The Atlanta's Mayor race does not inspire confidence

Race is a factor in the sheriffs' endorsements. (4.00 / 1)

Look at Marshall County, where local Democratic elected officials and candidates quaked at the thougt of Artur Davis coming to speak because of their fear of being tainted.  The quote was "you might as well put a shotgun to our heads".  It seems to have never occurred to them, that by refusing to associate themselves with a black candidate they are reinforcing and condoning the racism they alledge their constituents hold.  If only our leaders had the balls to lead with their actions instead of their fears.

But I think there is another reason for the Sparks endorsement.  They are more like Sparks than Davis...another of the good old country boys.  They speak the same language, grew up in Fort Payne like towns, and just "know" Sparks because he is one of them. 

Davis is a different animal.  Harvard educated, pals around with the President, smart and intelligent, and looks toward the future of Alabama.  And he's African-American - not their typical buddy.  They never look deep enough to know whether or not he is the best, right, person for the job; he just isn't one of them. 

 

---

by: Gayla @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 18:07:36 PM CST

It's the Outsider vs. the Status Quo (0.00 / 0)

Pure and simple.  And the Courthouse Gangs (or Courthouse Crowds, if you prefer) certainly have nothing to gain if Davis wins.  He is not beholden to them.  Their influence is a holdover from the days when voters had no access to statewide candidates, thus the Courthouse Gang advised the local populace how to vote.  Nowadays voters can get information themselves and make up their own minds.  It's far more democratic, but it definitely disempowers the elites.  Personally, I think Alabamians are smart enough to decide for themselves and I don't think we're quite as racist as some would have us think ... not anymore.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 20:05:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Davis is a different animal all right. (0.00 / 0)

He always has been and always will be.  Not because of his "Harvard education"(who cares where he was educated?).  Not because he "pals around with the President" (He does?)Not because "he's smart and intelligent and looks to the future of Alabama" (while pandering to the status quo).  He's a "different animal" because he's non threatening to the white power structure.  I liken him to J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele, Armstrong Williams, Condolezza Rice and other acceptable negroes. 

The funny thing is Artur Davis could have changed my opinion of him and had my full support if he hadn't voted against the affordable health reform bill in an attempt to curry favor with people who would rather run through hell with a pair of gasoline drawers on than vote for him anyway.

White Sherrifs aren't the only ones endorsing Ron Sparks.

This morning I received a release (see text of letter below the thread) announcing that Arthur Dowdell had endorsed Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks in the Democratic Primary for Governor. Dowdell, also an Auburn City Councilman, you might remember from earlier this year when he was involved in a controversy involving his removal of confederate flags placed on graves in Auburn.

Artur Davis issued some remarks about Dowdell's involvement. At the time I agreed with Davis's comments; however, I can see why Dowdell would be upset with what he felt to be simply more unnecessary politicization of the Confederate Flag issue.

I credit Dowdell in that he does not endorse Sparks simply for Davis not agreeing with him on this one issue. Dowdell points out the records and achievements of Ron Sparks first and then explains his differences with Davis. The letter draws attention to Davis's opposition to the public option before discussing the flag issue.

I can't support a candidate I can't respect, Artur Davis has done nothing to earn my respect or my support.  But that's just me.   

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:42:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Amazing logic! (0.00 / 0)

I liken him to J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele, Armstrong Williams, Condolezza Rice and other acceptable negroes.  

The most liberal member of the Alabama congressional delegation is essentially a Republican?  Get real.

You don't like him.  We get that.  You didn't like him long before his health care vote -- you were calling him a Blue Dog, pro-war and a DINO (none true, as is the case with so many of your criticisms of Davis) long before the health care debate.  I don't believe Artur Davis could please you no matter what he says or does.

Is it so hard for you to accept that people are attracted to Davis because he represents a new sort of state government for Alabama -- more honest, more transparent, more competent than what we've been stuck with -- and the attraction has nothing to do with skin color?

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 11:07:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess it depends on what the definition of the "most liberal member of the Alabama Congressional district (0.00 / 0)

IS.  I guess you could say compared to Bobby not so Bright republican and Wayne Parker Griffith Davis is the most liberal member of the bunch.

I don't like his politics.  There is a difference between not liking someones  politics and not liking them personally.  And you are absolutely correct, I didn't like his politics before his health care reform vote.  You are absolutey incorrect in your assumption Artur Davis couldn't please me no matter what he does.  If he stops pandering to the right at the expense of the tradtional democratic base and his constitutents it would please me.  If he stands up for whats right (no pun) intead of going along to get along it would please me.  The question is, if he did those things would it please you?

Please tell me exactly how the heck Davis is more honest, more transparent, more competent than what we've been stuck with. 

I'll be waiting in the attic for your response. 

.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 11:31:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You are entitled to your opinion (4.00 / 1)

but it seems evident that the only way a candidate can please you is to committ political suicide.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 14:20:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

O-I-C (0.00 / 0)

It's political suicide for candidates to;

If  he stops pandering to the right at the expense of the tradtional democratic base and his constitutents it would please me.  If he stands up for whats right (no pun) intead of going along to get along it would please me. 

Only in Alabama, I mean America.....

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:00:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Answer me this (4.00 / 1)

Why is the candidate "pandering to the right" leading the race at this point? Could it be that the overwhelming majority of the voters are to the right of you?

Idealogically pure candidates  who are unwillingly to compromise at all have something in common - they lose, and therefore never get to effect any changes.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 19:45:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It could be (0.00 / 0)

the overwhelming majority of the voters are to the right (wrong) of me, however it's kind of hard to say who is "leading the race at this point" isn't it?  Right now it's who the media we have says is "leading in the race at this point."

Candidates who tell the truth don't win, and Candiates who don't tell the truth win.  What's wrong with this picture? 

BTW, what exactly is an "idealogically pure candidate"?

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 23:59:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There you go again (0.00 / 0)

It is indeed difficult to have a discussion with someone who rejects any information that disagrees with their personal prejudices as being untrustworthy. It is not hard to tell who is leading at this point, every poll reflects that is Davis. Does that mean he will win, no. A poll is like a snapshot, it captures a moment in time. The fact that you don't like the poll results does not make them untrustworthy.

Candidates who understand that they represent all the people, not just a small minority, win. Those who take positions contrary to the wishes of the majority lose. Positions and truths are two very different things.

Okay, I mispelled "ideologically". I call foul unless and until Mooncat puts a spell checker on here.

What I meant is that the far left and the far right both have "litmus tests" of issues. You have one that you have espoused on here many times. A "pure" candidate would be one that agrees with the far left and/or far right on each and every such issue.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 08:15:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's what I said. (0.00 / 0)

Every poll conducted by the media we have reflects that Davis is leading. :)

If candidates understand they represent all the people not just a small minority, why do they pander to the small minority and win?

It's not about candidates agreeing with the "far left/ or far right on each and every issue.  It's about candidates upholding the party platform and principles.  It's about candidates saying they are a democrat but voting like a republican (Parker Griffith, Bobby Bright, Artur Davis).  You call it purity, I call it loyalty.  Why be a member of a party if you don't agree with the party platform?  The platform is approved and ratified by the MAJORITY. Members who don't agree with the party platform are in the MINORITY. 

Light bulb moment!

The democratic party has been infiltrated by the minority to thwart the will of the majority.

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 11:56:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Overly simplistic (0.00 / 0)

Your argument ignores the fact that other than the President and Vice President, no official is elected from the country at large.

The Governor of Alabama is elected to represent the people of Alabama. Therefore it is irrelevant whether the national party did or did not vote or how they voted on a platform plank.

It is all about  the majority of the people who will vote in your election.

And of course it is all about a candidate believing in every position you personally hold. You repeatedly argue that anyone who disagrees with your positions should not be elected and/or allowed to be in "your" party.

You call it "loyalty" - I call it political suicide

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 14:52:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What ever YOU call it (0.00 / 0)

It's messed up that candidates and elected officials have to pander to the lowest common demoninator in order to be elected.  And it's not about me or my position, it's about the party and the platform.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 21:18:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Don't Have To Like It... (0.00 / 0)

....to know that you're right. That's what others have been saying all along. It's okay to HOPE that we are in a society where most voters "no better...", but they don't. If you don't believe me, ask 3 people tomorrow who they are supporting and why & see what kind of answer you get.

Race will be the elephant in the room come Labor Day 2010. It may not be as overt as it was in the 90s, but it will be there. To beleive anything different is wishful thinking.

Thanks for the analysis Jacool!!

---

by: noitall @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 20:36:14 PM CST

About the Atlanta race (0.00 / 0)

Don't forget that whites are a minority in Atlanta, which has elected black mayors for several decades.  Does that affect your racial dynamics?  Norwood did far better in majority (like 90 to 98% black) districts than you would expect if this was simply a racial split.  Jay Bookman of the AJC sees the outcome a bit differently than you do, and says this election turned on competence, not race:

How could race play a major role in deciding many votes, yet very little role in deciding the outcome?

It is a function of two mutually reinforcing trends: First, the city has seen a growing demographic equality between white and black Atlantans. While some people in both groups remain reluctant to support candidates of another race, those race-conscious voters increasingly negate each other. In today’s Atlanta, neither core group has the clout to decide the election.

Instead, citywide races are being settled by the growing number of Atlanta voters, many of them younger, for whom race is far down the list of items to be considered in a candidate, if it makes the list at all. They are the multi-racial swing voters who decided this election and will probably decide every citywide election from here on out.

I think younger voters everywhere see race as one component of a candidate, but not the only or the most important component.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 21:58:38 PM CST

I'm inclined to agree (4.00 / 1)

more with Jay Bookman’s assessment of the mayoral election in Atlanta than I am with jaycool’s. Alabama voters as a whole may not yet be as color blind as voters in Atlanta seem to be, but I hope they are getting closer to that, and I think many of them are. And by that, I mean BOTH black and white voters.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."      Hosea 4:6

---

by: driq @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 07:05:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Black voters have always been "color blind" (0.00 / 0)

Black voters have proven they will vote for candidates regardless of race and gender, that's' why they are democrats.  White democrats on the other hand have proven they will vote for the "right" black candidate on the local and state level but not on the national level.  90% of white democrats voted for Barack Obama in the democratic primary.  30% of white democrats voted for Barack Obama in the general election.  What's up with that? 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 10:49:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Where did you come up with those numbers? (0.00 / 0)

I don't believe them. 

Even in the South, far more than 30% of white Democrats voted for Obama.  And there's no way on this green earth that 90% of white Democrats voted for Obama in the primary -- we wouldn't have had to suffer through a contested primary all the way to June if that had been the case.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 11:34:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I didn't come up with "those numbers" (0.00 / 0)

jacool came up with those numbers;

There are counties where McCain got more than 70% of the vote where over 90% of residents cast Democratic primary votes in 2006.

Here are are the Alabama results.

At the time of the election, Alabama had a Republican Governor (Bob Riley), two Republicans in the U.S. Senate (Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions), and five of its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were held by Republicans.

On November 4th, 2008, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama predictably lost by a landslide. However, he performed 2% better in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004 (both by popular vote and by the number of carried counties). In large part, this can be attributed to high turnout of African American voters in Alabama. Notably, Obama carried Jefferson County, which contains the state's largest city of Birmingham and has voted Republican for the past several decades.^[22]

Voting in Alabama, like in other states of the Deep South, was heavily polarized by race. According to exit polls, 98% of African Americans voted Democratic while 88% of Caucasians voted Republican.^[23] Racial polarization was why Obama generally improved on Kerry's performance in Southern Alabama, where more African Americans live. Conversely, Obama did much worse than Kerry in Northern Alabama, where fewer blacks live. Racial polarization was also responsible for Alabama's electoral geography: Obama, like other Democrats, won landslides in the central Alabama's Black Belt while losing badly everywhere else

If white democrats had voted with black democrats Obama would have carried Alabama. But noooo....that would have been too much like right (pun intended).

 

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:15:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You might want to study that quote again. (0.00 / 0)

What jacool said is not the same as what you said.  The same numerals may be included, but the statements have very different meanings.  In particular, nothing jacool said could be construed to mean:

90% of white democrats voted for Barack Obama in the democratic primary.  30% of white democrats voted for Barack Obama in the general election.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:46:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, those numbers are wrong. (0.00 / 0)

According to CNN, Obama got about 25% of white voters in the Democratic primary while Obama did in fact only get 49% of the white Democratic vote in the general election.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 13:43:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Obama had recieved 49% of the white democratic vote in the general (0.00 / 0)

He would have won Alabama according to my calulations.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:18:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How? n/t (0.00 / 0)

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:48:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I should have made that a little clearer. (4.00 / 1)

In the general election, among white people who self-identified as Democrats, Barack Obama got 49% of the vote.  I believe Alabama and Mississippi were the only two states where Obama actually lost the white Democratic vote according to exit polls.

In the Democratic primary, among white people who voted there instead of the GOP primary, Obama got about 25% of the vote.  Clinton got around 72% of the white vote and Edwards got the change.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 17:01:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

That "How?" was really directed at Redeye's calculations.  I don't see how winning 49% of white Democrats would have necessarily given Obama a win here.  A Capital Survey Research Center poll in October 2008 found party id as follows:

• Democratic - 33%
• Republican - 34%
• Independent - 27%

In that case, even 100% of ALL Democrats wouldn't have been enough to give Obama a win.  He needed to appeal to a majority of those independent voters to win.  The poll showed about 85% of Alabama Democrats supporting Obama/Biden -- that figure was less than 20% for Independents.  Those are the figures that tell the tale.

Neither party can win without the middle.  If you're a strong partisan, the best favor you can do your candidate or your party is to eloquently make the argument that your guys best represent the interests of voters in the middle.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 22:50:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What (0.00 / 0)

exactly are the best interest of voters in the middle?

Fuzzy math but African Americans comprise about 26% of the electorate in Alabama, 26%+49%=75%.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 00:03:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Huh? (4.00 / 1)

I'm not even going to go into details here, but I followed the Atlanta mayoral race very closely on my own blog.  Contrary to your assessment the candidates did engage one another in number of way in a racially conotated manner.  They even got into a very heated passive-aggressive exchange of words on stage over  at the last debate that was televised on WSB-TV on November 29th.  Yeah, race does matter, but knowledge of a candidate amongst the constituency, platform, and endorsements is what made the election in Atlanta.  Norwood was only endorsed by a former Georgia State House Representative from Southwest Atlanta (SWATS) and current GA House Reprentative and that was it whereas Reed had a slew of prominent individuals including Andrew Young, Joesph Lowery, and now outgoing mayor Shirley Franklin.  Platform, Reed won the over the black and the majority of the LGBT vote because he supported civil unions whereas Norwood had said she supported it but voted against it.  Finally on knowledge, both were known, but Norwood's time on the Atlanta City Council throughout the last 8 years was her political albatross since she voted along with Franklin on all the issues that led to the current issues facing Atlanta where it has laid over 2000 employees and huge pension issues for employee retirements under.  Whereas, Reed was Franklin's campaign manager in both mayoral campaigns was able to avoid being tagged as "Franklin flunky" since he wasn't involved in city politics.  Also Reed had the black female vote, which was the swing vote in that election.

Race was there, but it was cancelled out because of net total of white voters versus black voters in Atlanta are about even.  It was a number of other facts that determined the election.  I'm still puzzled why you try to equate this to the Democratic primary and the General gubernatorial race in Alabama when your argument of Atlanta's mayoral race would have been more applicable to Birmingham's mayoral race. 

"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

---

by: kayman @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 22:29:21 PM CST

Please explain the election of James Field in this context. (4.00 / 1)

I don't have firsthand knowledge of the Atlanta situation but from what I have heard this election was as much about a backlash against the ATL urban black political establishment was it was about race-based white voting.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 13:48:06 PM CST

What do you mean (0.00 / 0)

"explain the election of James Fields in context"? In context of what?  James Fields is not Artur Davis and Cullman is certainly not Atlanta.

I don't know about the backlash against the ATL urban black political establishment but I know the white candidate didn't pander to white voters at the expense of black voters.  As a matter of fact, I heard her do a radio with Michael Baisden on election day where she talked about making marked improvments to the Atalanta University area.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 15:56:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That was the point I was getting around to... (4.00 / 1)

there are many reasons to say that Artur Davis is not a good candidate for Democrats.  Race should not be one of them.  James Fields proved that an unapologetic black Democrat can win in a majority white area of Alabama.  Jacool seems to be suggesting that white people will always vote for whites and black people will always vote for blacks and there is just no getting around it.  I don't think that's the case.  I think Artur Davis would be a crappy governor because he's bent over backwards to earn the support of some of the most regressive forces in our state but I don't think people should still be tooting the "black = unelectable" horn.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:52:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One question (4.00 / 1)

Who do you identify as some of the most regressive forces in our state?

---

by: csduke @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 20:19:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would argue that the single most regressive... (4.00 / 1)

is the Business Council of Alabama.  ALFA is a problem in a lot of ways and they may well have a lot more direct political influence than the BCA, but there BCA represents a much broader spectrum of business interests, first among them the private utility companies.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 22:12:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you for clarifying (0.00 / 0)

Can you also elaborate on Davis' "bending over backward" for those interests?  Of just for BCA, if you prefer?

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 22:15:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The two most glaring examples are... (0.00 / 0)

the contortions that he has made on health care and the bankruptcy reform bill, not to mention his full-throated attack on the Clean Energy Act (which could have been a major BOON for agricultural interests in Alabama in addition to being a great thing for our planet as it would have made the replacement of coal with renewable, cleaner-burning wood pellets economically viable).  These things would have been bad enough for Bobby Bright or Parker Griffith, who carry the label Democrat but represent overwhelmingly GOP districts.  But Artur Davis represents one of the most Democratic districts in the South, if not the nation.  He would never under any reasonable scenario be vulnerable to a Republican in a general election from that district.  And yet on those major votes, he sided with Republicans.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 00:06:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Clean energy act (0.00 / 0)

My above post is addressing BCA and this is to the Clean Energy Act, though they are both down here.  Hopefully this continues the thread.

There has already been much debate on health care and bankruptcy reform is from a few years ago. 

One of the problem with the Clean Energy Act in Alabama, and one of the reasons Davis did not vote for it, is that the clean energy act did not make any provisions for hydroelectric power or nuclear power to be classified as renewable (evident in this letter from the Alabama delegation).  For Alabama, if these were defined as renewable (at least if hydroelectric was defined this way) it might be a different story forone to oppose the bill.

---

by: csduke @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 08:21:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree with you about hydroelectric... (0.00 / 0)

but I still don't think that that was a good enough reason to oppose the bill, especially considering the enormous amounts of biomass jobs that it could have generated in his district.  I do not, however, believe that nucleur power ought to have been included as an acceptable form of renewable energy. 

---

by: bluebearcat @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 14:15:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I counter that... (0.00 / 0)

BCA is not as regressive as you argue them to be, in contrast to ALFA.  Sure, they have upset Democrats in the past (look back to the 1994 Supreme Court races, hinged on issues of tort reform). 

However, there are more progressive efforts that have occured in the state that the BCA has been involved with.  For one, BCA has been involved in various tax reform efforts.  They were involved in the blue ribbon commission to study in the Hunt administration, supported Folsom's school reform efforts, and were one of the primary backers of the 2003 Amendment One effort.  They were invovled in the formation of the A+ Education Foundation, both back in 1993-94 during the equity funding debate and the continued work that A+ has done.   Though they represent some of the "Big Mules", BCA has recognized that changes need to be made to improve the quality of education for Alabama's workforce as well as the way Montgomery does business (for more on this, glance through the role of business in Bailey Thompson's article written at the start of the Riley administration).  

Contrast this with ALFA, who wants to preserve the state tax code and its current-use status so that landowners have low taxes and has generally been against most efforts for reform over the past 25 years.

---

by: csduke @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 07:45:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A+ Education Foundation, i.e. the who's who of public education opponents? (0.00 / 0)

One of their key members was Bradley Byrne, who stated that AEA memberes are the worst of their profession.  Joe Morton, Bob Riley;s Superintendent was also a key member.  Kudos to them for supporting Ammendment One, but the plain fact is that Ammendment One did not pass.  And much of the tax reform policy that the BCA has favored have be focused on shifting tax burden from high wage earners to agricultural landowners.  Their education reform proposals include some interesting ideas, but their most prominent members have been seemingly focused on one proposal: eliminating the teachers' union from Alabama.  I don't think that's progressive.  And there is no bigger opponent of progressive environmental legislation than Alabama Power, whom the BCA represents.

I'm glad they support Constitutional Reform but is there any doubt that their primary interests in getting a new Constitution that permanently favors the interests of their members?

---

by: bluebearcat @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 14:08:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]