Categories
Book Features Books

Bob Levey’s Larry Felder, Candidate

For more than 40 years, Bob Levey wrote for The Washington Post as a reporter and columnist, a robust career at one of the country’s top newspapers (including being in the middle of the glory days of Woodward and Bernstein).

When he took a buyout in 2004 at age 58, he made forays into running nonprofits and teaching. From 2006 to 2009, he held the Hardin Chair of Excellence at the University of Memphis in the Journalism Department, so he knows this town fairly well, having talked to civic clubs about journalism and what was going on at U of M.

But still, there was that itch: Levey wanted to write a novel. “Writers write,” he says. “And this book was in me, looking for a way to get out.”

Bob Levey

Doing what smart authors do, he wrote about what he knew. “My career in journalism possessed me to write it,” he says. “I’d been thinking about the news business, about politics. I do my best work in the shower, and there I was in the shower and I said why don’t you write a book? And I said, Okay. And by the time I got down to my toenails, I had fleshed out what I wanted to say.”

Larry Felder, Candidate‘s plot follows award-winning journalist Larry Felder who, at 56, has achieved much in the field. But he also wants to be in Congress. He abandons his secure career and jumps into his district’s race where, because of his fame and reputation, he enjoys a comfortable lead over his closest primary opponent. Naturally, complications ensue.

The book is something of a civics lesson in the electoral process as well as a celebration of classic print journalism, the kind with aggressive investigative reporting and snark in the newsroom. The sort of newspapering that, sadly, exists more in history than in the present.

“I love local news,” he says. “In many ways, local news is more accurate if you want to know what’s really going on in the world.” But the decline of the local press is painful for Levey.

“It’s a disaster,” he says. “Some big newspapers are being rescued by the likes of Jeff Bezos and Carlos Slim, the Mexican financier. But local news coverage is disappearing because it doesn’t fit with some overarching marketing plan or with where they think their circulation base is going to be, and that’s terrible because nobody’s going to pick up the slack for that, unless it’s a couple of 400-pound bloggers sitting in a bathtub somewhere, and that’s not good enough.”

Of course there’s the World Wide Web, making information available instantly throughout most of the world. But Levey’s not sanguine about it. “The internet cannot do what good local newspaper coverage can do,” he says. “It hasn’t been monetized or it hasn’t been set up to try to do that.”

Levey went to work at the Washington Post as a general assignment reporter in the Metro section in 1967. Legendary editor Ben Bradlee hired him and to this day, Levey salutes him for what he taught and for standing by his reporters. And if you want a sense of what Bradlee was like, Levey suggests the 1976 film All the President’s Men. It famously stars Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein, but the late Jason Robards took the role of Bradlee and, Levey says, nailed it.

“I’ve never seen an actor inhabit a character the way he did in that film,” Levey says. “I knew Bradlee for decades, and Robards got him cold — the voice, the intonations, the body language, the way he curls his mouth, the way he puts his right foot up on the edge of the desk in the newsroom when he’s talking to you. It’s just perfect.”

The film’s producers recreated the newsroom in California, and they wanted it authentic, right down to the trash. “So for weeks, we put our garbage into big cardboard barrels that were shipped to California and strewn around the mock newsroom. The closest I’m ever going to get into Hollywood stardom is seeing some of my Styrofoam coffee cups in the movie. Authentic trash is my middle name.”

Levey will sign copies of his novel Larry Felder, Candidate and discuss his time at The Post, Watergate, writing, and the current state of journalism on March 22nd from 4 to 6 p.m. in Spain Auditorium in Buckman Hall on the campus of Christian Brothers University, 650 East Parkway South. The event is free and open to the public.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Dem, GOP Leaders Differ on Wilder, Kurita, and Who Wins State Senate in 2008

On Tuesday, the two major party leaders of the currently
deadlocked Tennessee state Senate made competing claims about whether Democrats
or Republicans would control the chamber after the 2008 statewide elections.
Upon the defection from Republican ranks last spring of Republican Micheal
Williams
of Maynardville, who supports the Democrats in procedural matters,
the count became 16 Democrats, 16 Republicans, and one independent, Williams.

“The tide is turning,” said Democratic leader Jim Kyle
of Memphis in a telephone chat from Nashville on Tuesday – meaning that the attrition factor which had worn away at
his party’s dominance of the Senate for a decade or so had been reversed. As
evidence of a pervasive Democratic trend, Kyle pointed to the recent capture of
the Virginia state Senate by Democrats and to the resounding special-election
victory in Tennessee’s District 10 of Democrat Andy Berke over Republican
Oscar Brock.

The latter victory was all the sweeter, said Kyle, because
it came in the wake of the potentially debilitating resignation from the seat of
longtime Chattanooga Democrat Ward Crutchfield, who had pleaded guilty to
an extortion charge in the Tennessee Waltz scandal.

“We’re going to run in every district, and we’ll win,” Kyle
said.

“He’s dreaming,” said Republican Senate Speaker and
lieutenant governor Ron Ramsey of Kyle’s claims. Ramsey, in town to address the
East Shelby Republican Club, said in fact that Kyle’s departure from reality had
begun with the “nightmare” of his own unexpected victory for the speakership on
January 9th of this year.

Ramsey’s win in January had been thanks to a surprise vote
for him by Democrat Rosalind Kurita of Clarksville, who departed party
ranks and thereby ousted longtime Speaker/Lt. Gov. John Wilder of
Somerville, the octogenarian who had served as Senate leader for 36 years until
this year.

After the “on again, off again” transfer of party power of
the 2007 legislative session, the GOP would regain control of the Senate in
2008, Ramsey said confidently.

The two leaders also had varying viewpoints on whether
Wilder would attempt reelection – and another try at the speakership — next
year. “He’ll have to decide how badly he wants to serve in the Senate for four
more years,” was the cautiously stated estimate of Kyle, who almost certainly
will be a candidate for the speakership himself.

Ramsey was less uncertain. “If he’s living, he’s running,”
the GOP leader said bluntly of Wilder. If Wilder does run, he will likely be
opposed by Republican state Representative Dolores Gresham, also of
Somerville, who has announced her candidacy and is actively sounding out
support.

Ramsey and Wilder also had differing attitudes toward
Kurita. The Republican, who had, as virtually his first act as Speaker,
appointed Kurita Senate Speaker pro Tem (ousting Williams in the process), spoke
fondly and familiarly of “Rosalind,” while Kyle, when asked earlier in the day
how he and Kurita were getting along, said simply, “We don’t.”

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Mike McWherter No Go for Senate, Will , er, “Spend More Time” With Family

West Tennessee businessman Mike McWherter,only recently the toast of Tennessee Democrats as their likely U.S. candidate against Lamar Alexander next year, is toast in the other sense of the term now. The former governor’s son won’t run.

Here is McWherter’s statement upon opting out:

“Over the past few months, I’ve been honored to receive overwhelming support by Tennesseans from all walks of life encouraging me to run for U.S. Senate. It’s clear that people want change in Washington, D.C., and I’ve spent considerable time, especially over the past two months, exploring the possibility of running. However, after careful consideration, I’ve decided the timing just isn’t right for me or my family.

“The reality is: the demands of raising millions of dollars in short order and running an intense 12-month campaign simply are not in the best interests of my family right now. With two kids in high school, I had the choice of being able to savor every day of their remaining years at home, or missing a good part of that time on the campaign trail and in Washington. I’m choosing to focus on them.

“While I’ve ruled out running for the US Senate, I continue to be interested in public service and want to do whatever I can to help move our state and country in a positive direction. That includes lending my support to whoever the eventual Democratic nominee should be. Given the dramatic change that’s occurring in our country, and the exodus that’s occurring in the Senate, it’s clear that the time is right for a candidate who has the time and resources to take on Senator Alexander and help usher in change to Washington.

“Finally, to everyone who expressed their support during my exploratory efforts: Thank you very much. I’m fortunate to have had the support of my father, wife and children, as well as Democrat and Republican friends from across the state. I look forward to talking with them in the future as we all work to keep improving our state and nation.”

McWherter’s campaign had been expected to capitalize on the name of his father, Ned McWherter, the former two-term governor.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

Chuck Norris Hearts Huckabee

From The New York Times Politics Blog: Just when Mike Huckabee was starting to be taken seriously, he brought back Chuck Norris.

Mr. Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who, according to polls, last week ascended to the number-two spot in Iowa, will begin running his first television ad there today ­– starring Mr. Norris, the tough-guy action hero who has been actively campaigning for Mr. Huckabee.

The ad opens with a black screen and white block letters, reading, “An Important Policy Message from Governor Mike Huckabee.”

Then Mr. Huckabee appears, looking somberly into the camera. “My plan to secure the borders?” he says, as the camera zooms out to reveal Mr. Norris seated next to Mr. Huckabee. “Two words. Chuck Norris.”

Read the rest here. And check out the video.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

The Final Four

Say this for the 2007 incarnation of the Shelby County Election Commission: Its members are trying. Right or wrong, that’s something that various critics doubted about the 2006 version of the commission, plagued by late and lost returns, ineffective software, erratic machines, incorrect election screens, and post-election printouts whose totals were entered in some kind of unintelligible Martian algebra.

“We got started on a rough, rough road,” acknowledged then chairman Greg Duckett, who has moved on since then to the state Election Commission. Another Democratic commissioner, Maura Black Sullivan, was not reappointed by her party’s General Assembly contingent. The Democratic legislators opted to fill the two vacancies with two Democrats who, coincidentally or not, had past grievances related to the commission.

One was Shep Wilbun, a defeated candidate for Juvenile Court clerk who had unsuccessfully challenged the 2006 election results. The other was former longtime commissioner Myra Styles, returning after being purged four years earlier.

Completing the cycle of reconstruction, Styles was promptly named chairman. The third Democrat on the commission was yet another vindicated retread, O.C. Pleasant, who had been replaced as chairman a term earlier by the now-departed Duckett. The two Republican members, Rich Holden and Nancye Hines, were holdovers.

Whether because of improved oversight or simple good luck, the new commission seems to have had better results than their snake-bit predecessors. Concise, easy-to-read reports have been regularly circulated to the media concerning early voting for the four City Council positions that are at stake in Thursday’s runoff elections.

Cumulatively, these reports have yielded the information that, after a sluggish start on October 19th, certain of the 27 early-voting locations had late spurts.

Leading all locations as of Saturday, when early voting ended, was Cordova’s Bert Ferguson Community Center, with 952 voters. A fair amount of voting (282) also occurred at Anointed Temple of Praise, a southeasterly suburban location, suggesting reasonably organized voting in the District 2 contest between Bill Boyd and Brian Stephens.

Heading into Thursday, Stephens, a businessman/lawyer/neighborhood activist with Republican affiliations, was getting a surprising amount of support from influential local Democrats, while longtime political figure Boyd, endorsed by the Shelby County GOP, boasted endorsements from most of the seven other candidates eliminated in general-election voting on October 4th.

Relatively stout voting at Pyramid Recovery Center (544) and Bishop Byrne School (674) indicated the level of voter interest in District 6 (riverfront, South Memphis) and District 3 (Whitehaven), respectively.

The District 6 race was between Edmund Ford Jr. and James O. Catchings, the former a beneficiary of legacy voting habits, the latter depending on support from declared reformists. The District 3 contestants were youngish governmental veteran Harold Collins, who was favored, and educator Ike Griffith.

A turnout of 453 at Raleigh United Methodist Church documented the tight race expected in District 1 between school board member Stephanie Gatewood and teacher Bill Morrison. Gatewood, the only female candidate in the runoff roster, stood to benefit if gender voting patterns, 60 percent female and 40 percent male in early voting, continued on Thursday. Participation in early voting by acknowledged African Americans was at the same level (47.1 percent) as their percentage in the available voting pool. Apparent white participation in early voting was at the level of 37.6 percent, compared to the corresponding figure of 26.3 percent in the pool of registered voters for the four districts.

What made precise demographic reckoning difficult, however, was general confusion as to just who made up the category of voters self-described as “other,” a grouping that accounts for 26.6 percent of the registered-voter pool but only 15.3 percent of early voters.

And what made predictions of any kind difficult was the fact that only 1.5 percent of available registered voters took part in early voting. As always in the case of special elections or runoffs, final victory would belong to whichever candidates mounted the most effective get-out-the-vote efforts.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

POLITICS: The Final Four

Say this for the 2007 incarnation of the Shelby County
Election Commission. Its members are trying.

Right or wrong, that’s something that various critics
doubted about the 2006 version of the commission, plagued by late and lost
returns, ineffective software, erratic machines, incorrect election screens, and
post-election printouts whose totals were entered in some kind of unintelligible
Martian algebra.

“We got started on a rough, rough road,” acknowledged then
chairman Greg Duckett at a post-mortem following an August election cycle
that was sabotaged by all of the above gremlins and more.

Duckett has moved on since then, to the state Election
Commission. Another Democratic commissioner, Maura Black Sullivan, was
not reappointed by her party’s General Assembly contingent. The Democratic
legislators opted to fill the two vacancies with two Democrats who,
coincidentally or not, had past grievances related to the commission.

One was Shep Wilbun, a defeated candidate for
Juvenile Court clerk who had unsuccessfully challenged the 2006 election
results. The other was former longtime commissioner Myra Styles,
returning after being purged four years earlier.

Completing the cycle of reconstruction, Styles was promptly
named chairman. The third Democrat on the commission was yet another vindicated
retread, O.C. Pleasant, who had been replaced as chairman a term earlier
by the now departed Duckett.

The two Republican members – Rich Holden and
Nancye Hines
– were holdovers.

Whether because of improved oversight or simple good luck,
the new commission seems to have had better results than their snake-bit
predecessors. Though Mayor Willie Herenton made a point of challenging
the accuracy of the Diebold machines being used in this year’s city elections,
he ultimately was unable to deliver convincing examples.

As for last year’s hieroglyphic-like, analysis-defying
election returns, some hope of improvement has been kindled of late by an omen
of sorts. Concise, easy-to-read reports have been regularly circulated to the
media concerning early voting for the four city-council positions that are at
stake in Thursday’s runoff elections.

Cumulatively, these reports have yielded the information
that, after a sluggish start on October 19th, certain of the 27 early-voting
locations had late spurts.

Leading all locations as of Saturday, when early voting
ended, was Cordova’s Bert Ferguson Community Center, with 952 voters. Coupled
with the fact that a fair amount of voting (282) also occurred at Anointed
Temple of Praise, a southeasterly suburban location, that suggested reasonably
organized voting in the District 2 contest between Bill Boyd and Brian
Stephens
.

Heading into Thursday, Stephens, a
businessman/lawyer/neighborhood activist with Republican affiliations, was
getting a surprising amount of support from influential local Democrats, while
longtime political figure Boyd, endorsed by the Shelby County GOP, boasted
endorsements from most of the seven other candidates eliminated in
general-election voting on October 4th.

Relatively stout voting at Pyramid Recovery Center (544)
and Bishop Byrne School (674) indicated the level of voter interest in District
6 (riverfront, south Memphis) and District 3 (Whitehaven), respectively.

The District 6 race was between Edmund Ford Jr. and
James O. Catchings, the former a beneficiary of legacy voting habits, the
latter depending on support from declared reformists. The District 3 contestants
were youngish governmental veteran Harold Collins, who was favored,and educator Ike Griffith.

A turnout of 453 at Raleigh United Methodist Church
documented the tight race expected in District 1 between school board member
Stephanie Gatewood
and teacher Bill Morrison. This is the only
runoff race in which demographics could have played a part, though both Gatewood,
an African American, and Morrison, who is white, made a point of pitching voters
across the board.

Gatewood, the only female candidate in the runoff roster,
stood to benefit if gender voting patterns, 60 percent female and 40 percent
male in early voting, continued on Thursday. Participation in early voting by
acknowledged African Americans was at the same level (47.1 percent) as their
percentage in the available voting pool.

Apparent white participation in early voting was at the
level of 37.6 percent, compared to the corresponding figure of 26.3 percent in
the pool of registered voters for the four districts.

What made precise demographic reckoning difficult, however,
was general confusion as to just who made up the category of voters
self-described as “other.,” a grouping that accounts for 26.6 percent of the
registered-voter pool but only 15.3 percent of early voters.

And what made
predictions of any kind difficult was the fact that only 1.5 percent of
available registered voters took part in early voting. As always in the case of
special elections or runoffs, final victory would belong to whichever candidates
mounted the most effective Get-Out-the-Vote efforts.

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

The Other Gore

Let me stipulate: Al Gore is the deserved winner of the Nobel Prize, just as his film documentary on the subject, An Inconvenient Truth, had previously merited the Academy Award it got. Gore’s unstinting campaign to alert the nation — nay, the world — about the perils of global warming has been his finest hour.

Equally praiseworthy are the political points the former Tennessee senator and vice president has publicly made since his Supreme Court-assisted defeat for the presidency in 2000. An early critic of the Iraq War, Gore accurately foresaw the extent of the debacle, and he has been eloquent and on point concerning the ongoing erosion of Americans’ Constitutional liberties.

Having materialized as a veritable tribune of the people, even an oracle, should Gore not, then, seek again the presidency which, so many think, he was unfairly deprived of?

The answer is no. As Gore himself has noted, such a course would prove divisive and perhaps destructive to his current cause. It would also necessitate his moving away from a position of unquestioned moral authority into the murky untruthiness of politics — a world which, despite his scaling its heights, Gore may never have been ideally suited for.

A current myth has it that, in 2000, a wicked establishment press made the decision to waylay Gore, mischaracterizing as lies his essentially accurate statements about his own past and otherwise finding fault relentlessly. So dedicated did the establishment press become to the downfall of Gore that its members perversely embraced the patently undeserving George W. Bush, who was regarded as an acceptably hail-fellow-well-met alternative to the goody two-shoes Gore.

Or so goes the story.

The truth is not much prettier but is, well, different. In fact, the media animosity toward Gore (and that part was certainly real) was probably born not in indulgence toward good-ole-frat-boy Bush but in solicitude toward the honest if plodding Bill Bradley, the recently retired New Jersey senator who was Gore’s Democratic primary opponent. The unfortunate Bradley was being gleefully attacked by Gore as often and as gratuitously as Gore himself later was by an unforgiving media.

When Bradley and Gore tangled in a debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire in October 1999, ABC’s Jake Tapper, then with Salon, was watching the affair via closed-circuit TV in a nearby media room. He remembered it this way: “The reporters were hissing Gore, and that’s the only time I’ve ever heard the press room boo or hiss any candidate of any party at any event.” Time‘s Eric Pooley: “Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd.”

Gore had been mauling the preternaturally docile Bradley fore and aft, on everything from the New Jerseyan’s alleged indifference to disaster aid for Iowa flood victims (The New York Times: “Mr. Gore’s accusation was false and unfair. Mr. Bradley supported the 1993 legislation that provided $4.8 billion in emergency flood relief for farmers …”) to his racial positions. (Campaign chroniclers James W. Caesar and Andrew Busch: “Bradley landed few clean blows and even took some unfair blows from Gore, who charged before [a] mostly black audience that ‘racial profiling’ of blacks by the police ‘practically began’ in Bradley’s New Jersey.”)

The Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas Zúniga recalled the Gore campaign’s “blatantly unfair” attacks on Bradley, as did The Nation‘s David Corn, who found Bradley “more progressive … less irritating [and] sincere in his desire for political reform,” while Gore’s campaign “bends, manipulates, dodges, or obliterates the truth.”

Said Newsday: “Gore effectively criticized former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley for proposing an expensive health care reform, for being too liberal, and being out of touch with ordinary voters … [H]is aggressive tactics worked.”

And the Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank reported Bradley’s responses to Gore in that Dartmouth debate: “‘Attack, attack, attack, every day, the people are fed up with it … You’re the elephant of negative advertising … Why should we believe you’ll tell th e truth as president if you won’t tell the truth as a candidate?'” And, to bring us full cycle, Milbank segued into this: “In the WMUR press room, my colleagues laugh derisively at Gore’s offensives. …”

That feeling, fair or not, was the likely cause of the media animosity and not any imagined bonhomie of Bush’s. The gallant Gore has at length found — and become — his better angel. He should, we should, leave well enough alone.

Jackson Baker is a Flyer senior editor.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

VIEWPOINT: The Other Gore

Let me stipulate: Al Gore is the deserved winner of the
Nobel Prize, as his film documentary on the subject, An Inconvenient Truth,
had previously merited the Academy Award it got. Gore’s unstinting campaign to
alert the nation – nay, the world – about the perils of global warming has been
his finest hour.

Equally praiseworthy are the political points the former
Tennessee senator and vice president has publicly made since his Supreme
Court-assisted defeat for the presidency in 2000. An early critic of the Iraq
War, Gore accurately foresaw the extent of the debacle, and he has been eloquent
and on point concerning the ongoing erosion of Americans’ constitutional
liberties.

Having materialized as a veritable tribune of the people,
even an oracle, should Gore not, then, seek again the presidency which, so many
think, he was unfairly deprived of?

The answer is no. As Gore himself as noted, such a course
would prove divisive – and perhaps destructive — to his current cause. It would
also necessitate his moving away from a position of unquestioned moral authority
into the murky untruthiness of politics — a world which, despite his scaling
its heights, Gore may never have been ideally suited for.

A current myth has it that, in 2000, a wicked establishment
press made the perverse decision to waylay Gore, mischaracterizing as lies his
essentially accurate statements about his own past and otherwise finding fault
relentlessly.

So dedicated did the Establishment press become to the
downfall of Gore that its members embraced the patently undeserving George W.
Bush, who was regarded as an acceptably hail-fellow-well-met alternative to the
goody two-shoes Gore.

Or so goes the story.

The truth is not much prettier but is, well, different. In
fact, the media animosity to Gore (and that part was certainly real) was
probably born not in indulgence toward good-ole-frat-boy Bush but in solicitude
toward the honest if plodding Bill Bradley, the recently retired New Jersey
senator who was Gore’s Democratic primary opponent. The unfortunate Bradley was
gleefully being attacked by Gore as often and as gratuitously as Gore himself
later was by an unforgiving media.

When Bradley and Gore tangled in a debate at Dartmouth
College in New Hampshire in October 1999, ABC’s Jake Tapper, then with Salon,
was watching the affair via closed-circuit TV in a nearly media room. He
remembered it this way: “The reporters were hissing Gore, and that’s the only
time I’ve ever heard the press room boo or hiss any candidate of any party at
any event.” Time‘s Eric Pooley: “Whenever Gore came on too strong, the
room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting
down some hapless nerd.”

Gore had been mauling the preternaturally docile Bradley
fore and aft, on everything from the New Jerseyan’s alleged indifference to
disaster aid for Iowa flood victims (The New YorkTimes: “Mr.
Gore’s accusation was false and unfair. Mr. Bradley supported the 1993
legislation that provided $4.8 billion in emergency flood relief for farmers…”)
to his racial positions (Campaign chroniclers James W. Caesar and Andrew Busch:
“Bradley landed few clean blows and even took some unfair blows from Gore, who
charged before [a] mostly black audience that ‘racial profiling’ of blacks by
the police ‘practically began’ in Bradley’s New Jersey.”).

The Daily Kos’s Markos
Moulitsas Zúniga recalled the Gore campaign’s “blatantly unfair” attacks
on Bradley, as did The Nation‘s David Corn, who found Bradley “more
progressive,.. less irritating [and] sincere in his desire for political
reform,” while Gore’s campaign “bends, manipulates, dodges or obliterates the
truth…..”

Said Newsday: “…Gore
effectively criticized former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley for proposing an
expensive health care reform, for being too liberal, and being out of touch with
ordinary voters…[H]is aggressive tactics worked.”

And the Washington Post‘s
Dana Milbank reported Bradley’s responses to Gore in that Dartmouth debate: “‘Attack,
attack, attack, every day, the people are fed up with it…You’re the elephant of
negative advertising….Why should we believe you’ll tell the truth as president
if you won’t tell the truth as a candidate?'” And, to bring us full cycle,
Milbank segued into this: “In the WMUR press room, my colleagues laugh
derisively at Gore’s offensives….”

That feeling, fair or not, was the likely cause of the
media animosity, and not any imagined bonhomie of Bush’s. The gallant Gore has
at length found – nay, become — his better angel. He should, we should,
leave well enough alone.