about Democrat vs Republican anymore. That's an illusion, and one that genuine conservatives (and liberals) have allowed themselves to be duped by.

If you don't believe me, pick a Republican Senator and take the time to look at total votes. I did this with Robert Pittenger last year, and found that he had voted with the majority (Democrats) over 90% of the time. Oh, they all have their little "hot button" issues that make them look like bonafide adversaries, and they might vote "no" on the huge budget bill. But they had already voted "yes" for the hundreds of previous bills that represent the lion's share of spending in the budget, so they're just as responsible for the budget shortfall as the Democratic majority is.

You guys say you want change, and to get rid of corruption and influence and all that. But when the rubber meets the road, and efforts to do just that come along, like publicly financed campaigns that would seriously limit the influence of money in elections, which would (in turn) make our lawmakers much less beholden to those special interests, you allow propagandists to tweak your emotions with 1st Amendment babble and Free Market nonsense. And the money keeps flowing. Last year, realtors and developers donated something like $12 million to state and local candidates from both parties, and that doesn't account for ads they bought themselves.

I understand that the current formula for public financing has some flaws in it, but if you guys would a) acknowledge the need for it, and b) help to shape it into something better, we might be able to actually get something good accomplished.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

woodcox — Sun, 17 May 2009 12:51:02 -0400

You know I try to play nice. It's kind of my style.

Here's the thing, scharrison. We do have a plan. We want to reduce the overall size and scope of state government because it's getting too big, too intrusive, too expensive, and too corrupt. We have a $4.6 billion budget shortfall looming. We have a lot of smart people in North Carolina, many of them educated right here in our state at some of the best universities in the country. I think if we get enough of them to sit down in a room and go line by line through the budget then we can find ways to spend our tax dollars more efficiently.

You see, it's not about being against government. It's about being for government that works. Voters want simple competence and your party is just not getting the job done. It's not as if you haven't had plenty of time to get your act together. IMHO, the corruption we see is a by-product of the extended one-party control of North Carolina by Democrats. It's not that Democrats are particularly evil people. It's that power corrupts. Incidentally, this is particularly true where political control can be made and money can be made. It would be one thing if the former governor were one bad actor as a Democrat, but we have seen numerous state officials find their way into hot water over ethical and legal issues. This is disproportionately true of Democrats because they are the ones trying to get their hands on all of the power.

It's not just the subversion of campaign finance laws that bothers the citizens of the state. It is the creation of this political elite that serves as an insulated ruling class sitting in Raleigh thinking they get to run the lives of the rest of the citizens of this state but that the rules don't apply to them. That's what makes a governor think that he can accept these gifts and favors from donors and then appoint them to powerful positions of influence in state government and get away with it. That's what makes the current governor think that she can promise a greater commitment to education then introduce a new teacher tax threatening their already meager salaries and resources and get away with it. That's what makes Governor Perdue think that she can balance the budget by raising taxes that will disproportionately affect the poor and unemployed in our state and get away with it. That's what makes Marc Basnight and Tony Rand and the rest of the handful of folks that effectively make all the decisions about state government think that they can silence debate on the issues that matter to North Carolinians and that they can get away with it. Well, you're not going to get away with it forever.

The die is cast, friend, and the day is quickly approaching when the people will seize back power from the political elites running state government by using their votes. All the sweetheart deals, political kickbacks, and special interest money in the world won't be enough to stop it.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

gloman — Sun, 17 May 2009 09:10:18 -0400

Cooper always has to have a sure thing. He wouldn't run against Ms Dole and look what happened. He wouldn't make a good Senator anyhow, with his lack of guts. He wouldn't stand up for what he knows is best.

Toolishus

Gosh — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:19:50 -0400

N.C. GOP spokesman Brent Woodcox: "Wrote a press release, issues memo, sent out a news update, got Roy Cooper to not run for Senate. That's what I do before lunch."

Miss you Brent! Come back anytime, of course when Linda isn't buying you Mojito's. I hear she's a real Cougar. Rawr playa!

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

Gosh — Fri, 15 May 2009 20:07:14 -0400

I'm just trying to help, Brent. ;)

Hey, leave Brent alone. He admitted his Tweet was to be taken with a grain of salt.

Problem is, his was on a margarita glass.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

scharrison — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:45:54 -0400

Yeah, Brent's alright. He just might be smarter than the average bear. Elephant. Whatever.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

scharrison — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:25:49 -0400

Brent, Brent, Brent. I gave you like ten points for that Twitter (I admire good comedy), but then you had to spoil it all by saying something stupid like:

"...corruption of fellow Democrats..."

Didn't we already talk about this during one of your recent forays at BlueNC? If you guys want to recover some seats in the General Assembly, you need some real ideas. This is the 21st Century, okay? Standing up to the "Homersexuals" and "crupt Dimmiecrats" might go over well at the Pabst Blue Ribbon-sponsored greased pig contest, but a surprisingly high percentage of the people in this state can actually read and write these days, you know?

So you need to come up with a plan. And it can't be, "Here's our plan: no planning! Planning is bad!" And here's another pointer: it may be somewhat counterproductive to say, "Government is bad! Elected officials have too much power! Oh, and by the way, come election day, please give me your vote, so I can use that power wisely. To, you know, go fix that bad government thing. Thanks for your support."

I'm just trying to help, Brent. ;)

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

Gosh — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:50:00 -0400

Just for the record, take all Twitter statuses with a healthy grain of salt.

Understood Brent.

But I still made fun of you and forwarded to friends. That's what I do after lunch.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

cyclone4 — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:17:26 -0400

Good news for North Carolina. Roy Cooper would make a fine senator but what we need more than anything right now is an outstanding attorney general. He has done a tremendous job thus far and will continue to do so throughout this term and hopefully beyond. North Carolina has received more than its share of black eyes in recent years, no pun intended, and Cooper has remainded steadfast and steady throughout it all. Comes as no surprise considering his upbringing but he is the one who deserves the credit for getting the job done. I know the governorship is out there and calling at some point in the future; it often does for the attorney general in this state. But until that day comes, here's to hoping Roy Cooper continues to run the attorney general's office to the best of his ability, which is considerable.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

woodcox — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:02:07 -0400

Just for the record, take all Twitter statuses with a healthy grain of salt. I'm sure the Attorney General has many more reasons to not seek a Senate seat than to avoid the wrath of NCGOP press releases. Not the least of which being the investigation of Mike Easley and rooting the corruption of fellow Democrats in state government once and for all.

Re: Quick Hits

lpetrou — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:48:19 -0400

I am just wondering who paid for Cooper to go to the White House to talk politics with the President? Why isn't he at home investigating Easley. Or did he get his marching orders from the President on what to do and when to do it? Of course it always takes the feds to investigate the Democrats here in NC. There is an old truism that if one party is in power for any length of time they tend to become corrupt. All anyone has to do to prove this truism is look at NC where there have only been 2 Republican governors since reconstruction (and for those that are educated in government schools that was in the second half of the 1800s). No wonder there is so much corruption in this state and Cooper is following in the footsteps put in the sand by the Blacks and the Phelps, and the rest of the Democrats that are or have been in jail.

Re: Quick Hits

JNEick — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:34:34 -0400

No, scharrison, there is nothing democratic about the Democrat Party.