Insight into the always fascinating world of Alabama elections...

Alabama Elections Directory 2006

Got a Tip?(Anonymity Guaranteed) Complaints, Compliments, Corrections? Interested in Guest Blogging? E-mail me.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Weekend Winners and Losers -- 01/07

The Winners

Tammy Irons - Despite a late effort by Bob Riley, Republicans failed to find a top-tier candidate in the upcoming special election in State House District 001, leaving Democrat Tammy Iron as a near lock to win the seat.

Sue Bell Cobb - The presumptive Democratic nominee for Chief Justice recently boasted of a campaign warchest somewhere between 240K - 270K. While most eyes are on the potential primary battle between Tom Parker and Drayton Nabers, Cobb's fundraising prowess demonstrates she'll be a tough opponent in November no matter which Republican emerges.

The Losers

Alabama Taxpayers - A recent study shows that Alabama is getting the short end of the stick when it comes to securing federal Homeland Security funds. When comparing per-capita DHS spending with terror risk assessment, there are several states with lower "terror risk" levels than Alabama which receive more federal dollars. Alabama receives the 5th lowest per-capita funding ($6.24) of all 50 states, while several states with lower terror risk threats (AK, NM, MS, ID, MT, WY, NH, ME and others) receive up to two or three times as much funding.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

When is this site going to show Councilman Henry Barnes, I have read a lot about him in the paper and the media about a letter that was published in USA Today that was written by him.I believe that would be interesting.

8:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know this sounds sacrilegious, but every dollar of federal money that comes into this state puts us more and more under the authority of Washington DC. Just look at our education system.

I prefer to not send my money to the feds in the first place and then maybe I could afford to go out and buy a .50 cal. rifle and take care of my little "homeland."

So I don't mourn when we don't get "enough" federal money. But I do mourn the fact that Washington has so much of "our" money to "give" in the first place.

9:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Considering that Sue Bell is probably the only Democrat candidate for any for the five state supreme court seats with the slightest chance of winning, $250,000 by the end of 2005 isn't that much money.

I would not be surprised if each of the leading Republican candidates for each of the five seats open this year ended 2005 with either a similar sum in the bank or with at least that much in hard commitments that waited for the new year for delivery to delay the public disclosure of the funds.

9:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see...250k from trial lawyers and unions. Can't wait to see Paul Hubbert & Jere Beasley's fingerprints all over Sue Bell's report.

And let's face it, she won't be remotely competitive in fundraising against Nabers.

5:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nabers has one asset, money. In nearly every other respect he is a weak candidate. Money is powerful, but it isn't decisive.

Just ask Jean Brown. She was an incumbent associate justice in the spring of 2004 when little-known upstart Tom Parker challenged her at the last minute in the Republican primary.

Although Brown and her friends spent something like $2 million on her campaign -- about six times more than Tom Parker -- he still defeated her after campaigning for only about 50 days. That's because Parker was personally a strong candidate and also had the support of evangelical voters.

I imagine that Nabers would be willing to spend more money than Jean Brown to keep his seat. But if a candidate like Tom Parker -- personally strong as a candidate and a proven evangelical -- were to challenge him, Nabers could lose almost as easily as Brown in the 2006 Republican primary.

Nabers isn't stupid, and he does recognize his weakness among evangelicals. That is the reason for his campaign book on character and his speaking tours at churches around the state.

But if a bona fide evangelical alternative were to surface in the Republican primary, Nabers' election-year conversion to visible evangelicalism may not persuade enough for him to survive. In that case, Sue Bell's financial picture could brighten.

7:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, i can not wait to see all the big corporations have the paws on nabers money.

9:21:00 PM  
Blogger PoliSciZac said...

I think the 5th poster makes alot of sense here. I generally would agree with his rationale. Nicely written.

9:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that some may be surprised by the diverse sources of contributions to Judge Cobb's campaign. She has successfully tapped into a wide variety of contributors across the poltical and financial spectrum, including a significant number of small, individual contributors. It is a mistake to underestimate her.

10:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person who said he wants to simply buy a gun and protect his homeland...

Do you have no idea what the Alabama Dept. of Homeland Security does? Will your gun protect our chemical industry sites? Will it protect our agricultural industry, which is the largest component of our economy? What about our infrastructure like bridges and roads? Our water supplies?

Good lord. Another reason why I can't be a conservative. You have to check your brain at the door.

8:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jere Beasley is a big Tom Parker supporter (and Sue Bell has made her displeasure with this well known). There may be a lot of trial lawyers who like Sue Bell, but Beasley isn't one of them.

8:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The poster who did not like my comment about buying a gun illustrates why I can't be a liberal. It amazes me that any rational human being can think that the government can protect our agricultural industry, chemical plants, bridges and roads, etc.

The only way government can get even close to providing basic protection for all these things is to grow 1,000 times bigger than it already is. If this happens, we will live in a police state that would make Hitler envious. Then, nothing will be worth defending...

8:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think poster # 5 is off. Brown lost to Parker because he exploited her vote to remove the 10 commandments monument at the height of the furor. It wasn't a function of money, it was an unwinnable issue for Brown at that point in time.

Parker will have significantly bigger problems against Nabers-- namely how he funded his last campaign (and upcoming one I suspect) almost entirely with trial lawyer money, and then used an elaborate scheme to HIDE that fact from GOP primary voters who hate trial lawyers.

He'll also have his non-record of 1 year on the court with no opinions to try to explain to the taxpayers/voters.

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that Republicans typically embrace their business funders, not try to hide their contributors the way Parker and most Democrats do? It's because they all know the public hates the trial lawyers more than they hate the business community. Always have, always will.

You're doing a great job with the blog by the way. Very interesting and always topical.

10:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

some reporter should expose the luther irons/tammy irons connection. luther is a shady operator, just ask any candidate that knows him what he does to you.

9:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans embrace their funding sources, except when those sources are Indian Casinos in Mississippi.

2:26:00 PM  
Blogger PoliSciZac said...

I think the next to last poster makes some good points as well.

A 2006 Parker candidacy will certainly be different than a 2004 candidacy. The trial lawyer connection and his controversys on the court certainly haven't endeared him to some of the GOP electorate.

But he should also be able to raise more money than he did in 04 since he's now a sitting justice. And Nabers will have the Amenmdnet One issue as well as the 10 Comandments thrown at him during the campaign. I am not sure that Nabers is a stronger candidate than Jean Brown was in 04.

But you certainly make a persuasive argument and I wouldn't be surprised at all if you are proven correct.

2:32:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Politics Blog Top Sites