Is this the best we can get?

Lamar Alexander has introduced legislation to "protect English." The frequently repeated reason to offer this protect is that in America most people speak English. But because most people speak English, you will forgive my not seeing the threat that English needs to be protected against. Curious, I searched further.

The law that Mr. Alexander is proposing would bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from bringing discrimination suits against companies with English-only rules. Simple enough. The argument seems to be that businesses have the right to tell their employees how to speak.

Now, if such a rule were actually related to job performance (speaking Spanish to an English-speaking customer and blowing a sale, for example), anti-discrimination laws would not prohibit the rule. Bona fide Occupational Qualifications are not discrimination, and a "Protect English" law would be unnecessary.

So, Alexander's law could only apply to employers who want to discriminate based on the language ability of an employee in situations NOT related to job performance.

The Protect English law is a pro-discrimination bill. To prove that, consider these two cases in which the EEOC became involved:

One was against a Houston ship captain who reportedly threatened sailors with a knife after they spoke Spanish in violation of his English-only policy on board. It was settled in December in favor of the plaintiffs for $31,000.

The other is pending against the Salvation Army, which fired two Spanish-speaking clothes sorters who violated the English-only policy at a branch near Boston. (The Tennessean, January 15, 2007)

Why is anyone in the Senate, let alone the person who is supposed to represent Tennesseans, spending time on legislation that protects an employer's right to pull a knife on a Spanish-speaking employee? And, if you can explain the safety issue associated with allowing Salvation Army clothes sorters to speak Spanish at work, I will be impressed. I remind you that if te Salvation Army can make that case to a jury, then they will be absolved. The only reason they need this protection is because the company must not be able to make a convincing job-related argument.

What about the economic health of the state? What about getting the Fort Campbell troops back home? What about securing nuclear materials abroad? What about finding Osama Bin Laden? What about balancing the federal budget? What about caring for the health of citizens and reducing the burden of excessive health care costs on our small businesses? What about promoting renewable energy technologies to ensure the health of our economy as well as the health of our planet?

English is not threatened. Discrimination is. Spending time protecting discrimination that is unrelated to job performance ought to raise some criticism. Here's mine.

Democratic Challenger Missing

Since Mike McWherter decided not to run for Senate against the popular Lamar Alexander, the Democratic Party of Tennessee has yet to identify any serious challenger. That's too bad. I know it would be a long shot and then some to defeat Lamar Alaexander, but the Party ought to be able to find someone who can try. This election does, after all, have the potential to be a good one for Democrats, and I happen to believe that a young and inspirational figure campaigning to change the tone in Washington might do alright in Tennessee.

Of course, 2006 was a good election for Democrats, and Tennessee was the only place where that general trend went unrealized.

So, back to the question I asked at that time...the question on which I began this blog. What's the Matter with Tennessee? Has Tennessee become so conservative that anyone with a D by his/her name is doomed from the start? Surely not. What about moderate Democrats who believe in strong national defense (like Jim Webb) and/or who consider abortion worthy of limitation (like Bob Casey)? Couldn't a bipartisan who is not indebted to special interests, willing to accept reasonable limits on abortion rights, and strongly supportive of rationality in our national defense (that means avoiding over extension and sending troops into battles without a clear plan for post-war stability and reconstruction) do pretty well against Lamar? Sure Lamar is popular, and he is a good man who clearly favors discussion and compromise more than many of his GOP colleagues in the Senate, but he is a kind man in a bitter and divisive system. He is a leader because he knows how to operate in tat system, and he is popular, at least in part for all the earmarked funds he can bring to Tennessee from that post. It would take a serious challenge and a fairly significant vote shift, but don't the people of Tennessee at least deserve an option?

Partisan rancor is alot like the weather. Everyone talks about it, but nobody ever seems to do anything about it. The big question for Obama is can he? If he can do something about it, then he will need a new generation of Senators to help. Is Alexander up to the task? He may well be. I certainly respect his long record of service to the state of Tennessee, and he has always been kind to me, but a challenger is needed to force him to consider the new state of affairs and show us he is able to deliver what we increasingly want as a new tone in Washington.

Six years is a long time. He has not had to campaign since 2002. He beat Bob Clement that year. If he does not face a challenger this time, he will be able to serve 12 years without explaining to the people how he sees his job as our representative in the Senate.

If no one challenges this time, Tennessee will not even HAVE a Senate race until 2012 when Bob Corker's term finishes.

Is there no one available?

What's to Come?

If Peggy Noonan is correct in this Wall Street Journal editorial, Hillary's new voice won't be all that new. I hope she is wrong. I wonder if Barack Obama's hope can sustain these approaches and stick to the message? I hope so.

And if we are to believe the new voice will be a softer, more conciliatory and more engaging one, how to square that with what is going on at HillaryIs44.com, a Web site that is for all intents and purposes a back door to her war room? There you will see that federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will soon "destroy" Barack Obama in a "scandal" involving an "indicted slumlord" who is Mr. Obama's "friend of 17 years" and with whom Mr. Obama has been involved in "shady deals."

This isn't a new voice, it is the old one, the one we know too well. The item was posted on Thursday, two days after Mrs. Clinton announced her new approach.
Between sobs she is going to try to destroy Mr. Obama. She is going to try to end him. She will pay a price for it--no one likes to see the end of a dream, no one likes a dream killer. But she will pay that price to win, and try to clean up the mess later.
(Wall Street Journal, January 11, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120000928241482363.html)

What's the Difference?

People are now beginning to question Barack Obama's claim to being different. They say he votes the same way, uses the same advisers, and stands for the same ideas. People argue that Obama has accomplished little legislation in the present, bitterly divided Congress. The Clintons even say that Obama is no different for these reasons and follow that claim with accusations that his campaign is a "fairy tale," hoping to make the criticism stick both ways.

The goals that Barack Obama has do not have to be different. Those goals are clear. No one can reasonable argue that the goals he stands for are not clear and unequivocal. For too long, though, a candidate's goals have been lined up as litmus tests to determine whether or not one belongs in either party. That is how ideology works in a politics of partisanship. But partisanship shifts our attention to the goals that divide us and connects all reasonable approaches to those conflicting goals. When all the policy goals are listed, the top goal remains: To advance the political fortunes of the party or the individual.

The Barack Obama difference lies not in the goals he would pursue (health care for all, strong and unwavering national security, powerful education, and job creation) but in the MANNER in which he would pursue them and consequently in the likelihood that he would achieve them.

Critics of Barack Obama must answer one point first. Can you point to significant progress toward these goals that has come from divisiveness, bitterness, and attack?

Why was Hillary Clinton unable to achieve significant expansion of health care availability in 1993? Was it because she was not divisive enough? John Edwards thinks so, but Hillary Clinton doesn't answer that question very well.

Our greatest recent successes in legislating to solve our problems came as a result of the genuine bipartisanship following 9/11. Since that good will has been undone by the Bush administration's aggressively partisan approach, little or nothing of substance has been accomplished.

Cooperation and collaboration may be naive. It may not work, but it is a process worth trying since little progress can be identified by those who defend the divide and stalemate approach of the past 30 years.

There's Something Happening in Tennessee

The Barack Obama HQ in Nashville is definitely an inspirational place. It is filled with people from all over the city who are drawn together by the common themes of the Obama campaign. I atended a meeting there last night, and I was struck by the energy and enthusiasm of the assembled group. Not only did the group seem to represent a wide variety of the people of Nashville, it also put forward a can do spirit that is refreshing in the age of wholesale politics.

All politics is local, and the people in the Obama capaign seem to understand that in ways that have been out of vogue in presidential politics for some time. The inspirational theme of the Obama campaign draws people into political action who have previously stayed on the sidelines. People turned off by the process, too busy to get involved, and too cynical to begin to hope are now talking to friends, wearing buttons, and putting their hopes into words.

The news since New Hampshire has been slowly, but consistently in Obama's favor. The close second place finish was really a significant gain compared with all pre-Iowa expectations, and the post-Iowa expectations aside, those gains seem to be holding in South Carolina, while significantly well-organized unions (SEIU and Culinary Workers) in Nevada and prominent Democratic leaders (John Kerry) keep breaking for Obama.

While the national endorsements and other state organizations are significant, I am most impressed by the way in which the New Hampshire results seem to have energized the Obama supporters to work harder. The room at the meeting was packed, and the ideas were good. There are many ways to get involved using your own skills and abilities whatever those may be, and people across the city and across the state seem to be responding to the call.

There's something happening in Tennessee. There is something happening here.

Is Karl Rove looking for a new job?

Karl Rove, apparently with time on his hands since his lobotomy as Bush's Brain, has decided to take on Barack Obama and offer Hillary Clinton some free political advice. Testing what is sure to be the main GOP strategy against Obama in the fall, Rove trotted out charges of "lazy," "misstatements," and "saying one thing and doing another."

Karl Rove is getting tough on Barack Obama.

The man behind President Bush's two successful presidential bids, who once offered advice to Obama on how he could defeat Hillary Clinton, is now taking direct aim at him — calling the Illinois senator "lazy" and "given to misstatements and exaggerations."

"Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate," Rove writes in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. "In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting 'present' on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates.

And in a rare move, Rove praises Clinton for her "humanizing" moments on the campaign trail, and calls Obama just "as calculating" as the New York Democrat.

"For someone who talks about a new, positive style of politics and pledges to be true to his word, Mr. Obama too often practices the old style of politics, saying one thing and doing another," he said. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/10/karl-rove-takes-aim-at-obama/)

Of course, Karl, praising Hillary's political genius now previously tried to advise Barack Obama on how to deal with that very "humanizing strategy."

The comments are the latest musings from the man often refereed to as "Bush's brain" on the Democratic race for the White House. In an "open letter" to Obama last month, Rove suggested he "Blow the whistle on Clinton when she tries to become a victim."

"Find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on," he said then. "The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation." (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/10/karl-rove-takes-aim-at-obama/)

Isn't there a Republican candidate who could use Karl's advice?

Primary News of the Day

Richardson pulls out.

Kerry backs Obama.

Thompson plays well in GOP debate in South Carolina.

Is Obama Too Elite?

Some of the exit poll data from New Hampshire has the pundits speculating that, because Barack Obama is doing better among higher educated, and more well-off Democrats while Hillary Clinton polled better among the lower classes, he is now becoming a favorite of the narrow, new media elite, and Hillary Clinton is likely to roll on by capturing the real people.

If so, this impression will go down as one of the greatest hoaxes in political history. Hillary Clinton is no doubt sincere in her support for people in need. Heaven knows that I would be very happy with the empathy she could muster as president, but to suggest that she is a better candidate than Barack Obama for dealing with broken communities is to misjudge the case dramatically and, if you will pardon the irony, to completely ignore his superior experience. Barack Obama is a community organizer who understands both the multifaceted causes and consequences of poverty while simultaneously understanding that neither fierce class populism (Edwards) nor extensive government programs (Clinton) can alone address the challenges of America's communities in need.

I almost want to stop writing my reflections about Obama on a blog, since that seems to lend credence to those pundits who label him the candidate of the elite blogosphere (How these random musings have anything to do with elitism is hard to see, but I do understand the critique). Just because our (to borrow Kleinheider's phrase) parallel universe supports Obama does not mean that he all of a sudden loses his genuine EXPERIENCE in building communities and fighting poverty.

A good analysis of Obama and Edwards on the question of poverty and approaches to need can be found at: http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/07/david-brooks-edwards-obama-and-poor.html.

Time to CHANGE our EXPERIENCE with Washington

Obama is genuine in his claim to approach politics without the rancor and divisiveness of the boomers caught in the culture wars (of whom the Clintons have become (willingly or not) the patron saints). Their idea is that to be a part of a Clinton or Bush America, one must walk in lock-step with his/her fellow ideologues that stymie action to deal with issues and challenges that we know (and have known for a long time) must be dealt with. After all, says the partisan, to deal with the issues and compromise is to "sell-out." If we solve the problems, what will accuse the other side of being responsible for in our next campaign?

Generational change is underway, and Obama speaks for it. Old politics, where taking a side means keeping the other side from accomplishing anything or even maintaining its dignity has to end, and as those of us born after 1960 come of age, we will increasingly be able to work together because we know that the challenges we face are more significant than the petty partisanship that keeps CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and a million polarizing Internet sites operational. I believe it was Bill Clinton who said, "That which unites us is far more significant than that which divides us." I bought it in 1992, but he was not able to deliver, and in the last 72 hours, his attacks on Obama have cast great doubt on his sincerity in having made that pronouncement.

Obama has really not wavered. Politics of unity and a refusal to vilify the opponent is called naive. It is taken as a sign of inexperience, but we have all had plenty of experience with the divide and stalemate approach, and Obama offers genuine hope that we can change that experience.

Is hoping for a better day naive?

I made another small contribution to Barack Obama's campaign today. I want to help show that New Hampshire results have done nothing to dampen the enthusiasm I have for the important new politics that Barack offers. I believe that we will have to work hard to enact the change we want to see - not only the changes in policy that we desperately need, but also (and more importantly) change in the process of politics that our generation hopes for.

The politics of fear and division have done little to deal with issues that will impact our generation - warming, health care costs, social security, economic stability. I know that we need a unifying and collaborative politics to move forward.

When Barack stands up and says we can change the system, he is called naive and inexperienced. They say he needs to understand that only rancor and discord can ultimately win an election, and for too long, that has been true. But, as voters, we get what we pay for, and I for one am ready to shop for change.

Are Tennesseans ready to join me? I think they are.

If you want change, you have to work for it

Once again, we have learned tonight that polls are no more valuable than anyone else's educated guess. If you pay attention and talk to people, you are as likely to predict the outcome of a race as any vaunted pollster. They will all seize glory when they get it "right," but there are always days like today in New Hampshire. In every election, there are more polls that are wrong than those that are right. Those who are right more often, however, gain credibility and currency that helps their predictions to translate into self-fulfilling prophecies often enough that they can make a living with prognostication little better than those predicting the imminent Patriots Super Bowl victory.

The Des Moines Register poll was the closest in Iowa, and I have heard it frequently celebrated since last Thursday. But the day of the caucuses, it was widely regarded as an anomaly when compared with the other polls. Today, 10-15 point margins for Obama in New Hapshire were predicted, so that the final 2% margin of defeat (something incomprehensibly fantastic from Obama's perspective just 1 week ago), is now reported as a crushing defeat for him. Is it possible the polls were wrong? Not if you listen to the pundits. The polls were right, and the people changed...maybe, but it is at least equally likely that polls are like broken clocks...right twice a day.

The campaign for this country is underway, and it is coming soon to your neighborhood. Who wins will be up to you and to me. Discuss, deliberate, talk with others, contribute, campaign, and vote. Leave prognostication to Chris Berman. Don't ever stay home because your candidate is supposed to win easily, or you will continue allowing others to make decisions for you.

Be the change you want to see. Get out of the armchair and into the game, because, unlike the Super Bowl, in this game there are no players but us.

Can Obama Win in Tennessee?

He can win in Tennessee. He is the first Democrat in recent election cycles to embrace a 50 state strategy. This decision is crucial because it shows that he really does care and need every individual American in order to lead. The Democratic Party has created some of the problems that lead me to ask, "What's the Matter with Tennessee," because of its almost completely ignoring the state in particular and the south in general during the past 2 presidential election cycles. Creating the impression that Democrats don't need the south to win has bred far more resentment in the south than a moderate, thinking, and well-meaning democrat like Barack Obama ought to encounter. The slim, electoral college strategy of the Clinton/Gore/Kerry campaigns has to go if the arrogance that southern voters perceive in democratic presidential candidates is ever to be overcome.

Tennessee matters, and Barack Obama knows it. His campaign is reaching into every state on the strength of people who long to be relevant to the national leadership question again.

That is one strength that Obama brings to this campaign and one of the main reasons that he is a different democrat. Post your comments to add others.

Good for Him - I'll Be There

Karl Dean will hold his first education town hall meeting on his first day in office in a school he ought to visit. Good for him! I, for one, appreciate this overt effort to symbolize and stick to his repeated commitment to public education.

I'll be there to support him, but what matter is that he will be there. It's just day one, and four years is a long time, but the journey of a thousand miles cannot begin without the first step. Way to go, Karl!

Why I voted for Karl Dean

We have spent many words on this question during the last year, and today we have arrived at the conclusion. Ultimately, anyone who really cares why I voted for Mr. Dean can simply follow my thinking all the way back.

Bob Clement was the first candidate that I considered seriously, and given the people working for him, I felt like I might like him. Unfortunately, the more I got to know him, the less and less I found his promises believable. I have to admit that the anti-tax gimmick (my word here, not Mr. Dean's) was a big part of the final straw.

When I was fortunate enough to be asked by the Nashville Association of Black Journalists to ask questions on a panel at a late forum between the two men, I saw two men headed in different directions. I appreciated the demands that had been placed on them during this lengthy campaign, and I could see the strain in their faces. Yet, I could see more clearly the strain in Mr. Clement's face. I saw and heard in Mr. Dean's answers a man who has spent the past year really studying issues he did not seem to master early in the race and doing pretty well in learning them. Particularly, the pledge to make education his number one priority was shallow last spring, but last Thursday, I saw a steely resolve that showed me the face of a man making that promise and much more fully understanding what it will take to keep it than he did at first.

In Clement, I saw a man searching for the right "formula" to win an election. I saw him moving further and further from a strategy for governing. I saw him increasingly trying to say what was expected in order to pit groups in the city against one another to score a victory. Nashville no longer sounded "good" when he criticized the officials, the progress, and the direction of the city. Since he took the city from good to not good just during the campaign, I really came to doubt that he could successfully lead us from the "good to great" he so often promised.

In the end, it wasn't too hard to select a sincere man with strong commitments, a clear sense of priorities, and a willingness and ability to learn. Will I always agree with Mayor Dean, probably not, but I feel like he will listen when I don't, and in listening to us, he will make good decisions that we will at least understand.

That is the kind of mayor I want, so I voted for Karl Dean.

Thanks Tennessean

For the up to the minute results box. Pretty cool.

The Anti-tax Mayor

OK, I have looked at the U-tube piece that the Clement campaign is now asking everyone to watch. It is a series of clips from the debates, somewhat cleverly edited, but not all that cleverly. The piece runs pretty well as I remember the exchanges with a few exceptions, but the campaign-added narration really seems to force an argument that the clips don't support too well.

http://e2ma.net/go/708806015/600316/20883466/goto:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfNmhRQkFjo

In the end, you will see what you want to see in this ink-blot, but it does show conclusively that Bob Clement wants to win the Mayor's office in the way that is the most limiting to the power of the person to lead. This montage seems to confirm that.

So, will it work? It is clearly a strategy that has worked in other elections. Is it one that is likely to produce good leadership? I don't happen to think so, but I am sure many disagree with me. Will the number who disagree be large enough to elect Clements?

We'll see.

Karl Dean Sounds Like a Great Mayor

The best I've heard him, and I have paid pretty close attention. If you missed the Liberadio interview Monday, you missed Karl Dean at his best. His apparent grasp of leadership issues is strong, and his focus on the issues shows itself to have some specific, tangible direction.

I recommend this interview strongly for anyone concerned about making a good choice in the mayor's race.

Way to go, Mary and Freddie!

Good work, Karl!

Who won?

Always a tricky question since the debate faces so many diverse audience. Who won for me? Karl Dean...Hands down. He continued to miss numerous opportunities to show some of Clement's positions for the ridiculous and substance-free political plays they are, but he finally reversed the tax pledge question a bit. I am continuing to be curious about how all of those much more political positions that Clement is advancing will play against the more genuine positions that Dean puts forward. Dean could use better coaching, and he could be genuine will also being more political, but from the standpoint of this blog asking, What's the Matter with Tennessee, this election is a useful experiment. Here you have 2 democrats running fro an allegedly apolitical office. Clement is clearly assuming the traditional low tax, government bad positions that have worked so well in Kansas (see What's the Matter with Kansas) and other areas across the south and midwest. Dean is adopting the pragmatic managerial poasition that Bredesen, Purcell, and Clinton were able to make work in this area, but he has not scored the same kind of anti-Clement position that Purcell did with Fulton, or Clinton with Bush (I).

So, this election will let us see what's tha matter with Nashville? Will we as a city vote more for Clement and low tax pledges..Dean is right, these are gimmicks, but they are gimmicks that have worked repeatedly, OR will the city vote for the manager who will not play into gimmicks? Will the city trust a government official or vote for Clement because officials cannot really be trusted?

BTW - Isn't it ironic that Clement's arguments add up to an outsider, low tax, government bad campaign even as he claims 15 years in Congress?

This debate left me thinking that Bob Clement feels like his superior (read national/federal) experience will enable him to stoop down here and help the little people in Nashville deal with our situation. I don't agree. After this debate, I lean more toward Dean than ever.

You?

Closing statements

Clement says city is diverse and international. I was 15 years in Congress. I am focused on the future. I have too many ideas to sit on the sidelines. I know I can make a difference. I can win. I am always up fornt. I will listen to the people to solve problems. Breaking through bureaucracy is what I want to do.

Dean ssya hard work, keeping word, and living within a budget. I am very proud of this city. I will bring passion to mayor. I love this city, and I will focus on clear prioriites. Now there are 3 agian. Education, Safety, and development. The first 2 contribute to the other 2. I lnow how the city runs. I want this job. It is not a consolation prize.

Channel 5 debate part 3

Kids access to computers in classes first. (Dean)

Education question - mayoral takeovers:
Clement says school board is elected by the people and selects the Director of schools. I want that to work. A mayor is a CEO planner organizer chief architecht of the coty. Cannot sit on the sidelines. I want public school choice. Reform and accountability.

Dean will consider anything to improve schools. I think the board, business community, and diorector want to improve schools. We have some schools with 50% dropout rates. Unacceptable. Crime, economy, and morality undermined. As mayor, I will bring nonprofits and businesses together to solve the issue. Good list of ideas. Judge me on reduction of dropout rate. School board will help.

Clement wants career and technical education. Need it back. College degree is not key to second class citizens.

Showing clearly how little Bob actually knows about education on the ground today. My opinion. My experience. The ed is good, but Bob's response is overly simplistic and VERY dated.

Dean says affordable housing is crucial. Need to work with non profits. Office of affordable housing in Dean mayor's office. Our habitat has built neighborhoods.

Clement says low income affordable housing. Average price is over 190 thousand dollars for a home in Nashville now. Many great ideas. Need to take those good ideas and run with them. I like to take ideas and put them into action.