Public Service Commission President - Candidates
Posted by ReactionaryTwinkle Andress Cavanuagh and Matt Chancey are candidates in the GOP Primary Run-off for President of the Alabama Public Service Commission. Cavanaugh received 47% of the GOP vote; Chancey received 29%; Jack Hornady lost with 24%. The winner of the run-off faces Democrat Lucy Baxley in the General Election.
The PSC mission is “to ensure a regulatory balance between regulated companies and consumers in order to provide consumers with safe, adequate and reliable services at rates that are equitable and economical”.
The PSC evolved from the Railroad Commission and regulates: “railroads… express companies, sleeping car companies, railroad depot or terminal stations, telephone and telegraph companies, plus transportation companies operating as common carriers over water, toll bridges, toll ferries, and toll roads… utilities providing electricity, gas, water, and steam, companies operating streets or inter-urban railways… approving the sale or lease of utility property or franchises… utility rates… motor transportation companies… Air carriers… natural gas transmission and distribution systems… radio common carriers… railroad tracks and equipment”.
The PSC regulates Energy (Electricity, Natural Gas, and Water) Companies like Alabama Power, Mobile Gas Service, and Hiwanee Water; Telecommunications Companies like Bellsouth; Gas Pipelines like Enbridge Pipelines; and thousands of Motor Carriers (Trucking, Towing, Buses, Limos, Cabs).
Elected Chairman Alabama Republican Party, served as Senior Advisor to Governor Bob Riley, served as State Director of Citizens for a Sound Economy.
The Chancey Five-Point Plan to Improve the Public Service Commission
1. Nuclear Power Expansion
2. Clean Coal and Other Fossil Fuels
3. Hydro-electric Expansion
4. Supporting Economic Development
5. PSC Performance Review
UPDATE:
Just had the pleasure of hearing five minute speeches by both candidates.
Twinkle Cavanaugh noted her experience with Citizens for a Sound Economy and as a Senior Advisor to Governor Riley, working with the Alabama Development Office, EMA, and Homeland Security. She tied her experience to issues facing the PSC, for example noting that one of the key factors in the Thyssen-Kruppe decision to locate the steel plant in Mobile was lower utility rates. She also noted her work as the Chair of the Alabama Republican Party.
Matt Chancey said he wanted to “Mo Brooksify” the PSC. He noted that the PSC should educate consumers about nuclear power, and he supports the TVA Bellefonte Nuclear Plant. He said that the PSC should examine their policies as part of a Performance Review of the agency. He also noted his work with the Republican Party (Vice-Chair Dale County Executive Committee).
Related content:
June 20th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
Twinkle’s website tells us what a great republican she’s been. Not a single item on policy or issues.
In contrast Chancey’s website extensively details his policy proposals and goals for the PSC.
Never met the man but he’s got my vote…again.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:43 am
I got a kick out of the Huntsville Times endorsement for Cavanaugh:
If there is one thing that Twinkle is not it would be nonpartisan. Her entire platform is her accomplishments with and connections to the Republican Party.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:57 am
[...] Brian SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Huntsville Times”, url: [...]
June 20th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Brian - Lucy Baxley is not known as a non-partisan either
The PSC Prez job requires someone capable of managing lawyers and technicians. I looked at the PSC Agenda for June 10, almost all of it was for Motor Carrier licensing, with a couple of Bellsouth rate increases.
What bothers me about Twinkle: she doesn’t describe how her qualifications for the job apply to the duties of the job. Her website doesn’t provide any details of her plans or policies; IMO it’s a fluffy site (with typos - get a proof reader).
What bothers me about Chancey: he doesn’t describe how his qualifications for the job apply to the duties of the job. Also, one of the “Issues” he talks about is tangential to the PSC, for example “Nuclear Power Expansion”: he observes that TVA wants to build a nuke plant (Bellefonte), but then notes “Although the PSC does not regulate the TVA”. So it appears his #1 Issue isn’t an issue…
As far as websites go, I like Chancey’s better; as far as candidates, I’ll probably vote for Cavanaugh… again.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
[...] Flashpoint: Public Service Commission President - Candidates [...]
June 21st, 2008 at 7:30 am
Like Twinkle, I’m a partisian Republican. On some issues, in certain situations, I can be non-partisian. But a primary campaign is about the party picking the best candidate to face the Democrat in the general election. I don’t know Chancey, but I know Twinkle. I’ve had a positive working relationship with her for many years, as he did a commendable job as the Governor’s appointments assistant and as she was Chairman of the State Party. I’ve always appreciated her common sense and personal integrity. And yes, she is a long-time loyal Republican.
The other two PSC members are Susan Parker and Jan Cook, both long-time Democrat political hacks. I believe Twinkle is our best chance to keep the PSC from becoming completely dominated by Democrats.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Hi… I have a comment stuck in moderation.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Wel, it looks like ithat comment is not coming out of moderation, probably because of the links, so let’s try it another way. Replace the DOTs with periods and paste the links into your browser to visit them (or visit my website for the entire article, links included):
I wrote,
“Alabama voters should be made aware that Matt Chancey opposes women’s suffrage on religious grounds.
Matt Chancey and his wife Jennie believe that it is a sin (or at the very least, is highly inadvisable) for women to vote, hold political office, attend college, or work outside the home. These views are expounded upon at great length on Jennie Chancey’s website,Ladies Against Feminism:
www DOT ladiesagainstfeminism DOT com/artman/publish/Hot_Button_Issues_21/Should_Women_Vote_12661001266 DOT shtml
Matt Chancey is also on very intimate terms with Doug Phillips, the president and founder of VisionForum Ministries, a major homeschooling curriculum company. Phillips also teaches that God doesn’t allow women to vote or hold office:
www DOT visionforumministries DOT org/issues/family/biblical_patriarchy_and_the_do DOT aspx
Doug Phillips is described by Matt Chancey as being his dear friend and mentor, while Phillips in turn praises as his own intellectual hero one of the most virulent racists of the 19th century, Robert L. Dabney, and has authored a book , Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.
…and Matt is not above a bit of internet sleight of hand, either, when it will aid his political ends, as shown by this article, from the Washington Post:
www DOT blogger DOT com/www DOT washingtonpost DOT com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090100803 DOT html
Our Constitution guarantees that no American who has reached the age of 18 shall be denied the the right to vote without due process, regardless of race, sex, or creed, or income level, and while everyone, including Matt Chancey, has the right to their personal convictions, the voters of Alabama have the right to know that Matt Chancey’s convictions concerning suffrage and a good many other things are very much at odds with what is considered right and decent in America today.
Just as you wouldn’t want a man who holds a strong personal conviction that it is acceptable to embezzle money to serve as your banker or stockbroker, most Americans would not want a man who holds a personal conviction that voting should be restricted to male landowning heads of household to serve them in a position of governmental authority, and the voters of Alabama have a right to know about Matt Chancey’s unConstitutional, unAmerican convictions BEFORE they head to the polls.”
July 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Cynthia,
How can we trust your analysis when you make a demonstrably false claim like ‘Our Constitution guarantees…the right to vote”?
It most certainly does NOT. If you think it does please cite where.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Rusty, I said that no person who has reached the age of 18 can be denied the right to vote without due process, which is rather different than saying that “our Constitution guarantees the right to vote”… but then, I’m sure you know that quite well.
Our Constitution DOES guarantee that no one, IN ANY STATE, can be denied the right to vote because of race (the 15th Amendment), gender (the 19th Amendment), or failure to pay a poll tax or any other tax (the 24th Amendment), and the Constitution requires that anyone who can vote for the “most numerous branch” of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members. In addition, the Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote.
Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications set forth by the states do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld, AS I POINTED OUT, BY DUE PROCESS — for example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote.
In all of this, however, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote for EVERYONE, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does not say that everyone must be allowed to vote, but it DOES delineate on what grounds a person cannot be barred from voting, and one of those grounds, gender flies directly in the face of some of the most cherished teachings of Doug Phillips and his protegee, Matt Chancey.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Oh, and Rusty… you don’t have to trust my analysis… just follow the links I provided and see for yourself what Matt Chancey, Jenny Chancey, and Doug Phillips believe.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:52 am
A bit of a moot point by now but the point I was trying to make was:
1. Voting in federal elections is set forth by state legislatures. They could decide, for instance, that elections are too expensive and choose the electors themselves. The public would not be allowed to vote. Only when they allow voting can they not bar certain people from voting like you mentioned in the 15th and 19th amendment. As the Supreme Court ruled ‘there is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections’.
2. Why are you as a resident of PA or KY interested in a down ballot race such as the PSC in Alabama?
3. What does Matt or Jenny Chancey’s or that matter Phillip’s religous views matter to PSC policy?
Personally, I don’t care if he believes in blue leprechauns if his policies are what we need. I think they are.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:29 am
I’m pretty sure Matt only believes in the traditional green leprechauns.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Chancey’s views as they pertain solely to his religious practice have no bearing on the PSU race — his religion is his own busimness. But, when a cantidate’s religion mandates that he hold views on suffrage, etc, which run contrary to the law of the land and to what most Americans consider right, normal, and decent, the voters should know about it, and when such is the case with a cantidate and I KNOW ABOUT IT, I think that it’s my duty to let the voters know too, even if I happen to live several states away.
In Matt Chancey’s case, the voters have the right to know that the Chanceys have gone on record and publically claimed to hold what most folks would consider to be UNamerican, UNconservative views concerning suffrage, etc, and they deserve to know about those views BEFORE they vote Matt into office.
If it’s any comfort to you, I’d be doing this very same thing if I knew that a cantidate was a closet Communist or Islamic extreminst, or that he secretly advocated gay marriage but was telling the voters otherwise until after he got elected.
….and, begorra, laddie! …all the leprechauns I ever heard tell of were green, too.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Sorry about the typos, that should read “PSC”, not “PSU”…
July 14th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
“his religous practice have no bearing…his own busimness[sic]…but…”. Laura Ingraham: But…Monkey!
Your concerns might matter if Chancey becomes Supreme Leader or der Führer or was a SCOTUS nominee. It’s not pertinent to utility regulation.
Holding contrarian views against the law of the land and even most of the citizenry is precisely American. The concept goes right back to our founding. If the contrarian view is persuasive it’ll catch on. Voltaire may not have said it but he would agree.
You didn’t lie when you said you felt it was your “duty” to inform voters that Chancey’s wife has a blog. You’ve spammed every blog on the net that even casually referenced Chancey. On how many was this your first (and only) post?
The term crusading (virtual) carpetbagger comes to mind.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:31 am
This got stuck in moderation the other day, and it’s a little late to repost it, since the election is over, but I just gotta thank Rusty for my new moniker. I’m turning 50 today, and it’s the best present I’ve recieved so far! Anyhow, Rusty wrote,
“Your concerns might matter if Chancey becomes Supreme Leader or der Führer or was a SCOTUS nominee. It’s not pertinent to utility regulation.”
AND:
“You didn’t lie when you said you felt it was your “duty” to inform voters that Chancey’s wife has a blog. You’ve spammed every blog on the net that even casually referenced Chancey. On how many was this your first (and only) post?”
The term crusading (virtual) carpetbagger comes to mind.
Cynthia Gee Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“Your concerns might matter if Chancey becomes Supreme Leader or der Führer or was a SCOTUS nominee. It’s not pertinent to utility regulation.”
LOl… no, it’s not, but everybody has to start somewhere, Rusty. And really, it’s not such a laughing matter. Chancey is what you call a dominionist,and for the last thirty years, dominionists have been preaching that people should have as many kids as possible and have been purposely homeschooling them to believe the dominionist take on Christianity, in the hopes that they will outbreed the mainstream opposition, seek political office in some cases, and gradually make their beliefs the majority views in America.
Check out this article, by Doug Phillips, Chancey’s mentor:
“National Home School Convention Casts Vision”
“In addition, the disproportionately high fertility rate of home educators, coupled with a philosophical and spiritual commitment of many to pass on the principles of multi-generational living to the their children, means that home educators are on the verge of an explosion of socio-political influence. Bottom line: We are out-populating our cultural opponents.”
………..from “Doug’s Blog”,Friday,October 8, 2004
Chancey is a first-generation product of the dominionist homeschooling system, and predictibly, Chancey’s fellow dominionionists are quite excited by his cantidacy and are plugging it online, even if they don’t live in Alabama.
As for “spamming”, for the most part, I usually post multiple comments to a blog only when someone wishes to debate, as we are doing now. Posting once in hopes of sparking a debate (or twice or more in cases of trying to fit a 2000 word comment into a 500 word comment limit, or for purposes adding pertinent information) isn’t considered spamming, no matter how many blogs you comment on — it’s called TROLLING.
So, yes, call me a crusading carpetbagger — I’ll wear the label with pride - but do get your terms right — it’s crusading TROLLING carpetbagger, not crusading SPAMMING carpetbagger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The Crusading Carpetbagger
(maybe I should go out and buy myself a cape….)