Matt, I agree with Jeff's article and your questions (I share them). That's why I'm supporting Eric Stansell. My belief is that both Stansell and Stewart are good Democrats, but while Stewart has built a career at Waller representing bis business interests, Stansell has worked for the State protecting consumer interests. That's the kind of Democrat I want representing me at the legislature. Also, one correction for you and Woods, I think Stewart actually was a lobbyist once upona time. Check this link:
http://www.state.tn.us/tref/forms/list_lob2003.pdf

It lists Michael Stewart of Waller Lansden as lobbying for the Chamber of Commerce!!! For me, that's another reason to support Stansell (as well as the school board candidates that are NOT on the chamber's slate)

You could argue that someone who represents a superfund client may not be an environmentalist, but that doesn't preclude one from being a Democrat.

We have plenty of people in the party who are pro-life and pro-choice, pro-gay rights and anti-gay rights, pro-environment and pro-labor (which often opposes environmental causes like the prohibition of drilling in ANWR).

Now, they make their living representing corporate clients who (shock) don't necessarily tow the populist/environmentalist/liberal line on issues...maybe that doesn't make them good liberals, but it doesn't make them Republicans either.

This story is reflective of the mess we have throughout the political landscape. Campaigns have become so financially dependent that the only candidates with legitimate shots are those with personal fortunes or big money backers, and that makes money a priority for those candidates, rather than the overall well-being of the public. Hopefully, a local race like this one will not be so dependent on the money. Stansell works like a dog and has always been on the side of the average guy. Unfortunately, it seems that the media has written him off because he doesn't come from a big money base. Writing him off because he has less money than Stewart only makes the problem worse.

For the record, I know both men. I will not call Mike Stewart a Republican. However, Stansell leaves no question.

Sean, so what you're saying is that the Tennessee Democratic party has no principles?

What I'm saying is that the Tennessee Democratic Party is not an ideological entity. It has hardcore Conservatives and hardcore Liberals and everyone in-between. I consider myself to be a "liberal" Democrat, and there are some Democrats who I might not vote for, but that doesn't make them Republicans.

Lincoln Davis is anathema to most of the positions I hold, but I can't realistically say he is not a Democrat...he's just not my kind.

Back before the 1980s, this was true for both parties nationally. Republicans and Democrats were conservative in the South, Republicans and Democrats were fairly liberal in the Northeast.

Well if Stewart is a Republican because he works for a firm that represents Republicans, what does it make Stansell since he didn't register to vote for the FIRST time until July 2004? He's 35 so that means he didn't decide to be a Democrat, a qualification I would think requires registering to vote and voting regularly for the Democratic ballot, until he was 31.

He has Bill Clinton on his website and at my door told me about being a Clinton/Gore Democrat. How is that possible when he missed the chance to vote for Clinton in 1992, again in 1996 and missed the chance to vote for Gore in 2000? Even more interesting is that he missed the chance to vote for Clement in 2002 but maybe he is a johnny come recently to the Clement fan club. Evidently those Clement ties don't run as deep as you stated Eric.

East Nashvillians including myself remember Mike Stewart's efforts in the past 10 years as president of various neighborhood groups and especially his help during the 1998 tornado clean-up. Actions speak louder than words in this district.

And Scene staffers, hopefully at least one of you will take the time to do your job and confirm the information above.

I'll give you an example. I support free trade agreements...I feel that we have a moral duty to share our wealth with the rest of the world via economic development. However, many in the Democratic party think Free Trade deals are the worst thing since Pepsi Clear.

Does that mean I'm no longer a Democrat because many Democrats view this issue differently than me?

Likewise, there are quite a few liberals who don't like the idea of national media conglomerates that buy out small "independent" papers in medium sized markets and then make decisions about those papers without consulting the staff; does that mean everyone who work for these companies are conservatives?

Goodness, Matt... was there so little real news this week?

Let's expand this line of thinking. Matt, you work for the Nashville Scene, a paper which called Karl Dean "Kennedy-esque." Dean's most prominent advisors and most generous contributors were from Waller. By this logic, then, Liz must be out getting fitted for a sequined gown and warming up for a rousing chorus of "Happy Birthday, Mr. Mayor." Should we assume that you're just being a "cocktail-party altweekly" when you print those engaging lists of Mayor Dean's weekly agendas? It's just goofy.

Mike is one of the strongest progressives I've ever known and he sure as heck ain't driving a Mercedes (although I'd be happy to share with you some of hell he gave me back when I had one.) He's the kind of progressive who walks door to door in campaign years even when he's NOT the candidate. He's the kind who can tell you not only why an issue is important this year, but how it fits into a generation of policy development and how we might do things differently the next time around.

You can judge (or misjudge) a person by the behaviors of other people who work for the same company, or you can judge them by their own behaviors. Personally, I'll opt for the latter strategy. Otherwise, I'd have to ascribe the same arrogant hypocrisy to my favorite local altweekly as, say, Michael Lacey embodies so well...

I'm not sure what's so progressive about winning a tax refund for Eastman Chemical, but even if I accept your point, can Lee and Weaver consider themselves Democrats?

Sean, you make a good argument, but there are some fundamental principles each party has where there is little room for debate. And I would think that for Democrats, a strong willingness to protect the environment and punish corporate polluters would be on that very short list.

I'm not sure what's so progressive about writing for an altweekly that's run by conservatives, but the pot and the kettle can blow steam all day without either of them becoming stainless.

I guess Lee and Weaver can call themselves whatever they want. My point is that whatever they call themselves doesn't change who Mike Stewart is-- exactly the person we need in this seat to bring some integrity back to our district and to raise the standard for progressive leadership in the House.

I would think that for Democrats, a strong willingness to protect the environment and punish corporate polluters would be on that very short list.

Environmental issues are fairly low on my totem poll. But even if they are outside of the Democratic party on that issue, they may be with the Dems an a whole host of others.

Not to mention, there is a difference between an elected official and a private citizen. You blame Waller (and Tom Lee) for the loss of funds to some wetland, but its the elected representatives responsibility to protect those funds.

Which in the case of Mike Stewart could raise legitimate issues, in which case you might want to ask him if he'd recuse himself from any business that had to do with a current or former client of his.

Wow! Stansell has only been a Democrat since 2004??? I admit, that one caught me by surprise. So I emailed Stansell through his website and got the truth: he's only been registered in Davidson County since 2004 (you know, since he's lived here)! It may come as a surprise to some of the Stewart supporters on here, but other counties in TN allow people to register to vote (in Stansell's case, he tells me he registered in his home county back in the nineties). Oh, and Eric worked as an intern in the Clinton white house (unless, of course, the Stewart supporters think he photoshopped that picture of himself and the President). So if the slander above is the best Stewart can come up with, you have given me another reason to support Stansell, instead of a candidate who performs such shoddy research. Next thing you know, Stewart and his supporters will post comments about Obama being a muslim!

As far as Mr. Stansell and his voting record, you may want to check the county where his parents lived and he grew up. It is my understanding that he voted as a Democrat in every election since he was 18. It appears that some folks are a bit lazy in doing their opposition research, so I helped you our and did that for you. But hey, why do any research, that would just get in the way of a good lie.

Matt:

The Scene endorsed Corker as I recall, maybe Alexander as well. Can someone work for such a publication and still call themselves a "progressive."? And would the Scene accept an advertisement (your source of income)from Eastman
Chemical? Of course it would, and does so from similar corporate entities all the time. Are you compromised? Can you still be a progressive?

There's room for a good faith discussion about all this, but you tend to get way up on that high horse of yours. Don't undermine your body of good work this way. The fall is a long one.

Matt's not progressive and he doesn't have a body of good work.

A few things, in addition to Jeff's thoughtful comments:

We did not endorse Corker.

Endorsing Lamar over Clement is progressive, on a relative scale, at least.

Woods' body of work is even thinner than mine.

As disagreeable as you may find Clement, he's vastly more progressive than Alexander, and his presence in the Senate would have done much to futher the interests of progressive politics, even if done so in a way not entirely to your liking. Hell, I agree that no one thinks much of Bob, but surely you recongize the reality of poltics as it's practiced in real life.

But more to the point, if you're going to so publicly and pointedly question the political bona fides of others, than it would be helpful to know how you reconcile your own apparent hypocracies in working for a publication that accepts corporate money, occassionally endorses Republicans, and sometimes editorializes in a way that must make your cringe. In real life many of us work through these tensions to one degree or another. You must have done the same. You've called others out on this. Maybe you have the answers.

Matt,
You would do well to remember that Woodsie has been kicking tail and taking names since you were in Pampers. And he's got enough maturity as a journalist not to engage in specious criticism about a candidate's co-worker's country club. Progressive bona-fides are out there for Stewart, and may be out there for Stansell as well - so why not do some real journalism and tell us about them?

The analogy between journalists and lawyers just doesn't hold. Lawyers advocate on behalf of their clients. The clients define the goal (say, tax refunds) and the lawyer figures out how to get it for them. Journalists (at least good journalists) don't operate according to this model. The Scene accepts advertisements from corporations, but so long as the paper's content is not influenced by that money, then I simply don't see how Jeff and Matt can be accused of hypocrisy.

Deadman nailed it. I need not say anything more. And Tom, think about the wetlands and the little birds and fish.

And to the defender of Jeff Woods: your sarcasm meter is broken. Do you actually think I would use Pith to mock a guy who works about 10 feet from me and whose column I ripped off in this blog post and who is much bigger and meaner than me and could kick my ass? And who is standing here dictating this to me as I type?

Deadman's point opens up many avenues of discussion. By accepting advertising, the publication (and the writer) further the goals of the corporation. Do you think they advertise for altruistic reasons? More generally, the argument would be, I suppose, that they work for an institution that dissmentates (and advocates) a point of view-- through editorials-- that is at odds (at leaset sometimes) with their principles. Would the Scene accept advertising for an anti-choice rally? If so, does that compromise the pro-choice writers who pocket the money?

And I know it's typical journalistic conceit that one's point of view is not alterned or compromised by the interests of the advertisers. Maybe you guys are immune from such things. But I bet the Scene writers have attributed many a politician's actions to the prospect of keeping or acquiring campaign contributions. What's the jounalistic cannon on how this differs? Maybe your view is better so high up on that horse, but it's murkier down here. Let's get Barry to opine.

Actually, I agree with Deadman, to a point. But even here, distinctions matter. There is a difference in advocating for the NRA at the legislative level on the one hand; and filing the tax return for the NRA on the other (or drafting their lease or other lawerly funcitons of this sort.) Though maybe not.

Or maybe each instance deserves specific analysis. Seems to me it's a highlly sanctimonious standard to suggest the effort to obtain a tax refund for a corporate client is in and of itself, a betryal of progressive principles. Maybe the circumstances matter. And maybe, just maybe, one shouldn't all be so quick to call into question the integrety of others.

Finally, Matt, don't know about that wetlands stuff. You got the wrong guy. But don't think for a moment that the state budget doesn't have a thousand sources of revenue that could have covered that need. It's about choices. And lobbyists don't make the choices.

Tom, you're probably right on this point:

"Seems to me it's a highly sanctimonious standard to suggest the effort to obtain a tax refund for a corporate client is in and of itself, a betryal of progressive principles."

I think it was clear that Tennessee Democrat was already for Eric Stansell based on the post today. But even I was curious about that voting record of Eric in his hometown and they don't seem to have had an Eric Stansell registered in the last 10 years. Has he changed his name also or am I just getting to the bottom of it and finding that the truth isnt pretty?

Mr. Stewart, err, amateur reporter, (the name fits perfectly) you may need to become a professional and do a little more research.

Endorsing Lamar over Clement is progressive, on a relative scale, at least.

Um, didn't Stansell volunteer for Clement in the last campaign?

"Our good friend James (The Dream) Weaver sits on the finance council of Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Bob Tuke, even though he boasts on his website of representing "responsible parties at over 40 Superfund sites."

OK, do you even know what a superfund site really is, leagally? Did you know that if, say, you are a company and you pay another company to legally and safely dispose of your industrial waste, and they secretly dump enough of it, and several other company's waste, in Bill Boner's backyard to make it a superfund site, you are a "responsible party" in the ensueing Superfund action? Do you deserve legal representation in this case? Is the attorney who represents you (meaning: one who helps you negotiate a settlement with the EPA and navigate byzantine regulatory filings and requirements) unable to be a Democrat because so doing would be a repudiation of party principles? Silliness.

Taterman, thanks so much for the primer. Appreciate it. And I'm sure that every single one of Weaver's clients who were "responsible parties at 40 Superfund sites" were completely innocent. Just a little misunderstanding.

Listen, we all get here that any legal party deserves the most aggressive and wise legal representation. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. But when you openly boast about representing toxic polluters, when you lobby for Wal-Mart and when you repeatedly irritate a Democratic governor, you deserve to have your Democratic street cred questioned. Sorry about that.

"democratic governor" HAHAHAHAHA