Memphis Flyer: To start with an issue that
became moot the day after the election: the NBA
arena-to-be. That figured in a lot of the election
outcomes. What has been your thinking on it?
George Flinn: I am a booster for the area and
anything that improves the mood or the prospects of
the area. So I’m a Grizzlies fan. I have season tickets. I
take my mother there all the time. And I made a
successful bid to carry the Grizzlies’ games on one of my radio
stations (WHBQ 56 AM). But the fact is that I was
always opposed to public funding for the arena, particularly
if the public had no say in the decision. I think the
people who do want to support the Grizzlies, which is a
great number of people, should have been the ones
supporting the arena and the businesses that will be
benefiting from the increased visibility of the area.
That’s out of the way now, of course.
Yes, it is.
And you’re probably relieved.
I am very relieved.
During the campaign against GOP rival state
Rep. Larry Scroggs, several Republicans maintained that
your ads were misleading those which made him out
to be a big-time taxer. What is your attitude toward
that and what is your relationship with Scroggs today?
First of all, I consider Larry Scroggs to be a fine
person. I know him. I know his family. I think they’re
great people. I think they’re dedicated people. My
campaign emphasized holding the line on taxes, and I didn’t see
it as attacking him personally. I think personally he’s a
great guy and he’s serving us well in the Statehouse. But I
don’t think anybody can say that we didn’t vary on how we
see the issue of taxation. That was the difference, and
pointing out differences or even dramatizing them
is nothing new in political campaigning. But, personally,
I do not see that as an attack on him.
And as far as what some people call “negative
campaigning” goes, I didn’t initiate the “attacks.” Larry
did, in that press conference he called accusing me of
running two-bit radio stations and trying to buy the election and
not being honorable and a real Republican and all that.
That was before I ran a single ad, and I hadn’t said anything
unkind about him at all. I didn’t much care for all that. I
was kind of shocked, in fact. And if it comes down to it, it
was unfair. But I just chalked it up to how the game is
played, and I don’t have any hard feelings about it. I
do think we ought to have a single standard about how we see such things.
Well, do you have a point of view toward how
the legislature solves the state tax problem?
I am concerned about holding the line at the
state level too but in such a way that we are not penalized
at our own local government level. My main concern is
that Shelby County continue to receive the funding from
the state that it is due, because Shelby County’s budget
which is in a tight way itself is dependent on
receiving those funds, and we should not do anything to upset
the balance. Because, in looking at the budget, we’re
dependent on those funds to hold our tax rate.
Shelby County will, I think, be very well
represented by its legislators, people like Paul Stanley, Larry
Scroggs, Curtis Person, Mark Norris, and, really, all the rest.
I think they will have Shelby County’s best interests
at heart when they vote. I think they’ll look very closely
at what this might do to Shelby County and what it
might do to the citizens of the state of Tennessee, and I
will depend on their judgment.
So you don’t want to recommend a particular
solution or attitude in Nashville?
When it’s outside my purview, I think I want to do
whatever’s best for Shelby County. I want Shelby County to be able to
maintain its funding. Whatever is best for Shelby County is my concern.
Once again, what were your differences with Larry Scroggs?
Larry Scroggs and I were 95 to 99 percent the same.
Our few differences were the ones that were aired. That’s the
reason the Republican Party is coming back together so
rapidly. We in the Republican Party are 99 and 44/100th
percent the same. We share the same thoughts and beliefs.
The differences will be somewhat larger in the general
election between AC Wharton the Democrat and George
Flinn the Republican. But these differences can be articulated
and debated in a friendly manner. I think we can shake hands
and smile at each other and let the voters choose. The voters
need to be presented the differences in candidates’ philosophies.
I think we owe it to the voters to be candid about
the different approaches and philosophies we would bring
to governing Shelby County.
What are the basic differences between yourself and Wharton?
I understand that his position, as a Democrat, would
be weighted more heavily to government intervention and
possibly more taxes, while my position would be that of doing
a few things and doing them very well and holding the
line on taxes and ensuring accountability on scrubbing the
budget and seeing if every dollar is being spent wisely.
How do you feel abut the rest of the Republican
ticket you’ll be running with?
I feel great about the ticket. [County trustee]
Bob Patterson is a treasure. My friend [newly elected county
commissioner] John Willingham is very cost-conscious and
is all about accountability. Bruce Thompson [a nominee
for commissioner] is all about business and accountability.
And Mark Luttrell, the nominee for sheriff, is going to be
great. I’ve talked to him several times. I’m going to enjoy
working with him, because he too is all about cost-cutting and
efficient management and accountability. I think we’ve got
a perfect ticket from top to bottom to present to the
people, one that will hold the line and/or decrease taxes and
make the government much more accountable.
You actually think it’s possible to
decrease taxes?
That’s my goal.
Back to the feeling you mentioned that some thought
you “bought” the election what’s your response to that?
All I did was spend enough to make sure we got
our message out, and I think, as we go through the
general election cycle, it’s going to be beneficial to the entire
Republican ticket to have that message the
Republican one of accountability presented for a full hearing.
I think, in general, my message which includes a
good deal of skepticism about the value of countywide
consolidation, at least as it’s been talked about is the
same as the entire ticket’s. But accountability, based on
fairness, that’s what the message really is. That plus public safety
and job creation and education.
That’s what we were able to make the voters aware of
in the primary. They voted for it, not especially for me
although I’m glad to be the messenger.
One more thing about this “buying an election” stuff.
In radio, we say that the worst thing you can do is advertise
a bad product. If you advertise something good, you win
with it. If it’s a bad product, you’re going to go bust.
No doubt cost-cutting and “accountability” will
play well in certain areas the suburbs, for example
but your opponent is a well-regarded African American
who hopes to cross political boundaries with his appeal.
Meanwhile, what do you offer that’s attractive to
his base?
Well, I have an office in the inner city my main
office. I’ve been there for 27 years. I talk to
inner-city Memphians every day. I know their deepest
concerns. When someone’s sick, their deepest concerns come
out. I’m very attuned to that. The main thing is that
those Memphians are not abandoned, that the services they
are used to continue to be offered to them. I am no less
disposed to listen to them than I am to the folks in the
suburbs and those out in the county. I’m balanced
between everybody’s needs, the way I think government should be.
But can you maintain a good level of social
services and cut taxes too?
I think we can, by being accountable and
making certain that the services we provide them are the
ones they need. Oftentimes, we try to provide services that
they don’t need. And don’t get. I know the services they need,
because those are the ones they tell me about, and I’m very
attuned to the inner city, as I am to the county at large.
To say the least, you’ve mentioned the word
“accountability” a fair number of times. What exactly do you mean by it?
Exactly what it sounds like: The word means
that you owe an accounting to the people who hire you
to run their public affairs and spend their tax money.
That means you make responsible allocations to
agreed-upon purposes based on dependable revenue sources. And
that you do it year after year in the most exacting way.
“Accounting” contains another word: “count.” You have
to be able to count accurately and project your
numbers. I’ve had a good deal of experience with that.
In the primary campaign, you had to deal with a
good deal of speculation that you were unfamiliar with the
issues. What is the state of your familiarity with them?
I have a broad experience in business and as a
physician. I am a quick study. I have been studying [the
issues], and I will continue to study. And I will
know the issues better than most. As a matter of fact, I
already know the issues, most of those someone
might bring up, and I know them upwards and
downwards. I would challenge those who want to promulgate
the idea that I don’t know the issues: Try me.
And the main thing is that I know the people, and
I know the area. I’m one of those who grew up
listening to Dewey Phillips. I went to Central High School
like my father, and I know every one of our local
landmarks like the back of my hand. The real issue, when you
get down to it, is how the people feel about things.
They’ll always tell you what the issues are. And I’d rather
listen to them than second-guess them.
The State Front
Bredesen vexes his partymates, the income tax gets close, and two GOP rivals vie.
NASHVILLE — Politically speaking, last week was as notable for what didn’t happen as much
as for what did. One thing that didn’t happen was a
showdown in the legislature over an income-tax bill.
(That’s been deferred until this week or perhaps until
next.) Another thing that didn’t happen was that
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil
Bredesen didn’t send legislators a letter opposing a state income tax after likely
Republican rival Van Hilleary did.
That was a relief to Democrats everywhere in the
state, many of whom even some formerly stout supporters
of the ex-Nashville mayor have been forced,
uncomfortably often of late, to utter the P-word (yes, “pander,”
that’s the one) in connection with the Democratic frontrunner.
This is not a matter of concern only to the more
ideological-minded about party activists; fears are being
expressed at high Democratic levels about Bredesen’s propensity
to play Pete-and-Repeat with Hilleary on the tax question.
Two key state Democrats stood in front of the
downtown Sheraton in Nashville Thursday after the
legislature had folded its hand without betting (at least for
a week) and discussed the matter.
“He didn’t need to go there,” said one about Bredesen’s
readiness last month to chime in with Hilleary on a promise to try
to “repeal” an income tax if one somehow got enacted into law
this year. The other Democrat nodded in agreement.
The problem, the two of them agreed, was at
least two-fold. First, the still-inevitable-looking
Democratic nominee had alienated “the folks over there,” as one
of them said, indicating the state Capitol spire across
War Memorial Plaza. It is a well-known fact that House
Speaker Jimmy Naifeh won’t return Bredesen’s phone calls and
that legislators deeply involved in negotiations over a tax bill
not just Democrats and not just income-tax proponents
have felt their efforts undermined by Bredesen.
By Hilleary, too, of course, but the 4th District
GOP congressman is being cut more slack, on the dubious
ground that He Knows Not What He Does as well as on the
logical one that his position is not so flagrantly at odds with
the assumptions of his party’s spokespeople. Bredesen’s
hardening position against the income tax, on the other hand,
puts Democrats running for the legislature on the spot.
But an even worse problem, noted the two key
Democrats, was that Bredesen had raised grievous doubts
concerning his ability, present- or future-tense, to take
public positions good, bad, or indifferent with
any risk attached to them. “He’s got people worried
about his character,” one of them said.
Only if he takes one or two more steps of the
“repeal” magnitude might he endanger the inevitability of
his nomination, the two Democrats concurred, but
Bredesen may have already conditioned a number of
Democrats to the idea of sitting the election out or skipping
the gubernatorial portion of the ballot in protest.
And such losses would not be balanced by
commensurate gains, the Democrats agreed. It was
notable Wednesday morning that anti-tax talk-show host
Steve Gill of Nashville’s WTTN mocked Bredesen’s
sincerity on the tax issue by pointing out his absence from
the ranks of protestors outside the Capitol. (Of
course, Hilleary wasn’t there either a certain level of
decorum being expected of mainstream candidates.)
There was one bottom-line matter the pair of
Democratic party lions agreed on Phil Bredesen had lost, not
gained, ground as a result of his frantic footwork on the income tax.
n Income Tax Prospects: You start with the premise,
of course, that Governor Don Sundquist will sign
Naifeh’s 4.5 percent “flat-tax” bill as soon as it gets to his desk.
That’s a slam dunk. It would be the culmination
of the sorely beleaguered governor’s three years of
agonistic (and agonized) struggle to achieve “tax reform.”
(That’s a euphemism for an income tax these days, of course,
as is the term “flat tax,” which describes one type of
income tax the nongraduated kind now in play.)
And you proceed with the high likelihood that
Naifeh, an adroit persuader and head-counter, will ultimately
be able to distill the 50-vote majority he needs from
the fluctuating number of possible House ayes that
everybody agreed last Wednesday, when the Speaker chose not to
bring the bill to the floor, hovered between 47 and 53.
What about the legislative Black Caucus’ supposed
threat to hold up the bill pending satisfaction of its demand that
Naifeh arrange the appointment of a black member to the
Tennessee Regulatory Authority, whose membership is up for renewal?
The general belief in the Senate, which (as we shall
see) holds the balance, is that the threat is more apparent
than real, that, when push comes to shove (as it may this
next week, both figuratively and literally), black legislators as
a bloc will not want to stand in the way of an outcome
desired so intensely by the great majority of their
constituents, who see the income tax as the best of all
possible nonregressive revenue sources.
Certainly, Kathryn Bowers, the Memphis Democrat
who is a physical bantamweight but a legislative heavyweight
and can usually speak for the caucus, carefully measured
her words when asked about the subject last week,
avoiding words like “threat” or “deal” or any syntax, for that
matter, that came within an unabridged mile of an ultimatum.
The root of the problem has been that Melvin
Malone, the African-American appointee who was Lt. Governor
John Wilder‘s choice for the TRA last time around, has been
substituted on the new list by Pat Miller, the Wilder confidante
who in recent years has served as his chief of staff. Any action
that attempted to arm-twist Wilder out of Miller would blow
sky-high the gathering income-tax consensus in the Senate,
where the wizened lieutenant governor famously presides.
There were actually weekend reports that the
lieutenant governor had talked with his protégé about the
possibility of stepping down so as to end the impasse. But if
Wilder wants Miller, Wilder gets Miller. The Senate’s presiding
officer, after all, remains a key member
the key member, perhaps of a 16-vote Senate bloc that will vote for
Naifeh’s bill if and when it arrives safely from the House.
“I will be responsible” is how Wilder describes his
intentions on the flat-tax bill, and this is widely taken to mean
a yes vote, however tentative. As Wilder explains, such
other former key Senate holdouts as Democratic Caucus
chairman Joe Haynes of Goodletsville and finance chair
Doug Henry of Nashville also mean to be “responsible.”
Henry put it this way Wednesday night: “I’ve
generally opposed an income tax, but we’ve gotten ourselves in
serious trouble. We’ve got to do something to assure that
state government has enough money to operate.”
Also generally counted in this tacit list of last-ditch
converts is House Republican Leader Ben
Atchley of Knoxville.
But even with all these reluctant eminences
accounted for, the total of Senate votes still stands at only 16
one shy of the number needed to pass the flat-tax bill.
Where will it come from?
Not from the GOP’s Mark Norris, the
conservative Colliervillian whose current congressional bid would be
compromised by an income-tax vote. And not from
another Shelby County Republican, judiciary chair
Curtis Person, a longtime Sundquist intimate who insists, almost in the
manner of one of the current tax protesters, “No means no.”
To which a Democratic senator backing the income
tax says, “Damn that D’Agostino [Memphian
Anthony D’Agostino, a Democrat who filed against Person this
year, thereby becoming (along with independent
Barbara Leding) the august GOP senator’s first formal
opposition of any kind since 1968]! Without him, we
would have had Curtis’ vote.” (For the record, Person
insists that this is not so; both he and Norris are backing a
Constitutional Convention bill.)
Typical of several other doubtful prospects
is Murfreesboro’s Larry Trail, whose 2000 race against
Republican Howard Wall may have come down to
his pledge (against persistent badgering) that he would
not, definitely would not, never ever, vote for an income tax.
As Trail said last week, in a wan parody of that
ordeal, “I’ve hated [the income tax] since the age of 12!”
When pressed for a more serious response, he keeps his own
counsel amid what friends know is a troubling inner discontent.
Trail’s name is invoked almost daily and
sarcastically by talk-show host Gill, who sees Trail as a likely
apostate and therefore is keeping the heat on.
“It’s a matter of ratings,” says Trail, who would just
as soon not have to contemplate this flat-tax cup,
much less drink it.
But contemplate it he must, as will several of the
others named above, and if the Steve Gills of the world
push from one direction, there is abundant pressure from
the other direction as well. If something or someone
gives, anywhere along the line, the income tax is law. It’s
that close. Or, as they say: So near yet so far.
n In what may be just another instance of making
virtue of necessity (but may also be the simple truth),
Tennessee’s GOP Senator Bill Frist said on a recent visit to
Memphis that his party’s hard-fought senatorial primary between
Lamar Alexander and Ed Bryant was “a good thing”
for both candidates and for the Republican Party.
Since Senator Fred Thompson‘s surprise
declaration in early March that he would not seek
reelection, Alexander, a two-term former governor of Tennessee,
and 7th District congressman Bryant have been locked in
a primary struggle that has often been bitter.
As chairman of the Republican Senatorial
Campaign Committee, Frist is intent upon regaining control of
the Senate for his party. While acknowledging that there
was “some pressure” for him to state a preference for one of
the would-be successors to his retiring colleague
Thompson, Frist said only someone like Democrat Bredesen, a
multi-millionaire, could have forced him to make such a choice.
“It’s a matter of money. If Bredesen had been
the Democrats’ Senate candidate, we’d have had to focus
very quickly on solidarity and fund-raising, and that would
have probably caused me to indicate a preference,” Frist said.
Frist said he did not think the Senate candidacy
of Nashville congressman Bob Clement, the
Democrats’ consensus choice, presented the same urgency. Nor,
Frist indicated, would a senate candidacy by Memphis’
Democratic congressman, Harold Ford Jr., have been a
compelling reason for him to intervene in favor of one of
the Republican hopefuls.
“Frankly, I think it’s been good for Lamar to face
some competition and sharpen his game, and it’s obviously
a good opportunity for Ed to indicate his ability also,”
Frist, the Senate’s only doctor, said at Davis-Kidd
Booksellers in East Memphis, where, weekend before last, he
signed copies of his new volume, When Every Moment
Counts (Bowman and Littlefield, $14.95, 182 pages), which
deals with the threat of bio-terrorism.
From Frist’s point of view, the Senate race may
turn into too much of a good thing, though. Bryant
and Alexander, both professing to be diehard
conservatives, escalated their war of words last week, with the
former governor saying his record made him better qualified
and rebuking Bryant for “mean-spirited” campaign tactics.
For his part, the congressman criticized Alexander
for a published statement to the effect that, his
presidential hopes long gone by, “the Senate will have to do.”
During a visit to the Flyer office this week, Alexander
acknowledged that the remark, made “at the very end of a
long interview” with the Knoxville News
Sentinel‘s Tom Humphrey, might have been better phrased.