Bored of elections

I'm not sure that I did weave in a gender theme. What did I say that wouldn't apply to the argument if Kim were the male and the high-ranking GOP spouse were female?

As for transparency, what was not transparent? Are you saying neither Andrew Whalen nor John Wallace knew of Strach's marriage? We can toss that one out the window since both were keenly aware of that little factoid at the outset. And if they found the circumstance objectionable, why was the issue not raised until Strach started to get a little too curious about that notebook -- which, it turned out -- contained reports of EVEN MORE flights that had not been disclosed. GEE. I guess the timing was pure coincidence. Again, what was NOT transparent besides the fact that the Governor's people couldn't afford yet another whiff of scandal?

I'm trying to imagine what "inadvertent" observation Strach would let slip. Inadvertent, huh? As in, she spills a mug of coffee over breakfast and says, "OH darnit, darling, Candidate So and So seems to have done thus and such. OOPS I shouldn't have said that. Now where are those paper towels?" Lawyers who are couples deal with client confidentiality and disclosure requirements all the time.

Finally, what I think some reporters missed early on about this case was that everything Fetzer said about the report and the timeline was from information right there in black and white, in the same report and accompanying documents made available and provided to Andrew Whalen and every reporter who asked for it.

Fetzer didn't make a statement or accusation that couldn't be traced to those documents. But yeah, a person would actually have to READ the report and the accompanying documents to connect those dots. Fetzer was highly motivated to do so, whereas I think the Democrats were just hoping the whole issue would be put to rest with the memo that the State Board put out characterizing the report and its conclusions. One reporter simply used the memo that the State Board put out about the report as the basis for his story on what the report said instead of reading the report and the exhibits that went with it. That was a mistake.

I'm with you on transparency, James. And while Brunette is right that the problem may only be coming to light at this moment for political reasons, it's still a major conflict-of-interest.

Problems involving conflicts-of-interest clearly aren't taken seriously enough in North Carolina (take this oldie-but-goodie from the Observer). One of my major problems with today's crop of Democratic leaders in our state is that they don't comprehend the problem. These conflicts, even when benign, threaten the integrity of government. The conflicts can be twisted into political attacks, and the bad taste can shake our confidence in government. Or, if a party leader is working on a campaign (even in a primary), when they're attacked by their political opponents for ethical, moral, or legal mistakes, it hurts the integrity of the organization and the party. Furthermore, the "benign" conflicts of interest often aren't benign.

I've quit giving even dinner ticket money or membership dues to organizations that haven't resolved these problems, because it's gotta stop. It may not be as bad as something on "The Wire" or "Brotherhood," but it's the stink of it.

How about looking at the product for evidence of bias instead of assuming that a person cannot do her job with integrity because of her marriage? The assumption is appalling, but what's worse amid all these yelps and accusations of "conflict of interest" is that so far there is zero evidence of bias in the product.

That's a pretty serious missing piece, especially given the seriousness of the charge. And that's what really stinks.

Instead of bypassing the reputation Strach has built over the years and the fact that those who have worked most closely with her have attested to her ethical standards (those so speaking would include Gary Bartlett and Larry Leake), how about asking whether her facts are accurate?

Did she make something up? Did she distort anything anyone said? So far I haven't seen anything from Perdue's people that suggests anything like that. They just want to kill the messenger to distract from the message itself.

And one more thing . . . would you kindly consider what the word "transparency" means and how you're using it? What on earth was *not* transparent here?

I've read this thread with great interest. I believe the truly awful thing here is that, for a short while, it appeared North Carolina was privileged to have a board of elections that, absent the politicians doing their jobs (Willoughby, Cooper), attempted to hold campaigns accountable for their egregious flouting of the law. Now, it appears Larry Leake has a price at which he'll sell his integrity. He now joins the long line of people who somehow manage to avoid doing the right thing. Ms. Strach did the right thing exposing Mr. Leake, regardless of her motives, which, by the way, I attribute to integrity, not partisanship. It is legitimate to question her motives, but if there is no evidence to suggest any wrongdoing, there is no evidence. It isn't her fault that people in power (cops, governors, teachers, board of education members, priests, rock stars, CEOs, regulators) often abuse that power and let us down. Sadly, she's the one that has to prove she's above reproach. I think she has, but I've got my hard hat on just in case a shoe drops.