Posted on 06/22/2005 12:16:59 PM PDT by AzaleaCity5691
That's an interesting standard.
Nevertheless, you aren't saying he is the only better choice than Riley, are you? It would seem a bit smarter to 'strongly support' one whose positions on the important issues you know to be in alignment with yours, rather than one whose positions you don't know.
Barring a disaster, I think Moore will be able to reach the 50% mark in the first round. If he does not, I certainly hope you're not encouraging Democrat interlopers to interfere in a Republican primary.
He doesn't need to encourage them. It does happen. How do you think we got rid of Cynthia McKinney (unfortunately, for only one term)? GOPers voting in the Dem primary turned that tide.
Could you could Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968?
The only jobs Moore has held are in the legal sector. He spent his entire career in a courtroom, and as such, he knows a hell of alot more about the law then he does about well, legislative issues.
"No one has the slightest idea what Moore's view on the culture of corruption in state Government will be"
Well, it appears as if Moore is trying to recruit an entire "Moore ticket"
The last Governor who used that as operating policy was George Corley Wallace Sr., now maybe that's incidental, but Moore seems to be very closely following the Wallace political model.
"In other words, if you want a quixotic battle with the perceived 'forces of evil,' Moore's your man. If you want someone to actually take some positive action to address Alabama's real, everyday problems, there is no basis to think he would be that person."
Exactly, and something that should be brought up, in the 2003 primary in Mississippi, trial lawyers gave alot of money to a man named Mitch Tyner, who ran to the right of Barbour and accused him of being "pro-homosexual, pro-choice, liberal, etc"
Tyner got creamed, but it's not as if this is a new strategy. Remember, the Religious Right has it's own army of trial lawyers, like Terry and Sekulow, there are law schools across the country dedicated to training "Evangelical" trial lawyers. Just because someone's a social conservative doesn't mean they can't be a trial lawyer.
In the 1920s, politics in this state broke along certain lines. The Coalition that was the basis for the New Deal coalition in this state was comprised of Prohibitionists, Evangelical Protestants, Labor Unions, the Ku Klux Klan, Trial Lawyers, Women's suffragists, etc etc.
Basically, that was the "liberal/populist" coalition, even though it was very socially conservative.
On the other side, you had the Big Mules (this is the faction my ancestors belonged to back in one-party days), which basically consisted of Black Belt elites, big city industrialist, big business in general, anti-Wets, anti-lawyer, anti-Klan, in general, in the 1840s, these people had been Whigs. It was this coalition that formed the basis of the breakaway Dixiecrat movements. This represented the Alabama business establishment, essentially a Bourbon holdover, and while it was not as socially moralist as the "liberal" coalition, it was this coalition that was basically regarded as the conservative wing of state politics. (Most Catholics/Episcopals became Big Mule supproters by default once the 1920s set in)
During Wallace, you basically saw a mixing/meshing of coalitions into Wallace and anti-Wallace. Wallace though primarily used the New Deal coalition. The Republican Party in Alabama was originally Big Mules Part II, but as of recently, a sort of 20's dynamic in the party has developed, with big city/suburban interests more in tune with "Big Mule" style tactics, and the Religious Right increasingly swept up in a form of "Conservative Populism", which includes conservative trial lawyers.
My personal belief is (throw away the above for a minute) would be that Moore basically is concerned with the promotion of Roy Moore, more than any agenda, and given his judicial history, I think Moore would actually govern more along the old Graves/Wallace lines than on the Comer/Dixon lines
In a 2-person race, I would say Moore is the better candidate. I may disagree with Moore on the tort reform issue you brought up, but I disagree with Riley far more. If it turns out that Moore's policy positions are quite far away from mine, then I will criticize him as such. Neither gentleman is the "perfect" candidate, but Moore, of the two, is the better of the two based on what I do know. Ultimately, Moore has more to lose (reputation-wise). He could spend the rest of his life dealing solely with Religion in Government issues, giving speeches, leading movements, etc. But if he wins the Governor's race and turns into a total bust, his stature will certainly be diminished amongst the "faithful."
Yes, it happens, but you'll recall that it backfired spectacularly in 1986 when the GOP flooded the 'Rat primary(otherwise Charlie Graddick would've pounded Guy Hunt into the ground). Cynthia McKinney would be a poor example to cite, if only because she USED that issue to get back her old seat (although, in actuality, I believe I heard it cited that even without Republicans voting in the runoff, that she still would've lost).
"Barring a disaster, I think Moore will be able to reach the 50% mark in the first round. If he does not, I certainly hope you're not encouraging Democrat interlopers to interfere in a Republican primary."
I believe in the one-party system. I believe that it lasted so long that the South can't really operate with a true two-party system. I believe that the party that sits atop the one party system should be the Republican Party, and that's the ultimate political belief of mine. The truly solid, inter-racial, one party conservative Republican South.
This being said, I disagree entirely with the whole concept of "nominating primaries". For the longest time, "nominating primaries" were as a practice, non-existant in this state (and it tends to be trending back towards that). The primary runoff served as the actual election, and very few people turned out in November, except activists who all pulled the straight lever. That's what I want to return, except this time, for the Elephants.
This also being said, Graddick would not have "won" the 1986 primary without crossover votes, and I still think the decision against Graddick (I can't remember if Butts was even on the court, much less if he supported it or not) was a load of bunk. However, it's that incident that led to the actual existence of a Republican Party (in a realistic sense) in this state
So, in this context, considering that my ultimate goal is for ALL Alabama elections to be decided in Republican primaries, I have no problem with crossover voting, because I see a primary as an actual election, not as a "nominating" election.
Both Strom Thurmond and George Wallace were listed as the "Alabama Democratic Party" candidates in their respective years.
They listed Humphrey as "National Democrat" and in 1948, they didn't even put Truman on the ballot.
Anti-Wets should be wets or anti-prohibitionists
Is Peavy running for mayor down there? I knew both John and Steve, many years ago.
"that Windom is a crook."
They're all crooks though (I think this applies to Moore as well), so, there's nothing really spectacular about the above statement.
And yes, Peavy is running for Mayor. Basically, all of Reggie Copeland's people are in with Peavy, and the rest of the business community has basically sided with Bedsole.
Right now, Peavy seems to be leading the race (if you believe that Jones is toast in the runoff, as I do), and he's managed to draw support from Bedsole (Dow supporters of course) and he's also managed to draw some old Bess supporters too (not so much pro-Bess as they were anti-Dow)
If I had to call it right now, I'd say Peavy has an advantage because he has a good cross section of support, Bedsoles support is limited primarily to gentry areas, and Bess, let's just say, Bess is getting killed by Peavy in territory she needs to win.
I personally think that being back on the council for 7 months is not the best pitch to go into a Mayoral election, but alot of the old network he had when he ran against Greenough has come back to him.
Huh. I'll have to start paying attention to this.
What is in Gadsden? (your tag line)
Roy Moore is from Gadsden. It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer.
Mitch Tyner, btw, was a plant by the 'Rats (if not an outright dirty trick of Ronnie Musgrove's). No one on the Republican side took him seriously.
Well, DeKalb County is not really Gadsden. That's like saying Rick Bragg is from Gadsden.
Hey, at least Alabama has runoffs. Here in Tennessee, you could conceivably be nominated with 1% of the vote if you had 100 candidates and as long as you receive 1 more vote than your opponent, you advance to November. Though that is the least of our problems.
And Butts had no part of the '86 decision, he did not ascend to the court until 1995 (serving about 3 1/4 years as a Democrat).
Not DeKalb County, Etowah County.
Okay - the tag line makes sense now.
Well, DeKalb is only, what, a dozen miles from Gadsden as the crow flies. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.