On the very day of the first joint appearance here of all would-be Republican successors to 7th District U.S. Rep. ED Bryant, one of them, Memphis city councilman, Brent Taylor, has made an outright endorsement of Bryant in his GOP primary race for the Senate against former governor Lamar Alexander.

In a statement released Tuesday, Bryant said, “I’m not just going to compare myself to Ed Bryant, I’m willing to publicly endorse his candidacy. I know [he] can’t make an endorsement in this race, and I wouldn’t ask him to do that. However, I can endorse him.”

Taylor, who will appear jointly with the other major 7th District Republican candidates before the East Shelby Republican Club at Pickering Community Center Tuesday night, said Bryant had “stood up for our values in Tennessee,” including “lower taxes less government, and a strong national defense.”

The councilman, who works as a mortuary administrator, said Alexander was “a good man,” but that district residents needed someone “from outside the establishment.”

Also scheduled to appear at Tuesday night’s Germantown forum were fellow Shelby Countians State Senator Mark Norris and lawyer David Kustoff, and state Senator Marsha Blackburn and lawyer Forrest Shoaf, both of Williamson County..

Bryant also picked up an endorsement from another key Shelby Countian, State Rep. Tre Hargett od District 97 (Bartlett, Cordova). In a statement Tuesday, Hargett endorsed Bryant as one who “has proven himself in Congress to be a consistent conservative and proven legislator…a man of the people who reflects our Tennessee values… a dedicated, intelligent legislator who has been in the trenches with President Bush….”

In case anybody thought Phil Bredesen‘s “repeal-an-income-tax” pledge of three weeks ago was incidental, accidental, or a sign of political foot-in-mouth disease, they should certainly know better after Wednesday.

Even as Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, surprise loser in an historic House flat-tax vote, was licking his wounds in a public press conference, the ex-Nashville mayor and current Democratic gubernatorial hopeful was having copies of his latest income-tax bashing circulated in Legislative Plaza.

Although the statement contained a grace note about the “good people” who disagreed with him, Bredesen concluded by saying, “The income tax came to a vote today, and it clearly failed. Now it’s time to move on. We need to focus on better managing state government, fixing the problems in TennCare, and growing the economy to address our long term budget problems.” GOP candidate Van Hilleary, who had made exhortatory phone calls to anti-tax legislators and called the income tax protest an example of “Americana,” had made a similar statement somewhat earlier.

Inasmuch as Naifeh even then was suggesting he might try and try again to get his 4.5-pecent package enacted, Bredesen’s newest statement was a clear shot across the bow, an even greater challenge to the Speaker than Bredesen’s previous seconding of Hilleary’s promise to repeal any such income-tax package that got passed in this session.

In the wake of that one-two punch, which had come as Naifeh first set out to build his 50-vote coalition, the Speaker had privately expressed his fury and let it be known publicly that he was not going to be taking Bredesen’s phone calls.

In such a context, Bredesen’s newest statement has to be read not only as a further repudiation of the income-tax concept, but as a purposeful distancing of himself from Naifeh and, for that matter, from the current legislative leadership of his party.

There is already speculation that the ultimate failure of the income-tax bill in this session might mean curtains for Naifeh as House leader (as it almost certainly does for Steve McDaniel, the Republicans’ leader and a flat-tax supporter); Bredesen’s posture can be interpreted as an attitude of “So-Be-It”– if not something stronger.

During the fallout from his “repeal” statement, Bredesen had explained himself by saying he did not intend to let Hilleary, his likely fall opponent, make the income tax a focal issue in the governor’s race. He seems to be saying something stronger now — that he does not intend to let the party which he hopes to lead into the future be tied to the carcass of a dead issue.

Two weeks ago, some high-ranking Democrats launched an anonymously attributed trial balloon, telling Bredesen, in effect, that he was weakening his credibility by seeming to be in a Pete-RePete relationship with Hilleary on the income tax and that there was a ceiling on how many times he could safely repeat that kind of misadventure.

Bredesen’s statement Wednesday can be taken as his answer to that message, as an affirmation that he knows what he’s doing and the consequences be damned.

Those who have talked to Bredesen in the wake of the income-tax vote and his response to it suggest that he is indeed aware that he might be, directly or indirectly, accelerating a shakeup in the legislative hierarchy, and, although the initial reaction to his Wednesday statement among Democrats — especially those in the General Assembly — was unfavorable, already some have begun to embrace — or at least consider — a newer thought: Maybe, just maybe, Bredesen is right. On the political scale, anyhow.

Shelby County Republican state reps Tre Hargett(l) and Paul Stanley, both Nay-voters, rejoiced at the defeat of an historic income-tax bill Wednesday, as state Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Williamson County looked on.

NASHVILLE — Nobody could have been more surprised than state House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh when the vote on his carefully shepherded 4.5 percent income-tax package was taken Wednesday.

Even as others were puzzling out the pattern of green (for Aye) and red (for Nay) votes on the House chamber toteboard, Naifeh had got his answer from the special counter mounted in his Speaker’s nostrum. What it said was: 45 Aye, 53 Nay. (There was no dot by the name of Nashville Democrat — and income-tax opponent– Sherry Jones , injured in a recent auto accident and therefore absent.)

Naifeh then said, “Does any member want to change their vote?” Most members were still counting, but the Speaker’s uncharacteristically soft and lamblike, even hurt, tone was a giveaway. And the eyes of knowledgeable legislators, media types, and gallery spectators sooner or later fell on the names of the apostates — Buck, Windle, Fraley, Pruitt, Phillips, and one or two others — who had promised or otherwise indicated they were on board with Naifeh, who had let it be known two weeks ago that he wouldn’t bring the bill up unless he had the 50-plus votes needed for passage.

In the general milling-about that followed (which turned into a two-hour wait while the board stayed open and Naifeh and other members of the House leadership desperately pleaded and arm-twisted and looked for other ways to get some votes changed), some of the bill’s supporters made it clear what they thought had happened.

One was Kathryn Bowers, the diminutive Memphis Democrat and influential Black Caucus member whose conversion to the bill’s temporary-sales-tax provision on Monday had been interpreted as a sign that the votes were at hand. “Seven folks told a real big [pause] you-know-what!” she said.

Others were not so dainty. Said Carol Chumney, another Memphis Democrat: “Some people lied and left others out on a limb to get beat!” That was a thought. One such had been Zane Whitson, the soft-spoken representative from the far Republican East, who had pleaded with his colleagues to vote Yes so as not to let the state’s educational systems fall further into disrepair. There were others.

Democratic Rep. George Fraley, the Korean vet and Winchester farmer whose name had been on everybody’s list, happened to pass by Chumney, who asked him, in so many words, whereof he tucked tail. Fraley replied sternly, “I told you this morning. I wasn’t going to vote for it!”

(So much for that turnaround prospect!)

Meanwhile, Naifeh, Speaper Pro Temp Lois DeBerry, Democratic Caucus chair Randy Rinks, and others were doggedly beseeching the membership. Viewing the scene from afar were Shelby County Republicans Tre Hargett and Paul Stanley, two Nay votes from the get-go. “They’re working Buck and Windle and Newton pretty good,” observed Stanley of the leadership’s unyielding ministrations with Democrats Frank Buck (Dowellton) and John Mark Windle (Livingston) and Republican Chris Newton (Cleveland).

Hargett and Stanley joked about guarding their vote buttons to keep somebody from changing them to Ayes while their backs were turned.

It never came to that, of course; as the word was passed from somewhere that Missouri’s legislature had once kept a vote open for three days before certifying it, everybody settled in for a long siege of sorts, an internal one corresponding to the external one being kept by noisy anti-tax demonstrators outside the Capitol.

It never came to that, either. Ultimately, Naifeh et al. persuaded Reps. Buck, Fraley, Mary Pruitt (D-Nashville), and John Tidwell (D, New Johnsonville) to “blue-light” their votes (change from Nay to “present and not voting) so as to hold the negative votes under 50 and keep somebody from moving to certify the Nay vote as final, making it impossible to revive the bill during the current session.

“The sun is still shining,” said Rep. Don Ridgeway (D-Paris), a partisan of the bill, afterward, but there was little of that sunshine left for the bill’s prospects.

“It’s over,” was the reported sentiment from Sen. Larry Trail, a Murfreesboro Democrat who had been counted by some as a last-ditch prospect to become Aye vote Number 17 for the bill if it should reach the Senate, where 16 votes, one short, had supposedly been gathered to second a favorable House vote.

Several of the senators had lined the back wall of the House chamber before and during the voting, waiting to see if the burden of decision would come their way or not.

“There’s Number 17!” somebody had jokingly said to Sen. Lincoln Davis (D-Pall Mall). “No, I’m Number 235,” responded Davis, a candidate for Congress from the 4th District and one who had long made it crystal-clear that he would not be found on the incriminating side of a Senate tally.

The bottom line was that, while Speaker Naifeh would probably try again (didn’t say he would, didn’t say he wouldn’t), the kind of opposition that had been mounted to this bill from outside the Capitol made it likely that, for it to pass, somebody in both legislative chambers — several somebodies, in fact — would have to be persuaded to write a new — and self-dooming — chapter or two into Profiles in Courage.

It wasn’t just that radio talk show hosts Phil Valentine and Steve Gill were just outside exhorting their multitudes against the “cockroaches” (Gill) and “scum” and “commies” (Valentine) inside. As free-lance broadcaster Sherman Noboson, a Capitol veteran, pointed out, running back Eddie George and other millionaire members of the NFL’s Titans had been lobbying hard against the income-tax measure, too. And that’s what you call resistance!

A glum Jimmy Naifeh and other members of the House leadership (including Speaker Pro Temp Lois DeBerry of Memphis) confront the press after defeat of income-tax bill Wednesday.

THE ‘ACCOUNTABILITY’ MAN

To start with an issue that became moot the day after the election: the new NBA arena-to-be. That figured in a lot of the election outcomes. What has been your thinking on it?

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 to see the games. 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 A.M.) I’m a Grizzlies fan. 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. think the people who do want to support the Grizzlies, which is a great number of people, I think they should have been the ones supporting the arena, and the businesses that will be benefiting from the increased visbility 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 attittude 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 — Iw as 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 the receiving of 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, then, what were your differences with Larry Scroggs?

LarryScroggs 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 99and 44/100th percent the same. We share the same thoughts and beliefs.

The differences will be somewhat larger in the general election. between A C 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 A C 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, looking at it, 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 that you mentioned that some people 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 thnk, as we go through the general election cycle, I think 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, fr 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. Often times 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 “accountable” 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 bee 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.

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.

THE ‘ACCOUNTABILITY’ MAN

To start with an issue that became moot the day after the election: the new NBA arena-to-be. That figured in a lot of the election outcomes. What has been your thinking on it?

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 to see the games. 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 A.M.) I’m a Grizzlies fan. 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. think the people who do want to support the Grizzlies, which is a great number of people, I think they should have been the ones supporting the arena, and the businesses that will be benefiting from the increased visbility 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 attittude 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 — Iw as 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 the receiving of 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, then, what were your differences with Larry Scroggs?

LarryScroggs 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 99and 44/100th percent the same. We share the same thoughts and beliefs.

The differences will be somewhat larger in the general election. between A C 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 A C 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, looking at it, 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 that you mentioned that some people 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 thnk, as we go through the general election cycle, I think 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, fr 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. Often times 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 “accountable” 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 bee 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 political week just passed was notable as much for what didn’t happen 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.) Another thing that didn’t happen was that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Bredesen didn’t send legislators a letter opposing the IT after likely GOP 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-Repete 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 IT 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 Capirol 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 IT 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 with furrowed brows 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,” as 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 of 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 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 llions agreed on — Phil Bredesen had lost, not gained, ground as a result of his frantic footwork on the IT.

NASHVILLE — You start with the premise, of course, that Governor Don Sundquist will sign Speaker Jimmy 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 beleagured 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, just as the term “flat tax,” which describes one type of income tax — the non-graduated kind now in play — also is.)

And you proceed with the assumption that Naifeh, an adroit persuader and head-counter, will ultimately (in practice, that means by next Wednesday, when the legislature reconvenes) be able to distill the 50-vote majority he needs from the fluctuating number of possible House Ayes that everybody agreed 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 Regularatory 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 non-regressive 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 Wednesday night, 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 for 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 Lt. Governor famously presides.

So be assured that Miller stays. And Wilder 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 an Aye 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, word is, from Republican Bobby Carter of Jackson, who is on some people’s list of potentials. Certainly not from the GOP’s Mark Norris, the conservative Memphian whose current congressional bid would be compromised by an income-tax vote. And not from another Memphis Republican, Judiciary chair Curtis Person, a longtime Sundquist intimate who insists nevertheless (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.)

Not from Democrat Lincoln Davis, another congressional hopeful who knows that his 4th District bid would likely be doomed by an income-tax vote. (“That ‘Profile in Courage’ stuff works both ways,” Davis notes, a la the specter of intraparty resentment of his stand.)

There is the ever enigmatic and elusive Roy Herron, the Dresden Democrat who, on this matter as on many others, just cannot (or will not) be read.

And there is, finally, the pivotal case of Murfreesboro’s Larry Trail, whose 2000 race against Republican Howard Wall may have came down to his pledge (against persistent badgering) that he would not, definitely would not, never ever, vote for an income tax.

As Trail said Wednesday, in a wan parody of that ordeal, “I’ve hated it [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 radio talk show host Steve Gill, who was broadcasting his defiance of the income tax again Wednesday morning from Legislative Plaza. Gill 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.

Memphis Flyer: You won the Democratic primary by more than 80 percent of the vote, and many people think you can’t lose the general election. It’s an odd question, but how could you lose it?

AC Wharton: If some fluke — you’re right, it’s an odd question, but if something were to occur that would give somebody the impression that “that guy is a bigot,” something that would just be the antithesis of everything that I believe in and represent, that could do it. But I have aired my beliefs everywhere and on my Web site [www.acwhartonformayor.com]. It would take something just weird to accomplish that.

George Flinn, the Republican winner, used advertising to score effectively against his opponent, state Representative Larry Scroggs. Could he do the same against you?

True, Flinn went after Scroggs, no holds barred, but it wasn’t the effectiveness or the strength of Flinn’s attack so much as it was Scroggs’ inability to repel Flinn’s attack. If the immune system has been compromised, the slightest bug that comes along is going to stick and penetrate. But if you build up, as I have done over 20 years, a public record that has been scrutinized at every turn of the road, it’s different. It wasn’t so much a personal failing on the part of Scroggs as it was a structural fault. It’s an amazingly difficult job to get your issues out there. Had Larry been able to project his issues so that they were bigger than what he’d done in the past, he would probably have been able to survive that. But it’s extremely difficult. He came in, he was not the first choice of his party, and that had to pose just a tremendous handicap. They [the Republican hierarchy] had left the traditional ranks and gone outside to try to pull in a baseball executive [Allie Prescott]. So I do not conclude that it was the effectiveness of Flinn’s attack but the ineffectiveness of Scroggs’ response that made the difference.

As the perceived front-runner, might it be in your interest to challenge Flinn, a newcomer to politics, to debate?

That’s a difficult question. I don’t believe in blowing smoke, so I’ve been reflecting carefully on that but I’ve not reached an answer. It’s going to take me a couple of weeks to shake things down. The conventional wisdom is that the perceived front-runner does not debate his opponent. But I think what stood me well in the primary was that the public was able to see that, “Whether I like him or not, the guy knows the issues; he has some proposed solutions; he’s thought things through; he’s staked his positions. While some people in the print media may have said he was indefinitive, he was definitively indefinitive.” [Laughter]

That’s the pro and con. The conventional wisdom is, don’t let people see him. The reason that argument is not as strong as it would be otherwise is that, with his [Flinn’s] money, folks are going to see him anyway. If I don’t debate him, he will get seen the way he wants to be seen himself. He might stage a “debate” and do something the way Eddie Murphy did in that movie where he played all those roles. He might do something which has a character in it named “AC Wharton.”

The line on you is that everybody likes you on a personal level. True?

Well, you don’t think about it. If you start taking things like that seriously, you start taking things for granted. You’re not as circumspect in your dealings as you ought to be. It’s not an awareness that I wear on my shoulder. I don’t wake up in the morning saying my likability rating is at 86. I’m going to try to pump it up to 88. I told somebody yesterday that my father spoke to everybody he met. And one time my cousin asked me, “Does your daddy know all these people he speaks to?” And I asked my daddy why he spoke to all those people. He said, “If I don’t speak to them, I’ll never get to know them.” Now there’s an amazing simplicity in that, but that’s how I think about it. I start with the assumption that you’re a good and honest person and you want me to treat you that way. If I don’t, then you probably won’t respond that way. If I greet you with cynicism and mistrust, you’re probably going to be that way in your dealings with me. It’s hard to talk about. I mean, I didn’t take a Dale Carnegie course in likability.

In fact, during some heated exchanges with Carol Chumney during the primary campaign, you seemed to get your ire up. Have you two cleared things up?

I’m glad you asked about that. Carol called about 9:30 p.m. [on election night], and we had a long conversation, and toward the end of the conversation, I said, “Carol, there were times in the campaign when I was too thin-skinned. I should have expected that. This was a political race.” And I think that struck a particular chord with her. When she came close to getting my ire up, it wasn’t a personal ire. It was a case of, look, I know these issues. I’ve studied this. I know what the public wants and this is a kind of disservice to the public for us to take this valuable time to talk about some personality failing or whatever. It wasn’t a case of I’m mad at her and will stay mad forever.

And the other thing that was so frustrating: Everybody in America has the right to run, but, with all due respect to Mr. [C.C.]Buchanan and some of the others, what did the public really get out of that? Yes, they have a right, but that valuable time, the 10 minutes or so that went to somebody who wanted to jump on me, could have been 10 minutes more for Carol to talk about urban sprawl and her plans. Or I could have taken it to talk about reforming the jail, which I could have talked about in great detail. So it could have appeared that I was irked, but it was more of an institutional thing.

But, back to the premise of your question, I hope nobody will take my preference for civility and sticking to the issues to mean that I’m going to be their doormat and I’ll just lay down. Now, that’s not going to be the case.

During the primary campaign, your “indefinitive” position on consolidation was attacked by Chumney, who was aggressively for consolidation. How will it go if Flinn attacks you from the other, anti-consolidation flank?

If you’ll remember the Rotary Club debate — what was his answer? “I agree with Mr. Wharton about that.” I don’t know how much more definitive or crystallized the opposition can become. Oddly enough, I don’t think consolidation is going to be the burning issue. What is still not resolved is the school finance question, which impacts the county financial situation, which impacts the county’s ability to build that school out in Arlington. There’s still going to be some arena questions. Obviously, that’s an issue that is uppermost in the minds of some voters. Obviously, some of the defeats [on election day] had something to do with it.

The education thing, the property-tax issue We are at the tops of comparable cities with property tax. As your commercial base leaves the county, a greater proportion of the property-tax burden is shifted to residences. We’re talking about an increment of 81 cents if the school package goes through. We can’t say let’s just keep upping the property tax and driving the business out.

This is not just hypothetical. We’re driving business away from Shelby County. If you look at a warehouse — how the property is bought and sold and resold — the one definitive component of the formula is the property tax. It determines whether there’s going to be an adequate return for investors in a given building. It’s getting so high here, it makes a difference in whether something gets built here or across the line in Mississippi. That’s going to be one of the most threatening issues.

Have you heard from [erstwhile opponent] Harold Byrd?

No. I called him when he withdrew. I was assured he was aware of my call. And the individual who told me that felt that as the healing process continues, he thinks Harold and I will be talking. I’m anxious to talk to him, on his terms, or my terms, or whatever.

Do you expect any Republican crossover votes for you?

I won’t quantify it, but I want it. I want it because I know the positions that Larry took in the race. Larry’s positions were not ideological. The people who stood by him know him. If they know Larry, then, quite frankly, they know me: Be honest, not given to flights of grandeur. Know the business of county government. Let’s run it sound and honestly. Let’s trust the people. I have much more extensive, hands-on knowledge. Yes, I want Republican support, and independent support.

When you go back a few years, there was no such thing as a Republican mayor or a Democratic mayor. There was Mayor [Dick] Hackett, Mayor [Bill] Morris, and so forth. By the way, all of them supported me.

A lot of Republicans told me they voted for me in the Democratic primary, and they said to me, “You know, that wasn’t as bad as I thought.”

If you are elected, do you think the fact that there will be two black mayors in Shelby County will increase white flight?”

We’ll always have flight. The question is, will it accelerate. And the answer is no, not necessarily. It’s not so much a personal thing, but it’s based on institutional failures — failure to deal with schools, failure to keep a good medical corps in the city, failure to deal with crime — things that we take for granted. When 20 cars have their windows smashed at the Music Fest, to me that’s outrageous, and if it takes putting helicopters over the city, we’re going to stop it. It’s quality-of-life issues like that that become a burr in the saddle and tend to develop into bigger things. The fact of my identity won’t be the determinative factor if I’m mayor. What will be is whether I’m able to really reflect the sensitivity to day-to-day concerns that caused people to leave.

It’s so easy to get out of touch. What makes people leave is when their second lawn mower gets stolen from their back porch. They think, Some mean rotten person came to my house last night. And they think, What if I had been out of town and my family had been at risk? It’s at that point that people get in touch with their realtor. You’ve got to be in touch with what’s driving people. You can’t be aloof from that. I spent so much time out there, letting people in this county know that I know precisely how they feel. I think people will say, “I’ll give him six months. I was going to move out, but I’m going to wait and see.”

Next Week: Dr. George Flinn, the radiologist/broadcast mogul who upset state Rep. Larry Scroggs in the GOP primary, talks candidly about his plan to unify the Republican Party and how he intends to carry the fight to Democrat Wharton.

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 Saturday 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 two would-be successors to his retiring colleague Thompson, Frist,Tennessee’s junior senator said only someone like Democrat Phil Bredesen 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.

But multi-millionaire Bredesen,the former mayor of Nashville, is a candidate for the governorship, not the Senate, and Frist said he did not regard 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 the Davis and Kidd bookstore in East Memphis, where 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.

“Let’s face it. Nobody even knows Clement is running, and the primary contest is a good way for both of our guys to get their message out and build up their momentum,” said Frist, widely regarded as a likely ultimate successor to Vice President Dick Cheney and, beyond that, as a future candidate for the presidency.

Frist’s new book is the third he has authored; the others were chronicles of his experience as a a transplant surgeon and of the historical line of Tennessee’s senators, respectively.

The new volume reprises the bio-terrorist threat to the United States in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks of last year and Frist’s own emergence as an authority on preventive measures.

The book also contains information on the nature of the most deadly bacilli — plague, anthrax, smallpox, etc. –which may confront us in the future.