Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Car Wash Exemption/Campaign Ethics Boondoggle hits hard copy this morning. Nothing much new to the story. Outside of the newsprint, we're still left with the images of Ludye Wallace shaking a car wash developer's hand after the latter spoke as the sole proponent of car wash exemption and the irony of Harold White's argument that the Council should not be influenced by a few neighborhood association people (he forgot to add "unless those few people want to build some car washes"). We can add to those Diane Neighbors's rather perplexing, equivocal comment to the Tennessean that she has not worked "for" or "against" this bill, even as she has received campaign help from car wash developers. If she has not worked "for" the bill, then why did she vote "for" it twice? Wouldn't a bill sponsor not working "for" or "against" a bill abstain when it came time to vote? Or better yet, why wouldn't she just shepherd the bill to the leadership of another co-sponsor to bring through the process in order to keep her name from being tied to the fortunes of special business interests?