Alabama Politics in
Doc’s Political Parlor
& Home of Lawn Mower Repair

In an AP story Saturday about Patricia Todd’s reinstatement as the Democratic nominee for HD 54, “one Hendricks supporter, Birmingham activist Frank Matthews, said he expects there will be a write-in candidate in the race in the Nov. 7 general election.” Patricia Todd will be the only name actually on the ballot.

I wondered if Matthews had moved forward with the idea of a write-in candidate or if he was merely caught up in the moment when he said that. He knew my question before I finished it.

“We are absolutely going to have a write-in candidate,” he said. He was “85% sure” that Gaynelle Hendricks would be the candidate. She hasn’t agreed to it, but he thinks she will. “That’s the great part about a write-in candidate. They don’t have to agree to it.” But if she is not the candidate, “we will have another strong candidate.”

They are “going to do it right” and are “talking to some people in New Jersey who have won a write-in campaign.” He said he knew they would have to lean on some Republican support. He also knows that only one candidate has ever won a seat in the Alabama legislature as a write-in candidate: Sen. Lowell Barron in 1983.

“I knew that letter [from Joe Reed] was a bad idea because it polarized the district racially. I saw a first draft and knew it was a bad idea.” It allowed Todd to “hide the gay issue in the race issue.”

So then I may say that there will definitely be a write-in campaign?

“Definitely. Absolutely. Get the word out.”

Share This

Share This

Since the state’s poverty numbers are in the news, now is a good time to share this article explaining how the federal poverty level was defined and why it is an inadequate measure.

Share This

Got more to write about than I can keep up with.

Perhaps you saw this already, but I did want to call attention to a Sunday Birmingham News article about the battle for the control of the state Senate. We have tried to stay on top of this here and, if you haven’t already, you might want to look at our take on the subject - from a bit ago but still relevant.

Share This

I am not surprised that questions would arise about the family of Judge Terri Willingham Thomas (Republican candidate for Place 3, Court of Civil Appeals) and their ties to white supremacist groups once they were made public. Political candidates and occasionally other public figures are routinely pilloried for their memberships in all-white, exclusive country clubs. If the public wants to know how closely a public official identifies with the beliefs and actions of a country club, how surprised can we be that the public wants to know how closely a candidate identifies with the beliefs and actions of family?

Raising these kinds of questions is standard political fare. I expected that Judge Thomas would repudiate the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan and the Council of Conservative Citizens, and we would all move on. The surprise to me is how tepid her response has been to the questions. We probably all would have moved on quickly if she had quickly said something akin to “I love my family very much but I do not share their views that were a product of another era. The beliefs of these organizations are repugnant to me. I do not solicit or encourage the support of groups like this.”

Instead, she responds with an invitation for “the voters in Cullman County to make their decision based on her qualifications, experience and record of service.” The perfect world may work that way, but only a political greenhorn would believe that we are not evaluated by the company we keep. While Judge Thomas doesn’t get to choose her family, she should not be surprised that the public wants to know if she chooses their beliefs.

Share This

Share This

The state Republicans’ “Contract with Alabama” will be released next week after Labor Day. Here are a few other points I have learned about the plan and its release.

• It will be released as the Governor’s proposals. State Republican legislators “are on board with it.”

• Coordinating the discussion of the proposals among all the interested parties, including the Governor, has created a small delay in its release. (Three weeks ago, House Minority Leader Mike Hubbard was quoted as saying the plan will be “unveiled in two or three weeks.”)
• The Republicans plan to show specifically how Democrats have killed proposals that Democrats now embrace in their “Covenant for the Future.”
• Yes, banning PAC-to-PAC transfers is in the plan.
• “I don’t know if full disclosure by lobbyists made it in there.” Which to me means it didn’t.
• It will not be called the “Contract with Alabama.”

Bonus section: Here are a few points I heard about the Democrats’ “Covenant for the Future” that I will pass on to you.

• That the Democrats would call the “Covenant for the Future” a Democratic plan “is infuriating.”

• The Republicans are all on the same page with the Governor’s proposals and campaigning on one platform, unlike the Democratic legislators who didn’t even talk to Lucy Baxley about their plan. After they released their plan, she soon came out with her own platform.
• “The Democrats don’t even say that they are going to pass their plan. They say that they are going to introduce the legislation. They don’t even say that they will vote for it.”

The last one makes me wonder if the Republicans are pledging to pass their legislation if they have a majority. Or if all Republican candidates are pledging to vote for all pieces of their proposal.

Next week.

Share This

The Times Daily had an AP story this weekend reporting that Alabama has the lowest taxes per capita in the nation. (This may be the same story we had here at at the beginning of the summer.)

Which brings us to the Covenant for the Future from the Alabama Legislative Democratic Leadership Council. One of their proposals is to “oppose any increase in taxes without a vote of the people.” (Look for something similar in the state Republicans’ forthcoming “Contract with Alabama.”) Why?

We have the lowest taxes per capita in the nation. Helping Alabama legislators keep taxes low is like helping anorexics restrict their food intake. You’re trying to help with a problem they don’t particularly have.

Adequate funding for state services is a problem. The state prisons system, judicial system, Medicaid… any number of state services are underfunded.

Why create another obstacle to adequate funding of underfunded state services?

Share This

Share This

Regarding the article (mentioned last post) about Terri Willingham Thomas, the Republican nominee for Place 3 on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, and her family’s ties to white supremacist groups like the KKK and the Council of Conservative Citizens…

Leonard Dixon, CCC Board member, says this about the Southern Poverty Law Center:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center is the biggest hate group in the country,” said Wilson, who has served as the commander of Alabama Sons of Confederate Veterans. “They ought to worry about what we think about them instead of what they think about us.”

Is that supposed to sound threatening? Why would the Southern Poverty Law Center care what his group thinks of them? Why ought they worry?

What mainstream group has board members that talk like that? And to the press?

Illuminating…

Share This

Patricia Todd shows that the Democrats have a big tent. Larry Darby found out that it is not that big.

Terri Willingham Thomas, the Republican nominee for Place 3 on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, may push the Republicans to figure out how big their tent is.

Share This

On Patricia Todd being named the Democrats’ nominee for House District 54…

The system worked. Order was restored. No death wish in evidence.

The attempt to unseat Patricia Todd as the Democrats’ nominee for House District 54 was more about self-serving factionalism than anything else. Granted, there were sensationalizing factors: Todd could be the first openly gay legislator elected in Alabama’s history, a white woman may have been elected in a district of majority blacks, power broker Joe Reed flexed his muscle.

But at its core, from beginning to end, the story was simple and familiar: a political faction was trying to preserve or expand its power. Joe Reed said as much:

“I don’t apologize in regard to trying to preserve a black seat,” Reed said. “That’s why I drew the (district) lines. This is a setback, a little bit, for that. But we’ll live with it.”

Thursday’s hearing clearly revealed the election challenge as a naked attempt to preserve power. Gone were the accusations of illegal votes. The vote totals were not challenged. No longer pushing the point of the late filing of the financial disclosure; it was filed before the election and there was no precedent for disqualification. No, no… they ditched all of these original arguments in favor of one they added late, at the 13th hour even. Their best argument was that Todd had not followed an archaic party rule from 1974. One that her challenger Hendricks had not followed. One that Lucy Baxley and Jim Folsom had not followed. One that no one had followed since 1988.

The moment you realize that this was their best argument, this is the moment you see it for what it is. This is about power preserving power by any means possible.

We know these stories of political factionalism and eat them up. Roy Moore and the Gang of Four against more moderate Republicans. Democrats Barron and Preuitt wrestling for control of the state Senate. Ultraconservative Republican Scott Beason ousting more moderate Republican Jack Biddle from the state Senate.

On this one, the Democratic Party has caught more than its share of abuse - as if the wishes of one faction represented the desires of the whole party. Instead, most of what I outlined here on Friday played out as Todd’s victory was upheld.

In the end there are two remarkable outcomes. Patricia Todd is poised to become the first openly gay legislator in state history. And Joe Reed has met the limits of his influence.

Share This

Share This