 FAN 2-11-08 |
||||
In this issue: The “Primary” point for Senator McCain about Tennessee Republicans The “Primary” point for Senator McCain about Tennessee Republicans Nationally, Senator John McCain did very well on Super Tuesday. Actually, he only did well enough in most places to get a plurality, and in no place was it more clear that he’s got a lot of work to do than in Tennessee where almost 65% of the Republicans who voted did not vote for him. If he is to win Tennessee in
November, which he must do if he is to become President (he may want to “reach out across the aisle” to trade notes with a former Senate colleague and fairly recent Presidential contender from Tennessee. He may remember how important we can be!), he must win the hearts and minds of social and religious conservatives in our state. When you look at the exit polls, one begins to see McCain’s trouble in Tennessee. First, there were 13% more Democratic primary voters than Republican voters. It is a clear indication of the level of enthusiasm generated by the Democrat contenders and a lack thereof among the GOP options. In the last election, U.S. Senator Bob Corker did win over a credible, charismatic Democrat. And no Republican lost his or her seat in the state House elections. So, it would appear that a lot of Republicans just didn’t show up for Super Tuesday. Based on the emails and calls I fielded on the eve of election day from undecided voters, it was not surprising that only 33% of the Republicans who voted made up their minds in the three days prior to the vote. And from the number of votes, it seems apparent that many Republican conservatives just didn’t show up. Senator McCain must convince them to show up in November or he’s doomed in this state and perhaps nationally, as well. Second, among the social and religious conservatives who did vote, McCain did particularly poorly. In about any important voter classification category you look at, McCain never broke 30%. Consider:
My guess is that these Tennessee numbers are not that much different from those in other Southern states that voted for Governor Mike Huckabee. And my guess is, by November, Senator McCain will have spent so much time in Tennessee and the rest of the south, he’ll have a drawl and be asking “all ya’ll” Republicans “get out and vote, ya hear!” Governor Romney’s withdrawal – setting the stage for the future? Anyone who heard Governor Romney’s concession speech cannot help but think that perhaps the Super Tuesday results would have been more favorable toward him had he spoken with the clarity, passion and conviction that marked the CPAC speech he gave when he announced the suspension of his campaign. It was an excellent speech about the “State of the Union” and to a lesser degree, the state of the GOP. Senator McCain would do well to read it. Why Governor Romney had not previously spoken with such straightforward clarity and conviction is anybody’s guess. But maybe he was using his speech to gage public reaction for a bolder “platform” should he run for the White House in the future. If you missed it, you can click here to read it.
In politics, things aren’t always as they appear. After all the point and counterpoint, political accusations and “cussations” regarding SJR 127, the resolution to “reverse” our state Supreme Court’s decision to write a right to abortion into our state Constitution, a bill was filed by Senator Roy Herron (D-Dresden) and Rep. Phillip Pinion (D-Union City) to “require” informed consent and establish a waiting period between the provision of information and the abortion itself.
You might think, “Hey, wait a minute. I thought the whole point of SJR 127 was that the Court struck down our laws on informed consent and that established a waiting period before an abortion could be performed. What’s the point of SJR 127 if we can pass a law to ‘fix’ the problem.” That’s an excellent question. But when you begin to read the bill, you begin to realize that what it purports to do is rather meaningless and unenforceable. It does not accomplish what needs to be accomplished. It does not “fix” the problem created by our state Supreme Court. And though it was probably not the intent of the sponsors, the bill demonstrates how little the legislature can do in terms of making reasonable abortion policy. Unfortunately, what the bill will do is confuse the casual observe about the real need for SJR 127. And for the legislators who will not vote for SJR 127, it will give them the political cover that will allow them to tell folks back home, “I really am pro-life because I supported a bill to provide informed consent and a waiting period.” Whether it was the intention of the sponsors to undermine SJR 127, to cloud the issue about the importance of SJR 127, or to provide political cover to opponents of SJR 127, who is to say? I will not impugn their motives though it is well known that Senator Herron has been a vigorous opponent of SJR 127. But that is the net result. Don’t be fooled into thinking this bill really does much good or that SJR 127 is not really that important. To read an analysis of the bill, click here. Love (of money) makes the (political) world go round. Big news in the state political world was the size of the “war chests” of incumbents for the upcoming election and particularly a “contribution” made to Senator John Wilder’s (D-Somerville) campaign account.
When I ran for the state Senate in 1994, a lot of hard work and $75,000 was enough to be an incumbent. Today, virtually every state Senator has well over $100,000 in the bank to fend off a challenger. The ability of incumbents to raise money has made beating them that much harder as an opponent won’t get far in a Senate race without at least $150,000. And that money is hard to raise when you are the challenger, especially when the incumbent has been there more than one term. That’s why the races are so fierce against a first term incumbent – get ‘em while the getting is good, well, relatively good, at least! While candidates and incumbents seeding their campaign with their own money is not unusual, Senator John Wilder, “loaned” his campaign a whopping $500,000. If a person wants to spend their money getting elected (or re-elected) that is their business. But campaign loans that can be repaid by after-election dollars have an unseemly appearance of impropriety as many “contributors” will feel that a post-campaign contribution is necessary to obtain “access.” Not every candidate who makes such loans or solicits such post-election contributions will connect post-election contributions to political access, but in the days of bribes and official public misconduct (see the story below about how campaign pledges became extortion money), I believe there needs to be some limit to how long after an election the winner can solicit contributions before the “loan” simply becomes a contribution. Actually, despite its own ethical lapses, even Congress recognized this problem and put a time limit on post-election contributions for loan repayments. Tennessee’s state Senate actually had a similar provision in the ethics law that evolved out of the Tennessee Waltz scandal. But the state House didn’t see fit to keep that provision in place in the final bill. Perhaps if the legislature tries to loosen the current ethics law, as it seems it wants to do, this issue can be re-visited. Short on Justice, Long on Corruption While it’s been big news in Hamilton County, few around the state know that Hamilton County’s Sherriff, Billy Long, resigned last week amid a scandal involving a stinging federal indictment. Former Sheriff Long was elected less than 2 years ago by ousting two term incumbent Republican Sheriff, John Cupp, who also happened to be a preacher for the church of Christ.
But it didn’t take long for Sheriff Long to turn a blind eye to Justice instead of allowing Justice to be blind under his watch. Last week Sheriff Long was indicted on taking “protection money” from owners of quick-stop type stores who were running illegal video poker operations. Apparently these owners had not made good on a campaign pledge, so Sheriff Long decided he’d not turn in their illegal activities if they’d just make good on their promise. Never mind he didn’t make good on his promise to uphold the law! But, this “protection money” he was extorting was “small potatoes” compared to the drug running and money laundering in which he is alleged to have engaged. It is a sad, sad tale of public corruption, one with which Tennessean’s are all too familiar. Perhaps he is innocent, but every one of the state legislators indicted by the fed’s in the Tennessee Waltz scandal said they were innocent too and they have all been convicted or pled guilty. When you read the indictment on Sheriff Long, you will be appalled. When we go to the polls in August and November, remember that the policies espoused by a candidate are important, but every bit as much so is their character. Eventually who you are becomes what you do. To paraphrase the mother of famous movie character, Forrest Gump, “bad character is as bad character does,” and that’s about all I care to say about that.
|
