Author: Ed Weathers

“…(EDITOR’S NOTE: Last week’s Flyer editorial, alluded to here by Rep. Harold Ford, expressed our view that the Congressman — like much of his party’s leadership — is too assiduous about following the lead of President Bush in matters of both domestic and foreign policy – especially in regard to the war in Iraq and a proposed new round of tax cuts. That editorial can be viewed by clicking here or by going to http://www.memphisflyer.com/MFSearch/full_results.asp?xt_from=1&aID=4395. It is also appended to this text, underneath Rep. Ford’s response. As his response indicates, we complimented Congressman Ford for the attention he paid to area-wide tornado damage but recommended he express a like measure of concern for his constituents’ interests in the indicated policy areas.)

Your editorial of May 14 advises me to “Take Note, Congressman.” I am taking note and listening to my constituents, and I would like to address some mischaracterizations in your piece.

You write that I am basing my political hopes on “the dubious principle of splitting the difference with the President.” But my positions on issues aren’t determined by an inclination to go along with the President — or by an inclination to oppose him. I worked hard for Al Gore in 2000, and have endorsed John Kerry to replace President Bush in 2004. Sometimes I agree with this President and most times I don’t, and I have been equally outspoken on both scores.

For example, I supported the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq — not the original “blank check” that the President asked for, but the narrowly tailored resolution that I worked with Republicans and Democrats to craft.

My position on Iraq was based on the available intelligence that Iraq was developing chemical and biological weapons and possibly nuclear weapons. It was the same intelligence that President Clinton had, which informed that Democratic Administration’s similar policy toward disarming Iraq. If it turns out that our intelligence overestimated the threat, we need to take a serious look at revamping the way we gather it. Regardless, I continue to believe the world is safer now that Saddam Hussein is out of power.

As for domestic issues, I have forcefully opposed the President’s failed economic agenda, and have made no bones about it. I voted against the President’s tax cuts in 2001, and last week voted against this new round of tax cuts.

It is true that I support tax cuts — but tax cuts of a radically different nature. In contrast to the President’s elimination of taxation on dividends, I would grant every worker and employer a two-month holiday from the payroll tax. This tax cut is faster, broader, cheaper, and more stimulative than President Bush’s. Under my plan, everybody would get a tax cut, from chief executives to the janitors who clean their offices. I also support $100 billion in federal aid to states like Tennessee that are facing budget shortfalls that threaten funding for schools, hospitals, and law enforcement — the President’s plan doesn’t include a dime for the states. Families in the 9th district looking for work or without health care hardly believe these differences are “modest.”

This is America, and we are free to disagree on issues. I accept and welcome criticism with hopes of learning from it. But I want to take a strident, personal objection to your newspaper’s insinuation that my concern for the tornado victims in Jackson was motivated by political calculations.

Our neighbors in Tennessee suffered tragedy and devastation. I extended my prayers and support without hesitation and certainly without calculation. That’s what we do when families are in need. We don’t calculate — we unite, and we act. I was proud to join Congressman Tanner in supporting Governor Bredesen’s request for federal disaster assistance, a request that was answered quickly by the White House. Your cynical insinuations about politics insult the families who have lost loved ones, homes, and businesses.

(Harold Ford, a Memphis Democrat, represents the 9th District of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.)

ORIGINAL FLYER EDITORIAL:

TAKE NOTE, CONGRESSMAN

We live in strange and perilous times, a fact well indicated by the recent Ð and perhaps ongoing Ð wave of deadly tornadoes afflicting Tennessee. Considering the damage done by a killer twister to nearby Jackson and the number of officially declared tornado watches and warnings weÕve already had to endure in Shelby County itself, it is understandable that 9th District congressman Harold Ford should pay heed to the problem. The congressman conspicuously addressed himself to it last week in a press release noting his requests that federal and state aid be expedited to the afflicted areas.

All well and good. But we cannot help but wonder whether FordÕs ambitions for statewide office Ð he is known to be interested in a race for the Senate in 2006 Ð loomed as large in his calculations as his undoubted concern about the natural catastrophes themselves. The fact is, there are catastrophes of another kind that may be of more direct import to his actual constituents in the 9th District, and these perils are man-made and more subject to legislative control than are the depredations of Mother Nature.

There was the war in Iraq, for example — one which was enabled in large part last fall by the actions of complaisant Democrats like himself who voted to give President Bush a virtual blank check to prosecute such an action, flimsily based as it was on IraqÕs possession of what now seem to have been non-existent Òweapons of mass destruction.Ó A one-sided combat which may, however, end up causing the United States grave and permanent difficulties among our fellow nations, the war may also ultimately have direct and indirect economic costs to the people of Tennessee totaling some $1.3 billion. ThatÕs according to State Rep. Kathryn Bowers, the newly elected head of the Shelby County Democratic Party and one of FordÕs constituents.

And what has FordÕs reaction been to BushÕs potentially even more catastrophic tax cuts, one past and one pending?: To advocate a slightly lesser tax cut of modestly different configuration. Though other ambitious Democrats Ð presidential hopefuls Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt come to mind Ð have disputed the need for any more tax cuts at all, Ford is basing his future electoral and leadership hopes on the dubious principle of splitting the difference with the president.

Just last week Secretary of the Treasury John Snow visited Memphis, where he was asked by The Flyer how he could justify the massive proposed tax cut he was here to promote when the first Bush tax cut in 2001 was followed by a dramatic downturn in the economy and by the loss of millions of jobs. (Despite subsequent administration claims, these tendencies were well evidenced before the tragedy of 9/11.) Snow had no convincing answers here, and he had none when he faced similar questions last weekend on nationally televised talk shows.

We might ask similar questions of Rep. Ford. He has dropped the ÔJr.Õ from his name, by the way, in an apparent effort to chart a separate course from that of his father, both his congressional predecessor and his namesake. The senior Ford was a dependable working-class populist, — not, like his son, a self-styled Òcentrist.Ó The difference may be explained by Ford Sr.Õs disinclination to seek state office or national celebrity.

We greatly admire the junior Ford and respect his abilities. We do wonder, however, if his long-term development Ð as well as his short-term attention span — might be best served by pointed criticism, perhaps even electoral opposition, directed at his current policy tack, one that we deem both short-sighted and entirely too self-serving .

Care to Respond?

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GOLF

Iraq is floundering, with no one at the tiller. Afghanistan is slowly cratering again, while no one pays attention. Millions of children are about to starve in Somalia. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency has announced her resignation, having finally realized, I suppose, that this administration considers trees and clean air to be luxuries their friends can’t afford. The dollar is going down for the third time. Mad cows threaten from Canada, and SARS threatens from Hong Kong. Nobody can figure out how to refold the road map to peace in Israel. A single audio tape from Al Qaeda has once again turned Washington all aquiver. John Ashcroft’s Office of Big Brother reveals that it has indeed been visiting libraries to check out which books you’ve checked out, thus securing your liberty by violating your library and your liberties. And, oh yes, Donald Rumsfeld wants to start testing mini-nukes.

Nevertheless, an informal poll concludes that middle-aged Republican women think George W. Bush looks hot in a flight suit, so I guess everything is all right.

That means it’s okay for me to leave politics for a week and take on a subject I actually know something about–a subject that is dear to the hearts of Republicans everywhere. That’s right: golf.

As I write this, on Wednesday, May 21, it is the day before Annika Sorenstam, far and away the best female golfer in the world, starts play in the Colonial, a PGA Tour men’s golf tournament in Fort Worth, Texas. Until now, “PGA Tour” and “men’s” were synonymous.

For ten years, I was a senior editor for Golf Digest, so I know a little about professional golfers. I know that if you asked the 100 top American male golfers how many of them voted for Al Gore in the last election, you could almost certainly count the number on two hands, probably one, so the whole idea of a woman challenging the men in a men’s tournament–a woman stepping out of her place, if you will–has caused a bit of a roil. Some of the men players–like Vijay Singh and Nick Price, both of whom are normally nice, soft-spoken people–have said Annika should not be allowed to play. They hint that she’s in it just for the publicity and the resultant endorsement money.

Others, like Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, the tour’s most politically correct stars, have publicly supported her, with only a bit of hedging. (Tiger hinted that her playing would be good for women only if she plays well.) But most male players, when asked their position on Sorenstam’s going after the men, have tried really hard not to answer the question at all. Even many of the women pros aren’t sure it’s a good idea.

As for me, the issue is simple: When an athlete is the best in his or her weight class, it’s only right and natural for them to move up a class. As David Feherty, the bright and witty golf announcer, has pointed out, if Tiger Woods heard of a tour where the golf was even better than on the PGA Tour (call it the Demigod Tour) he’d be angling for an invitation to play there next week, just to test himself against the best. That’s precisely what Sorenstam has done. She’s trying to discover the top limit of her ability. Name a true athlete who wouldn’t do the same.

You may be reading this after Sorenstam’s first two rounds in the tournament. She may have already missed the cut (as I predict she will, what with the pressure and distractions she’ll be facing). If she actually does make the cut, it will be one of the most remarkable athletic feats of the century–a seminal one, if I may use that male-centric word. After all, this isn’t Billy Jean King in her prime taking on Bobby Riggs in his dotage. This is a woman taking on the best men in the world, no handicaps, in a sport where strength is still a huge advantage.

But if Sorenstam doesn’t make the cut–even if she humiliates herself in front of the world–the men who say she doesn’t belong had best not gloat. That’s because pretty soon now, a woman will appear who can make the cut. It’s already happening in many sports: the difference between the men’s and women’s world records in, for example, the marathon and most swimming races, has shrunk astonishingly in just a few years. It may be a long, long time before a woman plays in the NFL or the NBA, but in certain other sports, the women are just about there. In tennis, for example, the Williams sisters already hit their serves upwards of 118 m.p.h.–faster than most of the men. And there’s no reason women can’t compete head-to-head with men in bowling or billiards.

As for golf, there’s a 13-year-old girl named Michelle Wie you should know about. Wie already hits her drives 300 yards and more–longer than most of the best men–and she’s already done well in women’s professional events. She’s been invited to play this year in several tournaments on the Nationwide Tour–a men’s pro golf tour that is the minor league of golf. Perform well there, and you automatically get invited to play on the PGA Tour. Asked what her goals are, Wie says she expects not only to play on the PGA Tour someday, but to win the Masters, perhaps the country’s most revered tournament.

The Masters, you may recall, had a little brouhaha this year when Hootie Johnson, the chairman of Augusta National Country Club, where the Masters is played, proclaimed that the all-male club would admit women only in its own good time.

Every year, the winner of the Masters gets a green jacket to mark his victory. This year the winner of the green jacket was Mike Weir, who, as a little left-handed Canadian, unofficially broke barriers for several minority groups. Now I’m looking forward to the day when Hootie Johnson gets to put that green jacket over the not-so-slender shoulders of a golfer whose name is, not Michael, but Michelle.

Care to Respond?

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

“I’ve prayed for Israel since 1936,” testified 91-year-old Olga Simmons of Myrtle, Mississippi, as a group of about 65 people burst into applause with the enthusiasm of a southern tent revival.

But this was no revival. It was a luncheon last week at an East Memphis hotel for a mixed group of evangelical Christians and Jews who have found common cause in their hard-line defense of Israel and opposition to compromise with the Palestinians.

The group included three Memphis rabbis, two members of the Israeli Knesset, and several ministers representing Crichton College, Southern Baptists, the Assembly of God and others. It was organized by Ed McAteer, founder of the Religious Roundtable.

With Southern Baptists alone claiming over 100,000 members in Shelby County and Baron Hirsch Congregation being the largest Orthodox Jewish synagogue in the country, even a tentative, single-issue alliance is potentially a political force. All the qualifiers are necessary, however, because 65 people don’t represent two large and diverse communities, and McAteer is no slouch when it comes to self-promotion.

But let’s at least grant that something interesting is going on when Jews and evangelicals embrace in the manner of ambassadors and shouts of “amen” and “bless you” mingle with the singing of the Hatikva, the Israeli national anthem.

“These people have proven themselves to be friends and we appreciate their support,” said Lawrence Zierler, senior rabbi at Baron Hirsch. Zierler moved to Memphis eight months ago from Cleveland. He said he has been doing interfaith work for 12 years.

“We are all better for the friends that we have in other faith communities than for the friends that we need in a moment of crisis,” he said. “It is better to relate and debate than to wait and equivocate.”

Don Johnson, head of the Apostolic Coalition, got a standing ovation when he said, “I’m glad to be here with our Jewish friends because when the United States quits backin’ them then we’ve backed out.”

Others in both the Christian and Jewish camps seemed more reserved. Rabbi Micah Greenstein of Temple Israel, the largest Reform congregation in Memphis (1,800 families), left before the program began, citing another commitment. “You leave your theology at the door when it comes to the survival of Israel,” Greenstein said.

The groups find common ground in their reading of parts of the Old Testament regarding Israel, but there are sharp political differences. In the 2000 presidential election, American Jews generally supported the Gore-Lieberman ticket, while evangelicals went for Bush-Cheney. The Belz family, represented at the luncheon by Andy Groveman, senior vice-president of Belz Enterprises, has been a strong financial supporter of several local and statewide Democratic candidates. McAteer was an ally of the first President Bush.

There seem to also be differences of opinion about the current President Bush. Groveman said Bush has been “exactly on course” in the war on terrorism since 9/11. But McAteer was passing out flyers in which he was quoted as saying “Bush is absolutely, 100 percent wrong on supporting and even talking about an idea called the road map” with regard to Israelis and Palestinians.

“We pray that our President will understand that God gave the land to the Jew,” said the relentlessly upbeat former Colgate salesman. “We do not believe the land should be divided.”

The guests of honor were Knesset members Joseph Paritzky and Ilan Leibovitch, who were in Nashville and Memphis as part of a goodwill tour. The luncheon group was mostly middle-aged or older. There were two black preachers and one black politician, City Councilman Rickey Peete. Evangelicals outnumbered Jews about two-to-one. They sat around six round tables and ate pasta and sandwiches while McAteer made introductions and called for “a prayuh,” imitating the accent of Billy Graham. Tom Lindberg, pastor of 2,800-member First Assembly of God Memphis, did the honors in ecumenical fashion. That was followed by enthusiastic renditions of the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, and the Hatikva.

Paritzky seemed particularly touched. “We felt, in a way, embarrassed,” he said. “We in Israel have forgot what it means to be simply happy.” He sat down to a standing ovation and a chorus of “amen” and “bless you.”

McAteer claimed there are “millions of Bible-believing Christians in this country who believe as we do” and put the ranks of Evangelical Christians in the United States at 70-80 million. Outside the dining room, he had set up a table with flyers urging people to call the White House with the message that “President Bush Honors God’s Covenant with Israel.”

Other than Peete, the only elected official in attendance was Shelby County Commissioner Marilyn Loefel, who called Israel “my home country because every Christian thinks of Israel as their home country.”

Is Memphis in the vanguard of a hot trend here? The Wall Street Journal, which did a front-page story on this general subject a while ago, seems to think so. But journalists, mimicking economists, have spotted ten of the last three hot trends.

David Kustoff, a Jewish Republican activist featured in that article, sees some erosion of the Democrats’ four-to-one margin among Jewish voters in the last three presidential elections — and more to come if Joe Lieberman is not the candidate in 2004.

“One Memphis rabbi told me Bush was the best president for Jews in America since Harry Truman,” he said.

“…(EDITOR’S NOTE: Last week’s Flyer editorial, alluded to here by Rep. Harold Ford, expressed our view that the Congressman — like much of his party’s leadership — is too assiduous about following the lead of President Bush in matters of both domestic and foreign policy – especially in regard to the war in Iraq and a proposed new round of tax cuts. That editorial can be viewed by clicking here or by going to http://www.memphisflyer.com/MFSearch/full_results.asp?xt_from=1&aID=4395. As the response below indicates, we complimented Congressman Ford for the attention he paid to area-wide tornado damage but recommended he express a like measure of concern for his constituents’ interests in the indicated policy areas.)

Your editorial of May 14 advises me to “Take Note, Congressman.” I am taking note and listening to my constituents, and I would like to address some mischaracterizations in your piece.

You write that I am basing my political hopes on “the dubious principle of splitting the difference with the President.” But my positions on issues aren’t determined by an inclination to go along with the President — or by an inclination to oppose him. I worked hard for Al Gore in 2000, and have endorsed John Kerry to replace President Bush in 2004. Sometimes I agree with this President and most times I don’t, and I have been equally outspoken on both scores.

For example, I supported the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq — not the original “blank check” that the President asked for, but the narrowly tailored resolution that I worked with Republicans and Democrats to craft.

My position on Iraq was based on the available intelligence that Iraq was developing chemical and biological weapons and possibly nuclear weapons. It was the same intelligence that President Clinton had, which informed that Democratic Administration’s similar policy toward disarming Iraq. If it turns out that our intelligence overestimated the threat, we need to take a serious look at revamping the way we gather it. Regardless, I continue to believe the world is safer now that Saddam Hussein is out of power.

As for domestic issues, I have forcefully opposed the President’s failed economic agenda, and have made no bones about it. I voted against the President’s tax cuts in 2001, and last week voted against this new round of tax cuts.

It is true that I support tax cuts — but tax cuts of a radically different nature. In contrast to the President’s elimination of taxation on dividends, I would grant every worker and employer a two-month holiday from the payroll tax. This tax cut is faster, broader, cheaper, and more stimulative than President Bush’s. Under my plan, everybody would get a tax cut, from chief executives to the janitors who clean their offices. I also support $100 billion in federal aid to states like Tennessee that are facing budget shortfalls that threaten funding for schools, hospitals, and law enforcement — the President’s plan doesn’t include a dime for the states. Families in the 9th district looking for work or without health care hardly believe these differences are “modest.”

This is America, and we are free to disagree on issues. I accept and welcome criticism with hopes of learning from it. But I want to take a strident, personal objection to your newspaper’s insinuation that my concern for the tornado victims in Jackson was motivated by political calculations.

Our neighbors in Tennessee suffered tragedy and devastation. I extended my prayers and support without hesitation and certainly without calculation. That’s what we do when families are in need. We don’t calculate — we unite, and we act. I was proud to join Congressman Tanner in supporting Governor Bredesen’s request for federal disaster assistance, a request that was answered quickly by the White House. Your cynical insinuations about politics insult the families who have lost loved ones, homes, and businesses.

(Harold Ford, a Memphis Democrat, represents the 9th District of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.)

BAD MEDICINE

The following is a real letter I wrote a few months ago to my family doc—-no, wait, my “primary care physician.”–E.W.

Dear Dr. B—:

Two days ago, on Tuesday, February 4, after waiting in your office waiting room for one and a half hours to see you, I demanded my copayment back and walked out, angry, disgusted and disappointed–not to mention undiagnosed and still physically uncomfortable. What has the medical system done to you? What has it done to the way you provide (or fail to provide) service? How will you reclaim the respect of your patients and your full usefulness as a physician in a system designed to turn you into little more than a turnstile for patients?

When I first met you several years ago, in your previous office, I came away singing your praises. Your office then was pleasant, intimate, and caring. You never had more than two patients waiting in your outer office at a time. We patients often spent our waiting time talking about what a good doctor you were and what a wonderful office you had. I never had to wait more than two days for an appointment–less, if I was seriously sick. Your nurses, out in the open with the patients, with nothing but a counter between us, were friendly, chatty, caring and considerate. You yourself provided the best care of any doctor I had seen since coming to this part of the country 11 years ago. The first time I saw you, you spent 40 minutes learning about my history, my personal life and my habits. Occasionally, you were late for appointments. When that happened, your nurses let us know that you had been delayed in emergency surgery, or that you had agreed to see a seriously ill patient at the last minute. I told my friends I had the best doctor in the state.

Now let me tell you about my most recent experience dealing with your new office:

On January 21 (I believe it was), I called your office for an appointment. I had a mild skin condition on my arms, and I was having trouble sleeping because of the itching–not a serious ailment, but annoying, unsightly and a bit worrisome. The woman in your office who answered my call cared about none of this. Brusquely, she asked, “What’s your name? What insurance do you have?” She actually seemed annoyed when I said I wanted to see you specifically instead of any other doctor in your new multi-doctor practice. “Our first appointment is February 4,” she said. That was two weeks away. I asked if there wasn’t something sooner? “February fourth,” she repeated, impatiently. I took the appointment.

Meanwhile, still having trouble sleeping, I decided that self-diagnosis was my best option. So I went on the Internet, checked the dermatology sites, found a (thankfully benign) condition that seemed to match my symptoms, and started treating myself. What was my alternative?

By February 4, my symptoms had started to abate somewhat, but I wanted to keep my appointment, hoping to get my annual checkup and a confirming diagnosis of my skin condition all at once.

I arrived for my noon appointment five minutes early. The waiting room was half full. Here in your new office, the nursing and clerical staff were isolated from us patients behind glass windows–a decidedly coldblooded layout. Talking to the receptionist was like dealing with a pawnbroker behind bulletproof (in this case, I suppose, germ-proof) glass.

When I signed in, neither the receptionist nor anyone else asked me how I was feeling, what was wrong, or why I needed to see the doctor. Instead, I was told to fill out forms. I did that. Then I waited. And waited. And waited.

Remember, I had arrived at 11:55. Well, 12:30 came and went. Then 12:45, then one o’clock. The waiting room by then was full. Pretty soon there was no place left to hang a coat, and patients were jockeying for seats. Occasionally a pleasant nurse would pass through on her lunch break, making a joke about leaving when there was such a crowd. (The nurses seemed to want to treat patients as human beings instead of disease-carriers.) One-fifteen came and went. Several old and clearly sick patients, haggard and feverish, had been waiting almost as long as me. One-thirty came and went. I’d been kept waiting an hour and a half, with no apologies and no explanation, and I had had enough. So I complained to the receptionist on the other side of the glass, got my $20 co-payment back and walked out. The receptionist didn’t seem to care in the least that I was leaving. She simply wrote the words “walk-out” next to my name on the appointment sheet. Apparently “walk-outs” have become common in your office.

At no point during all this did anyone behind those glass windows ever emerge to explain why we had been kept waiting so long. At no point did anyone even seem to acknowledge that we had been waiting so long. The wait was bad enough. Your office’s failure to explain and apologize for that wait was worse: it was stunningly inconsiderate.

There were people sicker than me in that waiting room. I decided it was wrong to make them wait any longer than they had to. At least I could get out of their way. Besides, I have a life to live. I wasn’t going to waste it waiting fruitlessly in the dark, even to see a doctor.

So I left.

In some ways, this must be the ideal situation for the HMOs and insurance companies: the patient keeps sending in his monthly payments, but the company rarely has to provide any medical service, because getting service is such torture that the patient suffers in silence and stasis rather than trying to get help.

I still think you are a terrific doctor. You told a friend of mine that you had to join a multi-doctor practice because your small one-man, two-nurse office couldn’t keep up with the insurance forms. I understand that. I understand some of the pressures doctors today are under from Medicare, HMOs and the rest of the health care system. You have too much paperwork. You have too many patients you’re expected to “process.” Your malpractice insurance is too high. I can guess how much a letter like this must pain you.

But something must be done. And some things are easy to do:

Teach your phone receptionist to be polite and to show some care that the person calling for an appointment is sick.

Get rid of the glass partition between the nurses/clerics station and the patients’ waiting room. At least pretend that you’re in the business, not of making money, but of getting people healthy again and that your employees are sympathetic to the sick. If you can’t take down the glass wall, then place a desk in the waiting room with a person out in the open whose job it is to act as concierge or ombudsman to help the patients and answer their concerns.

Every fifteen minutes that an appointment is delayed, give the waiting patients an apology and an explanation.

If you, as the doctor, know you’ll be very late for an appointment, call the patient before he leaves home, so he can reschedule or come later that day.

By my calculations, you wasted at least 30 man-hours of people’s time just in the hour and a half I was waiting in your office. I’m sure patients are sometimes late and waste your time, but even if every patient missed every appointment on a given day, they’d have wasted no more than 10 of your personal man-hours. What I saw on February 4 was unforgivable inefficiency in the human economy. As for the monetary economy, I charge $50 an hour, minimum, for my time. Again by my calculations, your office owes me $125 for 2 1/2 hours of fruitless travel time and useless waiting.

But the money isn’t the point at all. The point is that you are a good doctor–and a good man–and you have been forced into the position of shortchanging your patients, if not ignoring them altogether. This is not quite a tragedy, but it is a real disappointment–and very bad medicine.

Sincerely,

Ed Weathers (former patient)

Endnote: Three months later, Doctor B—– still has not responded to my letter. My ailment went away on its own.

TO THE FLYER:

At a friend’s recent dinner party in East Memphis, the subject of politics came up. My friend mentioned her newfound admiration for Harold Ford, Jr. who had become her Congressional representative after redistricting took place last year.

She discussed her satisfaction with his voting record, particularly, his support of the war in Iraq and his support of the Bush economic plan while complimenting his charm and intelligence. Finally, I asked her if she would vote for Congressman Ford if he runs for the U.S. Senate. Without blinking, her response was, “Well, heavens no. Of course not. I could never do that. He’s a Democrat.”

When the bright, articulate, and telegenic Congressman comes to recognize reality, it will be a bitter pill to swallow. Your editorial (“Take Note, Congressman”) is bold in its criticism, but refreshing in its honesty. Perhaps Congressman Ford should realize that he deserves opposition from a Democrat in the next election if he cannot do a better job of providing opposition to the Bush agenda of pre-emptive war and the slashing and burning of the economy. With Democrats so unwilling to oppose, who needs Republicans?

Cheri Del Brocco

Memphis

We live in strange and perilous times, a fact well indicated by the recent — and perhaps ongoing — wave of deadly tornadoes afflicting Tennessee. Considering the damage done by a killer twister to nearby Jackson and the number of officially declared tornado watches and warnings we’ve already had to endure in Shelby County itself, it is understandable that 9th District congressman Harold Ford should pay heed to the problem. The congressman conspicuously addressed himself to it last week in a press release noting his requests that federal and state aid be expedited to the afflicted areas.

All well and good. But we cannot help but wonder whether Ford’s ambitions for statewide office — he is known to be interested in a race for the Senate in 2006 — loomed as large in his calculations as his undoubted concern about the natural catastrophes themselves. The fact is, there are catastrophes of another kind that may be of more direct import to his actual constituents in the 9th District, and these perils are man-made and more subject to legislative control than are the depredations of Mother Nature.

There was the war in Iraq, for example — one which was enabled in large part last fall by the actions of complaisant Democrats like himself who voted to give President Bush a virtual blank check to prosecute such an action, flimsily based as it was on Iraq’s possession of what now seem to have been non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” A one-sided combat which may, however, end up causing the United States grave and permanent difficulties among our fellow nations, the war may also ultimately have direct and indirect economic costs to the people of Tennessee totaling some $1.3 billion. That’s according to State Rep. Kathryn Bowers, the newly elected head of the Shelby County Democratic Party and one of Ford’s constituents.

And what has Ford’s reaction been to Bush’s potentially even more catastrophic tax cuts, one past and one pending?: To advocate a slightly lesser tax cut of modestly different configuration. Though other ambitious Democrats — presidential hopefuls Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt come to mind — have disputed the need for any more tax cuts at all, Ford is basing his future electoral and leadership hopes on the dubious principle of splitting the difference with the president.

Just last week Secretary of the Treasury John Snow visited Memphis, where he was asked by The Flyer how he could justify the massive proposed tax cut he was here to promote when the first Bush tax cut in 2001 was followed by a dramatic downturn in the economy and by the loss of millions of jobs. (Despite subsequent administration claims, these tendencies were well evidenced before the tragedy of 9/11.) Snow had no convincing answers here, and he had none when he faced similar questions last weekend on nationally televised talk shows.

We might ask similar questions of Rep. Ford. He has dropped the ‘Jr.’ from his name, by the way, in an apparent effort to chart a separate course from that of his father, both his congressional predecessor and his namesake. The senior Ford was a dependable working-class populist, — not, like his son, a self-styled “centrist.” The difference may be explained by Ford Sr.’s disinclination to seek state office or national celebrity.

We greatly admire the junior Ford and respect his abilities. We do wonder, however, if his long-term development — as well as his short-term attention span — might be best served by pointed criticism, perhaps even electoral opposition, directed at his current policy tack, one that we deem both short-sighted and entirely too self-serving .