Home

This Russian humor column was forwarded by the Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia. Although written as humor, the facts are glaringly real. The implication is painfully clear also: we have our own house cleaning to do, before we try to clean up the rest of the world.

After two decades in which social and financial inequalities widened amidst unsustainable speculative development, the country of Amerikistan held presidential elections this week.

The two leading candidates were both drawn from a tiny elite, both spent vast sums on propaganda, and both have claimed victory. Experts on Amerikistan recall the history of violent revolution, civil war and more recent political violence and assassinations, resignations, impeachments, sexual scandals and corruption in this emergent republic, and recommend that the UN supervise its elections until the country stabilizes.

"It is struggling to emerge from years of political polarization and turmoil" said a World Trade Organization spokesperson, "and its long-suffering people deserve our support." "One side of the country declared results before voting had finished in another part" he explained. Moreover, he went on to spell out that the southern province of 'Floridia,' in which the leadership struggle is being fought, is run by the brother of one of the candidates, whose father had previously ruled the entire country, having risen through his control of the nation's intelligence/security apparatus. Their family is based in a part of the country in which secessionist feelings have long run strong and which was only incorporated into Amerikistan after a border war. Experts on Amerikistan argue that the UN should go in to run education programs, disarm the population, relieve the malnutrition and environmental problems caused by adherence to a staple diet of cheese and burgers, democratize the police forces and above all halt the further development of war machinery.

"This country has used dangerous weapons in the past and often threatened to do so again. But with our help, modernization, and a stress on human development, it may have a more stable future and join the ranks of the civilized international community" he said.

Confirming a prior Mother Jones report (Sept./Oct. 1992), a fugitive living in Spain told ABC's "20/20" that Jeb Bush made a crucial call to Washington when his HMO needed help.

Miguel Recarey's International Medical Centers faced pressure in 1985 to comply with the "50-50" rule, which prohibits certain HMOs from having more than half of its customers on Medicare. According to Recarey, the middle son of then-Vice President Bush called Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler (meanwhile, IMC paid Bush's company a $75,000 "real-estate consultant" fee). Former HHS chief of staff McClain Haddow says Bush's call gave IMC a waiver to the 50-50 rule, and Recarey allegedly bilked $200 million in Medicare funds while leaving 150,000 seniors without coverage. Jeb Bush, the GOP loser in Florida's 1994 governor's race, denies calling Heckler.

Mother Jones

November 11, www.cnn.com carried a video of the election hearing held in Florida. CNN asked for a break in the hearing. A five minute break was called. The video did not restart after the break AND the link to the video was immediately removed! Questions posed to CNN brought no response. Did more truth get out about the Florida election than intended? Perhaps. What else would prompt CNN to stop coverage mid-hearing and to kill the link?

Here is a blow-by-blow account of the portion of the hearing that was released ever so briefly:

Testimony was given by college students who attempted to register to vote on-line. These students thought that they had been properly registered. But they were not allowed to vote at the polls.

A police officer volunteered testimony about an unclaimed ballot box. An anonymous tip led officers to the locked ballot box, several days after the election. The officers brought the box to the police station and sealed it with evidence tape.

Many people had requested absentee ballots, but never received them. Since they did not receive their absentee ballots, they went to the polls to vote. Most were not allowed to vote, because they had requested an absentee ballot. What a classic "Catch 22"! Only the few who were vocal enough and demanded to exercise their right to vote, regardless of any consequences, were allowed to do so. Most were stonewalled or intimidated into leaving the polls without voting.

One lady was told that her precinct had been changed, although she had not been notified of it. This poor lady was sent around to SIX other precincts, before being send back to the original one!

A lady testified that one precinct had very limited parking and it was controlled by an officer directing traffic. So few people were allowed into the parking area, that many of them did not get inside before the polls closed.

Some people were in line and some were in the building when the polls closed. They were not allowed to vote - even the ones who were already in the building!

One lady was not allowed to vote because of a mistake in the spelling of her name. The mistake was on the roster and made by election personnel, but this lady was denied her right to vote!

One lady, who helped get people to the polls, was asked for an estimate of how many people were denied an opportunity vote on election day. Her answer: "thousands."

An attorney testified that she took her five year old son to the polls to teach him about the democratic election process. She had been building it up and her son was really excited about it. Her son received more of an education than she had intended about how the election process really works in Florida. This lady was not allowed to vote. The election officials told her that she was at the wrong precinct. She was at the same precinct that she had always voted at, and she had not been notified of any changes. He son was upset and wanted to know what was wrong. Can you imagine her trying to explain to him that she had just been robbed of her right to vote?

Some would-be-voters went to their normal precinct to vote, only to find that it had been demolished. None of them had been informed of it!

There was testimony that some ballot boxes were not picked up until several days after the election!

A lady testified that there were about thirty police cars stationed near one voting precinct and that officers were everywhere. She said that an elderly gentleman had voted for the first time and was proud of the fact. She said that he had difficulty walking and used a cane. After he had voted, he began his walk back home. After leaving the precinct, she witnessed this man on the sidewalk being harassed by police officers. They were demanding to know why he was out and he kept saying that he had only been to vote. The officers ordered the lady to leave the scene. She was so intimidated by the officers, that she complied. Although the officers intimidated the lady into leaving the scene of the harassment, that did not stop her from broadcasting what she had witnessed from a radio station. She said that when she left the radio station, a police car immediately fell in behind her and followed her for about five miles. The officer pulled up beside her car at a stop light and nodded his head at her.

One can only wonder what the second half of the hearing may have revealed! The first half revealed that there is something rotten in the state of Florida. And there are those who wish it to remain concealed.

It seems that Florida has more that a few election problems. Those that would hasten an early closure to this sorry episode, have no interest in seeing the injustices rectified. They are only concerned with their self-interest and "keeping up appearances." What good are appearances if the system is rotten to the core? Such voting infractions have been covered up for too long. An intense investigation of the entire voting process in Florida needs to be conducted.

These problems are in addition to the thousands of votes that were invalidated, because confusing ballots caused some voters to vote twice. Those that were not invalidated, ending up being counted for Pat Buchanan, although meant for Al Gore. An excerpt from a news article stated: "Buchanan himself expressed remorse that he may have garnered votes that weren't meant for him, telling NBC's Today program this morning: 'My guess is, I probably got some votes down there that really did not belong to me, and I do not feel well about that. I don't want to take any votes that do not belong to me.'"

Mr. Bush in a phone conversation with Mr. Gore, had previously claimed victory in Florida, because his brother, Jeb, Governor of Florida, had told him so! At least one good thing has been accomplished by the Florida election debacle. That silly smirk has been wiped off of George W. Bush's face! He now has the look of a worried man.

Vice-President Gore:

In addition to the hundreds of grueling hours that you have spent campaigning, your supporters have collectively put in many times that effort. At the least, millions of Americans have stood in line for hours to vote for you.

You owe it to your supporters to concede nothing! I believe that you won the election fairly. I urge you to use any and all legal methods to ensure that the vote is accurately counted. If you must demand a re-vote in Florida, then do not hesitate to do it. Thank you.

Q. What about reports of voting irregularities in the state?

A. Some voters in Palm Beach County complained to the state division of elections that a confusing ballot layout resulted in them mistakenly casting their votes for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore. Three Palm Beach County residents filed suit today asking for a new election in the county because of the confusion. The Gore campaign has also said it is concerned about delays in the delivery of ballot boxes to counting places in Miami-Dade, Broward, and other counties. In Volusia County, non-election personnel were prohibited from entering the elections supervisors' office under a judge's order issued after a faulty disc from a precinct in Deland showed a return of negative 16,000 votes. Jesse Jackson and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume said they received complaints that blacks had difficulty voting. Jackson said some voters were told there were no more ballots, or that polls were closed. While Jeb Bush said he has seen no indications of fraud, Mfume called for federal marshals to oversee the ballot recount and asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate. It is not yet clear how or if any of this will affect the final result in Florida.

Q. Who else is keeping an eye on the recount?

A. The Gore campaign said former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher would head a team of Democratic lawyers and vote-counters traveling to Florida to monitor the recount. Another former secretary of state, James Baker, was to monitor the process for Republicans. Meanwhile, the chairman of Gore's campaign in Florida, Attorney General Bob Butterworth, also is the state's chief legal officer. The attorney general is responsible for defending the state if a lawsuit is filed challenging a state law, including a possible lawsuit over election laws as a result of Tuesday's vote.

These opinions are based entirely upon the voting records of the North Carolina congressmen. A perfect score would be 100. That would mean that the congressman voted in favor of employee interests on each issue. Unfortunately, one representative never made it out of single digits!

The Keepers:

Rep. Eva Clayton
District 1
Score: 98%
Excellent job!

Rep. Bob Etheridge
District 2
Score: 91%
Good Work.

Rep. David Price
District 4
Score: 90%
Let's keep him.

Rep. Mel Watt
District 12
Score: 98%
Another excellent job!

Throw The Bums Out:

Rep. Walter Jones Jr.
District 3
Score: 10%
We don't need him.

Rep. Richard Burr
District 5
Score: 10%
We don't need him either.

Rep. Howard Coble
District 6
Score: 14%
Out!

Rep. Robin Hayes
District 8
Score: 20%
Not good enough.

Rep. Sue Myrick
District 9
Score: 5%
The worst yet - OUT!

Rep. Cass Ballenger
District 10
Score: 10%
Services not required.

Rep. Charles Taylor
District 11
Score: 14%
Out, out, out!

Borderline:

Rep. Mike McIntyre
District 7
Score: 60%
Too close to call.

The data for this comparison was taken from the IBEW 10th website. Click the link below to view it:

IBEW

These opinions are based entirely upon the voting records of the South Carolina congressmen. A perfect score would be 100. That would mean that the congressman voted in favor of employee interests on each issue. Unfortunately, two representatives never made it out of single digits!

The Keepers:

Rep. John Spratt Jr.
District 5
Score: 84%
A respectable record.

Rep. James Clyburn
District 6
Score: 98%
An excellent record!

Throw The Bums Out:

Rep. Mark Sanford Jr.
District 1
Score: 3%
Ugh! A horrible record!

Rep. Floyd Spence
District 2
Score 17%
We cannot accept that.

Rep. Lindsey Graham
District 3
Score 6%
A dismal record!

Rep. Jim DeMint
District 4
Score 20%
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

The data for this comparison was taken from the IBEW 10th website. Click the link below to view it:

IBEW

If you are an employee with a pension or an asbestos related illness, then you do NOT need Sue Myrick representing your interests. She has proven time, and time again, that she only represents the interests of big business.

She has sponsored H.R. 2386. This bill is designed to prohibit asbestosis victims from bringing a lawsuit against employers.

She is a sponsor of H.R. 1102. This is the infamous bill that would allow employers to take even more pension money from the employees.

Sue Myrick promoted and voted for the China trade bill, which will cost American jobs.

A perfect record for voting for the interest of labor would be 100%. Sue Myrick's voting record was 5%! That was the worst voting record of ANY North Carolina representative! We need a change!

We endorse her challenger: Ed McGuire. About pension issues, Mr. McGuire has said: "There is no question that large companies are, in effect, stealing from their employees. The 'cash balance plan' is simply a way to reduce benefits to employees. It is wrong!! I will work to control this practice when I go to the congress." What more could we want?

About denying asbestosis victims the right to sue, Mr. McGuire has said: "Very basically I am opposed to ANY laws that attempt to prohibit our people from using the courts to seek to right their wrongs. It's been my experience that when an organization seeks to limit the use of our right to the courts, it's the working people who lose out." This is our man!

In "The Charlotte Observer," Mr. McGuire said: "Since the China trade bill was passed, and Sue Myrick was an architect of it and voted for it, we've lost a considerable amount of jobs in Gaston and Cleveland counties and will continue to." Ed McGuire knows the issues.

Ed McGuire is a collage professor and will make a great congressman for the North Carolina Ninth District.

Sue Myrick Does Not Want Asbestosis Victims to Sue

Myrick Votes For More Pension Losses

N. C. 9th District

Sue Myrick is a sponsor of H.R. 1283, a bill that would deny asbestosis victims the right to bring a lawsuit against their employer. Duke Energy employees have written to Ms. Myrick complaining about her sponsorship of this bill. She has responded with a form letter to explain everything away. More than one Duke Energy asbestosis victim has provided us with Ms. Myrick's letter.

One reason she gives for not wanting employees to sue their employers is that there are too many cases. That one sounds pretty thin. A lot of people sue for divorce. Does that mean that no one should be allowed to divorce?

Her second reason for denying the employees their rights is because of the "limited pool of money that is available…" Well, more money can be made available. A limited amount of money is available, because the companies want to pay off cheap.

Ms. Myrick complains because the lawyers get a fee. Just what does she expect, the attorneys to work for free? If the companies voluntarily made restitution to the victims, no attorneys would be necessary. Do you really think that is going to happen? Employers try to hold onto every dime, no matter what. This is why attorneys are necessary. The attorney is generally only paid out of the settlement. The employee is always money ahead, not behind!

To read more about H.R. 1283, click on the link below:

Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999 House Bill 1283

This site favors no political party. Candidates are evaluated solely by their likely affect upon employee benefits.

Employee benefits will likely suffer if Bush and Cheney are elected. The first tip that Bush was owned by big money interests came when he first announced his Candidacy; millions of dollars instantly appeared from out of nowhere. Ralph Nader said it best when he indicated that Bush was a corporation who acted like a man.

Mr. Bush has remained silent on the pension take away issue. Silence is consent.

Mr. Bush's running mate helped himself to his employee's pension funds when he was a CEO. During this time, he received several supplements to his retirement plan of one-half million dollars each! After wringing all the money he could out of the pension plan, he terminated it to sop up the rest! A press alert of the details has been sent to all on the e-mail list.

What little pension you have left will be up for grabs if George W. Bush gets into office. Not only that, but he does not want you to be able to bring a lawsuit against your employer for such injustices. If you have lost your pension or have asbestosis, that will just be tough luck. What a guy.

George Bush is the worse candidate for preserving employee benefits, and the best candidate cannot be elected: Ralph Nader. Mr. Nader has supported employees efforts to regain their pensions before he was a presidential candidate! He knows the pension issue thoroughly. But even Mr. Nader has admitted that he does not stand a chance of being elected. He is not on the ballot in all states. He is not on the ballot in North Carolina, and if he is written in, the state will not even count his votes!

George Bush is the worst, the best cannot be elected, so who is left? You know who is left: Al Gore. We never said that he was perfect. But, he does have a pension plank. Think about your lost pension benefits before you vote.

From Al Gore's website:

As President, Al Gore will:
"Crack down on companies that try to change pension plans behind employees' backs. Gore will require that companies fully disclose any changes that might reduce benefits - and penalize those that don't. He will also work to enable more long-term employees to keep their old plans if they desire.

"Get tough on companies that try to rob employees' pension benefits by misleading employees or practicing age discrimination.

"Al Gore would make sure that the EEOC has the necessary resources to continue to pursue cases of age discrimination and would make sure the IRS will continue its strict scrutiny of any conversions to cash balance plans."

With Al Gore as President, employees may stand a chance. With George Bush as President, we will stand no chance.

There are two presidential candidates that really do understand the pension issue. Ralph Nader is one. Al Gore is the other.

A really good article by Ralph Nader was published by the "San Francisco Bay Guardian." Mr. Nader succinctly covered all the important points of the issue. He is well aware of the danger of the Roth pension bill before the Senate.

Last year, Al Gore met with Representative Bernard Sanders to discuss the problem of pension takeaways in America. Mr. Sanders is an expert on the pension problem and put Mr. Gore on the right track.

Shortly after the meeting with Representative Sanders, Al Gore announced his proposals to end the plunder of pensions.

Read Ralph Nader's Article

At a time when CEOs are paying themselves exorbitant salaries, stock options, and benefit packages, corporations are slashing the pension benefits of workers who have helped build their companies. The most heinous of the pension takeaway schemes include switching to cash balance plans (which deprive workers of expected benefit increases from their final years of company employment), changing pension formulas with obscure "modifications" that are really cuts, and "wearaway," which can force employees to work many additional years to increase pension benefits beyond previously established levels.

These schemes reduce corporate contributions to pension plans or enable them to increase pension-plan surpluses. Although employers by law cannot take pension surpluses directly for corporate purposes, they are allowed by dint of an accounting rule to show the earnings of the surplus on their corporate balance sheets.

A recent 30 percent gain in operating income for IBM was due to such a pension surplus, according to the New York Times. Many IBM workers were deprived of expected pension fund benefits; the number would have been much larger had protests not protected the pension rights of 35,000 other IBM employees, who faced losses of up to 50 percent of what they would otherwise have earned.

IBM, Bell Atlantic/Verizon, AT&T, SBC, Boeing, Monsanto, RJ Reynolds, and Citibank are among the companies that have opted for the switch to cash balance plans.

In the fall of 2000, Congress is set to make the problem worse, with the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act (H.R. 1102). Passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, this "Tax Giveaway and Pension Takeaway" bill would expand employers' ability to undertake pension fund rip-offs. A version in the Senate is even worse. The Clinton administration has criticized the pension takeaways, but has refused to lead the charge against the rip-off schemes. It remains unclear whether President Bill Clinton will veto or block the Tax Giveaway and Pension Takeaway bill.

This corporate attack on workers' pensions must be stopped. Cash balance conversions should be prohibited unless older workers' benefits are truly and adequately protected. Companies should be prohibited from cutting back promised benefits following mergers, acquisitions, and sales of the division of a company. Surplus pension monies should be used to provide full cost-of-living adjustments. And investment accountability must be enhanced by giving pension plan participants the right to information on plan investments and a greater role in investment management.

Those workers who are not covered by a pension plan now must also be guaranteed a secure retirement. New pension plans to cover these workers should be simple, fair, and portable, with employers contributing the same percentage of pay for all employees, and lifetime monthly payments to retirees that are insured and indexed for inflation.

Of top priority right now is to strip the cash balance provisions from the Tax Giveaway and Pension Takeaway bill. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), is expected to propose an amendment that pension rights groups say would better protect workers interests.

It is hard to overstate the cruelty of the corporate schemes used to undermine loyal workers' pension benefits. Workers who have relied in good faith on company pension promises are left helpless in the face of cutbacks that deprive them of expected payments that will support them in retirement and old age.

It is now fashionable to speak of the nation's "prosperity." What prosperity there is, is the result of the blood, sweat, and tears of millions of working Americans, much more than the efforts of most corporate executives. The executives are paying themselves handsomely. They shouldn't diminish the nest-egg workers who have made them rich.

The Washington, D.C.-based Pension Rights Center, the nation's only consumer organization working solely to protect the pension rights of workers, retirees, and their families, is among the organizations leading the campaign to stop the adoption of the Tax Giveaway and Pension Takeaway bill. Contact the center at Suite 602, 1140 19th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 296-3776, pnsnrights@aol.com.

"The Charlotte Observer" reported 8/6/00 that rumors have North Carolina Senator John Edward on Al Gore's short list for a VP running mate. Al Gore could not possibly make a better choice. Senator Edwards has voted to protect the pensions of American workers each time the issue has been introduced in the Senate.

Senator Edwards refused to accept any PAC money during his Campaign. John Edwards spent six million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Big business does NOT own John Edwards.

Maryland would become one of the first states in the nation to bar lobbyists from making campaign contributions to legislators and candidates for statewide office under a proposal scheduled for discussion today by a task force on lobbying ethics.

The chairman of the task force, former House majority leader Donald B. Robertson, said the proposed ban is intended to help purify the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers in Annapolis, where two of the capital's most influential lobbyists and several legislators have faced corruption charges in recent years.

Campaign contributions constitute the troubling heart of that relationship, Robertson said, creating a legal avenue for the 500 people who lobby the Maryland State House to reward lawmakers who vote with them. While there may be nothing illicit about that arrangement, political contributions are part of "a whole range of things . . . that lower the public's confidence in the legislature," Robertson said.

Legislative leaders and some members of the 13-member Robertson panel yesterday reacted with skepticism to the proposal, which must win approval in the General Assembly in order to take effect. Many questioned the constitutionality of barring lobbyists from making political contributions, which courts have described as a First Amendment right.

"I think it would run into constitutional problems in terms of free speech," said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Prince George's). "I don't know how you could pass such a stringent regulation."

But Robert Zarnoch, counsel to the General Assembly, said that during the past decade, courts have ruled in favor of laws restricting political contributions by lobbyists and other regulated professionals, ranging from casino employees in New Jersey to applicants for liquor licenses in Illinois.

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in a case involving an Alaska law that bars lobbyists from making political contributions to state lawmakers except those representing the district where the lobbyist lives, Zarnoch said.

"The courts are finding a compelling governmental interest in laws that attempt to avoid the appearance of harm to the integrity of the political process that you get when you associate money with lobbying," Zarnoch said. "In fact, many more are upholding the concept than are finding fault."

The Robertson reforms would go a step beyond the law in Alaska, the only state where lobbyists are barred from contributing to lawmakers' campaigns, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Under Robertson's proposal, registered lobbyists would be cut out of the financial loop in races for all 188 seats in the General Assembly, plus the four offices filled by statewide vote in Maryland: governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and state comptroller.

In those races, lobbyists also would be prohibited from soliciting contributions, holding posts as campaign treasurers or serving on fundraising committees, attending fundraising events and "providing information about tickets for fundraising activities . . . to a potential contributor" such as a lobbying client, according to the proposal.

Robertson's proposal also would target lobbyists' clients, wealthy corporations and powerful special interests that are pouring unprecedented sums into Annapolis and other state capitals. While entities that hire lobbyists could continue to make campaign contributions, they would be required to file semiannual reports with the State Board of Elections listing contributions made by the corporation, its employees, agents and subsidiaries in statewide or legislative races.

That portion of the proposal mirrors a law currently in effect for anyone who does more than $100,000 worth of business with the state or a local government, Robertson said.

In addition to reforms to restrict campaign activity, Robertson plans to present a list of proposed sanctions today for lobbyists who violate state ethics laws. Among them: fines of up to $5,000 and the revocation of the offender's lobbying license.

The Robertson task force will discuss the proposed reforms today in Annapolis. If adopted by the panel, they will be included in a report to the General Assembly.

House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr. (D-Allegany) said yesterday he would appoint lobbyist John Stierhoff to replace Baltimore lawyer and lobbyist James Doyle, who resigned from the ethics task force last month. Stierhoff received immunity from prosecution during a recent federal investigation of corruption charges against his former lobbying partner, Gerard E. Evans, who was convicted this month on federal mail fraud charges.

Asked how he expects the panel to react to his campaign spending proposal, Robertson said "there are probably lobbyists who would be receptive."

As for lawmakers, "I think it's going to be a difficult pill for them to swallow," he said. "But I think they should seriously consider it."

... He scoffed at the notion that he might be a spoiler, drawing enough votes away from Al Gore to tip the election to George W. Bush.

"You can't spoil a system," the candidate, Ralph Nader, said, "that's spoiled to the core."

"The only distinction between Bush and Gore is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when big corporations knock on the door," Mr. Nader said the other day in Los Angeles, campaigning outside a public housing project.

Mr. Ed McGuire is the Democratic contender for the N. C. 9th District House seat.

Sue Myrick has consistently voted against the best interests of Duke Energy employees concerning cash balance plans. She always votes against meaningful pension reform. She is a sponsor of H. R. 1102. This bill would make it possible for employers to take even more pension money from us. With friends like Sue Myrick, we do not need any enemies!

About cash balance plans, Ed McGuire has stated:

"There is no question that large companies are, in effect, stealing from their employees. The 'cash balance plan' is simply a way to reduce benefits to employees. It is wrong!! I will work to control this practice when I go to the congress."

Sue Myrick is also a sponsor of H. R. 1283. This bill would deny asbestosis victims the right to bring a lawsuit against their employer!

Here is what Mr. McGuire has stated on this issue:

"Very basically I am opposed to ANY laws that attempt to prohibit our people from using the courts to seek to right their wrongs. It's been my experience that when an organization seeks to limit the use of our right to the courts, it's the working people who lose out."

Mr. McGuire deserves our consideration on election day.

"Democrat Ed McGuire beat two opponents Tuesday for the right to face incumbent Sue Myrick in the 9th Congressional District..."

"McGuire, a Charlotte professor, garnered 51 percent of the vote with 90 percent of precincts reporting. He will face three-term incumbent Myrick, R-N.C., of Charlotte, and Libertarian Christopher Cole in November. The district is composed of Cleveland, Gaston and parts of Mecklenburg counties.

"'The people of the 9th District will have an opportunity to cast their votes for two candidates that are polar opposites,' he said.

The people of the 9th District need a congressman who is the exact opposite of Sue Myrick!