Martin and Edmisten Demonstrate what's Wrong with Today's Politics
Published October 9, 2015
By Tom Campbell
by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, October 8, 2015.
In 1984, Jim Martin and Rufus Edmisten were opponents in our state’s gubernatorial election. As with any statewide election, it was a hard fought contest, but one that can provide lessons for today.
Martin was completing his sixth term as Congressman from the 9th district. The job was taking a toll on his young family and he wanted to return to North Carolina. He believed 1984 could be a good year for Republicans, especially with a popular Ronald Reagan running for re-election. The 50 year-old thought lessons he learned in Washington could help to our state.
Jim Hunt was completing his second four-year term as Governor and was prohibited from running again. Ten Democrats ran for the Primary nomination. Because Hunt was engaged in a U.S. Senate fight he refused to endorse any of the candidates. A highly divisive primary ended in a runoff election, with Rufus Edmisten, who had served nine years as Attorney General, declared the winner.
Both Martin and Edmisten were personable, had good platforms, good advisors and could raise money. Before the days when elections were conducted primarily on the airwaves they traveled the state campaigning, sometimes appearing on the same platform at forums.
Whenever they appeared together Edmisten says that Martin, the former college professor, would good-naturedly grade his speeches. He says he got C’s and D’s but never higher than a B grade. Martin retorted there were many Davidson chemistry graduates, who later became Ph. D’s but never got better than a B from him.
Jim Martin was featured this week at the N.C. Museum of History in Raleigh, the subject of a new book, Catalyst, written by John Hood, former head of the John Locke Foundation and now syndicated columnist and NC SPIN television panelist. Edmisten sat on the front row. He and Martin traded jovial exchanges during the event. Edmisten reported Martin never said a bad word about him. Martin said the same about Edmisten. It was obvious the two like and respect each other and commented on how the political environment today is so much different than when they opposed each other in 1984.
Polarization and partisanship are more prevalent. Television and radio ads have replaced many of the personal appearances at forums, events and stops in restaurants and country stores. Those ads contain disparaging and nasty campaign messages today in lieu candidates touting their own qualifications and platforms. Opposition research, if even in existence then, was less often employed. Instead Candidates publicly demonstrated mutual respect and deference to their opponents.
Asked what it would take to be successful in politics today Martin stated that both parties have become so polarized that they have forgotten people in the middle. Centrists have abandoned both political parties, as the rapid growth in unaffiliated voters demonstrates. If they want to win, candidates must pay attention to voters in the middle. Republicans especially must realize the changing demographics of our state, the rapid growth in minorities, and broaden the GOP’s appeal to them. Both also agreed that rather than disparage those of the other party it was essential to work together for everyone’s mutual benefit.
As Martin concluded, if you see a turtle on a fencepost you have to know he didn’t get there by himself.
October 9, 2015 at 10:00 am
Norm Kelly says:
'Republicans especially must realize the changing demographics of our state'
Once again, why is it that whenever ANYONE seems to speak publicly about changes required in our political 'environment' it's Republicans that need to make changes? What part of the socialist Demoncrat Party agenda is 'reaching across the aisle', recognizing the changing demographics, and trying to get along? What part of painting McCrory's hands black with 'coal ash' sounds like Demons trying to work with their opposition? Especially when the facts, buried by the demons as well as most of their allies, show that the coal ash disaster happened BECAUSE of the demon leadership. The N&D reported that the disaster was in the making FOR DECADES! Those are N&D words, not mine. Remember who ruled Raleigh for almost a century. It was the demon party. Who was in charge when the coal ash ponds were KNOWN to be leaking? Demons! Who was in charge of the regulatory agencies when the coal ash ponds were leaking? Demons! Who ignored the problem with coal ash leaking FOR DECADES!? That's right, again, the DEMONS! So, who is trying to get along, be honest, and needs to change!?
'both parties have become so polarized that they have forgotten people in the middle'. As in when the demons CONSTANTLY pit one group against another? When demons claim, constantly, that the rich don't 'pay their fair share', but refuse to explain what this means, is that ignoring the middle and polarizing? The only explanation demons give about 'their fair share' is that whatever the tax level is on 'the rich', it ain't enough and must always be increased. When demons claim that it's necessary for tax payers to pay businesses to move or expand here, does this recognize the middle, those of us who know this is a bogus argument? We know it's bogus argument based on what demons tell us. Demons constantly tell us that private business is bad, evil, and must be severely regulated by politicians. Yet, when it's a company they want to encourage to do business here, demons are willing to bend over backwards to bribe the chosen company to be here. Why is it that we are supposed to believe both sides of the coin? Is it just because it's the demons telling us the story? Flip side of the same coin, just a different interpretation. Confusing? Of course not, nothing about democrats is confusing. Just look at abortion as a perfect example. Perfectly legal to kill a baby, but not allowed to cause an auto accident and have the baby die as a result. When demons say it's good, then it's good and there's no question about it. Confusing? No, simply idiot1c!
Another example of demons polarizing? OK. Take blacks for instance. Blacks are incapable of being able to vote on their own. According to the lib law suit, anyway. Without kindly white libs, blacks will fail to be able to vote. Then there's the voting district argument. When libs create voting districts, they insist that a certain number of black-majority districts exist so that a black will represent the blacks in the district. And they create some very convoluted, wild districts in order to implement their black-only philosophy. But let a Republican draw a district that includes TOO MANY blacks and demons file a law suit. What's their claim? Racial profiling! What's their subtext? Too many blacks is bad; too few blacks is bad; districts drawn by demons are always Just Right. Reminds me of Goldy Locks. Foolishness that doesn't even make sense to demons, but if they can get away with it they will!
How do we get politicians that keep everyone in mind? First, follow the law. Something the current WH occupier does not understand. Second, stop pitting groups against each other. Third, allow freedom to thrive, allowing businesses to hire people and pay people what they are worth. Provide a safety net without creating generational dependence. Stop trying to play favorites with businesses. Stop trying to regulate EVERYTHING about business and personal life. Then start actually being honest with citizens. This includes both parties. But is more important for libs/demons/socialists. At least Bernie has the audacity to run as a socialist. Something most demon pols are but won't admit to. Reference the interview where Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz was asked what the difference was between a modern demon and a socialist. An answer was not provided by her.
October 9, 2015 at 8:33 pm
Tad Richard says:
Norm, thanks for your excellent rant to illustrate the very point of the article. Thankfully, Mr. Cambell made his point much more succintly, so it was unnecessary for me to read through your entire parody of a raving extremist. But nicely played, sir. Nicely played.
October 9, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Tad Richard says:
An apology is in order. I am truly sorry I misspelled your name, Mr. Campbell.
October 11, 2015 at 8:45 pm
Andrew Sugg says:
Mr. Richard:
If this was a Facebook post, I'd hit "like" for your reply.
Thank you.
October 12, 2015 at 10:06 am
Norm Kelly says:
Yet no comment that Republicans need to change? What happened to all pols need to change?
Raving Extremist? Typical of what libs do: refer to their opposition as extremist. Sometimes we just like to call a spade a spade.
October 10, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Claire Clyburn says:
Tom, would you say that Carter Wrenn's introduction of negative campaigning for the Helms- Hunt campaign was a turning point in candidates's willingness and ability to be collegial in public,never mind in private?
