Archive for: October 2006
October 31, 2006
The Alabama GOP has pretty much given up in their hopes to have a majority in the State House. It’s just not going to happen. The senate, on the other hand, is much more interesting.
The thing with the Alabama Senate is that Republicans don’t have to win in order to win. Even though it is now a 25-10 majority for the Dems in the state senate, there are enough right-wing Democrats to form a “conservative coalition” if it’s close. The Lowell Barron Democrats, who are currently in control, may lose their power even if the Republicans don’t gain a majority. The 10 Republican seats are safe. A few races are all that really matter.
District 22 (south Alabama) has Sen. Pat Lindsey (D) challenged by John McMillan (R). Lindsey is considered a Barron Democrat, and it’s a tight race from all accounts.
District 3 (Decatur) puts attorney Arthur Orr (R) against Probate Judge Bobby Day (D). The seat is being vacated by retiring Sen. Tommy Roberts (D), who sided with Republicans against Barron. This is probably the hottest race in the state. Day is doing surprisingly well considering he is 73 and up against a much more energetic 42-year old Day. This race is expected to top $1 million. Day attacks Orr for being involved with a company that was accussed of price gouging by Troy King. Orr calls Day a liberal and often brings up the Barron alliance. Day is expected to be a Barron supporter. Orr is obviously a Republican and would not support Barron. So the Republicans only have something to lose in this race. Nothing to gain.
District 30 (Montgomery-ish) has incumbent Wendell Mitchell (D) up against Joan Reynolds (R). Reynolds is putting up a good fight, but Mitchell is probably going to keep this seat. Mitchell is a Barron Democrat.
District 27 (Tallapoosa) has Ted Little (D) challenged by Peggy Martin (R). Martin was an early favorite to beat a Democrat, but Little has maintained a decent lead.
District 13 (Clay County) has newcomer Kim Benefield (D), who defeated Gerald Dial in the primary, up against Jim Ingram (R). This is another close one, but Benefield is expected to win. After losing their right-wing Democrat in Dial, the Republicans are again simply fighting to keep this district.
District 5 (west Alabama) is seeing the departure of Curt Lee (R). Larry Cagle (D) is running against Charles Bishop (R). The district leans Democrat at times, but Bishop is doing well in the polls. Again, however, the Republicans only have something to lose in this one.
*update* District 35 (south Mobile County) is pointed out by a long-time reader to be another hot race in the state senate. Sen. Gary Tanner (D) is being challenged by Ben Brooks (R). At the last FCPA report, Brooks had twice as much cash on hand then his Democratic opponent, but Tanner has beaten Brooks in overall spending. This is looking to be another close race.
I could certainly be wrong, but I predict the Barron Dems will keep control of the state senate. And Jesus wept. Are there any other hot races that I’m not aware of that could shift the power balance?
Danny at Doc’s Political Parlor makes a good observation.
Are you a little surprised that groups like Alfa, the Alabama Forestry Association, and the Organization Formerly Known As The Christian Coalition are not lining up in fierce opposition to Amendment Two, a.k.a. the 10-Mill Bill?
I expected to see angry, organized opposition to Amendment Two, but so far it has not happened.
I know of people who are opposed to the idea, but we haven’t seen any organized rally against the amendment from the regulars. Maybe they just assume that the word “tax” will be enough to defeat it. Proponents of the amendment, on the other hand, are campaigning hard for its passage, especially in areas that won’t be affected by the amendment.
I fully agree with the editorial staff at the Press-Register in their reaction to the Cato Institute giving Riley an “F” on his fiscal policy:
In Bob Riley’s case, the think tank’s narrow focus on recent increases in state spending caused it to lose sight of the broader picture of a fiscally responsible leader presiding over strong economic growth and a healthy state budget surplus.
Cato mainly cited nearly $2 billion increase in education spending to say that Alabama’s spending is way out of control. Cato is a libertarian think tank in Washington which means that they favor lower taxes, free markets, and individual freedom. I personally think their policy on education — that it should be privatized — is misguided. Individual freedom and personal autonomy in today’s world requires education, so the state is enhancing the individual liberty of its citizens by paying for education. I agree that education should be less centralized and that more choice and power should be given to families, but giving a failing grade almost soley on an education policy is pretty narrow.
They seem to forget that Gov. Riley and the legislature have lowered taxes and recruited businesses to Alabama. We have proven that you can be the least-taxed state in the country and still operate on a surplus. I’m not happy with every single thing Riley stands for, but on fiscal policy I give him a B at worst.
I’m still not sure how he thinks Tyson won his debate, but Jeff has compiled a great list of everyone’s analysis of the debates last night, from bloggers and major newspapers. It’s also really nice because I can just direct you to his list instead of trying to do one of my own. Well done.
UPDATE: Wheeler apparently posted too late to get his blog plugged, but I think he has a great perspective to offer for the AG debate.
My jaw dropped when King criticized Tyson for entering plea bargains with defendants. As a criminal defense attorney and civil libertarian, I would absolutely wholeheartedly rejoice if the state of Alabama suddenly decided that there would be no more plea bargains. If the state had to empanel a jury for every single arrest made in this state, the entire criminal justice system would explode.
I think Brian at Flashpoint is correct:
Deciding who won this debate really comes down to one’s philosophical belief. If you favor a lock ‘em up and throw away the key approach then you would have been impressed with King. If you favor a prevention and rehabilitation approach then you would have deemed Tyson the winner.
Nothing new here really, but they did actually talk about issues and give real answers to questions. This was the only debate worth watching. I think Tyson squarely beat King. Jeff disagrees with me, but I just don’t see how. I think King did okay under the circumstances, but in my opinion he was blown away by Tyson. I am of course very biased in this race, but I still think I’m being fair here.
King started out the debate by talking about how he’s hard at work fighting crime. He then brought up Mentor Alabama, which is a social program run by the attorney general’s office to match up kids with “mentor” adults. King then spent the rest of the debate deriding Tyson for wanting to start social programs and that he wants to put criminals in “time out” instead of prosecuting them.
Tyson finally pointed out this discrepancy near the end, and I think he did a good job making the case for his Helping Families Initiative, saying that King is the only person who thinks we shouldn’t try to prevent crime instead of just prosecuting crime.
Of course, Tyson brought up his experience and compared it to King. King tried to turn this around by saying he is the only person running who has been attorney general. I think that was pretty dumb. Three years as an appointed attorney general doesn’t compare to 12 years as Mobile County’s district attorney and the tens of thousands of prosecutions Tyson often references. King responds to Tyson’s numbers by saying he plea bargains. All I know is what I see in Law and Order, but I think a majority of cases are plea bargained. It guarantees a conviction, saves money, streamlines an overworked law enforcement team, and get cooperation in other investigations. King is obviously using a political tactic by hoping Alabamians will scoff at the idea that plea bargains are a way of life. But think about it? Can you imagine what would happen if we brought every case to trial? Go watch some Law and Order.
An interesting debate occurred over King’s campaign-induced proposal to execute serial rapists. Ignoring the fact that it probably wouldnt survive judicial review, Tyson makes a decent case against it by saying it would encourages rapists to kill their victims. It wasn’t a strong case (I think he’s afraid of coming across as pro-rapist or something), but he gave a good anecdote by saying he has a wife and daughters and that if something happened, he would want them back alive. He then talked about some of the crime scenes he has witnessed (I think he’s saying he gets pissed off at the thought of rape too). King responded with his own anecdote by describing in gruesome detail the potential rape of his daughter, which just grossed me out. King did make a good point by saying that rape “is one of the worst” crimes. Tyson earlier had said that execution should be reserved for only the worst of crimes. Just judging this round on the debate alone, I say it was a tie even though I think Tyson’s position is the more intelligent one.
The Jeremy Jones case was brought up a little, and King seemed a little more respectful than he had been. He didn’t say he went down and had to take the case from Tyson until his closing remarks, but he brought it up during the debate in response to a question that was obviously meant to bring it up. Tyson took the bait and said King’s intervention interrupted 3 other cases that they were working on. He later brought up Murphy’s prior theft conviction, which I still think is stupid. Tyson won this round, but I still get so mad at him for attacking the daughter of a murder victim.
The last question was about the AG’s role in defending the state against lawsuits. The state is apparently seeing more and more. Tyson answered first and basically said the AG should consult with state agencies who are having the most problems and help them to do things better. King touted his experience with Reynolds v. Alabama, where his office has apparently saved the state money by meeting court requirements. I don’t want to say a draw because I think they were both great answers. A draw sounds like no one won when I think they both made a good point.
I just really think Tyson won, and not only because he did a good job touting his experience. I also think he did a great job deflecting the attacks King was trying to throw his way. He pointed out his flip-flopping about “social programs,” he gave a good answer to the Jeremy Jones case after King brought it up even if he squandered it by attacking a victim, and I think he made King look stupid for attacking him on plea bargains. He also still came across as a tough guy and seemed to have a plan for reducing crime and handling the prison population in Alabama. King just came across like, “We should execute everyone, throw everyone in jail and never try to prevent crime. But if you like Tyson’s idea about social programs, look at Mentor Alabama.”
October 30, 2006
There were obvious themes for both candidates
Strange: Everything distinguishes me from my opponent. Folsom has ties to incumbent Democrats in the legislature. I have ties to incumbent Republicans in the Congress. I’ll use those ties to get us federal pork.
Folsom: I brought Mercedes to Alabama. All economic success is because of me. I have experience bringing to senate together. Strange is a Washington lobbyist.
I understand Folsom’s skipping about Mercedes. He worked very hard to get that plant and was highly criticized for it. It obviously turns out that he was right, but the voters have already gotten that message. Bring it up once or twice, but get over it. Folsom also completely avoided the question about double-dipping. I think he was done talking after 40 seconds of his 3 minutes.
Folsom also said he supported a constitutional convention, which made me happy. Strange is opposed.
Folsom came across as a better speaker, but I’ve always thought his accent was mesmerizing. Strange did a good job too, and I really liked his point-by-point approach to answering questions. Strange does win in the jokes category. He managed two audience laughs. Folsom responded to both with a follow-up joke and got a couple of audience chuckles.
I think Strange got a win out of this one. He seemed better prepared, even if it was bragging that he could get Senator Shelby to bring the state more federal pork. Folsom just seemed a little too aloof. In the end, though, they spent a half-hour saying what could have taken 10 minutes.
What a sham. That was probably the most ineffective thing I’ve ever watched. Riley mopped the floor with Baxley, to be sure, but it offered no insight. A really funny point was when Riley did his Reagan-esque, “Here we go again,” referring to Baxley attacking him on no-bid contracts. He talks about how there has been 90 days of negative attacks coming from Baxley, but then Riley spends most of the second half of the debate saying Baxley is too stupid to understand state government.
There was a lot of, “Baxley has never been an ally in bringing economic development to Alabama.” Baxley responds with, “Riley has never invited me to any meetings and has excluded me from press conferences.”
Baxley also spent a lot of time bringing up the same topics — no-bid contracts, $1 billion tax plan. I never knew those lines could be applied to so many subjects. She was obviously reading much of her responses which means she had generic statements prepared. It wasn’t very effective as they were obviously too general at best and off-topic to be more realistic.
One of the only real debates I saw was how to deal with a federal problem — illegal immigration. Riley stayed lock-step with Bush in volunteering our Alabama guard to go to the border while Baxley touted that we ask too much of our guard already. That’s the only real thing I connected with her on and it was on something the governor has no power to do anything about. Baxley also connected with me half-way on constitutional reform, but she stopped short by suggesting that special interests should be invited. She may be correct that it’s the quickest way to get a convention done, but it played into Riley’s hands.
Riley won this thing by staying on topic much more so than Baxley and bragging about Alabama’s success. I almost felt bad for the lieutenant governor.
This is a bit of a follow up to a previous post by Dan regarding negative ads. According to FactCheck.org, Republicans and Democrats have both spent a great deal more money on negative attacks this year than other ads.
According to the Federal Election Commission, so far in this election cycle the NRCC has spent $41.9 million attacking Democratic opponents and $5 million supporting its own candidates, roughly an 8:1 negative-to-positive ratio. The DCCC has spent $18 million and $3.1 million, respectively, for a 5:1 ratio. Most of that money on both sides is spent on television advertising.
When you look at some of the ads being run in other states, the ones being run in Alabama don’t look so bad in comparison. Some of these are downright childish.
I know I’m preaching to the choir if you’re coming to my website to read political commentary, but Gerald W. Johnson, professor emeritus at Auburn University, sums it up pretty nicely in his opinion piece about the state of Alabama’s electorate — “We need more idiots to act like citizens.”
The fundamental problem of Alabama politics is that we may have far too many idiots and far too few citizens. Before you rush out to join the “tar and feather him” brigade, let me explain what I mean.
I, personally, would have just stuck with the accepted definition of “idiot.”
The live debate between the candidates [minus a Libertarian] for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general will broadcast on Alabama Public Television tonight.
A special broadcast of For the Record with Tim Lennox will precede the debate at 6:30pm. Gubernatorial candidates Bob Riley and Lucy Baxley will face each other in an hour-long debate starting at 7:00. Then the lieutenant governor candidates, Luther Strange and Jim Folsom, will have a half-hour debate starting at 8:00. The two attorney general candidates, Troy King and John Tyson, will start at 8:30.
A quick correction, though. Former governor Albert Brewer will no longer be moderating the debate. That honor now goes to Montgomery Academy debate and speech coach Jay Rye.
That’s my response to certain voter registrars who say that a recent Supreme Court decision that mandates they follow the law is making their jobs harder. The Alabama Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court’s decision that voter registrars could only bar ex-cons from voting if they were convicted of a felony involving “moral turpitude,” which is what the Alabama Constitution says. Some registrars in Alabama were barring all ex-felons from voting, regardless of their crime.
[Mobile County chief clerk Margie] Lawshe said her office had a few phone calls from convicted felons asking whether they could register, and the Mobile County board decided to handle each case on an individual basis, as recommended by King’s office. “It’s been kind of cut and dry so far,” she said.
I do sympathize a little. The problem is that there is no simple list of which felonies do and do not involve moral turpitude. Our state legislature has never passed a law to define that, so it takes an attorney to give legal advice based on prevoius court decisions and attorney general opinions.
The legislature is expected to define which felonies involve moral turpitude in their next session.
I hear it every two years — voters are sick of negative campaign ads. First of all, I’m not sick of them. I’m just sick of a certain type of negative campaign ad. If a challenger says the incumbent is supported by gambling interests and takes trips to the Bahamas with lobbyists, that’s fine as long as it’s true. That’s something I need to know to make an informed decision; thanks for that information. You can even throw in a “controlled by special interests” in there. But if you put a doctored photograph with that information that shows the incumbent in the most humiliating way possible, you’re turning me off. You’re turning me off because you’re no longer giving me information that supports you and hurts your opponent. You’re slandering your opponent — and you’re doing it in a way that I would ground my kid for if he or she were treating another human being that way.
Most people don’t read FCPA reports and read every single news story about a particular race. We expect the opponents and media to point out certain things for us. But if you also pay attention, you notice that the candidates have realized that this means they can frame the debate. Instead of talking about the important issues affecting Alabama, we’re being tricked into thinking that the most important thing to figure out is which candidate is more liberal than the other.
According to at least one political observer, the governor’s race is lopsided not because of policy differences, but because Riley was more effective at convincing voters that Baxley was a liberal.
“Clearly Governor Riley by the polls has the lead, and what he did in that ’she’s too liberal’ ad was frame Lieutenant Governor Baxley before she could frame herself for voters. I think it put her in a hole,” [Professor Emeritus William H.] Stewart said.
It’s not that there aren’t people in this state who are screaming for the candidates to talk about something important. College students throughout the state recently tried to increase public awareness of the need for constitutional reform by reading the entire constitution with it’s 700+ amendments. After 12 consecutive hours, they were less than halfway through.
The students had hoped to open a dialogue with Gov. Bob Riley and his challenger, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, about what may well be the most pressing issue facing our state. To their great disgust, the students heard nothing from the candidates but silence.
There are many other groups who are trying to talk about Initiatives and Referendums, poverty in the Black Belt, economic development of west Alabama, election reform to reduce voter fraud, improving education in Alabama’s rural areas, etc. etc. But of course those issues take a back seat to the important things in this election: who wrote a check to John Kerry and who took perfectly legal campaign contributions from Indians.
To my knowledge, the only candidate who has addressed any important issue this year has been Loretta Nall. That is of course the reason she is excluded from the ballot. Why would the powers that be give her the credibility she needs to push the candidates to talk about the real issues.
There are a few things that I’m really proud of Alabama about. One of those is the fact that in the early 20th century, Alabama was one of the first states in the U.S. to enact open meetings laws. Our Sunshine Laws are considered some of the best in the country, but new technology is starting to make them a little outdated.
“Most states have laws that are significantly newer than ours, and they address more modern concepts like electronic records,” said Dennis Bailey, attorney for the Alabama Press Association. “They also give clearer procedures for getting” the records.
There are a few problems with our current statutes. A significant problem is that while the law requires offices to comply with requests for records, it lacks clear procedures for doing so. The result is that each executive office has their own procedures, or none at all. As Bailey pointed out, they also don’t specifically address electronic records.
A bipartisan group of legislators and others met for a symposium Friday to discuss a bill they plan to introduce which will update the laws. According to the attendees, it has a good chance of passing and will standardize the process for different government agencies as well as address new technologies.
There are some really dirty politics going on around the state with the legislative races. One of my favorites is for Senate District 30, where Sen. Wendell Mitchell (D) is being challenged by Joan Reynolds (R), a Greenville businesswoman and Butler County Republican leader.
When Governor Riley vetoed a bill to name an official state spirit of Alabama (Conecuh Ridge Alabama Fine Whiskey), the legislature over-rode his veto with Mitchell voting in favor of the override. This somehow means that Mitchell is in favor of drunk driving.
“Because of Mr. Mitchell’s actions [to name an official state spirit], we will continue to see an increase in the number of drunk drivers and the number of domestic abuse cases,” said Reynolds, 62.
That statement is so dumb I can’t even explain how wrong it is. It’s like if you came up to me and said, “Up is down.” I could possibly mathematically prove that no, “up” is actually “up,” but what’s the point. You’re just being stupid. Reynolds has actually voted to lower the legal BAC levels for drivers from 0.1 to 0.08. This is certainly not an endorsement for Wendell Mitchell, but I think it’s safe to say that I would never vote for this Reynolds lady.
Two developments in the race I’m having the hardest time deciding. It’s hard because all I really know is that one guy is tall and other guy isn’t a member of the Mountain Brook Country Club.
Birmingham News: Ashcroft endorses Strange
A former attorney general, governor and U.S. Senator, John Ashcroft is considered the leading member of the Christian right-wing of the Republican Party. He was also instrumental in the formation and passage of the USA Patriot Act and an enthusiastic supporter of the War on DrugsTM. His endorsement of Luther Strange takes a few points away from Strange in my book.
Birmingham News: Folsom won’t be ‘rubber stamp’ for governor if elected
In an obvious response to recent indications that he would be happy to ride Gov. Riley’s coattails, Jim Folsom is trying to distinguish himself by saying he will be an independent Lt. Gov. and not part of a Gov/Lt. Gov. team. I had been waiting for Strange to be criticized for that one.
October 28, 2006
Who said this?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
No cheating. Do you agree or disagree? Who would the priests be in this country at this age?
Next Page »
|
