Why Easley stumbled

Columnist John Hood had it right:

Easley Stumbles on Duke Lacrosse

"Gov. Mike Easley has a significant public-relations problem on his hands. I wonder if he and his staff fully comprehend its magnitude." […]

If Easley and his staff didn’t comprehend the problem before this morning, they must now. The state’s two largest newspapers - The Raleigh News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer - editorialized about it this morning.

Among other things, the editors wondered why Easley went all the way to New York to comment on Mike Nifong’s conduct. (I’ll get to that question in just a bit.)

But first - - -

Why did Easley - an attorney, a former DA, a former state Attorney General, and the twice elected Governor of one of the largest states in the nation - stumble so badly on the question about his appointment of Nifong.

Easley could have answered that question with something as simple and straightforward as:

”At the time I appointed Nifong, I was acting on the best advice I could get. He’d had a long career in Durham and many people, including some leading attorneys and the two most recent DA’s he’d served under, urged his appointment.

If I could undo that appointment now, I would. But I can’t.

Both as the Governor and as an attorney, I support the NC State Bar’s Ethics Committee’s decision of to bring charges against Nifong.

I’ve told Attorney General Roy Cooper that if there’s anything my office can do to assist his office in conducting a fair and full investigation into the charges the woman made and what was subsequently done by Durham police and DA Nifong about them, Cooper just needs to call me.

I don’t want to say anything more about the case except I want justice to take its course. And I believe the people of North Carolina want the same thing."

If Easley had said something like that, he’d be standing today on the high ground.

I think Easley stumbled because he was in a situation where he had to answer a question he knew he would be asked but didn’t want to answer, and hadn’t prepared to answer.

A STIUATION WHERE HE HAD TO ANSWER:

Easley was in New York, IMO, to meet with big givers who could help bankroll an Easley ’10 U.S. Senate run against freshman Republican Richard Burr.

Before “investing,” big givers want to learn a lot of things including: “How does he handle the tough questions?”

Thus, the Q&A at NYU. The big givers may not have arranged that “opportunity.” It’s more likely some “inside player” advancing for Easley got the NYU date and tied it in with big giver meetings.

I doubt the big givers went to the NYU session but they would “hear reports.” And, yes, NYU made sure to audio tape the session.

If Easley had been home in NC he could have fobbed off the question. But he knew the big givers were “tuning in.”

So he had to respond.

BUT HE DIDN’T WANT TO ANSWER

In 2004 Easley and President Bush both carried NC with almost the same number of popular votes and the same vote percentage ( 56%). But they didn’t have the same voter base.

Easley’s base included 90% of black voters as well as a very large number of white voters who’d voted for Bush. If Easley can preserve his ability to appeal to both those voter groups, he’ll succeed in a ’10 Senate race.

But the Hoax Case presents Easley with the challenge of responding without alienation significant numbers of people in two voter groups which are seen as on opposite sides of the Hoax Case.

That’s the short answer explanation for why Easley didn’t want to answer the question and, in fact, hadn’t spoken at all about a case that’s embroiled our state for 10 months.

Easley tried for a “please everyone a little” answer which doesn't seem to have pleased anyone. Here's how one reader reacted (excerpt):

Easley states, without any equivocation, that "racial slurs" were used. He does not call it an allegation, etc. and he mentions "conduct," all of which seem to me to be perpetuating the myth that drove this story in the first place.

His only REAL criticism of Nifong seems to be that Nifong spoke to the media. His tone of voice and offhandedness about purposely not disclosing exculpatory evidence has morphed into a focus on the passage of the law in N.C. about evidence that happened during his tenure as A.G.- his tenure as A.G. seems to be the most salient point for him.

Easley stumbled so badly he wound up completing what I thought was “a mission impossible:” he’s made President Brodhead seem not so bad after all.

AND HE HADN’T PREPARED TO ANSWER IT

The story’s told that when the young Lyndon Johnson applied for his first teaching job, a school board member asked him how he would teach the then very controversial theory of evolution.

“What are you looking for?” Johnson’s supposed to have asked. “I can teach it either way.”

Why wasn’t Easley prepared? I don’t know. I hope some of the political jockeys weigh in on the question.

I’d also like to hear what you think.

And as I said in yesterday's post,"NC's weasely Easley," to really "get" what Easley said and how he presented himself listen to the audio tape of his remarks.(directions to it are in the post)

Excellent news and commentary is at Durham-in-Wonderland, Johnsville News and Liestoppers.

I'll post again on this story tonight and include in that post some other blog links.