The report is in; the work begins

The Mueller report, or at least an interpretive summary of it, landed in a hostile landscape Sunday. Democrats had hoped for more than they got. Republicans are proclaiming not-quite-justified victory in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and associated issues.

According the Attorney General William Barr (who had already declared the president innocent of any wrongdoing), Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russians. As to any potential obstruction by the president or his associates, Mueller did not find enough evidence to warrant an indictment. Barr, in his summary to Congress, claims prosecutorial discretion to decide that no indictments are justified. That is, he sees insufficient evidence to convict anyone of obstruction.

President Trump was quick to proclaim victory and vindication, saying there was "no collusion" and he was fully exonerated. That second conclusion exaggerates the situation. Not finding enough evidence to convict is not the same as being fully exonerated.

Regardless, Trump has much to cheer about. The "no collusion" he has been proclaiming for months appears to be accurate, but few people have seen the evidence on which Mueller based his conclusion. Several points should be remembered:
1. The letter to Congress was not Mueller's full report. Democrats in the House are pushing for a full release of the report and substantiating evidence. A different conclusion or a more nuanced conclusion could be forthcoming.
2. Trump has spent two years declaring that Mueller was biased, politicized and unfair in his investigation, which the president repeatedly called a "witch hunt." How can he now hold up Mueller's report as evidence of his own vindication?
3. The Democratic majority in the House will conduct its own investigation of what happened in the 2016 election and how Trump has presided over the Executive Branch of government. That investigation will have more impact on Trump's future than Mueller's report. Trump's troubles are not over yet.
4. Conspiracy, the crime sometimes referred to as collusion, is notoriously difficult to prove. A conspiracy takes place in the minds of its partners; prosecutors must persuade jurors of what the defendants were thinking, which is a difficult step.
5. Even if there was no collusion in the 2016 election, there clearly was Russian interference. Mueller's team has indicted a number of Russians for interfering in the U.S. election. We will never know whether that interference swayed election results, but there was clearly a Russian effort to aid Trump's election chances. Vladimir Putin himself (Trump's BFF) acknowledged that he wanted Trump to win the election.
6. Mueller's report isn't the final statement about possible criminal conduct in the Trump circle. Trump's lawyer, his former campaign manager, several campaign advisers and others have been indicted, convicted or pleaded guilty as a result of the Mueller probe. Investigations into Trump-related crimes in the Southern District of New York.

Where does all this leave Democrats and others who would like to see Trump impeached? They are going to have to find additional evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in order to get enough votes in Congress to impeach and remove from office. But Yoni Applebaum in an article in the March Atlantic magazine, makes the case for impeachment not based on criminal offenses but on misconduct/misbehavior in office. Applebaum says the Founding Fathers provided impeachment as a means of correcting an electoral mistake, removing a president who is incompetent, embarrassing, or a detriment to American democracy. By that standard, Applebaum says, Congress already has enough evidence, much of it from Trump's own mouth (or his fingers on his phone keyboard) to impeach him. He has berated grieving parents of American soldiers killed in action; he has insulted American heroes such as John McCain; he has embraced authoritarian dictators such as Kim Jong Un and Putin while castigating American allies; his administration has been chaotic and contradictory; he has worked to weaken or destroy NATO; he has sought to scuttle the post-World War II alliances that have prevented another world war; and he has profited from his office by accepting payments from foreign governments through his real estate properties.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of un-presidential behavior by Trump, it will be difficult to pass an impeachment bill. Democrats' best hope for getting rid of Trump will be the old-fashioned way: vote him out of office in 2020. Because Trump has such an enthusiastic, motivated, he-can-do-no-wrong following, even that won't be easy.

A nightmare scenario for 2020

As the mid-term elections fall behind us and the 2020 election campaigns are already under way, here's the nightmare scenario that is making me lose sleep:

1. President Donald Trump runs a spirited campaign for re-election much like his 2016 campaign and his rallies in support of Republican candidates in the 2018 mid-terms. He shouts and threatens and insults, and his cheering throngs love it. They love him. They love everything he says and everything he does, not matter what. He is convinced and they are convinced that he will easily win re-election. After all, who could not love such a successful, determined president, the greatest of all times. Just ask him!

2. The Democrats, meanwhile, slowly recognize that their strategy of playing to the many interest groups — racial, ethnic, gender, educational levels and philosophical — is not winning them the votes they need from the disaffected, working class, struggling, left-behind, frustrated, angry voters who abandoned caution in 2016 and swung to Trump. The Democrats develop a new strategy of listening to the disaffected, and not just the poor (another of their faithful interest groups) but especially the workers who have seen their adjusted income and standard of living plummet, their children unable to find work, and the despair all around them that leads to opioid addiction and suicides.

3. So the Democrats get smart and select a presidential candidate who can appeal to the working class without alienating their traditional voters. I cannot see who that might be; the Democrats on the horizon seem to be leaning toward more protective promises for the interest groups instead of attending to the legitimate needs of the workers who have been left behind.

4. Having found the new strategy and the appealing candidate, the Democrats cruise to victory on Nov. 3, 2020.

5. Then all hell breaks loose. A defeated Donald Trump cannot admit defeat. He proclaims that the election was rigged against him, that his second term was stolen from him, and he will fight to right this wrong. A new president has been elected, but Trump has 78 days as a lame-duck president until the new president's Jan. 20 inauguration, and he can wreak havoc like never before. If you thought he was encouraging violence at his rallies before, just wait. He can suggest that voters should rise up to defeat this electoral theft. He's already proclaimed that he could murder someone on Fifth Avenue and never lose a supporter or face consequences. His 2016 supporters were so sure he would win that some threatened massive resistance if the vote tally went against Trump. A president who already sees himself as above the law would have no problem with taking drastic measures to ensure his position.

6. Trump can declare martial law to jail his political opponents. He can waive restrictions on search and seizure. He can create crises that "only I can fix." The country can be divided like no time since 1861. Federal judges will rule against him, but Trump has already undermined trust in the judiciary. Their rulings will just anger the Trump faithful more than ever. Trump can accuse the justices of prejudice and unfairness. He has already done that with far less at stake. Any federal employee of the Justice Department who attempts to enforce the courts' rulings can be summarily fired by the lame duck president. The newly elected Democratic president can file lawsuits, but court victories will be useless if no federal officials are around to enforce the rulings.

7. The United States government crumbles with Trump opponents jailed ("Lock Them Up!") and career federal employees replaced by Trump toadies. Trump's friends in Moscow, North Korea, Saudi Arabia can recognize the Trump victory as legitimate. American democracy will be overthrown.

Shutdown is more about politics than budgets

The federal government's shutdown is in its third day today, and the only progress seems to be in the increases in partisan finger-pointing by congressional leaders and the White House. Today's problem is indicative of a much larger, long-range problem with the entire budgeting process, which, as a New York Times article says, is more about partisan sniping than budgeting.

Congress runs into these impasses on a regular basis — annually or more often. The leadership of both parties in Congress appears to be more interested in gaining political advantage than in doing the work they were elected to do. Congress' fundamental responsibility is to pass a budget and appropriate funds for the federal government to operate. In the current environment, this appears to be nearly impossible. 

Political leaders and commentators are more interested in which party is winning the public relations battle than in providing the means for carrying out government functions. Major changes too the budgetary process will be needed to prevent the entire legislative process from dissolving into chaos. Changes have been tried before. I was employed by the federal government in Washington in 1974 when Congress extended the 1973-74 fiscal year to 15 months in order to give congressional committees and leaders more time to pass a budget appropriate funds. Instead of having budgeting and appropriations done by July 1, the traditional end of the fiscal year, Congress would have until Oct. 1 to complete the process. That has worked out really well, hasn't it? 

Let me offer one simple proposal. Pass a law that cancels the salaries and other payments to all members of Congress any time the budget and appropriations bills are not completed by the beginning of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. I think that motivation might be sufficient to get members of Congress to "do something." The cancellation could even be extended to all elected officials, including the president and vice president, who have assumed roles in the budgetary process.

In the current shutdown, Democrats are hoping voters will rise up against President Trump and his party for opposing a permanent solution for the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) immigrants. Republicans are hoping voters will rise up against Democrats' DACA demands while declining Republicans' agreement on a six-year extension of the popular, bipartisan CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). Democrats call it the Trump Shutdown. Republicans call it the Schumer Shutdown (after the Senate Minority Leader).

If there is no compromise, it appears to me that Republicans will ultimately gain the advantage. Republicans are offering a long-term deal on CHIP, which, they point out, benefits millions of American citizens, while Democrats are holding out for preferential treatment for less than a million (reportedly) resident non-citizens. The issues are more complicated than that, but most voters will not get into the nuances and will only see the broad outlines. On that basis, the Republicans have the more persuasive argument, as well as the catchier slogan: "Schumer Shutdown."

Trump the Democrat

Suppose Donald Trump runs for re-election on the Democratic ticket!

After yesterday's new coalition of Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer plus Trump's indication that he might eliminate the debt ceiling altogether, Trump seems more Democratic than some Democrats. And he clearly left some Republicans (Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) miffed by the Republican president's detour around the party's congressional leadership.

The Trump-Pelosi-Schumer triumvirate got together on a legislative plan that appears to be counter to the Republican Party's interests. Ryan and McConnell wanted to put off debt ceiling and 2018 budget decisions until after the 2018 mid-term elections. Making painful and controversial decisions after the election instead of before would be in the best interests of the majority party. Democrats wanted action sooner rather than later, giving them the opportunity to force Republicans to state where they stand on controversial but essential legislation before Americans go to the polls.

Some Republicans have complained that Trump is not really a Republican, which is true. He is Trump, and what is good for him and his friends is his policy, regardless of partisan concerns. Bipartisanship, if that is what Trump is able to bring about, would be welcomed by many Americans and by some members of Congress in both parties.

Bipartisanship would be helpful in repairing Trump's initiative on immigration. Trump was prompted (by Pelosi) to say some nice things about young immigrants while his attorney general announced the rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy of the Obama administration. Trump tweeted (how else would he make an important announcement?) that the "Dreamers" protected by DACA would have nothing to worry about in the six months before DACA expires under the new policy.

Critics are portraying the administration's decision as a cruel betrayal of these young immigrants brought here illegally as children. But what the administration is doing is forcing Congress to pass DACA-type protections into federal law. It gives Congress six months to pass legislation. There is no guarantee that Congress will do its duty, but there seems to be overwhelming support for providing a means for these innocent young people to avoid deportation. Members of Congress who fail to support a fair and reasonable bill to protect "Dreamers" will face political consequences. A long-sought comprehensive immigration overhaul might even come from this motivation.

Both of these actions this week by the president relates to his impatience and impulsiveness. Trump has been critical of Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation and other important measures. He has accused his own party's leadership of dragging their feet. Most successful businessmen have an impatient streak, and Trump's streak is long and deep. If his impatience gets Congress to start things moving, he could salvage his own failing presidency.

"Better Deal" may be a better strategy

An interesting article in The Atlantic reveals that Democrats have come up with a strategy to take back Congress (or at least part of it) in the 2018 elections. "Better Deal" appears to be a real step forward, one that could, conceivably, be successful.

In all of the post-mortems on the 2016 elections, the one aspect that has chimed true repeatedly is the Democrats' disconnect with working-class and lower-middle-class voters. Democrats did not even know Michigan and Wisconsin were vulnerable to GOP appeals until votes were cast. Too many Democratic political strategists never looked beyond Manhattan or the District of Columbia. 

"Better Deal" will offer a much more populist slant than Democrats have offered recently. Bernie Saunders, whose populism lapped over into socialism, sparked excitement among many Democrats in 2016, but the cards were stacked against him. Even Obama's 2008 "Yes We Can" slogan is not populist in the way of "Better Deal," which hearkens back to FDR's "New Deal" and Truman's "Fair Deal." A more populist tone on health care, jobs, anti-trust legislation, fair wages, tax fairness and other issues could resonate with the mostly white, less-educated, hard-working but falling behind, largely forgotten voters who swarmed to Trump rallies with their empty promises and angry insults.

As Democrats such as Chuck Schumer have realized, Democrats need to appeal to that broad spectrum of the electorate who wanted what Trump was selling. Democrats can retake this constituency they once owned by adopting clearly defined principles and goals. Among these should be affordable health care (even if it means cracking down on excesses by the pharmaceutical industry, health insurers and hospitals); restrictions on the size and monopolistic practices of major banks and other corporations; tax law that is simplified and fair at all levels (not slanted toward the super rich and big corporations); public education within everyone's reach teaching history, civics and national pride; treatment for drug addiction (whether it is opioid pain relievers, marijuana or other drugs); strong but fair law enforcement, federal policy that respects science and research; and a return to federalism that respects state sovereignty but is unafraid to step in and to do bold things, such as the Interstate Highway system or the Apollo program.

In doing this, Democrats must steer clear of their tendency to over-regulate. They responded to the 2008 financial crisis by passing Dodd-Frank, which has made closing on a mortgage a paperwork nightmare with each little step strictly prescribed and backed by federal prosecutors. These regulations did nothing to prevent the big banks' gambles with mortgage securities and their no-document mortgages.

Unfortunately, Democrats in recent years have too often relied on dividing the electorate into special-interest groups and setting party agendas aimed at attracting as many interest groups as possible. Meanwhile, disenchanted voters watched big conglomerates destroy their small-town retailers and shut down the factories that provided a decent (but bare) living for generations. Stores disappeared, jobs disappeared, and self-respecting laid-off workers had nowhere go.

Democrats (in fact all of America) must not abandon civil rights and justice. They can still appeal to racial minorities, immigrants, gays, lesbians and transgenders. Political correctness has silenced any criticism or perceived slights of these groups. Thus, a candidate who responded to a Black Lives Matter question by saying "All lives matter" was booed vociferously. At some colleges, conservative speakers are shouted down or assaulted in the name of "free speech." Persons in this country illegally cannot be called "illegal immigrants," though, clearly, their status is illegal. A fair and reasonable immigration policy must protect U.S. jobs and culture while providing procedures for foreigners who wish to become Americans and can contribute to the American economy and security.

A "Better Deal" strategy can win, but it will mean making a sharp turn from Democrats' trajectory of the past few elections. Republicans, meanwhile, may help Democrats if the GOP continues on its trajectory of prescribing tax cuts for the wealthy for any problem the nation faces and ignoring the needs of the very people Democrats ignored in 2016

 

Projection sees Republican-controlled Senate with N.C. Democrat winning

This is an interesting projection. It shows the Republicans regaining control of the U.S. Senate, with all the ramifications that will bring. But it also gives North Carolina's Kay Hagan a 73 percent chance of winning re-election in what has been termed a very vulnerable seat for the first-term Democrat. Even though the Republican leadership got the candidate they wanted from the party primary — Speaker of the House Thom Tillis — the Post's analysis has Hagan hanging onto her seat.

The Washington Post graphic also give readers an opportunity to look at House races around the country. These projections should be flavored with the recognition that it is still nearly six months until the election, and a lot can happen in six months.

If Sirhan Sirhan had been stopped, what the world might have been

I dragged myself out of bed the morning of June 5, 1968, and turned on the television — something I wouldn't normally do — but I wanted to find out what happened in the California presidential primary. I was home from my first year of college and had not yet started a summer job. The newscast left me confused. Instead of reciting the primary results, the reporters were all gathered around a hospital, talking of wounds and prognosis and hopes. It took me a while to realize that they were talking about a shooting that had happened hours earlier in a back hallway at the Ambassador Hotel. Sen. Robert Kennedy lay gravely wounded with a bullet to the head. He would survive less than a day.

Forty-five years later, I wonder at how different the world might have been if someone had stopped Sirhan Sirhan in that hallway, taken away his pistol and stopped the nightmare. Could Kennedy have rested the Democratic nomination away from Vice President Hubert Humphrey? Late getting into the race, Kennedy had won a string of primaries and had instigated a wave of enthusiasm and hope — hope that the Kennedy legacy, cut short five years earlier in Dallas, might be revived.

But the odds were long. Party pols still controlled the nomination process, and they weren't lining up behind Bobby. The president, Lyndon Johnson, hated Bobby, and the feeling was mutual. Would the Chicago Democratic Convention have been as chaotic if Kennedy had been there to give an outlet to the many rank-and-file who felt left out and ignored? Could the Democrats have coalesced around Bobby and denied Richard Nixon his slim victory?

And if Bobby had become president, what might have transpired in Vietnam, in civil rights and in every other issue of the day? Would Bobby have launched a new investigation of the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination, an investigative panel not appointed by LBJ, whom Bobby, according to some reports, thought had a hand in the murder?

These are questions that cry out for an alternative history — a fictionalized account of what might have been, of what could have been, of what many people dreamed would happen.

The votes are in; now what?

Tuesday's election went about as predicted with Republicans taking over the U.S. House of Representatives and narrowing the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate. America once again will have a divided government. The question before the newly elected representatives and before the American people is whether America will have a more effective government.

Voter anger, which led to many of the Republican victories, was aimed, according to exit polls, at both parties. Voters recognized that both parties were at fault for the partisan attitudes in Washington, the nasty campaign advertising and the lack of cooperation in the public interest. Some of last night's victors set a conciliatory and humble tone. New Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, in particular, offered an impressive victory speech, recalling the struggles of his Cuban parents to create a better life for their children in this, "the greatest nation in human history." Likely Speaker of the House John Boehner chose conciliation over gloating in his remarks, reminding followers that there an be little call for celebration when unemployment is so high and the national debt so mountainous.

All elections present opportunities, and this one is no exception. President Obama should try again to reach out to Republicans, as he did at the beginning of his presidency when he was rebuffed. The Tea Party candidates who have vowed to "repeal" the president's health care legislation should take a gulp of reality: With the Senate still in Democratic hands and Obama wielding veto power, that cannot be done. Don't waste America's time. There should be opportunities, however, to address the budget deficit, tax policy, infrastructure needs, climate change, perhaps even the looming insolvency of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats must be willing to put aside some of their pet projects, and Republicans must be willing to consider recovering some lost tax revenue.

After so deep a debacle — losing more House seats than in 1994 — Democrats should take a fresh look at their leadership. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, was a lightning rod for GOP criticism. Electing her minority leader would show America that the Democrats haven't learned much from the public's outcry. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should resign his leadership post for the good of the party. Reid was so unpopular in his home state of Nevada that few analysts thought he could win. A combination of an ill-qualified opponent and a solid grassroots organization with strong union support allowed Reid to eke out a win. Keeping him as the party's Senate leader, however, would extend Democrats' negative public image.

One hopeful sign in this election is that some political moderates survived strong challenges. North Carolina Reps. Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre are examples. A coalition of moderates willing to consider compromises and cooperation with the "loyal opposition" could bring real progress on major issues confronting this nation. It is doubtful, however, that any action taken by Congress or the president will bring about a quick economic recovery. Global economics plays by rules not set on Capitol Hill or Pennsylvania Avenue.

What I'm expecting from Tuesday's vote

Two days before the mid-term elections, here are my predictions ... or expectations, based on gut feelings and some casual observations.
1. Republicans will make big gains both in North Carolina and on Capitol Hill. The U.S. House could go Republican, but the Senate is a slightly longer shot (still possible). Part of this shift is that the roiling electorate wants things to change, and there are more Democrats to aim their anger at.
2. Republican gains might not be as wide or as deep as some predictions claim. Younger and minority voters are harder to poll than the general population, and those groups went strongly Democratic in 2008. They will turn out in enough numbers to blunt the Republicans' celebration, at least a little.
3. North Carolina could see the General Assembly change hands. Republicans could control the Senate for the first time in a century. Given the scandals surrounding Democrats Perdue, Easley, Black, Ballance, Scott-Phipps and others, voters would be justified in showing the door to more N.C. Democrats, but they probably won't. Expect a nearly evenly divided legislature.
4. If Republicans win control of the legislature, they will have a tough time making the budget balance without tax increases. They'll put the state on a lean diet, and voters can see how they like it.
5. If Republicans regain control of Congress, they'll have two choices: They can try to embarrass, harass and defeat as many Democrats as possible (especially President Obama), or they can embrace an opportunity for compromises that will make Washington functional again. For the sake of the country, let's hope they (and the Democrats) choose the latter.

Marshall wins but faces Burr next

Hand it to Elaine Marshall. She won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate by hard work and a solid record in elective office. In a few months we'll find out whether hard work and political experience are enough to unseat an incumbent Republican, Richard Burr.

Marshall got no respect from the Democratic establishment. The national party strategists didn't think she had what it takes to take on Burr. They tried to talk Bob Etheridge into the race (this was before he manhandled some rude questioners with a video camera on a Washington street), but he wasn't interested. Other "name" Democrats were reportedly asked to jump into the ring, too, but declined. Cal Cunningham, a former state senator with youthful good looks and a compelling history as an Iraq War veteran, got the national backing but finished second in the first primary. In Tuesday's primary, he was not able to turn the tables on Marshall, who used traditional political tactics to motivate and turn out voters in the low-turnout election.

Marshall has an impressive record. She cleaned up the Secretary of State's office when she took it over from Rufus Edmisten. She earned a reputation as a good administrator who ran a clean office and clean campaigns. And she even managed to toil onward in her campaign after the death of her husband, Bill Holdford of Wilson. But no one ever accused her of being dynamic, charismatic or a stem-winding speaker. She's an old-style politician who tends to win votes one at a time.

Interestingly enough, so is Burr. He's a low-key campaigner who is unassuming and not in the least "full of himself" as many politicians are. In the 30-plus years I covered political campaigns, I don't think I ever met a politician who traveled solo the way Burr did. Every candidate from gubernatorial and senatorial down to state House candidates all had a press secretary, a chief of staff, a driver, a strategist, or somebody traveling with them as they dropped in on key leaders, donors and news media. But Burr drove himself and was ready to answer questions without any whispers from any strategists or media handlers. Burr has not set the public opinion polls on fire, perhaps for that very reason. Democratic strategists see his mediocre approval ratings and think he's vulnerable, but he might just be too low key to register in polls taken a year before an election.

If Marshall loses to Burr, the national party strategists might tell N.C. Democratic primary voters, "We told you so (you shoulda voted for Cunningham)," but the problem might not be Marshall. It might be that Burr is a more formidable candidate than he appears from the Democratic side. He's a cautious, conservative candidate who is neither the darling of nor the enemy of the Tea Party wing. And he's a better campaigner than most people give him credit for — just like Marshall. Burr's secret weapon is that in this anti-incumbent year, it's better to be a Republican, the party that is not in charge of both the executive and the legislative branches of government. Working against him is the jinx attached to the seat he holds. No one has held the seat for more than one term since Sam Ervin retired. It's been an endless loop of six years for a Democrat, then six years for a Republican, then six years for a Democrats ... Burr has perhaps the best opportunity yet to end this rerun.

Indictment presents GOP opportunity

Ruffin Poole's indictment Thursday on a long list of charges involving fraud and improper influence over state regulators is a warning for others in the Mike Easley inner circle and for Democrats who have been way too comfortable with their power, perks and entitlements. Poole, who claimed his Fifth Amendment rights when called before the state Elections Commission looking into Easley's campaign finances and subsequently lost his job with a law firm, is surely not the only Easley insider to face indictment. U.S. Attorney George Holding, who is bucking replacement by President Obama, is deadly serious about this case. Easley could easily end up being the first N.C. governor in memory to face criminal charges over conduct in office.

A string of indictments of powerful Democrats could devastate the party's chances in this fall's election of state legislators, members of Congress and local officials. If Republican strategists have any sense of political opportunity at all they will focus their campaigns on the accusations of political corruption and will frequently recite the names of Democratic officials who have gone to prison (Jim Black, Frank Ballance, Meg Scott Phipps, etc.) or who have been indicted (Poole and whoever else finds his name in headlines over the next 10 months).

Even without the political corruption charges, Democratic incumbents would face a difficult test. High unemployment, flagging state revenues, unpopular new taxes and steady increases in state spending under Democratic leadership would be hard to hide. But the corruption allegations constitute an issue that appeals across the ideological spectrum; liberals and independents don't like corruption any more than conservatives do.

Republicans still need candidates who have broad appeal, and that's too often been a problem for N.C. Republicans. Massachusetts Republicans (with help from independents and disenchanted Democrats) elected Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate. But would N.C. Republican strategists even consider a candidate who had posed for Playgirl in his younger days? It's hard to imagine.

It's also hard to imagine how North Carolina Republicans might blow this opportunity, but they've developed an affinity for missed opportunities. The 2010 election will almost certainly result in more GOP seats in the General Assembly. And if corruption trials of once-powerful Democrats linger into 2012, that year's elections could bring even greater opportunities to the state GOP.

Election's meanings are pretty clear

The political analysts are puzzling over the deeper meanings of Tuesday's elections like soothsayers examining the entrails of a goat. The meanings shouldn't be too hard to discern, in part because there are few new lessons to learn.

In Virginia, a key swing state, where I spent five years in the 1970s, Republicans are resurgent again, winning all three major statewide offices. Virginia Republicans led the wave of Southern states swinging to the right before the Reagan Revolution took hold, and the Republican Party has been strong for decades, fueled by the natural conservatism of rural Virginia and the pro-business inclinations of traditional suburban Republicanism. Virginia's unusual odd-year elections put the state in the spotlight every four years. This year, Virginia Republicans nominated a solidly conservative gubernatorial candidate who talked local issues, not national ideology, and Bob McDonnell won handily in the Old Dominion.

In New Jersey, Gov. John Corzine couldn't hang onto his office, despite impassioned appeals from President Obama. He lost to a centrist Republican who withstood personal attacks and snide references to his weight problem to gain control of the Democratic-leaning state. This GOP victory, because it is in New Jersey and because Obama campaigned so vigorously there, might be more important than the Virginia contest.

In contrast, Upstate New York Republicans shot themselves in the foot (or somewhere) by first nominating a candidate who held more traditionally Democratic views on social issues and then abandoning her in favor of a Conservative candidate who didn't know the territory or the issues in New York's 23rd District. Just before the election, the incumbent-but-never-elected Republican withdrew and cast her support to the Democrat, who defeated the divided Republican/Conservatives in a district that had been Republicans for generations. Republicans will get another chance to regain the seat next year, but they'll have to do it against an incumbent Democrat. It's their own fault.

The lesson of Election 2009 is simple: Centrist, moderate candidates do better than either ideological conservatives or far-left liberals. The electorate is generally moderate overall with some pockets leaning one way or the other. The predictive ability of these few contests is limited, but it's safe to say that voters are uneasy and are distrustful of too much change too fast in either direction.

Easley consequences: criminal and political

The state Board of Elections found plenty of wrongdoing in the Easley for Governor campaign and voted Friday to turn the matter over to state prosecutors. The board also imposed a fine on the Easley campaign committee, which is reportedly dormant and might never have to pay the fine. In a week of hearings, board members heard about unreported airline flights, donations routed through the state Democratic Party to avoid contribution limits and reporting requirements, freebies for the governor and work done to private property paid for by campaign donations. They also heard the two-term former governor assert his innocence and rebut the sworn testimony of a close associate.

The Easley matter is far from over. The board appears to have uncovered enough evidence to justify felony charges. Federal prosecutors are also reportedly looking into Easley's activities, including his wife's hiring and extraordinary pay raise at N.C. State University. Two questions remain:

1. Is there enough evidence to convict Easley or others in state or federal court?

2. What will be the political fallout from this mess?

In 2008, Democrats got a pass on the shenanigans of party leaders and elected officials. Although former Speaker of the House Jim Black was in federal prison for trading illegal campaign contributions for legislative action and lesser officials were imprisoned or fined, voters elected another Democrat as governor and gave Democrats an unstoppable majority in both chambers of the General Assembly. The turnout for Barack Obama, the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state since Jimmy Carter did it in 1976, helped ensure the Democrats' success, but Obama will not be on the ballot next year.

If Republicans can produce viable candidates who will offer an alternative to the usual insider favoritism and flouting of laws and regulations that has been exposed by the Board of Elections hearings, Republicans can make substantial gains in 2010. Gov. Bev Perdue has seen her approval ratings plummet, and Democrats won't have Obama to lead the ticket next year. Republicans will have a real chance next year, but the party has a record of blowing opportunities. Internal fighting and demands for ideological purity have crippled Republicans in the past. Let's see if they can take advantage of the golden opportunity Easley and other Democrats have provided them.

Specter's move is not a seismic shift

Arlen Specter's switch Tuesday to the Democratic Party gives Democrats a bullet-proof majority in the Senate, but let's not make too much of this bit of political theater. Specter has always been an ephemeral independent whose position on any number of issues was difficult to predict. Specter told the public that the Republican Party had abandoned him, not the other way around. It's true that the right wing of the Republican Party has often displayed a suicidal inclination, with its RINO (Republican In Name Only) epithet, but Specter's decision had more to do with electability than with party ideology.

Specter's Republican political base has shifted, making it more difficult for him to survive a conservative challenge in the primary next year. He sees brighter prospects in the 2010 Democratic primary and general election, and he's probably right.

But predictions that the Republicans are facing a permanent minority status or could go the way of the Whigs and the Fusionists are overblown. We've heard such predictions before. The 1964 Lyndon Johnson blowout left Republicans shattered, and the 1974 and 1976 post-Watergate elections led many pundits to predict the end of the Republican Party. But in 1984, it looked like the Democrats who were in danger of extinction.

Gaining a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate will not give Democrats a blank check in Washington. There's still the matter of the electorate who, while shifting toward the left the past four or five years (Republicans can largely thank George W. Bush for that), is still more conservative than most Democrats in Congress. Expect to see some defections from the Democrats' majority on some key votes.

One major test will be the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which eliminates the secret ballot in union elections and subjects workers to direct coercion. Specter has said he will vote against the top-priority union-backed bill, but don't bet the ranch on it; he has flip-flopped on issues before. When it comes down to the crucial vote, it will be hard for senators elected by secret ballot to deny a secret ballot to workers. And voters, with the exception of union loyalists, will have a hard time understanding what's so bad about a secret ballot.

The news of Specter's party switch was less than a seismic shift. One North Carolina Republican told the News & Observer that it would have been bigger news if Specter had decided to become a Republican.

One-day job losses by the thousands

The Washington Post is reporting today that U.S. corporations shed 55,000 jobs in just one day — Monday. The New York Times, looking worldwide, came up with an even bigger one-day number — 75,000 jobs lost in one day.

However you count it, the news is devastating for the economy and discouraging for those of us looking for jobs. That just makes thousands more people competing for the limited number of jobs available. And believe me, few people are hiring. Even if you're willing to relocate to anywhere in the country or world, which I am not, the competition is fierce. And for the unemployed, there's no relief in sight. Waiting it out might be a realistic strategy for most recessions, but not so for this one, which appears likely to last through most of this year or even into 2010. It will not take too many more days like Monday to turn this recession into something resembling the 1930s. Remember that this recession began rumbling with the spike in gasoline prices last year. Don't look now, but oil prices are rising again, up about $10 to over $46 a barrel.

Don't overlook the political impact of all this. There are no congressional elections this year, but the recession could linger well into 2010 when there are national elections. The Democrats who control the White House and Congress could find themselves blamed, rightly or wrongly, for the economic pain voters are experiencing. If things turn around early enough, say by the first of 2010, and the economy is growing and creating jobs by summer, Democrats will likely get the credit — rightly or wrongly.