Wednesday, June 30, 2004

POLITICS

Michael Moore perversely lumps Bush critic John Tanner in with the usual suspects.

Posted By on Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 4:00 AM

BUM RAP Everywhere you look these days there is 8th District U.S. representative John Tanner of Union City involuntarily playing straight man for Michael Moore. He's in the promos for Fahrenheit 9/11 on all the TV channels, getting his hand pumped in front of the U.S. Capitol as Moore ropes Tanner in for one of the filmmaker's patented ambush interviews. In the film itself (which is doing blockbuster business in virtually every kind of venue), Tanner is Exhibit Number One among various congressional foils as Moore sallies forth, a compliant U.S. Marine in tow, to do some mock recruiting for the war in Iraq. The idea Ñ or, more accurately, the dramatic frame Ñ is: These congressional hypocrites have voted for the war but aren't willing, as Moore straight-facedly implores them, to send their own kith and kin to fight in that Middle Eastern cauldron. Never mind that Tanner explains to Moore that his children are grown adults with families. Never mind that he doesn't challenge anything the filmmaker says, even attempting to express sympathy for Moore's antiestablishment views. He's still presented as a fall guy, a stand-in for President Bush's war policies. Why? Tanner, though a Democrat from a rural West Tennessee district that historically has included portions of Memphis and Shelby County, has the blue-suited clean-cut look one might otherwise see in many a suburban Republican member of Congress. And he has a broad Southern accent. That makes him a perfect foil for Moore, a tubby Michigander who's gotten rich from his barn-burning books and films but still affects the look of a rumpled day laborer. A "tribune of the people," you see. One of the other congressmen set up by Moore has complained that he told Moore he had a nephew who was headed for military service in Afghanistan and that he'd be glad to help with the "recruiting" effort but that these parts of the conversation were trimmed from the film. (A transcript available last week on Moore's own Web site seems to bear out the congressman, Representative Mark Kennedy, R-Minn.) Tanner was placed in an even more misleading context. True, he voted for the October 2002 Use of Force resolution that would ultimately, for better or for worse, give President Bush the go-ahead to commence hostilities against Saddam Hussein. For the record, so did Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; Senator John Edwards and Representative Dick Gephardt, Kerry's two most likely choices for a running mate; and 9th District U.S. representative Harold Ford, among others. But here's a scene you won't find in Moore's movie. Let us fade to election night in November 2002. The scene is the downtown Hilton in Nashville, where various Tennessee Democrats, including Tanner, have been following the televised returns showing a surprise Republican sweep in congressional elections. Quoting from my report in the following week's Flyer, we see a troubled Tanner, "who nursed a libation in his hotel room ... and professed outrage at Bush and the GOP as the bad news from national contests streamed across the bottom of his TV screen." "`Those people ought to be arrested and tried for fraudulence!' Tanner said. `They took our minds off what was important, the economy, and sold us a bill of goods about Iraq. The idea, trying to convince us that a two-bit tinhorn dictator with 20 million starving people was a threat like Adolf Hitler! They don't have any weapons to bother us with! The whole thing was an election fraud. Nothing but!'" How's that for buyer's remorse? And how's that for a far-sighted presentation of the same point of view that film-splicer Moore labors so hard and cleverly to assemble in Fahrenheit 9/11? Though a Navy veteran, Tanner is no war hawk. Au contraire. And though I was impressed by the forthrightness of his election-night remarks, I almost came to feel guilty in reproducing them, since a right-wing Nashville blogger exploited them for a whole week thereafter to accuse Tanner, a certified "Blue Dog" conservative, of being a lefty know-nothing. But that was no more unfair or ludicrous than the way Tanner just got treated by that celluloid blogger of the left, Michael Moore. Not that Tanner will be impacted much among his home folks. His official Republican opponent this year, one James L. Hart, is an avowed racist who has begun to be repudiated by official spokespersons for the party. Hart got the GOP nomination by default, since it's hard to dig up credible opposition to Tanner in the 8th District, whose voters know him to be a levelheaded, fair-minded centrist. Michael Moore has no idea who he is.

Monday, June 28, 2004

HER COUSIN'S VOICE

HER COUSIN'S VOICE

Posted By on Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 4:00 AM

Memphis social worker Kerry Fulmer (right) listens to the voice of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during a conference call at an open house for local Kerry supporters Sunday. The event, which took place at the East Memphis home of Millie Katzen, was one of several presided over lately by Fulmer, who is the Massachusetts senatorÕs first cousin, once removed, and heads up volunteer efforts for him in Shelby County.

Friday, June 25, 2004

Sevenfold

Voters in state House district 83 can choose from a large field of candidates.

Posted By on Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 4:00 AM

The crowded field of candidates to succeed outgoing state representative Joe Kent in House district 83 (Southeast Memphis, Germantown) have made a series of appearances together lately.

Seven candidates are seeking the seat. They include six Republicans -- Chuck Bates, Brian Kelsey, Mark White, Stan Peppenhorst, Pat Collins, and Charles McDonald -- and Democrat Julian Prewitt.

As is usually the case in legislative races -- particularly within primaries -- differences of opinion tend to be subtle and shaded. Even so, the candidates can be distinguished from each other on the basis of their stated priorities.

Bates, for example, is a less-government conservative with a background in financial management. He advocates a lower sales tax and even more cost-cutting than Governor Phil Bredesen has pursued. An abortion opponent, he emphasizes social and moral issues more than the others. Having opposed Kent two years ago, he was first in the race this year.

Collins, a retiree, accordingly professes a primary interest in issues affecting senior citizens, stressing tax, health-care, and crime issues. He is especially interested, he says, in efforts to freeze or reduce property-tax levels for seniors.

Kelsey, a lawyer and a Republican activist of long standing, is another by-the-book conservative, calling for state surplus funds to be returned to strapped local governments and viewing with alarm such expenditures as those for planting wildflowers along the interstate.

McDonald, another lawyer with a background in college teaching, is the "angry" candidate, taking special issue with what he considers the "poor quality" of government services across the board.

Peppenhorst, a career teacher, emphasizes health-care and education and aspires, he says, to supplant former state representative Carol Chumney, now a City Council member, as an exponent of child-care.

White, a businessman and another former teacher, decries "taxes, taxes, taxes" and favors incentives for small businesses. He says that, as a young man, he took the advice of the late Mayor Henry Loeb to delay his advent in politics until he had built a career in the private sector.

Prewitt, who also has a background in both business and education, is newly de

clared as a Democrat and considers economic development his primary goal. He says he wants to see "the invisible hand" of the economy at work.

Discussions between the candidates have so far been gentlemanly; that could change as the August 5th primary approaches.

Crosstalk

The long-running feud between Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen and state senator Steve Cohen, both Democrats, continues to simmer. Speaking at a recent fund-raiser for the local Democratic Party at the New Daisy on Beale, Cohen clearly had Bredesen in his sights when, by way of extolling presidential candidate John Kerry, he delivered this blast: "If you want a manager, get a Reagan or a Bush! If you want a leader, get a Democrat. John Kerry is a leader."

The remark came just after Cohen criticized recent legislation, backed by Bredesen, that reduced maximum benefits under state workers' compensation codes, and the senator's use of the word "manager" parroted one of the budget-cutting governor's favorite self-descriptions.

Cohen and Bredesen were frequently at loggerheads during last year's deliberations on the means of enacting and managing the state lottery, on behalf of which Cohen had labored 17 years.

· Shelby County commissioner Bruce Thompson argues that his posture in commission debate on county demolition projects was recently mischaracterized by Chairman Marilyn Loeffel. Loeffel had made a point of observing Thompson's absence from the commission's vote on the measure and suggested that he might have recused himself altogether -- on the grounds that Thompson's wife Jeni works for a high-tech company that would expand into one of the areas vacated by demolition.

Thompson noted that he had requested and received an opinion from county attorney Brian Kuhn advising him that the ordinance involved no potential conflict of interest on his part. Even so, said Thompson, he had abstained both from discussions of the measure and the final vote on it.

Thompson and Loeffel, both Republicans, have frequently clashed on matters of both style and substance.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

POLITICS

POLITICS

Posted By on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 4:00 AM

SEVENFOLD The crowded field of candidates to succeed outgoing state representative Joe Kent in House district 83 have made a series of appearances together lately. Seven candidates are seeking the seat. They include six Republicans -- Chuck Bates, Brian Kelsey, Mark White, Stan Peppenhorst, Pat Collins, and Charles McDonald -- and Democrat Julian Prewitt. As is usually the case in legislative races -- particularly within primaries -- differences of opinion tend to be subtle and shaded. Even so, the candidates can be distinguished from each other on the basis of their stated priorities. Bates, for example, is a less-government conservative with a background in financial management. He advocates both a lower sales tax and even more cost-cutting than Governor Phil Bredesen has pursued. An abortion opponent, he emphasizes social and moral issues more than the others. Having opposed Kent two years ago, he was first in the race this year. Collins, a retiree, accordingly professes a primary interest in issues affecting senior citizens, stressing the tax, health-care and crime issues. He is especially interested, he says, in efforts to freeze or reduce property-tax levels for seniors. Kelsey, a lawyer and a Republican activist of long standing, is another by-the-book conservative, calling for state surplus funds to be returned to strapped local governments and viewing with alarm such expenditures as those for planting wildflowers along the interstate. McDonald, another lawyer with a background in college teaching, is the “angry” candidate, taking special issue with what he considers the “poor quality” of government services across the board. Peppenhorst, a career teacher, emphasizes health care and education and aspires, he says, to supplant former state Rep. Carol Chumney, now a city council member, as an exponent of child care. White, a businessman and another former teacher, decries “taxes, taxes, taxes” and favors incentives for small businesses. He says that, as a young man, he took the advice of the late Mayor Henry Loeb to delay his advent in politics until he had built a career in the private sector. Prewitt, who also has a background in both business and education, is newly declared as a Democrat and considers economic development his primary goal. He says he wants to see “the invisible hand” of the economy at work. Discussions between the candidates have so far been gentlemanly; that could change as the August 5th primary approaches. Cross Talk The long-running feud between Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen and state Senator Steve Cohen, both Democrats, continues to simmer. Speaking at a recent fundraiser for the local Democratic Party at The New Daisy on Beale, Cohen clearly had Bredesen in his sights when, by way of extolling presidential candidate John Kerry, he delivered this blast: “If you want a manager, get a Reagan or a Bush! If you want a leader, get a Democrat. John Kerry is a leader.” The remark came just after Cohen criticized recent legislation, backed by Bredesen, that reduced maximum benefits under state workers’ compensation codes, and the senator’s use of the word “manager” parroted one of the budget-cutting governor’s favorite self-descriptions. Cohen and Bredesen were frequently at loggerheads during last year’s deliberations on the means of enacting and managing the state lottery, on behalf of which Cohen had labored 17 years. Shelby County Commissioner Bruce Thompson argues that his posture in commission debate on county demolition projects was recently mischaracterized by chairman Marilyn Loeffel. Loeffel had made a point of observing Thompson’s absence from the commission’s vote on the measure and suggested that he might have recused himself altogether -- on the grounds that Thompson’s wife Jeni works for a high-tech company that would expand into one of the areas vacated by demolition. Thompson noted that he had requested and received an opinion from county attorney Brian Kuhn advising him that the ordinance involved no potential conflict of interest on his part. Even so, said Thompson, he had abstained both from discussions of the measure and the final vote on it. Thompson and Loeffel, both Republicans, have frequently clashed on matters of both style and substance.

THE THIRD MAN THEME: RALPH NADER INTERVIEW

THE THIRD MAN THEME: RALPH NADER INTERVIEW

Posted By on Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 4:00 AM

photo by Jackson Baker

Presidential candidatge Ralph Nader expounds on Elvis, The Commercial Appeal, the FedEx Forum, Bill Frist, and, oh yes, the 2004 Election.

Though it seems clear that Democrat John Kerry wishes he would go away, independent candidate Ralph Nader is once again, as he was four years ago, a factor in the presidential race. Nader was in Memphis last week, addressing students and faculty members at Rhodes College, where the legendary consumer advocate and reformer, author of Unsafe at Any Speed and many other influential publications, dilated on his views that big corporations control both major political parties. He defended his third-man candidacy as a means of bringing government back to the people and talked up issues ranging from electoral reform to health-care to environmentalism to a higher minimum wage. The oh-so-serious Nader also evidenced a playful streak at Rhodes, as when he lamented the apostasy this year of author/filmmaker Michael Moore, a former supporter, by playing on a Moore book title. "Hey dude, where's my buddy?" Nader asked rhetorically. And he seemed captivated by the name of our city's daily newspaper. "The Commercial Appeal: That's the most accurate name for a newspaper I've ever seen! I have to congratulate the founder." Nader later sat down for an exclusive interview with the Flyer. What follows is an abridgment of that extensive conversation Ñ leaving out such nuggets as his disparagement of erstwhile Democratic insurgent Howard Dean ("I don't give Dean's rhetoric that much credence. Right now, for example, he is a fierce loyalist for Kerry and against my candidacy") and of the late President Ronald Reagan ("He demonstrated the power of words over deeds. He liked individuals, but his policies disliked humanity"). Nader ducked a question about who his vice-presidential running mate might be, but two days later he would designate for that role one Peter Camejo, a onetime Green Party presidential candidate. The choice underlined the apparent determination by Nader, the Greens' 2002 presidential nominee, to gain the party's endorsement at this weekend's national Green Party convention in Milwaukee. FLYER: Any number of political observers note that Democrats are fiercely resisting your candidacy, while Republicans are not. Why doesn't this undermine your premise that you will take votes equally from both parties? NADER: Because the shift has just begun. Most liberals have abandoned us Ñ we can attest to that Ñ and what's happening now is the members of the party out of power, in this case the Democrats, come back to the fold in the next cycle. That's historically what's happened. But the independents who would have voted for Bush, or the conservatives who voted for Bush, a significant number are furious with him, over the Patriot Act, over the huge deficit, over their taxes going to corporate subsidies, over what they call the sovereignty-shrinking impact of the WTO and NAFTA. They don't like Bush beating up on Taiwan and cuddling with Communist China. It's churning out there. It's hard to say how many of these people are revolting, but the fact that there is a revolt is pretty well documented, and so I think they're either going to stay home, or they're going to vote for a libertarian, or they're going to vote for my independent candidacy. But doesn't the absence of Republican protests mean they don't see you as a threat? Right now, they don't. You see, they're looking at the polls right now, but in the last two weeks, three major polls show that I'm either taking more from Bush than Kerry, or it's a wash. That's a CNN poll, a Zogby poll, and I think an ABC poll. So the shift Ñ you know, it's five months until the election. Gore supporters say you cost them Florida and New Hampshire. Guilty or not guilty? Well, first of all, none of us are guilty, if we have equal rights to run for election. We're all trying to get votes from one another, so why do they give a second-class citizenship to a third party? Second, and this is something the press constantly makes a mistake on: The exit polls in New Hampshire showed that I took more Republican votes than Democrat votes. And that's not surprising, because, two-and-a-half months ago, there's a poll from New Hampshire which had me at 8 percent. That was made up of 4 percent of Democrats' votes, 9 percent of Republicans', and 11 percent of independents'. So they're completely wrong, even on their assumptions in New Hampshire. In Florida, look at the bias. A quarter of a million Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. About 25,000 net Democrats voted for me. So who should they be worried about? Why are they always blaming the Green Party? Because they want it all for themselves. They don't want any competition. They don't want competition to grow in future years.

"The Commercial Appeal: That's the most accurate name for a newspaper I've ever seen.! I have to congratulate the founder."
How are you doing in the polls? We're coming in at 5, 6, and 7 percent. The last one came out with 7. We're doing better than in 2000. My theory is, we're doing better than 2000 even though we're being abandoned by the liberal Democrats who supported us in 2000. So who's making up the difference and more? More and more, we're getting this anecdotal evidence, plus there are a couple of polls that are saying that a lot of people who voted for Bush in 2000 are furious with him. First of all, I want to defeat Bush. That's one of the principal reasons I'm running. And I think a two-front approach is better, because, look, I can raise issues and take apart the Bush administration in ways Kerry would never do. Because the Democrats would be too cautious, too indentured to the same commercial interests, or too unimaginative. And that'll become clear when you compare Web sites, for instance. Like: Is Bush being hammered by Kerry on being soft on corporate crime? Is he being hammered on the war in Iraq and the need to withdraw? Is he being hammered for what he's doing to ignore a living wage in this country? Is he being hammered that Bush is anti-union and supports union-busting companies? And is he being hammered that WTO and NAFTA are just not working; they're resulting in the export of huge industries and jobs from the U.S.? The Democrats have been losing for the last 10 years to the worst of the Republican Party. Why should we trust that they're going to win this time, when they haven't changed any of their game plan, and they're still dialing for the same dollars? Now, if Bush self-destructs, it doesn't matter. But assuming he doesn't self-destruct, I don't trust the Democrats to be able to beat him on their own. What did you think of Kerry's efforts to recruit John McCain as his running mate? It's easy to say it would have been a winning ticket. But, you know, sometimes the vice presidents fade. And then it's all about the presidential candidate. And then to see McCain in his subdued situation would lead to the press probing differences about pro-life, pro-choice Ñ you did this, you did that. So for weeks, the Kerry-McCain ticket would have been pursued by "Well, you voted this way, Kerry voted that way. Why are you buckling under?" And McCain doesn't have that kind of temperament to be a me-too person. And that's why he's smart to have said no. The better choice would be John Edwards. That's the majority preference by the Democrats in recent polls. He's been vetted. He has a very good five-minute speech on the "two Americas," and he can help them in the South. I think the main problem with Kerry is, "Will John Edwards outshine him?" Because Kerry isn't as good a speaker. Edwards was impressive rhetorically. His Senate career was unimpressive. Even on his principal issue of civil justice, he never took any leadership. Which is sad. I think he made a mistake running this time. It was a little too early, unless he becomes vice president. Did any of the Democratic candidates really impress you? Well, I think [Rep. Dennis] Kucinich has a 30-year track record. It's not rhetoric. And I worked with him when he was mayor of Cleveland, taking on the corporate barons, and he's got a very good platform, and it's not rhetoric. Would you have run if he were the nominee? Probably not. But I would have waited to see if he would have moderated or changed in his positions. You know, once you get up there, they start coming in on you. Do you agree with Eric Alterman, whose book, What Liberal Media?, argues that the media either parrot the conservative line or don't resist it? Yes. First of all, the publishers of the newspapers are overwhelmingly Republican, as are the owners of TV stations. The columnists are overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives Ñ George Will, etc. The Sunday talk shows are overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives. What they call liberal is Morton Kondracke. And extreme right-wingers have radio programs. There are no extreme left-wingers who have radio programs. And they say, "Well, it's because the audience likes it." Nonsense. Conservative talk-show hosts attack government, which doesn't advertise. Liberal talk-show hosts tweak corporations, who do advertise. That's the big difference in radio. You go after, as a radio talk-show host, car dealers in a certain metropolitan area, and they've been known to pull their ads off. That's a lot of money. So once you go into consumer fraud, you go into corporate crime, you go into living wage, you're going to alienate a lot of the advertisers. The right-wing broadcasters say, "Well, we're just better at it. We've got a sense of humor. We're market-driven." Well, sure! You ever see Limbaugh go after corporations? What about the liberal "antidote," Air America? It's already collapsing. It first started out with grants, and the grantors apparently didn't fulfill all their grants. They didn't have enough money for a transition period. And, second, they're trying to mimic the style of the conservatives. Over-talking, shouting, being outrageous. That's not going to make it. And, seriously, the radio talk-show audience has already been screened out. It's overwhelmingly conservative. And so they have to get new listeners. It's hard. You're best known for your anticorporate positions. What are some of your positions on the so-called social issues? I'm against capital punishment. First of all, it doesn't deter [crime]. Second, it discriminates against the poor. Third, it kills innocent people. Fourth, a life sentence is cheaper, actually, than prosecuting a capital case. On abortion, I'm pro-choice. I don't think the government should tell a woman either to have children or not to have children. On gay rights, full equality. Marriage is what's complicated, because the state laws use the word "marriage" as the predicate for certain joint rights. Now, if they were revised and just used the word "marriage" for a man and a woman and used the words "civil union" for gays and lesbians, the linguistic barrier would disappear. More people would be for civil union than for gay marriage. And the important thing is not the word "marriage." The important thing is equal rights. So I think the Republicans are readying a major visibility for that issue to swing the five open Senate seats in the South. Some "moral-majority" Republican voters will tell you privately that they might vote Democratic if it weren't for the social issues. Your thoughts? That's exactly my point. The moment the Democrats took the economic issues off the table, starting about 20 or 25 years ago, when they started dialing for dollars, they left a vacuum. And the Republicans moved in with these social issues. If the Democrats used a living wage, serious health-care, cracking down on drug-price gouging, the need to pour money into public works ... Who's against public works? If they stood up for labor, in terms of union rights, and so on, they would fill this vacuum. A few months ago, Senator Imhof of Oklahoma was asked, "Why do Republicans keep wining?" He said, "It's simple: God, gays, and guns." So the Democrats did it to themselves.

"Conservative talk show hosts attack government, which doesn't advertise. Liberal talkshow hosts tweak corporations, who do advertise. That's the big difference in radio."
Where will you be percentage-wise on November 2nd? Clairvoyant I'm not. We're trying for a three-way race, which means we've got to break 10 percent and break into 14, 15. And then the media becomes more daily [in coverage]. The important thing is daily media. Do you have a ghost of a chance? Yes. Oh, yeah. If I get on the debates, and the polls show 14 or 15 percent, and [I get] daily media on the debates, you've got a three-way race. Is there a realistic chance of getting into the debates? On the old debate commission, probably not, because they control the deck. But the new debate commission may be making connections with one or two networks, radio talk-show syndicates, whatever. There's a possibility. Does it bother you when Democrats call you a spoiler? The more I hear that, the more I know the Democrats are decadent and the more need there is to go after them and make them shape up or ship out, because they have eight million voters deserting them every four years, 35 percent of labor-union members deserting them. And what are they worried about? The fraction of that that is going to the Green Party. They're very decadent. They don't change their game plan. They lose and lose at the local, state, and national level. California has a Republican governor, New York has a Republican governor. Connecticut, Massachusetts. There are city mayors that are Republican. They've lost the House and the Senate. They've lost more state legislatures. They lost an election they won in 2000 Ñ the presidential outcome. [laughs] So the more they scapegoat and lie, the more decadent they are, the more necessary it is to form a third political force to move in on them. Just now, there's a lot of skepticism about President Bush's reasons for going into Iraq. What do you think they were? The real reasons were, number one, oil. That's the third-biggest oil pool in the world. I mean, can you imagine [Bush's] oil buddies? They can spend 20 years exploring around the world and they wouldn't come close to those reserves. And oil always is mixed in not just with economic greed but with geopolitical power in that whole region. The second reason is personal. He's a messianic militarist. Somehow, deep in his psyche, he persuaded himself that he was going to be a liberator, that he was an instrument of providence, that he was following God's will. You wonder now why some of the Islamic peoples of the world think that this is a religious war or a crusade? And, third, it politically suited him, because he saw that the more he focused on Iraq and connected it implicitly with 9/11 and the safety of the American people and terrorism,

"[Bush] plunged the nation into an unconstitutional war based on a platform of bogus fabrications, deceptions, lies. And the vice president is a chronic prevaricator. It's all coming out now."
the more he went up in the polls, the more he chilled the Democratic Party, the more he stifled dissent, the more he distracted attention from the necessities here at home. It's a big plus for him to be able to distract attention from all these areas where he's weak and unpopular. And he made his corporate buddies happy with all these contracts. Halliburton, and so on. So, if you're sitting in the Oval Office and you've got a line through the page and you say, Here are the plusses and here are the minuses [of war], they're all plusses, from his point of view. They're not in the American people's interest, but from his selfish, political, corporate, ideological, messianic, distracting point of view, it works. But the resistance in Iraq is changing this entire equation. He plunged the nation into an unconstitutional war based on a platform of bogus fabrications, deceptions, lies. And the vice president is a chronic prevaricator. It's all coming out now. All this is beginning to sour. [People are] getting tired. Every time they see the president, it's Iraq, it's terrorism. It's "stay the course." When is he ever going to talk about all these other issues? Occupational health? Living wage? Universal health-care? Rebuilding America? It's beginning to wear thin. Let's put it this way: He peaked too early. And with increasing resistance and increasing casualties and the fact that now Iraq is a magnet for terrorism ... The fact is that, by fighting terrorism in the wrong way, he's producing more terrorists. He's turning the country against him. So what do we do? We've got two futures for the people of Iraq. One is permanent military and corporate occupation with a puppet regime. The other is, by the end of the year,

"We've got two futures for the people of Iraq. One is permanent military and corporate occupation with a puppet regime. The other is, by the end of the year, we're out of there."
we're out of there. We're out of their oil industry, and we have installed a democratically elected regime with proper recognition of autonomy for the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. We have to stay in a phased withdrawal until the end of the year, and we phase into international peacekeeping troops. There'll be less need for them, because there won't be anything worth fighting over. What are the insurgents going to be fighting over? The U.S. announced they're out. Oh, they'll have skirmishes here and there, but if there's any chance of cooler heads prevailing among mainstream Iraqis, it's going to occur without U.S. occupation more than with it. What about the seemingly intractable dispute between Israelis and Palestinians? We've got huge leverage. We've supplied billions of dollars of military and economic aid to Israel. We've got a choice: If we want peace, we side with the broad and deep Israeli peace moment that draws on many influential currents Ñ political, military, local politics in the Israeli society. What's the accord? The two-state solution. Bush has already recognized there should be an independent Palestinian state. But it's just rhetoric. He's basically supporting Sharon all the way. So the U.S. government has got to stand up, think for itself, stop being a puppet to the puppeteer from Tel Aviv. And basically say: This conflict is resolvable. You can live in peace together. You can have a viable Palestinian state in control of air, water, boundaries, with East Jerusalem the capital. [You offer] some compensation for lost, seized properties and dismantling the colonies. You cannot have Israeli-owned highways carving up this little West Bank with Israeli colonies. So that's the general outline of the proposal. And it's really interesting that 1,300 Israeli military combat personnel have signed a pledge that they will not fight in the West Bank or Gaza, beyond the 1967 borders. And in that pledge they said that the colonies have, in effect, to be evacuated. Nader on... After our interview, Nader had a scheduled stop in Little Rock. But, first, he did what so many visitors to Memphis before him have done. He toured Graceland! He described his reaction to this and other local subjects via cell phone from his car. ELVIS: Graceland was very impressive. They certainly have the artifacts there. Elvis was very generous. He gave to charities and he never deducted because he wanted it all to be his charity. And all the gold and platinum records. And his downstairs living quarters. You know, most shrines are not as full of people! I liked his music, like almost everyone else. He was a standard for bringing joy to millions of Americans. I want to set the standard for bringing justice to millions of Americans. He helped a lot of people individually, caring for children. You asked him for help, and he would give. Obviously, he was a man of the people. Glory to the people. Justice to the people. It makes a nice couplet for the quality of living. SEN. BILL FRIST: I'm very much against his cruel support of legislation that would tie the hands of state judges and juries in serious medical malpractice cases. It would limit in a variety of ways how much a brain-damaged child or a quadriplegic teenager or an adult who was [victimized] by a bad doctor Ñ how much they could get for their pain and suffering. So it's really quite amazing how relentless he's been in trying to allow bad doctors to escape their full responsibility in a court of law. THE FEDEXFORUM: That has soaked up a quarter of a billion dollars, while Memphis schools, clinics, the drinking water system, public transit, and many other public works deteriorate for lack of repair money. It's going on in ballparks all over the country. It's one of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare: taxpayer giveaways to billion-dollar professional sports franchises while cities cannot meet the legitimate needs of its people Ñ including amateur recreation facilities for youngsters and adults. The taxpayers are forced to turn into spectators rather than participants. It was not put to a referendum when it should have been. It's like that in city after city Ñ although there's growing resistance to it, and it's not going to be that easy in the future for sports teams to freeload on the taxpayers' backs. As president I'd put all public contracts online: city, county, state, and federal government. The Office of Management and Budget has agreed with us on principle. I'm committed. When it comes to sports appeals, the proposal should be put online, so the people can have an input and examine it before the vote. There should be a forum with plenty of time for taxpayers to examine the issue.

Monday, June 21, 2004

THE WEATHERS REPORT

The loss of life we endure in order to protect our lives

Posted By on Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 4:00 AM

LITTLE DEATHS This year, bowing to terrorist threats, our government will voluntarily execute 889 airline passengers. They will kill approximately the same number next year and every year after that. This fact has not been in the newspapers. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have brought it up in Washington. It is the hidden death toll of 9/11. No one has acknowledged this death toll, because it is purely mathematical. Nevertheless, in this summer travel season, such deaths should be taken seriously. This is how I figure it: There are expected to be 600 million passengers on U.S. airlines this year. Because of what happened on September 11, 2001, those passengers are now being asked to arrive at the airport for their flights at least one hour earlier than they used to. In addition, passengers must now stand in longer lines at ticket counters and at security check-ins. The average wait at a ticket counter for a U.S. airline is now about 22 minutes; the average wait at a security check-in, 14 minutes. (I thought it was longer, too, but that is the official number determined last year by the federal government.) That 36 minutes of waiting on lines is, by my unofficial estimate, about 20 minutes longer than it was before 9/11. Thus, each traveler on an American airline now gives the terrorists 1 hour and 20 minutes of his life each time he flies. But experience tells me that at smaller airports, passengers do not arrive two hours early, nor do they stand in lines quite so long. So for simplicity’s sake, let's estimate that, because of 9/11, each time a passenger flies on an American airline, he now spends an extra one hour of his life just waiting around. This means that each year, our government now requires passengers on U.S. airlines to give 600 million life-hours to the terrorists. The average life expectancy in the United States is approximately 77 years (less for men, more for women). At 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, plus 19 extra days for Leap Years, that adds up to 674,976 hours in the average American’s lifetime. Therefore, if we give 600 million life-hours annually to the terrorists because of increased security at airports, that is the equivalent of giving them 889 lives each year. 889 lives. That's the annual death toll our country has accepted in exchange for increased security at our airports. And that, of course, is just at the airports. It doesn’t count the lives we give the terrorists on our roads, our bridges, our trains, our subways, and at immigration checkpoints. It also doesn’t count the times the system shuts down because a child has left her fuzzy pink backpack unattended by a trash can at LaGuardia. In this sense, then, the terrorists are forcing us to kill American citizens by the hundreds each year. But of course, you say, these Americans aren't really dead. They can still come home to their spouses and children. They can still go to ballgames and read great novels. This "death toll" is just a mathematical sophistry. Well, yes and no. It depends. Are we Americans really alive when we wait sullenly in a security line, taking off our shoes, emptying our pockets, waiting, waiting, for the humiliation of being wanded? Are we really alive when we sit staring mindlessly into space or yelling at our restless children in the waiting area at our departure gate? Is the child really alive who spends those waiting hours poking at his GameBoy or listening bored to her portable CD player? How alive are we when we are "living" long minutes doing nothing--or at least nothing that we would otherwise wish to do? To paraphrase Stephen Sondheim: "Every day a little death, in the traffic, at the gate." But there is a solution. In the face of this loss of life, we Americans should do two things: 1) We should demand that our government keep this toll of "little" deaths in mind when they consider future security measures. No new measures should be passed that further erode our lives. 2) We should demand of ourselves that we do not waste our hours of waiting. We must do everything we can to live, as we stand at the ticket counter or shuffle our way toward the security gate. This summer, as you travel, live deep, even as you wait for your plane or idle in traffic. Talk to a fellow passenger. Ask him what he does, or ask her where she's going. Make a friend while you wait, even if it's only for a few minutes. If that friend is a member of your own family, all the better. Or, if you're not the talk-to-a-stranger type, read a book worth reading--one that will make the rest of your life a little more alive. Really listen to that CD--let the music work its way deep into you, so the soundtrack for the rest of your life is a little more profound and uplifting than it would otherwise have been. If you don't want to read or listen or talk, then just stand there and try to be extra alive. Put all your senses to work. Look at all the milling life around you; see what a work it is, its colors, its shapes, the dance of it. Listen to the voices; go ahead, eavesdrop on the glorious babble of conversation all around you. Taste the air, or chew a piece of gum you've never had before. Smell the salt of that kid's pretzel, and the odd scent of that traveler's cologne. Heck, touch the chrome of the stanchion that's keeping you in line and be shocked by how cool and smooth and, in its own way, how beautiful it is. This summer as you travel, disarm the terrorists. Snatch back your life. Make the wait itself worth waiting for.

Friday, June 18, 2004

Drawing a Crowd

The 2006 Senate field begins to expand.

Posted By on Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 4:00 AM

Enlarged and refocused, the projected 2006 U.S. Senate race picture in Tennessee may prove something more of a crowd scene than seemed the case a year ago. Both the Democratic and Republican primaries for the seat now occupied by GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist promise to be hotly contested affairs, clogged with bigfoot entrants.

No longer is Memphis' 9th District congressman Harold Ford Jr. considered a sure Democratic nominee for the seat, which Frist will likely vacate in order to prepare for his projected 2008 presidential run. Persistent reports indicate that Nashville mayor Bill Purcell is determined to compete for the Democratic Senate nomination -- a circumstance that would fan the always smoldering Nashville-Memphis political rivalry.

And Republican competition is likely to be even more intense, with former congressman Van Hilleary, the 2002 GOP gubernatorial nominee and his party's newly elected national committeeman, considered likely to make a run. Also thinking long and hard about the race is Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker, whose long-standing designs on the governorship are presumably blocked by incumbent Democratic governor Phil Bredesen's current high approval ratings.

Other Republican Senate hopefuls include Chattanooga congressman Zach Wamp (who might, however, defer to Corker), former 7th District congressman Ed Bryant, and, possibly, current 7th District congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, whose statewide vote-getting potential is considered formidable.

n Governor Phil Bredesen achieved one of his hardest-fought legislative victories in the last week of this year's session of the General Assembly, when he prevailed on reluctant fellow Democrats to join Republicans in passing a cost-cutting workers' compensation reform bill, reducing the "multiplier" (the number determining the ceiling of benefits and awards) from 2.5 to 1.5.

Some Democrats remain discontented -- notably Bill Farmer of Lebanon, immediate past chairman of the state Democratic Party and also a pillar of state trial lawyers' organizations, which bitterly opposed the legislation.

Farmer got his revenge last week when he responded to a fund-raising letter from Bredesen on behalf of Democratic members of the legislature. Suggested donations ranged from $100 to $500, with a blank on the invitation form titled "Other."

"Thank you for your kind invitation," wrote Farmer, who continued, "I have enclosed my reply card and check for One Point Five Dollars ($1.50) for my contribution" [Farmer's boldface].

n Assessor candidates tangle: To judge by the sometimes congenial, sometimes edgy, and always spirited discussion held by the two major-party nominees for Shelby County assessor before an audience of real estate investors last Thursday night, the race between Democrat Rita Clark, the incumbent, and Republican Harold Sterling, a former assessor, will not lack for issues.

The two candidates, making their first joint appearance at a meeting of the Memphis Investors Group at the Home Builders headquarters on Germantown Parkway, also took some shots at each other during an evening where they each made prepared statements, followed by a joint Q-and-A session.

Clark -- who upset Sterling's reelection bid in 1996 -- reminded the audience that, during Sterling's term, the taxpayers had been hit for a judgment in a discrimination suit. (The two differed over the amount; Clark said it amounted to $600,000; Sterling said it was settled for far less.) The allegation was her comeback to Sterling's suggestion that her staff was larger than it should be and that her office was thereby "spending too much money."

Said Clark: "A lot of times men don't understand how women manage. Women manage through a relationship." And, she said, through an emphasis on administration and diversity.

Sterling critiqued the incumbent's conduct of property-owners' appeals thusly: "Very few people came through that process happy. You need to work with people." And he said his 44 years' real estate experience equipped him better than the incumbent to deal with the issues of property assessment.

The issue of who should get credit for an innovation called G.I.S. -- for Geographic Information Systems -- got some argument. The G.I.S., a digitized, layered method of mapping (and visualizing) property from specialized aerial photographs, isn't online at the assessor's office yet but will be within two months' time, said Clark. Sterling had taken credit for getting the program started in his term and chided Clark for not completing it during the next eight years. She responded that Sterling's predecessor, Michael Hooks, had actually laid the groundwork for implementing G.I.S.

Clark's upset of Sterling in 1996 owed much to her charge that he had hired a personal fitness trainer at taxpayer expense. Should the accusation resurface this year, he will likely contend, as he did last week, that his fitness program was for all employees and that he reduced absenteeism and saved the taxpayers money.

Thursday, June 17, 2004

CANDIDATE NADER DOES A MEMPHIS TURN

The independent presidential candidate dispenses analysis and quips at Rhodes event.

Posted By on Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 4:00 AM

If a candidate’s enjoyment of the election process were the standard rather than projected voters, Ralph Nader -- the independent presidential candidate who polled significant numbers as the Green Party nominee four years ago -- might actually have a shot in the election of 2004. Speaking to a group of Rhodes College students and faculty at the Meeman Center Thursday night, Nader seemed fully at ease -- a contrast not only to his austere image as a consumer advocate and reformer but also to the occasional awkwardness on the stump of his two major opponents, President George W. Bush, the Republican incumbent; and Massachusetts senator John Kerry, the Democratic challenger. Neither Bush nor Kerry has what you might call Clintonian glibness; Nader seemed to Thursday night as he took his audience through a litany of his complaints about the established political process and handled questions afterward. Both major parties are indebted to corporate special pleaders, Nader argued, and, while the Democrats may possess an edge in “social services and personal politics,” neither they nor the Republicans are responsive to the economic interests of people at large. “Nobody’s pushing Kerry to do more,” said Nader of the Democratic candidate’s traditional constituencies. Consequently, the presidential election is being fought out on the principle of which candidate is “the least worst.” Or, rather, it would be fought out on that basis, without the corrective effect of himself as a candidate. Making a renewed pitch for participation in this year’s scheduled presidential debates, Nader said the determinant should be whether a candidate reached the 5 percent level in voter polling -- or whether, “as was true of me and [Pat] Buchanan in 200, a majority of the people just want to see a candidate in the debate.” Otherwise, the debates would amount to “parallel interviews” or “a cure for insominia.” Nader argued that a lack of real discussion was preventing action on such issues as a minimum wage that has declined in real dollars since 1968, when by today’s standards the lowest-paid workers earned the equivalent of $8 an hour. Today’s actual minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and, asked Nader, “Who can live on that?...We’re in a low-wage economic spiral.” Among other issues that were unaffected by the prevailing two-party political dialogue were those of health care and the environment, said Nader, who maintained that congressional redistricting in recent years, coupled with corporate financial support, has made most House and Senate seats safe havens for one major party or the other -- resulting in an intractable, unreachable body of lawmakers. “This is not the Congress I used to work with,” lamented Nader, who made his reputation decades ago as an author and activist on behalf of consumer legislation. One solution might be a “none of the above” line on ballots, Nader said. Another was the potential domino effect of national candidacies like his own. Though he spent much time Thursdya night engaging in what amounted to systematic economic and political analysis, Nader seemed intent on having a good time, too. Citing Oscar Wilde’s ironic claim of being able to “resist everything except temptation,” Nader said, “I can go him one better. I can resist temptation.” Responding to a question about author/filmmaker Michael Moore, a onetime associate who had made the case against his presidential candidacy this year, Nader played off a Moore book title by asking rhetorically, “Hey, Dude, where’s my buddy?” Nader promised that the next several weeks would see the unveiling of specific planks in his 2004 platform -- including the apparently whimsical one of a soon-to-be-created “American Society of Apathetics” -- complete with a member’s oath. On the evidence of Thursday night, candidate Nader would seem to be offering, at most, a thorough-going program for the reformation of today’s politics, and, at the very least, an antidote to that aforesaid apathy.

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

POLITICS

The 2006 Senate field begins to expand.

Posted By on Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 4:00 AM

DRAWING A CROWD Enlarged and refocused, the projected 2006 U.S. Senate race picture in Tennessee may prove something more of a crowd scene than seemed the case a year ago. Both the Democratic and Republican primaries for the seat now occupied by GOP Majority Leader Bill Frist promise to be hotly contested affairs, clogged with bigfoot entrants. No longer is Memphis' 9th District congressman Harold Ford Jr. considered a sure Democratic nominee for the seat, which Frist will likely vacate in order to prepare for his projected 2008 presidential run. Persistent reports indicate that Nashville mayor Bill Purcell is determined to compete for the Democratic Senate nomination -- a circumstance that would fan the always smoldering Nashville-Memphis political rivalry. And Republican competition is likely to be even more intense, with former congressman Van Hilleary, the 2002 GOP gubernatorial nominee and his party's newly elected national committeeman, considered likely to make a run. Also thinking long and hard about the race is Chattanooga mayor Bob Corker, whose long-standing designs on the governorship are presumably blocked by incumbent Democratic governor Phil Bredesen's current high approval ratings. Other Republican Senate hopefuls include Chattanooga congressman Zach Wamp (who might, however, defer to Corker), former 7th District congressman Ed Bryant, and, possibly, current 7th District congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, whose statewide vote-getting potential is considered formidable. Governor Phil Bredesen achieved one of his hardest-fought legislative victories in the last week of this year's session of the General Assembly, when he prevailed on reluctant fellow Democrats to join Republicans in passing a cost-cutting workers' compensation reform bill, reducing the "multiplier" (the number determining the ceiling of benefits and awards) from 2.5 to 1.5. Some Democrats remain discontented -- notably Bill Farmer of Lebanon, immediate past chairman of the state Democratic Party and also a pillar of state trial lawyers' organizations, which bitterly opposed the legislation. Farmer got his revenge last week when he responded to a fund-raising letter from Bredesen on behalf of Democratic members of the legislature. Suggested donations ranged from $100 to $500, with a blank on the invitation form titled "Other." "Thank you for your kind invitation," wrote Farmer, who continued, "I have enclosed my reply card and check for One Point Five Dollars ($1.50) for my contribution" [Farmer's boldface].

BARNSTORMING

BARNSTORMING

Posted By on Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 4:00 AM

BIGFOOT SPOTTED IN D.C. In the looking glass world of the Bush campaign up is down, failure is success, wrong is right, and the media is liberal. Here’s a real gem from the Conservative brain trust. “The major media will give at least $2 billion worth of friendly coverage to Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry this election year.” So NewsMax Magazine reports in its June cover story ominously titled, “Media War on Bush.” NewsMax arrived at the $2-billion figure by calculating, “the effect of anti-Bush and pro-Kerry coverage by the major media outlets.” Fascinating. NewsMax has taken Tarot cards and slide rules and made some mathematical calculations based on non-existent media coverage of events that haven’t happened yet. That’s cooking with calculus! The magazine’s staff has also projected the “effect” of future reportage, placed a dollar value on it and charged the whole shebang to the Kerry campaign: a little soft-soft-soft-money gift from the godless fag-loving cabal that is the liberal media of tomorrow. Let’s say a super-secret epistle from President Bush to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with a cc to Attorney General John Ashcroft gets leaked to the press. The imaginary memo which could always turn out to be real in the future reads, “Torture those Iraqi pricks till their peckers bleed and their little brown nuts are the size of Texas watermelons.” Now if the media is irresponsible and reports this story without also pointing out that John Kerry is still a boring jerk with funny hair who’s clipped prostate makes him a woman and a feminist and entirely unfit to governÑand if the public reacts to the “Peckergate” in a way that isn’t advantageous to the Bush campaignÑ then all this unbalanced news coverage will have the same dollar value as an anti-Bush ad bought and personally paid for by that Boston asswipe Senator John Kerry. This somehow proves that the American media has a liberal bias, or that it will have a liberal bias by the time the future rolls around. And nobody wants the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud of Kerry votes in the heartland do they? But let’s be fair about all this and play by NewsMax’s rules. 100% of Fox’s news content would have to be chalked up as an “added value” to the President’s ad buys, now wouldn’t it? Who among us wants to tick up the price of “Mission Accomplished?” And don’t forget to factor in the cost of keeping an aircraft carrier that was supposed to be docked at sea, and also the cost of keeping all our sailor boys who were supposed to be out visiting their families, or catching the clap, or doing whatever it is our fighting seamen do when they’re on dry land these days, on deck for the big show. The production costs alone had to cost millions. If this isn’t all pataphysics (which it surely is) by NewsMax’s example I may offer honest appraisals of things that have actually happened, right? Poor NewsMax. It’s become the Weekly World News of political discourse. Conservatives, read the breathless bulleted items hawked on the website and weep for your cause: “¥ Exposed: How the book publishing industry planned its attack on Bush two years ago -- and how you see this bias in almost every bookstore in the nation today. ¥ How Hollywood is giving Kerry a huge boost with an unprecedented amount of anti-Bush propaganda into summer films, from “The Day After Tomorrow” to Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.” ¥ Learn the identity of the angry Hollywood sitcom queen whose anti-Bush propaganda blew up in her face. ¥ Revealed: how the late-night comedians such as Leno and Letterman use their monologues to hurt Bush and help Kerry. ¥ The real reason Hollywood hates Bush (no, it’s not about the war; it’s his Christian faith!).” Shocking, scandalous, and about as newsworthy as… Yes. It’s a picture of bigfoot.

Saturday, June 12, 2004

Learning Curve

County Commission chairman Loeffel attempts to move from conflict to harmony.

Posted By on Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 4:00 AM

County Commission chairman Loeffel attempts to move from conflict to harmony.

Marilyn Loeffel, the Cordova homemaker who was first elected to the Shelby County Commission in 1998 after making her name as an activist for causes and propositions dear to social and religious conservatives, has progressed by degrees into the maelstrom of politics as usual, though not without a few bumps along the way.

For someone whose initial concerns, ranging from charter schools to abortion, were largely focused on social and moral issues (see "Right With God," page 16), Loeffel has moved into increasingly secular areas.

At this week's regular meeting of the commission, she held back somewhat on one subject of controversy -- the issue of whether to sell Oakville Health Care Center to a private entity -- allowing vice chairman Michael Hooks, who had started presiding when she left temporarily, to continue once she returned to the floor.

But she took the reins for the next -- and equally heated -- discussion, in which Sheriff Mark Luttrell's proposals for a technologically streamlined jail met with vehement opposition from a multitude of deputy jailers, who made it clear they feared being shortchanged during the transition.

But she finally hit her stride during a prolonged debate about whether to approve funds for a variety of county demolition projects, asking what seemed to be informed questions about the financial and technical aspects of the issue. Of course, that might have been her way of spiting colleague Bruce Thompson, with whom she has had an on-again/off-again feud -- conducted mostly in private but sometimes publicly -- as when she recently informed Thompson he wouldn't be reappointed to the PILOT (payment-in-lieu-of-taxes) Evaluation Committee of the Memphis and Shelby County Industrial Development Board.

"Hell hasn't frozen over," she announced when Thompson inquired about her decision.

During the lengthy demolition discussion Monday, Thompson had absented himself from the chamber, as Loeffel was not reticent about pointing out -- wondering out loud later on if he shouldn't have recused himself outright. (Thompson's wife Jeni works for a biotech enterprise which would expand into one of the physical locales vacated by demolition.) For his part, Thompson had earlier used his cell phone to text-message an onlooker, noting Loeffel's absence from the chairman's seat during the Oakville discussion.

Part of the tension between the two undoubtedly derives from the fact that both sought the commission chairmanship last year. But much of it stems from genuinely different perceptions about the commission and the proper role of commissioners. In general, Loeffel adheres to the rule of protocol (arguing that, for example, she was in line for the chairmanship by prior arrangement), while Thompson, along with colleague David Lillard, another first-termer, wishes to think things through anew.

"I was elected a commissioner to represent my district, not an apprentice to wait around on protocol," Thompson says. The two also differ on a number of specific matters, most of them having to do with the issue of restructuring -- the fiscal, organizational, and policy aspects of it.

Loeffel's emergence as an advocate of commission tradition is a bit of a switch. She almost came a cropper last year when she invoked the concept of Christian charity as a reason for retaining the services of Calvin Williams, the commission's then administrative director -- later fired and indicted for complicity in covering up a fellow employee's alleged sexual misdeeds. She briefly faced an ouster suit from an irate constituent (whom she suspected of desiring her seat), and, even though the suit was dismissed, Loeffel has been more careful since about acting in concert with her colleagues on such sensitive issues.

No more claims, either, of "divine inspiration," as on one matter before the commission last year. Increasingly, she emphasizes more secular aspects of her concerns -- her unsuccessful effort to avert the tearing down of a fire-damaged Shelby County Building; her sponsorship of a Missing Children's Project, in tandem with various law enforcement and community agencies; her resistance to cutting funds for the Victims' Assistance Center and the district attorney general's domestic violence budget.

Though she acknowledges that she has occasionally rubbed other colleagues besides Thompson wrong, Loeffel professes a sincere interest in harmony on the commission and believes she is on the way to achieving it, at least where she is concerned.

"When they found out I wasn't going to be a holy terror," she says, conscious of the pun, "things began to relax."

But just try telling that to Bruce Thompson.

Wednesday, June 9, 2004

Politics

Politics

Posted By on Wed, Jun 9, 2004 at 4:00 AM

LEARNING CURVE Marilyn Loeffel, the Cordova homemaker who was first elected to the Shelby County Commission in 1998 after making her name as an activist for causes and propositions dear to social and religious conservatives, has progressed by degrees into the maelstrom of politics as usual, though not without a few bumps along the way. For someone whose initial concerns, ranging from charter schools to the abortion issue, were largely focused on social and moral issues (see “Right With God,” this week’s cover) , Loeffel has moved into increasingly secular areas. At this week’s regular meeting of the commission, she held back somewhat on one subject of controversy -- the issue of whether to sell Oakville Sanatorium to a private entity -- allowing vice chairman Michael Hooks, who had started presiding during her temporary absence, to continue when she returned to the floor. But she took the reins for the next -- and equally heated -- discussion, in which Sheriff Mark Luttrell’s proposals for a technologically streamlined jail met with vehement opposition from a multitude of deputy jailers, who made it clear they feared being shortchanged during the transition. But she finally hit her stride during a prolonged debate about whether to approve funds for a variety of county demolition projects, asking what seemed to be informed questions about the financial and technical aspects of the issue. Of course, that might have been her way of spiting colleague Bruce Thompson, with whom she has had an on again/off again feud -- conducting mostly in private but sometimes publicly -- as when she recently informed Thompson he wouldn’t be reappointed to the PILOT (payment-in-lieu-of-taxes) Evaluation Committee of the Memphis and Shelby County Industrial Development Board. “Hell hasn’t frozen over,” she announced when Thompson inquired about her decision. During the lengthy demolition discussion Monday, Thompson had absented himself from the chamber, as Loeffel was not reticent about pointing out -- wondering out loud later on if he shouldn’t have recused himself outright. (Thompson’s wife Jeni works for a bio-tech enterprise which would expand into one of the physical locales vacated by demolition.) For his part, Thompson had earlier used his cell phone to text-message an onlooker, noting Loeffel’s absence from the chairman’s seat during the Oakville discussion. Part of the tension between the two undoubtedly derives from the fact that both sought the commission chairmanship last year. But much of it stems from genuinely different perceptions about the commission and the proper role of commissioners. In general, Loeffel adheres to the rule of protocol (arguing that, for example, she was in line for the chairmanship by prior arrangement), while Thompson, along with colleague David Lillard, another first-termer, wishes to think things through anew. “I was elected a commissioner to represent my district, not an apprentice to wait around on protocol,” Thompson says. The two also differ on a number of specific matters, most of them having to do with the issue of restructuring -- its fiscal, organizational, and policy aspects of it. Loeffel’s emergency as an advocate of commission of tradition is a bit of a switch. She almost came a cropper last year when she invoked the concept of Christian charity as a reason for retaining the services of Calvin Williams, the commission’s then administrative director -- later fired and indicted for complicity in covering up a fellow employee’s alleged sexual misdeeds. She briefly faced an ouster suit from an irate constituent (whom she suspected of desiring her seat), and, even though the suit was dismissed, Loeffel has been more careful since about acting in concert with her colleagues on such sensitive issues. No more claims, either, of “divine inspiration,” as on one matter before the commission last year. Increasingly, she emphasizes more secular aspects of her concerns -- her unsuccessful effort to avert the tearing down of a fire-damaged Shelby County Building; her sponsorship of a Missing Children’s Project, in tandem with various law enforcement and community agencies; her resistance to cutting funds for the Victims’ Assistance Center and the District Attorney General’s domestic violence budget. Though she acknowledges that she has occasionally rubbed other colleagues besides Thompson wrong (she also has had public disagreements with fellow commissioner John Willingham), Loeffel professes a sincere interest in harmony on the commission and believes she is on the way to achieving it, at least where she is concerned. “When they found out I wasn’t going to be a holy terror,” she says, conscious of the pun, “things began to relax.” But just try telling that to Bruce Thompson.

Monday, June 7, 2004

An Era Passes

The death of John T. Williams is the larger political community's latest loss.

Posted By on Mon, Jun 7, 2004 at 4:00 AM

There must have been a time when John T. Williams, who died last week of heart failure at his Germantown home, was involved in some way with disagreements and conflict. After all, the 92-year-old eminence had been one of the builders of the modern Republican Party in Tennessee and had run a contested race for Congress once.

But, as was the case with his friend and fellow Republican patriarch Bob James, who died earlier last month, it was virtually impossible to find anyone around who harbored anything but affection and respect -- nay, love -- for Williams, universally known as "John T."

The goodwill associated with -- and extended to -- Williams, a native of the Jackson area but a resident of Memphis for the last several years -- crossed party lines. And, as the GOP's Grand Old Man confided some years back, "It isn't widely known, but I dated Pauline Lafon before [the late former senator] Albert Gore did." (The eventual Gore-Lafon union would produce a Democratic vice president and presidential candidate, Al Gore.)

Williams' conversations would always include fond recollections about figures in both major political parties. If he knew you were going, sometime soon, to an event involving Democrats, he would always send greetings along to this or that person he expected would be there.

But John T. had a special place in the hearts of his fellow Republicans -- a fact which drew several eminent ones to his Tuesday funeral, scheduled for our press time. Among those slated to speak at the rites at Christ United Methodist Church: former senator Fred Thompson, who as a young activist managed Williams' congressional campaign against incumbent Democrat Ray Blanton, later a governor. ("That was back when we didn't even have enough Republicans in McNairy County to even hold a primary," Williams once recalled.)

Others scheduled to make remarks at the funeral were former congressmen Robin Beard, Don Sundquist, and Ed Bryant -- GOP successors (and all winners) in the district, once the 8th and later the 7th, where candidate Williams had been a pioneer.

Williams maintained a steadfast loyalty to Sundquist when the latter, in a second term as governor, ran afoul of some of his partymates by seeking to enact a state income tax. At John T.'s 90th birthday celebration in 2001 at the home of former Shelby County mayor Jim Rout, Sundquist was there to pay his regards and observed wanly, "This is easier than passing tax reform!"

Current Tennessee senators Bill Frist and Lamar Alexander were among those paying tributes to Williams, and the White House itself was expected to be heard from.

Those close to Williams knew that he had suffered greatly from the death, in recent years, of his wife Thelma and his son, also known as John T.

Williams' own passing, along with that of James, and, for that matter, along with that last year of longtime Democrat Bill Farris, another highly regarded figure, signaled the end of an era which was remarkable merely to have harbored such titans -- none of whom achieved high office themselves (though James and Farris held office as city councilman and city commissioner, respectively) but all of whom were recognized, in and out of politics, as influences of the highest order. n

Where There's Smoke ...

The hottest rumor going about city government circles these days concerns -- are you sitting down? -- the imminent resignation of Memphis mayor Willie Herenton. Mayor spokesperson Gale Jones Carson dismissed that report, categorically and vehemently, as pure hooey. "That's crazy. That's just something that comes from people who are opposed to the mayor. He's not going anywhere!"

But, among others, a member of the City Council says he's heard the report of late -- repeatedly. "There are several variations," the councilman says, but all concern after-effects of two circumstances: an ongoing probe into the city's selection of brokers for last year's TVA prepayment and current speculation revolving around a fatal traffic accident involving the mayor's daughter-in-law, Andrea Herenton. •

Wednesday, June 2, 2004

POLITICS

The death of John T. Williams is the larger political community's latest loss.

Posted By on Wed, Jun 2, 2004 at 4:00 AM

AN ERA PASSES There must have been a time when John T. Williams, who died last week of heart failure at his Germantown home, was involved in some way with disagreements and conflict. After all, the 92-year-old eminence had been one of the builders of the modern Republican party in Tennessee and had run a contested race for Congress once. But, as was the case with his friend and fellow Republican patriarch Bob James, who died earlier last month (and was remembered in a Flyer editorial), it was virtually impossible to find anyone around who harbored anything but affection and respect -- nay, love -- for Williams, universally known as “John T.” The good will associated with -- and extended to -- Williams, a native of the Jackson area but a resident of Memphis for the last several years -- crossed party lines. And, as the GOP’s Grand Old Man confided some years back, “It isn’t widely known, but I dated Pauline Lafon befgre [the late former senator] Albert Gore did.” (The eventual Gore-Lafon union, of course, would produce a future Democratic vice president and presidential candidate, Al Gore.) Williams’ conversations would always include fond recollections about figures in both major political parties. If he knew you were going, sometime soon, to an event involving Democrats, he would always send greetings along to this or that person he expected would be there. But John T. had a special place in the hearts of his fellow Republicans -- a fact which drew several eminent ones to his Tuesday funeral, scheduled for our press time. Among those slated to speak at the rites at Christ United Methodist Church: former senator Fred Thompson, who as a young activist managed Williams’ congressional campaign against incumbent Democrat Ray Blanton, later a governor. (“That was back when we didn’t even have enough Republicans in McNairy County to even hold a primary,” Williams once recalled.) Others scheduled to make remarks at the funeral were former congressmen Robin Beard, Don Sundquist, and Ed Bryant -- GOP successors (and all winners) in the district, once the 8th and later the 7th, where candidate Williams had been a pioneer. Williams maintained a steadfast loyalty to Sundquist when the latter, in a second term as governor, ran afoul of some of his partymates by seeking to enact a state income tax. At John T.’s 90th birthday celebration in 2001 at the home of former Shelby County Mayor Jim Rout, Sundquist was there to pay his regards and observed wanly, “This is easier than passing tax reform!” Current Tennesse senators Bill Frist and Lamar Alexander were among those paying tributes to Williams, and the White House itself was expected to be heard from. Those close to Williams knew that he had suffered greatly from the death, in recent years, of his wife Thelma and his son, also known as John T. Williams’ own passing, along with that of James, and, for that matter, along with that last year of longtime Democrat Bill Farris, another highly regarded figure, signaled the end of an era which was remarkable merely to have harbored such titans -- none of whom achieved high office themselves (though James and Farris held office as city councilman and city commissioner, respectively) but all of whom were recognized, in and out of politics, as influences of the highest order.
Where There’s Smoke... ...maybe there’s a fire, or maybe there’s only somebody’s smokescreen. Regardless of which it is, the hottest rumor going about city government circles these days concerns -- are you sitting down? -- the imminent resignation from office of Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton. Mayor spokesperson Gale Jones Carson dismissed that report, categorically and vehemently, as pure hooey. “That’s crazy. That’s just something that comes from people who are opposed to the mayor. He’s not going anywhere!” But, among others, a member of the city council says he’s heard the report of late --repeatedly. “There are several variations,” the councilman says, but all concern after-effects of two circumstances -- an ongoing probe into the city’s selection of brokers for last year’s TVA prepayment and current speculation revolving around the re-investigation of a fatal traffic accident involving the mayor’s daughter-in-law, Andrea Herenton. “This mayor has absolutely nothing to hide,” responds Carson.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Most Commented On

Top Viewed Stories

ADVERTISEMENT

© 1996-2015

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation