Trump administration lifts transgender bathroom guidance
The Trump administration has lifted federal guidelines that said transgender students should be allowed to use public school bathrooms and locker rooms matching their chosen gender identity. The Wednesday decision is a reversal of an Obama-era directive issued in May. It will now be up to states and school districts to interpret whether federal sex discrimination law applies to gender identity. A letter sent to schools nationwide Wednesday by the Justice and Education departments says the earlier directive caused confusion and lawsuits over how it should be applied. The new letter says the guidance is lifted, but anti-bullying safeguards will not be affected. Although the Obama guidance was not legally binding, transgender rights advocates say it was necessary to protect students from discrimination. Opponents argued it was federal overreach. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Daniel Sutter: The B.I.G. Idea
Over fifty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty and established our modern welfare programs. Since 1965 we have spent over $19 trillion fighting poverty. Our modest progress has been enormously costly. The problems of our welfare programs have led some libertarians to embrace a seemingly big government alternative: having the government give every American a fixed amount of money every year. The idea has been labeled a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). Despite some attractive features, I think a BIG would ultimately do more harm than good. I will not dwell on differences among recent BIG proposals. Most propose replacing our existing anti-poverty programs with one cash transfer. Sociologist Charles Murray, perhaps the most thoughtful critic of American welfare, proposed a $10,000 annual payment to each citizen. Some proposals call for transfers only to adults, but I think that children would also need the transfer to raise families above the poverty level. The duplication and administrative cost of Federal anti-poverty programs constitutes a major attraction of a BIG. The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner has identified over 120 means-tested assistance programs, for everything from housing to school lunches, on which our Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion a year, or $20,000 for every man, woman, and child in poverty. Much of this money never gets to poor Americans because these programs require an enormous bureaucracy; by contrast, a BIG could be administered by the IRS. A BIG would also reduce our current system’s significant penalties for working. Marginal tax rates, meaning the additional tax you pay if you earn say an extra $1,000, affect peoples’ decisions to work more or less. High marginal tax rates definitely reduce work incentives. Assistance recipients typically do not pay income taxes, and so do not technically face high marginal tax rates. But people do lose eligibility for assistance as their income rises. Losing $1,000 in benefits when one earns an extra $1,000 in income is effectively a 100 percent marginal tax rate. Careful studies identify multiple welfare cliffs, or income levels where poor Americans face marginal tax rates of 100 percent or more. A BIG might appear impossibly expensive. At $10,000 for every citizen including children, the annual cost would be around $3 trillion. Total Federal spending is currently just under $4 trillion a year. A BIG though would replace $1 trillion in current welfare spending. And because all Americans would start with $10,000, the first dollars earned through work would no longer need to be exempted from the income tax. For high income Americans, the $10,000 received from Uncle Sam would basically be taxed back. Nonetheless, I think that two factors would make the BIG quite harmful, especially over time. First, although low income, working Americans should work more hours because of elimination of welfare cliffs, a guaranteed income will likely make more Americans choose not to work at all. People could spend all of their time skiing, playing video games, or watching You Tube videos and still have $10,000. Many Americans might never establish a career and instead just work occasionally for extra cash. Second, and perhaps more significantly, a guaranteed income is at odds with Americans’ incredible generosity. We provide assistance through charities and government primarily to individuals who face misfortune due to circumstances beyond their control. Americans will assist the disabled, the elderly, disaster victims, and others, but we have little tolerance for able-bodied adults not working. This attitude is wise because the goods and services we consume must be produced by someone’s work effort. Most Americans accept that they must work for a living, and consequently insist that others work if at all possible. Although because of our prosperity we can afford to have some people not work, a BIG might encourage too many to try to avoid working. We spend a trillion dollars a year to fight poverty, far more than enough to lift every American out of poverty. Our system of government assistance certainly needs reform. Despite some definite advantages, I believe that a BIG is more likely to imperil our prosperity than end poverty. ••• Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Donald Trump expected to submit budget blueprint on March 13
Capitol Hill Republicans say the White House is planning to submit President Donald Trump‘s budget plan to Congress in mid-March. GOP aides say the plan is due on March 14. They’re expecting Trump’s blueprint to contain fewer details than is typical since it’s a new administration and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney was only confirmed last week. The budget submission would include Trump’s recommendations on reforming the tax code, cutting agency budgets, and is likely to set off a lengthy and difficult debate, in part because it’s sure to project sizable deficits inherited from former President Barack Obama. The GOP aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the White House hasn’t made the date public. Calls to the White House budget office were unanswered. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
What happens if Trump pulls transgender bathroom guidance?
The Trump administration could revise or withdraw an Obama-era directive requiring public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Tuesday the Justice Department is working on a new set of guidelines on bathroom access but offered no other details. “I think that all you have to do is look at what the president’s view has been for a long time, that this is not something the federal government should be involved in, this is a states’ rights issue,” he said. The Justice Department declined to comment. But Spicer’s comment stoked concerns among transgender-rights advocates about a reversal of the Obama administration’s protections. Here’s a look at the issue and what could happen: WHAT IS THE FEDERAL BATHROOM GUIDANCE FOR SCHOOLS? The Obama administration in May told public schools nationwide that they are obligated to treat transgender students in a way that matches their gender identity, even when records differ or it makes others uncomfortable. It was the administration’s determination that Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education and activities, also applies to gender identity. About 150,000 youth — 0.7 percent— between the ages of 13 and 17 in the United States identify as transgender, according to a study by The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. The Obama-era guidance held no force of law but sent a warning that schools could lose funding if they did not comply with the administration’s interpretation of the law. Republicans immediately pushed back, arguing it was an example of federal government overreach and the Obama administration meddling in local matters. Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick equated it to “blackmail” and said at the time that the state was ready to forfeit federal education money rather than comply with the guidance. Thirteen states sued to challenge the directive. A federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the guidance in August, and the Trump administration this month said it would no longer fight to limit the injunction. WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THE GUIDANCE IS WITHDRAWN? Advocates said federal law would still prohibit discrimination against students based on their gender or sexual orientation even without the Obama guidelines. “To cloak this in federalism ignores the vital and historic role that federal law plays in ensuring that all children (including LGBT students) are able to attend school free from discrimination,” Vanita Gupta, who was head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division when the guidance was issued, said in a statement. Still, legal experts say a change in position could have consequences for unresolved court cases dealing with Title IX. The Supreme Court could decide to send a case about a transgender teen in Virginia back to a lower court. The high school senior was born female, but identifies as a male and wants to use the boys’ bathroom at his school. The high court is scheduled to hear the case in March. Courts are unsettled about whether, in the absence of guidance from the federal government, anti-discrimination laws require schools to allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity. The justices could direct lower courts to decide that issue. Similar lawsuits are still playing out across the country. “Some courts might say the fact that they go back and forth on this every time the administration changes, maybe we shouldn’t defer to it, maybe we should just decide for ourselves,” said Arthur Leonard, a professor at New York Law School who has studied LGBT legal history. WHAT WOULD THE CHANGE MEAN FOR SCHOOLS? A patchwork of state laws dealing with the bathroom issue will continue to emerge. Fifteen states have explicit protections for transgender students in their state laws, and many individual school districts in other states have adopted policies that respected such students on the basis of their gender identity, said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign. Just one state, North Carolina, has enacted a law restricting bathroom access to the sex at birth. But so far this year, lawmakers in more than 10 states are considering similar legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Transgender-rights advocates argued the guidance was a helpful tool for districts in understanding federal law. Without it, more schools could be subject to lawsuits as districts try to sort through the confusion, said Rachel Tiven, CEO of the LGBT advocacy group Lambda Legal. revising or rescinding the guidance “The important thing to understand is that it doesn’t change the underlying law, but it’s an invitation to harm the most vulnerable kids in school,” Tiven said of any efforts to revise or rescind the guidance . Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Conservative forces clash in Donald Trump’s early days
Milo Yiannopoulos represented the conservative movement’s struggle with powerful and conflicting forces in the early days of Donald Trump‘s presidency, even before he lost his job and speaking slot in this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference. The 33-year-old British professional provocateur is among the new players in Trump’s Republican Party, which is increasingly defined by a say-anything populism and a loose affiliation with white nationalists. Yiannopoulos, both loved and hated for his divisive comments about women, minorities and Muslims, offered a pointed message to political leaders on Tuesday even as he apologized for making explosive statements about sexual relationships between boys and men. “America is crying out for somebody who will say the unsayable,” he declared. He added, “The populist, nationalist revolution that is happening, the anti-political correctness pro-free speech revolution that is happening all over the Western world, is not going anywhere.” Indeed, the conservative movement is in flux as thousands of adherents prepare to gather in suburban Washington for its largest annual gathering. Not long ago, the conference showcased the far-right fringe and the Republican Party’s rigid devotion to conservative ideology. Yet in the age of unfiltered Trump, CPAC may be outflanked by the likes of Yiannopoulos and the president’s chief counselor, Steve Bannon, whose confrontational brand of Republican politics ignores decades of conservative orthodoxy on key issues. Conservative leaders interviewed by The Associated Press this week described a clash between their sincere optimism over the Republican Party’s extraordinary success last fall and pangs of anxiety over its uncertain direction. “I think the conservative movement is hopeful, but wary,” said Tim Phillips, president of Koch-brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity. Conference organizers have coordinated a program specifically designed to distance the conservative movement from the racists and bigots who joined the GOP in recent years, all the while cheering Trump’s vows to build a wall and expel millions of immigrants living in the country illegally. “There is nothing about their views or their ideology that is consistent with conservatism,” said Dan Schneider, executive director of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC. He dismissed the white nationalists as “nothing more than garden variety” fascists. At the same time, American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp said Yiannopoulos was “playing an important role in pushing back against what’s happening on college campuses.” “There’s plenty of things he’s said I find offensive and inappropriate,” Schlapp added. “Quite honestly, like a lot of people, I was hoping to learn a lot more about him by his appearance at CPAC. We just believe that when the new information came to light, that the CPAC stage was not the appropriate place for him to defend his reputation on those comments.” Yiannopoulos was removed from the conference speaking program earlier in the week following new scrutiny of video clips in which he appeared to defend sexual relationships between men and boys as young as 13. He also left his job as an editor on the far-right, pro-Trump website, Breitbart News, and lost a book deal with Simon & Schuster. In one of the videos, Yiannopoulos, who is gay, said relationships between boys and men could “help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.” “I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, advocacy. I am horrified by that impression,” he said. Despite this week’s focus on Yiannopoulos, the debate over the future of the conservative movement extends well beyond one troubled activist. Trump himself is hardly regarded as a traditional conservative. “When Donald Trump walks out on stage at CPAC this week, he will be addressing a crowd that largely supported someone else in the Republican primaries,” said longtime evangelical leader Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, suggesting that both sides need each other going forward. Yet some worry that Trump has abandoned long-held conservative bedrock issues, such as free trade and small government. The president and Republicans in Congress have also been slow to repeal the federal health care law as promised. “It’s time to get moving,” Phillips said. On social issues, however, Trump appears to be tacking right. White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that the Justice Department would soon issue new directives on the use of school bathrooms for transgender students. The announcement alarmed LGBT groups that urged Trump to safeguard Obama-era guidelines allowing students to use school restrooms that match their gender identity, not their birth gender. Conservative leaders cheered the news. Yiannopoulos, meanwhile, described himself as “the most interesting thing happening in American conservativism.” “I have an opportunity now through what has happened to reach an even larger audience, and I intend to do so,” he said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump pick as security adviser is independent-minded
President Donald Trump‘s choice of an outspoken but non-political Army general as national security adviser is a nod to pragmatism, but Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster will serve a commander in chief with unorthodox ideas about foreign policy and an inner circle of advisers determined to implement them. McMaster, 54, is an independent-minded soldier widely admired for his leadership skills, but he is short on experience in Washington’s trenches. His appointment reinforces the more mainstream approach to security that Trump is getting from Pentagon chief Jim Mattis, who seems to have steered the administration toward stronger support for NATO and allies in Asia, and away from the reauthorization of torture in interrogations. Still, it’s an open question how McMaster, a decorated combat veteran, will fare in a White House that has set up what some call a parallel power structure led by Stephen Bannon and his strategic initiatives group, whose role and reach hasn’t been publicly explained. As Trump’s chief strategist, Bannon, the conservative media executive with outspoken views about Islam, has a seat on the National Security Council’s principals committee in a restructuring that puts him on equal footing with Cabinet members like Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday that Trump promised McMaster “100 percent control” over the structure of the NSC. Peter R. Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served with McMaster in Iraq during the 2007 surge of U.S. troops, said Bannon’s inclusion on the principals committee shows his group “has an outsized measure of importance within the White House.” What that means for McMaster and fellow pragmatists Mattis and Tillerson, he said, is unclear. Mansoor said he expects McMaster to be a “voice of reason” and a natural ally to Mattis. McMaster convened a meeting with senior NSC staff on Tuesday, his first day in the White House. He did not make any immediate changes to the NSC’s senior team and most top officials were expecting to stay on, according to an administration official who was not authorized to discuss the internal meeting publicly and insisted on anonymity. As successor to Michael Flynn, ousted for his explanation of his communications with Russia’s ambassador before Trump took office, McMaster continues Trump’s reliance on career military officers. Mattis and John Kelly, the homeland security secretary, are retired Marine generals. Flynn was an Army lieutenant general. McMaster becomes the first active-duty officer to serve as national security adviser since Colin Powell, then a three-star general, assumed the job in President Ronald Reagan‘s final two years in office. Powell went on to grab the military’s top job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Robert Harward, a retired three-star admiral, was Trump’s first choice to replace Flynn but turned down the offer. The national security adviser has a special role within the government, working directly with the president but not subject to confirmation by the Senate. McMaster will advise Trump and serve as his coordinator of foreign and defense policy. He will approach matters differently than Flynn, who was a contentious figure before Trump appointed him. After being fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, Flynn publicly lambasted the Obama administration as soft on Islamic extremism. During the 2016 president campaign, he delivered a harsh, partisan denouncement of Democrat Hillary Clinton at the Republican National Convention. Trump says he fired Flynn for misleading Vice President Mike Pence on the nature of his pre-Inauguration Day phone conversations with the Russian ambassador in Washington. Flynn unsettled others by asserting that Islamic extremism posed an existential threat to the West and that the Muslim faith was the source of the problem. McMaster comes into the job without Flynn’s baggage or such controversial views. It’s unclear if he will need Senate confirmation because he is a three-star general taking on a new assignment. “He absolutely does not view Islam as the enemy,” Mansoor said, adding that McMaster believes that in the war against extremism, “we need to have Muslim nations on our side, on the side of moderation. “So I think he will present a degree of pushback against the theories being propounded in the White House that this is a clash of civilizations and needs to be treated as such,” he said. McMaster will immediately encounter Trump’s proposed ban on travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations, which has been stymied in court. Both the Pentagon and the State Department are pushing to have Iraq removed from that list of seven, officials say, noting that Iraq is an ally in the fight against the Islamic State group and that Iraqis have long served in support of U.S. forces there. It’s an example of the more pragmatic foreign policy push led by Mattis and Tillerson. McMaster has a reputation for speaking truth to power. In his 1997 book, “Dereliction of Duty,” McMaster leveled stinging criticisms at the U.S. military establishment for failures during the Vietnam War. His outspokenness almost derailed his career. As a colonel with an exceptional combat record he was passed over for promotion to brigadier general twice before Gen. David Petraeus intervened on his behalf. “He is very forceful in stating what he believes and had managed to ruffle quite a few feathers in the process,” said Stephen Biddle, a George Washington University professor. “Of all incoming presidential administrations, this one does not strike me as one of the most open to opinions that might contradict the president,” Biddle said. “Will a guy who is willing to speak truth to power, and do so in a forceful way, be able to be effective in this setting?” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Rise in premiums lays bare 2 Americas on health care
Michael Schwarz is a self-employed business owner who buys his own health insurance. Subsidized coverage through “Obamacare” offers protection from life’s unpredictable changes and freedom to pursue his vocation, he says. Brett Dorsch is also self-employed and buys his own health insurance. But he gets no financial break from the Affordable Care Act. “To me, it’s just been a big lie,” Dorsch says, forcing him to pay more for less coverage. Schwarz and Dorsch represent two Americas, pulling farther apart over former President Barack Obama‘s health care law. Known as the ACA, the law rewrote the rules for people buying their own health insurance, creating winners and losers. Those with financial subsidies now fear being harmed by President Donald Trump and Republicans intent on repealing and replacing the ACA. But other consumers who also buy their own insurance and don’t qualify for financial help feel short-changed by Obama’s law. They’re hoping repeal will mean relief from rising premiums. The ACA sought to create one big new market for individual health insurance in each state. It required insurers to accept all customers, regardless of medical problems. And it provided subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people afford premiums. These newly vested ACA customers joined consumers already in the market, to make a new insurance pool. Policies offered to all had to be upgraded to meet new federal standards for comprehensive benefits, raising premiums. And many of the new customers turned out to be sicker than insurers expected, pushing rates even higher. Consumers who didn’t qualify for government financial help wound up bearing the full cost of premiums. They also faced the law’s new requirement to carry health insurance or risk fines. “One (group) is angry and one is incredibly grateful,” said Robert Blendon of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. If Trump and congressional Republicans aren’t careful, their actions could stoke fresh grievances without solving longstanding problems of access and cost. Consider what happened to Schwarz and Dorsch this year, as premiums for a standard plan through HealthCare.gov jumped an average of 25 percent. Schwarz and his wife are in their mid-20s and live in Tampa, Florida. He has his own commercial photography business and she’s pursuing a graduate degree in speech-language pathology. The sticker price of their HealthCare.gov policy went up about 20 percent, but what they pay monthly is about $115 lower than last year. Not only did their subsidy cover the rise in premium, they’re also getting more help because their income went down when Schwarz’s wife returned to school full time. “Being uninsured is not an option,” said Schwarz. If Republicans take away his subsidy, “I would have to change careers and find a job that offered health insurance,” he said. Dorsch and his wife live in Wilmington, Delaware, and are in their mid-50s. He has a wholesale business supplying electronics to retail stores and has been buying his own health insurance for years. He gets no financial help from the ACA. Dorsch said their insurance company wanted to raise the monthly premium to $2,050, or nearly $25,000 a year. They settled for a skimpier plan that still costs $1,350 a month and has a very high deductible. “In four years my health insurance has more than doubled and I have less coverage,” said Dorsch. “It’s ludicrous.” He voted for Trump. “He saw the reality that Obamacare has been a nightmare for most Americans, unless you are poor or in a very difficult situation,” said Dorsch. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the pool of people buying individual health insurance is basically split down the middle among subsidized customers like Schwarz and those who get no help, like Dorsch. Republican proposals to tie tax credits to age, not income, would help Dorsch. But they may not be generous enough for Schwarz. “It’s trying to find the way to help the one without hurting the other that’s really tricky,” said Nicholas Moriello, a health insurance broker from Newark, Delaware. “If we had a way to help the person whose premium has become unaffordable without hurting the person we are currently subsidizing.” Caroline Pearson, of the consulting firm Avalere Health, studied consumers on government marketplaces like HealthCare.gov — where nearly 90 percent get subsidies — and compared them with those who purchase directly from an insurer and pay full cost. Among Avalere’s findings: — The majority of consumers in the government marketplaces live in lower-income neighborhoods with high unemployment. However, among those who purchase directly from an insurer, about 30 percent live neighborhoods with a median income of $100,000 or more. — Consumers in the subsidized market are generally costlier to cover. For those with a standard plan, per-person medical claims averaged $376 per month in 2015, compared to $312 for unsubsidized customers who bought policies directly from an insurer. — The subsidized market is important in states that voted for Trump. In Florida, for example, 70 percent of individual policyholders purchase through HealthCare.gov. In Georgia, it’s 62 percent. “Obamacare helped a lot of lower-income people with high health needs who previously couldn’t afford insurance,” said Pearson. “It overlooked the fact that there are a lot of people who are relatively healthy and who didn’t want the increased benefits. More sick people drove up premiums, which is resulting in some people feeling like they are worse off.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Steve Flowers: The circus of open Alabama races in 2018
As I have suggested to you, we are looking at one momentous 2018 election year, and it has begun. Get this, folks, we have an open governor’s race. We have openings at Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Agriculture Commissioner, three seats on the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice position, all 35 state Senate seats, all 105 House seats, one hotly contested congressional seat, as well as 67 sheriffs. Folks, that’s the most political marquee year in my long political life. If media outlets do not make money next year, they ain’t ever gonna make any money. As though the aforementioned cavalcade was not enough of a circus, we’ve got ourselves an open U.S. Senate seat. I believe that Ringling Brothers Circus closed in deference to us in the Heart of Dixie and our roadshow Vaudeville act called Alabama politics. Our good “ol’” Gov. Robert Bentley has been a great ringleader. He is quite a show. Poor ol’ Bentley has relegated himself to not only being irrelevant, but is considered a clown. I have been around the state on a speaking/book signing tour and everywhere I go they ask about “ol’” Bentley. I have to deflect the questions about his personal adviser following him to Washington or sitting in the gallery for his speech to the Legislature. In fact, I try to put some levity to the situation by telling folks, “Well, you know my observation of Alabama politics over the past 50 years is that we really haven’t got to have a governor.” Big Jim Folsom stayed drunk his whole second term, George Wallace was on pain pills his last term and did not know where he was, Fob James seemed disinterested and went duck hunting his second term, and they put poor ole Hunt and Siegelman in jail. At least Bentley shows up and does his duties to the best of his abilities. He just leans on one adviser, exclusively. They say she wrote his last State of the State speech. If she did, she ain’t much of a speechwriter. Well, ole Bentley got himself a U.S. Senate seat appointment to grant. He milked it for what it was worth. He ultimately used it as a get out of jail free card. Even if his appointment of Luther Strange looks like chicanery and collusion, it was a shrewd political move by Bentley. It keeps him and his adviser out of the pokey. The Luther Strange appointment looks brazen and audacious. The facts are clear, Strange as Attorney General of Alabama openly asked the House Judiciary Committee to cease their impeachment proceedings because he and his office were investigating the Governor and his adviser. Then, all of a sudden, the Governor appoints him to a coveted senate seat. If that does not look like collusion, I do not know what does. If given those facts the average fisherman in Mobile Bay would say that it looks fishy. A baker in Birmingham would conclude that it does not pass the smell test. As a political historian, I will have to record these very facts for posterity. Folks can draw their own conclusion. Luther Strange will probably go on to be a good U.S. Senator. He is imminently qualified for the role, and has planned meticulously for this seat for the last 20 years. However, the taint of Bentley will follow him to Washington and could come back to bite him in the June 2018 GOP primary, which is tantamount to election. Big Luther is betting that as the incumbent senator for the next 15 months, he will be able to raise so much Washington campaign cash that he will be unbeatable. That is probably a good bet. However, Alabamians may have a longer memory than he thinks. Just ask Bill Baxley how getting the governor’s nomination from the Democratic hierarchy when Charlie Graddick got the most votes in 1986 turned out. Folks in Alabama do not like appointments, especially one that comes with a cloud that appears to be collusion. We have a great 15 months of Alabama politics ahead of us, folks. See you next week. ___ Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state Legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Could Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville become Alabama’s next governor?
The race for Alabama’s next governor might include a surprising contender: former Auburn football coach Tommy Tuberville. According to Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports, Tuberville will likely make a decision on whether he will run in a week or two based on the results of a statewide phone poll said to involve about 50,000 people. Alabama Republican Party chair Terry Lathan said the former coach might stand a chance given the election of President Donald Trump, while political consultant Steve French said: “Tommy would stand a slugger’s chance of getting elected.” “Everybody wants non-politicians now,” said a person from Tuberville’s camp. “Eighty-percent of it is name recognition.” Tuberville spent 10 seasons as Auburn’s head coach and notched an SEC conference title and undefeated season during his 2004 campaign. Since leaving the Tigers in after the 2009 season, he has served as head coach for Texas Tech and Cincinnati, where he resigned from at the end of the 2016 season. Still, the source of Tuberville’s name recognition might be his most divisive quality when it comes to politics – especially in Alabama, one of few states where school allegiance may trump political leanings. Fifty-eight percent of the state’s elected officials are Republican, and it’s no secret the majority of state’s fans support Alabama. French, however, said Tuberville might be able to connect with fans of his former employer’s rival by emphasizing education. “If you can connect with voters on an education message, that’s a big plus,” he said. “Tommy has recruited. He’s seen underprivileged youth come into his program and go out the other door and be a successful professional the rest of their life.”
