archived: 9 - 15 Jul, 2006         Back                 Next

UPDATED: July 13, 2006

                        COOPER NOT RUNNING 

Attorney General Roy Cooper is not running for Governor in 2008.  The field is now potentially three candidates; Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, State Treasurer Richard Moore and State Representative Bill Faison.   

The story is fairly straight forward: 

RALEIGH Attorney General Roy Cooper bowed out of a run for governor and plans to seek re-election to a third term, according to a letter he sent to supporters this week.

 

“Although an official re-election announcement will come later next year,” Cooper wrote in a letter dispatched Monday, “I wanted to let my friends know early about my plans.”

 

Cooper was one of three Democrats holding statewide office who were eyeing the governor’s mansion, and his departure from the race dramatically reshapes the contest for the party’s nomination in 2008. . . .

 

Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and State Treasurer Richard Moore are actively mounting campaigns for governor. Some Democrats speculate that Cooper’s withdrawal benefits Moore.

 

“Cooper dropping out equalizes the race,” said Brad Crone, a Democratic consultant not affiliated with any of the candidates. “When you have two prominent males running against a female, the advantage goes to the female candidate. On average 56 percent of the ballots cast in a Democratic primary are females.”  . . .

 

The early notice from Cooper, however, may help Perdue, as it gives her time to recruit donors who were leaning toward Cooper at a time when Moore does not have a fundraising director. Rep Bill Faison, an Orange County Democrat, is considering running and could threaten to take votes from Moore, Crone said. 

The 2008 General Election is a long way into the future.  There will be many twists and turns to the 2008 Governor’s race before the dust settles on a clear choice by Democrats.

_____________________________________________

                       MINIMUM WAGE – THE REST OF THE STORY 

North Carolina will have a $1.00 increase in the State’s minimum wage.  The Senate passed the measure on 2^nd reading by a vote of 32 to 8.  On Monday night, the minimum wage bill passed its third reading. The bill will go to Gov. Easley for signature, which is assured.   

Progressive Democrats, who have fought hard for the minimum wage increase, are rightfully celebrating. 

The Senate’s passage of the bill discloses an equally important story that is not being reported in the main stream media.  The minimum wage would not have passed the Senate “clean” had not a contingent of progressive Senate Democrats staged a showdown with conservative Senate Democrats in the Senate Democratic Party Caucus. 

The House passed version of the minimum wage was a simple and comprehensive increase of $1.00.  On Friday morning, the Senate Commerce Committee considered the House passed bill.  The Commerce Committee voted, roughly 12 to 6, to add an amendment to the House bill that would have restricted the comprehensive application of the $1.00 minimum wage increase.  The Senate amendment would have: 

allowed employers to pay new employees and those younger than 20 a training wage of $4.25 an hour. 

The amendment reflects the conservative position advocated by the National Federation of Independent Business.  The NFIB lobbied against any minimum wage increase, specifically arguing that the minimum wage is mostly paid to teenagers and that enacting increasing the minimum wage would result in thousands of North Carolina jobs being lost.  The amendment passed by the Senate Commerce Committee would have increased the minimum wage, but, in the same bill, stripped the increase from most of those to whom it was designed to protect according to NFIB figures. In fact, the $4.25 provided by the amendment would mean teenagers and first time employee would make less than the current minimum wage.   

The roughly 12 to 6 Commerce Committee vote in favor of the amendment menas that some six Democrats joined six Republicans to vote for the amendment.  This is the composition of the Senate Commerce Committee.   

Informed sources report that progressive Democrats; headed by Sens. Nesbitt and Graham immediately sought and obtained a meeting of the full Senate Democratic Party Caucus because the amendment had passed in Committee.  Following the Caucus meeting, Senate Democratic leaders withdrew the bill from the Senate floor and reconvened a meeting of the Commerce Committee.  The amendment, that hours before had passed the Commerce Committee, was deleted from the bill.   

The bill was returned to the Senate floor where it passed by a margin much wider than the internal dispute among Democrats suggests. In the chart above, the Republicans who voted “no” on the bill on the Senate floor are highlighted and underlined. 

While meetings of the Senate Democratic Party Caucus are not public, it is obvious that progressive Democrats inside the Caucus were able to fashion a change of policy on an immediate basis. 

In TPJ’s estimation, the Senate vote on the minimum wage demonstrates profound consequences for Democratic policy.  First, it is patently obvious that Senate Democrats have a group of conservative Democrats who can, at times, exercise their will.  Second, the vote on the minimum wage strongly suggests that a core of progressive Democrats in the Senate have coalesced, with Sen. Nesbitt as the ad hoc leader, which can exercise effective power.   

From the view of progressive Democrats, conservative Democrats have long held sway in the Senate.  The vote on the minimum wage suggests that progressive Democrats are achieving a degree of equivalency. 

The political tensions can, perhaps, be best demonstrated by comparing and contrasting Democratic Party performance on two bills.  During the last session of the General Assembly, conservative Democrats joined with Republicans to increase the interest rates that can be charged for used car purchases. SB 729, An Act To Clarify Includable Interest Charges For Used Motor Vehicles Under The Retail Installment Sales Act, passed 2nd reading (a bill requires three readings) 30 to 18.  Every Republican voted for the measure, sponsored by Democrat Senator David Hoyle.  Eighteen Democrats voted against the bill and ten Democrats voted for the bill.  TPJ noted at the time of SB 729’s passage: 

With 18 “no” votes and only 10 “yes” votes from Democrats, one would assume that if the Democrat Senate Caucus had taken up the matter that the bill would not have received Caucus endorsement.

   

Adhering to the principles of the Caucus, one would not expect ten Democrat Senators to bolt the Caucus and vote for SB 729.  If the Caucus is really the governing mechanism it was designed to be, one would assume that most Democrats would have honored the caucus vote and defeated the bill.  Since that did not happen, the question is whether the Caucus actually considered this bill.

 

IF the Democrat Caucus did not specifically consider SB 729, the question is why not.  Progressive leaning Democrats clearly had a majority within the Senate Democrat Caucus.  Did they not call for Caucus consideration?  Did the Senate Democratic Party leaders bypass the Caucus?

 

IF SB 729 was considered in Caucus, and assuming that the “nays” were a majority of the Caucus, did the leadership of the Democratic Party just demonstrate its willingness to align with the Republican Party when necessary to enact legislation over rank and file Democrat Senators?

 

If so, the consequences of the leadership’s action could be profound.  If SB 729 was not subject to Caucus consideration, the split vote could represent the Democratic Party leadership’s use of their Caucus to hold progressive leaning Democrats to Party line votes while demonstrating the Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to be held to the majority views of non-leadership Democrats? 

A comparison of the votes on both bills signifies the difference that a year has made for progressives Democrats in the State Senate.  [In interpreting the chart below, a “Nay” vote on SB 729 supports the progressive position while a “Yea” vote on HB 1380 supports the progressive position. TPJ’s chart shows “paired” positions for HB 1380.  A “pair” occurs when a Senator who will not be present for the vote finds a member on the opposing side of the issue who agrees not to go on the floor to vote, essentially canceling each Senator’s vote.  The “pair” is not counted in the official total, but is announced as a matter of record.  Pairs are shown in the chart below but are not counted in the total vote.]