Helping Cheeks and Durham

With only 5 days to Election Day here in Durham, there really do seem to be a fair number of undecided voters. At least there are among the people I talk to.

What’s more, a lot of voters who say they’re voting for one or the other of the candidates are unenthusiastic about their choice.

So I’m ignoring what the polls say and continuing to try to get “undecideds” and some “unenthusiastics” to vote for Lewis Cheek.

Here’s some of what I do:

I pass by the table-pounders and fire-eaters no matter who they say they’re for. If they “catch” me, I move on as quickly as possible.

You know why.

When I meet quieter folks – people I think I can “kick things around with” - I start by asking what they think. Never whom they’re voting for. Just “What do you think about it all.”

Then I listen.

Sometimes what I hear tells me: “Save your time, John. You’ll only make him more committed to Nifong.”

Example: The other night I was at a meeting at which the Chairman of Durham’s Human Relations Commission was a panelist. He’d gone on quite a bit about Duke students drinking and noisemaking. He talked about a “time bomb” situation.

But when someone asked him what Durham’s H-R Commission had done or said when racists made threats, including death threats, against Reade Seligmann, the chairman seemed put out and said something about his director takes care of that and she wasn’t there.

I put the chairman in the “Strongly for Nifong” column.

When you give people who’ve made up their minds a chance to “dialogue” usually all you’re doing is helping reinforce what they believe. That’s especially true late in a campaign.

But people on the fence?

When people answer, “I really don’t know what to think, John,” that’s my cue.

I open with my “high card.”

“Did you hear what Professor Coleman said about that photo ID lineup Nifong arranged? The accuser was told she was only looking at pictures of players who were there. As Coleman said, “Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.”

If a person reacts to that with something like, “Sure, but they brought a lot of this on themselves,” I don’t give up, but I don’t press too hard.

I say something about the party being wrong and I wish Duke and other schools did more to crack down on underage drinking.

If the person continues in “they brought …” mode I nod and try to move on, with maybe a quiet mention of my worry about a DA who does what Nifong’s done.

On the other hand, if the person reacts favorably to, “Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice,” I encourage the person to talk some more.

I usually go where the person is leading. So if the person says, “I didn’t like it that that Sgt. Gottlieb came up with his report months after it was due, and it had 32 pages of what he remembered,” I’ll agree.

I’ll add something about the trouble I have when I go to Harris Teeter or Kroger and have forgotten the shopping list: “I can’t remember half the things that were on the list. How’d Gottlieb do it?”

If the person responds, “John, he had to make that stuff up. You know that,” I agree and tell myself an undecided voter is moving into the Cheek column.

What about Monks?

I don’t spend much time talking about him. People know it’s a Nifong-Cheek race. Almost no one’s planning to vote for Monks no matter how much Bob Ashley’s Durham Herald Sun tries to pump Monks up.

If this late in the campaign someone’s for Monks, that person really wants Nifong just as Ashley does.

If I’ve been heard on Coleman and Gottlieb, the third thing I bring up is “the light and dark years.”

There’s still some “light” in Durham. Defense attorneys and some few others, using mostly Nifong’s own case material and “evidence,” have exposed the frame-up he hatched in the “dark” when people couldn’t see what he was doing.

Durham has a chance to throw that rascal out and assure that our DA’s office can stand “exposure to light.”

But if Nifong’s elected, Durham will endure “dark years” with a rogue DA and a city news editor who’s cheered him on.