Lamar Alexander Fishing for Distraction from Amnesty Vote

What happens when you bring a Lamar Alexander to a Chuck Schumer fight? He turns around and becomes a weapon for Chuck Schumer and his allies, albeit an ineffective one.

In 2007, before running for a second term, Alexander rightfully noted that “to regain the public’s confidence, we ought to scale it back and fix the problem step-by-step by absolutely securing our borders first, then enforcing our laws without amnesty.” Now, after years of voting for more spending, higher taxes, more debt, expanded government healthcare, massive energy regulations and subsidies, and liberal judicial nominees, the former third ranking Senate Republican has become a Chuck Schumer Republican. He led the fight, along with Bob Corker, to push a fledgling amnesty-first bill across the finish line.

Naturally, his constituents in Tennessee – a state where Obama lost 91 of 95 counties – are not too happy with him. So he’s going up on the air with a $180,000 media campaign featuring Rand Paul. What is he touting? His fishing bill:

In an apparent effort to boost conservative support, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has launched his first TV ad campaign of the 2014 cycle with a spot featuring footage of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that touts a measure Alexander spearheaded to protect fishing access.

“We don’t want a government that’s strong enough to make our lives risk-free. We can do that for ourselves,” says Alexander in the ad, which touts his work to pass a measure that placed a two-year moratorium on efforts to restrict fishing access in certain areas in the state.

The spot includes footage of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who co-sponsored the measure, saying: “Nobody wants to say no to Lamar Alexander.”

Fish? Really? After voting for mass amnesty and new red tape on ICE agents with the hollow promise of enforcement 10 years from now, I don’t think we will have to worry about free fishing. The entire country will be voting like California, and fishing will be the least of our problems.

Besides, it’s a bit amusing to hear him speak of a risk-free society when he voted for the bailouts and against eliminating government subsidies of energy. Then again, he was one of the few Republicans to vote against a resolution disapproving of Obama’s job killing Utility MACT regulations that would ostensibly shut down coal-fired power plants. A born-again free marketer indeed.

Yes, we are impressed that he raised $2 million from his special interest friends. But there are diminishing returns to how much love money can buy you in a conservative state with high-information voters. A few corny ads about fishing certainly won’t ameliorate his record as a Schumer Republican.

Would I have wanted him to win ? As an academic exercise, it would’ve been curious to see what he would’ve done. I enjoy electing people who are the fly in the proverbial ointment, the pain in the ass (now I’m quoting Detective John McClane) to the political establishment. The kind of Democrat I would vote for is highly unlikely to ever be nominated... and if they are, they would never win a general election.

As for TN Dems endorsing the Green over Clayton, they wouldn’t have openly done that (unless he’d done something really horrid, in which case, they’d have forced him off the ballot). I think White liberal voters (in Nashville, to be precise), some clearly decided to vote for Corker and for the hard-core left, for the Green nominee (I believe nearly all of his votes came from this county, he got 4%).

As you can see, here’s a comparison in that same election:

Davidson County - 2012
(D) Zero
143,120

(D) Clayton
105,631

(R) Willard
97,622

(R) Corker
111,176

You can see that at least 10% of Zero’s voters went to Corker. But about 25,000 chose not to vote for either in the Senate race (of which about 8,000 voted Green).

Shelby County/Memphis - 2012

(D) Zero
232,443

(D) Clayton
181,253

(R) Willard
135,649

(R) Corker
152,612

Here again, you can see around 6 or 7% of Zero voters went to Corker. However, you’ll also notice the numbers don’t add up. While just under 370,000 cast votes for the two leading Presidential candidates, 10% boycotted the Senate race (with only 1% voting for the Green).

So obviously faced with the choices, Democrat Presidential voters stuck with their nominee with a majority of their vote, but with that last quarter of the vote, chose either to vote for Corker or boycott, with the smallest group voting Green.

If the Dems had nominated someone more ideologically to their liking, such as the moonbat actress Park Overall, she probably would’ve taken Davidson County, but unlikely that the Dems would’ve won more than just those three aforementioned counties (and add to that, Overall had no money for her candidacy, a problem that plagued all of the primary candidates). Clayton primarily won because his name was first alphabetically on the primary ballot, which was good for giving him a 2-to-1 victory over the second-place finisher (named Davis, who was 3rd on the ballot, edging out Overall narrowly).

He didn’t want to give up his last 2 years on the Governorship to the Conservative Democrat Lieutenant Governor. Had he run and won, it’s almost certain that Gore would’ve run for Governor in 1986 and would’ve won (and from that position, almost certainly would’ve ended up as VP in ‘92, as he would’ve been even closer to Clinton). These guys just take different routes to power.

Still, I can’t imagine having had Lamar! as a Senator since 1984. He would’ve eventually become floor party leader and even worse, might’ve been foisted on us as a Presidential candidate (a la Dole) by 1996 or 2000. Blech.

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.