Ingram worked as an adviser to Gov. Bill Haslam. He's also advised U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and previously served as chief of staff for U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. Most recently Ingram advised the Nashville mayoral campaign of Charles Robert Bone.
"I think this is an incredibly important election, and I have a lot of respect for the governor. Watched him as governor of Florida and saw his accomplishments there and his leadership style there," Ingram said in a phone interview Thursday.
What if Al Gore were an option?!
Over at Vox, the original Wonkblogger himself, Ezra Klein, says Gore, the Nashville resident who has envisioned the end of the world, almost served on a jury earlier this month, and was once vice president of the United States, should run for president … again.
We don't have much to add to this, except to remind you that Al Gore has an office in the same building as 2015 mayoral candidate Bill Freeman, and to say that Al Gore should not run for president, if only to keep the state of Florida from toppling into the ocean.
President Barack Obama will be in Nashville next week to give a speech on his recently announced executive actions related to America's immigration system.
The presidential visit was announced in a press release by Nashville Rep. Jim Cooper:
“It’s always an honor and a thrill when a sitting president visits Nashville,” Cooper said. “I welcome President Obama to our vibrant, thriving and diverse city. Nashville is the perfect setting for his remarks.”
Obama last came to Nashville in January, when he gave a speech on education at McGavock High School.
This time Obama will speak at Casa Azafran, although the White House has not yet announced a time for the event.
Update (1:25 p.m.): This statement, from Mayor Karl Dean:
We are honored that President Obama has chosen our city as a place to talk about the nation’s immigration system. Nashville continues to lead the way as a welcoming and open city to immigrants with the recent opening of the Mayor’s Office of New Americans, one of the first of its kind in the South. This visit will be a great opportunity for President Obama to see first-hand Nashville’s commitment to making it easier for immigrants to adapt to living in our community, be successful here and add to the city’s economic vitality.
"It is good to be in Nashville!" says Barack Obama, President of the United States, and the reason we are all gathered in the auditorium of McGavock High School on Thursday afternoon.
"And it's good to be here at Big Mac," he adds, using the school's nickname as a rhetorical wink to the school's students, who have just given him a rock star's welcome.
And they weren't the only ones.
As The Tennessean recalled this week, many presidents have visited Nashville over the years. John F. Kennedy came to Nashville six months before he was assassinated, and Richard Nixon swung through town less than six months before he resigned. Dubya made it here several times.
Barack Obama, the candidate, appeared in Nashville during the 2008 presidential campaign for a debate at Belmont University with Sen. John McCain. But until Thursday he had not been here as the sitting president and it's not likely that he will be again.
President Barack Obama will address the nation at 8 p.m. on the crisis in Syria. Late this afternoon, sources including NBC News reported that the speech will likely make a case for the option raised yesterday by Russia — placing Syria's chemical weapons under international monitoring, as a step toward eventually destroying them — but may maintain the possibility of military strikes.
That would be a precarious position. As the Washington Post's Dan Balz writes, "Obama is now in a position of having to argue for war and diplomacy in the same address."
A recap of the issues underlying tonight's address can be found here. Check back in throughout the night and share your thoughts.
In an uncharacteristically direct response to questioning, Gov. Bill Haslam says there's no — literally, "zero" — truth to rumors that he would consider a run for the White House in 2016. He says there are "at least 20 people who'd be better" at the job, giving drinking journos and bored political junkies a new parlor game — who are the 20 people ahead of Bill Haslam on Bill Haslam's list of potential presidents?
The last couple weeks have been something of a national coming-out party for our Tennessean-in-Chief, with Politico deeming him "the GOP star you've never heard of" in a glowing profile last month, and sharing his comments about the future of the party a few days later.
For what it's worth — and I'll admit, I'm not sure what it's worth — I once had a Republican staffer, one who I'd say might know, tell me the Haslam family's goal was to make Bill president. In any case, presidential politics is often like NASCAR — whoever's leading this early is likely to end up in the wall. If the governor does want to be president, it would make good sense to let off the gas while we're still over three years out. If he doesn't want the job, perhaps one of the 20 more qualified candidates will look his way for the No. 2 spot?
Their dalliance occurred with Koch and Gore passing like ships in the limelight, as Gore was just beginning his leftward migration and Koch was drifting rightward from a political career begun as a loudmouth liberal reformer in Greenwich Village. There would probably never have been another moment when the two men would have wound up in each other’s arms.
But they were cast together by circumstances where each tried to take advantage of the other for their narrow needs of the moment. Koch was nearing the end of his third term as mayor, in which he had overseen a civic comeback from the economic crisis of the 1970s. But the city had increasingly tired of his stridency and the corruption that had boiled over during his tenure without touching him personally. Gore was just trying to keep his presidential campaign going.
Gore had taken a late flyer on the presidential race, hoping to take advantage of the South-friendly 1988 primary schedule. It had been engineered by Southern Democrats in the hope of tugging the party back toward the center, after the 1984 debacle when liberal nominee Walter Mondale lost 49 states to incumbent Ronald Reagan.
But the campaign hadn’t gone quite as Gore hoped. He eschewed competition in the Iowa caucuses, where he was going to get trounced anyway, and attracted little support in other early Northern contests. He had a moderately good showing in the big wave of Super Tuesday Southern primaries, picking up six Southern-ish states, and was still standing when the field winnowed down to preacher-agitator Jesse Jackson, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis and himself. Yet even though he had left some other formidable candidates in the dust, there was no place further for Gore to go. He was a lackluster third in the Wisconsin primary and headed off to New York for his last stand.
If Romney loses, the GOP’s internal post-election kerfuffle will be fascinating to watch. Is losing two in a row to a guy you frame as a proto-socialist Kenyan enough to get through to the faithful that a gay-baiting immigrant-hating anti-science white people’s party is just not going to fly long-term as a vehicle for national political influence? Or will they just rationalize: Romney’s conservatism wasn’t the genuine article, or it was Hurricane Sandy/Christie’s fault. Are we doomed to enduring another four years of Tea Party obstructionism in Washington, and in 2016 another GOP primary cycle of red-meat penis-size competition? Or will a close Romney loss send the signal that the moderate Mittbot was the solution, not the problem — the fatal flaw in 2012 being the hollowness and jejunity of the man rather than the concept?
If Obama loses, the internal shitstorm on the left will be far less clamorous — more of a pee sprinkle, really — since many Dems understood all along that Obama’s re-election prospects were always going to rise and fall with macroeconomic developments. While a drowsy economy has managed to shake itself half-awake with more good numbers than bad in the campaign’s final weeks, the larger narrative of economic lethargy never really dissipated. The overarching Obama problem has long been his unwillingness (and/or inability) as president to forcefully communicate his policies and priorities in ways that bring people aboard — health care reform being, of course, Exhibit A. A telling moment came a month ago, following Obama’s calamitous evening in Denver, when he told supporters that Romney’s debate performance was “salesmanship” not leadership. A president who doesn’t see effective salesmanship as a key aspect of the job is a one-term president waiting to happen.
Divergence in recent weeks between national polls and battleground state polls has many wondering if we might be in for the magic split between popular vote and Electoral College outcome. The prognosticators are dubious— Sam Wang at Princeton makes it a 16-1 longshot — and Dems would obviously prefer the illusion of a governing mandate rooted in a consistent outcome on both fronts over a split decision. (I say Dems because it’s hard to fathom the split happening with a Romney win. The turnout wave that would help Romney overcome his conspicuous battleground-state polling disadvantage would surely carry the popular vote with it.)
But I count myself among those who say mandate schmandate: If we are ever going to get rid of this senseless anachronism we call the Electoral College, it is probably necessary for Republicans to feel its emotionally piercing sting as Democrats did in 2000. Only then we can experience the dawn of true bipartisanship: that gleaming glorious day when the two parties with their gridlock are unable to save the country from its economic doom, but can go hurtling over the fiscal cliff hand in hand knowing that the Electoral College is soaring with them to its long overdue demise.
Now that’s winning!
A version of this post also appears at BruceBarry.net.
 A clear difference. You can spin the year's battles over voter ID, early voting and voting rights in general in numerous ways, and we can expect plenty of litigation on this after the election. There is an inescapable truth, however, that overlays the entire matter: The country has one political party trying to make it possible for more people to vote, and one party doing all it can to see to it that fewer people vote.
 Still no reason to freak out. Last weekend I counseled Obamaphiles to keep their freakout impulses in check because (quoting myself, which is something you just can't do enough) "polls in the aggregate are actually painting a quite consistent picture, one that favors Obama in almost all the important battlegrounds." Well now, a week later, nothing significant has changed on the polling front, except perhaps some slight movement in Obama's direction (but slight). Core observations from polling remain: In Ohio, of the 25 polls going back to October 7, Obama has led in 19 of them, Romney in 2, and 4 have shown a tie; Romney has led in just one of the most recent 10 polls there. In New Hampshire Obama has led in all five polls completed since the final debate. In Wisconsin Romney hasn't led in a poll since mid-August. The story in Iowa is a bit less convincing, and clearly Virginia and Colorado are dodgy, but Obama's path to 270 remains reasonably unhampered.
Maybe all of us, regardless of political persuasions, should be mindful of our Constitutional guaranty…
Since county clerks are allowed to get out of doing marriages entirely, some of them…
Haters gotta hate, and losers gotta have a category of fellow humans to look down…
The Scene has an editor? What exactly does he do?
The gun nuts love me! They really love me!