Campfield Says Casada The Source Of Rumors That Led To Libel Suit Against Him
Posted on April 29, 2009 at 7:09 amHouse Republican Caucus Chair Glen Casada is again under a cloud of suspicion as this morning it has been revealed that Campfield believes that Casada is the one who told him that then Democratic state house candidate Roger Byrge had been arrested in connection with drugs.
Campfield subsequently shared the rumor on his blog. Byrge has never been arrested for drugs and is now suing Campfield.
Casada doesn’t confirm he is the source but will not deny it either:
Byrge’s lawsuit quoted Campfield as writing on his blog: “Word is a … mail piece has gone out exposing Byrge’s multiple separate drug arrests. Including arrests for possession and drug dealing. (I hear the mug shots are gold).”
Campfield’s initial legal response was to claim he held legislative immunity for comments he made on his personal blog. But his attorney last month abandoned that defense.
Casada said it was difficult to remember the details of every conversation surrounding last year’s tumultuous House elections.
“My thing is, we’re running 15, 18 races concurrently in October and November of 2008,” he said. “And there’s no telling.”
“I’m just trying to rack my brain, and don’t recall who would have told me or where I would have gotten that,” Casada said. “I don’t recall. But if Stacey says I did, then obviously I did. I’m confirming that if he says it, I must have.”
Short Answer: No
Posted on April 3, 2009 at 12:52 amRep. Henry Fincher refuses to apologize to Rep. Brian Kelsey at the request of Rep. Glen Casada. Chairman Casada is not pleased:
“Mr. Speaker I would just like to remind the body that there is no room for disrespect, for making fun of people, for mocking people. This is a body of respect. If respect is not shown on the floor then maybe that individual does need to be in the chamber.”
Tentative, Unofficial And Other Similiar Caveats
Posted on January 21, 2009 at 6:25 pmWhile state house committee assignments, having gone through two days of negotiations, have not been announced, Post Politics has obtained a tentative list of committee assignments currently making its way through the legislature. Again, this is by no means a final or official list.
UPDATE: Jama appears to have procured a similar list.
The Most Energy Efficient Candidate Ever
Posted on October 23, 2008 at 2:59 pmTennessee Democratic Party coordinated campaign Chairman Kim Hayden at press conference on the steps of War Memorial Plaza called for an investigation into possible voter fraud in Murfreesboro by a Republican state House candidate Rick Womick.
Democrats assert that Womick is not a proper resident of the 49th state House District where he is currently running for office.
The coordinated campaign says that the address Womick is registered to vote at, 903 Sulphur Springs Road in Murfreesboro, is not his permanent residence.
Hayden asserts that Womick actually lives in the 34th House District, and has videotaped evidence supporting this charge.
“An electric timer may turn on the lights every night at his house in District 49, but Womick and his family are likely getting ready for dinner at their home in District 34.
“It is a serious offense to lie to your neighbors in Rutherford County, and Womick may have committed several felonies,” Hayden continued.
“We hope the Republican Party will acknowledge that we don’t need candidates lying about their residence. If Rick Womick can’t tell the truth about where he lives, then he shouldn’t be sitting in state government,” Hayden concluded.
The Democratic Party provides electric and water bills they say prove Rick Womick does not actually live where he claims he does.
Democrats assert Womick actually lives at 6015 Highway 99 in Rockvale located in Donna Rowland’s 34th District.
A video of Womick’s voter registration address is here. Pictures of where Democrats assert he actually resides are here and here.
UPDATE: Here’s the full release from the TNDP.
UPDATE II: Bill Hobbs refutes the charges with a timeline.
SEE ALSO: Grantham Is Talking
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
Capital Hill Chaos: Speaker Jimmy Naifeh Overruled [VIDEO]
Posted on May 2, 2008 at 6:27 pmPosted above, for your perusal and enjoyment and that of posterity, is a video of the recent unpleasantness that took place on the floor of the General Assembly yesterday.
It is still lengthy but, in light of the considerable confusion over the controversey, I thought it best to leave as much of the events intact as possible.
PREVIOUSLY:
Naifeh Overruled
Capitol Hill Chaos
Wanted: Dead Or Alive
Slow Train Coming
Slow Train Coming
Posted on at 9:04 amAndy Sher gets the money quote from House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh after his decision that Rep. Bill Dunn was out of order was overruled by a vote of the full General Assembly.
“If we can’t stick together on that (a subsequent procedural vote), we may just as well let Mumpower start presiding,” the powerful speaker told fellow Democrats at a hastily convened party caucus meeting, referring to Minority Leader Jason Mumpower, R-Bristol.
Adding insult to injury, of course, was the later admission by Dunn that he was, in fact, out of order. Five Democrats voted with Dunn and the Republicans resulting in the historic overrule.
Jimmy Naifeh Gets Overruled: The Video
Posted on May 1, 2008 at 2:22 pmRead the play by play and the definitive account at NashvillePost.com. (video courtesy of Ben Cunningham)
Naifeh Overruled
Posted on at 10:48 amBig news on SJR 127 today in the legislature. Rep. Gary Odom made a motion to suspend the rules to vote on a resolution regarding the House schedule, an issue unrelated to SJR 127.
Rep. Bill Dunn then made a motion to amend that motion to suspend so that SJR 127 could be brought up for its first of three readings.
Dunn was then ruled out of order by House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.
The House Republicans then objected to that ruling. A vote was called to overrule. House Republicans won that vote by 1. A recess was then called for.
The House is now back in session and Dunn has renewed his motion.
UPDATE: Representative Dunn’s motion prevailed 51-43. Odom then withdrew his original motion. Objections were made. A motion was made to adjourn the session and recess until Tuesday. It failed. Session continues…
UPDATE II: Quarreling over the rules has lead to a microphones off discussion between Naifeh, Odom and Republican leaders.
UPDATE III: Odom’s motion to withdraw was voted down 45-51. Dunn’s amendment was thus adopted. The House then voted on whether to suspend the rules in order to bring SJR 127 to the floor. Bringing the resolution to the floor bypassing the committee process requires a two-thirds majority. The vote failed, and SJR 127 was not brought to the floor for a vote.
The two-thirds majority required to bring the resolution to the floor bypassing the committee process was not reached. SJR 127 was not brought to the floor for a vote.
Rep. Moore then called for a moment of prayer and silence for “what just went on here today.” Republican Glen Casada praised the motion and the events of the day as a true expression of representative democracy.
NashvillePost.com political reporter Ken Whitehouse was in the chamber for the events and has a full and complete blow by blow and explanation of what happened right here.
SEE ALSO:
VIDEO: Ben Cunningham
Stacey Campfield (II)
Cara Kumari blog
Crone Speaks
Michael Silence
WSMV Report
Sean Braisted
Nathan Moore
R. Neal
Rob Huddleston
Life News
David Oatney
WPLN
Knox Trivia
Tom Humphrey
Recent Comments
Common sense, I can use bible...
Kent is the most conservative...
What’s really unaffordale is to keep...
Just doing what any lap dog would do for it’s...
Congressman Cooper has apparently decided to take the...
I’d say it’s more because we’ve waited...
Hmmm… wonder if...
Glad Cooper came on-board. What’s up with Bart?
Vote YES, BART. Do it! Your people NEED health...
yeah, and Bart’s not one....