Sen. Lamar Alexander names 2014 re-election campaign co-chairs, minus DesJarlais

Saturday, December 1, 2012 at 11:32am

Sometimes it isn't what you say, it is what you don't say. Case in point, Tennessee's senior U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander.

Saturday, the Alexander team announced that Rep. Jimmy Duncan of Knoxville will chair his re-election bid to the U.S. Senate and that the "Honorary Co-chairs" are Gov. Bill Haslam, Sen. Bob Corker, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, Speaker Beth Harwell and Congressmen Marsha Blackburn, Phil Roe, Diane Black, Stephen Fincher and Chuck Fleischmann.

Notice anyone missing? Yes, that would be embattled Rep. Scott DesJarlais.

Asked about the omission, an aide to Alexander stated, "Both agreed it would be a distraction."

What the rest of the list means is that Alexander will face no significant challenge from within his party this election cycle and is likely to face no real challenge from a Democratic candidate.

Democrats would like to have seen a bruising primary that exposed fault lines between moderate and conservative Republicans. Not this race, not this cycle.

Regarding his appointment as chair of the campaign, Duncan in a prepared statement said, “Lamar is a good Republican and good conservative who stands up for Tennesseans. We know and trust him to do what needs to be done.”

Alexander will be seeking his third six-year term in the U.S. Senate. His colleagues have elected him three times as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, a position he recently stepped down from in a move regarded by many as an effort to be more independent within the confines of the GOP caucus.

In the next Congress convening next year, he will be the senior Republican on committees concerning education, health and energy appropriations.

19 Comments on this post:

By: Ask01 on 12/1/12 at 1:54

Abandoning their own eh?

By: TharonChandler on 12/1/12 at 6:04

A Distraction ?

Too often in this Modern world the best ideas and the best minds (and probably the best Candidates) are disincluded or excluded from life simply because their opinion would be an unwelcome 'distraction' to the wealthy and privaledged .

I don't believe that the US Constitution of 1776 offers a clause to allow disinclusion of distraction; except only in the 'Neccessary and Proper' Clause (a clause designed to give those in power the ability to do whatever needed), and i believe that such clause would be observed to be the most arbitary and therefore unacceptable of any viable judgement today (or that it obviously Should be deemed such) .

I don't believe it was right for me (MySelf) to be forceably 'disincluded' from an election in Missouri, in 2008; merely because i would have been an unwelcome 'distraction' (nor was a similar disinclusion of my candidacy in Houston in 2010). They obviously did that to 'Cover Up' all the previous 'exclusions' forced upon my life ; wrongfully , by a connected and privaledged 'Mafia' against me and inconveniently distracted by me in their mind; because of what they themselves have done improperly at my proximity and their proximity to rather needed honesty and fairness that was lacking.

Right Now in the Philippine Islands there are political parties and even seasoned Candidates being omitted (as a distraction) from the 2013 'midterm elections, there . While i believe they have a right to run their Asian Republic in their own Fashion (and because i did not live within their own history, life and times but was merely a visitor there) ; i didn't deem it the best example of a modern young Democracy nor very 'American' , because ; if they have no fear of those persons winning an honest election then why not let them participate anyway {?} .

Some places have a plethera of people willing to participate in public service but it doesn't take too long to make a shortage when some are 'weeding them out' based on the arbitrary decision of another man (not the Constitution in a specific clause).


By: yogiman on 12/1/12 at 8:04

Well, if he isn't going to have a challenger, why both to vote for him? Besides, he's been in politics long enough. Its time to give a new man a career.

We need someone who understands what a usurper in office is.

By: CrimesDown on 12/1/12 at 10:33

I don't like some of the things that Scott DesJarlais has done either. I personally wish he wouldn't run for re-election in two more years. What I don't understand is the fact that the media has been on this like stink on doodoo, every day. If 1) Clinton can have sex with an intern and then lie under oath. 2) Barney Frank can have sex with a prostitute and allow the prostitute to run his prostitution business out of his house. 3) Obama's Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat.

If things like this are okay with Liberals, then why should they care what Scott DesJarlais does or says. Conservatives don't like it and it will probably be his demise, but this is an example of how the media pounces on anything to do with a Conservative and won't quit.

By: Ask01 on 12/2/12 at 7:36

I suppose the major difference, CrimesDown, is Conservative Republicans usually associate, or are associated with, groups and individuals publicly espousing very rigid, very narrow, often very restrictive and even repressive views on morality, and social and family values, all of which they seem to wish to impose, forcibly if need be, on society as a whole.

Liberal Democrats, while not advocating the opposite behaviors, don't shamelessly pander to those so wrapped up in narrow minded philosophical views. The attitudes are more, well, liberal and open minded.

It is a natural human response to, when presented with such inconguous behavior, to latch on the contradictory nature of professing one set of values publicly while adhering to another privately.

I believe the standard accepted term applicable here is hypocrisy.

To repeat parts of a previous post, all the Clinton debacle proved is a married man, even under oath, will LIE about cheating on his wife, more fearful of her than any man made law.

Barney Frank used a prostitute, engaging in illicit sex following the example of so many evangelists. As far as I know, he never spoke out against such action, schmoozing with rigid moralists. It's his private life. Besides, the archaic sex laws in America, attempting to legislate morality have been a roaring success right up there with the war on drugs, haven't they.

OK, we can agree here. The tax cheat can be tarred and feathered, and I'll even donate some old feather pillows,

In short, DesJarlais, like so many claiming the chaste moral high ground, has been exposed as a two faced, willing to say anything to get elected charlatan.

Senator Alexander's action, or inaction, demonstrates the Republican Party recognizes the damage potential of DesJarlais, and I believe, the fact he has become a liability.

Too bad so many of the party faithful cannot see the forest for the trees.

By: courier37027 on 12/2/12 at 9:05

Ask01, I am on your side when it comes to legislating morality. I am a big believer of privacy, individual rights and consenting adults. There are too many repressive laws where they should not exist. Your two-party logic thread is good until you approach money matters. How can you criticize a Republican for morality issues, yet give a pass to Democrats who promise no tax hikes, balanced budgets, to rein in spending--then do the complete opposite? The bigger issue is honesty. However when it comes to Democrats keeping pledges, you revertto a lying-is-okay-when-a-Demcrat-does-it-baceuse-we-never-claimed-morality argument. Is lying okay to get the money your party wants, and to advance agendas?

By: courier37027 on 12/2/12 at 9:06

(Pardon for a couple of typos in earlier post)

By: pswindle on 12/2/12 at 11:09

Sen. Alexander,
We thank you for your service to TN, but it is time for new blood. You have outlived your ideas. But, you will get re-elected because you are a republician. This one thing is going to hurt TN in the long run, for the sake of balance, TN needs two voices.

By: TharonChandler on 12/2/12 at 11:31

DesJarlais ? that's the one that the campaign for Licoln Davis kept saying he had 'beaten his wife severely'; or had beat up some woman (said in the campaigns of 2010). I think this is a Great example of the fact that 'Gossip is not what Runs Countries ' . In LawrenceburgTN some people think that gossip and quiet intimidation is in control (inforced by some occassional forced traffic accidents and unwanted jail cvonstruction) and unfortunately they seem to be correct except in the case of congressman Desjarlais . good luck

By: Ask01 on 12/2/12 at 1:20

Courier37027, campaign promises are a sticky issue for both parties, aren't they?

I never touched on campaign promises during my diatribe because politicians of both parties will say anything to get elected. Most seem to subscribe to a variation of an old advertising campaign, 'promise them anything, but give them Arpege,' or some such spelling.

I never put much stock in any promise, made or even implied, because I realize no matter who wins, the ability to live up to those promises depends on the cooperation of the opposition party, and, beyond that both parties are subject to forces beyond their control which limit their ability to deliver.

In short, both sides receive low marks as far as believability in campaign rhetoric, but the issue at hand reaches far beyond the campaign trail and rheotric. The issue deals with what ethics and beliefs supposedly drives a person in their everyday life.

Liberal Democrats have no more of a claim to being angels than Conservative Republicans as far as personal morals and ethics.

By: yogiman on 12/2/12 at 1:23


Politicians only seem to be capable two things: Run for election or re-election. Can you honesty name one good honest politician?

Of course we hire a good staff in their name to represent us.

By: yogiman on 12/2/12 at 1:26

By the way, Ask01,

Can you tell the difference between the political parties today? I can't.

By: Vuenbelvue on 12/2/12 at 5:23

He has signed the pledged to the Lobbyist's lobbyist, Grover Norquest and not to the district and is one of the members of the lowest rated Congress ever at 11%. Time to retire Senator Alexander as you go into your mid 70's and let a newcomer take over. 2014 - 1940 = 74 years old or older Jan 2015 when Congress swears in. Thanks for your service but time to go.

By: tomba1 on 12/3/12 at 6:34

OK vuen..... ,
So it's time for him to go??? He's only 1 of 100 senators and of 435 house representatives who comprise the "lowest rated Congress ever at 11%". So your complaint of him must be related to age, gender, religion, sexual preference, race, or what ? It's appropriate to thank him for his service but it's more appropriate to wish him continued success in his service to our country than to suggest it's time for him to go. Other, much more junior "public servants" are much more deserving of that wish.

By: yogiman on 12/3/12 at 6:50

Does the fact that the congress of today so willingly accepted, and accepts, the son of a British subject as our president mean we are repatriating to becoming British subjects again?

In 2008, the son of a British subject could not be constitutionally eligible for the President's Office, but the group called our "congress" allowed it to happen. Why?

I prefer to being a"good ole country boy" American with a good ole country boy American as my President. Not a damn British subject as my leader.

By: fightcrib on 12/4/12 at 1:41

Alexander is a fine Senator, one of few willing to work across the aisle. I'll vote for him again. It has nothing to do with that he went to Vanderbilt and he will help football recruiting. Just sayin..

Fightcrib, BNA

By: govskeptic on 12/4/12 at 1:30

Alexander help Vandy in recruiting? What he gonna do in that regard, run a 440
across the Senate floor. How silly. He only runs to the bank. Alexander has served
on the public payroll virtually all his life. Certainly time for a conservative to step
forward to challenge in spite of his having that roster of the entire group tied up
early as supporters. The entire lot is only 7 that have sold their sole's early in
the campaign. That alone should turn off a great many Republicans.

By: pswindle on 12/4/12 at 4:49

Did anyone read the article in this morning's Tennessean written by DeJarliais on ObamaCare? I kmow that I will take anything that he says with a grain of salt.

By: radiyojo on 12/4/12 at 8:06

Hey Lamar, what happen to term limits? Did you forget?