Parallels with hearings from 45 years ago

From 1972-75, I worked in Washington, D.C., subscribed to the Washington Post, and watched the Watergate hearings on television as much as I could. Like much of America, I was mesmerized by the hearings.

Watching, reading about or listening to the testimony before congressional committees this year takes me back to the Watergate era. So much is the same — the setting in ornate hearing rooms before scores of staff members, media representatives and other officials are interchangeable between 1973 and 2017.

As I listened to testimony from fired FBI Director James Comey, I was transported back to the testimony of John Dean, the White House counsel before the Watergate Committee. Both witnesses spoke in carefully, cautiously measured phrases. Both demonstrated uncanny recall of events. Both men's testimony had the ring of truth.

Tuesday's testimony by Attorney General Jeff Sessions recalled another similarity to Watergate: partisan attacks against the witness were unbecoming and contrary to the Senate's courteous traditions. That is true about both political parties. Democrats tried to interrogate Sessions and force him to admit to wrongdoing. Chairman Richard Burr had to remind one senator to allow the witness to answer her question. Republicans sought to defend the president by shifting the focus of the inquiry or adroitly denying generally accepted facts.

Sessions tried to be the courtly southern gentleman, but it was difficult when he was interrupted by aggressive questioners before he could complete his answer in his slow drawl. Sessions, the administration's "top lawyer," however, refused to answer some questions on the basis of executive privilege even while admitting that he could not invoke executive privilege. Only the president can do that, and President Trump had not invoked executive privilege over his conversations with Sessions. Thus, Sessions said he was reserving the president's right to invoke executive privilege at some time in the future. That strikes many people as stretching a constitutional privilege complete out of shape. By his standard, every conversation with the president would be privileged until the president declares it is not covered by executive privilege. That leaves no room for balance of power and the authority of Congress to examine the executive branch's performance.

As the hearings continue and the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections continue, parallels with Watergate will keep popping up. What is unlikely to pop up is a presidential resignation. While President Nixon was a paranoid egotist who could not admit to being wrong, he at least had the interests of the country foremost in his mind. What is foremost in Trump's mind is Trump himself.

Betsy DeVos confirmation educates voters

Opponents of the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education can take one benefit from Tuesday's vote: It taught us what really counts in the U.S. Senate.

It is not the opinion or desires of constituents exercising their right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Nor is it the outrage of so many American voters who are astounded that a woman with no experience in public schools — as a student, parent, employee, administrator, elected school board official or any other direct contact with public schools — would be nominated to lead public education in America. Switchboards on Capitol Hill were overloaded with phone calls from upset constituents telling their elected representatives not to confirm DeVos. Voice mail systems in congressional offices, both in Washington and in district offices, were overloaded with pleas from voters opposed to DeVos. Complaints about DeVos' nomination jammed email systems in congressional offices. Constituents who could get to their representatives' offices expressed in person their opposition to someone who denigrates public education and seems intent on destroying public schools by whatever means necessary.

No, none of that counts. All that matters in this information age, when it is so relatively easy to send a message or make a phone call to an elected representative, is not the voters' petitioning of elected officials; it is the money that the ultra-rich can bestow on political candidates. DeVos' one great qualification for her office is the millions of dollars she and her family have donated to (mostly Republican) candidates and elected officials. In North Carolina, where grassroots voters stormed the phones, email systems and mailboxes of their senators, DeVos had already made up the minds of Sen. Richard Burr and Sen. Thom Tillis with more than $100,000 in recent campaign contributions. A siege of the senators' offices, which is nearly what happened, would have made no difference. DeVos had those two votes paid for and locked down.

The First Amendment guarantees the right "to petition the government," but when the government is bought and paid for by wealthy donors, petitions are not worth the paper or the email application or the recorded voice mail they're written on.

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.

Secretary of state tries for Senate

Elaine Marshall, the North Carolina secretary of state, not the English professor at Barton College, is running for U.S. Senate, hoping to unseat Republican Richard Burr in the 2010 election. Since winning the secretary of state office in 1996, Marshall, a former state senator, has proven herself to be an able and innovative manager. She has had no trouble getting re-elected to her job after initially embarrassing Republican Richard Petty, who thought he could cruise through the 1996 election on the strength of his celebrity. Although her post is not widely known, Marshall has been widely acknowledged as an exemplary public servant. She upgraded services and computer technology in the secretary of state's office, dragging the entrenched, out-of-date office (thank you, Rufus Edmisten) into the computer age.

But is that good enough to beat Burr? Democrats have been salivating over the prospects of defeating Burr, who is seen as weak and vulnerable. This time, in 2010, he won't be riding the coattails of a Republican president, and his name recognition and approval ratings have been low. But Burr is an unusual and deceptive politician. He may be the most unassuming major office holder in North Carolina. During the 2004 campaign, he traveled alone, driving his own car and keeping his own schedule. There was no press secretary, no chief of staff, no chauffeur, no scheduler, no jacket-holder, no security guard and no hangers-on in his campaign swings. He was refreshingly unpolitical and straightforward. Although political advisers say this style of "retail politics" no longer works in an age of mass media and "wholesale politics," Burr seems comfortable with this simple, one-on-one style, and he is remarkably effective at it.

As good an administrator as Elaine Marshall is, she has not impressed me as an inspiring, highly motivating stump speaker. Marshall would probably make a good senator. She's smart, and she has the skills needed for persuasion and compromise. But it's hard to imagine her firing up the Democratic base for what will inevitably be a tough fight against an incumbent.

Marshall is also an at least part-time resident of Wilson. She is married to Wilson attorney Bill Holdford. Both Marshall and Holdford had been widowed.

Burr is not as easy a target as Democrats think

N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper will not run against Sen. Richard Burr next year, leaving Democrats without a high-profile candidate to complete the sweep of prime state elective offices. Cooper made the announcement last week, disappointing Democrats, including (apparently) President Obama. Former Gov. Mike Easley, who is under investigation by state and federal authorities, is not likely to recover in time to challenge Burr, if he wanted to.

The assumption among Democrats is that Burr is highly vulnerable. Knocking off Burr could ensure Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Burr's approval ratings are lower than Elizabeth Dole's were at this stage of the campaign. But Burr is a deceptive and easily underestimated politician. Few people gave him much chance in 2004 against the better-known Erskine Bowles, but he won handily.

Burr is unusual among politicians in that he is incredibly unassuming. Most politicians travel with an entourage of handlers and hangers-on. I met Burr in 2004 when he was traveling alone from town to town, driving his own aging personal car and chatting with reporters and editors in an unassuming and modest way. He was well-versed on issues without being confrontational or doctrinaire. Since his election to the Senate, Burr has followed the same strategy. He spends congressional recesses traveling the state (unlike Elizabeth Dole, who seldom worked the state during her six years in office) and meeting with the small groups that he is so comfortable with and that invariably find him so appealing and impressive.

Given that methodology, it is surprising that Burr's name recognition and approval ratings are so low. Some would claim that Burr's retail politicking is an anachronism in an age of wholesale political strategies -- television commercials, direct mail and digital networking. If the Democrats can come up with a viable candidate, 2010 could be a showdown between Burr's old-style, personal and county courthouse campaigning and the wholesale campaigning used by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which early on tarred Dole as an aging, disconnected, out-of-touch and aristocratic politician.

But Democrats would be mistaken to underestimate Burr. He will not go down as easily as Dole.