Part II:  In which two smiling Council of State members get out the knives while calling each other by their first names a lot.

• In one corner, Lt.  Gov. Bev Perdue, in bright red with pearls.   Given her plans for the evening, the color was a strategic choice.

• In the other corner, Treasurer Richard Moore, in – Who could tell, next to that red?

Under the format, each candidate got 90 seconds to answer the same question.  The first two questions (on challenges and growth) were pretty much pro forma. But on the third question (immigration), the gloves came off. 

Round 1:  Perdue, who answered last, cut her response short and broke format to address Moore directly:

"A lot of us have been watching what’s been going on with Randy Parton’s party palace. And that’s been problematic.  We’d like to know the background on it, we’d like to know why the decisions were made. We’d like to ask the treasurer publicly, because a lot of us have asked the treasurer, to soon release the feasibility study so we can all understand the party palace of Randy Parton."

Likewise, Moore cut his next answer short to respond:

"Beverly, I’m so glad that you brought that up, because what we asked cities and counties to do was to be more creative in the type of investments that they made. And I think it’s just so typical of someone who’s led the go along, get-along crowd in Raleigh for twenty years, to after a project in Roanoke Rapids – one of the poorest places in the state, where a quarter of the people are living under the poverty level – they tried something new. They’re six months into it. Y’all, the Research Triangle Park took 30 years to be successful.  The New Bern convention center, the Raleigh convention center. All these things take time. Beverly, you don’t have your facts straight. We’ve made all, everything public. And the feasibility study."

Wow. Well, they always say if you’re going to hit first, hit hard, even if it’s only tangentially true. The study HAS been released – you can read a copy here, thanks to Dome. And some say it wasn’t Moore’s job to vet the Parton Project, though others disagree.  The real issue is whether Moore should have given the study to the committee who voted on the project.  But in a short-answer format, a half-true smear is easier than explaining a complicated issue – or answering one.  

Still, it illustrates the widely-noted gatekeeper attitude in Moore’s office.  While many state agencies are taking steps to make it easier to access public documents (mostly online), Moore’s office isn’t among them.  Why hasn’t he sent Perdue a copy?  If he has, why didn’t he say so?  Or better yet - if the N&O can put the feasibility study online, why can’t Moore?   It would be such a simple way to counter that accusation. 

(Oh – and comparing the Parton Theater to RTP?  True, they’re both economic development projects…but your average voter might find it a stretch to equate the Parton Theater with IBM and Glaxo, especially after all the news stories about Randy Parton’s behavior problems.) 

Round 2: Not quite as nasty. 

Perdue was touting her “College Promise” financial-aid proposal (more here on that).
 
Moore responded, 

“You spent the last twenty years of never meeting a tuition increase you didn’t like…so you drive tuition up for twenty years, then you turn around and you got a new program that 5, 8 years from now is gonna help people. We need to get our people in college now."

Perdue countered with a reference to the recent Kiplinger’s report: “North Carolina’s colleges are a pretty good bargain.”   

That may be true.  But it sure doesn’t seem that way to the parents and kids I know who’re taking on piles of debt to pay for our state’s “bargain” colleges. 

Round 3:

Perdue, looking straight into the camera, said ever-so-sweetly:

"I’ll tell you one thing I’d like for you to think about as we end this debate….Do you want a candidate who’s from Wall St., or a candidate who’s from Main St.?  Richard has raised about a million and a half dollars from Wall Street and from folks he does business with, with the pension fund – the state employees pension fund – thinking about Wall Street.  You’re looking at a woman who wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night thinking about you, about Main Street, about your families, about how you survive, how you put that paycheck and get that food on the table .  So at the end of the day, the question for you in this governor’s race is Main Street versus Wall Street. I say Main Street is where you want to be in North Carolina."

Wow. Is Perdue really cribbing lines from Mike Huckabee? And the bit about “thinking about you” was a little cloying. But the fundraising jab landed hard.

Moore's response:

"Thank you, Beverly. And I would like to point out that I’m not from Wall Street. I’m actually from North Carolina and not from Virginia. And I’m very proud of my heritage and what I’ve tried to represent over the years… You know, Beverly, it really is time to stop pointing fingers. It’s time to start pointing North Carolina in a new direction. To do that, we’re gonna need a governor who’s willing to make tough decisions, who is willing to try a different approach.

First off, the opening dig was too subtle. Most viewers at home won't remember what Moore was referring to - the flap over Perdue’s “coal miner’s daughter” ad, eight years ago.  The “stop pointing fingers” line probably resonated better with the general audience, but anyone who’s been paying attention to this race for the past few months had to be laughing out loud.  Pot, meet kettle.

Score?

Who won? I don’t know.  On camera, it looked like Perdue. She was really in her element as she addressed the viewers directly, and she looked unflappable – no irritation, no hesitation.  Moore, on the other hand, was visibly and audibly frustrated (perhaps understandably so) by the Parton slam, and again by the Wall Street dig, ducking his head and glancing down as he started his response. But the non-reporter types I talked to afterward said they thought Perdue was too negative.  Tell me what you think.

In the end, I think they both lost – because they both came across as being more invested in scoring points on each other than in addressing real questions about economic issues.  All the first-name use only served to underscore the real antipathy behind the smiling exchanges.  In short, it was exactly the kind of politics voters – especially Democrats – say they’re tired of.   It’s increasingly clear they won’t find an alternative to it within their own party. Which is why it’ll be interesting to see what happens when Pat McCrory enters the race on Tuesday. 

Comments? Drop me a line.