Posted by The Republican primary run-off for the Senate District 32 seat is tomorrow. I hear that it’s close. State GOP chair Mike Hubbard told me Friday that he heard it is “neck and neck” between Randy McKinney and Trip Pittman. (Though to be fair, it was a somewhat off-handed remark in the context of another conversation.) I have an unconfirmed report that says Alfa’s polling shows that Pittman could win.
It must be close since Randy McKinney is, as one consultant told me, “very pointed” in his mailouts. (At first read, McKinney would appear to be the front-runner as he finished first in the crowded field, and Governor Riley has endorsed him.) The consultant told me he thought Pittman could have been more pointed in his ads. For example, Pittman could say more along the lines of “I will represent our district, not the Montgomery crowd or special interests.”
I am told that Pittman is expected to be very strong on the eastern shore and that McKinney’s strength will be in the Orange Beach and Gulf Shores area. A political observer in the district told me that Fairhope tends to have greater turnout than some areas in the district, and that may help Pittman. McKinney is hitching his plow to Riley’s horse and has taken every opportunity to show himself as close to the Governor.
McKinney’s ads, to me, represent the absence of civil political discourse that often now marks political campaigns. (Granted, I’ve seen worse.) I would find the ads discouraging even if the claims had merit.
The McKinney campaign flyer pictured here (one of several like this) has no discussion of issues. No contention that McKinney’s policy ideas are better than Pittman’s. It just knocks Pittman because Pittman was endorsed by Conservation Alabama, a group co-founded by Joe Turnham, who since he left Conservation Alabama went on to chair the state Democratic Party.
Sigh.
Adam Snyder, executive director of Conservation Alabama, says in a release, “The founding members listed in McKinney’s smear sheet are from 9 years ago and none are affiliated with our organization today. McKinney is making up lies because quite honestly, despite his huge PAC-funded war chest, he’s facing the strong likelihood of defeat on September 11.”
Republican Bradley Byrne was endorsed by Conservation Alabama in 2002 when he defeated Randy McKinney for the Senate and even accepted its donation to his campaign. I have never heard anyone question the conservative credentials of Byrne, the man some are saying will be the GOP nominee for Governor in 2010.
Has Pittman put anything out as objectionable? I have not heard the complaints about the Pittman campaign that I have about the McKinney campaign.
The ironic part here is that after Randy McKinney’s campaign released a flyer saying “You can tell a lot about a candidate by looking at who supports him…”, we learn that a convicted pedophile supports McKinney. Nobody I know would judge McKinney for taking campaign money from a registered sex offender, but McKinney’s own campaign flyer does.
Of course, McKinney quickly returned the money donated by the offender, so that McKinney now knowingly receives as much money from convicted sex offenders as Pittman receives from Conservation Alabama: zero dollars.
Pittman has refused all PAC money, not wanting to be beholden to special interests, while McKinney swims in it. From the Conservation Alabama release:
More than 72 percent of the McKinney’s funds have come from PAC’s and individuals outside of Baldwin County. Almost 80 percent of Pittman’s funding has come from the citizens and business owners who live in the district. Conservation Alabama did not contribute financially to Pittman’s campaign, because he refused special interest money.
For all I know, either candidate can and will serve Senate District 32 with distinction. But I long for campaigns and political discourse that talk about ideas and policies as being good and bad, instead of those that use labels to call people good and bad.
The winner tomorrow is expected to defeat Democrat A. J. Cooper on October 16th.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
I am SO going to steal that image for my site.
[...] Doc’s Political Parlor informs me of a rather ironic piece of campaign literature from earlier in the Randy McKinney campaign. Apparently you can tell a lot about a candidate by looking at who supports him: [...]
Here’s the deal. Campaigns are about giving voters choices. When the election is a party primary, chances are that the
candidates are more alike than they are different. Hence, they will sieze on any little thing to make the difference
apparent to their voters. To outsiders it may look trivial and petty, but then we aren’t the target audience.
Oh, and BTW, when ALFA says their polling shows that one candidate COULD win, that means that candidate is behind in the
polling. I’ve learned that code the hard way. Because it is a party primary in a special election turnout will be so low
that Pittman COULD win if he turns more of his voters out. But the polling is showing that he is behind.
Good points in the first paragraph, Susan, thanks. Though this kind of thing has become a campaign staple. For example, Riley caught a lot of flak for his first tv spot last fall that called Lucy Baxley a liberal so many times. I guess they work, or they wouldn’t keep doing them, but that doesn’t mean we have to like them.
When you write “But the polling is showing that [Pittman] is behind,” is that something you know? Or something you are reading into what I typed?
Because I actually heard that Pittman was leading in Alfa polls, but I haven’t been able to get verification.
The interesting thing about that piece McKinney put out is the cursive font looks just like the “Call Alfa” font on their ads. Any wonder who is running McKinney’s campaign?
Pittman has run a very good grassroots oriented campaign. McKinney is trying to paint Pittman as a liberal (Pittman was endorsed by the Christian Conservatives of Alabama for God’s sake) and as a negative campaigner (when McKinney has definately been the most negative)
Pittman will win 55-45
Danny, my inference is from your wording. My experience is that when candidate is ahead ALFA says they are ahead. When they are behind they say
the candidate “could win.” I have no direct knowledge of any polling, ALFA or otherwise, for that race. I assumed you were repeating ALFA’s wording. For that, I apologize.
Susan, your helpfulness is appreciated and no apology is necessary.
Anonymous in 5, funny.
I did some checking (took me a while because of Conservation Alabama’s name change) and they (AlaLEAVs Pac) indeed gave Byrne $500.00 reported
on 7/01/2002 on Byrne’s disclosures with the secretary of state’s office. That’s $500 more than Pittman got from them according
to the story.
The fact that they did not give Pittman money is not a negative… He refused all Pac money, so I’m not sure what #9 is getting at.
The question should then become exactly how much PAC money was Pittman going to raise anyway. If all we are talking about is a single PAC donation of $500, refusing all PAC donations makes more political sense than taking the $500. It reminds me of when Roy Moore declined to accept any PAC money during his run for Governor. It’s very easy to turn something down when one is not offered it in the first place.
Will:
**BINGO**
I can’t speak to what was offered, but I do find it interesting that when comparing individual contributions, Trip has Randy beat hands down…. Perhaps the $100 Randy returened wouldn’t seem so insignificant under that light.
Wow, what an unbiased posting by “Danny”. I didn’t know Tripp Pittman was running a blog!
The point by anonymous in comment #9, as I understand it, is to verify that Bradley Byrne accepted $500 along with an endorsement from what this flyer calls “a liberal extremist group.” Which demonstrates how silly the flyer is.
Commenter in #14, I have no dog in this fight. My point is summed up in the next to last sentence of the post. However, if you would like to demonstrate that any particular point of the post is unfair or untrue, I am glad to hear it. But I don’t believe you can point to anything there that is not true. I am sorry if the truth has a bias against your candidate.
Danny, you are correct….my post “9″ was nothing more than a verification of a contribution that was mentioned. You show your
independence more and more by being able to read what was actually said…as opposed to some that must believe there is something
between the lines. Keep up the great blogging and research that you do. You are a treasured source for all that are interested in
the truth of politics.