RECUSE OR CONFUSE

That is an excellent thought Pappy, I wish it had been mine. Why not donate the profits to charity?

PAPPY, I would be more than happy to step in here in defense of Sen. Bryant, but I wouldn't want you to think I'm a "spokesman" for him just because I happen to agree with him occasionally.

But I will say that you and Blogger are being very unfair in your assessment of both this bill and of Bryant's recusal from the vote. Your leftward spin on this serve is so obvious even I can return it without even stretching anything.

Wait until Bryant responds. I may step in with a comment or two about how the state ALREADY got ample funds for "smoking cessation" programs from that tobacco settlement a number of years back. How much has the state spent from the pool of money for what it promised to spend it on? Last time I checked, ZERO.

Just like with their little smoke-and-mirrors games with funding of public education, an additional tobacco tax would just give them more money to spend on OTHER things. Then, a few years down the road when they think is ignorant voters have forgotten, they'll come back, using the same excuse and the same sob story, asking for more.

Some of don't forget that easily. A few of us even pay attention.

PAPPY, I would be more than happy to step in here in defene of Sen. Bryant, but I wouldn't want you to think I'm a "spokesman" for him just because I happen to agree with him occasionally.

But I will say that you and Blogger are being very unfair in your assessment of both this bill and of Bryant's recusal from the vote. You're leftward spin on this serve is to obvious even I can return it without breaking a sweat.

Wait until Bryant responds. I may step in with a comment or two about how the state ALREADY got ample funds for "smoking cessation" programs from that tobacco settlement a number of years back. How much has the state spent from the pool of money for what it promised to spend it on? Last time I checked, ZERO.

- JDTippett

JD,

No doubt you will come up with a reasonable argument why the bill should not be passed.

But you miss the point of this forum. It is not about the bill it is about the good Senator's recusement (?)and his unwillingness to vote aye or nay.

I feel his avoidance of a vote up or down is a sign of political cowardice and that his reason is ridiculous.

What JD? I didn't even mention Dr Meadors donations to charities when Pappy brought it up.

Now in an effort to show you I am not too lopsided- interstingly enough in the week proceeding this vote I was forwarded several e-mails encouraging people to call their various representatives to "take a walk" during the vote if they felt they couldn't vote in favor of the tax but were really not opposed to it passing. I didn't make the call because, well, I am uncomfortable with the taking a walk concept. I think people in office with the exception of a true conflict ie I own the land we are voting on should vote. I don't like apathy in voters and I don't like apathy in the people we vote into office. And that is what I am really disurbed about here JD, I don't believe the Senators "conflict" was real enough to recuse himself. He may have just been taking a walk because he was encouraged to, but we the voters deserve to know what he really feels about the issue and how he would have voted.
Now you, Pappy and the Senator will have to duke it out without me, I am on my way the door, but I will check on your thoughts when I come home.

PAPPY, I think his reluctance to vote came from his personal perception that he stood to gain financially and personally (as a pharmacist) from the passage of the bill.

That's a principled stand, PAPPY. It doesn't matter if you think he should voted or not, or whether Dr. Meadors would have voted if he had had the chance, or even what I think. Sen. Bryant thought he had a conflict of interest and chose not to vote. It's his conscience, not yours or mine or Dr. Meadors, that has to be comfortable with his decision.

It's not like he would have been voting on a tax cut bill that was aimed at ALL TAXPAYERS IN THE STATE, not just a sub-category of taxpayers (like doctors and pharmacists.)

And, you know what, if he had voted - and voted AGAINST the bill - some of the same people who are now accusing him of "cowardice" for not voting, when they think his vote may have moved the bill forward, would have been accusing him of a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Again, it's an old political trick. Somebody said here about some elected official - maybe it was Sen. Bryant - something along the lines of, "If he pulled you out of your burning vehicle, you'd probably want to complain that he wrinkled your suit."

That's basically how I view this line of attack against him. Sorry about the wrinkled suit. Get over it.

PAPPY, I think his reluctance to vote came from his personal perception that he stood to gain financially and personally (as a pharmacist) from the passage of the bill.

That's a principled stand, PAPPY. It doesn't matter if you think he should voted or not, or whether Dr. Meadors would have voted if he had had the chance, or even what I think. Sen. Bryant thought he had a conflict of interest and chose not to vote. It's his conscience, not yours or mine or Dr. Meadors, that has to be comfortable with his decision.

It's not like he would have been voting on a tax cut bill that was aimed at ALL TAXPAYERS IN THE STATE, not just a sub-category of taxpayers (like doctors and pharmacists.)

And, you know what, if he had voted - and voted AGAINST the bill - some of the same people who are now accusing him of "cowardice" for not voting, when they think his vote may have moved the bill forward, would have been accusing him of a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Again, it's an old political trick. Somebody said here about some elected official - maybe it was Sen. Bryant - something along the lines of, "If he pulled you out of your burning vehicle, you'd probably want to complain that he wrinkled your suit."

That's basically how I view this line of attack against him. Sorry about the wrinkled suit. Get over it.

- JDTippett

That's a 'methinks thou doth protest too much' argument.

If valid, then please explain to me the conflict of interest to the good Senator and how he would profit from the passage of the bill and why he couldn't donate that miniscule profit from Medicaid paients.

Who knows, PAPPY? Perhaps for the same reason a bank robber can't give the money to the Shriners' Hospital and then claim he didn't break the law against bank robbery because he gave the loot to charity?

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, PAPPY. Once you're guilty of one, it really doesn't matter WHAT you did with the money. Forget Robin Hood. He was a thief, or at the very least a Democrat who was more HONEST about his wealth redistribution scheme than the ones we have in Congress right now.

Damn, I bumped myself off the top ten when I bumped the Blog Lunch.

I did want to give the Senator's surrogate, Lee, an opportunity to reply.

Appears the good Senator is too busy.

- PAPPY

Sorry ya'll. I have been quite busy, check out www.kevinbryant.com Gotta go! ttfn

Okay Lee, let's assume for the sake of argument that the Senator recused himself because he believed doing so was the honorable thing to do.

Then do you think he would recuse himself from any tax cut legislation because it certainly would benefit him more than a few prescriptions for Medicaid patients ?

- PAPPY

If all politicians followed that rule then we'd never get lower taxes because everyone would have to recuse theirselves, but I guess that is the ultimate goal of liberal Democrats.

Also, I am not the Senator's surrogate or his spokesman by any means. I'm just one of his supporters and a supporter of advancing conservative ideas. I would never presume to speak for him, I just don't like it when he gets attacked using half-truths and allegations of impropriety.

Okay Lee, let's assume for the sake of argument that the Senator recused himself because he believed doing so was the honorable thing to do.

Then do you think he would recuse himself from any tax cut legislation because it certainly would benefit him more than a few prescriptions for Medicaid patients ?

- PAPPY

If all politicians followed that rule then we'd never get lower taxes because everyone would have to recuse theirselves, but I guess that is the ultimate goal of liberal Democrats.

Also, I am not the Senator's surrogate or his spokesman by any means. I'm just one of his supporters and a supporter of advancing conservative ideas. I would never presume to speak for him, I just don't like it when he gets attacked using half-truths and allegations of impropriety.

- Lee Cole

So are you saying that there are degrees of conscience driven recusement ?

The greater the self profitability the less chance the good Senator will recuse himself

Oh,and Cole, what truths and what improprieties are you suggesting I halved and alleged

Let's have answers, not evasive misdirection statements !

Who knows, PAPPY? Perhaps for the same reason a bank robber can't give the money to the Shriners' Hospital and then claim he didn't break the law against bank robbery because he gave the loot to charity?

A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, PAPPY. Once you're guilty of one, it really doesn't matter WHAT you did with the money. Forget Robin Hood. He was a thief, or at the very least a Democrat who was more HONEST about his wealth redistribution scheme than the ones we have in Congress right now.

- JDTippett

But seriously, JD, please define just what the Senator's 'conflict' is in this instance ?

Do you believe that a drugstore proprietor is going to make massive income from increasing Medicaid assistance to children ?

If so, then why not recuse from other legislation that would profit Senator Bryant, such as tax cuts. Wouldn't that benefit him much greater ?

Damn, I bumped myself off the top ten when I bumped the Blog Lunch.

I did want to give the Senator's surrogate, Lee, an opportunity to reply.

Appears the good Senator is too busy.

- PAPPY

Sorry ya'll. I have been quite busy, check out www.kevinbryant.com Gotta go! ttfn

- kevin bryant

C'mon Senator, don't evade the question.

Are you saying you haven't had time in the last 56 hours to answer a constituent's question ?

By the way, Sir, ttfn back atcha, whatever it means.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The bill would have expanded a government welfare program that would have benefited him financially. A tax cut doesn't give anybody more money, it just keeps the government from taking money thats already ours. Also, everyone benefits from tax cuts. Now if there were a bill brought before the Senate that specifically gave Sen. Bryant a tax cut or gave all pharmacists a tax cut, then the Senator would also probably recuse himself.

A good leader will recuse himself even if there is the appearance of financial gain or impropriety, and Sen. Bryant did just that.

As to your other question, Pappy, you alleged in your first post that Sen. Bryant had an ulterior motive for recusing himself although there is no evidence for that. Other posters on here have suggested that Sen. Bryant acted on the bill in the way that he did because of contributions he received. That is a very serious allegation of wrongdoing. People shouldn't throw stuff around like that without an ounce of proof. I don't have a problem with debating the issues, but we shouldn't resort to throwing around baseless allegations. I guess that's just politics as usual in our county.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The bill would have expanded a government welfare program that would have benefited him financially. A tax cut doesn't give anybody more money, it just keeps the government from taking money thats already ours. Also, everyone benefits from tax cuts. Now if there were a bill brought before the Senate that specifically gave Sen. Bryant a tax cut or gave all pharmacists a tax cut, then the Senator would also probably recuse himself.

A good leader will recuse himself even if there is the appearance of financial gain or impropriety, and Sen. Bryant did just that.

As to your other question, Pappy, you alleged in your first post that Sen. Bryant had an ulterior motive for recusing himself although there is no evidence for that. Other posters on here have suggested that Sen. Bryant acted on the bill in the way that he did because of contributions he received. That is a very serious allegation of wrongdoing. People shouldn't throw stuff around like that without an ounce of proof. I don't have a problem with debating the issues, but we shouldn't resort to throwing around baseless allegations. I guess that's just politics as usual in our county.

- Lee Cole

WHAT FURTHER PROOF [sic] DO I NEED?
He took money from a tobacco company, then acted in a way that benefited tobacco companies.
He can shuck and jive all he wants, but I don't see people dying of lung cancer as a 'conservative idea'.

Pappy- I think TTFN means Ta Ta For Now. It's what Tigger always says in the Winnie the Pooh series.

Pappy- I think TTFN means Ta Ta For Now. It's what Tigger always says in the Winnie the Pooh series.

- Enlightenment

awesome!

Damn, I bumped myself off the top ten when I bumped the Blog Lunch.

I did want to give the Senator's surrogate, Lee, an opportunity to reply.

Appears the good Senator is too busy.

- PAPPY

Sorry ya'll. I have been quite busy, check out www.kevinbryant.com Gotta go! ttfn

- kevin bryant

C'mon Senator, don't evade the question.

Are you saying you haven't had time in the last 56 hours to answer a constituent's question ?

By the way, Sir, ttfn back atcha, whatever it means.

- PAPPY

yes too busy for now, but you may find some info on my website put "cigarette" in the search box and you'll see several posts on this tax.

Pappy- I think TTFN means Ta Ta For Now. It's what Tigger always says in the Winnie the Pooh series.

- Enlightenment

How mature. . .

Pappy- I think TTFN means Ta Ta For Now. It's what Tigger always says in the Winnie the Pooh series.

- Enlightenment

awesome!

- kevin bryant

Even more mature. . .