It didn’t get the kind of national attention that Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Karen Handel received, but it could matter down the road: Newt Gingrich has endorsed his former House colleague Nathan Deal for governor of Georgia, just a week before the July 20 primary. Moreover, Gingrich offered his imprimatur in Georgia, not on a Facebook site (Palin’s only venue for Handel so far), and has cut an ad for the North Georgia party-switcher.
I’d say this is a pretty risky gambit for Newt, taking on Palin in his own home state, all the more because this is an extremely unstable race. Five different polling outfits have released surveys of this contest since July 1, and the results are all over the place. Two polls, from Survey USA and Mason-Dixon, have shown longtime frontrunner John Oxendine maintaining his lead with over 30% of the vote, and Karen Handel moving up into second place at 23%. Two other polls, from Insider Advantage and Magellan, have Oxendine’s support collapsing down into the teens; IA had him tied with Handel, and Magellan had Handel surging into the lead. All four polls had Nathan Deal bumping along in the teens as well, and not showing much momentum.
Now Rasmussen‘s weighed in with a poll showing Handel and Deal tied for the lead at 25%, with Oxendine semi-collapsing back to 20%.
If Rasmussen’s right, and Handel and Deal wind up in a runoff, the Newt-Versus-Sarah story-line will get a lot more play, and pressure on Palin to personally campaign for her latest Mama Grizzly will grow intense.
All this activity is preliminary, of course, to the general election, and the latest poll to test various Republicans against likely Democratic nominee Roy Barnes, the Mason-Dixon survey, shows the former governor tied with Oxendine, up eleven points over Handel, and up eighteen points over Deal.

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
As if things weren’t bad enough for Democrats, something I didn’t believe possible six months ago has happened: The Senate is now in play. You don’t believe it, dear reader? Let’s look at the numbers.
To retain control, Democrats need at least 50 seats. They start with 45 seats that are safe or not up for election this year, and there are three more races (NY, CT, and OR) that they are likely to win, for a total of 48. (The comparable number for Republicans is 41.) That leaves 11 seats in play. Here they are, along with the most recent survey results:
CA Fiorina (R) 47, Boxer (D) 45
CO Buck (R) 48, Bennet (D) 39
FL Rubio (R) 36, Crist (I) 34, Meek (D) 15
IL Giannoulias (D) 40, Kirk (R) 39
KY Paul (R) 43, Conway (D) 43
MO Blunt (R) 48, Carnahan (D) 43
NV Angle (R) 48, Reid (D) 41
OH Portman (R) 43, Fisher (D) 39
PA Toomey (R) 45, Sestak (D) 39
WA Murray (D) 47, Rossi (R) 47
WI Feingold (D) 45, Johnson (R) 43
Apply whatever discount you want to individual surveys of varying quality and provenance; the overall picture is pretty clear. A few things stand out:
· Barbara Boxer is really in trouble, and it’s part of a larger California story: The most recent survey had Meg Whitman up seven over Jerry Brown in the gubernatorial contest.
· Patty Murray and Russ Feingold are fighting for their political lives.
· Colorado has been moving away from the Democratic Party since early in the Obama administration, and intra-party squabbling over the Senate nomination has increased the odds against Bennet.
· The surge some expected toward Harry Reid after the Republicans nominated an “out-of-the-mainstream” candidate has not yet materialized.
· Illinois’s “deep-blue” status may not be enough to counteract the effects of a weak Democratic nominee.
There are some elections years (1980, 1986, and 2006 come to mind) when most of the close races tip in the same direction, producing a shift of control. 2010 could be another.
It’s entirely possible that when the dust settles this November, Republicans will have hit the trifecta–President Obama’s former seat, Vice President Biden’s former seat, plus the Senate majority leader’s seat.
For much of the past year the Tea Party has preoccupied pundits, who consider it to be the locus of energy in the conservative movement and the source of the “enthusiasm gap” between Republicans and Democrats heading into the fall election. In this context, which might turn several blue states red in a low-turnout midterm, it would be a delicious irony if Democrats manage to hold on to the Senate by defeating the Tea Party’s iconic candidate in deep-red Kentucky. Stay tuned.

These days, most blogging about political strategy is understandably focused on the mid term elections. But longer-term strategic thinking merits more attention if Democrats want to make the party more effective. Michael Lind’s Sunday WaPo article, “Comprehensive reform is overrated. For real change, Washington must think small” is a thoughtful contribution in this regard, and he provides a number of insightful observations that merit consideration. The problem, acocrding to Lind:

Washington has fallen in love with “comprehensive reform” — legislation aimed at solving all aspects of a big problem in one dramatic and history-making move. We saw it with health care. Now comprehensive financial regulatory reform has passed in the House, with a Senate vote expected soon. Up next may come energy legislation, following President Obama’s Oval Office speech last month proclaiming a new “national mission” to wean America off fossil fuels. Comprehensive immigration reform, which failed back in 2007, waits in the wings, with the president calling for such an effort in a July 1 address. And a push for comprehensive fiscal reform will surely come on the heels of the recommendations this fall from Obama’s deficit commission.
…But it does not follow that each complex, giant problem must be addressed by one complex, giant bill. If anything, history shows that piecemeal reforms are often more lasting than a legislative Big Bang.

Lind adds “Politicians are seduced by comprehensive reform because history tends to glorify presidents and legislators who pass big, definitive laws.” He cites smaller, incremental legislation, such as the Glass-Seagall Act of 1932, the Securities Act of 1933, which required public disclosure of corporate information to shareholders, followed by the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and 1935 Banking Act — a series of individual laws adding up to an impressive financial reform package, but over time, not all at once.
The question arises whether a piecemeal enactment of the health care reform provisions in the Obama reform package might also have included a public option, if it could have been tackled as a separate proposal, with no other distraction. Or alternatively, whether an incremental strategy would have bogged down into even longer debates with no resolution. it’s possible that the comprehensive packaging of health care reform was an asset because it encouraged supporters to sign on, despite doubts about particular provisions.
Lind acknowledges the frequently noted argument for big package reform — that the interconnected nature of many social problems, such as health care or immigration reform may require more complex legislative solutions than in earlier eras. Breaking the packages down into a series of individual reforms and debating and fighting over them one-by-one might be even more exhausting for politicians and the public.
He sees three “critical problems, however, with choosing a comprehensive reform strategy over piecemeal, or incremental reforms: 1. “Excessive leverage” and “bargaining power” to influence legislation against the collective will of a bill’s supporters are given to individual Senators, such as we have recently seen with Sens, Joe Lieberman and Nelson; 2. Big Package reform presumes an absurd amount of accurate foresight on the part of mere mortals who happen to be elected officials — “The longer the time horizon, the greater the hubris of those who claim to be solving problems not just for today but for generations to come.” and; 3. There may not be legislative solutions to all problems — “…Some challenges are not problems to be solved, but situations to be ameliorated or endured.”
Lind argues further,

Instead of striding boldly into the future, we should grope our way cautiously forward, ever ready to back up upon encountering an obstacle and always prepared to consider an alternative path if the road is blocked…Instead of aspiring to achieve irrevocable, comprehensive reform by the second Monday of next month, let’s consider reforms that are piecemeal and reversible if we discover they do not work.

I would add that piecemeal/incremental reform doesn’t have to be slow-paced, although it can be, when necessary. Perhaps enacting the “lower-hanging fruit” in a reform package first, building up to the more contentious proposals, would be more effective than trying to sell it all at once.
Lind is undoubtedly right that a little humility would serve reform advocates well. Or at least, a little more candor in admitting that reform legislation can be tweaked later to adjust to changing conditions or mistakes.
He touches on the important point that smaller packages are smaller targets, and “less vulnerable to attack” and distortion. Coming at it from a slightly different angle, smaller packages can be explained more coherently to voters — a simple reform that serves both justice and good economic sense is easier to understand than a complex package with myriad bells, whistles and moving parts.
Lind quotes FDR’s remarks during the 1932 campaign to compelling effect: “The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation…It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” Amazing, that 78 years later, that sounds like a credible approach for our times, coming from the Democratic Partys’ most effective champion of reform.

Michael Hais has an interesting myth-buster, “Democrats, Not Independents or Republicans, Will Decide Who Wins in 2010 and Beyond” at ndn.org. Hais, a fellow with the New Democratic Network and the New Policy Institute, reasons,

Like the constant buzz of the vuvuzelas during the World Cup, leading members of the inside-the-Beltway punditry like Chris Cilliza and Chuck Todd have generated an ever louder chorus of warnings recently that “angry” independent voters will determine the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections and, in so doing, threaten the Democratic Party’s current congressional majorities.
Actually, however, it is not what independent-or even Republican-voters do that will determine what happens in this November’s elections. It is what Democrats do, or perhaps not do, that will be decisive. This is true for two reasons. First, a significantly greater number of voters now identify with or lean to the Democratic Party than to the GOP. Second, only a relatively small number of politically uninvolved and disinterested voters are independents that are completely unattached to either of the parties. As a result, the big election story in 2010 will be the extent to which the large plurality of Americans who call themselves Democrats shows up at the polls this fall, and not the voting preferences of unaffiliated independents or Republicans.

In stark contrast to 1994, when a major poll indicated that Dems and the GOP each had 44 percent party i.d. support from the public,

This year…the Democratic Party holds a party identification advantage over the Republicans. In a June national survey conducted for NDN by highly regarded market research firm, Frank N. Magid Associates, 47% of voting age Americans identified with or leaned to the Democratic Party, well above the 33% who identified with or leaned to the Republican Party and the 19% who claimed to be unaffiliated independents. Even among registered voters the Democratic advantage over the GOP was 11 percentage points (47% vs. 36% with unaffiliated independents dropping to 17%). These numbers were replicated in an early July Pew survey showing the Democrats with a 49% to 42% party ID lead over the Republicans among registered voters.

So how do these favorable identification sympathies square with voting intentions?

As is the case in virtually every U.S. election, almost all of those who identify with or lean to a party plan to vote for the candidates of that party this coming November. In the NDN poll, about 95% of both Democratic and Republican identifiers who have made a choice say they expect to vote this fall for the congressional candidate of the party with which they identify. Meanwhile, among the presumably decisive independents, almost two-thirds (61%) are as yet undecided in the race for Congress. The remainder is split almost evenly between the two parties, with 21% preferring the Republicans and 18% the Democrats.

Hais concedes that the GOP does have an edge in voter registration among the polled identifiers, and in measures of enthusiasm for midterm participation — Republicans have an 11 percent advantage among those who say they are certain to vote. He applauds the DNC decision to budget $50 million this year to energize turnout among “first time voters” — young voters, African-Americans, Latinos and single women.
He also advises against Dems embracing a centrist timidity, since polls indicate strong support for progressive policies:

Democrats also need to resist advice to turn to the right as some pundits suggest. Conservative columnist, George Will, is certainly correct in noting that the Democratic disadvantage this year in voter enthusiasm and commitment could hurt the party in November. But his assertion that the lack of enthusiasm among Democratic voters stems from their party’s being “at odds with an increasingly center-right country,” is challenged by recent poll results.
The NDN survey portrays a country that is anything but center-right. A solid majority of Americans prefer a government that actively tries to solve the problems facing society and the economy (54%), rather than a government that stays out of society and the economy to the greatest extent possible (31%). Three-quarters of Democrats (76%), and just over half of independents (52%), favor an activist government, while 60% of Republicans want a laissez faire approach.
Similarly, a clear plurality of the electorate (49%) wants government to ensure that all Americans have at least a basic standard of living and level of income, even if it increases government spending. Only 34% supported the alternative approach of letting each person get along economically on their own, even if that means some people have a lot more than others. A solid majority of Democrats (69%), and half of independents, opt for governmental policies aimed at increasing economic equality, something that is opposed by two-thirds (65%) of Republicans.

Hais advises “highlighting, not downplaying” Dems legislative achievements under Obama. And he slams a final stake in the heart of the “Independents are the key” strategy for Dems:

Democrats would also be well advised not to base their campaign on pursuing independent voters, angry or otherwise. For one thing, the much-vaunted independents are far less likely to be registered (72%) and certain to vote (52%) than are either Republican or Democratic identifiers. While aiming at unaffiliated and uninvolved voters may be a good idea for a party that has fewer, or even the same number, of identifiers as its opponent, it is not the best strategy for a party that holds a clear party identification lead within the electorate. Doing everything that it can to mobilize its own supporters makes far more sense, and is likely to be far more effective…

If Hais is right, a stronger emphasis on leveraging Democratic resources toward turning out the base, instead of winning the support of the amorphous group called “independents,” could determine who controls Congress next year — and which Party is better positioned for 2012.

As with any election, the 2010 mid terms require that Democrats not only define their beliefs, but also make a credible case why their adversaries should be defeated. Writing at HuffPo, Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, has a handy summary of reasons why the Republicans must not be allowed to win control of congress. Here’s some excerpts:

…Over the course of eight short years — between 2000 and 2008 — the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans — slashing taxes for the wealthy. They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public. They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs. They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family. They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq, pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester, and sullied America’s good name throughout the world.
Their economic policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating big Corporations failed to create jobs. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush’s administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. They inherited a Federal budget with surpluses as far as the eye could see and rolled up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in the over 200 years of American history. And in the end they left the economy in collapse.
This was not a disaster that could be remedied overnight. By taking bold action at the beginning of his administration, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress prevented the financial crisis from morphing into a Great Depression…Obama, the Democrats and their progressive allies have — after a century of trying — finally passed health care reform allowing America to end its status as the only industrialized nation that did not provide health care as a right. They are on the brink of reining in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. And they have set the stage for massive long-term investments in economic growth and clean energy.

Creamer acknowledges the impatience of Americans about “the slow pace of economic recovery” and the “special interests that profited from their economic pain,” and he cites the Republicans’ “audacity” in arguing that Dems are to blame: “In effect they want the election to be a referendum on whether the Democrats have mopped and swept fast enough cleaning up the mess that they created.” Further, says Creamer,

Read more…

Going into yesterday’s Alabama runoffs, the Republican gubernatorial contest revolved around rumors of a big, teacher-union-generated Democratic crossover vote in favor of Dr. Robert Bentley, along with speculation that his opponent, Bradley Byrne, might have gained crucial momentum by accusing Bentley of being a Democratic or union stooge.
Bentley beat Byrne 56-44, and a cursory look at the returns shows no evidence of any massive Democratic crossover vote. In fact, turnout was down 6% from the primary, with no apparent relationship between Republican turnout numbers and those counties with or without significant Democratic contests to keep Dems on their side of the line. Moreover, Byrne did quite well in most of the counties with a big Democratic constituency. There was some anecdotal buzz yesterday about Democratic crossover in isolated locations (e.g., Madison County, where Republican turnout actually dropped 17%), but most election officials said it didn’t seem to be happening.
The much more likely explanation is that Bentley got the bulk of voters who cast ballots for Tim James and Roy Moore in the primary, hardly a stretch since both their campaign managers endorsed Bentley. James voters in particularly probably discounted Byrne’s attacks on Bentley as no more credible than Byrne’s earlier attacks on their candidate.
In any event, future Republican candidates who think demonizing teachers unions is a failsafe strategy should take a close look at Alabama.
In the two congressional runoffs, nothing that unusual happened, either. In the 2d district Republican contest, “establishment” candidate Martha Roby easily despatched Tea Party activist Rick Barber 60-40, beating him nearly three-to-one in their common home county, Montgomery, where the fiery pool hall owner did not gather his armies effectively. Roby will now face Democratic incumbent Bobby Bright in what is expected to be a close race in November.
And in the 7th district Democratic contest, where the Democratic nomination really is tantamount to election, Terri Sewell, who had superior financial resources and significant national support, defeated Shelia Smoot 55-45, with the key being Sewell’s 54-46 margin in Jefferson County, where local races boosted turnout.

Two months ago, and for a long time before that, one of the most settled propositions in American politics was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could not win re-election this year. (Google up “Harry Reid is toast” and you get a pretty rich collection of links stretching back for a good while). The idea was that a national leader with universal name ID and his kind of negative approval ratings couldn’t possibly dig himself out of the hole he was in.
Yesterday Rasmussen–yes, Rasmussen–released a new poll showing Harry Reid in a statistical dead heat with Republican nominee Sharron Angle. True, Angle has never been gangbusters in a general election poll, but as recently as June 9 she held an eleven-point lead over Reid–and then her issue positions started drawing attention.
Aside from Angle’s rapidly eroding horse-race numbers, her approval/disapproval ratings aren’t much better than Reid’s; even though she’s had very little time to alienate voters, she’s done so very efficiently.
It’s all a reminder of a simple but oft-forgotten fact about politics: no matter how “nationalized” an election has become; no matter how tilted the “landscape” is; no matter how rigidly partisan voters seem to be–in the end, elections require a choice between candidates, and Harry Reid has drawn an opponent who has given his campaign, and perhaps his career, new life.

If you were wondering how low could the GOP go in order to hold the governorship of Texas — yes, that Texas, the one that has the Governor who talks up secession — take a peek at Suzy Khimm’s Mother Jones article “Serial Butt-Biting GOP Operative Sinks Teeth Into Texas Race.”
You probably heard that Governor Rick Perry is in serious electoral trouble, which is no small achievement in one of the reddest of states. Perry, it seems is in a dead heat with Houston’s Democratic Mayor Bill White, who Khimm calls “the strongest gubernatorial contender that Texas Democrats have seen in years.” Here’s Khimm on the Perry campaign’s latest connivance in cahoots with Charles Hurth III, a GOP operative who has a somewhat bizarre personal history:

…Last month, Hurth and two other GOP operatives–one a former top aide to Texas Gov. Rick Perry–were implicated in a scheme to bankroll a petition drive to put the Green Party on the ballot. It is an apparent ploy to siphon votes away from Perry’s Democratic challenger, former Houston Mayor Bill White. He’s an appealing target: Tied with Perry in the latest poll…
…Hurth’s first claim to fame was being sued in 1987 for approaching a fellow law student in a bar and biting her on the buttocks so hard that she required medical attention. During the trial, Hurth admitted that he’d used the same toothy overture to approach two other women at fraternity parties–and he said that his latest victim should have taken the gesture as a compliment. The jurors didn’t buy it, and Hurth was successfully sued for $27,500. Since then, he has dedicated himself to being a persistent pain in the butt for Democrats, setting up shop in a tiny Missouri town to create a clearinghouse for Republican electoral schemes. The latest came this spring, when Hurth and his allies succeeded in getting the Greens on the 2010 ballot.

If that wasn’t sleazy enough,

…The Texas Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in early June against a Hurth-run nonprofit called Take Initiative America, as well as Arizona-based GOP consultant Tim Mooney and “unknown conspirators” for their role in the effort. Mooney has admitted that he funneled money through Hurth’s organization to pay Free and Equal Inc., a Chicago-based petition-gathering company that ended up amassing 92,000 signatures for the Texas Green Party’s ballot drive. According to a court document, Hurth’s group spent $532,500 on the effort.

Yes, there’s more:

…This isn’t the first time that Mooney and Hurth have resorted to such schemes to help Republicans at the polls. In 2004, Hurth set up an organization called Choices for America that furtively solicited help from Republicans to get then-presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in New Hampshire, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, among other states. Mooney assisted with Hurth’s 2004 effort, along with Dave Carney, George H.W. Bush’s former political director who’s now one of Rick Perry’s top consultants. At the time, Carney acknowledged to the Dallas Morning News that he was trying to gather signatures for Nader in order to help George W. Bush get reelected. According to the script for the petition drive, canvassers were instructed to tell Bush supporters, “Without Nader, Bush would not be president.”
Three years later, Hurth undertook yet another effort to manipulate electoral politics to the Republicans’ advantage. In 2007, Take Initiative America funded a California ballot initiative that would have distributed the state’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-takes-all. Had it succeeded, the effort would have greatly benefited Republican presidential contenders in the state. Hurth similarly refused to reveal the donor behind the effort, who finally came forward after Democrats accused the group of money-laundering and California officials vowed to investigate. Paul Singer, a hedge-fund manager and major Giuliani fundraiser, admitted that he gave $175,000 to the effort…

Khimm goes on to report that the Texas Green Party accepted the money, probably knowing that it could be coming from Republicans and that the state Democratic Party is continuing its legal challenge to ascertain exactly who funded the GOP-backed petition drive. It would be ironic indeed if the fallout is such that Perry narrowly loses because the efforts of Republican activists to divide the Democrats ends up winning them the majority of swing voters who don’t like underhanded ballot manipulation games.

This item is cross-posted from The New Republic.
So far this year, the script for Republican primaries has been easy to follow. There’s usually been a fight between the Tea Party movement and the Republican establishment; between “true conservatives” and those dismissed as RINOs; between fierce opponents of any cooperation with “socialist” Democrats and the occasional, hunted-to-extinction statesman interested in bipartisanship. You often don’t need to have a program to know the players.
But in today’s Alabama runoff, you can forgive true conservatives for being a bit confused. That’s because this primary pits an establishment RINO suspect–former Democratic state senator, upper-crust Episcopalian, and career trial lawyer Bradley Byrne–against an Evangelical conservative candidate who is allied with the teachers’ unions.
Allow me to explain. Byrne, who won 28 percent of the vote in Alabama’s June 1 primary, is closely associated with causes that the local Tea Party hates: He came down on the liberal side of the great litmus-test struggle of recent Alabama political history, Governor Bob Riley’s 2003 tax-reform initiative, which would have significantly changed one of the country’s most regressive tax systems, but is remembered by conservatives as an audacious effort to raise taxes. (It was subsequently rejected by Alabama voters in a referendum that is considered a signature victory for the hard right.) Byrne enjoys strong backing from the Alabama business community and mainstream Republican elected officials, including Governor Riley. And in the heart of the Bible Belt, he is a member of that great blue-blooded liberal establishment denomination, the Episcopal Church–an affiliation which may have influenced his near-fatal admission early in the campaign that he did not believe every single word in the Bible was literally true.
Byrne’s opponent in the runoff, Tuscaloosa state representative Dr. Robert Bentley, is a classic conservative Baptist, closely identified with 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. He ran an “outsider” campaign in which he promised not to take a salary as governor, and emerged from the back of a large pack of candidates on June 1 to win a runoff spot. Bentley has been endorsed by the campaign managers for both Tim James–the closest thing to a confirmed member of the Tea Party in the primary–and for Christian Right icon Judge Roy Moore, whose underfinanced candidacy finished a disappointing fourth.
In other words, Bentley should be considered the “conservative insurgent” against the establishmentarian Byrne. Except that Byrne hates teachers unions a lot, and his extremely personal battle with them has taken center stage in the campaign, earning him a lot of sympathy from conservatives. As a state senator, Byrne was a constant enemy of the Alabama Education Association (AEA)–once staging a one-man filibuster against a bipartisan compromise bill that would submit teacher dismissal actions to arbitration–and his antagonism only intensified during his stint as Governor Riley’s appointed overseer of the state’s two-year college network. (It makes sense that one of Byrne’s early gubernatorial endorsements came from Jeb Bush, who shares his strong hostility to teachers’ unions.) During the primary campaign, Byrne’s opposition blossomed into a monomaniacal vendetta against the AEA. Alabama political reporter Kim Chandler captured the tone nicely:

Last fall, Bradley Byrne held a press conference on the steps of the Alabama Capi­tol. Instead of standing with the white columned capitol behind him for the backdrop favored by most politicians, Byrne faced the capitol so the cameras aimed at him panned down Montgomery’s Dexter Ave­nue.
Visible over Byrne’s right shoulder was the head­quarters of the Alabama Education Association. There, Byrne said, lie many of the problems in schools and in state politics.
“I don’t think AEA stands for the best of their profes­sion. AEA stands for the worst of it,” Byrne said at the news conference.
Public clashes with the powerful teachers lobby have been the trademark of much of Byrne’s 16-year political career and have become a centerpiece of his campaign to be Ala­bama’s next governor.

This vendetta, in turn, has scrambled Alabama’s political alignments, attracting conservatives who hate teachers’ unions to Byrne, while pushing the state’s Democratic allies into bed with a candidate who, in most other states, would be considered a champion of the hard right.

Read more…