The Great Obama Ad Controversy

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the big political news of the day is the Republican State Party's upcoming ad linking Moore and Perdue to Obama and ultimately to Obama's controversial minister. If the purpose of the ad was to stir up controversy and as a result raise money from the party's conservative base then the ad is probably already a big success. However, if the ad is suppose to actually help the GOP nominee for governor beat Moore or Perdue in the fall, then frankly I think it's a big failure.

Allow me to explain. First of all, the ad is being run a week before the primary. So what's the political benefit of that? None that I can discern. Does it impact the democratic primary voters in choosing Moore or Perdue? Obama or Clinton? Somehow I doubt it but if it does so what. Does it advance the argument as to why the GOP nominee would be the better candidate in the fall? I doubt that also. There are a myriad of issues to take the ultimate democratic nominee on in the fall - or for that matter right now. For example, in Tuesday's WRAL-TV debate Moore and Perdue danced around the studio trying to avoid all sorts of probing questions. In particular neither wanted to answer whether they supported a fetal homicide bill. As it turns out after long efforts to filibuster the question to death, they ended up saying that they didn't. Now that's a real issue the GOP nominee (we all support the proposed fetal homicide bill) can run on.

In addition the ad unfortunately allows our political opponents and the media to continue stereotyping Republicans as anti-black and willing to use race to try and win elections. Having spent a political career spanning 35 years trying to reach out to the broader racial communities around our state and having some limited success, it's frustrating to see an unfair and inaccurate label continue to be applied to us. And frankly it hurts in the general election.

Finally, I have to clarify for an individual posting on the Under the Dome blog entry, the question he raised about my recusal in the redistricting cases back in 2001 and 2002 when I was on the Supreme Court. I participated in the first redistricting case (Stephenson I) agreeing for the most part with the majority but dissenting in part when the Court overstepped its constitutional bounds on a couple of points. (I believe in being consistent in my views about constitutional limitations regardless of the political consequences.)

However, as a candidate for reelection in 2002, the Democratic Party attacked me and accused me of not being impartial in the redistricting case. As a result when Stephenson II came up I recused (declined to participate) but filed the reason for the recusal and asked both sides if they were comfortable with me participating. The Attorney General's office said they were fine with me participating, but the plaintiffs lawyers did not agree. Thus I was recused in Stephenson II and III.

On a final note to that issue, I met Mr. Stephenson at a recent debate and he thanked me profusely for my work on the Court and for the Stephenson decision that I participated in. Enough said about all of this. I'm glad May 6th will be here soon.