Wantto Be Editor At Charlotte Observer
Suffers "Bad" Judgment In Pattern!

Release May 31, 2006

Dear Friends and Voters,

The Charlotte Observer has surfaced and has spouted off without bothering to check the facts. Did the editor from the Charlotte Observer bother to call me? Did he check my website? Did the editor even bother to read a story put out by the AP, which did call me and try to get the facts right? No, no and no. Instead, the newspaper announced its opinion without checking any of the above.

Had it made an attempt to learn the facts, it would have discovered that I revised my website after the headline in the statement led to a misperception. Had people bothered to READ the statement itself rather than jump to any conclusion, they would have seen only that I said that I met the individual. However, the website was revised to clear up any misconception or miscommunication.

Far from "disappearing" from my website, the statement, in its revised form is still on the website for anyone who wants to read it and the headline has been amended to reflect what was said. Like the original, the subsequent statement makes it clear that I said only that I had met the Dean Smith. I am not privy to his politics and did not seek his endorsement and he is free to support or endorse or vote for whomever he chooses. But this was all lost upon the Charlotte Observer.

Did the Charlotte Observer criticize President Bush over the recent domestic spying revelations? Did it challenge the 9/11 report? How about the burgeoning Jim Black scandal in which two of his aides were indicted? Is this not news?

Our country is slipping away. Our state is mired in real corruption. And yet, the Charlotte Observer's editor is worried about what was or was not said about a sports coach. I do not mean to belittle sports, but on the grand scale of things and what is happening, it is of lesser importance.

Does a voter rely on which candidate a newspaper endorses in making his or her selection? I don't. In fact other voters don't either. Years ago, a state Supreme Court justice was running for election or re-election. He was not rated as being "qualified" by the bar association because he did not want to complete their questionnaire. The result? The voters elected him over the candidate who was rated as qualified.

What does this tell you? That endorsements or support by the bar or a newspaper do not mean a thing to the voters and that the voters will make up their own mind about a candidate, not take the word of some news organ that cannot even get its facts right and has its own agenda. Its no wonder that newspaper subscriptions are declining in favor of the internet where people can get the truth and the facts rather than distortions and half-truths.

Since voters get their news elsewhere, papers like the Charlotte Observer struggle to maintain their relevance and achieve this by calling for judicial appointment. Why? Because they fancy that they will have a say in who gets appointed. They also render opinions in elections.

Perhaps they ought to stick to finding real news, but even that they get wrong half the time, especially when it comes to legal matters. I have sat in on trials and read newspaper accounts of the same and often wonder if they heard the same evidence that I did because they invariably get it wrong. Maybe the wannabe editor of the Charlotte Observer suffers from the bad judgment that he decries in others?

Best Wishes,

Rachel Lea Hunter

See Story from Charlotte Observer

May 27, 2006

High court wannabe makes a habit of bad judgment.

If you're from North Carolina and you have good sense, you don't want to run afoul of Dean Smith. If you're a Tar Heel basketball fan, you love him. If you're not, but appreciate accomplishment and integrity, you respect him. And if you're a smart politician, the last thing you want is to get on the bad side of him.

"Smart" and "good sense" don't describe Rachel Lea Hunter, candidate for the N.C. Supreme Court. She posted a photo of herself and Coach Smith on her Web site. A caption implied he endorsed her. He didn't. (The mention quickly disappeared from the site.).

That little trick follows a fight with the state elections board over listing her nickname on the ballot. The nickname? "Madame Justice." She has never been a judge, let alone an appellate court justice. Election officials said no way.

We detect a pattern here -- and it's not one that recommends her for the Supreme Court.