Sarah Palin’s new book, Going Rogue, was a hot seller even before it hit bookstores last week. But how is it selling on the UNC campus, a place where one might be assume the book would be shunned?

It turns out the conservative Palin’s book is selling at about the same rate as a couple of other new titles by more liberal authors on more liberal subjects.

Bulls Head Bookshop personnel said Monday, a week after Palin’s book hit the shelves, that 5 of the 10 copies ordered had been sold. Nicholas Kristoff’s Half the Sky, about women’s oppression, had sold 8 copies over a slightly longer time. And David Plouffe’s The Audacity to Win, about the Obama campaign, had sold 5 copies in a slightly longer time period. All three of the books have prominent displays.

Draw your own conclusions. Posted by Leroy Towns

Put this one down as the dumbest idea in politics since the Democratic Lieberman fiasco: The North Carolina Republican executive committee will consider whether to ban independent voters from participating in the Republican primary next year.

Yes, this is the same Republican party that was tossed so far out of power in the last two elections that it now is unable to pass the time of day.

Never mind that recent polls show independents are flocking to the GOP and that the only route back to leadership for Republicans is through the help of independent voters.

The NC GOP’s theory is that independents who vote in the Republican primary might select moderate candidates. The proposal to limit participation is opposed by GOP legislators, the ones who have to get elected.

Duh.

Remember when liberal Democrats in Connecticut tossed out Sen. Joe Lieberman in the primary, only to see Lieberman come back and win as an independent and make a new career of sticking pins in the Democratic backside?

In the 21st century, the politics of exclusion are a sure way to the politics of extinction, as it should be. A political party that cannot do the basic math to add up the votes does not deserve to get the votes. So here is a math lesson for both parties: more votes are better than fewer votes. Posted by Leroy Towns

Question: How do you destroy a woman politician by trivializing her without raising the ire of the media?

Answer: Pick on a conservative woman.

The Newsweek cover of Palin in running shorts is the best evidence yet that the media not only take a pass when sexist attacks are levied against Palin, but participate as well. The Columbia Journalism Review sees no problem with the Newsweek cover, even as it reports on the outrage of several other writers and Palin herself. Here’s a sample of CJR’s deep thinking on the subject:

While, sure, the cover de- (and then re-)contextualizes the image in question—and, yes, Palin in running shorts in the pages of Runner’s World makes sense in a way that Palin in running shorts on the cover of Newsweek does not—the irony of the latter context works, if anything, to diminish Palin as a politician, not as a woman. There’s a big difference, after all, between sexism and satire.

But there’s also the far more basic—and far more significant—fact in all of this: that depicting a woman’s legs, bare and clad though they may be in shorts of the verging-on-Daisy-Dukes variety, is simply not inherently sexist. Indeed, to suggest that it’s so is also to suggest that women, aesthetically, are inherently sexualized. Which, to my mind, is a far more insidious proposition than showing a woman who’s showing a little leg.

I am not sure what writer Megan Garber means with that mangled prose, but I do know this: If that were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the magazine cover “showing a little leg,” there would be howls of outrage all across the land, including, no doubt, from Garber.

From the very beginning, women–especially liberal women–were Palin’s toughest critics. Last fall, for example, it was not unusual to hear women complain about Palin, “She flirts,” or “She’s pretty.” In other words, don’t take her seriously.

During the presidential election, I believed such dismissives were the ultimate put-down. I was wrong. Newsweek’s bare-legged portrait tops them all.

This time, however, the sexist dismissal of Palin is a sexist put-down of women everywhere. Posted by Leroy Towns

As North Carolina Democrats continue trying to find a candidate to take on Republican Incumbent Sen. Richard Burr next year, there is one thing certain about the upcoming race: 2010 is not 2008, at least yet.

That statement simply means this: Burr is not Dole, it is not a presidential year, and massive dollar support of a Democratic challenger by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is far from certain at this early date.

Veteran political reporter Rob Christensen reports in the N&O that state and national party officials are working hard to get N.C. Rep. Bob Etheridge to enter the race against Burr. As always, the carrot being held in front of the potential Senate candidate is money–lots of it–supplied by the DSCC, which in 2008 spent more than $11 million in behalf of Sen. Kay Hagan in her successful race against Sen. Elizabeth Dole. It is a tactic used by both national parties to recruit Senate and House candidates. Their pitch is “don’t worry about money, we’ll get you plenty.”

Promises, promises

Promises are one thing, but the money showing up in campaign coffers is yet another.  The dust of political history is littered with disappointed candidates who got nothing or less than they were promised by their national parties.

The reality is that candidates usually only get the promised money if, sometime in the late summer or early fall of 2010, it is determined a) the other candidate is really vulnerable and b) the challenger is in a strong position to win. In other words, national parties throw money at an incumbent only if they are confident their challenger has a better than even chance of winning. That will take a good amount of polling and other research next year.

In spite of popular perception, campaign money available to national parties always is in short supply and there is considerable analysis involved in deciding how to spend it to the best advantage.

North Carolina is an expensive state in which to wage a U.S. Senate campaign. As was reported here exclusively last November, the Dole-Hagan race was the most expensive media race in the nation in 2008. The candidates and their supporting groups spent $34.2 million on television advertising. The biggest spender on TV by far was the DSCC, which spent $11 million for ads. The DSCC, in fact, was a major factor in the race, given the fact Hagan herself waged a fairly lackluster effort.

Who will get cash?

An added factor is that of the 37 U.S. Senate seats up for grabs next year, Democrats will be defending 19 of them. Politico recently looked ahead to the 2010 Senate elections and came up with a list of 10 seats most likely to flip parties. North Carolina was not on the list, even though Burr’s poll numbers at this point are less than stellar, as Christensen reports. Burr consistently polls favorably against whatever Democrat is matched with him, however.

But neither yesterday’s poll numbers nor today’s promises count for much in a race that is a year away. The traditional advice not to count on a contribution until the check clears still is good advice. Posted by Leroy Towns

One of the lessons of efforts to eliminate private money in political campaigns is the fact money always finds a way into the system. The usual illustration is that money in politics, as money in the rest of life, is like water headed downhill: place a dam here and the water finds another route.

That basic rule of human behavior was illustrated clearly in the recent Chapel Hill council election, the first to give tax money to candidates. Mark Kleinschmidt was one of two candidates who accepted public financing and his race for mayor against Matt Czajkowski, who did not, was extremely close.

A big loophole

Thus, in the closing days of the campaign it is no surprise that Klenischmidt supporters came to his rescue with money outside the public finance system. It came in the form of a mailing against Czajkowski signed by a mysterious and unregistered group named “CHC PAC.” Former Councilman Cam Hill fessed up after the election. Apparently, the law allows such anonymous and privately financed efforts in the closing days of a publicly financed campaign as long as the spender registers within 10 days–after the vote.

Voters had no way of knowing who was spending the money. A candidate accepting public financing got the benefit of using tax funds plus secret outside support as well. You can read more about it here and here.

And candidates can always count on someone to assist. For example, part of the success of Republicans nationally in the 1980s and 1990s was due to the help they received outside the campaign finance system from socially conservative churches. Politics in the pulpit might raise questions, but fliers on windshields when the flock heads home highlighting candidates approved by the church are difficult to prohibit–and highly effective. Trouble is, that effort goes unreported for the most part.

Free speech is protected

While local law obviously needs to be changed to force timely disclosure of such last-minute efforts, it would be most difficult to outlaw such spending. The U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that using money to exercise free speech in political campaigns is protected by the First Amendment. Free speech, especially political speech, is one of our most basic human rights.

If private money in campaigns cannot be halted, how can it be regulated to ensure public confidence in the system?

Anonymous and secret spending in political campaigns may be the most corrupting behavior of all. But it can be controlled. The current system of campaign finance is based on a very simple concept: Put reasonable limits on contributions, then fully disclose dollars raised and dollars spent. Finally, trust voters to make the decision. Disclosure must be extensive and enforcement must be rigorous, however.

Political candidates are, after all, the company they keep. And it is far easier to count up a candidate’s friends when contributions are allowed and disclosed than when contributions are from tax money.

Chapel Hill voters are not entirely sold on public finance of local elections. A Public Policy Polling survey just before the election showed just 51% in favor of candidates having the public finance option, 31% opposed and 17% unsure. Polling on campaign finance is difficult and highly influenced by how questions are asked and whether there is an attempt in the poll to objectively educate respondents, who for the most part do not fully understand the issue.

Are voters concerned?

Campaign finance is almost never at the top of voter concerns. The issue has much more traction with insiders and the media than it has with voters. Chapel Hill Polling before the election put the council’s approval rating at just 40%, with 49% disapproving and 11% undecided. It is a sure bet that the issue of public finance had little to do with those numbers.

Nor did campaign finance have anything to do with another number: 16.84%. That figure is voter turnout in the recent election. Of 70,143 voters, only 11,814 bothered to cast a vote.

Now there’s a real problem in search of solution. Posted by Leroy Towns

Big-foot political journalists in Washington rarely get past reporting the words of players in major controversies like health care. As a result, citizens are ill-served and politicians get away with rhetoric, lies and damned lies.

The Associated Press, as it often does, broke out of that trap with a fact-check story on profits of the insurance industry. Insurance has been beaten up pretty badly recently, especially by the Obama Administration and Congress, which use it as a foil to prove the need for health reform.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls insurance industry profits “obscene,” the AP reports, and a MoveOn ad says, “Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.”

The AP found:

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would “keep insurance companies honest,” says President Barack Obama.

Such facts would seem to be a vital part of any debate on health care. But news outlets don’t seem especially interested. The N&O, for example, buried the story on Monday. Posted by Leroy Towns

The late Jesse helms must be smiling. He might get his fence around Chapel Hill, after all.

Helms, the conservative U.S. Senator, once quipped during debate on whether the state should build a state zoo, ”Why build a zoo when we can just put up a fence around Chapel Hill?”

To Helms, of course, Chapel Hill already was a “zoo” and he wanted to keep all the liberal creatures penned up. But now it is the Chapel Hill council that is talking up a fence around the town, this time to keep wild things out.

Council member Mark Kleinschmidt brought up the idea of a fence to keep deer out of town, said the Chapel Hill News:

“If the deer aren’t thinned they’re going to die in another way,” he said. If deer are traveling along certain corridor, the town could even consider a physical barrier like the “Rabbit-Proof Fence,” he said, a reference to the 2,000-mile long fence Australia built in the early 1900s to keep rabbits out of the western part of the country…

Deer represent a real problem for the council, which always is reluctant to disturb any creature with the possible exception of taxpayers. In addition to the fence, the council discussed deer birth control, presumably on a massive scale, and rejected the idea of an archery season.

Good fences, it is said, make good neighbors. What they keep out they also keep in. Ol’ Jesse would approve. Posted by Leroy Towns

Politico reports that the Obama Administration cut a secret deal with industry and business groups for a massive ad campaign supporting health care reform. See their work product above.

Working with your friends to garner support for a policy is message management 101. But the deal to put corporate money behind a pro-health care reform campaign raises two interesting questions.

First, it flies in the face of President Obama’s campaign promise to change things in Washington and make government more transparent. He apparently has made secret deals with the very lobbyists he promised to banish from White House influence.

Second, and more important, it raises questions about the relationship between public officials and lobby groups. The business groups involved certainly were potential opponents to the Obama health care plan. What did they get out of the deal?

Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, said he is troubled:

“What you’ve had was the Senate and the White House sitting down and cutting deals with special interests,” he said. “I don’t think that’s quite what the American people signed up for when the Obama campaign said that they were going to limit the influence of special interests in this White House.”

Players in the deal deny any impropriety. But with governmental ethics, it is not only the propriety of a situation, but the appearance of impropriety.  Leroy Towns

Nonprofit journalism, touted as the future of reporting that holds power accountable, was overcome with corporate greed almost before it got off the ground.

ProPublica, the nonprofit startup funded by a number of left-leaning groups, has a budget of about $9 million and a staff of 32. But Alan Mutter, who blogs as Reflections of a Newsosour, reports that ProPublica’s top two editors earn a combined salary of $866,000, nearly 10 percent of the total budget. Top editor Paul E. Steiger, the former managing editor the Wall Street Journal, was paid $570,000, Mutter says, and provides a link to the group’s tax filing.  That is an astounding sum, considering the number of good journalists who make far less.

Given the number of excellent journalists thrown out of work in the last year, there is no question the half-million-dollar salary is far above the market rate for editors.

Outlandish salaries are not limited to Wall Street, it appears.

So what is being produced for the money? While it is too early to make definitive judgments, there certainly are questions about the group’s reporting. One highly hyped story published in the NY Times Sunday magazine dealt with a hospital and one of its doctors during hurricane Katrina. The story has received exhaustive news coverage in the last few years, but the ProPublica story struck a tone of breathless expose.  One physician/journalist told me he believed the piece was more advocacy than reporting. “It was written with a viewpoint.”

Two recent stories on politics also raise similar questions.

One was an “investigation” of leadership PACs used by members of Congress to raise money for their parties and to assist the re-election efforts of their colleagues. While a case might be made for changes to these leadership PACs, the ProPublica story did not make that case. Instead, its use of selective data and facts painted a picture that was misleading at best and flatly inaccurate at worst.

Disclosure: I have served as a consultant to the leadership PAC operated by Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, my former boss. While it could be argued that affiliation colors my view, it also can be argued the experience gives me unique insight into the workings of leadership PACS.

Along similar lines, a recent ProPublica article criticized Arkansas Congressman Mike Ross for sale of his family pharmacy, implying it was a sweetheart deal that impacted his vote on health care. But in an extensive investigation, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette concluded there was no such link, that the price he received was fair for the industry, and that the sale happened three years ago. (no link to the story can be provided because the Gazette is locked behind a pay wall). Ross responds here.

At the least, these stories raise questions about ProPublica’s gotcha brand of reporting and about the group’s judgment in paying huge salaries to top editors. The nonprofit model may yet contribute to the nation’s flow of news and information. But nonprofit organizations no less than other institutions must have oversight and accountability, which long has been lacking for nonprofit endeavors. Posted by Leroy Towns

One of the things that makes political debate so interesting–and so contentious–is the tendency to view one’s own argument as a gift from the angels and the other guy’s argument as a big, fat lie.

Thus, two UNC-Chapel Hill faculty members, John Bruno and Mark Sorensen, argue in an N&O op ed that global warming is fact and any argument to the contrary is a lie. The two profs pose this question:

Given the clarity and relative certainty of the science, and the scale of the potential social and economic impacts, why do newspapers publish opinion pieces denying that climate change is happening? Social commentators like George Will certainly have freedom of speech and a general license to express their opinions on the editorial page. But would editors publish essays denying other major threats to humanity?

Theirs is a fair question. The answer is this: Global warming is as much a political issue as a scientific issue, with passionate and legitimate arguments on both sides.  The media is doing their duty by covering it as a political issue.

Scientific questions regarding the environment long have been tangled in politics, in part because many modern scientists see their role as partly political. Global warming, or climate change, is just the latest slogan used to argue a political viewpoint about environmental issues.

In the 1960s, mankind was doomed by use of pesticides in a “silent spring.” That worry gave way to the “population bomb,” a theory that overcrowding would result in man’s extinction. Couples were urged to reproduce themselves with two children, not more, and the pressure to conform was great. In the 1970’s scientists warned of an impending ice age and the NY Times was breathless about “global cooling.” Then the worry became “acid rain” and somewhere along the way slogans were developed to put “nuclear winter” and elimination of the rain forest into the public spotlight.

Political slogans regarding environmental disaster are particularly powerful. No one wants to contemplate the end of the earth.

This is not an argument either for or against global warming as fact. That argument will continue in the public marketplace.

Which is exactly why the media must continue to give a high priority to all sides of the issue. Posted by Leroy Towns