How to be dumb

OK, here we go. The dumbest quote of the 2009 Charlotte mayoral race:

In Wednesday's fundraising e-mail, Lassiter asked supporters for $70,000 "in the next 72 hours" to help "send a message to my opponent's campaign that Charlotte cannot be bought."

We'll leave you to chew on the, er, somewhat obvious logical contradiction there.

It's the race's big ninth-inning kerfuffle, over campaign contributions, and from whom they come, and where those people live, as detailed in this morning's Observer story.

Anthony and Lassiter have raised roughly the same amount of money (as of the Oct. 26 campaign filing deadline, Anthony had raised $561,892, Lassiter $511,529). Lassiter has raised more, far more, from real estate developers; Anthony has raised more from out of state (though still only 10 percent of his total).

John Lassiter seems to think this is a big ol' deal. From the Observer:

"Their agenda is set on priorities that are not aligned with the priorities of the citizens of Charlotte," he said Thursday. "We have focused our fundraising on folks who live and work in this community."

Really. What do you say? Dude: Ten percent. Anthony, you see, has friends and colleagues outside of Mecklenburg County who are willing to back him because they know him and the kind of man he is. That's the purest, most quid pro quo-resistant kind of contribution. It's not like James Bernfield of Brooklyn, N.Y. ($50 contribution, Sept. 16), is expecting a little reciprocal on a rezoning in Dilworth. And aren't we supposed to be strengthening our ties with people and places outside of Charlotte?

We've already covered the beholden-to-developers angle. Just recognize this whole dust-up for what it is: a bright-red herring served up by a candidate who senses he's about to lose.

Enough already on the police officers

Throughout the campaign, John Lassiter has consistently dissembled about one of the key differences between his record and Anthony's.

It concerns, as we've noted before, the 2006 budget process. (See here; scroll to the bottom.) The record could not be clearer:

Heading into City Council discussions about the 2006-07 budget, then-Police Chief Darrel Stephens had asked for 70 new police officers.

Then-City Manager Pam Syfert, in her budget proposal, included money for 55.

Lassiter and the other council Republicans floated a budget proposal that would have paid for 35.

Anthony and his fellow council Democrats proposed the budget that ultimately passed, with money for all 70 of the officers Stephens had asked for, plus $398 million in badly needed capital improvements, including road resurfacings for the first time in five years. The GOP proposal would have paid for $82 million in capital improvements -- 21 percent of what the city eventually agreed to spend.

More than three years later, during the campaign and in debates, Lassiter has claimed he found savings in that budget that would have enabled the city to hire all 70 extra officers without a tax increase.

Sorry. No sale. There's nothing in the record to back that up. If Lassiter and the council Republicans found those "savings" during the budget process in '06, they should have ponied up and put something on the table, taking care to explain what services were going to be cut in the backwash. They did not. End of discussion.

So here comes John Lassiter last week, suggesting a rollback of the tax hike.

Great idea, John. Tell you what: Go ahead and tell us which cops we should let go, and which streets scheduled for maintenance will just have to stay axle-busters. This is the guy who claims on his television ads that he's "law enforcement's friend, committed to getting repeat criminals off Charlotte's streets." Some friend.

You have to make choices in government, as you do in life; nobody likes higher taxes, but people tend not to like unpaved roads, suspended garbage pickup and rampant crime in the absence of police officers, either. So how do you decide?

Lassiter apparently would have ... both! One of his main goals, he says, is to keep taxes low and services high. We're happy he cleared that up. That's an evergreen, the primary challenge of governments since Ancient Mesopotamia. It says nothing. The trick is, how do you do it? Do you sacrifice public safety and road resurfacing -- which no one sane would consider luxuries -- to satisfy a no-tax-increase fetish?

Anthony doesn't think so. He's obviously not a fan of higher taxes, either, and he's not looking to line his pockets; unlike his opponent, he not only voted against the last council pay increase, he refused to accept it when it passed. But he's not going to ignore the community's needs when they're staring him, and all of us, in the face.

Think national for a minute. Think back to 1988, and George H.W. Bush, and "Read my lips: No new taxes." Poppy Bush, of course, eventually had to ask Congress to raise taxes. Conservatives did, and do, see this as a shameful capitulation to the forces of Creeping Socialism. That's certainly the lesson the elder Bush's son took with him into the White House. Worked out wonderfully for all of us, didn't it?

The thing is, though, that Bush 41's reneging on his promise may have been his finest hour, at least domestically. It saved the country from the kind of economic catastrophe we've been coping with for the last year or so, and it kept the recession of 1991-92 from being far, far worse. The lesson here shouldn't have been, "Never raise taxes." It should have been, "Don't make that promise in the first place, and do what you have to do for the good of the country."

Or, on a smaller scale, the city of Charlotte.

Working with, not for, Charlotte's developers

Let's get this straight: Both Anthony Foxx and John Lassiter have received campaign contributions from real estate developers. Any serious candidate for office inevitably does.

But let's get this straight, too: Lassiter has received way more in this mayoral campaign than Anthony. And -- the key point -- Lassiter's voting record on the City Council shows he's far more inclined to vote in accordance with their wishes than Anthony.

Toward the end of last night's WCNC-TV/The Charlotte Observer debate, the last one before Election Day, Anthony asked Lassiter flat out: Why do you seem convinced that Charlotte's future lies more with developers than with neighborhoods and communities?

Lassiter's answer revealed plenty about himself, and about who'd have his ear in the mayor's office. "So much of what we need to have happen," he said, "lies with the development community."

Well, there you go. If you had any doubts before, he just dispelled them. Later -- just for emphasis? -- he added this gem: "I want to make sure that I'm working for the same people who invest in me and this community."

Anthony takes a more balanced view of the relationship between city officials and developers. "You've never seen my vote guided by the real estate development community," he said. "I will work with, not for, the real estate development community."

Lassiter got huffy. We enjoy it when Lassiter gets huffy. It makes him fall on his face.

First, he pointed out that Anthony has received more than $7,000 from developer Stoney Sellars. Jim Morrill in the Observer (with an assist from database whiz Ted Mellnik) did a nice job of putting that in context, rendering Lassiter's point essentially meaningless:

An Observer analysis showed that Sellers (sic) has given Foxx at least $7,215. He gave Lassiter $1,000.

The analysis also showed Lassiter has raised at least $104,000 from individual donors who listed occupations in the building, development and real estate industries. That's 20 percent of the money he raised through Oct. 19. The Foxx campaign claims the figure is higher.

Foxx got $28,000, or 5 percent of the money he raised, from individual donors in those industries.

A little later, Lassiter broke out the cheap shot of the night, maybe of the campaign.

Anthony supports "truth in zoning," in which council members voting on rezoning cases publicly disclose campaign contributions they've received from the developers involved. Sounds reasonable enough. But the suggestion clearly irked your Republican candidate for mayor. He observed that Anthony leases his Elizabeth campaign headquarters from neighborhood developer Clay Grubb, and that no one has benefited more from the streetcar tracks running down Elizabeth Avenue than Grubb.

Oh, boy. First, to insinuate there's some kind of quid pro quo arrangement going on between Grubb and Anthony is silly, and more than a little offensive. Does that explain why Anthony voted to override a mayoral veto -- one Lassiter supported -- to kick-start the full, 10-mile streetcar line, running from Beatties Ford Road to Eastland Mall? To help his "buddy" in Elizabeth?

Second, turn your attention back to Nov. 12, 2007, when the City Council voted on whether to spend $5.4 million to build the tracks on Elizabeth Avenue. Guess who not only voted to spend the money, but who made the motion? John Lassiter.

Extending a hand to Raleigh

One offers it in friendship, the other with it clenched. Guess which does which.

It's been one of the biggest issues in the mayoral campaign -- improving the city's often strained relationship with state government. Both Anthony Foxx and John Lassiter say they're committed to it, but only Anthony has the connections, political élan and reservoir of good will in the governor's office and among legislators to actually get something done.

Lassiter is a disciple of the Pat McCrory school of intergovernmental diplomacy, in which you prod state government publicly, invoke Inquisition-like language when promising to "hold their feet to the fire," and organize a Caravan to Raleigh when you think you're not getting your fair share of state dollars. Then run for governor. And lose.

Anthony? This month, Gov. Bev Perdue visited Charlotte for a church visit and a pair of fundraisers with Anthony. She's passionately committed to his success. And why wouldn't she be? He's lauded statewide for building relationships rather than pounding his fist when he doesn't get his way.

Last September, even before he announced he was running for mayor, Anthony convened a series of town hall meetings at the Government Center on growth, criminal justice, the economy and housing. For the criminal justice meeting, he arranged a discussion with Ralph Walker, director of the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts and former state appeals court judge; Police Chief Rodney Monroe; state Sen. Dan Clodfelter, co-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and perhaps the most influential member of Mecklenburg County's legislative delegation; attorney Thomas Walker; and former Superior Court Judge Shirley Fulton.

That's how Anthony operates.

Lassiter, though, has always operated strictly within the confines of Mecklenburg County. Unlike Anthony, he's never held an office or a job outside Charlotte since he moved here in 1983. And although he gives lip service to the idea of "find(ing) ways to work with the governor," as he said this week during the Jewish Federation/WBTV debate, he hasn't proposed anything specific, and his record shows no indication that he would. Just the opposite.

For one thing, he takes a combative, belligerent tone when talking about getting Interstate 485 finished. From his campaign Web site: "We must fight to get our share of road funding from Raleigh to finish the last leg of I-485 ..."

Contrast that to Anthony, who correctly observed in the same debate that it's hard to build a productive relationship with Raleigh "if you're poking the person you're asking for resources in the eye. I will unclench the fist of this city and extend an outstretched hand to the governor."

For another, Lassiter could extend his vision beyond the county line, something he's never really done. Anthony, from minute one in this campaign, has stressed that Charlotte's future lies largely in regional partnerships with mayors and public officials in Union, Gaston, Cabarrus, Iredell and other regional counties and with mayors of cities throughout the state. The 2010 Census is expected to show a majority of N.C. residents living in urban rather than rural areas, and it'll be more and more important to forge regional and cross-city partnerships to ensure cities get a proportionate share of state funding, for transportation or anything else. The willingness to work this way goes beyond tactics; it's a state of mind. (And don't just take it from us -- take it from N.C. House Speaker Joe Hackney, who should know.)

At the debate, WBTV's Melissa Hankins asked about how the next mayor would try to change the relationship between the city and legislators. Anthony answered: Build individual relationships with state officials and legislators; develop regional economic development projects; and "galvanize the urban strength of the state" through partnerships with other urban mayors.

Lassiter, incredibly, responded that the city should "take control of our own (tax) incentives for business" because state incentives "don't match the needs of our community" and streamline the city's permitting process to ease the regulatory burden on developers.

Pardon? Never mind the fact that Lassiter didn't answer the question. Think about the mindset that produces an answer like that. People everywhere else in North Carolina have a term for it: the Great State of Mecklenburg. It looks inward. Charlotte stands apart. Charlotte can take care of itself. And this was a response to a question specifically about changing the relationship between Charlotte and state government.

Lassiter doesn't get it. He may not be capable of getting it. Once the state finishes I-485, he might as well get behind a new project, the real outer belt: a moat.

This is one of the many reasons why, as Anthony says, "The city needs to break with past leadership."

This is just getting ridiculous

Because it's just not a Charlotte mayoral debate without John Lassiter throwing a last-second hissy fit.

Before last night's Jewish Federation of Greater Charlotte debate, televised live by WBTV, the organizers flipped a coin to see who'd be Candidate A (first in opening remarks, second in closing) and Candidate B (vice versa). Anthony called heads. The flip came up heads. Anthony was therefore Candidate A.

Lassiter said he was under the impression that the candidate who opens first shouldn't be allowed to close last. Paul Cameron of WBTV clarified that if Anthony is Candidate A, then he opens first and closes last.

That's when the smoke started coming out of Lassiter's ears -- three minutes before the debate began at 7 p.m.

"That's not fair," he stormed. "Those aren't the rules."

Yes, they were. From the guidelines, which WBTV and the Jewish Federation agreed to and submitted on Oct. 5, more than two weeks before the debate:

The moderators will give each candidate 2 minutes for opening remarks (Candidate A will go first.) ...

The moderators will then give each candidate 2 minutes for closing remarks (Candidate B will go first).

In, calmly, stepped Anthony. OK, he said. I'll allow John to go first in opening, and I'll go second in closing. And so the debate proceeded. (Video here.)

Point No. 1: Lassiter could have objected during the 15 days before the coin toss but didn't. He waited until the toss determined he didn't get the position he wanted. We wonder if he'd have objected if Anthony had called tails and Lassiter had gotten to open first and close last.

Point No. 2: We'd maybe be inclined to presume Lassiter was just confused if this weren't the latest in a string of pre-debate shenanigans Lassiter's pulled over debate rules and other technicalities. This is, as John Turturro's character put it to a competitor in The Big Lebowski, "bush-league psych-out stuff. Laughable, man."

Point No. 3: Could you have asked for a more vivid illustration of why Anthony Foxx would make a better mayor? A problem arises. John Lassiter loses himself in paltry details, appearances and his own well-developed sense of entitlement and self-pity. Anthony Foxx steps in, mediates, offers a workable solution, and everyone gets down to business.

Character reveals itself in all sorts of ways, big and small. Ask yourself: Who handled it better? Who displayed real leadership? Who would you rather have as mayor?

'He would make a good city manager'

Yes, John Lassiter would, probably. It's a thought that hadn't occurred to us before reading the Observer's editorial endorsement of Anthony for mayor. But it makes sense. It also underscores why Anthony would be so much better as mayor.

The paper this morning ran long profiles of both men. The beginning of Steve Harrison's profile of Anthony:

When students elected Anthony Foxx the first African American president of Davidson College's Student Government Association in 1992, the campus was in turmoil.

A gay student had reportedly received death threats, and part of the student body was upset over the recent founding of a group called FLAG - Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

Foxx organized forums to ease campus fear and anger. Though he never formally supported or opposed the group, he argued it should receive funding from student fees, as other clubs did. The group ultimately got the funds, and Foxx today says his role was as a "facilitator."

"He never made it about him," said Alden Smith, who was Foxx's SGA vice president and who is now headmaster at a Vermont high school. "He had an unusual mix of humility and confidence."

Friends say Foxx's four years on City Council have been marked by many of the same qualities that first emerged at Davidson: an ability to relate to people with different views, and a willingness to step forward - even into the political heat.

From Jim Morrill's profile of Lassiter:

On a spring break trip to Florida in 1974, a scruffy bunch of long-haired college kids from Michigan walked into a roadside diner near Jesup, Ga., and waited for service. And waited.

After a half-hour, they realized they weren't wanted and left. It made an impression on the tall, spindly kid with shoulder-length hair.

"It was kind of an 'Aha' moment," says John Lassiter. "I was hungry. I realized that people were judging me from my outside appearance ... Ultimately I decided I needed to conform a little more. I needed to look a little more like what I wanted to be."

So he cut his hair. And within a year he moved from Michigan State to Wake Forest University, trading T-shirts and jeans for Izods and Topsiders.

The rebellious teen went on to thrive by working hard and fitting in - whether in Democratic-run state government, a button-down corporate culture or Charlotte's tradition of civic engagement.

And:

One day this month he started campaigning early and ended late. He never loosened his tie or rolled up his sleeves. He slipped on a jacket whenever he stepped out of his BMW. He remembers the lesson of the Jesup diner.

"I think every day, 'What is the image I'm projecting?'" he says. "Folks are looking for somebody who looks like he could be mayor."

No, John, actually, folks are looking for somebody who'll act like one.

Confronted with a problem, Anthony Foxx engages, leads and unites.

John Lassiter thinks: Wow. I'd better conform. What image am I projecting?

And how illustrative is it that he thinks what voters are looking for is a mayor who won't roll up his sleeves or loosen his tie?

From the moment he was elected to the City Council in 2005, Anthony has shown a willingness to dive into whatever issue he thought was important -- from public safety, organizing meetings among state and local officials to address justice problems, to neighborhood improvements. To roll up his sleeves, in other words.

It's something Lassiter manifestly doesn't want to do, and it goes beyond mere appearance. It's not just that he's image-conscious and inclined to follow rather than lead. It's that he apparently believes his brand of non-leadership is what Charlotte needs.

Could you be more uninspiring, more out of touch?

The passion of the mayor

If you were watching "FlashPoint" with Dave Wagner on WCNC-TV Sunday morning, you heard Pat McCrory say something rather telling about the state of the mayoral campaign -- and the candidacy of his close friend John Lassiter.

It came during a brief discussion of the race before a commercial break. (Video here; the discussion starts at 8:18, McCrory's comment at 9:14.) Wagner, McCrory and Charlotte attorney Mike Daisley were talking about whether the race so far has been too civil and "boring."

McCrory:

"I think there's going to be a low voter turnout unless major conflict occurs. Probably my recommendation to both of them from a political science viewpoint is, both of them have got to get some passion. They both have reviewed their resumes extremely well, both talked about things they want to do, but you've got to have some passion, and I think that might differentiate the campaign the next four weeks."

Hmmm. Maybe Mayor Pat was speaking genuinely as an impartial observer of the race, someone looking for political theater that's a bit more riveting.

Right. We don't think so, either.

McCrory and Lassiter are buds. Their political and civic philosophies are virtually identical. Both are, of course, Republican. It's hard to believe the mayor is encouraging the Democratic candidate for the seat he's held for 14 years -- and the GOP for 22 -- to shift to a higher gear. Besides, it'd be bad form for him to offer partisan political advice on "FlashPoint."

And Anthony, while unfailingly civil, has shown plenty of energy on the campaign trail -- at his public appearances, at the debates, talking to civic groups. The first sentence of his closing statement at last week's debate at Queens University was, "I'm excited about the potential of being Charlotte's next mayor," and he said it like he meant it.

No, McCrory's talking to Lassiter -- the mumbler, the details guy, the gray-haired man in the gray suit who insists, as if to reassure us, he can do the job of mayor without short-shrifting his family or business. Mayor Pat clearly knows what it takes to win elections in this town, and he's looking at his pal Lassiter and thinking: Dude. Come on. Let's ramp it up.

We'll see if Lassiter takes the advice. Regardless, it's an indication of the obvious: John Lassiter is a profoundly uninspiring candidate -- as uninspiring, we can presume, as he'd be as mayor.

Does John Lassiter even want to be mayor?

For someone running for mayor, Lassiter seems curiously lukewarm about the idea of being mayor.

He's shown his reluctance time and again during debates, saying repeatedly that he's a husband first, a businessman second and a public official third, and that if elected mayor he can "balance my responsibilities during the course of the day to make sure the job gets done," as he said during last week's debate at Queens University.

In case voters didn't get the point, he repeated himself to the Observer's Jim Morrill:

"I've found I can do a lot of things in a very focused way without having to be a full-time mayor. I don't think I have to significantly change my allocation of time to still be the kind of mayor Charlotte needs."

Isn't that reassuring? We certainly wouldn't want the office of mayor to be too much of an imposition on the man. He's awfully busy, after all.

He should rework some of his slogans.

"Lassiter: He'll squeeze us in."

"Lassiter: He won't significantly change his allocation of time."

"Lassiter: He'll get to that after lunch."

Seriously -- what is up with this guy? Can you think of any candidate during any election who's stressed his unwillingness to work too hard at the office he's running for?

Maybe it's his personality; no one's ever accused the man of being the life of the party, or the Party. Or maybe it's a characteristically Republican reluctance to govern even when running for, or holding, public office.

Whatever the case, you simply have to wonder about a mayoral candidate who observes that the common characteristic of mayors Pat McCrory, Richard Vinroot, Sue Myrick and Harvey Gantt is that "they were all private citizens with successful business lives."

Lassiter's been on the City Council for six years. You wonder how closely he's paid attention. Maybe he has a point on Gantt, Myrick and Vinroot. But McCrory?

Say what you will about Pat McCrory, but the guy has put in some serious hours as mayor. (You'd think Lassiter, one of the mayor's closest friends, would know this better than anyone.) Mike Collins, who was moderating the Queens debate, seemed surprised at Lassiter's observation. McCrory has handled the mayor's office as a full-time job, Collins correctly observed. He hasn't spent a lot of time as a special consultant for Duke Energy, his nominal regular gig.

Lassiter: "I don't claim to be Superman, but I'm willing to put in a hard day." Oh, good.

Neither Anthony nor Lassiter thinks the office of mayor should be, officially, a full-time job, with a "strong mayor" acting as the city's chief administrator; Curt Walton, as city manager, has that job under Charlotte's council-manager form of government. Here's the difference, though: Anthony believes the mayor ought to put in full-time hours doing the public's work. Lassiter seems to think "part-time mayor" means "part-time commitment."

It's not really a matter of giving the mayor more power under the city charter, which nobody wants; it's a matter of understanding how the mayor can wield his influence for the good of the nation's 19th-largest city.

Anthony gets it. The city faces some extraordinarily complex issues: transportation, public safety, education, housing. "I'm going to spend time away from my professional life," he told the crowd at Queens. "I don't think we're at a time when we can have a remote-control mayor. Someone's got to step in and engage."

A mint's worth of difference

At this point, anyone who claims there's not much difference between Anthony Foxx and John Lassiter is either willfully ignorant or just not paying attention.

Anthony's thinking is comprehensive, expansive and forward-looking. Lassiter's is small, narrow and fixated on the past.

Anthony talks about the challenges the community faces and the opportunities the city has. Lassiter mainly talks about himself.

Anthony consistently shows how enthusiastic he is about the prospect of becoming mayor of his hometown. Lassiter at times makes you wonder whether he even wants the job. (We'll be posting in more detail on this point.)

The differences fell into clear focus this week, especially on Wednesday, when the candidates took part in two debates: at Pinehurst Golf & Country Club and at Queens University. (The Queens debate was rebroadcast Thursday morning as an episode of "Charlotte Talks with Mike Collins" on WFAE-FM; you can download the broadcast here.)

But for now, a few observations.

There is no 'i' in 'mayor'

Anyone else notice that Lassiter's default position when answering a debate question is to talk about himself?

"I helped revitalize Wilkinson Boulevard."

"My role on the committee matches my personality."

"I think I clearly made the point."

"That's an example, on a small scale, of the kinds of things I've done."

Now, any candidate will spend at least some time talking about what he's done and what he plans to do. What's curious about Lassiter, though, is how seldom his self-references relate to any coherent vision or plan for his term in office.

Take that last quote. He was referring, again, to his work with the community organization Helping Empower Local People (HELP) to aid students from low-income neighborhoods. All fine and good, but Lassiter never gets around to explaining just how his involvement, however praiseworthy, is germane to his run for mayor. Is he suggesting a citywide volunteering program? Consolidation of agencies, as with the Mayor's Mentoring Alliance? We never know; he doesn't say.

Contrast that to Anthony's approach. He's specific, and his ideas dovetail with a coherent vision of a better Charlotte. His experience growing up in west Charlotte and getting ahead through education relates directly to his pledge to spend time every week tutoring students. His firsthand experience living in a neighborhood with limited opportunities led him directly to champion the business corridor initiative to expand opportunities for low-income neighborhoods.

And when Anthony does talk about himself, it's always in the context of how his actions and plans would improve life for the city's residents and help Charlotte reach its potential.

Consider the differing responses to a question about what political office each might seek after winning the mayor's race.

Anthony, in part: "This endeavor of running for mayor of this city is all about trying to make this community what it really can be."

Lassiter: "I thought after my time on the school board, I'd be done. I thought after serving on City Council, I'd be done. But then Pat McCrory said he wasn't going to run for re-election, and I recognized that my skills and abilities were needed to lead this city." (Emphasis added.)

Can you imagine a more vivid illustration of the differences between the two? Nary an "i," "me," or "my" from Anthony. Pretty much nothing but that from Lassiter.

Earlier in the day, at Pinehurst, Anthony had directed a richly deserved barb at his opponent: He said he wanted to take the 'i' out of the mayor's office.

Lassiter drops ball on streetcar funding

The streetcar project reared its head again, this time in a series of questions about the plan and funding for it.

Anthony, who supports the project, accurately observed that the city had known since last year that the original funding source, the half-cent sales tax for transit, wasn't going to raise enough money in a sagging economy -- which of course made a new funding source necessary.

Lassiter claimed in a rebuttal that the streetcar project was always going to be funded through Tax Increment Financing, a common tool by which governments use property tax revenue from development connected to a project to pay off the debt the government assumed in building the project.

This was not true. Anthony said so. Lassiter, given a chance to respond: "I think I clearly made the point." He did. He was clearly mistaken.

Temper, temper, Mr. Lassiter

Maybe he was just tired. But man, was Lassiter peevish at the Queens debate.

More than once, he snapped at Mike Collins because he was confused about the format. (This is starting to become a pattern.)

He responded snidely to an audience member who interrupted him, correctly objecting that Lassiter was talking about ground-level ozone when he had asked about carbon emissions.

Finally, after the initial portion of the debate, Anthony got out of his chair and walked, hand extended, over to where Lassiter was sitting. Lassiter shook Anthony's hand but otherwise didn't budge. Nice.

Milan? Really?

One of the stranger questions of the night came last: If Charlotte were a person, who would be its (her?) mentor?

Anthony responded to that knuckleball as well as he could: Charlotte needs to set its own standards. We can learn from other cities on specific things, but ultimately we have to chart our own course. We don't want the sprawl of Atlanta. We don't want the urban grime and density of New York.

Lassiter agreed that we shouldn't aspire to be like Atlanta, then blurted out this: Charlotte can learn from "some of the great cities of Europe ... cities that understand scale and longevity," such as -- ready? -- Paris and Milan.

Ahem.

First off, it's hard to imagine any meaningful or useful parallel between the Queen City and the City of Light, or the City of Really Expensive Shoes. Last we checked, Paris had pretty much settled its transit debate, for instance. And if there are any major lessons to be gleaned on such topics as public safety, air quality, transportation and affordable housing, one would think we could learn them just as easily from, say, Pittsburgh.

Second: Milan? Really? The old European city that looks like Hong Kong with nicer architecture?

We don't for a second believe that John Lassiter thinks Charlotte ought to organize a Chamber of Commerce junket to Milan. We do, however, believe that John Lassiter pulled that particular answer out of his keister.

Parting shot

We'll let Anthony have the final word: "I believe we have an urgent moment in our community ... We're going to have to align our community to take on old problems and to find new solutions to those problems."

'Experienced leadership'

If you've followed the mayoral campaign, especially the debates, you know it's John Lassiter's motif, the term he invariably uses when asked why he wants to be mayor and why he thinks we should elect him.

There's a significant quality-versus-quantity gap that undermines his claim. It has to be the right kind of experience and leadership, and there's a difference between length and depth.

Since he graduated from the law school at New York University in 1996, Anthony has:

• Worked in all three branches of the federal government, as a law clerk for the U.S. Circuit Court for the Sixth Circuit; as a trial attorney for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Voting Section; and as counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.
• Served on a number of boards, including the Mecklenburg County Education Budget Advisory Committee, the North Carolina Center for the Advancement of Teaching Foundation Board and the North Carolina Dance Theatre Board.
• In four years on the City Council, spearheaded the business corridor plan to revitalize underserved Charlotte neighborhoods; helped lead the effort to fully fund the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department's requests for additional police officers; and served as chairman of the Environment and Transportation committees.
• Become a successful lawyer and raised a family.
  

Since he graduated from the Wake Forest law school in 1980, when Anthony was 8, John Lassiter has:

• Served on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and City Council, including chairmanship of the Economic Development and Planning committee.
• Spearheaded the Arts and Cultural Facilities plan and the rental car tax hike to pay for it.
  
• Served as president of the Mecklenburg County Bar.
• Served on the boards of several local organizations, such as Crisis Assistance Ministries, Charlotte Center City Partners and the Charlotte Regional Partnership.
• Become a successful lawyer and business owner and raised a family.

Laudable achievements all. But it's no stretch to say that Anthony has done as much as, or more than, Lassiter in less time. And Anthony, having served in government, with ties to the current administration, and having grown up fatherless in a minority neighborhood on the west side, has a depth and breadth of career and life experience Lassiter can hardly begin to fathom.

And although we'd never disparage Lassiter's years of service to his community, it's been fairly narrow, restricted to tried-and-true Charlotte governmental, business and cultural interests. Again, nothing wrong with that. But as Charlotte grows in size and continues to jockey with larger cities for funding, economic development projects and prestige, doesn't it make sense to elect a mayor with experience moving in circles inside and outside the 704 area code?

What's Lassiter afraid of (redux)?

"Eighty percent of success," Woody Allen famously said, "is showing up."

We sincerely hope John Lassiter is enjoying that remaining 20 percent.

On a damp predawn yesterday, Anthony arrived at the Fox Charlotte studios to appear on Fox News Rising for the fourth time this campaign.

A rundown of the previous three:

-- A pre-primary show to which all four candidates, Anthony and the three Republicans, were invited. Anthony showed. Martin Davis showed (of course). Jack Stratton showed. John Lassiter did not show.

-- Two post-primary shows to which Anthony and Lassiter were invited. Anthony showed. Lassiter did not.

-- Finally, Tuesday's show. Lassiter, praise be, showed up. On tape. The station had pre-recorded his responses to be aired within moments of a live interview with Anthony. The live interview -- in person, with the actual candidate! -- proceeded apace, as did Lassiter's "responses," which were taped God-knows-when.

This follows up last week's silliness, when Lassiter bowed out of a WTVI/WSOC/League of Women Voters debate because he objected to the number of allowed rebuttals.

Look, even giving Lassiter every benefit of every doubt -- maybe family matters got in the way, who knows? -- he at least ought to explain the absences. But there's another thing: Any political candidate ought to know instinctively that there's simply no substitute for being there. Want to run for office? You should be willing to meet your opponent anytime, anywhere, 24/7, we never close, to talk about the issues and what you'd do about them.

Failure to show, regardless of the reason, leaves voters with the impression that you're scared to go up against your opponent one-on-one, or maybe you believe the election is so deeply in the bag you don't have to bother with such trifles as TV appearances. Fine. See how well that works for you, John.