Geography Isn't My Strongsuit

But it looks like we're in the pink-to-purple range...and that ain't good.

Berke Pushes for Accountability

State Sen. Andy Berke is the first Democrat to come up with a comprehensive way of tracking (and ultimately discouraging) corporate political involvement through a bill he's introducing to the legislature:

The bill requires greater accountability of corporate contributions than individual donations already covered under state law. A corporation would file a disclosure statement including the names and addresses of all corporate officers, directors and shareholders; names and addresses of lobbyists employed by the corporation; a detailed list of lobbying expenses; and the contracts the company has with state or local government.

Political campaigns would also be required to include a disclaimer in radio, TV, print and Internet ads paid with corporate money. The disclaimer would read, “This communication was paid for by (company name) using corporate funds.”

If Conservatives want to claim that corporations are just groups of individuals getting together to speak, then we ought to know who those individuals speaking are.

Phil Roe Honors Wiretapper

Rep. Phil Roe, Republican in the 1st district, sought to honor a man who has been arrested on conspiracy charges of trying to break into the offices of Sen. Landrieu for the apparent purposes of planting a wiretap.

Coming From a Man Who Knows a Thing or Two about Political Disasters

What some people want to hear in the SOTU, via ND 2.0:

-Eliot Spitzer, former Governor of New York

I want to hear him announce a huge second economic stimulus, because 10% unemployment is a human tragedy and a political disaster.

On Taking Things A Touch Too Seriously

Aunt B is on a kick over at her house due to a recent tongue-in-cheek song released by the TNDP which seeks to highlight the upcoming teabagger convention hosted by Sarah America and the Birtherettes. Apparently, she's not too keen on the TNDP using the word "crazy" to disparage political opponents:

I know that, when we talk about what Democrats stand for in this state, the eye-rolling gets so thick most of the state can’t see where they’re going, but it matters.

We’re not against people with mental illnesses. I can’t even believe I have to type that.

People have mental illnesses. It doesn’t discount them from serving in office. It doesn’t discount them from contributing to society. It doesn’t make them worth less as human beings. And we, as a party, are traditionally allied with advocacy groups for people with mental illnesses.

OK, yes, the Democrats are not "against" people with mental issues. Depression is real, I get that, but I will have to differ here.

If someone is a megalomaniac with a narcissistic personality disorder and delusions of grandeur, maybe they can be helped via therapy and medication...but it isn't what I'm looking for in a President, Governor, or Legislator. Yes, to an extent, everyone has problems (and narcissism is not uncommon in politics), but the key is finding someone with as few of those observable issues as possible.

And if someone in office does come down with a debilitating case of depression or some other mental disease, the right thing for them to do is to step aside and deal with those problems, rather than cause the State or Country potential harm during whatever process they need to go through to get better.

All of these points aside, I don't think the people who wrote that song were in any way, shape, or form were trying to indicate a clinical diagnosis of the mental problems of Mrs. Palin, Bachmann, or Blackburn. They may be perfectly sane people who just believe some incredibly crazy shit...such as a secret effort by the Government to get rid of the dollar in favor of UN Bucks, or build an international superhighway with no customs enforcement, or create death panels which old people will have to come up against to decide whether or not they will be put down like a shelter-dog.

Now, calling these things crazy may be a disservice to those with genuine mental illnesses, but calling people with genuine mental illnesses "crazy" is pretty politically incorrect these days anyways. Fact is, these ideas aren't "crazy," they just come from a place that many of us on the left fail to appreciate. Just like, for many Conservative Christians, they can't fathom how liberals are so permissive towards gay people when its "not natural" and the Bible is clearly against it. Its a natural response to think there is something wrong with people who are grossly different in their worldview from you...maybe we (as good liberals) ought to try harder to overcome these natural responses, but they are pretty common nonetheless.

Aunt B also compares the "crazy" jabs to those attacks against Harold Ford Jr. and Nathan Vaughn:

I don’t know. I thought it took guts to call. I tried to make clear that I was upset that a lot of us thought the whole “Nathan Vaughn and his blackbird friends” thing was bullshit and the whole “Harold Ford, call me” thing was bullshit–all aimed at reminding voters that those men have some inherent trait that makes them unacceptable leaders. So, for us to turn around and say that there’s some inherent trait in Palin and the others that makes them unacceptable leaders gives us no moral high ground when we complain (and rightly so) about that behavior in others.

First off, I'll say that my ears must be bad because I never really picked up on the supposed dog-whistle racism inherent in the "call me" ad or the Nathan Vaughn crow ad. Yes, the blackbirds or crows seemed reminiscent of racist Disney characters in dumbo, beyond that though, comparing a Democrat in Tennessee to unpopular national Democrats in a conservative district seems like common sense from a political standpoint. The "call me" ad maybe was designed to scare voters into thinking Ford was gonna go after their white daughters or something...or maybe it was a straightforward ad attacking him for the hypocrisy of preaching family values and morals while doing the playboy routine.

Regardless, assuming those ads were racist, there is a big difference between calling someone crazy (and most people understand you are talking about their beliefs and viewpoints, not a clinical illness) and using someone's race against them to win an election. Because people are elected generally based on the worldview they have and how they'll adapt it to the service of their constituents, whereas race itself isn't an indicator of anything in regards to how someone will act once in office.

Keepin' It In The Family

Once again, the Democrats show that our greatest enemy is ourselves:

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be all smiles as the president arrives at the Capitol for his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, but the happy faces can’t hide relationships that are fraying and fraught.

The anger is most palpable in the House, where Pelosi and her allies believe Obama’s reluctance to stake his political capital on health care reform in mid-2009 contributed to the near collapse of negotiations now.

But sources say there are also signs of strain between Reid and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and relations between Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate are hovering between thinly veiled disdain and outright hostility.

Its really quite amazing. For much of the 20th century Democrats controlled Congress. During that time, there were deep chasms between the ideologies of the members; from anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-labor Democrats to pro-war, segregationist anti-labor Dems. Yes, there were some serious battles, particular over issues like civil rights, but somehow they still managed to pass a plethora of programs whose size and scope make the current health care reform bill look like a non-binding resolution honoring a girl scout troop.

I'm not sure if the State of the Union will turn anything around tonight. The media is on a tear looking for stories to back up the "Democrats are imploding" meme and it seems every two-bit staffer and Congress-critter is giving them ample examples to write into their stories.

Don't they realize, that from a basic self-preservation standpoint, they stand or fall based on their ability to work as a team? Sure, Republicans have completely taken themselves out of the governing process in order to stand on the sidelines so that they can tell the players what they should be doing differently...but watching this process unfold over the past 6 months or so, can you blame them for not wanting to get into the game?

Ford Must've Been Busy

Adam Kleinheider, in a post examining the chameleon like tendencies of our former Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., looks at his new found love for the GLBT community, and finds him somewhat lacking:

On gay marriage, one of the few areas Ford concedes even the slightest evolution, his conversion story is that despite being against “gay marriage” (rhetorically speaking), he has supported civil unions from the moment he entered Congress in 1997. When asked for evidence of this assertion, spokesman Davidson Goldin said it was “undisputed.”

Asked again for evidence Post Politics could use to confirm the claim, Goldin provided none. No vote in the Congress. No clips from old news reports.

Yes, he was such a friend of civil unions that in 1996 he decided not to vote on the Defense of Marriage Act, or the two amendments designed to stop it or lessen the harm imposed to gay couples. The Barney Frank amendment would've allowed states to decide what marriage or unions meant to them, with the Federal Government respecting that state's arrangement...Ford skipped that vote.

Now, Ford was in Washington that day, because he managed to vote on all the measures prior to this issue...so unless he had some sort of emergency mani/pedi to attend, I'm guessing he just took the easy way out.

Stewart on Olbermann

You, sir, are an asshole...

Who's Coming To Town?

Sarah's coming to town.

And Your Boss' Poll Numbers Were Where in 1982?

Peggy Noonan thinks the American public wanted to purchase a Mounds bar but inadvertently received an Almond Joy:

In 2008, the voters went for Mr. Obama thinking he was not a Nut but a cool and sober moderate of the center-left sort. In 2009 and 2010, they looked at his general governing attitudes as reflected in his preoccupations—health care, cap and trade—and their hidden, potential and obvious costs, and thought, "Uh-oh, he's a Nut!"

Well fuck me running. A preoccupation with pushing for a goal that has been a mainstay of the Democratic platform since before Obama was born is now a qualification for being a "Nut"? Not to mention, the key tenets of his proposal are things polls indicate a majority of Americans want. Has he (and more importantly) Congress flubbed the approach to going about getting those things? Absolutely...but does that qualify as nuttery?

Fact is, polls going back as far back as December had Coakley with a seemingly insurmountable lead, at which point Obama had been campaigning hard for HCR for months. The only events to transpire between Coakley's massive 30 point lead and Scott Brown's victory was a breakdown in the Senate process caused by a Conservative Democrat and a Republican hanging around the Democratic caucus in order to keep his committee chairmanship.

Of course, during that same period of time between the massive poll shifts, we saw one candidate pound the pavement, show up in every corner of the state asking for votes; while we had another candidate trashing the other one for doing this while she called a few Democratic hacks asking for their support and the support of their supporters.

You can decide amongst yourselves which had a greater determining factor on the election.

Feel Okay Friday

After a rather rough week politically, I think this somewhat encapsulates the mood:

I'm With Grijalva

So the Democrats, trying to find a way out of the clusterf*** that is the health care reform bill, what with the new Republican super-minority, are looking at various ways to get something passed without having to involve the Senate too much.

One, pass the craptastic Senate bill with special exemptions for Nebraska and a host of watered down plans designed to attract the support of Lieberman and Nelson (while simultaneously using reconciliation to "fix" the problems).

OR, they can do what Rep. Grijalva is calling for:

I favor a two-part approach. Part one would be to pass a clean reconciliation bill requiring only 51 Senate votes that would include many important budget-related elements. This would not merely amend the Senate bill; it would pull the best budget-related items supported by the vast majority of American people from the existing reform bills and create a single transparent piece of legislation. Part two would be to send a separate handful of popular regulatory measures to the Senate, where they enjoy bipartisan support. These would include insurance cost controls, portability between jobs, ending the use of preexisting conditions to deny coverage, prohibiting lifetime and annual limits on benefits, prohibiting age and gender discrimination, establishing essential benefit standards, and ending the practice of rescission.

I wrote in favor of this approach back in December, back when President Scott Brown was a twinkle in the GOP's eye, and its actually something similar to what LAMAR! advocated for many moons ago (but of course he wanted the Congress to pass small Republican packages).

So why not do this? Democrats have been patting themselves on the back for the past year pointing to opinion polls that show the actual tenets of the Dem plan were popular, even as the plan itself was getting increasingly unpopular. So, scrap the Bill to Nowhere, show the public exactly what you want to do in the form of smaller bills that can sit on a desk without added supports, and get the fuck on with doing the other stuff you were sent to Washington for...because it ain't gonna get any easier.

Assuming we are able to hold onto the majority in both houses, its certainly going to be a diminished one. They can either cling bitterly to the memory of having (on paper) 60 Democrats in the caucus for that six month span last year, or they can get used to governing with an 18 seat majority in the Senate now, before we give the GOP even more momentum going into the mid-terms.

And this should come from the President. Yes, Mr. President, in your speech next Wednesday, puff out the chest, get a little populist, back the fucking progressives who got you into that position you hold, and forgo the dream of having a massive health care package to sign in front of cameras in the Rose Garden.

Corporations are People Too

Good news to all those corporations out there reading this blog, the Supreme Court now recognizes your ability to speak (and by speak I mean funnel shit tons of money) on matters of political import, like whether candidate X is an evil baby-killer who wants to steal your guns and bibles.

The majority on the Supreme Court, as represented by Justice Kennedy's clerks, noted the pain you currently have to go through in order to have your voice heard:

PACs have to comply with these regulations just to speak. This might explain why fewer than 2,000 of the millions of corporations in this country have PACs.

Yes, the pain that you corporations have to go through is so unbearable (even if every two-bit wanna be Congressional candidate has to adhere to the same or similar rules of reporting).

In a lengthy opinion which substitutes the word "speech" for "money" and the word "speaker" for "corporation," the five members of the Supreme Court signing onto this opinion feel that technology allows for fewer limits on political speech:

The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

The reverberations of this decision won't be known for a while, but it would seem that campaign finance reform should be on the docket for Congress this year, as they now need to craft laws which allow for tracking the ways in which corporations and labor unions are affecting* our politics.

*corrected for one of the many instances of improper grammar on this blog.

Baby Daddy

Scumbag.

Where All The White People At?

Apparently, working on the Music City Convention Center. At least, that's a fairly safe assumption to be drawn after reviewing the "convention center compliance reports" mandated under the laws passed instituting hotel/motel fees.

According to the documents (good up until Q2-2009), it appears that 94.73% of contracts have gone to "non-minority business enterprises" (essentially defined as anything other than white men, regardless of our actual majority status in a world with more women). Although the number could be significantly inflated due to non-participation or a lack of data from some of the biggest contracts.




View all reports from 2007-mid-2009 here. This may (probably has been) put out there already, I just hadn't scene it yet.

Don't Be Throwing F*cking Elbows

There is apparently a great need in America...not for health care, not for job security, not for financial stability, but rather a return to time honored traditions left in the past. Of course, I'm talking of whites only basketball, and its [not really] making a comeback:

The All-American Basketball Alliance announced in a news release Sunday evening that it intends to start its inaugural season in June and hopes Augusta will be one of 12 cities with a team.

"Only players that are natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league," the statement said.

The league apparently seeks to get away from the form of "street ball" played by "people of color". My guess is that this "Moose" guy who seeks to run the league has watched this movie one too many times.



Congrats teabaggers, you got a Senate seat in Massachusetts, and now it looks like you'll get a basketball league to boot!

(h/t ACK)

We Hear You (We Just Don't Really Care)

Last night the Metro Council voted to approve the Mayor's financing package for a new convention center to be built downtown. I only caught part of the debate, but from what I heard, all of those Council members who voted in favor of it really appreciated the concerns of their constituents opposed to it, truly appreciate their fellow council members (obviously except Eric Crafton) arguments against it, but still thought it was the best thing for Nashville by a vote of 29-9.

I have to say, that even if I may have voted a different way myself, I'm glad my councilman, Mike Jameson, worked hard to hold the Mayor's office accountable for the facts and figures coming out about the MCC (I believe Erica Gilmore referred to him as "Perry Mason").

Now comes some more tricky questions, such as who is going to build the hotel? Most estimates indicated a need for a hotel attached to the MCC for it to be viable, so now its time for the Music City Center Coalition and others to back away from the blog comment sections for a bit and focus on making their dream a workable reality in the years to come.

Department of Things I Must've Missed

TNDP Chairman Chip Forrester takes umbrage with the notion that Harold Ford Jr. was every anything but a "pro labor, pro choice, pro environment and pro civil rights" candidate. In fact, he's so progressive that "he helped us defeat a right-wing 'English-Only' referendum in Nashville last year."

I sure as hell missed that, but then again I apparently wasn't paying attention in 2006 because I thought he was pro-life, pro-free trade, and anti-gay marriage.

Update:

Via Keith Talley I found out that the fearless Harold Ford Jr. worked behind the scenes to help the African American community realize how important this issue was to Nashville.

If you happen to be a member of the African American community that was reached out to and touched by the former Congressman from Memphis, and happen to be reading this, be sure to drop a note in the comments so we can hear your touching story.

Democrats for Wamp!

What's that you say? What kind of crazy as Democrat could support midget Bush impersonator Zach Wamp? Why, Congressman Bud Cramer of course.

Is Bud going to jump ship with his buddy Parker Griffith and become a Republican? Or is he just trying to bolster his independent creds by supporting a Republican colleague?

Once Again, McCain Gets a Pass

For all the hullabaloo over Harry Reid praising President Obama while simultaneously using a word from his childhood, "negro," there was apparently another politician who got a free pass from the press; John McCain.

In that now infamous book, Game Change, McCain is reported to have said, “Fuck you! Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck!!!” OK, probably not the worst thing in the world, we all know our Presidents curse behind...wait...what's that...he said it to whom? "Senator John McCain, 'both middle fingers raised,' rebuking his wife, Cindy, for interrupting him."

Oh, well, now, I guess that revelation during the campaign would've made this previous news snippet a bit more timely. As for Obama, his use of the F bomb seems rather accurate; "even Obama is overheard to indulge: 'No fucking discipline' is his diagnosis of the chaos in McCainworld."

Seriously, if John McCain couldn't contain his temper towards his wife in front of other people, how in the ever living hell would he have been trusted to be our chief diplomat for four years?

Least Compelling Argument Award

The Tennessean comes up with the least compelling argument in favor of a convention center:

For example, groups like the Southern Baptist Convention have stated they have outgrown the present convention center and may take tens of thousands of their conventioneers and their money to another city with a larger facility.

Oh no!

Zelenik Pledges To Remove Consumer Protections

Lou Ann Zelenik, the almost certain to lose candidate for the TN-6th GOP nomination, is rushing to jump on to the teabagging bandwagon by pledging to remove any consumer regulations passed by this Congress, including those that would prohibit insurance companies from dropping sick people based on "pre-existing conditions".

My guess is that Susan Lynn probably isn't too far behind in this pledge.

MLK Day Revisited

Back in 2008, on the day before Martin Luther King Day, then candidate Barack Obama gave a speech/sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta that is still powerful today. One has to wonder, what would Dr. King think about the first year of an Obama Presidency? My guess is that he'd be like many Democrats, both proud and a little uneasy about what the future holds, and whether success can be attained.

The End of an Era?

It appears that Scott Brown is well on his way to being the first Republican senator in Massachusetts since Edward Brooke was defeated by Paul Tsongas in 1978. Whats more, if elected, he'd be far more conservative than Brooke, the first popularly elected black Senator (since reconstruction) and champion of civil rights and social welfare.

Of course, the blame from the media will be laid primarily on Obama and the Democrats nationally, and there certainly would be some truth to that. But there has to be a recognition of just how poorly Coakley has handled this race from the get go. She, along with many others, took for granted the notion that somehow the primary race was the only one that mattered, she's run on the idea that she should be sent to Congress in order to vote for a health care bill nationally that Massachusetts has largely already done as a state, and I think she (and the national party) vastly overestimate the sense of servitude the people of Massachusetts had towards Ted Kennedy.

While there was certainly an outpouring of love for the late Senator following his death, the people of Massachusetts were hardly bound to his will. In 2008, to much fanfare, he endorsed Barack Obama for the nomination, and the people of Massachusetts responded with such devotion that they went on to award Hillary Clinton 55 of 93 delegates (or 56% of the vote). Despite a national obsession with the Kennedy legacy, I think many of the voters in Massachusetts continued to elect Teddy for a few key reasons; 1) he had power in the Senate amassed from years of service, 2) he was damn effective as a Senator, and 3) he was really good at taking care of his constituents.

Now, you have Martha Coakley, running for Senate by relying entirely on other people. Instead of doing the traditional glad-handing and baby kissing, she has focused almost mostly on shoring up party bosses and union leaders. Important to be sure, but most of those folks were already on board with her candidacy...in order to win in this environment a candidate has to make a serious play at independents, yet Coakley has focused almost entirely on hard-line Democrats. The argument being that its a special election, all about GOTV, which may be true for a lot of races, but when you have a statewide election for US Senator with intense national focus, its not gonna be as low a turnout as you might see with a congressional race.

Ultimately, the recent polls showing Brown with a lead could be misreading the voting electorate and Coakley might pull this out. If she does, she's going to have to spend the next couple years honing her inadequate political skills if she hopes to hold onto power.

Guber Candidate Writes a Book

Bill Gibbons, the Shelby County DA whose running for the GOP nomination for Governor, has apparently been busy writing a book and plans to use the small amount of proceeds from the sale of said book to aid the impoverished District Attorneys of America.

Gibbons explains how communities once plagued with issues, including drug use, gang violence, impoverished neighborhoods and troubled youths, have staged remarkable breakthroughs that few would have predicted or imagined. Using these successful examples, Gibbons outlines a front-line, prosecutor-driven battle plan for communities to overcome the threat of crime.

Cohen Tags HFJ Back

Rep. Steve Cohen, who succeeded Harold Ford Jr. despite attempts by his family to install his brother as the District 9 Representative, had this to say of HFJ10:

“I suspect that Congressman Ford’s positions that he is espousing now are more in line with the positions that Congressman Ford in fact holds, and that he’s [got] much more of a New York-type political mentality than a Tennessee mentality,” said Cohen, himself an unapologetic progressive.

I agree. One of the reasons I never much liked HFJ06 is that I didn't think he actually believed in what he did or said (such as posting the Ten Commandments on the back of his business cards). It was all sort of an act which presumed that Tennessee voters are a bunch of reactionary retards who can't tell when someone is placating them.

HFJ10 is probably, for the most part, saying things that he believed all along, but was too afraid to say in Tennessee. But even if I do agree with his now stated positions, the fact that he was so willing to lie to the faces of Tennessee voters shows a dearth of character that puts him in a field of politicians occupied by the likes of John Edwards.

Smoke Two Joints In The Mornin'

Congressman Steve Cohen of Memphis brought down the house at a Marijuana Policy Project dinner featuring the likes of Cheech and Chong, as well as former New Mexico Governor (and long-shot possible GOP Presidential candidate) Gary Johnson.

Rep. Cohen had a word of advice for the crowd:

Cohen threw in some marketing advice for the crowd, which also heard from former Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico and actor Larry Hagman.

"If you renamed marijuana something like Jack Daniel's or Jim Beam, it'd be a lot more popular," Cohen said. "You need to get a good name for it."

His suggestions were well-received - Cohen got nearly as loud an ovation as Cheech and Chong.

Of course, Rep. Cohen isn't a stranger to the controversy surrounding Mary Jane. Back in 1997, while a State Senator and mulling a potential run for the Governorship, Liz Garrigan, then just a lowly reporter and not ruler of the Nashville media universe, wrote about an incident where Cohen allegedly dropped by a Scene party and toked up with some of the staffers.

Cohen is, in fact, so comfortable among journalists that he has been known to step out on the porch and smoke a joint with a group of them at a private party. The easy inference is either that he doesn’t care what the press knows about his habits or that, because they’re doing it too, he figures they’ll never write about it. “It’s a generational thing,” Cohen says of the pot smoking. “I don’t do it very often.”

Cohen later denied the allegations to Jackson Baker of the Memphis Flyer:

"They're print paparazzi! Their report is erroneous," says Cohen of the article, "A Yuppie Among the Bubbas," written by reporter Liz Carrigan for the Scene's September 18th issue. Cohen, characterized by the article as "the legislature's most high-profile liberal," carries his denial to the point of saying, "I haven't smoked marijuana since sometime in the '70s, at a concert."

Its no deeply held secret that many adults, perhaps even your parents, on occasion enjoy a little bit of marijuana (especially liberal lawyers who came of age in the 60s...like Cohen). Which is one of the many reasons why our anti-pot laws are so hypocritical. So much of the fear of the drug stems from misinformation and the inability of those who use it to be open and honest about it, relegating the open users to what Eric Cartman would refer to as dirty hippies who "want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot and play frisbee".

(h/t ACK)

Banks Still Trying To Make Money

In a surprising turn of events, banks are apparently find ways around new consumer credit card protections, which cut into bank profits, by finding other ways to get money out of their customers...and Beverly Marrero ain't having none of that:

New regulations banning unfair credit card billing practices are scheduled to go into effect next month, but banks have started hitting consumers to recover the $50 billion they're expected to lose under the stricter rules. New and increased fees, charges for paper statements, even penalties for not using cards -- they're all designed to make the consumer pay for the banks' sins.

Marrero and others are writing a letter to TN-AG Bob Cooper to find out what, if anything, he can do about this. My guess is the answer is going to be "not a whole lot," but I suppose we'll see.

HFJ06 Would've

I guess from now on, if and when I write about Harold Ford Jr., I'll have to use a code to differentiate between the Harold Ford Jr. we had as a candidate in Tennessee (HFJ06), and the Harold Ford Jr. who is mulling a run for Senate in New York (HFJ10).

Does anyone, anyone out there in Tennessee land, believe that HFJ06 would've said this?

So if we look at some of these questions, it’s important to acknowledge that fact. Second, as it relates to health care, I am for the bill, as I stated. But I wouldn’t support the bill with the Stupak amendment if it came to the House floor.

Not only is HFJ10 adamantly pro-choice, he's so pro-choice that he would've been one of the only Democrats to vote against the final bill because it didn't go far enough to protect a woman's right to choose. I mean...c'mon...seriously? Are you trying to give me an aneurysm?

I may have more as I continue to be gobsmacked by the shiny new Harold Ford Jr.

(h/t ACK)

Goes Without Saying...

After briefly flirting with the notion of running as a liberal, it appears that Harold Ford Jr. is raising his voice level on a challenge to Kirsten Gillibrand, now emphasizing his independence (there's the Liebercrat we came to know and love) by pledging his disloyalty to Harry Reid:

'If I am elected senator from New York, Harry Reid will not instruct me how to vote'...

Of course, according to most polls, this is a rather likely scenario for all the Democrats in the Senate caucus, given that Reid will have a tough time winning re-election. But, I'm just wondering, besides the general bullshit "I'm my own man" swagger, what issue would he have bucked Reid and the caucus on?

On The Water Mains

I've seen more than a few comments and posts regarding Nashville's aging infrastructure, as evidenced by the recent water main breakage on Broadway, and the need to address all those concerns before moving on to the convention center.

I attended the East Nashville town hall meeting on the proposed MCC and ran into a member of the Mayor's administration who reminded me that they have indeed been paying close attention to the aging water and sewer infrastructure, which is why they worked to pass the $550ml Clean Water Infrastructure Program which increased storm water fees on homes and businesses to help pay for improvements. The money is there to pay for the needed projects, and while the downtown water mains will have to be bumped up on the priority list, there won't be cuts to other non-water infrastructure projects to pay for the needed repairs.

So, while you can be critical of Karl Dean for focusing on building the convention center, the fact is his administration has been working to improve other aspects of the city as well.

A Hundred Grand

No, not the candy bar, the speaking fee for Sarah Palin at next month's Teabagger convention. That means the first 182 attendees will be there solely to pay Sarah America's speaking fee. And to think, this political event is the culmination of a years worth of history changing, society rattling events across the nation that will result in a rebirth of the American Republic! Or, at least so the attendees seem to think.

Update:

It appears that Sarah America is going to do her patriotic duty and throw a freebie at the teabaggers for their convention. Clearing up $100,000 in resources, you'd think maybe the organizers would think about reducing the outrageously high $550 ticket fees?

Political Endorsements

Former Senator, appointed by Ned Ray McWherter, Harlan Matthews repays his political benefactor with an endorsement of Mike McWherter for Governor:

I worked closely with his father, Governor Ned McWherter, for many years, serving on his Gubernatorial Campaign and in his Administration. He understood the responsibility of the job required a special level of commitment and compassion for the welfare of ALL Tennesseans, and he governed under that principle from his first day in office until his last.

I know that Mike will follow the example of his father, by standing up for the working families of Tennessee and applying the same common-sense approach to state government.

Would Jesus Go Green or Verifiable?

Bernie Ellis asks legislators an important question, what would baby Jesus do with regards to the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act. Would he do away with electronic machines in favor of paper ballots? Bernie seems to think the answer is yes, though I have to wonder if he would approve of destroying creation (in the form of trees) when we have in place a method that does not require the destruction of forests? Food for thought...

Of Convention Centers and Water Mains

There seems to be a growing meme out there that we should forgo a new convention center because the water pipes downtown broke due to their age and the extreme cold. Jeff Woods says:

OK, if a poll showing overwhelming public opposition isn't enough to derail Mayor Karl Dean's new convention center, how about downtown's giant water main break? Seriously, if we have century-old pipes bursting, closing businesses and generally causing chaos, do we really have enough extra cash to embark on our biggest construction project ever?

Do we have "extra cash"? Well, yes. We have 40 million dollars in a reserve fund and a tax that was passed specifically to fund the construction of a new convention center. There seems to be a tendency to forget this, but ultimately hotels in Nashville agreed to have higher taxes so that we would build a new convention center to get them business. Now, maybe you can find a way to justify fixing water mains as vital to the success of the current convention center, but I'm a guessing there would be a lawsuit in the works if we tried to do that.

Also, people keep pointing out the age of our water infrastructure and wondering why we haven't replaced the pipes yet. To me, it makes rather perfect sense. At what point in the age of the pipes do you just say, "well, lets tear up Broadway to replace them in case they break someday and we have to tear up Broadway to replace them"? Yeah, it probably sucks for the construction crews who have to work in the cold weather to get the job done, but its one of those things that you just are more likely to wait until it needs to be done rather than it probably should be done.

If we don't build the convention center it should be because we believe the forecasts are too rosy and that we won't be able to pay for it out of revenues and special taxes, not because we can think of other ways to spend the money, because that money was raised for a specific purpose.

Women's Groups Rally Around Woman Candidate

The McMillan campaign is touting yet another National endorsement by a female-oriented political group:

Kim McMillan has received the endorsement of the National Women’s Political Caucus. It is the second national endorsement the gubernatorial candidate’s campaign has announced in the last week.

“This endorsement means a great deal to me,” McMillan said, “because the National Women’s Political Caucus is a multipartisan, multicultural grassroots organization dedicated to achieving equality for all women. Their support isn’t given just to candidates on the Democratic ticket and I’m very proud to receive their backing.”

From The Archives...Ford and FALN

Does Harold Ford Jr. have an "in" with the Puerto Rican community up in New York? Perhaps, given his previous opposition to a resolution denouncing Bill Clinton's pardon of a handful of members of FALN, a Puerto Rican separatist group.

Should Reid Step Aside?

So Harry Reid is the latest in a long line of Politicians to stick their foot in their mouth with regards to Obama and his race. Saying something stupid about Obama is not the end of one's political fortunes, just look at Vice President Joe "He's Clean and Articulate" Biden.

But perhaps this is an opportunity for the Democrats and Reid. Fact is, Reid was already in serious trouble in his re-election proposition, and this probably isn't going to help him much. So perhaps instead of trying to weather the political storm as Majority Leader, Reid should step aside so that he can focus more on the State he was elected to represent. I just don't see how it is beneficial for the Democrats to have a Majority Leader who is constantly looking over his own shoulder to see who is coming to get him in Nevada.

Granted, there would be some bad press for the Democrats in the preceding weeks, but if the Majority Whip, Dick Durbin, were to take over the helm as Majority Leader, he would be able to focus all of his attention on passing important legislation and focusing on his member's re-election efforts, rather than worrying about his own race.

Opportunity Costs

Councilman Mike Jameson of the 6th District makes what I think is the most succinct argument yet against the proposed Music City Convention Center, here's a snippet:

Even assuming the center could pay for itself, its opportunity costs — its effect on our bond rating and total indebtedness — mean that if we do this, we can’t do other things (like build better schools, hire more police, pave streets). As one consultant said, “Money dedicated to a long-term project such as the convention center is necessarily unavailable for other projects that might also provide lasting value.”

What brings visitors to Nashville is not an air-conditioned box; it’s those things that make our city special, like its people. If we truly believe in Nashville, its people should
be our priority.

The argument being made by proponents of the center, like Stewart Clifton, is that because there is a dedicated funding source for the project, talk about costs are rather moot:

I don’t believe and have never believed that making decisions for our city is about development vs. neighborhoods, or big-scale vs. little-scale or tourism vs. public services. I believe it is about balance. A part of that balance is an adequate tax base and an adequate jobs base. I believe that Nashville is a tourist center and a center for conventions and other meetings, and I believe we will stay that way. The extent to which that helps our tax base and jobs base depends on whether this Music City Center becomes reality. The fact is that we are at a crossroads of three interstates and in the center of one of the two fastest growing regions of the country. Tourists and convention goers aren’t going away but we need a more adequate convention center to support growth and revenue. And our music heritage among other things makes us a natural center that individuals and groups like to visit. We may sometimes joke about our tourists and our meetings, but without them we would have a lot less revenue! It just isn’t rocket science.

Still, I would not be in favor of the new convention center, even with that history and market, if there was not a dedicated funding source. But of course there is! The expense is not coming out of property taxes but out of taxes on visitors. I am for this planned convention center for the same reason I was against Maytown. This makes sense and helps our whole community. Maytown did not.

I suppose there is an important question to be answered...is Mike Jameson right in that our future ability to borrow money for necessary projects will be hampered by a large convention center debt? If so, that would be a fairly strong argument against building such a project which is financed without the aide of any private interests.

Will The Real Harold Ford Jr. Please Stand Up...

The candidate who once plastered the Ten Commandments on the back of his business cards is now breaking the sound barrier in his attempt to run to the left for a potential challenge to Kirsten Gillibrand in the Democratic primary in New York:

"He supports gay marriage, in the interest of fairness and equality," Ford spokesman Davidson Goldin told The Post.

Ford backed up that statement himself this morning on the "Today Show."

Host Matt Lauer asked, "So you're now in favor of same sex marriage?"

"Civil unions and same-sex marriage, yes," Ford said.

What, what, what??? Granted, back in his early days in the House HFJ did vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (which was and is unconstitutional), but during his Campaign for Senate in Tennessee, Jr. went out of his way to remind us over and over again that he wasn't for them there gays getting married. Whether it was this ad rebutting an RNC attack ad:



Or his attack against Steve Cohen who was the Democratic nominee being challenged by Jake Ford:

"State Senator Cohen and I disagree on several significant issues. He's for gay marriage; I'm not. He's for amnesty for illegals; I'm not. He's for legalizing marijuana; I'm not. He's for a cut-and-run strategy in Iraq; I'm for a new plan to partition Iraq into three regions to ensure that we leave it better than we found it."

In addition he pronounced over and over in his campaign that he intended to vote in favor of a state ballot amendment to ban same-sex couples from matrimony.

Ultimately, while I still can't fathom the rationale for Harold Ford Jr. to try and make a go at running for Senate in New York this year, I would say that I imagine HFJ-NY is probably the more genuine version of himself. He grew up, for the most part, outside of the South and its cultural values, and my guess would be that the vast majority of his good-ole Christian boy shtick during the 2006 campaign was mostly for show. Having said that, if I were living in New York, I can't see that I'd vote for someone whose positions and convictions are quite so malleable (then again, Kirsten Gillibrand isn't exactly the poster-child for conviction either).

This Harold Ford Thing

I'm not quite sure how the talk got started, but on the same day actual news stories like the retirements of Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan were happening, the media got in a tizzy over rumors that Harold Ford Jr. is eying a US Senate seat in New York.

I have no doubt that eventually Jr. will try and make a return to the political arena, and I'm fairly certain it won't be from a home base in Memphis, but I also think he's probably more in love with the idea of money right now than he is in love with the illusion of power that being a freshman Senator would bring.

Ford's raking in a hell of a lot of cash right now between his various "jobs" with Merrill Lynch and MSNBC, all of which would fritter away if he were to run and win (or perhaps even lose) in a NY Senate race. While this hype probably boosts his profile (and thus speaking fees and what not), I think he's going to ultimately side on waiting a few more years so that he can build a nice little nest egg.

But speaking of this, the Washington Post had a bit of a write up on this and said:

During his run for Senate in 2006 -- a race he narrowly lost to Sen. Bob Corker -- Ford positioned himself right in the center of the Democratic party, taking conservative stances on guns and abortion among other issues

Maybe its a quibble, but Ford hardly positioned himself in the center of the Democratic party...perhaps center of the political spectrum would be more accurate, but he ran a center-right campaign through-and-through.

White Racist Dem Bust Replaced By Black Republican

So, despite the fact that the GOP has become thoroughly entrenched as a party of white guys, and African-Americans vote Democrat about 90% of the time, it took GOP control of the legislature to get rid of a bust of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, a man who at best made a name for himself for being proficient at killing US soldiers, and at worst was the co-founder of the Ku Klux Klan. The bust is being replaced with that of Sampson Keeble, a black Republican from Nashville elected for one term after the Civil War.

Have no fear though, come July 13th, the Governor will still have to proclaim the day Nathan Bedford Forrest day. Thanks to TN Code 15-2-101 which requires the day be set aside as a "special day of observance".

(h/t ACK)

Update:

And Ol' Forrest hangs on...I've been informed by a worker bee at the Capitol that this bust is not gone from the halls of the legislature, just moved closer to the elevator. Hopefully, one day it'll get moved down the elevator and into the trash heap.

Department of Platitudes

Just in case you forgot why Republicans should not be back in charge, Rep. Peter King provides the goods:

"You are saying someone should be held accountable. Name one other specific recommendation the president could implement right now to fix this," host George Stephanopolous said to King.

"I think one main thing would be to -- just himself to use the word terrorism more often," said King, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.

Yes, he actually said a concrete step that the President should take is to use the word terrorism more often. Do Republicans actually think that the terrorists are as retarded as they are? That somehow using a word like "terrorism" more often will result in fewer acts of violence against the US and her people? Why not just be sure to end every press conference on the matter by saying, "and remember, Bin Laden is a dick". That'd show 'em!

On a more serious note, King followed up this turd-nugget of wisdom by suggesting the President ought to show more contempt for the constitution by saying we should send the eunuch bomber "into a military tribunal rather than the criminal justice system."

Frankly, I thought once a Democrat was in office Republicans would discover a newfound respect for the limitation on executive authority...how wrong was I. Instead, they are now attacking the President for not shitting on the constitution enough. Here we have a person with a valid (which it probably shouldn't have been) American visa, committing a criminal act upon an American airliner, while ultimately being arrested by civilian law enforcement personnel on American soil...and Rep. King thinks he should be tried in a military tribunal? Why, because he tried to commit this act out of allegiance to a radical ideology?

What makes this more interesting is the utter disconnect between this line of thinking and Republican thinking on hate crimes. Rep. King wants the President to void the constitution because this assclown had hate in his heart for the United States, but when it comes to other criminal acts involving hate, Conservatives think its appalling that the Government would impose stiffer penalties or make Federal what would otherwise be a State issue.

Fact is, on some level, I agree with the Conservatives. While I think these Hate Crime laws might've served a useful purpose back in the day when horrific hate crimes were being perpetrated in the South with little chance of a fair trial in a racist local court system, in this day and age, I'm not quite sure I see the need for these laws. But Republicans are completely voiding (or just remaining blissfully ignorant to) their line of thinking by stating that anyone with a grudge against the US who attempts to commit violence against its citizens automatically loses any civil rights protections normally afforded to criminal offenders.

Yes, there is a military component to the War on Terror. There are certain areas in the world where its not feasible to try and arrest and detain enemies of the United States...but freaking Detroit is not one of those places (dangerous place that it may be).

Update:

It seems one man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter.

The Fast Track To Outlawing Tobacco...

Ill-tempered drunks are OK for state hire, but dammit if you light up while doing it...

If the enticements of low pay and poor job security weren't enough to lure recruits to work for the State, Democratic Caucus Leader Mike Turner aims to sweeten the pot by casting the stink eye on any prospective employees who partake in tobaccoey goodness:

State Rep. Mike Turner, a Democrat from Old Hickory, has introduced a plan to prohibit any new state employee who is hired from joining the state health care plan if they use tobacco products.

"People who use tobacco products are risking their health and causing more expense to the plan, so this is the attempt to try and hold down some of those costs," said Turner.

First off, I do think it would be fair to charge smokers more for their health insurance. Fact is, smoking on average charges more to health care costs than not (unless you do it to keep thin, in which case maybe its a wash). So it makes sense that if you habitually partake in a vice that is dangerous to your health, the cost of that danger should be born out by you (oh wait, didn't tobacco companies have to pay out the ass to states in the form of excise taxes and settlements...charges that were passed on to the tobacco consumer?).

Having said that, the language of the bill (pdf) essentially criminalizes the use of a legal product by state employees:

Beginning November 2, 2010, no newly hired, appointed or elected state officer or employee shall be eligible for state group health insurance if such state officer or employee uses tobacco products. “Tobacco products” means cigars, cheroots, stogies, beedies, bidis, cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, manufactured tobacco and snuff. The provisions of this act shall not be construed to apply to any person initially employed, appointed or elected prior to November 2, 2010.

So, basically, if you are a legislative staffer hired after this year and are out with your boss who proceeds to open up a case of cigars, you have to decline or risk losing your health insurance benefits?

I make no secret of the fact that I likes to smoke when I drink. Tobacco is great...really, it is. Smoking of cigarettes and cigars can be a socially bonding experience that enhances the pleasure of a night out. I recommend everyone try it at least once. However, if done habitually, as with drinking or drugging, it can become addicting, and lead to health problems down the road. I'm not sure if there is a way to craft the legislative language, but there needs to be a distinction made in these sorts of laws that weeds out the occasional partaking of a legal product from the destructive one or two or more pack a day habits that everyone thinks of when crafting these anti-smoker laws.

(h/t ACK)

See Also: Aunt B

Terrorism for Dummies

Over at Andrew Sullivan's place, a reader postulates an interesting and highly-probable scenario for what actually went down on that planned plane bombing during Christmas:

If the intent of al Qaeda in this latest instance was to bring down an airplane, then it failed. But if its intent was to create fear and overreaction, then it succeeded Personally, I think it was the latter. It is quite possible (in fact I think probable) that the people who planned this event, and used the young man from Nigeria as a tool, were aware that due to security measures in place, there was no way they could actually get a bomb through that would actually work. The detonation equipment needed would have been detected. The same applies, by the way, to the shoe bomber.

Again, think about it. If you wanted to blow up a plane, would you attempt it from your seat, where somebody could quite possibly stop you? No, you would go to the washroom where you could set off the bomb without disruption.

To be honest, my first reaction to the news of this failed bombing was more or less, "dude, Al-Qaeda needs some better training". This is their second failed attempt at suicide-bombing an aircraft, and despite 7 years to work out the kinks, they haven't really succeeded in doing anything more than burning the shit out of their people...oh, and inducing panic among certain individuals and the politicians who feel they need to cater to them. So, it does beg the question, is Al-Qaeda just inept at blowing stuff up? Or would a successful bombing be just icing on the cake to their main goal of inducing fear, panic, recriminations, and overreaction?

At the end of the day, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars and man hours to provide what amounts to little more than Linus' security blanket.

Don't Stop, Believing!

Just got an invite to the "Young Nashvillians FOR The Music City Center" Facebook group, and while the term "young" is being used loosely by a good deal of the members, I noticed a bit of a trend on the wall to use the phrase "I Believe!" to show support. Not sure if that is organic or intentional, but please stop it, stop it now.

Despite the best efforts by attack trolls over at Post Politics to turn me off of the project by savaging anyone who whispers an opposing word to the plan, I'm probably leaning towards the project. Not because "I Believe!" it'll be some sort of transformational project that will reinvigorate the city, but rather on balance, I think it could marginally help the downtown businesses, bolster tourism, and be an avenue for construction/hospitality jobs (although the contractors aren't guaranteed to be from Nashville).

On that note, from the FB administrator here are a list of upcoming meetings on the issue:

Jan. 6 Council members Anna Page and Sandra Moore host community meeting at Coleman Park, 734 Thompson Lane, 6 pm

Jan. 7 Council members Carl Burch, Phil Claiborne, Jim Gotto, Darren Jernigan, and Bruce Stanley host community meeting at Hermitage Police Precinct, 7-9 pm

Jan. 7 Council members Eric Crafton and Emily Evans host community meeting at Belleve Middle School, 6:30-8pm

Jan. 11 Metro Council holds special public hearing at Metro Courthouse. 6:30-8pm

Jan. 12 Council members Jason Holleman, Sean McGuire, and Kristine LaLonde host community meeting at West End Middle School, 7-8:30pm

Jan. 12 Council members Mike Jameson, Karen Bennett, Erik Cole, and Jamie Hollin host community meeting at East Police Precinct, 6-8pm

Teabaggers and You

Adam Kleinheider, in his weekly column, attempts to make the case for how Democrats can attract the "tea party" activist types:

This tea party movement, this seething anger, is being driven and co-opted by Republicans. But at its core, the outrage isn’t ideological. It isn’t even necessarily anti-government. It’s just anti-this-government.

Those caught up in tea party hysteria are the kind of voters Ross Perot captured in 1992. Two years later, without Perot, these foaming, vaguely culturally conservative, middle-income voters went Republican.

But these voters, unlike their tea party activist manipulators, don’t give a damn about Edmund Burke, Ludwig Von Mises or Ayn Rand. They want jobs and a government that makes sense to them — that’s it. As long as Democratic candidates don’t explicitly agitate their culturally conservative sensibilities and can deflect the appeals Republicans make on those hot-button social issues, these voters can be won over with economic arguments.

That's all well and dandy, its the argument that Southern Democrats have been making for eons, but I thought (from the arguments given by the mostly Republican supporters of the bagger movement) that this "Tea Party" thing was supposed to be different. It was about personal responsibility and respecting the constitution, not about the same old traditional socially conservative principles of hating women, minorities and what not.

The fact is, even if these Teabaggers would be willing to vote for a Democratic candidate on paper, ultimately these people probably aren't the type of voters to sit down and run a pro-con checklist on each candidate before deciding whom to vote for. They are Fox News watching, Rush Limbaugh loving right wingers who may have voted for Billy Bob the Democrat in the past because their family always has, but now that the Democratic party is the party of some black Muslim dude, they are less inclined to just support their local conservative Democrat out of habit, and even less inclined to vote for some new Democrat running in an open election.

Ultimately, those who identify with the teabagger movement are pretty much Republicans with a few Libertarians and ex-Democrats sprinkled in for flavor. They aren't "independents" except for in that way that they don't identify as Republicans because of some clap-trap about them moving away from Reaganism. If Democrats are going to win, its going to be by real independent moderates, who may not be in love with everything the Dems are doing, but are turned off by the extremist rancor of the resurgent right. Problem is, those moderates are going to be less likely to get out and vote in a mid-term election because they aren't thrilled with either choice and most independent moderates aren't automatic voters as die-hard Dems or Repubs tend to be.