Thank you.

You're a McWherter guy, I'm a Haslam guy. While we may differ politically in some cases, I generally have high regard for you and what you write.

But I have to take issues with your last paragraph:
At the end of the day, Mike McWherter will work for the working people of Tennessee, not big corporations and special interests.

I have seen nothing in Bill Haslam's administration that would make me believe he has worked for anything but the citizen's who electd him. Twice.

And trying to portray Haslam as a rich guy and McWherter as a working class guy doesn't carry. McWherter owns a bank. One that took federal bailout money. He gave his own campaign $1,000,000 of his own money. (More than twice as much as Haslam)

Fact is a lot of Democrats will view Haslam the way a lot of Republicans view Bredesen: smart, business savvy and someone who will make smart decisions.

Plenty of differences between the two...but wealth is certainly not one of them. And we know how Haslam will govern because he's already got experience.

But I'm not for McWherter, either. Look, he is a nice man, and I like him personally.

However, if he continues to chase the votes of people who will not vote for him and keeps tacking to the right, there's no reason for me to vote for him, especially if Haslam is the nominee. If Wamp or Ramsey pull the upset, then I would reconsider.

As I noted in my post this weekend, my vote will not be taken for granted. Mike needs my vote a hell of a lot more than I need to vote for Mike; I can write in Mabel. Haslam will be the Republican Bredesen, he will frustrate the right-wingers as much as Bredesen frustrated us.

He's got to show me that he WANTS my vote and that he NEEDS my vote and he's got to court me, not just say "Get in the truck, ho!".

Ok, rant over, thanks for letting me vent!

We accurately accuse the reich-wing of being short-sighted, of persuing short-term profits at the expense of long-term economic health.(not to mention at the expense national security and physical health.) But this is a pretty clear example of the Left doing the same thing. A Haslam win will strengthen the national republican party. It will be cited as evidence that Americans are trending reich-wing. It will be cited as reasoning to do all manner of idiotic crap that simply does not well serve the long term needs of the nation or the world. I have met and interacted with Bill Haslam. Even though I supported his opponent in the initial mayoral contest, I have been fairly impressed with his performance as mayor. This isn't about him. As long as he places an "r" after his name, his election will only hasten this nation's slide into irrelevancy or pariah status, which ever comes first. It will help hinder or prevent any social advancements being made within this nation. It might MIGHT be good for TN but only at the expense of the good of the nation and the physical health of the citizenry.

If the only thing the election of Mike McWherter does is send a message to the Right that their childishness and uninformed ways will no longer be tolerated by the citizens of TN, it is well worth getting out and voting for him. To view this as simply a question of the differences between Mike and Bill or Mike and Zach would be as short-sighted as anything the republicans have done in the last couple of decades.

To all appearances, Haslam is to McWherter's left. Is McWherter actually more accomplished than Haslam? Business experience is a wash. By all accounts, Haslam has done a pretty good job as mayor and running his campaign. Meanwhile, McWherter has demonstrated that he knows absolutely nothing about anything.

Humphrey and the Nashville City Paper's Haslam profiles have made me a lot more comfortable with him. Meanwhile, profiles of McWherter just make him seem like an idiot.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the national GOP (which is going to win big regardless of what happens in TN), and everything to do with the management of the state, which has ACTUAL problems. Nothing I've seen from McWherter suggests he can handle anything, and there is absolutely no ideological reason to support him.

I know this is asking a lot, but it would be easier for me to get enthusiastic about any of the candidates if there was a single one of them with a decent position on gay rights. That's about as close as I come to single-issue voting, except for the small problem that there is so rarely a candidate for any office who's not either obviously bigoted or at least willing to pander to bigotry. As far as I can tell, McWherter does not distinguish himself at all on that count.

Unless you want a less qualified, less accomplished Bob Corker clone running the state.

I haven't yet decided who to vote for. I want to vote for McWherter, but he's got to show me he's actually a Democrat first.

And honestly, as unhappy as I am with Corker most of the time, I regret ever casting a vote for that slimy Harold Ford. I should have just stayed at home.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I prefer Haslam over Corker any day. Haslam has learned a lot of things in office about listening to different constituencies and trying to move toward consensus. I don't think Corker gets that, although executive and legislative jobs are vastly different.

I won't consider voting for Haslam because of that stupid campaign ad of his that panders to the worst of the worst sentiments of the Tea-Baggers when he praises the State of Arizona immigration law.

I don't care if he doesn't really mean it or not...to put that kind of campaign ad out there is reprehensible and evil. Even if he were to veto every instance of a similar law in Tennessee that came before him as governor to sign, just the fact that he pandered to those base emotions in the bigoted, low-information, low-education voters of Tennessee to win an election pisses me off to no end.

If McWherter were to come up with a similar statement as one of his campaign talking points, I would have to refrain from voting altogether. Or conversely consider writing myself in as my vote...

So far, I haven't heard of him saying crap like that. If he has, please put it here so I can take a look at it. Is McWherter as liberal as I would like him to be? No. But he's a damn sight better than any of the Republicans running.

Can't vote for McWherter. He has already defended the Arizona immigration law, Talidapali. He's got reservations about teaching our children evolution. He thinks gays would sexually abuse their adopted children, or something, who knows, but he's morally against it. All, each one, is a deal-breaker. I thought I was a yellow-dog Democrat, but MM's too much for me. Can any of you honestly vote for someone who doesn't want evolution taught in our schools? Come on!

I encourage everyone to go here:

(link...)

and click on McWherter and Haslam and go through the issue tabs. I'll concede there's not much difference on substantive issues, except maybe election of constitutional officers, mountaintop removal mining, pre-k, the health care reform bill, court challenge to the health care reform bill, TennCare expansion, open gun permit records, guns in bars, guns on campus, federal v. state gun laws, English only, abortion, Planned Parenthood funding, same-sex couple adoption, inheritance tax, Hall tax, voting rights (proof of citizenship), candidate financial disclosure, fundraising during legislative sessions, and eliminating state government departments.

On the evolution question, I believe McWherter misspoke during the debate. I think his answer to the above questionnaire was what he meant to say. But I'll also concede that it's not very good politicking to misspeak in an important debate.

We hold with Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln that the people are the masters of their Constitution, to fulfill its purposes and to safeguard it from those who, by perversion of its intent, would convert it into an instrument of injustice. In accordance with the needs of each generation the people must use their sovereign powers to establish and maintain equal opportunity and industrial justice, to secure which this Government was founded and without which no republic can endure.

This country belongs to the people who inhabit it. Its resources, its business, its institutions and its laws should be utilized, maintained or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest.

It is time to set the public welfare in the first place.

Though it was written 98 years ago, with some significant changes, the Progressive Party Platform works for me today. At the risk of coining a phrase, "I have a dream."