Just Because You Can Doesn't Mean You Should

Prophet Harry Lyon? (4.00 / 3)

Now folks are claiming that the fact that Judge Robert Vance Jr. is immediately ready to qualify for the  open candidate spot lends credence to Lyon's claims that this is all a plot by the ADP.

Really? It couldn't possibly be that Judge Vance watched the primary with dismay and would not let Judge Moore waltz back into office without a fight?

Let us not make the mistake of thinking only those who are vocal are fighting for Democratic ideals in Alabama.

Chin up, Harry. As my Dad says, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

"If guns kept America safe, then America would surely be the safest country in the whole world." - Rep. Carolyn Maloney

---

by: mpmarus @ Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 17:23:10 PM UTC

Or possibly ... (4.00 / 3)

Judge Vance watched Harry Lyon make a spectacle of himself and trivialize the office he was seeking and now feels that it's time for Democrats to field a serious alternative to Roy Moore for the most important and most powerful judicial position in the state. 

Thanks for this excellent post, mpmarus!

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 20:36:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (4.00 / 3)

Any Democratic supporter has had since the primary to find someone to step into place ASSUMING LYON WAS DISQUALIFIED. That became more and more likely in recent weeks. Being prepared for an eventuality doesn't make you responsible for it happening.

"If guns kept America safe, then America would surely be the safest country in the whole world." - Rep. Carolyn Maloney

---

by: mpmarus @ Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 21:48:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seeing a big FB push (4.00 / 2)

for Melinda Lee Maddox - who does get credit for mounting a write in candidacy against Moore and Lyon.

But why wasn't she there running in the primary & why wasn't Vance (if he's planning to qualify)?

Screw the conspiracy theories about there being some sort of plot to replace Lyon because he dug his own hole using nothing but his mouth and keyboard.

The question to ask the candidates interested in running now as Democrats is "where were you in January?"

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."  - John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: countrycat @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 02:18:21 AM UTC

we just need to embrace the fact that it's not Lyon (4.00 / 3)

running against Moore anymore. Better question is why we even took his qualifying fee and allowed him on the ballot. Would have been better not to run anyone.

Perhaps folks looked at Harry Lyon and knew his history and didn't want to get caught up in a primary with him. 

 A lot of folks have been urging Vance to run for higher office and I think the fact that we have a much more qualified candidate than the Republican is something to build upon. 

---

by: bhamhoover123 @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 15:24:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You raise a good point (4.00 / 2)

The question of how Democratic candidates are "vetted" and who we allow on our ballots came up back in 2006 when a white supremacist almost won the Democratic nomination for attorney general.  Harry Lyon raises it again.  I'd like to hear from someone familiar with the SDEC Bylaws as to whether there is any mechanism for refusing to qualify someone who shows up with paperwork in order and qualifying fee on hand.

We know that mechanisms exist to challenge candidates after they have qualified, but I'm less sure there is a current mechanism to refuse a person -- no matter how aberrant their behavior -- before they've qualified.  And we want to be a little careful about demanding such a thing, because legitimate 'screening' could also turn into a way to deny ballot access to folks whose views don't conform to the current norm ... progressives, in other words.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 16:16:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes it would be dangerous and difficult (4.00 / 2)

to institute some sort of litmus test for ballot access.  Lyon and Darby just seem like the one or two exceptions over several decades. 

 

Also there are always going to be folks that talk a good game but then turn out to be frauds.

---

by: bhamhoover123 @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 18:15:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

SDEC By-Laws, Article VII, Section 1, paragraph (f) (4.00 / 2)

No person shall be permitted to qualify as a candidate for nomination or election to public or Party office as a Democrat in any elections who did not support the nominees of the Democratic Party in all Special or General Elections during the past four years. (Amended September 15, 1983).

Not sure how they checked that in the past. The internet makes it fairly easy to check now.

Also any candidate signs this statement when they file:

I hereby certify that I am a Democrat; that I am a qualified elector of the State of Alabama; that I subscribe to the principles of the Democratic Party of Alabama and I possess the qualifications fixed by law the office which I am a candidate.

SDEC Bylaws (.pdf)

It seems that a white supremacist could be prevented from filing on the basis of subscribing to the principles of the Democratic party.

But as far as I know there is no committee to check up on prospective candidates.

"If guns kept America safe, then America would surely be the safest country in the whole world." - Rep. Carolyn Maloney

---

by: mpmarus @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 21:36:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, there's no way to screen out liars (4.00 / 1)

Anybody willing to lie can sign that statement, pay their money and call themselves a Democrat.  Most of us who were familiar with Lyon's colorful career in Alabama politics never believed for a moment he was a Democrat or subscribed to the principles of the Democratic Party, even though he signed the statement.  He belonged to the party of Harry Lyon, same as when he used to run on the GOP ballot.  But there's no way to prove he's lying except to see how he behaves after qualifying which is exactly what the ADP did.

The first point you raise is the only practical means I can see of screening potential candidates based on recent behavior.  Of course, it doesn't cover mental instability.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 17:27:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maddox's write-in campaign was fine (4.00 / 3)

The fact that she was willing to step up to the plate for that does her credit.  But the important point right now is to nominate a well-qualified, serious alternative to Roy Moore as our chief justice -- which is a rather powerful office in Alabama.  This is not a game, it is about the general health and direction of our judicial system.

I had never heard of Melinda Lee Maddox before she launched her write-in campaign and I'll bet most folks outside Mobile are in the same boat.  It seems to me that the perfect candidate would be, if not Judge Vance, someone like him with a distinguished career as a jurist and a hell of a lot of gravitas.  I'm quite willing to let bygones be bygones and stop asking why people didn't qualify in March -- the need is great right now and I'm thankful to any well-qualified person who is willing to step up NOW.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 16:09:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

January: Qualifying March: Primary :) n/t (4.00 / 2)

"If guns kept America safe, then America would surely be the safest country in the whole world." - Rep. Carolyn Maloney

---

by: mpmarus @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 19:11:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Duh. (4.00 / 1)

Thank you for reminding me that candidates had to qualify earlier than usual this year.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 12:31:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We Don't Need Moore Of The Same - Write In Melinda Maddox (4.00 / 1)

New site:

 

Alabama Supreme Court Justice

 

 

"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche

---

by: DamnedLiberal @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 21:39:00 PM UTC

So Maddox is not going to try to qualify? n/t (4.00 / 1)

"If guns kept America safe, then America would surely be the safest country in the whole world." - Rep. Carolyn Maloney

---

by: mpmarus @ Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 23:12:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Know Nuttink (4.00 / 1)

But this is interesting

The Democratic elder statesman (whose son is expected to qualify on Monday) was former party chairman Robert Vance Sr.  

"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche

---

by: DamnedLiberal @ Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 00:59:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Robert Vance Sr. (4.00 / 2)

Was murdered because of his progressiveism in a state that was unwilling to see civil rights come to pass. And yes, he was chair of the state Democratic party for a time, but even there fought the bigots.

Throughout Vance's tenure as chairman, Wallace was never able to capture the state party organization, despite continual struggles between the two factions.

And while his is a proud legacy, it neither qualifies nor disqualifies his son to run for chief justice. Vance Jr's own record as a jurist does that.

"If guns kept America safe, then America would surely be the safest country in the whole world." - Rep. Carolyn Maloney

---

by: mpmarus @ Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 02:02:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have nothing against Melinda Maddox, but (0.00 / 0)

she has zero chance of being elected and zero chance of even getting the nomination.  The fact that she has to rely on Paypal to raise the meager filing fee speaks volumes.  If you want to do something worthwhile with your money, donate to Judge Vance's campaign, not waste it on a well-intentioned but doomed effort by an unknown.  Judge Vance is well known in legal circles and will be able to attract substantial support from business and other interests who oppose Moore on grounds other than his Ten Commandments stunt.  That is simply not true for Ms. Maddox. 

---

by: Roy @ Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 15:07:11 PM UTC

Two-Party Mindset (0.00 / 0)

Sure, maybe Vance has a better chance of winning. A couple of reasons why: "The Machine" and "Money". That's the way it is in a two-party duopoly. They've got the machinery and they get the money. Lots of that money is payola -- a deposit for future favors.

In my mind, it's a greater waste of your vote to vote for the person who has "the best chance of defeating the other guy" than if you vote for the person you most support.

The two-party duopoly does not well serve this country or this State. It's corrupt, it's self-serving, and it certainly doesn't first represent the people (they first represent the rich and corporations who buy those politicians).

I'll write in Melissa Maddox because I don't want my vote to support corrupt political machinery.

The more votes she gets, the more of a wake-up call the duopoly gets.

The Democrats don't DESERVE support -- look who they put forth as their candidate. And look at how many of them have abandoned ship to become Republicans...because THEY want to be on the "winning" side, too. But for them it's about connections and money.

So if you REALLY want to be on the winning side in Alabama, maybe a straight-Republican vote is a good idea.

 

"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule."
Friedrich Nietzsche

---

by: DamnedLiberal @ Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 16:07:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have to take issue with this: (4.00 / 1)

I'll write in Melissa Maddox because I don't want my vote to support corrupt political machinery.

I just don't see any corruption taking place.  It seems that - after the initial snafu of letting Lyon on the ballot in the first place - the ADP played their hand well.

Nobody from the inside or oustide forced Lyon off the ballot.  He did that all on his own using his out of control mouth & FB account as his microphone.  Even ignoring the homophobic stuff, there's bizarre statements about other people in the party - Sue Bell Cobb trying to bribe him???? - and calling Moore "a demented idolator."

Nothing Lyons has said indicates that he has any business presiding over a cub scout meeting, let alone the state Supreme Court.

The party followed its own rules to the letter, called in Lyon to discuss the issue, voted to remove him for cause, and opened qualifying for the replacement.

Now, the qualifying period is short - 3 days - but there's very little time to fill the slot and make deadlines for ballot printing.

At present, we seem to have 2 candidates interested in the slot and I've read allegations on FB that Maddox is "getting pressure" not to qualify. 

Pressure does not equal "corruption."  

In just about every contested race in any political party, the more unknown candidate usually gets advice to sit out the race or consider running for another position.  Any political party wants someone with a respected public identity, ability to raise money, and some prospect of winning the election.

Maddox seems like someone we need running for office in the ADP.  She was willing to step up and mount a write-in campaign and she's started some grassroots organizing. 

But I have a real concern about someone running as Chief Justice who has never run a court before.  The Alabama Chief Justice doesn't just run the Supreme Court: he/she is in charge of managing the entire Alabama court system.  This isn't a position to fill lightly.  It's a very serious job that requires (IMO) at least some judicial experience.

Other than a law firm, what administrative experience does Maddox have?

I'm not defending any sort of backroom deals, corruption, or big money politics.... I'm being practical because I want someone that I feel is competent to do the job.

And I'm not endorsing Vance right now - should he decide to quality.  I'm going to want to know the same stuff about him.

IMO, most of Maddox's early support came because she was NOT Roy Moore & Harry Lyon.  Given those choices, I was happy to write her in.  But the situation has changed and the bar is higher.

 

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."  - John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: countrycat @ Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 16:52:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]