RALEIGH – Does Gov. Mike Easley know something that the rest of North Carolina’s political class does not?

That’s one possible explanation for the governor’s inelegant performances during both of his face-offs with Republican challenger Patrick Ballantine, including their meeting Friday at a debate moderated by David Crabtree of WRAL-TV. As was true in the first debate, broadcast on cable television, Easley aggressively attacked Ballantine numerous times on Friday, let little of his trademark humor and likable personality show through, and basically played the role of challenger rather than incumbent.

One possible explanation is that the gubernatorial race has been tightening lately, a trend I’ve heard whispered along the political grapevine but for which there is, as yet, scant evidence from publicly available polls. Normally, incumbents with leads in the 12- to 16-point range would see debates as opportunities primarily to make mistakes. They’d be even-tempered, sagacious, and defensive. But Easley has been hot-tempered, pugnacious, and offensive.

Perhaps that was why the governor made some statements Friday that proved, well, less than lastingly operative. Responding to Ballantine’s statement that North Carolina had lost its highest bond rating with Moody’s, Easley emphatically stated, “No, we didn’t. No, we didn’t. No we did not.” But we did, reports the News & Observer, in August 2002. Also, the governor denied that he had blamed the Jim Hunt administration for the fiscal problems Easley inherited in 2000. Uh, he had done that repeatedly – and properly so.

Actually, one interesting dynamic I observed during the debate was that many of the two candidates’ statements were true. Shocking, I know, but sometimes politicians surprise you. Primarily these consisted of the accusations that each tossed at the other. Ballantine was right that Easley had raised taxes and taken money from trust funds (the distinction between “taken from” and “diverted incoming funds to” being purely a semantic one). But Easley was also right that Ballantine and legislators of both parties had voted for large spending increases in the late 1990s that, implementing the budget priorities of the aforementioned Gov Hunt, helped to set the stage for the ensuing budget pressures of the past four years.

There was lots of the usual silly blather, too – such as Easley claiming North Carolina’s business taxes were 49th in the nation and Ballantine lending credence to the “teacher pay to the national average” meme. Apparently, our political discourse goes wacky whenever we start trying to compare our state to others. Perhaps we ought to demand that our politicians stick to casting aspersions on each other’s records, where truthful commentary is more likely. But I also think “negative” ads are usually more useful and truthful than phony, fuzzy bio ads, so one might argue my judgment in these matters is unconventional.

As to Easley’s testy demeanor, however, it doesn’t prove that he and his campaign team are growing worried about Ballantine. I doubt they are (though complacency isn’t a virtue in politics and the national trends seem to be moving again in a Republican direction). Instead, I think that what we have seen in Mike Easley in these two debates is a real glimpse of the man. He is spirited and competitive. He has a temper. He believes he’s made the right decisions during difficult times and is willing to defend them doggedly and repeatedly.

Now, what other incumbent running for reelection this year exhibits these traits? Anyone?

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.