Doc's Political Parlor » Purple Dot Connection

HAPPY FEBRUARY

Natalie Davis — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:35:25 +0000

Under the “B” … June 1

I’ve tried to follow BINGO rules and BINGO raids. I’m not sure I understand the law, nor do I get the motives of many of the principal players. I bet many of you know a heck of a lot more about this than I. But one thing I am sure of is that BINGO will be high on the list of issues come the June primaries—especially in the Republican AG race, where Troy King is challenged by Luther Strange.

Why is the Governor taking this on so aggressively? I give you that he sincerely opposes gambling or he owes something to some folks in Mississippi or both. But why in the last year of his second term? Is he looking at Jeff Sessions’ seat? Is he trying to derail Troy King, who has been a disappointment? Is he trying to help Luther Strange? I have to say the David Barber incident is pretty funny. It’s too rich. And what the heck is John Tyson doing? I spoke with a friend whose family lives in Dothan. She says her family—all very Republican and very conservative—as well as others in the community are upset that so many folks will lose their jobs if Country Crossing closes down.

The odds are 8-1 that the Alabama Supreme Court will support the Guv’s task force, and BINGO may be on its way out. Why not just let the status quo prevail, tax electronic bingo, declare new bingo illegal, and move on? In an “all or nothing” political environment, that’s way too reasonable.

THE 2010 CENSUS

Last week, I participated in a panel on the 2010 CENSUS. It was sponsored by Congressman Artur Davis. I don’t exactly know why I was there, given that the other folks were serious Census pro’s. I learned a couple of things. For one, if you are a college student, your residence is where you live, not your legal residence, not where you vote, not where your parents live. This has real count consequences, especially for the 7^th CD, where ±67,000 students live on or around the UA campus. This is true for Auburn and other places where large student populations reside.

I was there to talk about political impacts. Here at home, the 7^th CD presents a challenge to those who will draw the lines. The 7^th has been losing population. While Alabama will probably not lose a seat, in order for the Davis district (that has a nice ring) to continue to successfully elect an African-American to Congress, it’s going to look a lot funnier that it does now. Look for more of the southwestern corner of the state to be added—the district may dip down into Mobile County. Congressman Bonner may not be too upset to lose Pritchard. We’re probably looking at a big triangle where more of Montgomery and more of Birmingham will be added as well. In addition, whoever wins the 2010 election in the 7th will have to face a whole bunch of new constituents in 2012.

The more homogenous these districts become, the more “purple” candidates and “purple” politics are marginalized. A moderate DEM cannot get nominated nor elected in Alabama’s 6^th, nor can a moderate REPUB win in the 7^th. But I’ve been on this soapbox for many years.

The most interesting thing I learned in preparing for this panel discussion is the national impact of redistricting; I had not considered nor thought much about what might happen. As you know, the CENSUS count directly affects all district lines—from CD’s and state legislative districts to county commissions, city council districts, and even bodies like boards of education. Lines are drawn on the basis of population, and population shifts. In the last ten years, we have seen a shift from North to South and East to West. The result is likely to be a loss of northern CD’s (mostly blue) and a gain of south/southwestern CD’s (mostly red). I looked at a couple of analyses and did a little math and concluded that the 2012 elections will result in a gain (forgetting what might happen in elections) of between 10 and 15 Republican seats. For example, Mass, Michigan, Ohio, and NY will likely lose seats. Texas may gain 4 (two of which are probably going to be aimed at electing Hispanics).

If you assume that the 2010 elections will bring losses to the Democrats in the U.S. House no matter what, another 10+ Republican seats in 2012 will very likely result in a Republican majority. Can you say Speaker Boehner?

HAPPY FEBRUARY, y’all.

Suffering from Political Hangover

Natalie Davis — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:01:45 +0000

It has taken me a while to get back to “Purple Dot,” mainly because I have been suffering from a kind of political hangover. Since Christmas, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to what’s going on in our politics. I guess I haven’t changed my mind about the quality or lack thereof civil discourse. Does anybody think that politics — whether conservative, liberal, or moderate — can succeed? It’s getting to the point that party labels, which people say don’t mean much anymore, are so controlling at the national and state levels that we cannot come to agreement on anything. I’m afraid that if I tell you that I was yelling “Roll Tide” throughout the Alabama-Texas game, I would be accused of all kinds of bias.

In a phrase, “I’m sick of it.” I’m sickened that 51 votes is not enough to pass anything in the U.S. Senate. I’m sickened that no one seems to sense that our political system is failing us so badly that even people like me who revel in the give-and-take of politics are so turned off that they wonder whether any of this is worth it. I told someone recently that idealism and cynicism are two sides of the same coin. For example, newspaper reporters are often thought to be cynical guys and gals. They’ve seen it all. And they can tell you who’s lying and what’s wrong with just about everything. Why do they notice all this negative stuff? They notice it because they’re idealists at heart. That may be my problem.

Just think of the all of the craziness that we have been subjected to in the last couple of weeks and months. Glenn Beck? Why is this guy on television at all? Keith Olbermann? Who wants to listen to his “comments”? Sunday talk, which is supposed to be more mainstream, features Liz Cheney as an analyst. Give me a break.

I don’t think there’s any stopping any of this by the way. I don’t think this explains why I haven’t been able to get back to this blog, but it gives you a sense of why I’ve been a little immobile. Maybe 2010 will be better year, but as Eyor might say, “I doubt that.”

VOTING IN BIRMINGAM AND BOSTON

First, Birmingham. I tried to build a model of how this election will turn out. And turnout was the key factor in understanding William Bell’s win. The model assumed that Bell would get about two-thirds of the African-American vote. I also assumed he would get 5 percent (and this was a conservative estimate) of the white vote. Different turnout figures yielded different results. In the case of a low turnout runoff — say 25 percent — Patrick Cooper had an advantage. At 30 percent, it would be a one-point race. At 40 percent (which is where we ended up) Bell would win. The final result, 54-46, suggests that Bell over- performed in white boxes and that he was successful in his GOTV plan.

This was clearly a down-and-dirty race as we approached election day. I thought a television ad which featured Sharon Bell, William’s wife, was the most effective of the campaign. She took on the charge that her husband had abused her; at the same time the ad raised the issue of Patrick Cooper’s divorce and the fact that his ex-wife was not African-American (photo inserted). Lots of things were going on in this 30 second ad, and the firm of MATRIX was masterful in putting it together. Patrick Cooper’s last ad was a testimonial from Andrew Young. Its effort was to connect Patrick vicariously to the Civil Rights movement via an endorsement from the former Mayor of Atlanta. The ad I saw 60 seconds, 40 of which featured photos of 1963 Birmingham, Martin Luther King, and Andrew Young. It was not until the last 20 seconds that Patrick Cooper’s name was even mentioned. This was in part an effort to counter Bell’s argument that Cooper was an outsider, because he had no roots in Birmingham. (He did move to Birmingham in 1994.) I fully expected a response ad from the Bell camp which asked the simple question, “You had to go to Atlanta to get an endorsement?”

A final note on campaign advertising here. Chris Talley ran an attack ad against William Bell (and one wonders where the money came from). The ad ends with, “Vote Chris Talley For County Commission.” There are no County commission races until the June primary. Let’s see about this logic. If you are Chris Talley running against William Bell for county commission, wouldn’t you want him to win the mayor’s race? So, why would you run an ad where the intent is for him to be beaten? Go figure.

Then there was Boston. Pre-election polls taken in the last week turned out to be on the money when it came to the final outcome. It is a definite blow to the Democratic machine in Massachusetts and also to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Senate, And a Democratic President. This bid we will hear today is likely to be that this was not a national election. Massachusetts voters are tired of the Democratic machine in their state and weaknesses of state government there. Of course, if you’re following any of this, it is clear that health care reform could be dead. The House could pass the Senate version of the bill, and it would all be over. The President would only need to sign it. Senator- elect Brown will not be certified for several days, and it is conceivable that a deal could be struck in the interim allowing Paul Kirk, Sen. Kennedy’s temporary replacement, to vote in favor of a Senate-House compromise. They might move to reconciliation, which would only require 51 votes. Or, it might be dead for quite a while — 15 years.

Next week, maybe we can talk about lighter subjects — like bingo.

THANKSGIVING JUST IN TIME

Natalie Davis — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:05:32 +0000

THE WASHINGTON SAUSAGE FACTORY
Watching the health care debate reminds me of the old joke about “loving the law and liking sausage.” Start with the vote taken Saturday night. Harry Reid and the Dems prevailed on the vote to proceed with debate on the health care reform bill. To get to 60 votes, the bill had to include a number of goodies for Senators who may not vote for the bill in the end. For example, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) got $300 million for Medicaid. Republicans rightly claimed this was akin to the “Louisiana Purchase” (times 10). She strongly defended herself saying that, given Katrina, Louisiana needed the money. Moreover, there was no quid pro quo since she has no intention of voting for the bill (as written)! Senators Ben Nelson, Ron Wyden, and Blanche Lincoln also got concessions: removing health insurance companies’ exemption from anti-trust laws (Nelson), expanding health care coverage eligibility (Wyden), and more time to think about the bill (Lincoln). This is just the beginning. Just wait until the real vote(s) come. Old “tiresome” Lieberman went along (he said he would) but will not vote for cloture at the end of the debate unless or until the public option is removed. No one is talking about either Senators Snowe or Collins. I’m betting one of these two will sub for Lieberman as the 60th vote. Another Senator that I have thought might help out the President and Reid is Voinivich of Ohio. He’s retiring and is mad at everyone.

The Congress is off this week (something to be thankful for), but will be back next week to debate the bill. They may even have to work on Monday! Reid’s goal is to get a vote before Christmas and come back in January to reconcile House and Senate versions and then go to conference. The question is whether the Senate can come together again for 60 votes to break a predictable Republican filibuster. I’m not counting on any of this happening. Will Mary get another $300 mil? Besides cost, a minor distraction, don’t forget key substantive issues remaining, such as abortion, the public option, and mammograms. There are 17 women in the Senate. Many got into politics because they strongly support the “choice” side of the abortion debate. Will they all give in, in order to have some bill go to the Pres?

Mammograms—just what the President needed. The recommendation made by some non-governmental advisory board saying that women need not get mammograms before age 50 nor do self examinations (unless there is a family history of breast cancer or other concerns) was not well-received outside of the medical establishment. Interestingly, a number of well known women and breast cancer survivors, including Karen Tumulty of TIME and Carly Fiorina, Republican candidate for Governor in California, took on the report. The issue is interesting: The odds of mammograms detecting breast cancer are “1 in 1900.” What is the trade-off between the unlikelihood of detecting the cancer and being exposed to 10 hits or more of all that radiation? While the odds of finding cancer are long, 1 in 1900 is still a pretty large number of women.

The President’s popularity slipped again this week. The RCP average on favorability is right at 50 percent. The Gallup, for the first time, has Obama at 49. On the “right direction/wrong track” question, RCP’s average puts “wrong track” ahead by 19 points (57-38). On top of that, the unemployment rate climbed to more than 10 percent. That’s the number which has to change. While I am certain the White House “gets” the bind it is in, I don’t think those folks have a clue. Another stimulus cannot pass. Foreign trips usually boost popularity, but we’ve seen this movie before. And many Americans need a break from hearing their President speak and speak and speak—at least I do.

Then there’s Sarah. She’s in Birmingham today. I confess I did not stand in line to get a wristband, which would have allowed me to stand in line to get her to sign my book (that I don’t plan to buy). If any of you are lucky enough to be one of the 1,000, let us know about your experience. In the first three days, Sarah has sold 300,000 copies. This compares with 200,000 for Hillary and 400,000 for former President Bill.

ON THE HOMEFRONT
Here in Birmingham, qualifying for Mayor is over, and we have 14 candidates. Most observers think there are four or five serious candidates. (John Archibald of the BHAM NEWS put together a wonderful play-off draw similar to the final four—check it out to see the seeds.) Patrick Cooper is the most visible; lots of television, yard signs, and annoying robocalls. Patrick has one TV ad featuring his father, a retired Marine officer. I think the ad is pretty effective. Its appeal is to older voters, who may be concerned about a young guy coming in; Patrick is not that young… Patrick is probably counting on a solid white vote to get him in the runoff. That vote may not be as solid as it was in his race in 2007. Many voters living on Birmingham’s “Southside” are resentful of his endorsement of Howard Bayliss over Valerie Abbott. They believe he is responsible for a particularly nasty piece of literature that came out near the end of recent city council elections.

By comparison, other candidates are less visible. Emory Anthony, William Bell, Scott Douglas, and Carole Smitherman have yard signs; Bell is doing some direct mail. There have already been a number of forums. I will be moderating one on December 1st sponsored by Catalyst at Work-Play. Count on lots of activity after Thanksgiving; the first round of voting will be held on December 8th. At this point, you’d have to “guess” that Cooper makes the runoff with either Smitherman or Bell. “Guess” is the operative word, because no one has a clue about turnout, nor what a high or low turnout might mean. Because turnout is so dicey, polling is not going to be really helpful in predicting the vote. On Tuesday, November 24th, the new City Council will be sworn in. Will Carole Smitherman be re-elected Council President and thereby keep her position as Acting Mayor OR will a different Councilor be elected President, dsiplacing Carole as Acting Mayor? Stay tuned.

Statewide, it’s been quiet. Gwen Ifill spoke at Birmingham-Southern College this week. Her book, “Breakthrough Generation: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” (now in paper), has a chapter on Artur Davis. In the Q & A, Davis’s opposition to health care reform along with Jesse Jackson’s comments to the Congressional Black Caucus were mentioned. Jackson’s speech referenced the 7th District Congressman, saying, “You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man.” Many are concerned that Davis is far too willing to sell out too soon, “just” to be elected in 2010. I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t become a “Sister Souljah” moment for Congressman Davis.

HOPE YOU HAVE A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

WHERE TO BEGIN …

Natalie Davis — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:21:48 +0000

I know I’m behind and the topics to address keep growing. Let’s start with where I left off.

STATUS: BHAM MAYOR
I mentioned the Mayoral contest in Birmingham. At least one of you noted that I had omitted Scott Douglas, Executive Director of Greater Birmingham Ministries, from the list. I have since talked with Scott, and he tells me that he picked up his papers and he is running. In fact, he was to announce this morning in Kelly Ingram Park. Last week, he met with a political consultant and got a reality check on budget. The budget started at $200,000. While all beginning budget figures are always inflated, still, to raise even $80-$125k with less than 30 days to go is more than daunting. For Scott to do well, he will have to run an insurgent campaign. As a grassroots organizer, he has to activate his network, which is largely poor—an online moveon.org-type campaign won’t happen. He’ll needs lots of volunteers and shoe leather.

William Bell was also to announce today in Linn Park. Other candidates are on the move. Patrick Cooper is running TV ads, Carole Smitherman and Emory Anthony have announced. [There are other candidates in the hunt, including Edith Mayomi, Stephanie Sigler Huey, Jimmy, Snow, Harry “Traveling Shoes” Turner, Ernie Dunn, and T.C. Cannon.] As of this blogging, Steven Hoyt has not made his intentions public.

SOME NATIONAL STUFF
On the national front, two items: Nancy Pelosi and the DEMS plus Republican Congressman Joseph Cao of LA won the day in passing the House health care bill–220 to 215. We’ll see what happens in the Senate. Will the abortion language from the Stupak amendment migrate to the Senate? That’s very likely. How will the bill be financed? House and Senate versions do it differently. And what will Joe Lieberman do? He is getting tiresome.

The results from last week’s elections in VA, NJ, and NY should cause both DEMS and REPUBS to worry. Pollster.com has some interesting charts on President Obama’s performance ratings: 56% on favorability; 50% on job approval; 45% on health care reform; 44% on the economy. Americans love the President; they just aren’t overly impressed with his work. This inability to transfer popularity either to performance ratings or other candidates must be worrisome to the White House. Is this becoming a kind of cult of personality?

So, were the results in VA and NJ a referendum on the President? DEMS say, “of course not.” REPUBS, not surprisingly, opine “he’s cooked.” Both are probably a little bit correct. We really won’t know until we get through the health care debate and final passage (if that happens). But results in New Jersey should be seen as a “red” flag (you should excuse the expression) to Democrats. The President visited the state four different times, and still, GOTV did not work. In both VA and NJ, only half as many young voters turned out as turned out in 2008. Black turnout was down as well. The Independent vote went overwhelmingly to the Republicans. According to the exit polls, white independents voted Republican by about a 70 to 30 (Sounds like Alabama).

Now, I expected a Republican victory in VA, but with a President stumping for you in a blue state like NJ, you ought to win. The alternative view, and one which clearly has merit, is that Corzine was a disaster as a Governor. Maybe he could move to NYC and challenge Bloomberg next time around. Can you imagine the budgets for that campaign! If the President cannot help Democrats in a BLUE state, where can he help? The White House has to be concerned about this. Until the jobless rate comes down, the President may not be asset.

Republicans have troubles of their own. In NY-23, you know what happened. The 3rd candidate in the race, supported by Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, caused Republican Dede Scozzafava to withdraw (though she got 5 percent of the vote); this resulted in a win for the Democrat Bill Owens. No Democrat had been elected from that district since the 19th century. (I actually think I know the year—1852ish—but if I get it wrong—someone will surely point it out.) The extreme right is now after Charlie Crist of Florida. It is lining up with Mr. Rubio in the 2010 race for U.S. Senate. Will Olympia Snowe be a target in 2012? A poll released yesterday found Maine Republicans ready to dump their senior senator; they say they would vote for a generic conservative over Snowe 59 to 31.

Polls differ on party identification, but most put Republican Party id between 17 and 28 percent nationally. Is the Republican Party a national party, or is it fast becoming a regional party? It’s not that Democrats are doing so well—it’s that Republicans are marginalizing themselves, leaving them in the posture of “being the party of no.”

Ironically, that’s actually working for REPUBS. I saw results from a “generic” poll on preference for a “D” or an “R” for Congress. Democrats were preferred over Republicans—48 to 44—pretty close; a few months ago, the gap was considerable. However, on the re-elect #, 52 percent said they would vote to re-elect their Congressman. Only Independents said they would not—about 42 percent would vote to re-elect.

NOTE: Gwen Ifill, host of PBS’s “Washington Week” will speak at Birmingham-Southern College next week. Her topic is “American Politics in the Age of Obama” Y’all Come! Here are the details:

DATE : NOVEMBER 19
WHERE: Birmingham-Southern College
Bruno Great Hall
Norton Student Center (3rd Floor)
TIME : 4PM

FIRST THOUGHTS ON THE RACE FOR BIRMINGHAM’s NEXT MAYOR

Natalie Davis — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:09:38 +0000

Let’s see how much trouble I can bring upon myself this week

BHAM MAYORAL RACE: The conviction of Mayor Larry Langford was the story last week. The official period of “mourning” lasted about 20 minutes. Rep. John Rogers said it was actually five minutes before his cell phone started ringing with talk of who will be the next Mayor. The cast of characters are by and large well known: Carole Smitherman (now acting Mayor), Patrick Cooper, Emory Anthony, Steven Hoyt, William Bell, AND the elephant in the room … former Mayor Richard Arrington. Lesser known potentials are Robert Kelly (a businessman) and possible Police Chief A. C. Roper. No doubt there was some polling done over the weekend. It’s difficult to handicap the race this early, except to say that, given a short window before the first round, name recognition counts.

It’s not that the race started Thursday. Those planning to run probably started getting money commitments long before the trial began. Smitherman is likely to have a leg up here. In a way, she has the upper hand. She can use this short time period to impress voters. She can set a course, promise a new day, and somehow interest voters in something. It doesn’t have to be a big idea–I recall a race in Austin, Texas, a few years ago. The winning candidate talked of economic development, of greening the city, all the grandest of visions. But what really caught the imagination of voters was his promise to re-configure the traffic lights, so that they would be properly staggered! Most believe that’s what won it for him. Traffic lights were hopeless out of sync, and rush hour congestion was terrible. Voters could really get their arms around something as simple as this, and they believed he could do that, even if the big ideas were out of reach. Carole is low key. She’s not going to give a charismatic speech that will get people out of their chairs. But she can offer a few fixes for the City, and that might just work. She also will have a lot of free media.

The other candidates are hard to assess, and I have lots of questions. Can Patrick Cooper put together another strong campaign? Will voters warm to his temptation to say, “I told you so… ?” Emory Anthony has run before, but did not capture the imagination of voters. Since those runs, he has been more active in the community. Can that pay off for him? Is Steven Hoyt, current city councilor, known outside his district? William Bell appears to be the grown-up on the JEFFCO Commission. He’s also earning a decent salary. While he does not have to give up his seat to run, how does he weigh these factors against a dream to become mayor? He’s lost twice. Chief Roper, according to some, will not run. If he was ever interested, this would be the time. Clearly, he is a respected figure. People care about crime. He’s done well. Wouldn’t he have a good shot? Can Robert Kelly overcome lack of name recognition. How much money would it take?

Richard Arrington is seen to be “dithering.” He would like to return to City Hall, but his lack of success in getting others elected to the City Council is a red flag. My own view is that he would be formidable. He might not be able to get others elected, but his currency as being sure and steady is likely a plus. Voters want stability right now. Arrington offers that. Whether he offers anything more is problematic. Many want a return to the good old days. But if he runs, he’ll have to work to win. No one will give it to him.

Of course, no one wins this thing outright (though Langford did). There will be a run-off. That fact that it is six weeks after the first round is outrageous.

ELECTION DAY TOMORROW: New Jersey and Virginia have gubernatorial races tomorrow. It looks like the Republican, Mr. McDonnell, will defeat the Democrat, Mr. Deeds. The NewJersey race looks close (though a PPP poll showed Christie ahead by 7 this morning). There is an independent in the race. Typically, voters move away from the independent. It’s likely that Christie will take that group 60-40. If it is close, Corzine will win.

The most interesting race is NY-23. This House race now pits the DEM, Bill Owens, against the CONSERVATIVE, Doug Hoffman. The REP, Dede Scozzafava, withdrew over the weekend; her numbers were dropping to below 20. The Republican establishment, led by Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich, were supporting Ms. Scozzafava. Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin sided with Mr. Hoffman. This is a reliably Republican district. It became vacant when the President appointed the incumbent to be Secretary of War. Democrats think they can win this seat, but I’d be surprised. Hoffman will win. There’s more to this, but I’ll save it for another blog. Tomorrow, the Republicans will tell us that whatever happens was a repudiation of the Obama administration. The Democrats will say that their losses should be seen as either inept campaigns or irrelevant–”all politics is local,” anyway.

COMING UP: THE REPUBLICAN AG RACE

DAVIS-SPARKS REDUX

Natalie Davis — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:21:45 +0000

Last Friday night, the NAACP held a Gubernatorial forum (have you ever wondered why we don’t call these guys “gubernators?”) featuring Artur Davis and Ron Sparks. I was asked to share the moderating duties with Rev. Anthony Johnson. The crowd numbered about 150. The questions were submitted to the NAACP, and members of that group selected 11. Each candidate had an opening and closing statement and each got a chance to respond to each question. I came away with these impressions:

• First, there was little if any confrontation. In a couple of instances, Congressman Davis tried to take on Commissioner Sparks—he argued that Sparks changes his positions depending on the audience he addresses. For example, Sparks told the crowd he would support a “public option.” Davis claimed he told the BCA just the opposite.

• Sparks went after Davis for acting like a Republican.

• There was some back and forth on the issue of gambling, with Davis taking the position that he was not against gambling and wanted to tax it NOW as the same rate as other states. He contended that Sparks would not say how much gambling would be taxed. Davis would put most of his eggs in the Constitutional Reform basket. Davis also wants to tax big out-of-state timber.

• Davis also criticized Sparks for going to Selma and advocating the building of a casino, instead of building new and better schools. Sparks shot back that what Selma needs NOW are quality jobs, and a new casino might be just the remedy.

• Both candidates acquitted themselves well. No real “sparks” flew (OK—that was cheap). I don’t think any minds were changed, nor did I think the audience was engaged. It was Friday night after all.

I have to say I was impressed with the way Ron Sparks handled himself. He has a populist message that serves him well, and I thought he connected well with this largely African-American audience. Though I still think he has a mountain to climb, were he to survive the primary, I think he could be very competitive in the general. Could we have another case of a candidate who wins the primary but falls short in the general vs. a candidate who loses the primary but has a better shot at winning the general? Been there…done that.

NEXT BLOG: THE REPUBLICAN AG PRIMARY

ARRINGTON ENDORSES WHO(M)?

Natalie Davis — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:54:14 +0000

I know we’re paying a lot more attention to the Langford trial than to the 2010 Governor’s race, but how can we not talk about former Mayor Richard Arrington’s endorsement of Ron Sparks over Artur Davis? Over the years, I have been an admirer of Mayor Arrington. He’s a Ph.D. in zoology, for goodness sake. And if anybody knows about the zoo Alabama is, he would. I voted for him when he first ran in 1979 and continued to support him thereafter. When I ran for the Senate in 1996, I sought his counsel and support. He told me that he wanted to support me, but he didn’t think I could win. “Natalie, my heart is with you, but my head tells me that while you might beat the Republican, you can’t win the primary.” In the end, I was able to secure a co-endorsement with Glen Browder. While I took Jefferson County handily (including the black vote), we both lost to Roger Bedford in the primary; Roger was beaten by Jeff Sessions.

So, Arrington is at it again. His “head” tells him that Artur Davis can’t win the general election—so, he’s putting time and effort into trying to defeat him in the primary. Endorsing Sparks? Can Sparks rally beat Davis in the primary? You have to ask why the establishment is so intent on bringing down Davis. They claim “it’s nothing personal…” They believe Davis will “bring down the ticket”—jeopardizing Democratic majorities in the State House and Senate. Where’s the evidence of coattails in Alabama? FACT: In 2008, Democrat Bobby Bright won in the 2nd CD—Did Obama bring down the Democratic ticket? FACT: In 2006, Bob Riley had a big win over Lucy Baxley. Yet, Sue Bell Cobb still beat Drayton Nabors. [NOTE: Judge Pete Johnson, the biggest vote getter in 1998 in Jefferson County, once told me his coattails did carry Don Siegelman! ]

Now, I’m a skeptic when it comes to the electability of Artur Davis in November of 2010. I know the polling thus far gives him more than a fighting chance. I have an open mind about this, but if it’s a 40-40-20 race now, the 20 percent who are undecided are mostly white and could easily go in one direction—to the Republican candidate. Let’s don’t kid ourselves. This is Alabama. I’d never count Artur Davis out, but I think it’s a stretch to put him in the Guv’s Mansion just yet.

I do think that given his smarts and toughness and money and race, he is the odds-on favorite to win the primary. There’s a certain reality here. Given the composition of the Democratic primary electorate (half or more will be African-American), Davis should win. Ron Sparks may have run statewide and won as Commissioner of Agriculture (and Industries), but he’s not a household name. Democratic leaders who invest time and energy in trying to defeat Davis are engaging in self-destructive behavior. By bloodying up the frontrunner, don’t they risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy come November of 2010? Congressman Davis is not going away. He may be a Don Quixote, but he is a man intent on making history. And if history is on his side, and he does become Governor, he’ll remember who was with him when.

Democrats who support Ron Sparks for the right reasons, because they genuinely believe he’d be good for our state, should get out there and work for him. But those in leadership positions who are supporting Sparks for the most cynical of reasons are not helping the Democratic Party. They are doing what they have always done—believing politics is nothing more than a football game, a game they’ve really been losing since 1986. They need to decide whether the game is worth more than the future of the state.

Mayor Arrington seems to want to get back in the game. Depending on the outcome of the Langford trial, he may return to City Hall. The days of the power of the Citizens Coalition and endorsements and ballots are over. Getting an endorsement from Richard Arrington does not get one elected to the City Council—ask Sheila Tyson, Elias Hendricks, and LeRoy Bandy. And it probably won’t get one elected Governor. Of course, I might be wrong about all of this…

NOTE: This post was edited and corrected thanks to your comments.

WEEK OF THE WOMAN

Natalie Davis — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:18:25 +0000

Having survived my first post, I probably should quit while I’m ahead. Thanks for all of your encouraging words.

It’s been a good week for women. First, Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist, won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work in economics (go figure). OK, the Nobel Prize “ain’t” what it used to be… Then, Senator Olympia Snowe may have earned a Profile in Courage Award for being the lone Republican on the Senate Finance Committee to vote in favor of the Baucus health care reform bill. She’s been on just about every news and talk show since. I was pretty impressed with her. She’s a gifted communicator—not only do the words come easily, but she seems to actually believe what she says. Speaker Pelosi, defending the “public option,” has drawn a wiggly line in the sand saying that Olympia will not control the final outcome. Don’t bet on it. When it comes down to it, the Senate will be driving this process. Snowe indicated that she could live with a “trigger.” If competition does not result from the legislation, she’d consider going to a public option. Apparently, that was in the RX Medicare legislation in 2004. Since prescription drug plans for seniors are highly competitive, she thinks the same will happen with the so-called insurance “exchange.”

There is a difference, though. As I understand it (and please help me out if I am mistaken), the exchange will not be a national exchange. Insurance companies will have to meet individual state requirements before they can enter the exchange. Now, Blue Cross may very well offer reductions to those whose employers do not offer health care benefits, but premiums are not likely to be any cheaper than they are for those who have group policies now. My employer tells us that Blue Cross has already announced increasing rates by more than 10 percent for our group. Seems like that’s not very politic of them (big hikes in the middle of the health care debate?). I asked a friend why they would do this right now—his answer? “Because they can!”

OTHER STUFF

• Terry Sewell continues to raise more money than anyone else in the race for the 7th CD. The question is whether money will make the difference in this race.

• I just came back from Washington and asked about the status of Dr. Regina Benjamin, the President’s nominee for Surgeon General. Republicans have apparently put a hold on her nomination. Speculation is they want to keep her out of the health care debate. She is a compelling advocate—by putting her nomination in a kind of limbo status, she is likely to remain relatively quiet.

• When the Pres responded glibly to the Katrina question on why the government was not responsive to the need for a full service hospital, I thought he looked pretty lame. (He said, “I just can’t write a check; there’s this thing called the Constitution and Congress.”) The truth is he can probably write a check. Then, he goes off to a fundraiser in SF where the price of a meal is 34K per couple. Sends a terrible message.

• The Administration is bent upon taking on/down FOX News. Why would they do that? “Because they can!”

• The Langford trial cranks up today. Anybody make it to the vigil?

LET’s THINK PURPLE

Natalie Davis — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:30:40 +0000

So, I finally decided to give it a try. This is my first attempt at a serious (or not so serious) blog. As we gear up for the 2010 elections, I thought that it might be useful, helpful, or just plain fun to contribute to Doc’s Political Parlor. I have been accessing “Doc” for quite awhile and have come to rely on him for some of the best political intelligence there is for Alabama.

“The Purple Dot Connection” is my effort to have a conversation about politics which relies on civil discourse. I hope that does not mean it has to be boring. To be honest, I’ve had it with the far left and the far right. County-by-county analysis of the 2008 election showed America, including Alabama, looked a lot more purple than “red” or “blue.” I came away thinking America just might be on the road to some great times. But 2009 has been anything but that. Granted, we have been through a lot: recession bordering on depression, TARP—a bailout for the big guys; an enormous amount of stimulus money that does not seem to exist anywhere; the probability of double-digit unemployment; healthcare reform which has been difficult not only to understand but also to swallow; and not to minimize the war in Iraq, a continuing and perhaps permanent war in Afghanistan. The dialogue surrounding these issues is anything but purple.

Let me play professor for just a minute … A few years ago, E. J. Dionne wrote a wonderful book, Why Americans Hate Politics. His thesis was simple. Politicians want to talk about issues. We want to talk about solving problems. The truth about Americans, even Alabamians, is that most of us are a little left of center or a little right of center. The center moves from time to time, but very few people are on the very far right or the very far left. However, to be nominated by one’s political party, whether for a state legislative seat or the Presidency, the candidate must earn the support of people on the far ends of their respective parties. They’re the ones who fund campaigns; they’re the ones who vote in primaries. So, strident candidates from both party camps go on to compete in November. Most of us lining up to vote end up saying, “Who are these guys?” [And we know that most of them are “guys.”] “What’s in it for me?”

When you begin to take on the kinds of problems we face, we know the stakes are high. That’s why health care reform is so hot. Afghanistan? Serious stuff. Appeals to the extremes, to our worst instincts, are not what we need. That does not mean we abandon principles. It does not mean that we give up on great ideas. What it means is that we approach these problems not from the point of view of FOX News or MSNBC, but in a way that demonstrates respect for those who might not share these principles or big ideas. I’ll quit preaching.

My effort, (and we’ll see how long it lasts) is to try to steer to the middle. I’ll lay my cards on the table. I am a little left of center. If I get too far out there, I know you will reign me back in. But I hope to raise some issues and talk about politics in a way that suggests we can all be part of one conversation.

And we have a lot to talk about. This blog is going to focus on both national and state politics. We may have an historic election in 2010, right here in Alabama. All of the constitutional offices are up, every legislative seat is up, at least three supreme court seats will be on the ballot, county commission races, not to mention BINGO! Jefferson County in bankruptcy? A Birmingham mayor to be tried? It doesn’t get better than that.

And, we’ll be looking at some of the most interesting issues and races across the country. Will the 2010 Congressional elections resemble 1994? Republicans certainly hope so. Is it possible that Democrats may exceed sixty seats in the Senate. It’s too early to tell, but it’s a lot fun to speculate.

If there is a topic you want to talk about, just say so–but I’ll get us going in a couple of days. Hope this works. So, for the time being, let’s think purple.

Disclaimer: This blog reflects the views of its author and not in any way the views of Birmingham-Southern College.