Recently in 2010 Election: Federal government Category

WASHINGTON - Somebody is trying to make 8th Congressional District Republican candidate Stephen Fincher's $250,000 bank loan, after declaring no assets or savings in his financial disclosure to the House clerk, look suspicious.

A new YouTube video circulated this afternoon by the press secretary of his Democratic opponent, Roy Herron, makes the case that Fincher has not explained how he was able to obtain the bank loan or what collateral he put up for it if he is in fact without assets or savings. Fincher's disclosure to the House clerk listed no bank accounts, no assets and income of $60,000 last year and $124,000 through May of this year.

Covington lawyer Houston Gordon, a former Democratic party chairman and candidate for the U.S. Senate, wrote to the U.S. Attorney in Memphis last week asking him to look into the accuracy and adequacy of Fincher's required disclosure to the House clerk. A Fincher spokesman said the effort was a "sideshow" and that Fincher has complied with all necessary disclosure requirements.

The video shows repeated examples of Fincher himself saying that the person voters send to Congress should be held accountable. He even suggests that if he's elected and he isn't accountable, voters should go get a rope and hang him.

The soundtrack is from the O'Jays "For the Love of Money," with the refrain, "Money, money, money, MONey."

See the video, whose provenance is at the moment unknown, here.

For political junkies, this is a pretty killer app from The New York Times and statistical guru Nate Silver, who has brought the algorithmic magic of his fivethirtyeight.com website to the Gray Lady. Several maps are available for viewing, showing every U.S. House, Senate and Governor race shaded based upon whether polls and voting history suggest it is Solid Republican (dark red), Leaning Republican (light red), Tossup (yellow), Leaning Democrat (light blue) or Solid Democrat (dark blue).

There are a total of 35 yellow "tossups" listed and you can't help but notice that, depending on the day, three of the tossups surround Memphis: Arkansas 1 (Democrat Chad Causey vs. Republican Rick Crawford), Mississippi 1 (Republican Alan Nunnelee vs. incumbent Democrat Travis Childers) and Tennessee 8 (Republican Stephen Fincher vs. Democrat Roy Herron). You'll be hearing and reading a lot about those races, since they are crucial to whether the Republicans can gain the majority of House seats.

Nowhere else on the map can you find three close races in such close proximity; indeed, the three districts, all of which border the Mississippi River and in fact are contiguous, could theoretically form one state (one very economically distressed state, but still). Call it Tenn-ark-issippi? Tarkissippi?

One of the interesting things about the current debate over whether the filibuster is unconstitutional, necessary to prevent majority overreach or whatever your viewpoint, is that views can flip depending on which party controls the Senate. In 2005, it was Democrats who extolled the virtues of the filibuster, because they were using it to block some of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Back then, there were calls by Republicans to trigger what some called the "nuclear option," which would have meant eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominees and likely would have led to the elimination of it altogether.

In 2005, at least a few liberal bloggers (here and here) were advocating that Democrats allow the filibuster to meet its demise, on the theory that political movements run in cycles and Democrats would have the majority at some point. And in 2005, many conservatives were saying use of the filibuster at that time by Democrats was wrong, unconstitutional, obstructionist, etc.

See excerpts below from the liberal bloggers in 2005 begging the then-minority Democrats to cut a deal with Republicans to break the filibuster:

Matthew Yglesias:

As conservative activist Jim Boulet Jr. has wisely argued in a memo to his comrades, the filibuster is crucial to conservatism. By his account, without it, majorities would exist to raise the minimum wage; reform labor law to make new union organizing easier; ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment; reduce greenhouse-gas emissions; and close the "gun-show loophole." . . . In the past, of course, the filibuster is most famous for its role in delaying the dawn of civil rights. Less well known is that it was integral to the defeat of Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993. If liberals ever get another chance to go for comprehensible health-care reform, the filibuster will once again rear its ugly head.

Nathan Newman

So the filibuster allows conservatives to block any decent policy proposed by progressive leaders, then when those conservatives are in office, they pass watered down versions of policies they know are inevitable, then take political credit for them. This is the broader political problem of the filibuster, which is that it creates continually divided and thus unaccountable government. And unaccountable government is used by conservatives to block policy under Democratic-dominated governments, grab credit for (halfway) measures when they are in office, then play faux populist games to run against a government conservatives may ultimately control.

And then there was this in 2005 from the conservative Weekly Standard:

Suddenly Democrats are wrapping themselves in the Constitution. Emphasizing his commitment to maintaining the filibuster as a way to stop President Bush's judicial nominees, Senate Democratic whip Richard Durbin said last week, "We believe it's a constitutional issue. . . . It's a matter of having faith in the Constitution." The trouble is, the filibuster is nowhere mentioned, or even implied, in the text of the Constitution.

There is no Senate campaign in Tennessee this year, which is sort of a shame, given the implications in Senate races for President Obama and also because there has been a recent spate of articles on the transformation of the Senate from one of the world's great "deliberative" institutions to one of the world's great "dysfunctional" political chambers.

An op-ed this week in The New York Times calls for various things, including going back to the future with filibuster rules that require the minority party to actually, you know, filibuster by reading from the phone book and bringing out the cots keeping those marginally in favor of obstruction motivated to continue. The column, by Norman Ornstein, does a nice job of explaining the filibuster and calls for modest reforms:

True, the filibuster has its benefits: it gives the minority party the power to block hasty legislation and force a debate on what it considers matters of national significance. So how can the Senate reform the filibuster to preserve its usefulness but prevent its abuse?

For starters, the Senate could replace the majority's responsibility to end debate with the minority's responsibility to keep it going. It would work like this: for the first four weeks of debate, the Senate would operate under the old rules, in which the majority has to find enough senators to vote for cloture. Once that time has elapsed, the debate would automatically end unless the minority could assemble 40 senators to continue it.

The New Yorker published a long narrative piece on the Senate which featured many passages focused on Tennessee's two senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. Here's one excerpt on Corker and the role he tried to play in fostering bi-partisan teamwork on a financial reform bill:

Finally, on February 10th, Dodd called Corker, who, though he was one of the committee's junior members, agreed to be the chairman's Republican negotiating partner. When Corker informed McConnell and Shelby, they expressed surprise. "It was an odd place to be," Corker recalled. "And yet that night we began meeting." The junior Republican savored the rare experience of creating, rather than opposing, legislation. In response, Shelby's conservative staff tried to undermine Corker, spreading rumors among Republicans and their lobbyists that he was giving too much away.

Alexander was featured as a kind of "institutionalist" who decried the polarization of the Senate but came out against changing rules to make it harder for the minority party to obstruct.

"They'll get over it," Alexander said of the Democrats' enthusiasm for rules reform. "And they'll get over it quicker if they're in the minority next January. Because they'll instantly see the value of slowing the Senate down to consider whatever they have to say." He added that the Senate "may be getting done about as much as the American people want done." The President's ambitious agenda, after all, has upset a lot of voters, across the political spectrum. None of the Republicans I spoke to agreed with the contention that the Senate is "broken." Alexander claimed that he and other Republicans were exercising the moderating, thoughtful influence on legislation that the founders wanted in the Senate. "The Senate wasn't created to be efficient," he argued. "It was created to be inefficient."

WASHINGTON - Donn Janes, the independent candidate for the 8th Congressional District seat now held by John Tanner, D-Tenn., said Tuesday he has accepted the invitation of Union University to debate his Republican and Democratic opponents.

The 90-minute debate at the Grants Event Center will take place on Oct. 5.

Both Democrat Roy Herron and Republican Stephen Fincher will also be on the stage for the event at the campus in Jackson.

The Washington City Paper took a cue from The Daily Show and produced its own version of what "honest" ads from that city's mayoral candidates, Adrian Fenty and Vincent Gray, might look like. We're thinking of maybe trying something similar with some of the contests on the Nov. 2 ballot here in Shelby County and Tennessee.

For example, maybe a Mike McWherter for governor ad where he just fesses right up to voters and says, "Hi, I'm Mike McWherter, and you know my name because a lot of you, especially in rural areas, loved having my Daddy as governor. And you need to know that our current governor, Phil Bredesen, is strongly supporting me and, like my Daddy, Gov. Bredesen was a responsible steward of the budget, didn't give money away to traditional Democratic interest groups and even made a lot of liberals angry. Also, they were Democrats, and we all know what happened to the budget when a Republican got elected. I'm Mike McWherter, and even though I'm spending a lot of my own money on this campaign, it's not as much as my opponent and, believe you me, it takes up a more substantial portion of my personal wealth than his. Also, my campaign is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. And you folks in Shelby County, don't forget I live just up the road in Madison and I've been reading The Commercial Appeal all my life and I don't need a GPS to get around Memphis."

How about this, off the top of my head, from McWherter's Republican opponent, Bill Haslam: "My family has a lot of money, a growing business empire and therefore, ergo, we have the clout to make people bring jobs to this state or else. And even though Phil Bredesen is supporting my opponent, he knows and I know and you know that I'm a lot more like Gov. Bredesen than my opponent. Gov. Bredesen took his wealth and private sector experience and got into politics ... just like ME! (Crissy Haslam head nods in the background) Phil Bredesen was mayor of NASH-ville; I'm the mayor of KNOX-ville (Crissy Haslam nodding). Democratic voters, please turn down your TV set for just a second. OK. Good. My fellow Republicans, I'm steadfast in my commitment to expanding rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, we've got to get control of the illegals  and we've got to stand up to Obama before we lose this country. You back, Democrats? (WINK at them). OK, remember Shelby County that my wife grew up right there in Memphis and her good friend is a schoolteacher who thinks I'm the best. I'm Bill Haslam, and the millions I'm spending to fund this campaign are the equivalent of a week's pay for most of you."

Any other thoughts in other races? It might be worth spending real money to come up with a Stephen Fincher-Roy Herron "honest" advertisement, though somehow you've got to believe The Daily Show cannot resist making a trip to Frog Jump for Indecision 2010, or whatever they will call it.

WASHINGTON - Unlike their counterparts in the 9th and 7th Congressional District races, Republican Stephen Fincher and Democrat Roy Herron will face off in a public debate for the 8th District seat Oct. 5 at Union University in Jackson.

Both campaigns confirmed they have agreed to the debate.

In the 9th, incumbent Steve Cohen, a Democrat, has said there's no reason to debate his Republican opponent. The day after both he and Charlotte Bergmann won their primaries, Cohen said some of the people backing Bergmann are "birthers" denying President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and others accuse him of seeking to create a Marxist state. He said those ideas are "not worthy of debate."

In the 7th, Marsha Blackburn, the Republic incumbent, has said she won't debate anyone who might consider voting to retain Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Greg Rabidoux, her Democratic opponent, said any incumbent should be required to defend her record in a debate with a qualified opponent.

One of the area's newer political science professors, University of Memphis assistant professor Eric Groenendyk, helped us out with a story earlier this week giving a preview to the Nov. 2 midterm elections. His field of study aligns with some of the themes emerging from this election cycle -- political psychology and specifically the role emotion and especially anger plays in motivating voters.

Groenendyk, who received his PhD at the University of Michigan, says, "Anger seems to be a very consistent predictor of political participation."

Historically, presidents usually see their parties suffer huge casualties in midterm elections, for various reasons. One reason -- a new president often helps the party win close races in districts that are essentially coin tosses that then go the other way in two years time. Winning an election, Groenendyk points out, also means making lots of promises and creating expectations that you'll make changes for the better. And even if a president succeeds in making changes, that often is to the president's detriment -- the opposition now can take aim at a record (think of President Obama on healthcare reform, the stimulus, foreign policy).

"You get anger when you have someone to blame and the president is an easy person to blame," Groenendyk said.

And that is consistent, historically, no matter the party of the sitting president. One exception to the rule was George w. Bush in 2002, when the public was approving of his handling of 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and tax cuts had raised individual incomes. Of course, Bush is blamed even by Republicans for the losses in 2006 and 2008. Which, again, is tied to anger. Although Obama's approval ratings are now in the low 40s, they are still higher than Bill Clinton's or Ronald Reagan's at the same point in their presidencies.

As Frank Newport, editor in chief for Gallup pointed out recently, "This is not all that unusual for the second year of the presidency."

Gallup polling, by the way, showed that 51 percent of "conservative" Republicans were "very enthusiastic" about voting in the midterm elections, compared to 29 percent for "liberal" Democrats and 24 percent for "moderate" Republicans.

WASHINGTON -- Republican Stephen Fincher campaign's for the 8th Congressional District, likely to be one of the most expensive in the country against Democratic state Sen. Roy Herron, this morning released a poll showing he's ahead 47 percent to Herron's 37 percent with independent Tea Partier Donn Janes pulling in 5 percent.

The poll was conducted Aug. 10-11 among 400 likely voters and had a margin of error of 4.9 percent.

As Herron predicted before he won the Democratic nomination on Aug. 5, Fincher continues to rail against "the Obama-Pelosi agenda," noting that the same poll shows 59 percent of voters view the House Speaker unfavorably and 55 percent disapprove of the president's job performance. Of note to close followers of the Fincher-Herron battle: former GOP candidate George Flinn's campaign manager, Paul Ciaramitaro, has joined the Fincher campaign.

WASHINGTON - Seventh Congressional District Democratic candidate Greg Rabidoux says voters should be able to hear incumbent Marsha Blackburn defend her record in a debate format, but she has declined the invitation.

"Tennesseans know that to stop out of control spending and the exploding debt, we have to fire Nancy Pelosi," her spokeswoman, Darcy Anderson, said this morning. "They aren't interested in any candidate who would give her one more vote for the speaker's chair, and neither is Marsha. Instead, Marsha is working as a conservative leader across the state and across the nation to make sure Americans reclaim their government for the next generation," she added.

Asked if that meant she would not agree to debate, Anderson e-mailed, "Correct."

Rabidoux, a college professor and lawyer, won the Democratic primary Aug. 5, but has been struggling with little campaign cash to get his message out. A debate would raise his profile substantially but would give no advantage to Blackburn, who packed a brown-bag lunch meeting Tuesday at the Bartlett Performing Arts and Conference Center.

When told that Republican Blackburn had declined to debate, Rabidoux said this morning that people in the 7th District "demand" a debate, adding, "Democracy is best served when you have a debate between the two candidates...What does she have to fear?"