Nashville for the 21st Century

God's Second Begotten Son...

2009-11-18T11:19:00.004-06:00

Fox News did a profile of Sen. Doug Henry...allow me to summarize:

Doug Henry, a man amongst men, without whom countless numbers of kids would have been beaten to death by drunken parents or killed by drunk drivers, is a man of unparalleled principle, integrity, whit, wisdom, kindness, gentility, humility, selflessness, and is a walking-talking monument to Christian principles. Why, anyone who doesn't think he should be enshrined as a permanent fixture in the legislature until God so chooses to take him upon a golden chariot to serve by his side, must be some kind of child-hating, devil-worshiping interloper. Speaking of which, Jeff Yarbro is challenging Doug Henry. Thanks for tuning in!

(h/t ACK)

0.4% of Gun Deaths Linked to Concealed-Carry

2009-11-17T16:09:00.003-06:00

Chilling statistics that show that nearly 4 tenths of a percent of people killed by firearms are killed by someone who also has a concealed carry permit.

A new project seeking to track murders by concealed carry permit holders shows that between March 2007 through the present day, roughly 85 people have been killed to concealed weapons carriers...out of 9500 people total who were killed by firearms in 2008 alone.

A Matter of Degrees

2009-11-17T11:20:00.003-06:00

Clearly, Obama is a fascist narcissistic dictator who forgets that we are his boss, while simultaneously he needs to remember that AMERICAN PRESIDENTS BOW BEFORE NO ONE!

McWherter Poll Shows Inherent Kyle Strength

2009-11-17T09:41:00.002-06:00

An internal campaign poll by the McWherter camp shows their candidate maintains a lead among the initial Democratic primary electorate when positive information (being that their candidate is Son of Ned and a small business owner) is given about all the candidates.

The surprising aspect of this poll to me is not so much that McWherter goes from 26 to 34% when voters are reminded that his father was the Governor and that he owns a business, but that Jim Kyle jumps from 4th place with 5% to 2nd place with 19% when people find out about his qualifications.

Of course, résumés don't win offices, candidates do, and campaigns don't get final say in identifying their candidate. Would it matter to voters if they found out that the small business McWherter has grown is a beer distributorship? Not for me, but I imagine there are some out there.

Regardless, this poll does show what most people assumed, which is that the McWherter name carries with it a lot of good will among a certain segment of the primary electorate. My personal feeling is that 34% won't cut it for a final total, as some of the candidates will probably drop out prior to August, and from here on out the various strengths and weaknesses of the individuals will have to carry them to victory.

Proof Again

2009-11-13T08:25:00.001-06:00

Every Vote Counts!

Obama Lapdog Perhaps...But Pelosi?

2009-11-13T08:09:00.002-06:00

Greg Johnson, the lapdog for right-wing hillbillies at the Knox News Sentinel, has a post excoriating Rep. Jim Cooper as a "lapdog" for Nancy Pelosi because he voted to move a bill out of the House that he wasn't a huge fan of:

Cooper voted "aye" for PelosiCare with the dreamy caveat that "it will get better in the Senate." The one-time fiscal conservative (he can't say that anymore) and budget hawk (this vote forever disqualifies him from that moniker) was likely safe to vote "aye" since Nashville ranks second in Tennessee in the number of lefties only to Memphis.

I didn't forget Cooper. I just moved him out of the Blue Dog category and into the Pelosi Lap Dog category.

If Cooper is anything he's a shill for passing a health care reform package in this Congress. While he fought, kicked, bitched, and moaned to get the bill changed before the vote, he was smart enough to realize that a failure to pass this bill (which won't be the final bill signed by the President) would be a death knell for health insurance reform for perhaps another decade or so to come. He did the responsible thing in moving the process along...if seeing the bigger picture excludes him from the blue-dog club, I'm sure he'd be OK with that.

(h/t ACK)

The Malaise

2009-11-12T12:57:00.002-06:00

An interesting analysis by Tom Suozzi, the Nassau County Executive who appears to be losing his bid for re-election despite what seemed to be a guaranteed win:

Suozzi is the strongest of three Democrats in the New York suburbs -- Corzine and Spano are the others -- who had bad election nights, and an official whose gift was always his connection to ordinary voters. I asked him, from his unhappy place under the wave, to reflect on what he thought was going on. He described the local factors – property taxes, most of all – but also made an unusual, and for Democrats perhaps worrisome, point.

Suozzi said he detected a certain exhaustion in voters, and cited Arthur Schlessinger’s theory about "cycles" in American history that alternate between periods of public spirit and of private interest. His sense: Voters are withdrawing from the public sphere.

As a political junkie, I can attest to the feeling of general disinterest in politics as of late. Now, I'll vote in every election because its just what I do, but its hard to get all that excited about politics either local, state, or national. I think Democrats like myself hit a crescendo last year...from late 2007 to November of 2008 there was just an intense almost obsession with politics, first in the Democratic primary, and then in the general election. While I won't pretend to have put in the kind of level of work that other activists/supporters did, the simple act of following every word possible of the campaign was mentally draining.

Republicans, on the other hand, never hit that crescendo when John McCain lost because for a lot of them it wasn't about McCain, rather it was about beating Obama or supporting Sarah Palin. Well, Obama is still there to be beaten, and Sarah America is still egging them on...for the most part they can only go up from their low-point of 2008, whereas it'll be very hard for Democrats to go anywhere but down.

Its hard to see how Democrats are re-energized without a victory by Republicans. After all, the call of "maintain the status quo" is hardly as effective as the call for change. Hopefully, the Republicans will continue to trip over themselves by purging their dwindling ranks of moderates around the country, and thus making a GOP takeover a scarier (and thus more energizing) proposition.

Banks Leaves Office of Neighborhoods to Join Herron Campaign

2009-11-11T16:20:00.002-06:00

In the department of "If ACK Doesn't Post It, I Don't Know It," Brady Banks left the Office of Neighborhoods at the end of October to pursue his dream of begging lots of people to give money to the Roy Herron campaign. After a brief vacation, Banks is excited to get to working for his political mentor.

The news was broken (to me) by ACK by way of Michael Silence by way of Mike Byrd.

Paul Against Career Politicians

2009-11-11T15:10:00.003-06:00

According to Rand Paul's website, he is joining Sen. DeMint's call for the return of the guaranteed-to-fail constitutional amendment to limit Congressional terms:

Rand Paul supports term limits as a means of reining in career politicians and pork barrel spending. He supports the legislation introduced by U.S. Senate Republicans Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Sam Brownback to amend the Constitution to limit terms.

Yes, boo on career politicians! Quick question, what do you call a guy who serves 18 years in Congress, runs for Senate once and President twice? Oh yeah, Dad.

(Side note: Name that Tennessee Rep who has served 12 terms in Congress and is running for a 13th, yet voted in favor of the 1995 Constitutional Amendment to enact term limits...)

Twas All A BIIIGGGG Misunderstanding

2009-11-11T08:43:00.003-06:00

Remember that bruhaha over whether or not gubernatorial candidate Mike McWherter would support a ban on gay adoption? All just a big misunderstanding.

Today at a Kitchen Cabinet meeting (a breakfast meetup for progressives), I asked McWherter about why he supported a ban on gay adoption, and to my surprise, I found out he did not in fact support such a ban. According to McWherter he supports the traditional family model [see: Ward and June Cleaver], but that he couldn't imagine a piece of legislation that he could sign which would perfectly encapsulate the traditional family model, and so he doesn't think that will be an issue if he becomes Governor.

Of course, this confused me a bit because when this was an issue, the campaign's spokesman Mike Kopp had this to say about McWherter's position:

"The fact of the matter is, what he said is where he is on this issue. No one in the campaign is going to sit here and try to nuance it. That's just where he is personally on the issue. At this point, there's really nothing else to say about it. He was asked point blank the question, and he gave an honest, heartfelt answer about where he is on the issue. The question was how does he feel about a gay couple adopting a child. His personal belief is that parents of the opposite sex are better for adoption to raise a child. If push came to shove specifically when it came to a ban, yes, he would be supportive of a ban."

Perplexed about the apparent inconsistency, I asked Kopp about this after McWherter was done speaking, and apparently it was his boo-boo because he didn't actually talk to his candidate before releasing this statement to the media, he was just interpreting Joe Lance's blog post as was everyone else. According to McWherter, he was asked if he'd sign legislation banning gay adoption, and told the blogger "no". I checked with Joe Lance (who unfortunately didn't record the conversation) and this is what he said:

The original question was: "What is the candidate's position on the proposed ban of gay and un-married couples from adopting?" and was submitted by a Facebook reader here in Chattanooga. McWherter said that he believes that adopted children should have parents of the opposite sex, and, after I asked, said if that meant a choice between adoption and state-run care, that state care (DCS, foster families, etc) was preferable to children being adopted by gay couples.

Now, Joe Lance is an extremely straightforward blogger who tries to maintain neutrality, and wasn't looking to make news with this statement. So, I'm going to go ahead and assume his version and initial posting was the most accurate interpretation of what Mike McWherter was saying.

But, hey, yesterday was yesterday and today is today. So, going forward, Mike McWherter's position on gay adoption (verified by the campaign) is that he thinks the traditional family is best, but he couldn't imagine a piece of legislation hitting his desk that would accurately protect it when it comes to adoption. Via Mike Kopp:

[H]is position has not changed since this last came up...his personal preference is to place a child in a loving traditional family, but he does respect the current system that gives discretion to judges who make determinations based on what is best for the child in that particular circumstance...he is not advocating nor would he advocate a ban on gay adoptions.

Asked specifically if he supports the language of HB605 which bans adoption by unmarried cohabitating couples, Mike Kopp said "the particular piece of legislation you shared with me in the link would not get Mike's blessing if he were elected governor..."

Wamp Touts Rednecks and Right-wingers

2009-11-10T13:14:00.002-06:00

Somehow I've managed to get on all the major Republican e-mail lists, and so it goes that today Zach Wamps sends out email touting an upcoming fundraiser hosted by Nashville's biggest douche-bag John Rich and the self-described "Redneck Woman" Gretchen Wilson. In addition, he is touting the pseudo-support of national rightwing blogger Erick Erickson of Red State:

Erick Erickson, the Editor-in-Chief of the nationally acclaimed conservative blog RedState, wrote an analysis of the Tennessee Governor's race and said Zach "is a conservative and would govern conservatively."

In his article, Erickson trashed popular Republican officials like Lamar Alexander and Howard Baker, saying:

For the longest time Tennessee has elected squishy moderates state wide. Howard Baker was conservative, but in a “compromise his mother to advance his goal” sort of way. Arguably Lamar Alexander is even worse, refusing to do anything that does not advance bipartisanship, even at the expense of core conservative goals. Hell, Alexander is not even and does not consider himself to be, a conservative.

Could you imagine a Tennessee Democrat so gleefully touting the endorsement of someone like Markos Moulitsas? Erickson has compared Linda Douglass to Joseph Goebbels and urged Conservatives to beat elected officials to a bloody pulp for regulating dish soap.

Is that what Zach Wamp is offering Tennessee? A style of conservatism that alienates anyone in this state who doesn't hate everyone who disagrees with them?

Getting To Know Your Next Governor

2009-11-10T08:03:00.002-06:00

Although he hasn't done an interview yet, but the rest of the Gubernatorial candidates have sat down with Inside Politics for half-hour interviews. For your viewing pleasure[?]:

Roy Herron: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Ward Cammack: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Jim Kyle: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Kim McMillan: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Mike McWherter: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Zach Wamp: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Bill Gibbons: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Ron Ramsey: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Street Fight in District Five

2009-11-09T09:07:00.002-06:00

Joey Garrison over at the City Paper has a detailed look at the recall race in District 5 between incumbent Pam Murray and challenger Jamie Hollin. The article reads somewhat like the documentary "Street Fight" about the race between Newark, NJ Mayor Sharpe James and challenger Cory Booker where basically every racially/religiously/politically unfounded charge was made against the challenger...the underlying theme of all of it being "he's not one of us".

If for no other reason than for her behavior in this race, Pam Murray should go.

SEIU On Bart Gordon

2009-11-05T14:11:00.002-06:00

So, a mealy-mouthed conservative Dem goes down in Virginia while bashing the President's agenda, and the lesson Blue Dogs take from that loss is to be even more mealy-mouthed than they already were...Mark Naccarato points out the error his ways:

“This isn’t just politics for Bart – it’s bad politics,” said Mark Naccarato, SEIU Local 205’s political coordinator. “Only two days ago there were two special elections for Congress. Democrats won them both by running on a pro-healthcare, pro-public option platform – even in the district that hadn’t voted for a Democrat since the Civil War. I don’t know who Bart thinks he’s going to make happy by voting against this bill. The Tennessee Republicans already have a candidate ready to go against him and he’s angering the Democrats he needs to get re-elected. President Clinton just told Tennessee Democrats at their Jackson Day fundraiser a month ago that the failure to pass healthcare reform was how the Democrats lost the Congress in 1994 and I would think that Bart would remember that. This makes no sense politically, especially in light of the fact that his constituents want reform and that this is a fiscally sound bill – even by the standards of the Blue Dog caucus that Bart belongs to.”

Gordon already voted a health care bill out of committee...all the ads will say he voted for health care, rather than trying to fight that battle, might as well do something for your constituents and base so that they can reward you for it.

Lessons From Tuesday

2009-11-05T08:15:00.002-06:00

Rep. Jim Cooper is more than happy to lend a hand to Republicans who want to ignore Democratic successes in Congressional special elections in favor of using the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Florida as barometers for the mood of the country. Via Woods:

In this morning's LA Times, Cooper calls the election results a "wake-up call." As if reading straight from GOP talking points, he says, "There are going to be a lot more tensions between the White House and Congress. They've been under the surface so far -- and they're going to come out in the open."

Here's the deal. Independents and Republicans who are opposed to the President's agenda are going to vote for a guaranteed vote against it, not a maybe/possibly vote against it if you scare them with your phone calls. So throwing up some token opposition to the Democratic agenda isn't going to do much of anything except depress Democratic leaning voters who actually expect you people to do something other than bail out large banks and companies.

Weakening the head of your party going into the mid-terms is the surest way towards seeing a change in partisan control of Congress. If you sound, act, and vote like a Republican in all things but the vote for Speaker of the house...why wouldn't voters just elect Republicans?

Blast From The Past

2009-11-04T11:01:00.002-06:00

''If you win them, they're very important,'' said Gov. Don Sundquist of Tennessee, a Republican. ''If you don't, you say they're not.''

That was from an article written shortly before Democrats won the Governorships of Virginia and New Jersey back in 2001...at a time when Bush's approval ratings were somewhere in the 70s, and Republicans managed to go on to pick up House and Senate seats in next year's mid-terms.

See Also: Lawrence O'Donnell pissing in Michael Steele's cheerios.

A Date Of Infamy In The Conservative Revolution

2009-11-03T15:17:00.002-06:00

There will be much exclaiming of joy and merriment today as a handful of races across the country seem to be looking good for the Republicans. Undoubtedly, if Republicans manage to sweep elections in NJ, VA, and NY-23, there will be tons of concern trolling by conservatives and a lot conservative dems scared of their own shadows. But really, what do these elections mean on a national level?

Virginia: Bob McDonnell has led in every poll but one over the past year. That includes the times when Obama's approval ratings were sky-high around the country, including Virginia. Will it be a rebuke of Obamacare if McDonnell wins tonight? No, it'll be a vote in favor of Bob McDonnell and a handful of other Republicans in the state.

New Jersey: I pity those folks. They have a wildly unpopular Governor, Jon Corzine, running against a wildly unpopular Republican. Both candidates have approval ratings in the 30s, and as a result they are neck-and-neck in the polls. While some think Corzine will pull it out because of historic underpolling of Dems in New Jersey, I actually think Christie will win because those who are voting for Daggett, but would otherwise vote for Christie, will probably get into the voting booth and be compelled to kick Corzine out of office more than Daggett voters leaning Corzine would feel compelled to keep him in there.

NY-23: A Republican seat that had the potential to swing blue but will still probably stay Republican. News? Hardly. What makes it news is the Conservative party challenger did well enough to force out the Republican. But this is only news on a national level because New York's politics are quite unique. They actually have viable, strong third parties and many candidates often run on more than one party banner. In New York the Conservative party is strong in parts of upstate NY who seek to distance themselves from the more moderate New York Republicans. As liberal Republicanism has died off nationally, the Conservative party's strength has been enhanced. Either way, expect the Democratic challenger to do better than any Dem in previous elections in that district.

Maine: Here is something that will matter on a national level, as voters have the chance to overturn a recent state law that allows gay marriage. Polls are a toss-up, but if the special election in Nashville over the English Only referendum taught me anything, its that you shouldn't bet on hate to motivate people to get out to the polls.

On Sacred Documents

2009-11-03T14:10:00.002-06:00

ACK has some video of Rep. Lincoln Davis having to deal with an irate teabagger who is upset that he is not bending to their every whim and desire.

She prattles on about how the Constitution is some sort of "sacred" document. Its not. Its a piece of paper signed by a bunch of guys a long long time ago. Has some really great ideas, and its the basis for our laws and system of Government, but the people who wrote it were not somehow more profoundly intelligent, knowledgeable, or better informed than the current lot in Washington. I know, its scary to think, considering some of the loons in Congress, but its the truth. The founders are deified because they were at the right place and right time, their words are profound because of the longevity of their actions.

The danger with imbuing the constitution with some sort of supernatural powers is that it leads to religion, and when you have religion you get radical fundamentalists who have a very skewed and deranged interpretation of society, an interpretation that can lead in many cases throughout history, to violence.

So, chill the hell out people. Nearly every Congress or President in the past 200 years has at some point neglected to follow the constitution to the exact letter...they've bent interpretations here or there, but at every step of the way, they've been held accountable for their actions within two, four, or six years. Until our right to vote and have them replaced is taken away, these calls of tyranny ring hollow.

Inside the MTSU Poll

2009-11-02T16:00:00.002-06:00

While I didn't notice a full table of MTSU poll results last week (or a couple of weeks ago), running across the numbers it seems that 6.7% of Tennesseans think that Obama is the anti-Christ, and 7% think he's a terrorist. About 17% think he's a fascist.

Campaign Contribution Limits are Meaningless

2009-11-02T08:34:00.002-06:00

Tom Humphrey has a thorough examination of the PAC process among Tennessee's legislators and finds a donation scheme which helps those in power maintain power by transferring money from PACs to accounts with the effect of limiting the usefulness of individual campaign donation limits.

What About The Bob Clement's Of The World?

2009-11-02T08:22:00.003-06:00

Larry ~~Woods~~ Woody*, ~~formerly the head of Bob Clement's campaign for Mayor~~, looks at the Mayor's call for scrapping the fairgrounds in favor of (fill in the blank), and sees some pretty blatant elitism in the process.

*Updated: In my defense, it seemed like something that would come outta the Clement campaign circa 2007...

Glen Casada Smacked Down By Courts

2009-10-29T14:56:00.005-05:00

Glen Casada's efforts to have the Federal Courts declare the President an illegal alien and strip him of his Presidential powers, have failed. Judge David O. Carter, in dismissing the case filed by Orly Taitz, names Glen Casada specifically as one of the State Reps. who signed on to this xenophobic fishing expedition, and says that he and his rightwing cohorts have no standing in challenging the President's legal authority:

In effect, Plaintiffs allege that the State Representatives have standing because they could be held liable for theft or conversion should they accept federal funds pursuant to an unconstitutionally elected president. The threat of liability for theft or conversion against these representatives is highly speculative. See City of South Lake Tahoe, 625 F.2d at 238 (exposure of plaintiffs to civil liability was wholly speculative where no lawsuit was currently threatened); see also O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497, 94 S. Ct. 669 (1974) (“attempting to anticipate” whether respondent will be charged with a crime which will possibly lead to them suffering a constitutional violation takes the Court into “the area of speculation and conjecture”). The State Representatives’ liability for theft or conversion is speculative because it takes multiple logical leaps to assume that the representatives would be prosecuted criminally for theft and conversion for taking funds from the President who has been elected and sworn into office. Because the alleged harm faced by the State Representatives is highly speculative and conjectural, this group also fails to satisfy the standing requirements.

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs allege State Representatives have standing based on an oath to uphold the Constitution, the allegation is insufficient to establish standing under the reasoning of City of South Lake Tahoe, as discussed above.

Irrelevant Organization Seeks To Remove Member from Irrelevant Position

2009-10-29T08:59:00.002-05:00

Some teabagger Ron Paul aficionado is in the process of being pushed out from his position as Vice-Chair of the Davidson County Republican party because he's a bit too coo-coo for their cocoa puffs:

In a statement released on the party’s website Wednesday, the party stated that the reason for the motion to remove were Collins’ “unprofessional actions and words” as well as his use of his title when expressing opinions “derogatory to and disrespectful of Republican candidates or elected officials.” A spokeswoman for DCRP chairwoman Kathleen Starnes would not elaborate on the statement.

The DCRP has a spokeswoman? Hahahaha. Seriously, they have what, one member who is an elected official (maybe three if you count some of the wingers who have a tiny sliver of Davidson County in their district portfolio)? Is that spokeswoman her mom or something?

Let's Opt Out of the Opt Out Debate

2009-10-29T08:14:00.004-05:00

All over America, would be politicians are weighing in on Washington's debate over the "Opt Out" clause in Harry Reid's reconciliation of the various Senate Committee health care reform packages. Paula Flowers, who has something on her website about supporting a public option so long as it isn't Government run, is opposed to the opt out calling it a "cop out". Kim McMillan at least opposes opting out, whether or not she opposes the opt out or not I'm not sure, Ward Cammack thinks opting out is a possibility. And so on and so forth.

Fact is, who cares? Really, is this what we are going to consume ourselves with over the next few weeks. Whether we have a watered down "public option" that states could possibly opt out of two years after it is implemented? How about the debate that only a few are talking about, which is why the hell does this health care package ignore over half of the people in this country who don't have a lick of choice in who their health insurance company is because their employers choose for them?

There is a blog called Cooper Uncovered which is part of the group that is supposedly trying to find a candidate to run against Rep. Cooper. They seem to be focused on whether Cooper will vote for the robust "Medicare +5" public option supported by the progressive caucus. He won't. No point in belaboring the issue. He won't. What I want to know is whether or not he will push hard to incorporate aspects of his beloved "Wyden-Bennett" bill that has been largely ignored by the leadership in both houses of Congress? I don't mean saying, "hey, this bill sucks, but look over hear at this lovely bill I sponsored"... I mean doing the behind the scenes work to incorporate aspects of Wyden-Bennett like requiring employers to list the actual cost of our benefits on our pay stub, like perhaps opening up the health exchange markets to those of us who already have insurance, so that maybe we can save some money by moving to a plan more suitable to our needs.

Right now, I have a health insurance plan that I suppose is alright, but have never really enjoyed the benefits of (except the reduced costs associated with people who have insurance). I have a $500 deductible, and considering I'm a relatively healthy young whipper-snapper, I have never met that requirement and so it might as well be a $5000 deductible...personally, if given the option, I'd go with a high-deductible plan and perhaps attach a dental plan to it. But I don't have that option. My employer picks one plan for every member of the company, and that is that.

While I'd be fine with scrapping the employer based health care system altogether (sorry Labor pals), I'd be OK with simply having our company allot a certain amount towards health insurance, with the ability to pick a plan that suits me.

If Democrats did that, I'd wager that Americans would be more supportive of the health care bill, as they would see direct benefits to them. They'd see reforms in action. Instead, we see a multi-hundred billion dollar package that subsidizes private insurance and throws out a token bone of a "public option" that benefits the relatively small number of Americans who will be participating in this health insurance exchange.

Normally I'm fine with supporting legislation that doesn't directly benefit me, as a single white male the Democrats' platform isn't exactly geared towards me, and I'm fine with that. But at the same time its hard to get all hot and bothered about peripheral issues related to health care that don't address the underlying problem which is that we have an employer-based health insurance system that was an unforeseen consequence of wage caps during the Depression and which doesn't make sense from an economics stand point. So, as a constituent of Rep. Cooper, if he were able to open the Democrats' health care plan up to include more Americans like myself, that would be better than some token support for a progressive caucus version of the bill that will never pass the US Senate.

Speaking of Black, White Supremacist "Apologists"...

2009-10-28T11:28:00.002-05:00

Carol Swain being in the news reminds me of this:

Clayton Bigsby - More amazing video clips are a click away