Baby Daddy Drama: Campfield Spars With Another Colleague Over Paternity Bill
Posted on March 16, 2009 at 2:22 pmAs was reported by Tom Humphrey over the weekend, Rep. Stacey Campfield has once again ignited some fireworks in a state legislative committee on Wednesday of last week.
Just like last year’s famous standoff with Rep. Rob Briley, at issue was Campfield’s bill, HB 805, dubbed the “Baby Daddy Bill” which would allow a mechanism for paternity be disestablished in the event that a conclusive DNA test proves a previously assumed parent is not the biological father.
Rep. Jeanne Richardson raises some concerns about the bill and whether legislation is necessary. Richardson seems to be saying that the bill makes her uncomfortable because it presupposes some mass distrust of women and that there simply aren’t that many cases women deliberately attempting to defraud the men in their lives about offspring to justify codification in law.
Aunt B. somewhat similarly delves into the psychology that could be behind this legislation engaging in speculation about Campfield’s past interactions with women.
My question about all this is: so what?
Let’s say Rep. Stacey Campfield is as demented as Aunt B. projects that he is. Let’s say further that we concede that a very large majority of women are not attempting to defraud men who they have slept with and that most cases of inaccurate paternity are honest mistakes by virtuous women. Lets also concede that most all these cases are very rare exceptions from the norm.
So what?
The question at hand is: should a man be forced to pay for a child not of his line once that fact has been determined? If the answer is no then should not the law afford these men the protect they deserve regardless of the rarity of these instances and morally upstanding nature the women involved?
If the legislation would do nothing objectively “wrong” then what does the motivation for filing such legislation have to do with anything? The legislation is either just or unjust, right or wrong?
Right?
Signs Of GOP Support
Posted on July 14, 2008 at 7:37 amThe Oak Hill Gazette reports that the Republican Mayor of Oak Hill seems to be supporting Democrat Mike Stewart for state House in the 52nd District.
permalink | Comment on this post
Seen But Not Called: Stansell Squanders Debate Opportunity
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
No Poll Has Been Run By The Stewart Campaign
Posted on at 8:49 pmThe 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
Stansell Can’t Say For Sure He Didn’t Vote For Patrick Buchanan
Posted on July 2, 2008 at 8:31 pmI 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
Eric Stansell Voted Republican In 1992
Posted on at 8:24 amThat is the accusation leveled at the 52nd House District candidate in an article about campaign fundraising:
Stewart and his campaign manager, Elizabeth M-K Sullivan, are on the offensive, providing The City Paper with an analysis of Stansell’s voting records from 1991 to 2004 while he was registered in McMinn County. Stewart’s campaign contends that Stansell did not vote in numerous elections, including the 1996 and 2000 presidential primaries, and that Stansell voted Republican in the 1992 presidential primary.
Stansell was in school earning his B.A., M.B.A. and law degree from the University of Tennessee from 1992 to 2001, and he voted whenever he could, he said. Some of that time he was overseas, including during the 1996 primary when he was studying at The University of Oxford in England. When he voted Republican in the 1992 presidential primary, he was a senior in high school.
“My parents were both Democrats, and it was my way of rebelling, I guess,” he said, adding, “To be honest, if that’s the best they have, I’m in great shape. I think that really shows more than anything else that I went to college, and, the more I’ve learned, the more progressive I’ve gotten. I think you want a representative who learns and can be taught. I just think it’s not an issue ultimately. If they want to make it an issue, that’s fine. That’s easily defensible.”
Hmmm. Rebelling. Like a peasants with a pitchforks type rebelling?
Either way, it is very interesting that in a story reporting Mike Stewart’s fundraising advantage that the campaign manager for Stewart feels the need to go negative on Stansell. With those kind of money numbers why even acknowledge the opposition? Has all that Waller money bought Stewart a poll showing something not so favorable?
Rob Briley Continues His Needling Of The Press
Posted on May 21, 2008 at 11:58 amRep. Rob Briley, who called out the press and the blogosphere yesterday for not taking practicing their craft responsibly, again made statements on the floor of the State House regarding his estimation of journalistic integrity.
Briley declared that the Tennessean’s headline this morning chronicling his tirade yesterday “proved his point” about the lack of responsibility amongst the press.
What wasn’t clear was whether Briley was speaking of his misidentification as “Sen. Briley” or whether he took issue with the phrasing of “takes shots at the media.”
If the latter, then the Gannett daily can hardly be faulted. Briley described his statements about the press as a “shot across the bow.”
What Briley should have faulted the Tennessean with, along with the misidentification in the headline, is various inaccuracies under said headline.
As you can see above, the Tennessean refers to Briley’s “resignation” and then refers you to some stories that supposedly happened after that.
First, while it is true that Briley resigned from his Judiciary Committee chairmanship, one might doubt that the same headline writers who misidentified in which body Briley serves in, would be referencing that.
What they likely are referencing is his decision to leave the legislature. That, of course, was not a “resignation.” Briley did not “resign” from the legislature, he merely elected not to run for reelection.
That said, whether the Gannett staffers were referring the decision not run or his resignation from his chairmanship is immaterial. The links that lie beneath are inaccurate either way.
Two of the links cited as after “Briley’s resignation” chronicle his dustup with Rep. Stacey Campfield over Campfield’s “babydaddy bill.” That, of course was last month well after both his chairmanship resignation and his decision to leave the legislature upon the expiration of his term.
Regardless of the lapses of the Tennessean headline department, one must wonder whether Briley’s real beef with the article was its subtle implication as to whom his “coded message” might have been directed to.
Briley, who listed a female lobbyist who is not his wife as his emergency contact when he was arrested, then issued an enigmatic “coded message” to someone out there listening to his speech.
“I’m going to say something in code now that none of you all are going to understand,” Briley said. “Poets and kings.”
When that message was met with blank stares, Briley elaborated. “There’s something out there that poets write verse about, and something out there that kings wage war about,” he said. “I’ve been lucky enough to experience that in my life, and I hope all of you do, too. So, poets and kings, everybody.”
Either way, Briley’s back and forth with the media was not done with his claim of vindication by the Tennessean.
During a portion of the morning’s session where retiring Representatives were being given the opportunity to handle the Speaker’s gavel, Briley turned to the press box and said, “[W]hile acting as speaker I have authority to have you removed from the chamber.”
Making it clear he was joking Briley then laughed and said that he appreciated the media’s “hard work.”
SEE ALSO: Peebles
Briley Broadsides Bloggers: He’s In Your Blogosphere Restricting All Your Access [VIDEO]
Posted on May 20, 2008 at 2:15 pmRepresentative Rob Briley criticizes the press and bloggers cautioning that if media doesn’t act responsibly they will be denied access to information.
Rep. Briley, of course, was the subject of quite a few barrels of ink and webspace after getting clipped for DUI after a hit and run. Following his arrest, Briley gave the name of a lobbyist as his next of kin. Later, it was reported by the Nashville Scene that Briley and the lobbyist were having an affair:
“The right to a free and open press though comes with a responsibility, and from my experience over the past year, that responsibility is not being lived up to,” Briley (D-Nashville) said from the main House podium.
“We used to talk about the politics of personal destruction. Well that’s no longer what’s going on. It’s the publishing of personal destruction, and we owe it to ourselves to do better than that. We owe it to the rest of our society to do better than that.”
….Briley said that government needs to be “as open as possible.”
“But the press needs to understand that if they’re not responsible with that information, that they’re not going to have access to it anymore,” Briley said.
In addition to the mainstream press, Briley criticized bloggers, remarking that “just because you say it, doesn’t make it true.”
SEE ALSO:
Katie Allison Granju
Stacey Campfield
Nashville Scene
The AP
Bill Hobbs
Jennifer Peebles (II)
Sean Braisted
Kay Brooks
Grantham Is Talking
IRRESPONSIBLE LINKS:
Rob Briley Clipped For DUI
Casada To Briley: “Resign”
More Reaction To The Arrest Of Rep. Rob Briley
Crime Spree?
The Rob Briley DUI Video
The Agony Of Da Feet — Against The Window
Lawyer Lobbyist
Representative Rob Briley In The Wind
Representative Rob Briley Found In Tunica Casino
Mary Littleton No Longer Listed As Trial Lawyer Association’s Lobbyist (UPDATED)
Briley Pleads Guilty To DUI, Diversion For The Rest
A Briley Diverted: The Day After
Mr. Briley’s Wild Ride
A Place Of Discovery: Rob Briley’s Absence Explained
Rob Briley From The Well On Getting Well On YouTube
BREAKING: State Rep. Rob Briley Will Not Run For Re-Election
Gone Briley Gone
Briley’s Ophelia Ford Moment
You Wanna Talk About Adultery? Are You Sure?
Posted on April 23, 2008 at 7:45 amCommenting on his personal blog, TNGOP Communications Director Bill Hobbs states that he cannot believe that Rep. Stacey Campfield didn’t make a very obvious retort when berated before the Judiciary Committee during discussion over a bill allowing men to opt out of child support payments for children determined not to be theirs:
Briley, you’ll recall, was the very married father of four who, according to press reports, cheated on his wife and had an affair with the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association lobbyist while she was shepherding legislation through the House Judiciary Committee that Briley chaired.
Campfield managed to hold fire and not blister Briley with the response Briley so richly deserved, but I’d have loved to have heard him respond, “No, Rep. Briley, I don’t believe adultery is ever appropriate. Do you?”
Rob Briley’s Ophelia Ford Moment
Posted on April 22, 2008 at 11:43 amKay Brooks is blogging about the Rob Briley/Stacey Campfield brouhaha over letting men out of obligations to their partner’s offspring not of their line. She calls it Briley’s “Ophelia Ford moment”:
For some reason the Democrat ’statesmen’ at the legislature have decided that Campfield is fair game for their petty antics and Briley took full advantage of this culture by threatening to hold the entire committee hostage until Campfield answered Briley’s completely inappropriate questions. The legislature doesn’t need to know how Campfield feels about adult relations. It needs to understand that this an injustice that needs to be corrected.
How Campfield managed to remain calm and professional during this latest personal attack, and the others, is beyond me.
And there is the rub isn’t it? As much as this event is now getting press, how different would this be covered and how different would public perception be if this had happened to anyone but Stacey Campfield?
Would Rep. Bill Dunn have been treated like this if he presented this bill? Jason Mumpower?
Well Propertied Men
Posted on April 21, 2008 at 5:01 pmAunt B. sides with Rob Briley being of the opinion that if a man signs on as father on a child’s birth certificate and then finds out later the child is not biologically it is his fault for not getting all the information before he signed on the line:
A person is not free from the debts their spouse incurs while they are married, even if the person in question didn’t have anything to do with incurring those debts. Why should a person be free of paying child support for a child brought into the marriage just because the person didn’t have anything to do with incurring that child?
To me, it seems like these men are pissed because, in their minds, they’re giving money to their wives and kids in order to purchase their wives’ sexual fidelity and the assurance that those kids share genetic material with him. So, on the one hand, they believe their wife and children to be their property.
On the other hand, if you ask why this kind of “property” should be treated differently than other kinds of property incurred during the marriage, they get to argue that it’s different because women and children aren’t property.
To me, though, what it looks like is that they want the ability to punish their wives for being unfaithful by cutting off funds to their kids.
Gone, Baby, Gone: Briley Sends Campfield Paternity Bill To Summer Study
Posted on at 8:10 amRep. Rob Briley plays Detective Bressant to Rep. Campfield’s Casey Affleck during discussion over a bill which would allow fathers to petition to the court to disestablish paternity after DNA evidence reveals a baby was not sired by the man on the birth certificate:
“I think this is the most anti-child piece of legislation I’ve seen down here in 10 years - by far,” said Briley.
“Do you believe in premartial sex?” Briley asked Campfield.
“I don’t see what that has to do with this (legislation),” replied Campfield.
With little variation, Briley repeated his question and Campfield his answer. Briley also asked Campfield if “you see adultery as wrong?”
“You’re talking about children that are the result of premartial sex or adultery,” Briley said.
“No. I don’t think that children should be involved in premartial sex,” said Campfield. He also expressed disapproval of adultery.
“Yet you want to punish a child as the result of an adulterous situation,” said Briley. “You put the child in the position of bearing the burden of a parent’s conduct.”
“Children never have to pay the child support,” said Campfield.
MORE:
Stacey Campfield
Kay Brooks
Angelia
Knoxville Talks
A Rob Reversal
Posted on April 18, 2008 at 10:05 amBill Hobbs calls out Rep. Rob Briley for a bit of hypocrisy this morning.
It seems despite his protestations about public judicial selection committee meetings, the Representative from East Nashville sponsored a bill that Hobbs says would have done the opposite:
Briley’s defense of closed-door meetings for the commission is a flip-flop from last year, when he sponsored legislation - House Bill 1338 - that would have required all meetings of the Judicial Selection Commission to be open to the public.
permalink | Comment on this post
Do They Really Run?
Posted on at 7:50 amGovernor Phil Bredesen responds to the assertion, made by Rep. Rob Briley and others, that meetings of Judicial Selection committee be open to the public:
“I know it might be uncomfortable for a judge from now and then to have some incident in their past talked over, but, ya know, gosh, that’s the way of things in public life,” Bredesen said earlier this month. “Anybody who runs for public office, anybody who’s in an election has that kind of scrutiny.”
Then again some folks say that the retention elections that judges go through don’t really amount to “running for office.”
SEE ALSO: Stacey Campfield
Recent Comments
The point is that we should have gotten rid of employer-based...
LOL … I love...
Mark, The problem is, when insurance companies screw someone out...
Have you considered that by allowing people and businesses to...
I am in favor of health care reform that eliminates abuses like...
The prodigal son...
Has he said he will...
Goldni, My apologies. Your second comment posted when I responded...
GoldnI - Comments with more than one link included have to be...
Gavin, my thought exactly. If he...