The July 5th 52nd State House District Debate

By Kleinheider Posted on July 14, 2008 at 7:11 am

Now online:

permalink | Comment on this post

Tags: 52nd District, Eric Stansell, Mike Stewart  

Seen But Not Called: Stansell Squanders Debate Opportunity

By Kleinheider Posted on July 5, 2008 at 8:50 pm

If the “citizens” who woke up early and trudged on down to the East Police Precinct for the 52nd State House District debate on this holiday weekend morning expected to see clear delineations and differences on policy between the two progressives vying for Rob Briley’s soon-to-be former seat, they were sorely disappointed.

In the debate this morning, in front of a small crowd of mostly campaign staff and volunteers and progressive activists, both Eric Stansell and Mike Stewart toed the progressive party line on question after question posed by the usual suspect interest groups in the progressive portfolio.

On issue after issue, agreement was the rule and exceptions were few and far between — if existent at all.

On taxes, both candidates spoke to the progressive imperative of removing the tax on food. How offsetting revenue was to be found to accomplish this “imperative progressive goal” was not discussed much by either candidate.

On health care, both candidates, while promising to fight for increased accessibility and affordability in the broadstrokes, conceded that a federal answer to the health care question was needed. Mike Stewart promise to be an effect advocate for that federal change while Eric Stansell pointed to his stint as a lawyer at the Department of Commerce and Insurance as preparation for leadership on the issue.

The question of SJR 127 and the issue of abortion came up and both candidates committed emphatically to defending a woman’s right to choose and to stand in opposition to attempts by the Right to change the state Constitution.

Eric Stansell give a bit of lip service to the goal of decreasing the amount and necessity of abortions. His answer was less knee-jerk pro-choice rhetorically but substantively there did not seem to be any daylight between the men on the issue.

On a question on hate crimes against those practicing alternative lifestyles, both were, as anyone would be, horrified by recent events in Memphis and pledged to lead the fight on the issue. Stansell sought to draw a contrast noted that he was the only candidate at the Nashville Pride Fest but Stewart countered that he too was at the event.

On predatory lending, Mike Stewart emphasized his refusal to take money from title lenders and urged more regulation while Stansell brought the issue back to his experience as a lawyer for the state dealing with the issue. Stansell believes there needs to be “lenders of last resort” but they should be highly regulated. Again, no major difference between the candidates on the issue.

The name of Rob Briley was mentioned by a questioner on the death penalty noting the Representative’s leadership against death penalty calling for both a moratorium and a study committee. Both candidates lauded the efforts of the retiring incumbent and pledged to continue the efforts.

Here like on the abortion issue, Stansell seemed, rhetorically at least, to be more conservative (relatively speaking) than Stewart. Stansell made it emphatically clear that he supports the death penalty in principle for the most serious and heinous crimes. Of course, Stansell ended up saying that if further studies proved that innocent men were being put at risk, if the state continued to apply the penalty less than uniformly, he would support abolition. As, of course, would his opponent.

Mike Stewart, responding to a question from the Sierra Club, said they was no danger in Tennessee of us “overprotecting the environment” and that we should not move backwards in regard to the very limited progress made. Stansell echoed the remarks but did add that job creation and environmental protection did not have to be mutually exclusive.

On education, Stansell said the key to bringing middle class back to the public schools was to make the high school diploma “worth something again” advocating, among other things an end to any type of social promotion. Stewart, on the other hand, seemed much more an incrementalist citing progress already made and the folly of pursuing the path of radical reform.

On the state employee buyouts, once again, both were opposed to how they were handled by the current administration. Stansell, again citing his experience as a state employee, explained that it was important to keep experienced people on staff. Stewart noted Governor McWherter’s handling of a similar situation without the current mess.

On eminent domain, the two candidates did betray a small difference, while both candidates bemoaned most cases of economically motivated use of eminent domain. Stansell said that the government should reserve the right to use eminent domain in cases where the one individual is stubbornly holding up a good project, putting the interests of one individual ahead of the whole. Under very few circumstances, Stansell allowed that government could and should step in under an economic rationale.

In the end though, differences seemed few and far between. As Matt Pulle noted, the setup of the debate seemed to run a bit counter to the interests of a substantive discussion. Facing questions by prominent progressive special interest activists in their area of expertise does not encourage candidates to go much past talking points designed to appeal to the sparsely populated audience of committed liberal activists.

When asked after the debate about the lack of substantive differences, both candidates conceded very few policy differences and instead pointed to there backgrounds and “where they are coming from” as reasons to vote for one over the other.

Stansell, again as noted by Matt Pulle, exudes a very John Edwardsish populism in his approach. He believes that his status as the outsider in this race and his willingness to give voice to the voiceless as the major difference.

“I have been throughout this district talking with people and listening to people in places where most candidates don’t go,” explained Stansell, “I have talked to and heard the concerns of people who say they have never seen or talked to a candidate [pursuing the 52nd seat].”

Stewart, while citing his incrementalist approach towards education which recognizes progress already made a small distinction, granted few differences.

“It would appear that we are both solid progressive Democrats,” said Stewart.

Stewart argues that his background in Democratic politics would simply make him a more a effective advocate for the district. When asked if his advantage over Stansell was knowing more of the people “one needs to know,” Stewart agreed that his connections do give him an advantage.

“And it’s not just the people in my firm, I have worked with many people, included the current Mayor, on many different issues and that experience will benefit the people of the district,” Stewart explained.

So who won? As always, tie goes to the money. In a debate between a well funded downtown lawyer and an underdog former state employee, the underdog needs to show something. By not seizing the opportunity to draw distinctions and attack or challenge Stewart on any of his answers, Stansell yields to the stubborn inertia of the perceived frontrunner.

Additionally, Stewart, while he did not make any bold impressions on the audience, did take more opportunities to talk about the district than Stansell. An unfunded underdog like Stansell should be going out of his way to show an in depth and intricate knowledge of the district with which to distinguish himself from the well heeled downtown lawyer. He didn’t.

Stansell has nothing to lose, he is expected to go down to defeat. As he prepares for the next encounter between the candidates on July 15, he would be well advised to find distinctions, any distinctions, between himself and Stewart and blow them up or the district will simply elect the man whose money and connections make him an almost defacto incumbent.

SEE ALSO:
Nashville Scene
Laura Creekmore
Grand Divisions
Sean Braisted

permalink | 1 Comment

Tags: 52nd District, East Nashville, Eric Stansell, Mike Stewart, Rob Briley, Tennessee Alliance For Progress, Waller  

No Poll Has Been Run By The Stewart Campaign

By Kleinheider Posted on at 8:49 pm

The saga of the 52nd State House district race between Waller attorney Mike Stewart and underdog Eric Stansell got curiouser and curiouser right before the July 4th holiday. The dustup Wednesday over Eric Stansell’s voting record including a 1992 vote in the Republican primary caused many folks to wonder what caused the campaign of Mike Stewart to disseminate that information.

More than a few folks, including this blogger, speculated that perhaps there was a poll done in this race showing Stansell with quite a bit more strength than expected which caused the Stewart campaign to change its dismissive attitude towards Stansell.

Elizabeth M-K Sullivan, campaign manager for Mike Stewart, when queried this past Thursday as to whether some of their big fundraising haul was used to commission a poll, was emphatic.

“No, absolutely not. There has been no polling done by this campaign.” Sullivan explained, ” This doesn’t mean we don’t reserve the right to poll in the future but, as of now, we have not felt the need.”

So, why go negative? What spurred a heavy favorite with money to burn to dime out the voting record of underfunded opponent to the media? Sullivan asserted that it was not the Stewart campaign that drew first blood.

“We didn’t make this campaign about who was the best Democrat, [Stansell] did,” explained Sullivan. When asked to point to specific instances in the media where Stansell had gone negative Sullivan could only offer up the somewhat anti-Stewart coverage in the Nashville Scene. When asked whether she believe Stansell was behind or instigating that coverage, Sullivan responded in the affirmative.

“At some point, when you are attacked, you have to defend yourself.” Sullivan added.

Contacted by Post Politics late Thursday, candidate Eric Stansell was somewhat taken aback by the suggestion that he was behind the Scene’s coverage.

“While it would certainly be useful as an underdog candidate, I possess no kind of control over the media.” answered Stansell. “People write what they want to write, especially in the Scene.”

In the end, however, Stansell doesn’t consider what the Stewart campaign did “going negative.”

“Publicizing my voting record is not negative. I voted Republican in 1992 when I was 19. That’s not negative, that’s a fact. Just as it is a fact that Mike Stewart was a tax attorney for ExxonMobil and Eastman Chemical. Just as it is a fact, my opponent was a registered lobbyist for the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce. Just as it is a fact that my opponent has  Campaign Treasurer who has supported Republican candidates. These are all facts and I encourage the voters to consider them.”

permalink | Comment on this post

Tags: 52nd District, East Nasty, Eric Stansell, Mike Stewart, Rob Briley, Waller  

Stansell Can’t Say For Sure He Didn’t Vote For Patrick Buchanan

By Kleinheider Posted on July 2, 2008 at 8:31 pm

I must say I read with interest the news this morning that a Democratic 52nd State House District candidate voted in the 1992 Republican primary. It was interesting not only because it was his very well-financed opposition chose to divulge the information and thus acknowledge their underdog adversary (a clear indication that the man much have some traction) but because that election was so very interesting.

1992, you see, was my political awakening. It was not an election I was able to vote in but it was the first one that I was really engaged in and I can’t imagine having a better one.

An incumbent Republican President, the heir of the Reagan Revolution, goes back on his his pledge not to raise taxes. Despite his sheparding a coalition force of the freedom lovin’ world to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, he attracts a primary opponent. Unusual for a Republican primary of an incumbent president.

That candidate, Pat Buchanan, did not win a primary, of course, but his nearly forty percent share of the vote in New Hampshire shocked the establishment and probably emboldened a certain independent Texan, just one month and some change later, to go on Larry King Live and announce an “openness” to taking a few of his millions of dollars out for a whirl on the campaign trail.

This is to say nothing of the Democratic primary which featured the populist liberal Jerry Brown shopping a flat tax, a Southern Governor with serious scandal-related issues and a Greek deficit hawk former Massachusetts Senator who sounded quite a bit different than the Greek Massachusetts Governor who had nabbed the nomination just four years previous.

It was a truly glorious election to behold in many, many respects.

But back to Stansell. Having experienced the same election at only a slightly younger age than Stansell, I thought it very revealing that he viewed his vote in 1992 “as an act of rebellion.”

Now in the right context, as counterintuitive as it may be, I suppose one could vote for George Bush the Elder as an act of rebellion but as a young conservative of that era myself, I knew where young conservatives stood in that election.

Young people do not generally vote in elections, but when they do, they tend to go for more pure, less comprising men of politics.

In 1992, that was Pat Buchanan. Stansell tells Mr. Braisted he can’t remember whom he voted for in that primary but he thinks it was the incumbent President Bush the Elder. Intrigued by a the prospect of a nineteen year old man not sure of whom he voted for in his first election, I called Mr. Stansell just to see how the same question others had asked him would fall on my ear.

When asked, he reiterated that he likely voted for Bush. “I can’t give you a definite answer. I don’t wanna lie and say I’m sure because I’m not. But like I said, I’m almost positive,” said Stansell.

I decided to ask the question another way. You see, in 1992, there were only three men on the ballot here in Tennessee for the Republicans. There was the incumbent president. There was the conservative commentator Pat Buchanan. And, finally, there was former Klansman David Duke.

I asked Stansell, since he wasn’t sure and there were only three options, whether it was possible he voted for David Duke.

“Absolutely not,” asserted Stansell, “David Duke stands for everything I am against, now and then.”

Of course, I next asked him if could say with 100% certainty that he had not voted for Pat Buchanan.

“No, I can’t say that. Like I said, my Republicanism back then was an act of rebellion against my Democratic family so that kind of a vote would foot that bill. But am almost certain I voted for Bush, ” Stansell said.

When asked to put a percentage on it he said there was a 10% percent chance he voted for Buchanan and a 90% chance he voted for Bush.

Now, what does all this mean in the end? Not a damn thing. 19 year olds do a lot of silly things. Stansell tells Post Politics that his college experience ended up reinforcing what his Democratic parents had taught him and based on his activities since then there is certainly no reason to think this man is either a closet Bushie or Buchananite.

So what was the point? Why did Stewart’s campaign put this little birdie in the ear of Chris Hambry of the City Paper?

Well, again, Mr. Braisted says it was probably was done because it was fun. Maybe so.

But, then again, you don’t have to have the cynicism and Waller hatred of a Scenester to understand that the crew at Waller know political campaigns. They know better than most which buttons to press and when and, most importantly, those not to press. It is hard to believe that a Waller partner’s campaign would willfully provide this information, on the record no less, to a news organization without realizing that they were giving an underfunded underdog opponent a chance to get his name in the paper.

Folks who may have never heard the name Eric Stansell before today, after reading the City Paper, went and Googled his name and ended up right here.

Sure, it is important to define your opponent and you definitely want to do that — if you think you have an opponent worth defining.

If Stansell is as outmatched as some portray him to be, it would seem silly to give him any kind of exposure, any opportunity to get his name and his message out there.

Is it fun to do opposition research and then put it out there for the world to see? Sure, but a campaign with some discipline would not have publicized that information “for fun.” Mike Stewart is not raising the kind of money he is raising “for fun.”

So this episode either tells you that a Waller attorney has a State House campaign with no discipline or, the more likely scenario, this was a very calculated dissemination of information designed to serve a specific purpose and accomplish a specific end.

What that end is exactly is up to interpretation but it certainly wasn’t done “for fun.”

SEE ALSO: GoldnI

permalink | 2 Comments

Tags: 52nd District, Eric Stansell, Mike Stewart, Rob Briley, state house, Waller Landsen