Archive for: October 18, 2006

This is a guest post from The Alabama Moderate. The original post is found on her website and is reposted here with permission.

That’s a question that too many of us are failing to ask our elected representatives, and it shows.

I was watching the new Robin Williams flick Man of the Year over the weekend, and I was surprised to see that the character Tom Dobbs actually touched on some real issues. As he points out, politicians love to bring up big issue debates, like gay marriage and abortion, because they use them as “weapons of mass distraction.” (I also recently read a commentary by Lou Dobbs that made the same point. I don’t think that the naming of the character was a coincidence.) These issues distract you from this nation’s real issues. For example, how is you standard of living, lately? How is your health care? Do you think you are being paid fairly for the work that you do based on your company’s profit margins? Do you feel safe– not only from terrorists but from common criminals? Do you feel like you can keep up with inflation?

Then ask your senator, representative, mayor, governor, president, etc. this: Why haven’t you done anything about it?

On the surface, it appears that they might be doing a little something. Energy policies, tax cuts, and Medicare legislation looks nice. But who is really behind it? Oil company executives are writing our energy policies. Drug companies are writing our Medicare legislation. Who’s interests do you think they are interested in looking out for? Yours or theirs? And as both Dobbs pointed out, you will be lucky to hear a politician argue that lobbyists are bad for America.

How can a candidate be for alternate fuel sources when he is bought and paid for by oil companies? How can a candidate be for fair natural gas rates when he is a former utility lobbyist? Does it make sense that our politicians claim to be tough on national security, but hundreds are crossing our borders illegally every day with ease while American citizens returning from vacation are hassled over bringing back a grapefruit?

Democrats? Republicans? Both are guilty. And who is to blame? We are. I’m talking about the middle class. We don’t vote. If we vote, we vote based on what the voter guide handed out at church said or that TV commercial or stubborn party affiliation. Chances are that if those going to the polls actually read their Sunday newspaper instead of just buying it for the coupons, they’d get angry enough to make a real difference.

I saw a sign on Chalkville-Mountain Road this weekend that said something like, “Improve Jefferson County. Vote Straight Republican.” I had to laugh to keep from crying. What have the Republicans given us, really given us, in their ten years of control? They were supposed to be the party that restored integrity to Washington, but they’ve proven to be just as scandalous, if not more, than the Dems. But then, that’s all Clinton’s fault, I guess. That’s what they keep telling me. Fox News kept putting that (D) right next to Mark Foley’s name. My other beef is their conservative claim. Well, let’s look at that for a moment. A conservative is all about smaller government and less spending. So far, what we’ve seen is more government snooping and spying and increased spending. That, to me, sounds like a liberal, but we won’t call it that. We’ll just call it “neoconservative” instead.

Oddly enough, those arguing for less spending and smaller government are those “liberal” Democrats. Alabama Democrats are an exception. I personally believe that Larry Langford and Sheila Smoot deserve to have their pictures next to the definition of “tax and spend liberal.” Regardless, you’d be more likely to be struck by lightning than to find two Democrats who agree on the same things. I guess it’s hard for the Republicans to accuse them of doing anything bad, though, because they have a tendency to not do anything– at all. They are the biggest bunch of do-nothings you’ll ever come across.

So where’s the solution? Vote independently. Inform yourself as to what a candidate has done. Inform yourself as to what is really in legislation that was passed. Inform yourself as to who is paying for a campaign. Then ignore the (D) or (R) next to the candidate’s name. Whenever possible, vote third party (as long as it isn’t some nutjob), even if it is a write-in candidate. But the best thing you can do is vote, and vote informed. Maybe it will send a message to these guys that they are still accountable to the largest demographic in this country– the working class.

Here’s an open-ended question. Is it presumptuous for a blogger to endorse candidates? I was going to start endorsing soon, but part of me thinks it’s a little too cocky for me.

Alabama has 7 congressmen up for re-election this year. 3 of them have no opponent on the ballot. The other 4 have comfortable leads in the polls. The result? Even though they fundraise, they save most of their money and are even harder to beat the next time.

Democratic Rep. Bud Cramer of Birmingham [sic.] led the way with $1,640,567 in the bank, according to his report. He had spent just $23,954 during the quarterly reporting period, covering July 1 to Sept. 30.

They get to keep this money in their “campaign chest” for next time, making them even harder to beat. Eventually, they have enough money so that it’s virtually impossible to run a campaign against them.

Another result is that politicians who are from extreme areas have an advantage for higher office. Let’s say Spencer Bachus, a very conservative Republican congressman from Vestavia, decides to run for governor against some moderate guy from a diverse district. Bachus has been unopposed for a while, and he gets to take his $500,000 he has been able to save with him in his governor’s race. The moderate guy has to come up with all of his money on his own. Even if they match fundraising, Bachus has a $500,000 advantage. This half million is paid for by the fact that he is extremist enough to appeal to the extremist voters in his district — a district that the Democrats don’t even run a candidate in.

The article with this information only considered congressional races this year, but the same is true about Alabama government where 70 House seats and 12 Senate seats were unopposed this year.

Lucy Baxley is accusing the governor of using his job to campaign.

Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley is accusing Gov. Bob Riley of making public appearances and doling out millions in discretionary funds solely to ensure his re-election three weeks from today.

“Seventy-five to 85 percent of what he is doing is not governing,” she said. “It is campaigning on the taxpayer’s dollar.”

I agree with Loretta Nall’s feelings about Lucy’s accusation:

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Just wake me up when Riley wins.

Alabama’s race for chief justice is likely to be the most expensive court election in the United States this year. To be fair, only 8 states even have partisan elections for their top court.

So far this year, candidates for five Alabama Supreme Court seats and third-party groups supporting them have spent $3.5 million on TV advertising, according to the two groups’ estimates. Washington’s three nonpartisan races for the Supreme Court are next at $1.2 million.

And as Wheeler pointed out recently, when you treat judges like politicians, you shouldn’t be surprised when they act like politicians. I’m not saying this Exxon Mobil case is being held up for political reasons, but would you be so surprised if it was? When will this state stop electing judges?

Governor Riley has already had to ask the judge once to get Secretary of State Nancy Worley to comply with his efforts to bring Alabama into compliance with HAVA. Riley was appointed “Special Master” of the 2006 election in Alabama after Worley’s incompetence brought on a federal lawsuit against the state. It sounds like she’s still not being helpful.

Riley’s legal adviser, Ken Wallis, gave U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins a list of eight types of documents that “would be helpful” but that haven’t been turned over to the governor.

Wallis says he offered to go to her office with one of her former staff attornies to help search for the documents but was told that the staff attorney, Trey Granger, was not welcome in her office.

The judge is still considering whether he should hold Worley in contempt of court for her behavior. It sounds to me like she needs to go sit in time out. By the way this office is elected and her opponent is named Beth Chapman.

I just don’t think this is going to matter:

In all, about 30 registrars, both Democrats and Republicans, stood together in support of State Auditor Beth Chapman, who said if elected she would make the secretary of state’s office more user-friendly and work to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act.

Even though it should matter that election officials are officially endorsing Beth Chapman, it just won’t. For a person to even know this happened, they would have to care just a little, and judging from the recent Crimson White article, I just don’t see that happening. Those few souls who do try to make informed decisions and follow politics to some degree should already be voting for Chapman anyway.

Worley responded:

“When you ask people to work, they sometimes get very angry,” Worley said. “We have actually bent over backwards to help the registrars. They are getting so much more help now then they ever did in the past.”

We need to get rid of this woman — now! I just find it hard to believe that the Republican candidate is polling in a dead heat with Worley. Here’s why.

• Alabama Moderate links to this post with Tidbits from Elsewhere - 10/18/06
• A Bama Blog links to this post with Bipartisan group of registrars line up to support Chapman over Worley for SOS

The Jefferson County Commission rejected Commission President Larry Langford’s scholarship plan. The scholarships would have been paid for by refinancing $1.05 billion in education bonds. These bonds are the reason Jefferson County raised the sales tax by a penny, but an increase in sales is providing more money than anyone expected.

Langford, the genius that brought us Visionland, wanted to use that increase in revenue and the refinancing to provide a scholarship to every graduating senior in Jefferson County. A worthy goal, but the plan has some holes. First, the refinancing would save $1 million a year but would have an upfront cost of $13 million in fees. The scholarships would also cost the county up to an additional $18 million a year. Langford says this will be offset by further increases in tax revenue from the 1 cent sales tax — the county received an estimated $23 million more than expected last year.

The commission rejected the plan 3-1. Only Larry Langford voted for it. Outgoing commissioner Gary White was not present. Commissioner Bettye Fine Collins says she thinks the extra revenue should be used to repay the bonds early.

• Alabama Moderate links to this post with Tidbits from Elsewhere - 10/18/06