By all measures, the election of 1948 was supposed to be a Republican blowout. The Democrats had been in the White House for sixteen consecutive years, their longest run there since 1824. The beleaguered incumbent had succeeded to office when his popular predecessor had died. Harry S Truman lacked his presence and charisma of FDR.

Most polls had Truman’s Republican challenger New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey up throughout the campaign, sometimes by margins higher than 10 percent. There were, to be sure, far fewer polls then than there are now. Yet, somehow that Democrat managed to pull it off, winning reelection in perhaps the most stunning upset in US presidential politics.

He pulled it off by running and aggressive campaign, barnstorming the country where his supporters implored him to “Give ‘Em Hell, Harry!”

Many have compared the current Republican incumbent to his Democratic predecessor who won in 1948. Both followed (though Bush not directly) a partisan predecessor who redefined his party — and would inspire the faithful (in both parties) for generations after he left office (well, if the first generation after the Gipper is any indication, this inspiration should continue well into this century).

Bush, like Truman, has often been seen as bumbling through office. And among two-term presidents, only Truman has favorability ratings as low as those of George W. Bush.

A few pundits have compared Bush to Truman, Peggy Noonan being the first that I read. But, there are similarities, more of a temperamental nature, between John McCain and the Missouri Democrat. Both distinguished themselves in war, Truman in World War I, McCain in Vietnam. Both gained a reputation straight talkers, though Truman’s speech was known as “Plain Talk.”

Watching John McCain campaign these past few months, I have seen a feistiness similar to that Truman demonstrated on the campaign trail in 1948. In this week’s blogger conference call, for example, he didn’t mince words when he said, “I will be Hamas’ worst nightmare.” A statement like one Truman might make, simple, direct and to the point.

(more…)

Tomorrow at the Log Cabin “Convention” here in San Diego, after a just-announced visit from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, attendees will participate in a “town hall meeting” where we will be able to weigh in on “Log Cabin’s role in the presidential election.”  This will be the one chance members will have to offer their input on whether Log Cabin should endorse its party’s nominee for President of the United States.

It should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I will be speaking out in favor of Log Cabin endorsing John McCain.

While I do favor this endorsement, I wonder if it will make any difference.  Four years ago, when the group failed to endorse the party’s then-nominee, the MSM made it seem gay Republicans were deserting the president in droves, when it fact, only a few abandoned Bush.

Perhaps that endorsement created the impression that Bush was captive to social conservatives.  It may even have cost him support among socially liberal suburbanites and others who might have been inclined to vote for the president because of his leadership in the War on Terror.

But, it didn’t cost him the support of the overwhelming majority of gay Republicans.

Given that we know that most gay Republicans stuck with Bush in 2004 despite Log Cabin’s endorsement and with an increasing number of gay Republicans able to voice their support for the party (through blogs), it will be difficult for Log Cabin to claim it speaks for all gay Republicans.  Should it fail it to endorse, honest journalists will need note how inconsequential the 2004 non-endorsement was to gay Republicans (well, given the state of the MSM, expect most journalists to leave that out).

All that said, in reading the tea leaves this year (through parsing public statements of Log Cabin officials and listening to conversations with members of the organization), I expect the group to endorse John McCain for president.  This endorsement may actually make the 2004 non-endorsement a boon to the 2008 GOP nominee, as it will show that recent efforts of Democrats and left-wing blogs (and pundits) notwithstanding, our nominee retains the support or more socially liberal Republicans even as he reaches out to social conservatives.

A non-endorsement will only serve to further marginalize Log Cabin.  

That said, I do believe Log Cabin’s Board will endorse John McCain. And those gay Republicans will join the million gay Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 as well as countless Independents and numerous disgruntled Democrats in selecting this courageous veteran as our choice for the next President of the United States.

During the 1984 presidential campaign when I was an undergraduate at Williams, I used to get the better part of my news by arriving early in the library every morning and picking up the copies of the Boston Globe and New York Times the staff left on the information desk there.

Towards the end of the campaign, I read an article in the Globe about a Boston rally for Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale which was considerably largely than one for my man that year, the incumbent Republican Ronald Wilson Reagan. I feared my man would not win the Bay State.

Sure enough, when I checked the Globe’s archives (article available for a fee), I read that police estimated turnout at the Mondale rally at “80,000 to 90,000:”

By that estimate, the crowd was three times larger than the 25,000 to 30,000 that police said turned out for President Ronald Reagan’s Thursday noon appearance at City Hall Plaza.

While some observers said both days’ estimates were inflated, it was clear the Mondale crowd was one of the biggest at a Boston political rally in decades.

I thought about this article when watching a CNN (or MSNBC) report earlier today about the size of a rally for Mrs. Obama in North Carolina.

Just as Mondale enjoyed large and enthusiastic crowds in his 1984 bid for the White House, so do both Democratic candidates enjoy such gatherings their bids this year. I keep hearing Democratic campaign officials and Democrat-leaning pundits saying this bodes well for their party in the fall.

But, I wonder. Not only did Ronald Reagan win in 1984, but he also carried Massachusetts. Even though his opponent’s rally in the Bay State’s capital was one of the biggest is the city’s recent history, three times the size of the man who bested him in that bastion of liberalism.

In my pro-McCrory for NC Governor posting on Thursday, I made the following sweeping statement….

None of the other GOP candidates can make the same claims since they don’t have executive experience and have not made illegal immigration a priority like McCrory has.

At the time I wrote it, I nearly didn’t because I thought it was too sweeping and I admittedly haven’t studied every piece of the other GOP candidates’ platforms in their campaigns for NC Governor.

So, I’m happy to present another side (and a correction-of-sorts) from an email I received from a Fred Smith for NC Governor supporter.

Fred Smith has been campaigning all over the state and since August has visited all 100 counties at least once. He has set out specific things he would do as governor. He has talked at length in every county he has visited about the problems caused by illegal immigration, what it costs the state and what the governor could do to address the problem. He has the support of sheriffs all over the state and has talked with them at length asking them what they need to address the problem.

This reader also referred me to a speech given by Smith which includes strong words against illegal immigration.

We believe that we are, as our national motto says, one nation under God. And we believe we ought to speak the English language. And the problem we have today is we have illegal aliens coming to this country with such velocity that they’re overwhelming our melting pot and the reason for that is the federal government has let us down on border security. The federal government has let us down on upholding the rule of law and that’s going to leave it to the states and the state of North Carolina to put a Band-Aid on this problem.

And as governor I would do four things. The first is I would try to make sure that every sheriff’s department had a chance to be a part of the 287(g) program to catch, detain, and deport illegal aliens violating our laws. Second, if you get a driver’s license you be legally entitled to get a driver’s license in this state. Common sense says if that’s what they do in Mexico that’s what we ought to be able to do here in North Carolina. The third thing, we need to pass illegal immigration reform like the states of Georgia, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Colorado, have to say if a government agency or institution is going to give a benefit they must enforce federal law which they ask are you legally entitled to this benefit. And fourth we need to have a voter ID card to protect the integrity of our voting system.

Sounds good to me. I’m still a staunch McCrory supporter, but I’m happy that Smith is taking a strong stand on illegal immigration, too!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sixteen months after voters in Michigan voted to kill affirmative action in the public sphere, opponents of preferences based on race and gender are pushing five more states to ban the practice.

Foes of affirmative action, which is meant to address current and historical inequities, delivered 128,744 signatures to Colorado authorities earlier this month. Similar organizations in Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska are circulating petitions as civil rights groups and educators are mobilizing to defeat the measures.

The initiatives are spearheaded by Ward Connerly, the nation’s most prominent opponent of affirmative action, who said he has raised about $1.5 million for the campaigns. He sees the November ballot initiatives as the next step in his drive to end preferences in public education, hiring and contracting… (MSNBC)

It doesn’t surprise me that the movement to ban racial and gender preferences has been given a boost thanks to the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama. As much as I oppose both of these candidates on their policy stances, I do believe we owe them a debt of gratitude for breaking the perceived ‘glass ceiling’. It matters not whether either of them are successful in winning the White House this November, they both have helped women and minorities with their historic campaigns. My fervent hope is that this will widen the pool of choices for all sides of the political spectrum and we can get better candidates. This could help minority candidates in future runs for high office, like Bobby Jindal, the new Republican governor of Louisiana.

In what must seem perverse to advocates of racial and gender preferences, the serious run for the presidency by both Clinton & Obama also highlights such set asides and calls the need for them into question. It’s about time. I adamantly oppose racial and gender preferences and would dearly love a chance to vote them down in my home state of Virginia. The more states that ban them the better it will be for us a nation since in my view these preferences do more harm than good.

(more…)

Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said today that she objected to the comparison Sen. Barack Obama drew between her and his former pastor in his speech on race relations Tuesday.In the speech, Obama sought to place the inflammatory remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a broader context, in part by placing them on a continuum with Ferraro’s recent remark to the Daily Breeze that Obama is “lucky” to be black.“To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable,” Ferraro said today. “He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred.” (dailybreeze.com)

Ouch. Hell hath no fury…

h/t Hot Air

– John (Average Gay Joe)

UPDATE (From Dan) : I agree with Gerry Z? I am planning a followup to my post There’s Something About Barry, but want to first read my print-out of the speech (as I sometimes miss things when I read long speeches or articles on-line). The former Mrs. Zaccaro’s point that it was a good speech, but did not address Wright’s bigotry is a succinct summary of my own reaction.

UPDATE (from John): Gerry has good reason to call Wright a “racist bigot” given the award his church gave in 2007 to race-baiter Louis Farrakhan. Wright “applauded [Farrakhan’s] ‘depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.’ [Wright] praised ‘his integrity and honesty.’ [Wright] called [Farrakhan] ‘an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.’”

It gets worse. On the “Pastor’s Page” of the July 22, 2007 church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook of the terrorist group Hamas, under the headline “A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle”.

Barack Obama in his recent speech criticized his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, for controversial remarks, saying:

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

Very nice and I agree with his words here. Some on the Left have attempted to spin this entire affair and use this speech as a vehicle to bury it all. Yet even if we should overlook his 20 year association with Wright, how does the Left explain the Senator’s membership in a racially exclusive club like the Congressional Black Caucus? As with Wright, Obama has said nothing about the membership policies of the CBC nor did he utter one peep about the comments from fellow member Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo in response to the attempt by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, to join last year but was rebuffed because of his skin color.

From Wikipedia:

Over the years, the question has arisen, “Does the Caucus allow only black members?” Pete Stark, D-Ca., who is white, tried and failed to join in 1975. In January 2007, it was reported that white members of Congress were not welcome to join the CBC. Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituents, who were 60% black. It was reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the Caucus agreed that the group should remain “exclusively black.” Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, “Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He’s white and the Caucus is black. It’s time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood.” In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen stated, “It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in.”

Rep. Clay issued an official statement from his office in reply to Rep. Cohen’s complaint:

“Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it’s our turn to say who can join ‘the club.’ He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.”

On January 25, 2007, Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Co., spoke out against the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference saying, “It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses.”

For more see FactCheck.org.

If Senator Obama truly wants to “move beyond some of our old racial wounds”, why then, as a member of the CBC, does he not move for a more color-blind admission policy in this group?

– John (Average Gay Joe)

In a forum with active duty and former military, an Obama supporter posted a campaign speech by the Democrat presidential candidate and asked me to explain why I am troubled at the prospect of him becoming Commander-in-Chief. He also implied that as a gay man it would be better for me to vote for someone like Obama rather than McCain. If this were all I cared about I’d say that he is probably correct in that regard. However, the safety of my family and friends, as well as the nation I love, is Priority Number One for me. Who controls the institution I served in and still hold in the highest regard remains a very big concern. The following is my response (slightly edited) to this poster, using portions of Obama’s speech to explain my position:

I see a lot of the usual pretty rhetoric I expect from a politician, promises he cannot hope to actually keep, along with many proposals that he has no way of paying for. However, I’ll address three of the points made in this speech:

And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement – a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.

By announcing a date for withdrawal, what exactly does Obama think is going to happen? How emboldened will AQI be if we just abandon Iraq? We know that Osama Bin Laden was emboldened by our retreat from Somalia under Bill Clinton, which arguably helped lead to 9/11. OBL called this a “victory”, that the USA was “no power worthy of mention”, and described our withdrawal as “America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing”. How will a cut-and-run from Iraq prevent this from happening again?

I acknowledged at the time that there are risks involved in such an approach. That is why my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists.

Oh really? What did we do to Aideed after pulling out of Somalia? Nothing. What happened to our promises to give military aid to our ally South Vietnam when we pulled out in 1973? Why they were conveniently forgotten by a Democrat-controlled Congress. What was the result? Besides the decade-long morass the military went through until Reagan took office, our jilted ally was conquered, it’s people subjected to death or “re-education” and we saw the Killing Fields in Cambodia.

(more…)

It appears that both Obama AND Clinton are not doing well “restoring” America’s image with the international community, according to this Newsweek article.

Best line (emphasis mine): 

“A senior Latin American diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the topic, says, “Look, we’re all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we’re listening to him on trade—the issue that affects us so deeply—we realize that maybe he doesn’t wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration.”

Ouch.  That’s going to leave a nasty mark!

h/t Gateway Pundit

– John (Average Gay Joe)

UPDATE (from Dan): And let’s not forget the Canadians and Mexicans concerned about Obama’s desire to renegotiate NAFTA and Hillary’s newfound opposition to that job-creating treaty. Hearing these two go on against NAFTA is making our neighbors wonder about American commitments to treaties we’ve signed. And not just our neighbors.

Ok, I can’t figure out how to embed the video here like I normally do on my blog, so here’s a link to Obama’s campaign commercial that this post comments on.

My gawd, is he serious?!? Obama certainly is more telegenic and is a far better speaker, but this makes me shiver remembering the miserable failure of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. We saw how this kind of attitude turned out the first time, what possible reason do we have as a nation to go through that kind of mess again? I’m grateful to Obama for torpedoing the Hildabeast yet now I’m unhappy that he is essentially forcing me to vote for that jerk the “Maverick”. Thanks for nothing, Barack.

h/t Ace of Spades

– John (Average Gay Joe)

From a new Gallup Poll.  The headline, of course, is:  MAJORITY STILL FAVORS TIMETABLE FOR TROOP WITHDRAWAL.

But the guts of the story are telling a much more interesting perspective among the American public:

According to the poll, 43% of Americans say the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq is making the situation there better, a slight increase from 40% in late November, but up more substantially from 34% in early November. This is the most positive review of the surge Gallup has measured since it began. Thirty-five percent now say the surge is not making much difference, and just 21% say it is making things worse.

Republicans, Democrats, and independents have divergent views of the surge. Seventy-five percent of Republicans say it is making things better in Iraq, compared with 40% of independents and 21% of Democrats. Democrats are most likely to believe the surge is “not making much difference.“

Those who favor a timetable are more than twice as likely to favor a schedule of gradual troop withdrawal (67%) as they are to prefer a more immediate removal of troops (32%).  All told, [only] 18% of Americans favor removing troops from Iraq as rapidly as possible.

Americans who do not assess the surge positively overwhelmingly advocate a timetable, including 76% of those who see the surge as not making much difference, and 86% of those who think it is making things worse. Meanwhile, Americans who believe the surge is working are solidly against (70%) a timetable.

Nancy, Harry, Barack, Hillary & Hang ‘Em High Murtha need to get out and talk to ordinary Americans…  Oh yeah, and maybe actually GO TO Baghdad before they continue spouting off their 2006-era talking points of retreat and surrender.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Just when my blood pressure starts to subside and my thoughts turn away from the 2008 Election and�the self-presumptive GOP nominee (Senator McAmnesty)…. I see YET another article like this:

In earlier years, Mr. McCain publicly trumpeted the eclecticism of his foreign policy views. As a candidate in the Republican presidential primary contest in 2000, the senator was asked what he would do first if elected.

“The first thing that I would do is call in John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Joe Biden, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and several others and say, �We’ve got to get foreign policy, national security issues back on track,’” Mr. McCain told the Detroit News.

Are you frikkin kidding me?� Maybe McCain has been suffering secretly from Bush Derangement Syndrome since 2000?

By the way, I can’t think of two more scary concepts put together:� John Kerry and The State Department.

Super Tuesday Republican Voters…. do America a favor and vote for Mitt Romney tomorrow.� It is time for John McCain to retire to Arizona.

Dan, I’m sorry it is too late to change your mind!�
-Bruce (GayPatriot)

COMMENT FROM DAN: Bruce, recall he said this in 2000, before 9/11. Had he said anything similar during this campaign, I would regret my vote. By and large, at least since the advent of W’s second term, he has run to the President’s right on many foreign policy issues, including a more aggressive stance in Iraq.

Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory seems to have vaulted into front-runner status in his bid to become North Carolina’s next Governor.� He clearly is the GOP frontrunner….

In a survey of 500 likely voters conducted Tuesday by polling firm Rasmussen Reports, only Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory’s name registered with a majority of people asked about GOP candidates. McCrory entered the race two weeks ago, but 36 percent of respondents had a favorable impression about him while another 19 percent had a negative impression.

Meanwhile, 63 percent of those surveyed said they had never heard of or weren’t sure they knew the name of Salisbury attorney Bill Graham, even though he led a very public campaign to lower the state’s gas tax a few years ago.

Seventy-two percent weren’t sure they knew Robert Orr’s name, despite his two successful statewide campaigns for a seat on the Supreme Court, and 74 percent didn’t recognize the name of longtime state Sen. Fred Smith of Johnston County, who has run an extensive television advertising campaign in recent months.

And it looks like McCrory is fairing quite well in a hypothetical matchup with the two likely Democratic opponents:

The two Democratic front-runners, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and State Treasurer Richard Moore, have name recognition on a par with McCrory. Both registered favorable impressions among 35 percent of those surveyed. Twelve percent said they had an unfavorable impression of Moore, and 27 percent said that of Perdue.

In possible head-to-head match-ups, McCrory is in virtual dead heats with Moore or Perdue. Moore’s 4 percentage point lead and Perdue’s 3-point lead are both within the poll’s 4.5-point margin of error.

This should be an interesting race… and with my choices in the GOP North Carolina Presidential Primary (May 6)�looking like foul meat in the summer sun, at least I will have one candidate I can aggressively support!

McCrory for Governor!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This pretty much says it all.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I write from Cincinnati where I am sojourning briefly before driving up to Cleveland tomorrow for the Bar Mitzvah of the fourth eldest PatriotNephewWest. In a few minutes, I’ll be driving over to my brother’s to spend some time with my new niece to help her celebrate her second birthday. That’s right, the youngest PatriotNiblingWest is two weeks old today.

As I was leaving LA and wondered at the renewed possibility of a Hillary Clinton victory this November whether or not the divisive politics which began in earnest with her husband’s 1992 bid for the White House (but had their roots at least in the opposition to Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, if not in the politics of the 1960s (LBJ) and 1970s (Nixon)) would continue with the intensity they have.

I mean, one thing I like about Barack Obama is that, while a staunch liberal, he does not arouse the resentment of his adversaries as does Ms. Hillary. Nor does he seem to harbor the partisan resentments she does.

As I look at the various candidates in our party, I wonder which one of them has the potential to transcend the politics of the last sixteen years. At first blush, John McCain seems to be the man, but then, in his attempts to curry favor with the MSM on certain issues, he has lost favor with his own party. Many of my liberal friends like Rudy Giuliani and could vote for him in November, but some social conservatives don’t like him while more doctrinaire liberals despise him.

Where is the man with the presence and convictions of Ronald Reagan?

Surely, a leader secure in his political beliefs might have the power to unite the nation.

There does seem to be one such man, at least on our side. A conservative (former) governor of a major state who could unite the GOP and lead the nation without arousing the resentment of those on the left. Well, that is, if he had a different last name.

UPDATE: Reader Peter Hughes just linked me to Camille Paglia’s latest post wherein she shows why Ms. Hillary could never be a unifying figure:

The obsessive need to keep campaigning may mean a president Hillary would go right on spewing the bitterly partisan rhetoric that has already paralyzed Washington. Even if Hillary could be elected (which I’m skeptical about), how in tarnation could she ever govern?

Don’t delay, read the whole thing.

Someone tell me why feminists, normal women Democrats (hell, all normal women in general) aren’t up in arms with how John Edwards responded to Hillary’s “misty-eyed” moment yesterday??

Edwards offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton’s ability to endure the stresses of the presidency.

“I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,” Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.

So Edwards pretty much said:� “You see, a woman can’t be President.” � It was a disgraceful, yet typical, Silk Pony moment.

I actually sorry for Hillary Clinton yesterday.� It must be crushing to know that you and your husband are being soundly rejected.

But Edwards stepped over the line and should be soundly rebuked by so-called liberals.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)�

Will Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory run for Governor?

Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory has been contacting top Republicans to gauge whether they would support him in a potential campaign for N.C. governor.

State legislators, businesspeople and fundraisers told the Observer on Wednesday that McCrory has called them within the past week. They said he got mixed responses because many key activists have already committed to one of the three people already running for the GOP nomination, or to one of the two Democrats.

McCrory sent an e-mail to supporters Dec. 13 with results from a statewide poll he commissioned. The poll showed him “in the lead” in the GOP primary, according to the e-mail, though McCrory did not give de