Bradley Byrne announces 2020 Senate bid to challenge Doug Jones
Alabama 1st District U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne on Monday announced he will run for a Senate seat in 2020, giving Republicans their first option for taking back the seat that U.S. Sen. Doug Jones won in a special election in Dec. 2017. Byrne made the announcement Monday night, just down the street from where he grew up, at Wintzell’s in downtown Mobile, Ala. In announcing his candidacy, Byrne made clear his campaign will focus on his record as a fighter for Alabama’s values. “The fight for America’s future is too important to sit on the sidelines. I am running for the United States Senate to defend the values important to Alabama,” Byrne said. “We need a Senator who will fight with President Trump to defend the Constitution, build the wall, stand up for the unborn, push for lower taxes, make health care more affordable, and protect the Second Amendment. I will fight every day to bring Alabama’s conservative values to Washington.” Following Byrne’s announcement, Jones weighed-in on Byrne’s candidacy. “Given the results of his losing bid for governor in 2010, in which he did not even win the republican nomination, it’s hard to see why they would nominate a career politician like Bradley Byrne now,” said Jones. “He has been part of the problem in Washington for years.” Byrne has represented Alabama’s 1st District since 2014. Battle of the war chests When it comes to cash-on-hand, Byrne is not too far behind Jones. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Byrne has $1,090,498.98 is his congressional campaign fund, which he is able to transfer to his senate campaign. Meanwhile, Jones has a balance of $2,131,165.71 cash-on-hand.
Doug Jones, Terri Sewell, Martha Roby join forces to lead Congressional Civil Rights Pilgrimage
Members of the Alabama delegation are putting their politics aside and joining forces to lead a bipartisan congressional delegation of nearly 50 members from the U.S. House and U.S. Senate on the 2019 Congressional Civil Rights Pilgrimage. U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL), U.S. Representatives Terri Sewell (D-AL) and Martha Roby (R-AL) are co-hosting the annual event put on by the Faith and Politics Institute (FPI) along with civil rights icon U.S. Representative John Lewis (D-GA). “The annual civil rights pilgrimage is a valuable opportunity to turn toward this painful chapter in our history, rather than away from it,” said Jones. “By reflecting on the sacrifices and injustices of that time, we can better apply their lessons to our daily lives. We are seeing a resurgence of the kind of dangerous rhetoric that inspired hate and violence in our past and undermined the values we hold dear. To honor those who bravely fought and bled in the pursuit of equality, we must continue to shine a light on their actions and stand up against those who would once again use hate as a tool to divide us.” The theme of this year’s pilgrimage is “Finding Hope from History.” The bipartisan congressional delegation will experience sites where history was changed by the nonviolent protest of brave foot soldiers who marched for civil rights and will visit historic civil rights landmarks such as Birmingham’s 16th St. Baptist Church, Montgomery’s Dexter Baptist Church, and Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge. The delegation will engage members of Congress on the events that changed the course of American history and seek to apply those lessons to the challenges of the day. Sewell is hoping this year’s pilgrimage will do just that. “As Alabama’s first Black Congresswoman, I know I stand on the shoulders of so many giants who courageously fought, bled and died to make our society more just and inclusive for all,” explained Sewell. “I hope this Pilgrimage will help us reflect on all that we can do – individually and collectively – to advance justice and equality in our nation.” The Civil Rights Pilgrimage will also bring members of Congress to The Legacy Museum and National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery to learn about the history of domestic slavery and lynching in the United States. Opened in 2018, The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is “the nation’s first memorial dedicated to the legacy of enslaved black people, people terrorized by lynching, African Americans humiliated by racial segregation and Jim Crow and people of color burdened with contemporary presumptions of guilt and police violence.” Roby, whose district includes the National Memorial for Peace and Justice says she hopes her colleagues will “immerse themselves in the history” of Alabama. “Each year, this event serves as a unique opportunity for lawmakers to immerse themselves in the history of my home state and to better understand its place in the American Civil Rights Movement,” added Roby. “I encourage this year’s participants to share their experiences and Alabama’s stories with residents of their home states so that all Americans can take part in building a legacy of hope, faith, and justice for generations to come. Together, we will shape a brighter future.” This year’s pilgrimage to Alabama will take place March 1 – 3.
Former Gordon mayor Elbert Melton convicted of voter fraud, sentenced to year in jail
A former Alabama mayor convicted of voter fraud has been sentenced to a year in jail followed by two years of probation. The Dothan Eagle reports former Gordon Mayor Elbert Melton was sentenced to a three-year split-sentence Wednesday. Melton still faces an additional felony offense. A Houston County jury found Melton guilty last month on two counts of voter fraud. Last September, a grand jury returned indictments against Melton on three charges of absentee ballot fraud and one charge of second-degree theft of property. One fraud count was dismissed because the victim died. Melton’s arrest warrants say he’s accused of willfully and unlawfully falsifying absentee ballots or verification documents. He’s also charged with knowingly obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over $1,700 belonging to the Town of Gordon. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Personnel note: BCA snags top talent with Molly Cagle, David Cole as Katie Britt rebuilds and rebrands
New Business Council of Alabama (BCA) President and CEO Katie Britt is wasting no time in building a star-studded team ahead of the 2019 legislative session — she announced two big name hires on Friday as she works to rebuild and rebrand the organization. Britt is bringing Molly Cagle, current Director of External Affairs at Manufacture Alabama (MA) on board to serve as BCA’s Vice-President of Government Affairs. Her last day at MA is Wednesday, Feb. 20. Cagle announced her departure via an email to her colleagues, coworkers and friends. “My time at Manufacture Alabama over the last four and a half years has been incredibly rewarding. The friendships, lessons, and advice are things that I cherish and will take with me throughout my career,” said Cagle. At MA, Cagle assists the president and organization in their lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill and in implementing and executing MA’s various proactive initiatives. She is the chief liaison to BIPAC and oversees the Alabama Prosperity Project. Cagle also serves as a staff resource to our councils and committees as well as a resource to the president regarding Workforce Development and Membership. Cagle received her bachelor’s in Political Science, with a minor in Broadcast Journalism, from Troy University. Before MA, she was the Senate Liaison for Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh. Considered a rising star in the world of government affairs, Cagle was named to Yellowhammer Multimedia’s “Power and Influence: Who’s Next?” list in 2018 and is a major addition to the BCA team. Britt has also hired David Cole from the Alabama Farmers Federation. He will be joining the BCA team as the new Senior Vice-President of Government Affairs starting Thursday, Feb. 28.
Possible peace declaration looms large over Donald Trump-Kim Jong Un summit
With their second summit fast approaching, speculation is growing that U.S. President Donald Trump may try to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to commit to denuclearization by giving him something he wants more than almost anything else: an announcement of peace and an end to the Korean War. Such an announcement could make history. It would be right in line with Trump’s opposition to “forever wars.” And, coming more than six decades after the fighting essentially ended, it just seems like common sense. But, if not done carefully, it could open up a whole new set of problems for Washington. Here’s why switching the focus of the ongoing talks between Pyongyang and Washington from denuclearization to peace would be a risky move — and why it might be exactly what Kim wants when the two leaders meet in Hanoi on Feb. 27-28. ___ THE STANDOFF The Korean Peninsula was divided at the 38th parallel after World War II, with the U.S. claiming a zone of influence in the south and the Soviet Union in the north. Within five years, the two Koreas were at war. Though the shooting stopped in 1953, the conflict ended with an armistice, essentially a cease-fire signed by North Korea, China and the 17-nation, U.S.-led United Nations Command that was supposed to be replaced by a formal peace treaty. But both sides instead settled ever deeper into Cold War hostilities marked by occasional outbreaks of violence. The conflict in Korea is technically America’s longest war. North Korea, which saw all of its major cities and most of its infrastructure destroyed by U.S. bombers during the war, blames what it sees as Washington’s unrelenting hostility over the past 70 years as ample justification for its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. It claims they are purely for self-defense. The U.S., on the other hand, maintains a heavy military presence in South Korea to counter what it says is the North’s intention to invade and assimilate the South. It has also implemented a long-standing policy of ostracizing the North and backing economic sanctions. Trump escalated the effort to squeeze the North with a “maximum pressure” strategy that remains in force. A combination of that strategy and the North’s repeated tests of missiles believed capable of delivering its nuclear weapons to the U.S. mainland are what brought the two countries to the negotiating table. ___ WHY KIM WANTS A TREATY Getting a formal peace treaty has been high on the wish list of every North Korean leader, starting with Kim Jong Un’s grandfather, Kim Il Sung. A peace treaty would bring international recognition, probably at least some easing of trade sanctions, and a likely reduction in the number of U.S. troops south of the Demilitarized Zone. If done right, it would be a huge boost to Kim’s reputation at home and abroad. And, of course, to the cause of peace on the Korean Peninsula at a time when Pyongyang says it is trying to shift scarce resources away from defense so that it can boost its standard of living and modernize its economy with a greater emphasis on science and technology. Washington has a lot to gain, too. Trump has said he would welcome a North Korea that is more focused on trade and economic growth. Stability on the peninsula is good for South Korea’s economy and probably for Japan’s as well. Though Trump hasn’t stressed human rights, eased tensions could create the space needed for the North to loosen its controls over political and individual freedoms. But it’s naive to expect North Korea to suddenly change its ways. According to a recent estimate, it has over the past year continued to expand its nuclear stockpile. And even as it has stepped up its diplomatic overtures to the outside world, Pyongyang has doubled down internally on demanding loyalty to its totalitarian system. ___ PEACE OR APPEASEMENT? After his first summit with Kim, in Singapore last June, Trump declared the nuclear threat was over. He isn’t saying that anymore. Trump made no mention of the word “denuclearization” during his State of the Union address. Instead, he called his effort a “historic push for peace on the Korean Peninsula” and stressed that Kim hasn’t conducted any recent nuclear or missile tests and has released Americans who had been jailed in the North and returned the remains of dozens of Americans killed in the war. Kim, meanwhile, has good reason to want to turn his summits with Trump into “peace talks.” The biggest win for the North would be to get a peace declaration while quietly abandoning denuclearization altogether, or by agreeing to production caps or other measures that would limit, but not eliminate, its nuclear arsenal. Simply having a summit without a clear commitment to denuclearization goes a long way toward establishing him as the leader of a de facto nuclear state. Unless Washington is willing to accept him as such, that will only make future talks all the more difficult. The U.S. has, however, continued to take a hard line in lower-level negotiations leading up to the summit. Stephen Biegun, Trump’s new point man on North Korea, stressed in a recent speech that as a prerequisite for peace, Washington wants a “complete understanding of the full extent of the North Korean weapons of mass destruction missile programs,” expert access and monitoring of key sites and, ultimately, “the removal and destruction of stockpiles of fissile material, weapons, missiles, launchers, and other weapons of mass destruction.” The question is whether Trump will similarly challenge Kim or choose an easier and splashier — but less substantive — declaration of peace. ___ TALK VS TREATY If he chose to do so, Trump could unilaterally announce the end of the Korean War. It would be great TV. But it wouldn’t necessarily mean all that much. Trump can’t by himself conclude an actual peace treaty. China, and possibly a representative of the U.N. Command, would have to be involved. South Korea would naturally want
Poll: Rural/urban political divisions also split the suburbs
America’s suburbs are today’s great political battleground, long seen as an independent pivot between the country’s liberal cities and conservative small towns and rural expanse. But it’s not that simple. It turns out that these places in-between may be the most politically polarized of all — and when figuring out the partisan leanings of people living in the suburbs, where they came from makes a difference. Fewer suburbanites describe themselves as politically independent than do residents of the nation’s urban and rural areas, according to a survey released Tuesday by the University of Chicago Harris School for Public Policy and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The poll also found that the partisan leanings of suburban residents are closely linked to whether they have previously lived in a city. “In the last decade, particularly in the past five years, I’ve felt a shift in having some liberal neighbors,” said Nancy Wieman, 63, a registered Republican and staunch conservative who has lived in suburban Jefferson County outside of Denver her entire life. “The ones who are markedly liberal have moved from Denver or other cities.” Suburbanites who previously lived in a city are about as likely as city-dwellers to call themselves Democrats, the survey found. Similarly, Americans living in suburbs who have never resided in an urban area are about as likely as rural residents to say they are Republican. Just 15 percent of suburban Americans say they are independent and do not lean toward a party, compared with 25 percent of urban Americans and 30 percent of rural Americans who call themselves politically independent. That divide extends to the White House: 72 percent of ex-urban suburbanites disapprove of President Donald Trump‘s performance in office, as do 77 percent of city residents. That compares with the 57 percent of suburbanites who have not previously lived in a city and 54 percent of rural Americans who say they disapprove of the president. Kevin Keelan moved from Denver to the sprawling suburbs of Jefferson County 16 years ago. Once a political independent, the 49-year-old registered as a Democrat a few years ago. “Now it’s not even an option. I’d vote Democratic or independent, but there’s no way I can vote Republican anymore,” Keelan said. “It’s just being more open-minded, and I’d be that way if I was living here or in a loft downtown.” Jefferson County is a cluster of subdivisions and strip malls huddled under the Rocky Mountain foothills. Once a right-leaning county, it has been reshaped by an influx of transplants from coastal, urban states. It now leans Democratic: The party swept countywide offices and won most of the state legislative districts there in 2018, and Hillary Clinton won the county by 7 percentage points in 2016. Yet under that surface, election results from 2016 show it is a deeply polarized place. In 118 precincts in Jefferson County, one of the candidates won by more than 10 points. Clinton won 60 precincts and Trump 58. “The chasm between the two sides is greater than ever,” said Libby Szabo, a Republican county commissioner. “It’s harder at this point, because the ideals are so different, to even change parties.” The UChicago Harris/AP-NORC poll points to how that split between urban and rural America echoes through the suburbs. About two-thirds of city dwellers say that legal immigration is a net benefit to the United States, much as the 7 in 10 former city residents now living in the suburbs who say the same. A smaller majority of suburbanites who have never lived in cities, 58 percent, and half of rural residents think the benefits of legal immigration outweigh the risks. Urban residents are somewhat more likely than rural residents to think the U.S. should be active in world affairs, 37 percent to 24 percent. That mirrors the split between suburbanites who used to live in cities and those who never have: 32 percent of the former favor an active U.S. role, compared with 23 percent of the latter. About 6 in 10 urban residents and ex-urban suburbanites say that the way things are going in the U.S. will worsen this year, while less than half of rural residents or suburbanites with no city experience believe the same. S.A. Campbell is a general contractor who lives in the Kansas City suburbs of Johnson County, Kansas, which swung toward the Democrats in 2018 as it replaced a four-term Republican congressman with a Democratic woman who is an openly gay Native American. It is often compared to Jefferson County, with its highly educated population, high-quality schools and influx of previous city dwellers. Campbell, 60, said his childhood in Kansas City is part of what made him a supporter of Democrats; his parents were both teachers active in their union, and his mother was a supporter of Planned Parenthood. “When you’ve been raised in a certain fashion, your view of the world is more open than if you grew up in a household that wasn’t that,” he said. George Stern, the newly elected clerk in Jefferson County, has lived in New York City and spent parts of his childhood on a remote Colorado ranch. He sees partisan attitudes hardening in the suburbs much as they have in urban and rural parts of the country. But, he said, there’s a key difference: While there may be fewer independents in the suburbs, the mixture of loyal Democrats and Republicans found there means it’s still a place for both sides. “You’re welcome regardless of your political beliefs,” said Stern, a Democrat and volunteer firefighter in a suburban department with a wide range of political views in the station. “It becomes harder to live in rural or urban areas if your political beliefs don’t match those of the majority of the people who live there.” ___ Fingerhut reported from Washington. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,010 adults was conducted Jan. 16 to 20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of
Steve Flowers: Alabama leads the way with women in governmental leadership
There has been a lot of talk about the advancement of women in politics over the past year. It has been suggested that more progressive states have led the way with this change. Alabama can very well make the case that we lead the nation in women taking leadership roles in our state. It is very doubtful that any state in the nation can claim a female governor and a female chief executive of their states leading business organization. Kay Ivey became Governor on January 14, after having been elected to her own four-year term in November. Kay had previously been the State Treasurer for eight-years and Lt. Governor for six-years. She was serving an unexpired term as Governor for two-years prior to her election last year. On January 2, Katie Boyd Britt took over the reins of the state’s most powerful political organization, the Business Council of Alabama. She is the first woman to serve as the BCA’s President and Chief Executive Officer. She is not only the first woman CEO, she is by far the youngest CEO in BCA history. Katie Britt comes to the BCA from Senator Richard Shelby’s office where she has been our Senior Senator’s Chief of Staff. Alabama Power CEO, Mark Crosswhite, who chairs the BCA’s Executive Committee said, “As the top staff member for Senator Shelby, she has worked daily with businesses and elected officials from Alabama and the country. Katie has always been a bright star on the Alabama political stage. She grew up in Enterprise and served as President of the Student Government Association at the University of Alabama then graduated from the University of Alabama School of Law. Before becoming Chief of Staff, she worked in several posts in Senator Shelby’s office including Press Secretary. She is married to Wesley Britt, a former Alabama and professional football player and they have two children. As Senator Shelby’s top advisor for the last five years, she has headed his Judicial Nomination Task Force. She has spearheaded the effort to recommend young talent for the eight vacancies serving Alabama on the Federal Circuit and District Court Benches. As the Senator’s Chief of Staff, Katie has managed all of Shelby’s DC and state operations including matters relating to personnel throughout his six offices. She has overseen an administrative annual budget of almost $4 million. In addition, as Chief of Staff, she has been our Senior Senator’s ambassador before constituents’ community leaders, industry association heads and senior executives across our state and nation. Upon taking the BCA reins, Katie said, “My heart is in Alabama. Our state has made significant progress in recent years and I am honored to have been chosen to lead the BCA during this time of growth.” Kay and Katie are not the only female governmental leaders. Twinkle Cavanaugh serves as President of the Alabama Public Service Commission. She has been a state leader for decades. She is a past Chairman of the State Republican Party. Our seven-member congressional delegation boasts of two female delegates to Congress. Given the fact that we only have seven congressional seats, two out of seven is a pretty good percentage. Congresswoman Terri Sewell has represented the Seventh District of Alabama for close to a decade. She is on a fast leadership track in the Democratic House caucus. She is a Harvard educated lawyer who was born and raised in Selma. Her sprawling district, includes Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Montgomery and all of the Black Belt. Congresswoman Martha Roby has represented southeast Alabama’s second district for close to a decade. She is also on a fast track within her party ranks. She is a favorite among the House Republican leadership. Therefore, folks, Alabama does not take a backseat to any state when it comes to females in leadership roles in government. Gov. Kay Ivey came out strongly in favor of a gasoline tax to meet the state’s infrastructure needs in her Inaugural Address. If successful, she will not only go down in history as the first female Republican governor and first female governor elected in her own right, she will also leave a legacy of improving Alabama economically for decades to come. See you next week. ••• Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His column appears in more than 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Remember in the ‘gotcha’ moments there are people behind the headlines
Warning: If you’re looking for hard-hitting political commentary this isn’t the post you’re going to find here today. I’ve been working on this post for several weeks and can’t seem to get it quite right so I’m publishing as is. There will be some that condemn me for what I’m about to say, but I’d rather be condemned for saying what I think than be silent and let my point go unsaid. First let me start with a cringe-worthy admission: There was a time I, for lack of a better way to say it, was starstruck by those in politics. It’s embarrassing I know. I was an undergraduate student at Florida State University when Tallahassee, Fla. was suddenly overrun with media covering Bush v. Gore. I just couldn’t ignore the national drama playing out of the first election I was able to vote in. I found myself mesmerized by national political figures and even some statewide elected officials who had a strong media presence. I was hooked. I readily admit I realize how strange that was. Now on to my point. Based on national polling, it seems abundantly clear most people don’t trust or like politicians on the whole, but here’s something that’s often forgotten: their career choice doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, automatically define them. From legislators to lobbyists, those who hold or run for elected office and those who work for them and their campaigns, it seems everyone in politics is a walking target for condemnation by some. Over the last decade, I’ve come to meet some of those same figures I once watched in awe in person. I went on to work for Katherine Harris the Secretary of State at the center of the 2000 storm that got my attention. There are many other political icons I’ve not met, but have come to know through the eyes of friends who know or have worked with them. As simple and as cheesy as it sounds, politicians and those of us who choose a life in politics are more than the office they hold, or the role they serve: they are people too. They have personal lives of their own; they have families and friends. Their lives aren’t unlike the rest of ours; they simply chose to step into a career field that frequently puts the spotlight on them and their actions, giving their opponents an opportunity, if not an invitation, to magnify their flaws, faults, and mistakes. Many inside and outside of politics delight in the public humiliation and takedown of others regardless of circumstances political, personal, scandal or error, new or old. Where’s our humanity? Have we lost it? Have we forgotten the human experience will always include mistakes, ignorance, growth, and challenges? I know I have made my fair share of mistakes. As a matter of fact, I’ve probably made about three people’s fair share. This is why I feel so strongly we need to remember not every mistake someone makes, should be a career-ending or life-altering one. In most cases, we should take into account more than a moment in time or a bad decision. We should look at who the person is now and how they feel and express their sincere remorse regarding their actions. Of course, there are disqualifying behaviors — statements or beliefs that should render one unfit for office. But where do we draw the line? Recently, two politicians faced similar media coverage and outrage over old photographs emerged of them in black-face. My feelings are that each situation is completely different, as are the outcomes I would have hoped for. First, Florida Secretary of State Michael Ertel, a Republican and a man I’ve met several times and have followed on social media for several years, found himself in the center of controversy when a photograph of him appeared. He quickly resigned his position and gave one of the most sincere apologies. Then the Virginia governor’s yearbook page from college came out. This is a man, Ralph Northam, that I’ve never met and he has bungled his reaction to the discovery for several weeks while still holding onto his job. Here’s the thing: people who know Michael know him to be a good man. I know enough of him and we have enough mutual friends that I feel strongly he is indeed a good man who made a mistake. I don’t believe that moment in time defines him or his core beliefs. I don’t believe he is a racist or that his actions that day in the past would speak to his character today. I believe his record of fairness and professionalism in his prior role as an election’s supervisor speaks to the fact he was a good choice for secretary of state and he would have served the governor and the state well. Here’s the part that will get me in trouble: I don’t believe that the state is better off for Ertel’s resignation, nor do I believe any kind of justice was served by the public demands for it. I hate the game of “gotcha.” It has ruined lives and careers and I’ve seen it happen again and again over the years in politics and it makes me sick. Yes, our elected officials need to be held to a higher standard. And yes, there’s no room for racists or bigots in politics, but not everyone who does something ignorant or insensitive is a hateful racist. I saw a headline about the furor in Virginia dying down. Yet Northam is still holding onto his position while refusing to give full answers, refusing to take responsibility, and refusing to show true remorse. That is a problem. I don’t know if his behavior was a once-off like Ertel’s seems to be, or if it was a trend and part of a larger issue, but I do know he doesn’t deserve to hold his position while withholding answer to tough questions and refusing to own up to the truth. I believe that there’s
