Extreme partisan politics is nothing new

I hear it all the time: "The country is more divided now than it's ever been."

The good people on the left insist that the voices of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the vicious bloggers of the 'Tea Party fringe' are plunging our national political discourse to new lows of nastiness with their personal attacks and backward thinking.

The good folks on the right try to convince me that it is the popular opinions aired by MSNBC, the snobs in Hollywood and the vicious bloggers of the 'Left Wing fringe' that are dragging us down with their personal attacks as they lead us toward socialism and ruin.

The truth is, the political gamesmanship and battles of today always sting more than the attacks of the past. Political outrage has a very short shelf life. We so easily forget about the viciousness of last week's sound-bites.

As noisy and annoying as the bloggers and pundits are today, we're not approaching some record low. Extreme partisanship is as old as our democracy itself.

I recently came across some historical documents attributed to a once-prominent and respected Georgia politician.

He was a University of Georgia graduate, an intellectual, a longtime state representative and a two-term U.S. Congressman.

This noteworthy Georgian was a master of the political battlefield. He slung mud with a nefarious ill- will that would make folks like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann blush and run for cover.

When this Georgia Congressman confronted a particular presidential candidate he did not like, he didn't attack him with a 30 second t.v. spot or a half hour radio program. Our former statesman took things much further, writing a complete unauthorized biography of the candidate, filled with unbiased character assassinations.

"Now the people ought to rise in the strengths of their minds and exert some thinking power of their own," he wrote.

"Do not let [the presidential candidate] play upon your ignorance and then laugh at your weakness...

"May God in his infinite mercy save our country from this man."

Our one-time Georgia Congressman filled 200 pages of this widely circulated 'biography' with political vitriol, calling the subject of his work "an evil genius" who "cherishes his slyness and cold calculation as virtues."

While the Georgia author was popular in his home state, he was less known nationally. When it came time to go to the presses, he decided to publish the work under the assumed name of one of his much more well known political friends: A gentleman who had recently quit the cut-throat realm of Washington politics to retire out west.

Like thousands of pundits after him, our former Congressman liberally quoted Patrick Henry in his tirades. He used Henry's sayings to introduce a series of newspaper columns signed 'Atticus' -- wherein he embraced the blogger-cherished cloak of anonymity long before the internet was invented.

In these 'Atticus' columns, our statesman railed against the over-reaching federal government. He was especially hostile toward Georgia's federally protected non-citizen communities, calling them, "sanctuaries for villainy and harbors for outlaws in the heart of this very state."

It was his contention that these non-citizens be driven from the borders and resettled elsewhere. Using violence to do so was most certainly an option.

Who was this once famed politician? His name was Augustin Smith Clayton. The book he penned during the lead up to the 1836 presidential election was titled, "The Life of Martin Van Buren."

The popular friend who Clayton used as his pseudonym / front-man for the project? One David "Davy" Crockett.

And those non-citizens Clayton had such harsh words for weren't of Latino descent. They were Native Americans.

For all his partisan gamesmanship, Clayton enjoyed popularity, but he failed to achieve the real political gains he sought. His nemesis, Van Buren, was indeed elected president.

However, Clayton did leave enough of a mark on history to get some places named after him, including the county that rests along Fayette's eastern border.

Clayton was right about at least one thing, "Statesmen and their demagogues are gamesters," he wrote. "And the people are the cards they play with."

Next time Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher stirs you up, just remember that they're playing one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Now who am I supposed to vote for?

The Georgia political landscape is now in focus. Qualifying has ended and we Georgia voters know the name of our next governor. He (or she) is one of the 13 men and one woman who officially tossed their hats into the ring last week.

The candidate I once championed, reform-minded Republican Austin Scott of Tifton, is not one of them. Scott spent the past year talking about putting Georgia first and bringing true ethics reform to the Gold Dome. Unfortunately, after the lengthy legislative session closed an exhausted Scott capitulated to party bosses. He agreed to drop out of the gubernatorial race and run for Jim Marshall's middle-Georgia U.S. Congressional seat instead. As a voter planning to cast a ballot in this summer's Republican primary, I am deeply disappointed with Scott's last minute switcheroo.

Here's what he's left us with on the Republican primary ballot for the state's most important job...

The worst of the lot: Former Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine and Former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal.

These two candidates have a lot in common. They're generally considered two of the 'front-runners' because they are the standard-bearers of the status quo. Unfortunately for Republicans in the Peach State, the status quo means party-switching former-Democrat career politicians who reliably place self-interest and personal gain ahead of what's best for Georgians.

Oxendine and Deal both have large campaign war chests, lots of handlers, comical nicknames advertised on their campaign literature ("The Ox" and "Deal. Real.") and serious ethics problems.

The Ox is under investigation for taking over a $120,000 in illegal campaign gifts from Dee Yancey, an insurance mogul. Again, Oxendine was Georgia Insurance Commissioner for most of the past two decades. I'm fairly confident that Yancey isn't bankrolling The Ox because of the candidate's 'allegiance to protecting the consumer.'

Deal, infamously named one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress by the Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics in Government, resigned from the U.S. House this year. Deal stepped down just after the Office of Congressional Ethics released a report stating that he improperly used his staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue a state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family's auto salvage business.

'The tOXic' and 'Sweetheart.Deal.' are due for retirement. If either one of them get the nomination, I will be voting for a Democrat in the general election come November.

The maybes: Former State Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson and Former Secretary of State Karen Handel. If anyone is going to beat 'The Ox' or Deal, the odds-makers give these two the best chances.

Handel is seen by many as Gov. Perdue's hand-picked successor. Her critics point to the lack of higher education on her resume, but a diploma is not a requirement to hold major political office in Georgia -- just ask our past two U.S. Congressmen.

Some of my politically active friends in and around Fayette support Handel. I'll definitely give her a look.

Johnson is an architect from Savannah who staked his political career on the shortsighted concept of school vouchers. He also chaired Joint Legislative Committee on Ethics that let disgraced former House speaker Glenn Richardson off of the hook. But, Johnson is not Deal or Oxendine, which is why his name appears here.

The fringe: Ray McBerry, Jeff Chapman and Otis Putnam.

McBerry is the most far right of the group and he's spent the past few weeks dodging some pretty outlandish allegations from his past. McBerry counters that the attacks are a smear campaign, but he's still too far behind in the polls to make a difference.

Chapman is an earnest conservative from Brunswick with a reform-minded message, but his campaign has struggled to gain traction. And Putnam is a political unknown from south Georgia who listed "Wal-Mart" as his current job on the qualification application.

I criticize Austin Scott for switching races, but I sure do miss him.


Alverson, a graduate of Fayette County High School and the U.S. Naval Academy, is the editor of the Fayette County News. This column appeared in print on May 6, 2010.

It's our duty to remember...

The Fayette community has lost another hero. 1st. Lt. Robert Collins, 24, of Tyrone died last month in Iraq after his vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device.

Known for his sense of humor and high character, Collins graduated from Sandy Creek High School in 2004 and that summer was sworn in as a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.
He selflessly joined "The Long Gray Line" at a time when a commission in the U.S. Army almost certainly meant risking one's life in Iraq, Afghanistan or both.

To learn more about Lt. Collins' life and the local community's efforts to honor him and his family, see Martha Barksdale's story at www.fayette-news.com

I had the privilege of meeting Robert through our mutual friend 1st. Lt. Andrew Collins (no relation), another Coweta/Fayette native who went on to gradutate from West Point.
Robert, you will be missed.

Here's the roll call of our friends and neighbors who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Marine Lance Cpl. Jeffery Blanton, 23, Fayetteville. Killed Dec. 12, 2004 by enemy action in Iraq's Anbar Province.

Army National Guard Spec. Michael Stokely, 23, Sharpsburg. Killed Aug. 16, 2005 by a makeshift bomb blast while on foot patrol in Baghdad.

Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Robert Hollar Jr., 35, Griffin. Killed Sept. 1, 2005 when a makeshift bomb detonated near his Humvee in Baghdad.

Marine Lance Cpl. James Chamroeun, 20, Union City. Killed Sep. 28, 2006 while battling enemy forces in Iraq's Anbar Province.

Army Spec. Justin R. Jarrett, 21, Jonesboro. Killed Oct. 2, 2006 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his vehicle in Taji, Iraq.

Army Staff Sgt. Blake M. Harris, 27, Hampton. Killed March 15, 2007 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his unit during combat operations in Baghdad.

Army Master Sgt. Mitchell Young, 39, Jonesboro. Killed July, 13, 2008 when his vehicle struck a makeshift bomb in Kajaki Sofia, Afghanistan.

Army Pvt. Colman J. Meadows III, 19, Senoia. Died Dec. 16, 2008 from injuries sustained during a non-combat incident at Forward Operating Base Ramrod in Afghanistan.

Army National Guard Staff Sgt. John Beale, 39, Riverdale. Killed June 4, 2009 when his squadron was attacked by a makeshift bomb and small arms fire in Kapisa, Afghanistan.

Army Spec. Anthony Lightfoot, 20, Riverdale. Killed July 20, 2009 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his vehicle, followed by small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades in Wardak Province, Afghanistan.

Army Sgt. 1st Class Shawn McCloskey, 33, Peachtree City. Killed Sep. 16, 2009 when his vehicle was attacked by a makeshift bomb in Afghanistan's Helmund Province.

Army 1st. Lt. Robert Collins, 24, Tyrone. Killed April 7, 2010 when his vehicle was attacked by a makeshift bomb in Mosul, Iraq.

These men and their families have suffered for our sake. All we're asked to do in return is remember.

It's nominating season for the Supreme Court

President Barack Obama met with key Senators Wednesday to discuss the impending nomination and confirmation process for a Supreme Court justice to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Stevens, sometimes called the “liberal lion” of the court, has served since 1975. He was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford and confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote.

The Warren Burger court Stevens joined was decidedly more liberal than the John Roberts court of today. Stevens was seen as a moderate prior to his confirmation. He voted like a moderate for years, but his decisions gradually swung to the left as the court drifted further and further from the liberal ideals of the Earl Warren court.

Like Stevens, Warren was nominated by a Republican president (Eisenhower) and turned out to be much more liberal than expected.

The Warren court’s heyday spanned the years of Stevens’ civilian legal career and brought forth such landmark decisions as Brown v. Board of Education (ending forced school segregation), Gideon v. Wainwright (enforcing the 6th Amendment right to counsel), Mapp v. Ohio (establishing the exclusionary rule for evidence collected in violation of the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) and Miranda v. Arizona (requiring the ‘Miranda Warning’ upon arrest, which notifies those arrested of their constitutional rights).

Warren and Stevens are not rare outliers. In the 20th century, there have been quite a few Supreme Court Justices who surprised the Presidents who nominated them with their decisions from the bench.

Byron White, who served from 1962-1993 was nominated by a liberal Democratic president, John F. Kennedy, but often sided with his conservative peers on the high court.

David Souter, who retired last year, was nominated by a moderate Republican president, George H.W. Bush, but was perceived as a liberal on the court.

Now, President Obama will look to nominate a justice who maintains the court’s ‘balance.’ Currently, four justices are considered conservative: Roberts, Sam Alito, Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas; four are labeled as liberals: the retiring Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The ninth justice, Anthony Kennedy, is generally described as a conservative who sometimes sides with the liberals.

However, these labels are misleading. Since Sotomayor joined the court last year, only two of the 42 opinions handed down by the high court have seen justices split along the perceived ideological lines.

While certain justices clearly hold opposing views on certain issues, the Supreme Court does not operate in the same highly-charged political environment that dominates the rest of the nation’s capitol. When the court functions as it is supposed to, it serves as key constitutional check on the prevailing political winds of the day. Sometimes it justifiably stands to the left of the mainstream -- as it did during the Civil Rights era. Sometimes it leans to the right, as it does now.

Obama’s nominee needs only a simple majority vote by the Senate to join the court. The president’s choice should have no problem with the confirmation process as long as he or she possesses the proper qualifications and a track record that does not indicate overt partisan leanings.

Of course, there won’t be a unanimous confirmation vote. We haven’t seen one of those since Kennedy came to the court in 1988.

As the sound-bite circuit revs up for the confirmation process, be thankful that the Supreme Court is -- and hopefully always will be -- a non-partisan branch of government standing on its own.

Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law won't stand

The new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law has hit the 24-hour news cycle like a tornado and it's whipping up hysteria all across the political spectrum.

The law, titled Arizona SB 1070, is a lengthy bill with one particularly incendiary clause:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

This means law enforcement officers in the state of Arizona can now ask to see a driver's license or some other form of identification if they suspect someone is in the country without proper documentation.

The law further allows police to detain those without proper documents, verify their immigration status and then turn them over to federal authorities if they are in the country illegally.

Arizona lawmakers who voted for the bill and their supporters insist that the law merely enforces current federal immigration statutes.

Opponents say the new law essentially legalizes un-Constitutional racial profiling.

SB 1070 prohibits officers from asking for documentation "solely [based on] race, color or national origin," but opponents claim there is no way to enforce that requirement.

The Arizona anti-illegal immigration law will likely not lead to widespread racial profiling because its major Constitutional flaws are not going to stand up in court.

The law won't take effect until 90 days after the end of the current Arizona legislative session. Lawsuits are already mounting.

Courts have long ruled that the federal government, not the states, has the exclusive authority to regulate immigration.

In the unlikely scenario that decades of legal precedents are overturned for SB 1070, there remains the monumental task of reconciling the law's "reasonable suspicion" clause with past Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure.

As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday, "I think they'll have a hard time upholding this law."

What the Arizona law has done rather effectively is re-inject the topic of immigration reform into the national dialogue.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, said Wednesday the law "signals a frustration with the failure of the Congress" to deal with immigration.

If the ill-conceived SB 1070 prods Congress into action, it may end up serving a viable purpose.

There is no question that more needs to be done to limit the flow of drugs and crime from Mexico into the U.S. and the counterflow of money and guns from the U.S. to Mexico. Congress also needs to come up with a fair and Constitutional solution for the over 10 million mostly-Latino migrants who skipped a trip to the customs office when they moved to the U.S. But, these are no easy tasks, especially in an extremely partisan Washington during an election year.

What SB 1070 has already done is create controversy. And politicians on both sides of the debate love controversies like these, because they have a way of quickly morphing into campaign contributions.

Jan Brewer, the current governor of Arizona, is facing a tough challenge in the Republican primary. Her opponents claim she's not conservative enough. In this political climate, her signing of SB 1070 makes complete sense -- for her at least. She is apparently more than willing to spend many thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in SB 1070 legal fees as long as it helps her get re-elected.