AL SD-7 Victory Parties
2009 April 20
| April 21, 2009 | ||
| 7:00 pm | to | 9:00 pm |
Both Sam Givhan and Paul Sanford will be holding victory parties after Tuesday’s election. Unless something strange happens I’m guessing only one of them will actually be a victory party, though. Both parties will start after the polls close at 7:00 pm.
Givhan’s will be at the Elks Lodge on Franklin St. Sanford’s will be at his restaurant, Little Paul’s Barbecue on Madison St.
7 Responses
leave one →
Walking distance!
It’s a party either way…
Given what I heard from them at the Tea Party, it’s a pity they can’t both lose. Sanford is apparently unable to look up from his prepared remarks to make eye contact with the crowd (and what was the deal with his two-handed leaning on the podium?). Givhan, meanwhile, seemed to mistake the Tea Party for a campaign event, showing up with a campaign sticker on his shirt and regularly lapsing into stump speech rhetoric that had nothing to do with the Tea Party protest. He bellowed and stammered about like a man desperately in search of something — anything — to say, and don’t get me started on his highly unfortunate rift on how the Feds violated states’ rights during the 60s. I was so embarrassed, I looked at my shoes. I mean seriously, is this the best we can do?
Paul is not a great public speaker, Parker Griffith is. What did Givhan say about the 1960s?
Givhan went on a little bit of a tirade about “states’ rights” a la the whole 10th Amendment stuff that is currently a hot topic (see Texas’ recently-passed resolution on this issue). I agree with the meat of this argument, but hate the baggage the term ”states’ rights” has from the days of integration.
Still, if Givhan had left it there, he would have been fine. Where he went off track is when he tried to recount the history of federal overreach. He attempted a few incoherent sentences about Roosevelt and the New Deal, and then launched into the 60s and how the Feds “had to do some things about some problems we had down here,” but that they ”went too far.” (Quotes from memory.)
Now I in no way think Givhan is a racist or a closet segregationist. But if you are going to go where he did, you better do it tactfully and leaving no room for anyone to misinterpret your words. As it is, he sounded like Trent Lott praising Strom Thurmond, or like the veiled-racialist Southern politicians of the 70s. It just sounded very, very bad, and I was much relieved that the local media let it slide.
To Jack,
A no-return address mailing was sent out during the District 7 primary campaign with regards to Givhan’s much bally-hoo’ed legislative ancestors. I had hoped that Sam was not going to dig this stuff up further…he might just be dead-at-polls if he wins the run-off and starts talking about this. Sometimes self inflicted wounds are the worst…
Hall is not much of a public speaker as well. However, her political machine is substantial and she has not had to waste money during an extended run-off.
If you got something to say just say it, what is with all the innuendo.
“I had hoped that Sam was not going to dig this stuff up further…he might just be dead-at-polls if he wins the run-off and starts talking about this. Sometimes self inflicted wounds are the worst…”
and
“What did Givhan say about the 1960s?”
Let’s hear it.
Dale — I pretty much spelled out what he said in my post above, and I explained why I didn’t like it.