Odom Doing A Lot Of Backscratching Of Others In Anticipation Of His Own Impending Itch
Posted on August 22, 2008 at 8:18 amKen Whitehouse on the brewing battle between Rep. Gary Odom and Jimmy Naifeh for the Speaker’s chair:
While it is well known that the quickest way for a politician to lose a general election is to be perceived to be “out of touch” with the electorate (consider Al Gore’s losing Tennessee’s electoral votes in 2000) the same goes for leadership positions in a legislative body.
An example of this took place in 1971 when a little known U.S. Senator from West Virginia knocked off Ted Kennedy to serve as the Senate Democratic Whip in the U.S. Congress.
Senator Robert Byrd beat Kennedy in that leadership race because he took care of the members of his own Democratic Caucus. He raised money for them and looked after their flank so to speak. All politics is local, even within the halls of power be they in Washington or Nashville.
Odom has been on a tear as of late, raising money for his Democratic colleagues and raising his public profile by calling for an independent investigation of the Tennessee Highway Patrol.
Raising money for colleagues is to be expected of a person in his position, but the vigor of which he is going about the job has raised some eyebrows that it is being done in advance of asking for support as Speaker.
UPDATE: Braisted has a question:
Would Odom present a more liberal, urban style Speakership? Would there be more or less transparency in the way committees operate to squash legislation before hitting the floor? All interesting questions which could only be answered with a coup de tat which nobody has yet been able to accomplish.
The answer to the first question is likely yes. The second question? Please.
Comments
2 Responses to “Odom Doing A Lot Of Backscratching Of Others In Anticipation Of His Own Impending Itch”
Deep down I bet Odom hopes the GOP will win those two open seats in rural west tennessee. It would mean two less votes for Naifeh come caucus time.
The article on which this post is based is more editorializing than reporting. Even if parts of it are true, the reader wouldn’t be able to tell because there are so few facts presented. It was a string of conditionals: “potential race,” “potential opponent,” “could well be on their way to a showdown.” No one except the Speaker and the Majority Leader were quoted. And since neither of them took the bait, shouldn’t we have the view of a third party? I think a few names of the candidates they’ve both helped would have been useful. And what’s up with “raised some eyebrows”? Am I supposed to trust without at least one example of someone who is ruffled?
In short, the piece was long on implication and short on evidence.