by Glynn Wilson

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Oct. 30 - For the better part of the past month, it’s been a blast on the road “cowboying” in the Chevy van enjoying the fall weather and taking a break from television and politics out in nature - twelve days on the Gulf Coast and then four days taking in the peak color in North Carolina.

The elections coming up next Tuesday, Nov. 7, however, are too important to ignore for any serious newsman.

Alas, I almost fell asleep trying to concentrate on the televised political debates tonight on Alabama Public Television.

Governor’s Debate Episode 2006

Gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley and Gov. Bob Riley exchanged viewpoints in this live one-hour event presented by Leadership Alabama, the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, Alabama Public Television and the Alabama Press Association.

Unfortunately, according to APT’s Website, the show is also sponsored by a few of the most corrupt corporate polluters in the state, including Alabama Power, Vulcan Materials and Entergen. It is also sponsored by one of the worst corporate spies in the country, BellSouth, which is about to merge with AT&T, now owned and operated out of George W. Bush’s Texas by Southwest Bell.

Oh, you didn’t even know about the debates? Why would you, since none of the corporate television news stations or newspapers in this state did much to promote public involvement in the show.

And let’s face it, the race may already be a done deal anyway. The latest polls show Riley leading the governor’s race by a margin of 57 percent to 32 percent.

According to an article out today in StateLine.Org:

Republican Bob Riley is vying to become the first Alabama governor to be re-elected and to serve two full terms since George Wallace in the 1970s. Incumbents have lost the last three gubernatorial elections in Alabama, and Gov. Guy Hunt (R) won re-election in 1990 only to be removed in 1993 for an ethics violation.

In a state where voters have demonstrated their willingness to split tickets, Riley appears headed for a second term with a strong lead in the polls over Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, the Democratic nominee. In an Oct. 8 poll by the Press-Register/University of South Alabama, Riley led with 57 percent of voters, compared with 32 percent for Baxley.

Baxley, elected lieutenant governor four years ago after two terms as state treasurer, is trying to become the state’s first female governor in four decades. Wallace’s wife, Lurleen, was elected in 1966 when state law barred her husband from succeeding himself.

Riley, a former three-term congressman, has benefited from little scandal, a strong economy and the state’s efficient reaction to several hurricanes that hit Alabama and neighboring states in 2004 and 2005. Top issues in the race include property appraisals, minimum wage levels and tax cuts.

With the state now enjoying a budget surplus, Riley is pushing for more than $300 million in personal income and business tax cuts to be phased in over five years. Early in his administration, when state revenues were down, Riley had proposed a $1 billion tax plan that would have been the largest tax increase in state history. But voters defeated the proposed increase 2-1 in a special election.

Baxley said she opposes Riley’s proposed income tax cuts and prefers that extra state funds go towards education and other government services.

But both candidates favor abolishing annual property appraisals in favor of appraisals every four years. During his tenure, Riley instructed his revenue commissioner to order annual appraisals, a move he said state law required. Baxley has criticized the Riley administration for this, noting that her first business as governor would be to do away with annual appraisals, which she describes as a de facto tax increase on Alabamians.

Baxley is pushing for the state to set a minimum wage of at least a dollar more than the federally mandated rate, now $5.15 an hour. Riley is opposed to a state-mandated increase.

Historic Election Year For Governor’s Races

According to an early AP story out on the main debate:

Baxley, Riley Debate Differances On Tax Cuts, Credibility

And of course the Alabama bureau of AP put out this story a couple of days ago, which just struck me as funny.

Washington Scandals Don’t Touch Alabama’s GOP Governor?

So why have the Washington scandals not touched Bob Riley? Because the pathetically weak Alabama press corps did nothing to investigate the stories. Riley’s connections to Bush and his lobbyist cronies have been on public display for any reporter willing to look and connect the dots. Unfortunately, since Sen. John McCain is now courting the conservative base in his obvious run for president in 2008, his staff would not cooperate with our own attempt to investigate all the connections.

So the best we can hope for is a change in the power balance in the U.S. House and Senate.

Also according to the latest polls:

Democrats Hold Double-Digit Lead in Competitive Districts; GOP Troubles Extend into Home Territory

With less than two weeks to go before the midterm elections, the Democrats not only continue to maintain a double-digit advantage nationally, but also lead by the same margin in the competitive districts that will determine which party controls the House of Representatives, according to the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Nationally, the Democrats hold a 49 percent-38 percent lead among registered voters, and a nearly identical 50 percent-39 percent lead among those voters most likely to cast ballots on Nov. 7.

An oversample of voters in 40 competitive districts - identified by a consensus of political analysts-shows that voting intentions in the battleground districts are about the same as they are in the “safe” House districts. Among registered voters, the Democrats lead by 11 points in competitive districts (50 percent-39 percent) and by the same margin in safe districts (49 percent-38 percent).

So even though none of the Alabama races will make a big difference in the Congressional elections, we can watch from here and have some hope that there is a good chance the power balance will change in D.C.

Sources in Washington indicate to us that the Senate could end up in a 50/50 split, putting the tying vote on many issues into the hands of Vice President Dick “Shooter” Cheney. What a wonderful prospect.

We will leave you with this final point. It is a point which we tried to get Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley to embrace in the last three weeks of the governor’s race, but she was obviously too afraid of being labeled a liberal to reach out to the most intelligent and progressive voters in this state who see no candidates with any creativity at all in their political platforms.

To demonstrate this point, just turn to the group Birders United.

According to estimates from the National Geographic Society, there are 15 million or more voting age Americans who have a serious interest in the welfare of birds. Huge numbers of adults in our country watch birds, feed birds, keep lists of birds, and give large sums of money to organizations that protect bird habitats.

In the United Kingdom the formidable political force of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is frequently compared to the powers of the Teamsters Union in the United States. But most of the millions of bird people in America do not realize that they have the potential voting power to control the outcome of many elections in our country.

This is not just a utopian dream. In recent presidential contests, a swing of just a few thousand votes would have changed the outcome in a number of key states.

For example, if only 270 Republican bird watchers in Florida had shifted their votes in the 2000 presidential election, President Bush would not have won the election. In many states the number of adult bird enthusiasts is so large that an organized bird watcher vote could control the outcome of almost any election.

It is a big mystery to me, and a number of my closest friends, why some people who support conservation efforts continue, for other reasons, to vote Republican.

Hey, if you really think it is more important for a president to bash gays openly than to support sensible public policies on environmental issues, by all means vote Republican. But now that you know there is a such thing as a gay Republican (thanks to the Foley page scandal), maybe it would be worth reconsidering which party you vote for - or if not, why not just consider staying home on election day?

Better yet, go bird watching. Let the rest of us decide…

I will not be happy voting in a church thanks to the Bush Justice Department’s policy tearing down the wall between church and state. But I will be voting there anyway. And I will be voting for Ms. Baxley and any other Democrat worth checking on the electronic ballot.

Let’s just hope Diebold doesn’t steal the elections for all these so-called Christian Republicans. It’s not really all that funny what corruption and hypocrisy is supported by some people in the name of Jesus Christ.

As the scandal over gay Republican former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley boils over in Washington, it should not totally overshadow a more sinister scandal involving the total corruption of the system of financing elections in America.

If you missed Bill Moyers’ special on PBS last night, you can watch it on the rerun or online.

“It’s a dizzying scope of perfidy and politics that boggles the imagination, and although Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay have been brought down, the system remains as vulnerable as ever,” Moyers says. “The scale of corruption still coming to light dwarfs anything since Watergate. In one sense it’s the age-old tale of greed, but greed encouraged now by the way our system works. Deep in the plea agreements of Jack Abramoff and his cronies is the admission that they conspired to use campaign contributions to bribe politicians; campaign finance is at the core of the corruption. They took great pains to cover their tracks, and they might have pulled it off except for a handful of honest people, and the work of some enterprising print reporters, Senate investigators, and the ethics team at the department of justice.”

PBS: Capitol Crimes

I’m sorry to laugh out loud, but this story just keeps getting better and better. It shows the perfect hypocrisy of Republicans, and further discredits organized religion too.

The talking heads are pounding it again tonight. Keep it up, y’all…

Foley Says He Was Abused By Clergyman
Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was sexually abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages.
Pages Warned About Foley
House Republicans Grapple With Gay Scandal
Florida GOP Picks Replacement for Foley
FBI Examining Foley’s E-Mail to Teens
Foley Checks Into Rehab
House Members Rip Gay Republican
Gay Republican Resigns From Congress Over E-Mails

It may be easy to slumber in the air conditioning on the longest days of the year and forget the mid-term elections now only five months away. But if you are awake and keeping up, here are four good reasons to vote against Republicans in November.

One, the world thinks the United States of America is the biggest threat to global security on the planet thanks to the failed policies of our dicktater-in-chief.

Bush Says ‘Absurd’ to Charge U.S. is Biggest Threat to Global Security

Two, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is playing politics with the war in Iraq, trying to paint the Democratic Party as the “cut and run” party. The Democrats in the Senate, meanwhile, are just trying to reign in an out of control executive branch and bring some sense to U.S. foreign policy.

With Eye on Elections, Senate Debates Iraq War

The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light

Three, if you think anyone can make a living on $5.15 an hour, while corporations are posting record profits and corporate executives are taking home record salaries and bonuses, then vote Republican. If you think the workers of America deserve to be paid a living wage, vote Democrat.

Republican Controlled Senate Kills Minimum Wage Increase

Four, if you are a racist and think this country should roll back civil rights, vote Republican. If you think the Voting Rights Act should be renewed, vote Democrat.

Republicans Cancel Renewal of Voting Rights Act

We have been asked by another Alabama blogger to comment on the proposed Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriages that will be on the ballot next Tuesday, June 6.

Jeff Vreeland with the Politics in Alabama blog says he plans to have more to say about it in the next few days. We had not necessarily planned to get into this issue, since we figure it is a done deal anyway. But the invite is too interesting to avoid.

But before we comment on anything, some research is necessary. This ain’t like talk radio y’all where we feel comfortable saying the first thing that pops into our heads.

So the first thing we had to do before posting was to search around and find the language of the amendment. The best we can tell from online research anyway, no news organization in Alabama has actually published the language yet. There have been stories and even editorials about it, along with stories about public opinion surveys on the issue.

Thanks to the friendly folks at the Alabama Secretary of State’s office, however, we had the language in hand within minutes. When you go to the polls next Tuesday, this is what Amendment One will say:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that no marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex and that the state shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction. (Proposed by Act 2005-35)

For clarification purposes, the Christian Coalition Web site indicates a “Yes” vote supposedly “protects traditional marriage” and a “No” vote “Does not protect traditional marriage.” But of course that radical, right-wing group of homophobic nutjobs is FOR the amendment.

This is important, since sources tell us that preachers all over Alabama are recommending a “yes” vote, since “the language is confusing.”

Then a look at the public opinion polls seems useful.

According to the University of Auburn University’s E-Commons site, a survey they conducted found that 54 percent of Alabamians strongly support an amendment. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans support it, while Democrats “are more equally divided,” according to poll director Jim Seroka.

This differs markedly from the national surveys. According to a Pew Research Center survey, only the slimmest of majorities, 51 percent of Americans, continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage.

According to some newspaper stories in the state, the amendment might be just as bad for the rights of traditional married couples as it is for gay couples. Opponents of the amendment contend the measure may affect health insurance benefits for children, inheritances, domestic violence protections and property transactions.

An attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center said the amendment would not strengthen Alabama law or protect traditional marriage, and that the amendment is just a political ploy to turn out conservative, Christian voters.

“The Christian Coalition wants to get their people out to vote,” said Rhonda Brownstein, the SPLC’s legal director.

The Alabama Legislature passed the bill setting up the amendment vote in the 2005 regular session. Democrats in the Legislature won in a move to add the measure to the primary ballot, while Republicans wanted it on the general election ballot in November.

Allison Neal, a law fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said his organization opposes the amendment as legal overkill.

“It is overkill. It divides people into categories,” he said. “This is not just about marriage. It is about domestic partnerships, common-law unions, access to health and retirement benefits, and benefits for children.”

Howard Bayless, chairman of the board of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, hopes people in Alabama will be more understanding than the Christian Coalition and vote against the amendment.

Gay neighbors have difficulty visiting sick partners in the hospital, for example, and this bill would only make that more difficult.

Former Gov. Don Siegelman, who is also on the ballot next Tuesday as the one of the Democratic Party’s nominees for governor, took a strong stand in favor of the gay marriage ban amendment on Alabama’s “For the Record” show last night.

When asked where he stands on the amendment, he quickly said “I’m for it” almost before the question was out of the moderator’s mouth. He justified this position by saying it was based on “nature.”

But we suspect if he had actually done some research, he would learn that scientists have conducted study after study showing that nature, not nurture, is behind the fact that some people are born gay. In other words, no gay teacher or parent can turn a person into favoring one sex over the other in bed. It’s in the genes. There’s no escaping it, and this is NOT a matter of opinion.

Lucy Baxley took a different tack when asked the question on the show the night before. She would not reveal how she will vote on the amendment, since she said her vote is a private matter. But she did say her position is that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

We have no doubt Judge Roy Moore and Gov. Bob Riley will come out for it, and Riley’s latest television commercials allude to it, along with his “right to life” position on abortion and arresting all the illegal immigrants and deporting them.

So, now that we have some information, here is our position.

We will vote against the amendment banning gay marriage, because we think it is just another dumbass reactionary use of the electoral process to push a right-wing agenda and discriminate against Americans who are not white, heterosexual, married and live in the suburbs and drive everywhere they go.

Marriage should be a private matter between consenting adults - not an issue for the state. As a simple matter of civil rights, citizens of this country should not be discriminated against because of their race, gender, political party affiliation or sexual orientation.

This amendment codifies discrimination into the state Constitution, which should be scrapped and rewritten in any event. The problem with rewriting it now is this: Do you trust the idiots in power in Montgomery at this juncture to do the rewriting? We don’t.

But at least we should be able to vote down state sanctioned discrimination every chance we get at the election polls.

We therefore urge a “No” vote on Amendment One.