Gubernatorial candidates at CCA

By Jennifer J. Foster

Take a look at this picture:

Yes, it looks like the annual convention of the Grey Suit Society. But it wasn’t.

It was a gubernatorial forum, and six of the eight announced candidates for governor of Alabama converged on Taylor Road Baptist Church last night for the event sponsored by the Christian Coalition of Alabama.

In attendance were, from left, Republicans Robert Bentley, Bill Johnson and Tim James, Democrat Artur Davis, and Republicans Bradley Byrne and Roy Moore.

Absent were Democratic candidate Ron Sparks and Republican candidate Kay Ivey. The word on the street is that Ivey stayed away because she was frosted about some comments the head of the Christian Coalition of Alabama made about her failure vis-à-vis Alabama’s PACT (prepaid college tuition) program. Sparks’ absence, however, is “the bigger mystery,“ as one politico put it to me.

Maybe it had something to do with not wanting to talk to the Christian Coalition about his plan to save Alabama with gambling. But I’m just speculating.

Anyway, you can read Charles Dean’s roundup of the get-together over at the Birmingham News—and then you can round out that picture by reading this account from my friend Kris, who was there. Kris is to the left of center, but I find that we have much in common; we both detest partisanship for partisanship’s sake and are focused on finding common ground to achieve real progress on issues facing our state and federal governments.

Kris has a great, and somewhat surprising, perspective on all that was said.

In addition, Kris and a few others offered on-the-spot updates via Twitter. Check them out at:

@TWAY_Kris;

@michelle_cc;

@derektrotter;

@lenorev; and

@brentbuc (note: @brentbuc is a Bentley consultant).

A couple of notes on things that were said:

Regarding Bill Johnson, I’m still struggling to understand him as a candidate. I know he’s trying to make economic development the cornerstone of his campaign, but that already is a major issue for everyone else—and they had been talking about it for a while before he was even in the race (he was the last GOP candidate to dive in). If I was asking questions, I would have asked him to define very specifically for Alabamians what he brings to the table that is that much better than anyone else in the race. What does he offer Alabamians in fuller measure or purer form than what the others are discussing? I haven’t heard him make that case yet, and for me to view him as a serious candidate, he’s going to have to do it at some point.

Regarding Artur Davis, how refreshing it is to see a Democrat speak the truth about the Alabama Education Association, get behind the need to honestly consider charter schools as part of the education solution, forthrightly bottom-line the situation with health care in Washington and advocate forcefully a new state constitution. Davis is a breath of fresh air, someone who isn’t operating under the spell of the AEA and all its dough—which is why, unfortunately, those in power have continually sought to find someone to run against him. The more uncomfortable Paul Hubbert and the AEA are with Davis, the better and more authentic his candidacy looks to me.

And as for Tim James, he’s obviously fond of using that old line about how he’s “not a professional politician.“ But that always gives me pause. Yes, there is a case to be made for citizens from all walks of life entering government and public service. But just as term limits unnecessarily strip voters of their choices, so does the negative connotation of “professional politicians” unfairly paint all lawmakers with the same brush. If you want to get into public service, there are plenty of places where you can get important experience—you don’t have to run for governor right out of the gate. Think of it this way: If you were hiring someone to run your $12 BILLION company, would you want to hire someone with no experience in that field? Tim James is a good businessman; he would never do it in his company.  Yet that is just what voters are asked to do when they are faced with a chief-executive candidate who has never worked in government.

Robert Bentley is giving good press to the idea of rolling reserve budgeting, and I am glad to see it. It’s important to remember that the rolling reserve idea originated with State Rep. Greg Canfield (R-Vestavia Hills) last legislative session (HB509, 2009 session). Canfield pleaded with lawmakers to institute the principle, which plans future budgets on the basis of budget growth and revenue receipts over the most recent 10-year period. But he was shut down by Democratic colleagues who didn’t like it, because they would be giving up absolute power over education appropriations, and Paul Hubbert didn’t much care for that idea—no matter that superintendents, who have to live within those budgets, were behind it. Rolling reserve budgeting is more than a good idea. It’s responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Failure to implement it, then, is nothing short of irresponsible and reckless.

Bradley Byrne is the only guy the AEA fears more than Davis, so that makes him an attractive candidate to me. Byrne has fought the fight against the AEA in many arenas, not the least of which was the two-year college system, in which so many AEA-supported legislators were entrenched in two (or, in some cases, three) taxpayer-funded jobs. Byrne got in there and cleaned up the mess left behind by Roy Johnson. Most recently, he’s gone toe to toe with the AEA on tenure reform (about which you have read here and here before). The governor’s mansion is the next logical place for Byrne to take his fight for ethics reform and the continuation of Gov. Bob Riley’s outstanding work on economic development and education.

As for Roy Moore, well ... I don’t know what to say about his candidacy. I just wonder whether he would be better suited to advance his agenda of returning morality to the public square from a private foundation. I’m sure his heart is in the right place, but it’s hard to imagine him abroad, recruiting foreign investors to Alabama, and taking on the entrenched power structure in Montgomery. I just don’t see it.

Question for public option advocates

By Jennifer J. Foster

Hey, all you public-option advocates out there, I have a question for you.

How do you feel about paying for abortions?

From TIME Magazine:

The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount “not less than $1 per month,“ according to the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage.

I have been telling you about this for months, and here it is again—this time, from TIME, a source that can’t exactly be described as “anti-abortion:“

The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government’s role in the financing of abortions. “It would be a dramatic shift,“ says Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who has vowed to oppose the bill because of how it would affect abortion. Stupak says dozens of House Democrats may join him in opposing a final health-care compromise unless the abortion language is changed, presenting a clear challenge to Democratic vote counters that could imperil a party-line vote.

It comes down to this: Since 1976, Congress has taken a “hands-off role” toward abortion services. And while the health care bill now moving through Congress doesn’t repeal the Hyde Amendment, which keeps government out of the abortion-funding business, it does make an end-run around it.

But it does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program — the so-called public option — without spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion. Instead, the only money the public insurance option could spend on abortion that does not involve rape, incest or the life of the mother would be money collected from members dues; or, in the words of supporters like Elizabeth Shipp, of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the plan “could only use private funds to pay for abortion services.“

The member dues, or premiums, to pay for expanded abortion coverage would be segregated from the federal tax dollars by keeping the money in separate internal accounts. “You are spreading the cost of the procedure over a public plan,“ explains Stupak. Under the legislation, the Executive Branch would have to make a determination that abortion is a basic medical service for the service to be provided, something the Obama Administration is expected to do.

So ... public-option advocates and progressives who are going to knock on doors to convince mainstream America that this bill is good for the country: Do you plan on also telling those Americans that if they participate in this new public option, they’ll be funding abortion services?

And let’s not forget one important thing: By setting up the public option this way, the federal government and the Obama Administration is creating a funding source for for-profit companies that perform abortions. Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world, is behind this bill, and it isn’t rocket science to try to figure out why.

Never mind whether it’s good policy. For Planned Parenthood and other for-profit abortion providers, it’s simply good business.

Give me a break

By Jennifer J. Foster

You know, I’m getting really tired of this.

Behold, Michael Tomasky’s latest piece in The U.K. Guardian.

The column is titled, “Change is tough. So liberals can’t just leave it to Obama.“ Tomasky’s credentials bear out his self-professed liberalism; his work has appeared in The Nation and The Village Voice.

But you know me; I’m not one to ignore someone’s ideas out of hand. So I read the column.

His piece seeks to encourage fellow liberals who are “disillusioned” because President Obama hasn’t been able to wave a magic wand and make everything all better since taking the oath of office. As it turns out, Tomasky was right about this:

In general, I’m pleased to report, I counselled that liberals should not delude themselves into over-interpreting the election results. They represented, I thought, a rejection of conservatism (for now), but not an embrace of liberalism. That would come only over time, and only if Obama and the congressional Democrats showed better results for people than Republicans had across a range of fronts.

I was seeing his point and even agreeing with him that liberals have to accept piecemeal change when the country isn’t ready for the wholesale version—at least, not the wholesale version liberals believe is necessary.

And then, I got this:

So now, liberals have to fight hard for something they’re not terribly excited about. A health bill will likely have a very weak public option or it won’t have one at all. But liberals will have to battle for that bill as if it’s life and death (which in fact it will be for thousands of Americans), because its defeat would constitute a historic victory for the birthers and the gun-toters and the Hitler analogists.

Because, you know, in the eyes of liberals like Tomasky, if you don’t support the kind of health care reform now working its way through Congress, chances are good that you are either A) a “birther,“ B) a “gun-toter,“ and/or C) a Hitler analogist.

Tomasky continues:

In the coming weeks, building toward a possible congressional vote in November, progressives will have to get out in force to show middle America that there’s support for reform as well as opposition, even though they may find the final bill disappointing.

Progressives, if you knock on my door in an attempt to show me that there’s support for your kind of reform as well as opposition, you’d darn sure better be willing, able and ready to forcefully and eloquently convince me that your movement isn’t full of people like Michael Tomasky. Don’t expect to occupy the moral high ground in your complaints against right-wing opposition tactics unless you are prepared to denounce the same kind of verbal firebombs lobbed from the left.

I’ll tell you this much: Judging from what I’ve read and heard over the past two weeks, you’re going to have an uphill battle on your hands.

Unfortunately for you, Michael Tomasky is no lone voice in the wilderness.

Maxine Waters, bipartisan compromiser extraordinaire

By Jennifer J. Foster

You gotta love Maxine Waters. True to her district, she’s all about the entertainment factor.

The kooky, longtime Los Angeles congresswoman was at it again this weekend while hosting a town hall meeting on health care reform.

Waters was making her case that further attempts at bipartisanship are futile because, and this is a quote: Some U.S. senators “are Neanderthals.“

Here it is in context, just so the good congresswoman can’t whine about her remarks being misinterpreted:

“Not only are we going to do everything we can to organize and put pressure on the senators — some of whom are Neanderthals — we’re going to say to the president, ‘We want you to use every weapon in your basket in order to get those senators to do what they should be doing,‘ “ she said.

Yes. I know that my ideas feel welcome at the table when I am being called a caveman. Hooray for true attempts at bipartisanship!!

And did you catch the last part of her statement—“Get those senators to do what they should be doing”—? Gee, Congresswoman Waters, I bet if you talked to their constituents, most of them would say they that by exercising caution on this issue and opposing a government health care plan, they are doing what they should be doing.

I hate to break it to you, Maxine, but you only represent the good folks of the California 35th. You say you seek to represent the values of your constituents; more power to you. But how dare you seek to substitute those values for anyone else’s?

Actually, there’s irony in Waters’ statement. Disrespecting and actually seeking to tamp down the perspectives and values of fellow Americans?

Talk about your backwards way of thinking.

Reid’s in trouble

By Jennifer J. Foster

Power, apparently, isn’t everything.

Harry Reid may be the majority leader of the United States Senate, but it looks like he is going to have his hands full in his bid for re-election next year.

According to a poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Reid trails his current GOP challenger, Danny Tarkanian, by 11 points, 49 percent to 38.

The poll’s margin of error is five points.

Get this: Reid, who controls the Senate and everything that goes on in it, is behind a guy whose major claim to fame is a basketball pedigree.

Even a potential candidate is beating Reid in a theoretical matchup: Sue Lowden, chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party and a possible candidate, leads Reid by five.

That doesn’t say a whole lot about Nevadans’ confidence in Reid.

Now, consider that the Silver State was solidly in the Democratic column on Election Day last year (Barack Obama beat John McCain by 13 points).

Hey, Harry: What does that tell you?