Archive for: 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?

• Alabama-Democrat links to this post with Important Senate Races 

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.”

• Politics in Alabama links to this post with Election Debate Roundup
• Doc’s Political Parlor links to this post with Debate Roundup