Some of you may have seen the video of the Ron Sparks vs. Robert Bentley forum held in Arab last week, but it's quite long and many of us haven't had a chance to watch the entire show. The Arab Tribune has very helpfully published a transcript of the two candidates' opening statements. There is nothing too surprising in the openers -- the more controversial education remarks were made during the Q&A period -- but a couple of remarks illustrate that it's hard to put either of these guys into a neatly labeled box. Both men are working to reach outside their base a bit, I think.
Bentley:
We need transparency in Montgomery. We have been trying for years. (Rep.) Jeff McLaughlin has been sponsoring for years a law to ban PAC-to-PAC transfers. It always passes the house. I've been in the house for eight years, and I have voted for it every time.
Not rhetoric you hear from all Republicans, by any means. Similarly, Sparks is talking about the need for bipartisanship:
I'm going to reach across party lines. The Democratic party doesn't have all the answers for problems in Montgomery. We've got to have Democrats, Republicans and Independents working together.
"Since when did it become the job of the government to provide a college education to every child?" Bentley responded, looking toward Sparks.
"That's not the government's job. That's your job," Bentley said, pointing to the crowd of about 140. "Not every child can go to college, or should they."
This "not the government's job to educate your children" kind of statement actually works well for both men.
It's a standard, less government, self-determination frame that wins Bentley points with conservatives -- and he may need those points because he wasn't the chosen GOPer of the far right.
But that statement brings to mind an entirely different frame for the Democratic base, especially African-Americans, who remember that segregationist Alabamians resisted any implication that children had a right to a public education. Why, if education was a right, they might have to let poor black and brown kids into schools.
Sparks is right to publicize Bentley's statement. I think he likely gets more traction out of it than Bentley does. After all, there are only a limited number of families who can afford college with no help these days and Bentley already had their votes. Sparks, on the other hand, needed something to get his voters riled up against Bentley. This is a good start.
Stephen Colbert and Tommy Stevenson (of the Tuscaloosa News) recently took on this crackpot "Obama is a Muslim" rumor and ripped Mitch McConnell from stem to stern for straddling the political expediency fence with, "The President says he's a Christian, I take him at his word." You can see Colbert's take on that mealy-mouthed response here, starting at about 5 minutes.
"Just like when Mitch McConnell says he's not a human-turtle hybrid, I take him at his word. And it's not easy."
1 in 5 Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. ... 30% of Republicans feel Obama is a Muslim. ... 30% of the country believes in UFOs. 30% of the country believes in ESP.
Tommy Stevenson dispenses with the humor and chides McConnell for duplicity:
Those sort of weasel words are designed not to put an end to the ridiculous controversy; they are meant to keep one of the most contemptible controversies in recent political history alive.
“Of course he’s a Christian, don’t be silly!” would have been the right answer. And if McConnell still wanted to take a shot at Obama, he could have added, “Don’t you remember during the presidential election when we caught him going all those years to that radical Church of Christ minister?”
Had he really wanted to do the right thing, he could have said, “So what if he is; Muslims are part of the very fabric of our country and should not be demonized.” (Yeah, I know, fat chance.)
Stevenson also brings some facts to the table, pointing to President Obama's statement in an interview with Christianity Today: “I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." But facts really matter very little to the people who are most up in arms about Barack Obama's religion.
The sad truth is that you can fool some of the people all the time, and politicians are no longer interested in winning by leading the American electorate toward the truth -- God, that's a lot of work -- but in reinforcing the fears and misconceptions of that 20 to 30% of Americans who can be made to believe anything, forever. That's what the Obama birth certificate craziness was/is about and that's why we're suddenly hearing so much of the obviously false "Obama is a Muslim" claptrap.
The tin-foil hat wearers are now coveted swing voters in America.
“Look, I’m just not going to get on Fox News and make the president’s birth certificate my cause,” he said. “I have to pick my battles, and the fact is I have 635,000 constituents that I have to try to balance. The majority of them would rather I focus on jobs and on winning the next election — not trying to undo the last one.”
Can the GOP ride this angry tiger of folks who can be fooled all the time, or will antics like the birth certificate brouhaha and the current Muslim hatefest cost them dearly with genuine swing voters? Don't underestimate the power of bullshit to move votes.
... the two leaned against the wall and chatted like old friends.
Then Sparks, state agriculture commissioner, told the local chapter of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association Chapter that Bentley is "a good man and a good guy. We just approach issues differently."
"Ron and I have been to many meetings, about 40 forums," said Bentley, a state representative and retired Tuscaloosa doctor. "And we've made a commitment to run a clean campaign. Attacking each other doesn't put one single person back to work. We have views on different issues, but we'll be civil about it."
I'm told they mixed it up a little more at the Tourism Conference a few days ago, although this article doesn't touch on that. Here's the video. It's 47 minutes long. If you watch it, please tell the rest of us where the juicy parts are.
Not to worry about that poll my Sparks friends tell me, Ron always runs best as an underdog and Rasmussen leans right anyway. This is all fine.
Like I said, so far this race is pretty low key. Unfortunately, all the excitement in the governor's race (at least on the Democratic side) is still focused on the Democratic primary, which by my count has been over for two and a half months.
Last week we noted that Artur Davis skipped the traditional appearance at the SDEC meeting and has no plans to campaign for Sparks, who he said lacks vision and a plan to bring real change to Alabama. This week Sparks wrote a nice op-ed for the same paper titled "Defining Vision." In my opinion Ron Sparks would have been much better served to have led with page 2 of the article where he lays out his accomplishments and proposals and makes his case for being our next governor. His tenure as Ag Commissioner was always his strongest argument for promotion and he can't emphasize that enough. Page 1 (which is as far as most online viewers read) was devoted to Sparks' relationship with Artur Davis who, last time I looked, was no longer running for governor. This is classic "punching down" and to quote Keith Olbermann, "You don't punch down."
The Democratic primary is over and the Democrats who keep picking at that sort of scabbed over wound are just keeping the ill-feelings stirred up. I do not understand how that plays to a winning strategy in November. Please explain if you do.
Democrat Ron Sparks and Republican Robert Bentley, will be at Samford University Thursday morning speaking to the Auntie Litter's Take Pride statewide conference.
The event, which is open to the public, will be at 8 a.m. in the Wright Center.
I hope someone asks them about earmarking of all gasoline tax revenue exclusively to roads and bridges, effectively prohibiting the state from investing in any mass transit, light rail, etc. What would you like to hear?
Republicans want party unity. They held a Unity Luncheon over the weekend. I was not present, but am told Bradley Byrne left before nominee Bentley said his piece. And Republicans have their share of kibitzers like Stan Pate.
The point is, Republicans are at least beginning to produce the trappings of unity, often the first step toward breaching the chasm opened by a primary fight. Is there a Unity Luncheon or the equivalent in the works for the Democratic side? I haven't heard of one and this statement from Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham seems to indicate they're just moving on to other issues:
"The next Governor of Alabama has to unify Alabama, not around partisanship; but around a real message of creating jobs, empowering voters by giving them the right to vote on the real issues of our day and by ending petty partisan strife."
My perception is that there is likely to be more Democratic unity around a "we must hold the Legislature" goal than around the governor's race or any other single contest. From a perspective well outside the inner circles*, the Big Tent of the Alabama Democratic Party looks to be harboring a hell of a lot of divisions, too many of whom don't currently admit they need the other ones. Alabama was a one party state for a very long time, and Reagan's 11th Commandment doesn't have a Democratic counterpart here yet.
* Disclosure: Left in Alabama is in a contractual agreement with the ADP for services that do not include messaging, fundraising or content on this blog.
They rate Alabama "tossup" for both the State House and the State Senate.
In this Deep South state, the GOP reigns supreme in national contests, and the ancestrally Democratic legislature is under greater pressure than ever in 2010. Both chambers have been in Democratic hands for more than a century but are vulnerable to a party switch this year. A number of Democratic retirements in both the House and Senate will aid the GOP’s chances, as will ongoing fallout from corruption investigations. Already, some recent special elections have gone the Republicans’ way. Even if the GOP doesn’t get enough seats on Election Day, they might have enough momentum to convince a few conservative Democrats to switch parties, allowing them to shift control.
This is emblazoned on t-shirts for a popular exercise club:
"If I share my strength, I become even stronger."
It's true and it works for other things too, like enthusiasm, knowledge, determination. Progressives know that if we share our positive energy and resources, we are stronger and can accomplish more.
Conservatives use this principle in a different way; by sharing their NO. They spread their negative energy to weaken and demoralize the opposition and increase their political power. Hence, the Party of NO that we've seen in action the last couple of years.
Is it true? Have the Republicans really been that negative since Obama was elected? The answer is unequivocally YES.
Their negativity has reached new heights, even for Washington. Consider the record of hyper-obstruction with regard to judicial nominees, courtesy of Balloon Juice and TAPPED:
... the Alliance for Justice found that in Obama's first year in office, the Senate confirmed a mere 23 percent of his judicial nominees. By contrast, Presidents Carter and Reagan had 91 percent of their nominees confirmed in their first year. That number dropped to 65 percent for George H.W. Bush, 57 percent for Bill Clinton, and 44 percent for George W. Bush. ... you can attribute the massive change in confirmation rates to the GOP's strategy of hyper-obstruction through abuse of Senate rules; through routine filibusters and holds, Republican senators have kept dozens of judicial nominees from leaving committee or coming to a vote.
On some particular vote, we can represent the average Democrat position as the fraction of Dems voting Yea; same for Republicans. Divisiveness is the distance between these two average positions. For example, if 50% of Dems and 50% of Reps vote yes, then divisiveness is 0. If 10% of Dems and 90% of Reps vote yes (or vice versa), then divisiveness is 0.8.
The data shows a striking difference. Politics were more centrist in the late 80s. Divisiveness didn't move much for about 18 years, but then divisiveness dramatically spiked since the beginning of the Obama administration, setting a record in 2009 and another record so far in 2010. The difference here is really quite dramatic: 29% divisiveness in 1989, vs. 70% today.
If it seems ironic that the President who made bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle such a high priority has been subject to unprecedented resistance and obstruction from the very Republicans he was reaching out to ... well, you're just not thinking about this the right way. Think like a Republican.
Bipartisanship and a determination to work with the other side was a big selling point for Obama. It was one of his strengths in 2008. Remember all the buzz about Obama and Lincoln's Team of Rivals? Obama was basically correct in saying, "I don't think the American people are fundamentally ideological. They're pragmatic ..." Pragmatic, sick of partisan games and hungry for competent government. Obama tapped into that desire for change in 2008. It was his strength, so Republicans have to negate it to succeed in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Republicans need to make Obama fail miserably and publicly at changing the tone in Washington and accomplishing his policy goals -- heck, they like Washington just the way it is anyhow so obstruction is a win-win for them. They've made a conscious decision to become the Party of NO to turn Obama's greatest strength into a weakness and make sure he fails. The key question for 2010 is, have they outsmarted themselves?
America is fighting two foreign wars and the economy still hasn't recovered from the Great Recession. We desperately need leadership and wise policies, but Republicans want failure. Can Obama sufficiently illuminate politically motivated Republican opposition to legislation America needs -- aid to small businesses, an overhaul of financial regulations, stopping foreign corporations from dabbling in our elections, extension of unemployment benefits, health benefits for 9/11 responders, and on and on. -- so that the public sees them for what they are: politically motivated negativity mongers and obstructionists who would rather damage Democrats than help America?
Or will their negativity succeed in making them stronger?
Rasmussen historically leans right by a few points, but their finding of Bentley at 55% is still a worrisome result for Ron Sparks, who garnered support from 35% of the 500 likely voters surveyed. 7% were undecided and 3% wanted a different candidate. Other findings:
Voters in Alabama not affiliated with either major political party favor Bentley over Sparks by a nearly three-to-one margin.
Only nine percent (9%) in Alabama rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent, but 51% rate it as poor. While 27% say economic conditions are getting better, 51% say they are getting worse.
Sixty percent (60%) of those who believe the economy is improving back the Democrat, while 73% of those who it's worsening support Bentley.
...
Bentley is viewed Very Favorably by 32% of voters and Very Unfavorably by just seven percent (7%).
Sparks is viewed Very Favorably by 19% and Very Unfavorably by 21%.
Rasmussen also asked about the stimulus and found that 41% of Alabamians believe it has hurt the economy, far more than the 26% who believe it has helped. There is a lot of misinformation to overcome out there -- we can't just say 41% of people are wrong or stupid, we have to develop effective talking points to convince them. It's a long term project in this conservative leaning state. The only consolation is that the facts are on our side -- not just on the stimulus but on health care, immigration, regulatory reform and a host of other issues. The trick now is to figure out how to use themeffectively to convince our neighbors.
Creative messaging from Democrats -- tell people what the opposition really wants to accomplish. These are not popular ideas. Main headers of the Republicans' Contract On America:
1. REPEAL THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM)
2. PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY OR PHASE IT OUT ALTOGETHER
3. END MEDICARE AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS
4. EXTEND THE BUSH TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY AND BIG OIL
5. REPEAL WALL STREET REFORM
6. PROTECT THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OIL SPILL AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHES
One of my neighbors (a very-well informed Democrat) pays close attention to ALFA's endorsements every November. She is on their mailing list and gets something that looks very like a sample ballot in election years and she uses it -- as a guide to who NOT to vote for.
That's a bit oversimplified, but in many, many ways the Alabama Farmers Federation (ALFA) is anything but a progressive organization. Constitution reform? It will raise property taxes. Tax reform? It will raise property taxes. Home rule? It will restrict where family farmers can put hog operations.
ALFA has just announced their FARM-PAC endorsements for the 2010 general election. The list is below for any of you who care to use it as a guide -- either positive or negative. I've added party identification in the list below. You may notice that these farmers are heavy on incumbents and heavy on Republicans. They did not endorse in every race, governor being one high profile contest they chose to sit out.
Candidates who received endorsements in last week’s meeting include: • U.S. Representative, District 5 - Steve Raby (D) • U.S. Representative, District 7 - Terri Sewell (D) • Lt. Governor - Kay Ivey (R) • Secretary of State - Beth Chapman (R) • State Auditor - Sam Shaw (R) • State Treasurer - Young Boozer (R) • Attorney General - Luther Strange (R) • Public Service Commission, Place 1 - Jan Cook (D) • Public Service Commission, Place 2 - Susan Parker (D) • Commissioner of Agriculture & Industries - John McMillan (R)
Earlier this year, the Farm-PAC Trustees made endorsements in the following races: • U.S. Senator - Richard Shelby (R) • U.S. Representative, District 1 - Jo Bonner (R) • U.S. Representative, District 2 - Bobby Bright (D) • U.S. Representative, District 3 - Mike Rogers (R) • U.S. Representative, District 4 - Robert Aderholt (R) • U.S. Representative, District 6 - Spencer Bachus (R) • Supreme Court Justice, Place 1 - Kelli Wise (R) • Supreme Court Justice, Place 2 - Mike Bolin (R) • Supreme Court Justice, Place 3 - Tom Parker (R) • Court of Civil Appeals Judge - Tommy Bryan (R)
The Democrats' six-point advantage in Gallup Daily interviewing from July 12-18 represents the first statistically significant lead for that party's candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March.
Below is the Pollster.com tracking average -- without Rasmussen which makes an R+2 difference all by itself -- for the generic Congressional ballot. Not great, but it's beginning to look like the bleeding has stopped. And the Senate should finally be able to move on extending unemployment benefits today after the new Senator from West Virginia, Carte Goodman (D), is sworn in depriving the Party of NO of their filibuster. The Republican stand against the long term unemployed is just wrong, morally, economically and politically wrong, and voters should make them pay a price for it in November.
What does this mean in Alabama? Well, improvement in the generic ballot situation is good news for Bobby Bright, Democratic incumbent in AL-02, who faces a tough election challenge this fall. Bright raised $86,700 last quarter and is sitting on $734K cash on hand. His challenger, Martha Roby, is fresh from a runoff with the "gather your armies" wingnut and reports just $121.5K cash on hand.
Improvement in the generic ballot condition for Democrats is also good for Steve Raby who is seeking to take over Parker Griffith's seat in AL-05 -- expect that contest to be another knock-down, drag-out with heavy expenditures from "independent" organizations just like it was in 2008. And let's not forget William Barnes, running against Richard Shelby. Barnes probably won't be well financed so any uptick in favorability of generic Democrats will benefit him ... at absolutely no cost.
There are over 100 comments on a recent thread asking "Why on Earth should I vote for Ron Sparks?" As of this writing, not a one seriously attempts to persuade the author as to the superiority of the Democratic nominee. Does no one understand that elections are won by votes and votes are won by persuading voters, not bludgeoning them? Laying into an undecided voter who asks a perfect set-up question is counterproductive beyond belief ... and don't just make this about Almoderate herself; hundreds or thousands of people will read that thread between now and Nov. 2, looking for the reason to vote for Sparks. Unfortunately, they won't find it.
Let's look at how to effectively persuade someone to your point of view. Pretend there is a customer and a car salesman -- we'll say he's selling Fords. The customer looks at a lot of different cars, including Fords, and eventually buys a Honda Accord. It is well made, nicely appointed and is just really everything she needs and wants in a car. She loves her Honda Accord.
Then the unthinkable happens. The beloved Honda is destroyed. Completely totaled. A smoking hulk of mangled metal. Right in front of the Ford dealership.
So, the devastated Honda owner ends up sitting in the Ford showroom, obviously in the market for another car. How does the Ford salesman persuade her to buy his car?
Scenario 1: "Wow, you are so much better off without that Honda. How could you have been so foolish as to pay 50% too much for that hunk of imported junk? You should have bought my nice, sensible Ford all along. Good thing your Accord got flattened right out front so it's nice and convenient for you to come in here and buy a Ford like you should have done all along. I hope you've learned your lesson now."
Scenario 2: "Wow, what a lucky thing you weren't killed or maimed in that accident. It's a real shame about your Honda, I know how people get attached to their cars. I still remember my first car even though I had to sell it 20 years ago -- needed the money to get married, you know? Listen, while you're here, how about I show you this new Ford? It has some great new safety features to protect the occupants in case, Heaven forbid, there should be an accident. And we've increased the fuel efficiency, too, so driving it leaves a smaller carbon footprint. I know this is kind of soon, but your Honda was always about taking good care of you and it wouldn't want you to be taking the bus for weeks while you wait on a new car. Look, I've got one here that's almost the same color as your Honda ... "
How does this story turn out?
In scenario 1 the customer will leave sans Ford even if she has to crawl. If the Honda dealership is 300 miles away she'll take the bus and will never, never, ever again darken the door of any Ford dealership. That salesman is destined for a short, hungry career in sales.
In scenario 2 the salesman (who may very well hate Hondas passionately) acknowledges the customer's loss and attempts to understand what drew her to buy a Honda in the first place. He makes a personal connection. He does not denigrate the customer's initial choice, to which she has a strong emotional attachment. And he points out the merits of his own product. He has a pretty fair chance of making the sale and of making a living persuading people to buy his products.
What does this tale of car sales have to do with candidates?
Robert Bentley received roughly 260,000 votes to win the Republican nomination.
Bradley Byrne received about 204,000 votes as he lost the Republican nomination.
Ron Sparks received 198,000 votes in winning the Democratic nomination.
Artur Davis received 119,000 votes as he lost the Democratic nomination.
Those people who voted in the primary and the runoff are people who vote every time the polls open. The Davis and Byrne voters did not prevail, but they will be back in the voting booth on Nov. 2 -- the big question is who will they vote for?
As a Democrat, I wish the supporters of Ron Sparks would make an honest attempt to persuade at least the Artur Davis supporters to move to the Sparks camp. And success will not come by copying the tactics of the salesman in scenario 1. The primary is over; Davis did not win and further Davis bashing will not endear you or your guy to any of his supporters. Look to the salesman in scenario 2 for a role model as you attempt to persuade, not bludgeon, people into shifting their allegiance to your candidate. Try to knock the wedge out, don't drive it deeper.
Last, but not least, for those who need help figuring out How to Win Friends and Influence People, a few tips from Dale Carnegie are included below the fold.
That's the gospel. If you don't believe Davis, just ask Tim James who spent around $3 million and fell 267 votes short of Bentley after a recount. Or ask Bradley Byrne, widely thought to be the presumptive GOP nominee, who spent twice that much and came in 56,000 votes short in Tuesday's runoff. Robert Bentley will be hard to beat in November, in part because of the way he won his party's nomination, as Davis points out:
Davis said Bentley's win was impressive because he overcame opposition from his own party's leadership. Gov. Bob Riley and several members of Alabama's Republican congressional delegation bucked party tradition and openly endorsed Byrne.
In response, Davis said, Bentley went out and built strong support among independent voters. That should put him in a strong position as he heads into the general election, Davis said.
"November elections are decided by independent voters," Davis said. "Bentley had to reach out to independents because the establishment was supporting Bradley. It was a very effective strategy and he executed it well."
Bentley succeeded at what Davis tried to do. He ran against a big chunk of his party hierarchy and won. One key difference was that Bentley had AEA on his side in the Republican primary, whereas Davis sought to curb the influence of AEA and other special interests in the Democratic party and, as a result, they opposed him with a vengeance. Literally with a vengeance.
Another factor at work here is that independent and middle of the road voters in Alabama seem to identify more with Republicans than Democrats these days. Participation in the Democratic gubernatorial primary has declined over 50% since 1994 (2010 was the lowest yet) while participation on the Republican side has steadily increased. And we haven't done very well in general elections in that time period, either, electing only one Democratic governor since 1986. Why is it that our party is shrinking, and what can we do to stop it?
I think Artur Davis put his finger on one reason the Alabama Democratic party has declined, which is why I felt strongly that he would be our best nominee this year:
"The party is losing its way. We are losing ground in Alabama and we are losing it unnecessarily," he said. "We want to hide behind the excuse that the national party is unpopular right now but that's not what's causing it. The fact is we're seeing the complete domination of the party by a narrow group of insiders who are completely out of step with average Alabamians."
Now, it may be that the powerful insiders will transfer their interest over to the other party for awhile. That will create financial hardship for Democrats, but it will also open up some moral and ethical space and create an incentive for us to get back in touch with average Alabamians, particularly the voters who famously "vote for the man, not the party." All politics really is local and we have a chance with those folks if we honestly address their concerns and convince them to look past their perception of the party and see the good, honest people inside it.
This article mentions one more thing I want to touch on: Davis says he's hearing from some of his supporters who may vote for Bentley in the fall. I have corresponded with many former Davis supporters and an alarmingly high proportion are not in the Sparks column for November. Some have lined up behind the nominee because it's the thing to do, but a great many are openly talking about undervoting the governor's race or even voting for Bentley -- although I think Byrne would have been a much easier-to-stomach-Republican than Bentley is for most Davis supporters. I particularly want to make the point that although Ron Sparks won the nomination in June, he has some work to do to bring his base together and shouldn't take it for granted that all Democrats will automatically line up behind him in November. Sparks could have used the six weeks since he won the primary to publicly reach out to Davis Democrats and try to bring them into his fold, but I haven't heard he's done that. Time is passing and once those folks put a Bentley bumper sticker on their vehicle it will be hard to get it back off.
Robert Bentley is a scary right-winger, he will be tough to beat, and Ron Sparks shouldn't leave any Democrats on the table in November.
It's been a long haul for the candidates but they have finally arrived. Will it be the thrill of victory (underlined) or the agony of defeat for:
Governor: Bentley vs. Byrne?
Attorney Gen.: Anderson vs. Perkins?
Congress, AL-02: Barber vs. Roby?
Congress, AL-07: Sewell vs. Smoot?
Ag Commissioner: Grace vs. McMillan?
SD9: Scofield vs. Spurlin?
SD28: Beasley vs. Ford?
... etc.
Barring the need for any recounts, we should know how all these races turned out by tomorrow morning. What do you think, what do you know, what does it mean?
Was Jere Beasley's* broad hint that Michel Nicrosi (who finished 3rd on June 1) "leans toward" James Anderson a kind of back door appeal to turn her voters out for Anderson on Tuesday? Might be, but Michel Nicrosi has put the kibosh on that idea herself, emphasis mine.
Nicrosi said she hasn't endorsed either remaining candidate and doesn't plan to.
...
Not only did she not lean toward Anderson, Nicrosi added, had she decided to publicly endorse either candidate, more than likely her support would've gone to Perkins.
Zing!
Nicrosi was a very non-status quo candidate; Giles Perkins is a much better fit than Anderson for those who want to see something different in Montgomery. I would expect much more of Nicrosi's supporters to turn to Perkins on July 13 -- but it all comes down to who bothers to go back to the polls for a runoff that is the only race on the Democratic ballot in 31 counties.
With the recovery barely visible and Democrats still behind on the economy, progressives should not seek a mandate based on their performance, but on their advocacy for ordinary people versus Wall Street and on where they want to take the country, compared to the Republicans. Democratic candidates should run as outsiders and independents that battle to change Washington. They should show their passion for jobs, the economy and middle class.
This is good advice, and I think it works for state level candidates this year as well. Like they say, all politics is local. If the election is about local issues and local people, Democrats can win. If it's nationalized ... the battle is tougher because those of us outside the Beltway are still mad as hell.
We were in Montgomery yesterday afternoon and couldn't pass up the chance to see the Repubican protest at the Alabama Education Association (AEA) building. The idea here is to scare Paul Hubbert so much he'll stop funding anti-Byrne ads.
Impressive, huh? Dr. Hubbert is probably shaking in his shoes at the sight of those fired up protesters.
Sounds like a titillating prelude to a Revolutionary War film, right? Not quite, just a few choice lines from tea-bagger extraordinaire, right-wing darling and treason-inciting Congressional candidate Rick Barber’s recent television ad. Although if you follow the script, you’d think Barber was running to be the Grand Dragon of an insurgent, violence-prone militia group rather than a representative of the people of Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District. He sure has a flair for the dramatic, though… I guess you could call him a drama queen. Barber embodies everything that the Tea Party seem to represent - and no, that’s not a compliment - and his campaign has been rife with treasonous, violence-spurring, divisive rhetoric, stemming back to the dark day he announced his candidacy (January 6, 2010):
“…our federal government is spending our country into financial ruin.” Where was Mr. Barber when George W. Bush was spending like Paris Hilton on a shopping spree?
“I’m here because the Democrats in Congress are spending my six-year-old daughter’s money before she’s even had the chance to earn it.” I wasn’t aware that we had amended the tax code to include taxing first-graders. I’m assuming Mr. Barber wasn’t paying attention when the prescription drug benefit was enacted, tax cuts were passed, and two astronomically expensive wars were launched under George W. Bush, none of which were paid for.
Barber also sniped at Congressman Bobby Bright, insisting he should have “been a hero” and should have denounced the recent stimulus package. I suppose this means Barber would have opposed helping his OWN constituents? Does anyone else find it humorous how so-called conservatives relentlessly condemn federal spending even as they hold out their OWN hand asking for federal money for their district?
No, I'm not asking for "street money" or "walking around money" or even the whiskey George Wallace allegedly poured to entice voters to go to the polls for him. Here's what I want demand in return for my vote this year:
Convince me you have a clue: For instance, I don't want to hear we need to "improve education." Politicians have been telling me that for 30 years and we're still in the bottom 5. Do you know why? And how to change it? Ditto "Keep taxes low." Been there, done that. How's it working out for us?
Show me what you've done: Do you have a track record of success? If you've already accomplished a lot in life I expect you will accomplish even more ... and vice-versa.
Hold the dogma: Ranting about hot button issues just distracts attention from the important functions of government. If you're ranting, I assume it's because you don't know how or don't want to actually do the job at hand.
Inspire me: This is the hardest part. Got a vision of progress for the future? Show me, because I'm not interested in standing still or, God forbid, turning back the clock. Inspire me. Make me want to work for you and vote for you.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes a politician will buy my vote this year. My greatest fear is that I'll end up having to give it away to someone who is just "not as bad as the other guy."
T.H.E. Social Work Agency Adoption home studies & care management services in the North Alabama area.
Licensed, certified, caring social workers. blog advertising is good for you
The sad truth is that you can fool some of the people all the time, and politicians are no longer interested in winning by leading the American electorate toward the truth -- God, that's a lot of work -- but in reinforcing the fears and misconceptions of that 20 to 30% of Americans who can be made to believe anything, forever. That's what the Obama birth certificate craziness was/is about and that's why we're suddenly hearing so much of the obviously false "Obama is a Muslim" claptrap. 
Conservatives use this principle in a different way; by sharing their NO. They spread their negative energy to weaken and demoralize the opposition and increase their political power. Hence, the Party of NO that we've seen in action the last couple of years. 
Republicans need to make Obama fail miserably and publicly at changing the tone in Washington and accomplishing his policy goals -- heck, they like Washington just the way it is anyhow so obstruction is a win-win for them. They've made a conscious decision to become the Party of NO to turn Obama's greatest strength into a weakness and make sure he fails. The key question for 2010 is, have they outsmarted themselves? 
Then the unthinkable happens. The beloved Honda is destroyed. Completely totaled. A smoking hulk of mangled metal. Right in front of the Ford dealership.
