Archive for the ‘State politics’ Category

« Older Entries

Going to the House?

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

I’ve been saying all along that this election was going to be another close one, and the numbers and the path for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to 270 Electoral votes would be very different. This is what we could expect if the election were held today:

Obama vs. McCain
Base Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, WA (168 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: NJ, MN, OR, WI (42)
Toss-up: CO, IA, MI, MO, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA (112)
Lean McCain: AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, MT, NC (81)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, ID, IN, KS, KY, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (135)

Clinton vs. McCain
Base Clinton: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT (172)
Lean Clinton: AR, MN, OR, WA, WI (44)
Toss-up: FL, IA, MI, NM, NH, OH, PA (101)
Lean McCain: CO, LA, MO, NV, VA (47)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (174)

Tim Russert broke down the numbers this morning on Today,and I must admit that I believe Russert is right on about how both Clinton and Obama would attempt to win the White House. Both of these candidates would pursue different strategies to victory, but the Clinton campaign’s latest salvo about how Obama could not win a General Election is nothing more than a scare tactic. The reality is that victory is no more or less possible for either Clinton or Obama, but one may carry some different States than the other (Clinton, for example, is assuming that she will win Arkansas-I wouldn’t count on that just yet). The one thing that is noteworthy is that many of the States Obama managed to win in the primary season will be written off by the Obama campaign in the General Election.

Those of you who think John McCain is going to get trounced in November may want to re-think that opinion, because much of McCain’s electoral base is made up of people who simply refuse to vote for Clinton or Obama-and there are a great many such people. McCain is very beatable, but so are Clinton and Obama-all McCain needs to do is carry two or three toss-up States and either Democrat is likely beaten.

There is also a serious possibility of a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. If that occurs, be prepared for the myriad of political ignoramuses, socialists, direct democracy advocates, and enemies of federalism and States’ rights to once again demand the abolition of the constitutional method of electing our president. If such a thing were to happen, Tennesseans should be prepared for the dillution of their votes so that people in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles can elect the president and void our say-and don’t expect to see many candidates here, either. Fortunately for us, the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for that, and I don’t expect for the little old Red States to declare en masse “yes, we’d just love to screw ourselves!”

If a tie were to occur, that would throw the election into the House of Representatives. “Well Oatney, since the Democrats control the House, wouldn’t that mean the Democrat would win under such a scenario?” The federal Constitution lays out the procedure the House would use to elect the president via the 12th Amendment:

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Each State delegation has one vote-members of the House do not choose individually. That means that in those States where the Republicans still comprise a majority of the House delegation, those States are most likely to vote for the Republican nominee. In addition, there would likely be immense pressure on House delegations to vote the way their State did regardless of their partisan composition, which means that it is very possible for the candidate who carries more States in November to win the election in the House-and that scenario favors John McCain.

It is quite possible for the Democratic nominee to win an election in the House as well, but if the Democrat wins he or she would likely have to strike a deal with House Republicans to do so. As the Compromise of 1877 settled the 1876 election in the House by ending Reconstruction in the South, a Democrat in 2009 attempting to win the election in the House under such a circumstance would have to aquiesce to some major Republican initiative or series of programs.

While it is still most likely that the November election will be settled before January, the present political climate makes a House election a possibility. While many ignorant people may decry this as some crisis and malfunction of the system, were this to happen people ought to be reminded that the Constitution has a procedure for just such a circumstance. Every century or so, Americans need an education in the Constitution-and regardless of who won in the end, it might be good for the country.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Democrats, Politics, Presidential Election, Republicans, State politics | 3 Comments »

The Politics of Slander

Thursday, February 7th, 2008

There are liberal elements to the mainstream press that agitate conservatives. The New York Times is a conservative byword for evil in many cases. Newspapers with a liberal Democratic editorial line are always going to be a part of our national discussion because partisan newspapers have been a part of our political heritage since the founding of the republic. Papers like the Times and the Boston Globe are entitled to their editorial line.

There is another kind of publication with editorial bias, and it isn’t a real newspaper. This kind of publication delights in the slander of political opponents. The Memphis Flyer is such a piece of printed toilet paper, and they attempted to ruin the career of a conservative Knoxville State Representative with a doctored photo. A couple of years ago, Tennessee State Representative Stacey Campfield shadowed Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen at the annual barbecue hosted by Congressman Jimmy Duncan and held up this bumper sticker:

This was the picture the Flyer published:


Because the folks at the Flyer don’t like Stacey’s political views, they chose to publish a doctored picture that might ruin his political career. Rather than conduct themselves honorably, the liberal editors of the Flyer chose to smear a political figure they didn’t like. Over the last couple of days, I joined several of Stacey’s friends in advising him to do something that I would not be likely to advise someone to do: Sue the Flyer and own the paper. I don’t think people ought to delight in lawsuits, but the courts do exist for a reason.

Apparently The Memphis Flyer got the message-they apologized for the offending photograph.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Media, Politics, State politics | 1 Comment »

Mixed Results

Friday, February 1st, 2008

The outside assessment of Tennessee’s Pre-K program has been completed, and the results are mixed to say the very least. Every major survey category in the report seemed to show at least one category in which those who did not attend Pre-K managed to outscore those who did. By no means do these results give the impression that Pre-K is completely ineffective, but we are equally left with the impression that there is simply not enough evidence to support a massive State expenditure into this effort.

Governor Phil Bredesen has made Pre-K the great project of his second term in office, and has done so at what could be great political cost. This is the same man who is now complaining about a revenue shortage (there is no deficit, just less money than Phil and the Gang were expecting) after the opposition warned that such a shortage would occur since the Governor’s schemes for raising taxes were not reliable and were constitutionally questionable to say the least. Republican and conservative arguments against the Bredesen tobacco tax hike and threats by Tennessee Commissioner Reagan Farr to post revenuers at the borders-an act which was not only unconstitutional but which also failed-were dismissed as partisan. Now the promised revenue shortage is here and the Governor just wants to spend more money.

Many liberals and Democrats want State-funded mandatory Pre-K for children. That means that parents who choose to stay home with their children rather than both parents entering the workforce won’t have the option of being the primary educating force in their child’s early developing years. Instead, the primary educator will be the State of Tennessee.

“We’re from the government, and we’re here to indoctrinate your children.”

I had some pre-Kindergarten education when I was very young, but I would be willing to bet the ranch that in my case that didn’t impact my present abilities. Instead, I had a mother who took the time not only to read to me but to teach me to read before I entered Kindergarten-by the time I started school, I already knew how to read and was reading ahead of many of my classmates. No one can instruct a child as well as an interested parent.

The classic liberal retort is “what about the parents who aren’t interested, or who won’t do their job.” For roughly half-a-century, this country has embraced the liberal social model of economics and education. With both parents now working outside the home on a regular basis in many situations, and with only one parent as the head of household in many others, children are often left in the hands of teachers and third-party caregivers. Liberals are right that economics have forced this upon many American families today, but they fail to see the cause-and-effect of their own practical policies and mentality. By encouraging both parents to work in the days when it wasn’t necessary, the amount of disposable cash in the economy increased, and so did overall wages. Prices increased, and the value of a dollar in terms of what it would actually buy decreased dramatically. Eventually, working outside the home wasn’t a matter of choice for many people-both parents had to do it out of necessity, or lose everything in some cases. What began as a movement of liberation has become a social trend resulting in throw-away children and broken families.

I’m not saying that women shouldn’t work outside the home, so militant feminists can call off the dogs-not that they will. I do believe, however, that children are better when one parent (whether male or female) is home with them during their formative years. We are now discouraging that as a society, and the social end-result may not be good for the future.

I’m not sure I want my tax dollars contributing to what I see as a serious social ill.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Democrats, Politics, Public spending, State politics | 1 Comment »

The Baker Factor

Tuesday, January 29th, 2008

The Florida Republican Primary takes place today amidst an atmosphere of increasing acrimony between John McCain and Mitt Romney as it now becomes increasingly clear that Florida (and perhaps the nomination fight itself) has become a race between these two men:

“By our calculation, a family of four would have to spend about an extra $1,000 a year if McCain-Lieberman became law,” Romney said, standing outside at Texaco station at dawn and discussing the measure his rival sponsored with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). “And again that’s because gasoline would rise in price by approximately .50 cents a gallon and natural gas would rise about 20 percent. The burden on Florida homeowners would obviously be excessive.”

“I would note that Senator McCain is noted for three major pieces of legislation. I think all of them were badly flawed,” Romney said, widening his attack to incorporate McCain’s campaign finance legislation and the immigration reform bill “And if somebody wants to know where he would lead the country you simply need to look at the three pieces of legislation with his name at the top.”

Romney is correct about the major legislation McCain has sponsored, all of which makes John McCain’s conservative credentials highly suspect. McCain has been running around Florida calling Romney a liberal, but Bill Clinton himself has said that Hillary is “very close” with John McCain. It makes one wonder where he is getting some of his legislative ideas.

The party establishment is now beginning to coalesce around John McCain, who received the endorsement of Florida Governor Charlie Crist on Sunday. Perhaps most significant to Tennesseans is that the honorary national Chair of the Fred Thompson campaign, former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, has now officially endorsed McCain. Like every Republican in this State, I have a tremendous amount of personal respect for Howard Baker-it is hard not to admire the man who did more than anyone else in the modern era to bring the GOP to Statewide electability here. He also served as President Reagan’s Chief of Staff, and there are very few of us who, if Howard Baker called us up and asked us to do something, would not do it just because Howard Baker asked. Baker is an establishment man through and through, however. He opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980 (dropping out of the race after losing to Reagan in New Hampshire), and was appointed Chief of Staff partly as an olive branch to moderates within the party. One Tennessee State legislator (not Stacey Campfield) told me privately that Baker’s influence over Fred Thompson was “the worst thing that could ever happen to the Thompson campaign.” I can’t say whether that is true or not, but Fred’s performance didn’t exactly help the argument that Baker’s role in the campaign was a good thing. Baker’s endorsement is not a signal that McCain is the most trustworthy of conservative candidates, but merely that the politically shrewd Baker believes McCain is the most electable one.

If the Country Club circuit has really lined up behind John McCain, then conservatives may need to unite behind one candidate for the sole purpose of stopping McCain-a step that some in Tennessee have decided to take. Florida is the great test for McCain, because unlike New Hampshire or South Carolina, Florida has a closed Primary. While it is possible in theory for Democrats and independents to vote in the Republican Primary, the process for doing so is just cumbersome enough that we can safely say that the winner in Florida will be chosen by Republicans. If McCain is beaten in Florida, it is going to be very hard for him to be nominated. If he wins there, he will have proven that he can win among Republicans, and to defeat him, conservatives must unite on February 5th.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Politics, Presidential Election, State politics | 1 Comment »

What to Do Now?

Friday, January 25th, 2008

Since Fred Thompson’s sudden but not-at-this-point unpredictable exit from the Presidential campaign Tuesday, people have been asking me who I might endorse for the Republican nomination. A couple of people even took the time to ask me that question while I was vacationing this week at Harrah’s (I heard the news about Fred’s withdrawal right after getting out of the jacuzzi). I can understand why people might be curious what direction I might be leaning since some folks have been quite forward about where they are going. Some people have “changed planes” so quickly that it really makes one think they already had their second choice in mind.

Truman Bean of Tennesseans for Thompson endorsed Mitt Romney less than an hour after he broke the news of Fred’s withdrawal. So fast was the Bean’s declaration for Mitt that I wondered if Mitt weren’t his second choice-or his initial first choice-all along. Romney was the initial choice of conservative Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, but like most of us she dropped what she was doing when Fred got in the race in order to back him. Now she says she will likely return to the Romney camp. Congressman Jimmy Duncan had originally backed Romney too, and that initial choice had led me to wonder what the grand old man of Tennessee conservatism was thinking at the time. Perhaps he saw that Romney was like the energizer bunny-he could keep going and going and going. John Duncan Jr. is someone I have a tremendous amount of respect for and his opinion has always carried a great deal of weight with me. I also know that prior to Fred’s entry into the race, Mitt Romney had a great organization here in Tennessee and many of the pieces of that puzzle are still around. It ought to come as no surprise that the Romney apparatus is very quickly coming together again.

Other Thompson supporters are making a break for Fred’s old personal friend John McCain. Fred himself was making fundraising calls for McCain six months ago, which makes one wonder if the rumors that Fred really wanted the Number Two spot might have something to them. There is a widespread belief among GOP insiders at this point that we are down to a “stop McCain” or a “stop Romney” campaign. McCain is being seen as the anti-Romney, but do McCain’s people really have cause to try and trash Romney considering McCain’s very spotty record on conservative issues?

The truth is that from a conservative perspective, there are real problems with both McCain and Romney. John McCain has a history of selling out conservatives on issues such as so-called “campaign finance reform” (something that Fred Thompson actually supported also), as well as on judicial filibusters. McCain’s record on illegal immigration is so horrible that it makes Mike Huckabee look very appealing on that issue. It is true that John McCain has a lifetime 85 rating from the American Conservative Union, but that rating has taken a very significant hit in recent years because of McCain’s terrible votes on issues that conservatives care about.

Mitt Romney has been trying to position himself as the candidate of conservatives since the campaign began. Mitt is the good Mormon who (as his wife rightly pointed out) is a faithful husband and it is hard to say his personal values aren’t genuine. Yet the Romney who now tells us how he is pro-life and will appoint strict constructionist judges to the bench was telling the people of Massachusetts in 2002 how “pro-choice” he was and how he had no plans to pursue a conservative agenda while in office-and he did not. The Romney we now hear sounds completely different than the Romney of even three years ago. When the current Mitt Romney speaks, you really want to believe the man. It sounds so grand, and when he talks he sounds like the most conservative man in the field, but his recent past actions tell another tale. Either he was being dishonest to the people of Massachusetts then (this is my theory), or he is being dishonest with Middle America now. It is possible that Mitt Romney has undergone a real Pauline-style see-the-light experience, but what seems more likely is that Romney underwent his conversion not on a “road to Damascus,” but on the road to Des Moines.

Then there is Mike Huckabee. Like McCain and Romney, Huckabee presents conservatives with real issues, especially on the matters of immigration and taxes. He has made an attempt in recent weeks to come up with an immigration plan and even got the endorsement of the founder of the Minutemen. Mike Huckabee can’t erase his past record either, and like McCain and Romney, Huckabee can only prove that he is authentic if we hold our noses and give him the opportunity to govern. One thing that I personally find palatable about Mike Huckabee is that we know without question that he is pro-life and will do his best to appoint judges who hold the necessary constitutional opinion that ultimately would reflect a pro-life worldview. He is also pro-Second Amendment and his administration is likely to reflect that view better than the present one. Aside from his spotty-to-poor record on other important matters, those good things are also overshadowed by the reality that Huckabee’s numbers are not only the highest among the evangelical wing of the Republican Party (that is to be expected), but his numbers in other core groups of the GOP are incredibly low. Mike Huckabee very likely does not have the cross-party support necessary to win the nomination in spite of his great early showing-and we know he doesn’t have the money, so that means he needs to fare very well on Super Tuesday to remain viable-something I think is increasingly unlikely.

All of this leaves me in the unenviable position of not knowing what to do. I am still very much open to giving one of these candidates an endorsement, but as of yet I just don’t feel comfortable doing so. Nicole told me that on Super Tuesday she is still voting for Fred despite the fact that it really will be a wasted vote. If Fred should win Tennessee (which is now significantly less likely) those delegates will essentially go to the convention uncommitted and probably be thrown behind whoever the nominee is anyway. (People often forget that in a Presidential Primary you are voting for a slate of delegates, not directly for a candidate). I will vote on February 5th and will vote for President in the Republican Primary-I am just not sure yet for whom.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Politics, Presidential Election, State politics | 2 Comments »

Extremists?

Thursday, January 24th, 2008

In this week when we remember with no small amount of sadness one of the most constitutionally and personally destructive decisions in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tennessee General Assembly has an opportunity to reassert its sovereign right to regulate the practice of abortion in this State. That check and balance was significantly curtailed by the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist (2000), when the then-more liberal Court ruled that Tennessee’s Constitution allowed for a “broader right” to abortion than existed in the federal Constitution. As is typical of more liberal judicial bodies, there was no precedent for the Court’s ruling, it was merely created out of thin air.

The Tennessee General Assembly now has the opportunity to take back some of its constitutional authority by passing SJR-127, a proposed Amendment to the Tennessee Constitution that simply spells out in very clear detail that nothing in the Constitution shall be construed to presume a “right” to aborticide in this State. As we pointed out at the beginning of the legislative session, most Democrats in the Legislature don’t want to touch this issue with a ten foot poll. Many of them campaigned as pro-lifers but their Caucus takes money from the other side. Other Democrats don’t like to admit to their constituents that they are not pro-life, as it just might get them beaten in an election. One safe liberal Democrat in a safe district is State Senator Joe Haynes, who opposes the proposal and has called those who support it “extremists.”

It is always interesting to hear those on the pro-abort side call those who are pro-life extremists, as if they are not guilty of extremism. In the case of Haynes, he has voted against parental consent laws that would require a minor child to receive parental consent before obtaining an abortion. Haynes also voted against a ban on partial-birth aborticide/infanticide. Somehow those positions qualify Senator Haynes as perfectly sane, but those who want to regulate abortion, even that of the partial-birth variety, are extremists.

Some in the General Assembly want to pass a measure that merely gives them the authority over abortion (it does not outlaw it) and they are extremists, but voting against a parental consent measure is not extreme. This is the double-standard of the pro-abortion movement. Those who want to protect and defend life are crazy, but those who wish to sanction the legal taking of life are statesmen.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Family and Society, Law, Politics, State politics | 2 Comments »

No Good Reason to Remove

Friday, January 18th, 2008

The news was out yesterday via the Kingsport Times-News that Johnson City Mayor Dr. Phil Roe will run in the Republican Congressional Primary in the First District against incumbent Republican Congressman David Davis. Since Hell will freeze over before a Democrat wins in the Fighting First (a phenomenon for which I daily thank and praise Almighty God), the Republican Primary is the only electoral game in town. Winning it makes you the Congressman-elect, and November is a mere formality.

It is true that there are plenty of people in this district who aren’t fond of David Davis. After subtracting the four Democrats between here and Bristol, even many conservatives have had their reasons to mistrust Davis. The allegation floated during the 2006 Primary that Dr. Roe performed abortions was seen to have been floated by the Davis campaign. Roe not only denied it, at least one reliable source told this writer that Roe’s wife confronted Davis about the charge. In this socially conservative district, that kind of charge can be viewed as seriously inflammatory if it isn’t true. David Davis may not have spread that rumor, but a few of Davis’ campaign supporters in the district (some of whom left comments in the past on this very weblog) didn’t exactly conduct themselves in a way that could be considered civil or above-board.

There is also the reality that every one of Davis’ viable 2006 Primary opponents has it out for him, and several have become friends in the wake of their 2006 experience. Perhaps the most grieved of all of these is former Sullivan County Mayor Richard Venable, who lost to Davis by 500 votes amid questions about malfunctioning voting machines in Sullivan County. If anyone has cause for a second round against Davis, it would be Venable-yet Phil Roe could be Davis’ only opponent.

It is during times like this that we must ask ourselves not whether the questions of 2006 should be rehashed, but whether David Davis has actually done anything so detrimental to the First District as to warrant removal from office. Perhaps the most important thing any Member of Congress does is constituent services, and that is true in the First District of Tennessee at an even greater level than in many other places-our Member of Congress tends to have far more power and influence at home than they do on the Hill. I didn’t support David Davis in 2006-I originally endorsed Richard Roberts and later switched my support and very proudly backed former Johnson City Mayor Vance Cheek Jr., who I have come to consider a friend. I know that if David Davis does not read my work, that members of his staff have certainly read it and are aware that I was no supporter. Yet when I have contacted Congressman Davis’ office in need of assistance on federal matters, he or his staff have been very helpful and responsive. Davis’ District Director Paul Chapman has made it a point to keep me abreast on everything from Congressman Davis’ schedule to his whereabouts, and makes it a point to fire off a personal note to me from time to time. Congressman Davis has even sought me out personally, and we have sat across the table from one another after his election to the House.

Those things alone do not warrant re-election, but they do demonstrate that if nothing else, David Davis is dedicated to the service of the First Congressional District of Tennessee. I have talked with many people who are quick to point out that Davis is not well-liked on Capitol Hill. Neither was the late Congressman Jimmy Quillen-yet Quillen was not only the longest-serving Congressman in the history of the district (34 years), he was probably the greatest Congressman the First District has enjoyed in the post-bellum era. In challenging Davis so soon after his election, Phil Roe has very little to campaign against Davis on aside from the 2006 Primary. Roe cannot expect to win the Primary merely by campaigning on what should or should not have happened two years ago, he must prove that David Davis is simply a terrible Member of Congress, and he will not likely have the ability to do it. Dr. Roe is not likely to be beaten in August, he is likely to be pummeled like a political rag doll.

Perhaps the time may come when it would be appropriate to challenge David Davis, but that time is not after two years in office when he barely has a negative record to run against, dogfighting votes notwithstanding. A lot of people have complained about Davis, but few have managed to come up with a good reason to replace him.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Politics, State politics | 1 Comment »

Worthless Officials

Thursday, January 17th, 2008

Every few months, it seems there is a “new” movement that comes afoot to give Tennesseans an elected Lieutenant Governor. The Tennessee Republican Party has officially been on the bandwagon for an elected Number Two for some time. The proposition of an elected Lieutenant Governor sounds great in theory, but has anyone who favors the idea really asked whether it is efficient or wise to have yet another State official?

The custom as it has evolved in Tennessee politics is that the presiding officer of the Senate shall be first in line for the Governorship if a sitting Governor should die, resign, or be otherwise unable to perform the duties of his or her office. This is a legitimate line of succession that is based in Tennessee law and constitutional precedent, and that law is partly based on the federal constitutional rule that the Vice President is also to act as President of the Senate. The difference, of course, is that the Vice President only has a serious job if the President gives him one. Our current Lieutenant Governor has a real job in Government as an elected State Senator, with a real constituency and real responsibilities aside from merely being the Governor’s spare.

Bill Hobbs, in his official capacity as the Communications Director for the Tennessee Republican Party, said this about Governor Phil Bredesen’s suggestion that the Lieutenant Governor be elected:

“The Tennessee Republican party is pleased that Gov. Bredesen is coming around to our point of view on this issue. Republican legislators have long advocated that Tennesseans be allowed to choose the state’s constitutional officers, including the Lt. Governor, in the voting booth.”

Everyone who reads my work can probably figure out that I think the world of Bill Hobbs and his groundbreaking role in the Tennessee conservative blogosphere. This is a case of raw politics at work, not reasonable political discourse, however. The State GOP’s reason for favoring an elected Lieutenant Governor is because they fear that a Democratic majority in the Senate will mean another long-serving Democratic Lieutenant Governor after the fashion of John Wilder. This is a reasonable and justifiable fear, but rather than make significant alterations to the Tennessee Constitution because of the fear of Democrats or of Senators from the Mike Williams School of Politics, the thought of another long Democratic reign in the basement of the War Memorial Building should instead inspire Republicans to do everything in their power to obtain and then keep a working Senate majority.

It makes no sense to add another person to the payroll of the State’s elected officials and give him or her all the trappings of office (official car, State security detail, etc.)-which the Speakers of both Houses would certainly keep-just for that person to sit around and wait. It does nothing to contribute to the cause of limited government to increase its size and cost yet more by adding an elected office that is completely unneeded.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Democrats, Politics, Public spending, State politics | 2 Comments »

He Likes to Take Our Money

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

If you are one of the legions of people in this State or around the country who have been told or who mistakenly believe that Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen is secretly a Republican, you need fear that fiction no longer. The Governor has made it clear to Tennesseans and to the world that he is a Democrat and a liberal-he publicly admitted that he takes pleasure in taking people’s hard-earned money from them and “giving it back” via his pet projects.

I have always operated under the assumption that Governor Bredesen was, if nothing else, a smooth and slick political operator. The Governor has always reminded me a lot of Bill Clinton, because Clinton could persuade the masses to believe just about anything he said. After the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Clinton told America “the era of big government is over.” Prior to that, of course, he was ready to rapidly expand the size and scope of Government through “health care reform.” Phil Bredesen has the ability to sound like a conservative when he needs to appeal to the mainstream electorate in this State, and sound like a liberal Democrat when he wants to get his own party fired up. Bredesen is two-faced in the most real and perhaps the most frightening sense of that term. He will betray his own party and his own base when it is expedient for him to do so, but after courting Republicans with conservative rhetoric, he will sell them out with equal or greater vigor.

Occasionally, we do get glimpses of the real Bredesen, and he gave us that at the Hermitage the other day.

I honestly can’t believe that the Governor so readily admitted that he likes taking tax money. Yes, many (if not most) of our elected leaders get some pleasure out of taking our money away from us. Unlike the Governor, most of them are not stupid enough to admit this in public in such a straightforward fashion. Someone should ask the Governor if “giving it back to [us]” includes the party bunker he and his wife are building over the objections of his neighbors, the Lieutenant Governor, and ever-increasing numbers of legislators, the price of which has now ballooned to some $12 million.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Democrats, Politics, State politics | 1 Comment »

The Dime’s Worth of Difference

Friday, January 11th, 2008

I firmly believe that there are good people in public service within both political parties, but there are times when you can see the difference in values between our two parties in a very clear, and sometimes very unfortunate fashion. Such a distinction could be seen clearly in Nashville yesterday.

Rep. Rob Briley (D-Nashville) doesn’t just have an alcohol abuse problem-that led to his arrest last September for driving under the influence of alcohol. Briley also has a problem with disrespect for law enforcement, disregard for the authority of the police, and a distinction of believing himself to be above the law. That led Briley to flee Sheriff’s Deputies who were trying to apprehend him, resist arrest when they found him, and vandalize a Sheriff’s vehicle when it was clear he was caught. Perhaps this attitude exists because Briley comes from one of Middle Tennessee’s elite political families, but to say that Briley has issues would be a major understatement.

Were Briley a Republican caught in criminal behavior, the Republican Caucus would likely treat Briley in the same way that they treated former State Rep. Chris Newton, who was convicted of taking bribes in the Tennessee Waltz Affair. Newton was completely disavowed and encouraged to resign, and it was made clear that Chris Newton’s values were not the values of the Republican Party or of its House or Senate Leadership. The Democrats who were arrested in the Waltz were often lionized among their fellow Democrats, with former Lt. Governor John Wilder going so far as to suggest that John Ford and his cohorts had been railroaded, and that arresting those accused of crimes was “not God’s way.”

I don’t doubt that Rob Briley does have a very serious problem with alcohol abuse, and it is true that Briley needs both professional and spiritual help. Actions have consequences, however, and resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and vandalizing a law enforcement vehicle ought to have more serious professional implications than merely to be shrugged off.

So how did the Democrats react to Briley’s reappearance in the Tennessee House of Representatives yesterday? They gave the man who disgraced their Caucus as well as himself a loud ovation.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Democrats, Politics, State politics | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries