Posted on 09/28/2002 5:41:13 AM PDT by GailA
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:20:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
While the slick gubernatorial advertising campaigns battle one another during the nightly newscasts, the rival partisan camps are waging another noisy skirmish about the money that fuels those 30-second spots.
The state Republican Party, remembering the $6 million in personal wealth that Democrat Phil Bredesen pumped into his unsuccessful 1994 gubernatorial effort, is calling on him to honor a state law that forbids a candidate from putting more than $250,000 into a campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at tennessean.com ...
BTW oily phil is avoiding Algorebatross like he had the plague.
Listen to the Bredesen response ad again. His exact words, repeated in news articles too, are "I do not support an income tax." The key is those three words: "do not support." It's passive, avoiding. Hilleary's stance is much different. He *opposes* the IT. It's active, oppositional. Imagine a few years from now. TennCare reforms are stalled. Spending is still outpacing revenues. Another budget impasse looms. Naifeh has done his homework this time and has the support lined up in both the House and Senate. He passes his IT bill and sends it to Bredesen. Governor Bredesen says, "I do not support this bill. I don't even like it. But, this is what the Legislature has sent me and something must to be done. We must move forward and deal with important issues like education and health care. So, it is with great sadness that I will sign this bill."
You do not have to support a bill to allow it to become law. But if you oppose it -- as both gubernatorial candidates did in the past IT battle - that will kill it right there. We've proved that. Bredesen is giving himself the appearance of opposition while leaving wiggle room for the future. Plain and pure. I would only add this: I don't think Bredesen would sign it. I think he'd let it become law without his signature, and give a speech announcing that he didn't veto it because the Legislature can override with a simple majority, and clearly they had the votes to do so. He'd say that while he "does not support" an income tax, he recognizes that he can not stop the legislature from imposing one. He'd probably also issue a meaningless call for amending the constitution to strengthen the governor's veto power, just to make himself look like the victim rather than the perp. And then he'd have what deep down in his liberal tax-and-spend heart of hearts Phil Bredesen really wants: an income tax without the blame.
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.