Americans for Prosperity endorses ousted Democrat DeBerry

The political arm of the conservative Koch network is endorsing state Rep. John DeBerry of Memphis in his bid to hold on to his state House seat after being booted from the Democratic primary ballot over his propensity of voting with Republicans on issues ranging from abortion to school vouchers.

Rep. John DeBerry.

Americans for Prosperity Action adviser Tori Venable said in a release that DeBerry “exemplifies the very best Tennesseans look for in a legislator, someone who is principled and not afraid to put party loyalties aside to do what is right for his constituents.”

Republican lawmakers passed a new law after DeBerry was removed from the Democratic ballot to allow him to run as an independent in November.

“Rep. DeBerry understands we need to make students the center of our education system, not buildings and bureaucracies,” Venable said. “Now more than ever, we are seeing how our education system locks students in a one-size fits all setting that doesn’t provide the flexibility to help students and families meet their needs.”

Torrey Harris won the Democratic nomination in House District 90 following DeBerry’s ouster.

During last month’s special legislative session, DeBerry was cheered by House Republicans following an impassioned speech in favor of legislation aimed at cracking down on unruly protesters camped outside the state Capitol. The bill passed 71-20, with only one other Democrat voting in favor.

District 90 Democratic nominee Torrey Harris charged “DeBerry and other like-minded Republicans” with targeting the protesters because they had embarrassed them. Harris said he couldn’t understand why an African-American lawmaker from Memphis would vote to punish protests in response to an unarmed black man being killed by police, saying it “defies logic to me and reeks of Republican Trumpism.”

26 Responses to Americans for Prosperity endorses ousted Democrat DeBerry

  • Avatar
    steve cates says:

    This shows clearly that the DEMS were correct in removing him, since he is not a DEM. It also shows clearly the need for term limits up and down the spectrum and, most particularly, including judges. Public service was never meant to be a CAREER and way too many have made it just that.

    • Avatar
      James White says:

      me thinks you protest too much. We had Term Limits under the Articles of Confederation. Then they wised up and under the constitution, they decided term limits were bad. Still are.

    • Avatar
      Karen Bracken says:

      Term limits are ours to enforce. You vote badly and vote for the same person election after election the problem is you not the person you elected. All Representatives whether they be Republican or Democrat. They should ALL vote constitutionally and that means vote for what is right not how the party tells you to vote. John DeBerry votes for what he believes is the right thing to do. He was right to vote against vouchers BECAUSE THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL and have been proven to hurt the very people they are supposed to helped. They are also a proven funding scheme to suck private and religious schools into the same failed system as the public schools and the charter schools. It is the only way they can get private schools to get into the data pipeline. If the state and/or federal government fund it then THEY get to make the rules. Private school should NEVER be funded with tax money because it ceases to be private education. In the end what parents will get is choice of location but not choice of what their kids are taught and even worse what they are not taught. He is also right no matter R or D to vote for the vulnerable unborn life. Perhaps DeBerry should change his party to Republic and he can vote for what he feels is right without retribution.

  • Avatar
    Taxpayer #314 says:

    One of the best things the public could do would be to mandate Term Limits for every politician in the country. The next thing they should do is require that every senator and every congressman or women should be covered by the same medical coverage as all US citizens and they should also pay into the SS system like other American workers do. They would FIX these programs right away.

    • Avatar
      Karen Bracken says:

      Term limits will do nothing if the dumb uninformed voter keeps voting on the wrong people. All term limits will do is change the criminals more often. Term limits are the voters responsibility. How many people have YOU voted for over and over again? You and voters like you are the problem not the elected. If you vote for a good guy and watch him/her like a hawk and they remain constitutional then they should stay in office. Problem is that no one stays clean after 2 years. So I never vote for anyone more than once unless they abide by the constitution and sadly so far no one in my book can last more than one election.

    • Avatar
      Stuart I. Anderson says:

      Wrong as usual Taxpayer but not out of character. You are a liberal so naturally you LOVE regulations to limit the freedom of individuals to do things which you simply don’t approve. The breathtaking arrogance of authoritarian personalities always astounds. In this case you want to limit the freedom of individuals to vote for whomever they want as often in consecutive elections as they want for no rational reason.

      BTW, for those who believe that term limits will magically make for good or even better government do watch the adventures of the Metro Council in Davidson County. That should make you quickly drop your enthusiasm for what is a fashionable, but very bad idea.

  • Avatar
    Donna Locke says:

    Be sure to disregard the immigration ideas of the amnesty-promoting, more-foreign-guest-workers Americans for Prosperity, Rep. DeBerry. Orgs like that one have greatly harmed black Americans. This was documented by the U.S. government from the replacements in the agricultural fields decades ago to many other occupations since.

    The Kochs and their Americans for Prosperity are not our friends. They are all about the selfish interests of a few profiteers.

    • Avatar
      Donna Locke says:

      We need to require that ALL employers E-Verify their hires, and we need mandatory verification of all current employees’ authorization to work in this country, so that we have a legal workforce. E-Verify applies to new hires only.

      Employers are sufficiently protected under E-Verify in the event of a mistake. But without tough penalties on employers, including loss of business license on second offense, we won’t get a legal workforce.

      We need a state E-Verify law to cover all employers, public and private. This should be passed at the federal level as well, but we could get a state law now–could have already had one–IF we didn’t have bad Republican legislators who are in the pocket of the business lobby.

      • Avatar
        MARLE says:

        You have been right on this all along. So why when Marsha and Green were in the TN legislature wasn’t this done? And what legislation have they shepherded through the Congress to make E-verify enforced strongly?

        This sort of thing apparently counts for nothing in awarding high Heritage ACU etc scores. When rating organizations care nothing about issues of immigration, taxation, trade then what is the value of a high rating that measures nothing about which conservatives should care.

        • Avatar
          Donna Locke says:

          Here are Marsha Blackburn’s immigration actions in Congress, House and Senate:

          https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/1128/gradescoresheet/#tabset-3

          Here are Mark Green’s:

          https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/12190/gradescoresheet/#tabset-3

          Marsha has cosponsored mandatory E-Verify legislation and other enforcement bills several times in Congress. In the legislature she was one of the leaders against driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. She was elected to Congress in that period, went to Congress in 2003. On the other hand, she has voted several times to keep or increase foreign guest-worker numbers. She has aligned with the business lobby on that latter issue.

          There has not been the outspokenness on the E-Verify bills that there should have been and should be now. Sometimes the lawmakers sponsor bills but don’t work to pass them. This curries favor on both sides, but some on my side look closely.

          As for those in our state legislature and in other parts of state government now, those who have been around a long time know at this point that I have never told them wrong.

          • Avatar
            MARLE says:

            Sponsoring bills does nothing as you well know, particularly when your leadership ability is such that nothing comes of them.

            My comment was specific to E-verify. When work opportunities dry up for those here illegally they stop coming. We have seen that in economic turn downs of one kind or another over the decades.

            E-verify backed up with stiff penalties (the type the IRS knows how to levy) is what is necessary. And I see no evidence that Marsha or Green have displayed the leadership necessary to do much of anything with regard to this.

          • Avatar
            Donna Locke says:

            The jobs are one draw to illegal aliens. The welfare and other freebies (there’s a network) and the jackpot-baby ticket are another. All of the magnets must be taken away.

          • Avatar
            MARLE says:

            Birth citizenship, free 16 yrs of public education……lots of magnets. But those 2 have been tested in the Supreme Court. E-verify still Could have teeth and not be struck down.

            It seems you are pleased with the leadership on illegal immigration from both of the aforementioned elected officials. I recall Marsha ran for Senate calling for deportation of those who had a Criminal record (by which she was Not including illegal entry) while leaving the other 95% free “to move about the cabin”.

            I hope rating organizations are not just tallying up the failed legislation initiatives of elected officials but rather focusing on their leadership to push legislation into law….with teeth.

          • Avatar
            Donna Locke says:

            I can’t imagine where you get some of your notions, Marle. You asked about Blackburn and Green. There it is. Draw your own conclusions. The magnets to illegal migration remain intact.

        • Avatar
          Donna Locke says:

          My response to Marle got held up because of links in it, but it will eventually appear, I guess.

          • Avatar
            Donna Locke says:

            Erik, is my post with the links gone? If so, I may try again tomorrow. The post included links to Blackburn’s and Green’s immigration actions in Congress.

          • Avatar
            Erik Schelzig says:

            Link-heavy comments tend to get snagged by the system. I found it and released it.

        • Avatar
          Stuart I. Anderson says:

          To say that the ratings contain “. . .noting about issues of immigration, taxation, trade. . .” is absurd when most of the legislation key voted concerns one of those issues. On the other hand, I have to admit that the Tall Grass Party, whose symbol should be a clump of tall grass rather than an elephant, scrupulously avoids “tough votes” on “immigration” like enforcement of e-verify and other measures to discourage hiring of illegals specifically because it makes Republican legislators have to choose between the Party’s base and the Party’s donors in the Chamber of Commerce. Therefore, the ratings that I love so much admittedly don’t have much to say about an officeholder’s stand on immigration because the Democrats LOVE immigration of every kind in order to dilute legacy American culture and Republican voters that they hate and Republicans shy away from the issue completely so there are no votes in Congress or the General Assembly to score.

          • Avatar
            Stuart I. Anderson says:

            On further reflection I misstated the content of the ratings. The ratings are mostly based on issues of taxation and spending. Immigration and trade have little bearing because there is little legislation that concerns those issues. That does not lesson the value of the ratings, however, it just doesn’t make them very good indicators of how a legislator stands on immigration or trade.

          • Avatar
            MARLE says:

            When a Congressman gives constant full-throated support to trade and immigration policies adopted by executive action then these should be included in any rating. Votes can be manipulated by the Whip or Maj leader.

          • Avatar
            James White says:

            Ratings should be based on the constitution and not just for taxes. That is why Marsha’s real rating is only about 65% of the time she votes For the constitution. Pitiful .

      • Avatar
        James White says:
        • Avatar
          Donna Locke says:

          The people in the orgs who are encouraging and enabling reasonably suspected illegal aliens to remain in this country are themselves breaking the law and should be in jail. We had a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this recently, and, surprise, surprise, your liberal news media did not tell you much or anything about it.

          Enforce the laws.

  • Avatar
    James White says:

    I can not believe that people are calling for Term Limits

    Here are some reasons that this is a bad proposal.

    First off, the Founding Fathers discussed and debated Term Limits when they were drafting the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist, No. 72, “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection.”

    Next, is the issue of a lame-duck congressman, what incentive would they have to follow the Constitution? Would they be easier prey for lobbyists? Do you remember the lame-duck special session of Congress back in 1994, when a lot of congressmen lost their seats, but they came back in November after the election and voted and passed GATT? Most Americans were against this treaty, and the elections had been held already, and the congressmen who were voted out did not have to worry about facing re-election.

    Some say it is too hard to vote out ‘bad’ congressmen. Well remember House Speaker Tom Foley? Yep, voted OUT, beat by a political Novice. House Ways and Means committee chairman, Dan Rostenkowski, voted Out. The voters Term-Limited them!

    Oh and remember the election of 1992, we got 124 NEW freshmen members of Congress… remember the 1994 election, 87 new Representatives and 11 New senators. And the voters did this without term-limits.

    I would even say that term-limits would make some of us lazy. Right now we have a congressman’s voting record to view to see if we want to re-elect them or not. But if there were term-limits, then some might say, well it doesn’t really matter if my congressman is doing bad, he will be term-limited next time anyway. People want a quick fix.

    Another point with term-limits, congressmen will be ‘new’ at the game and will have to rely on their staff more and more. These congressmen’s staff will be in high demand and then staff personel will start to wield their power, because the congressmen will need them to ‘get things done’. And these office staff are not voted into office by the voters, so we will have no voice in this.

    And if you think there will not be career politicians, you might want to think again. After the politicians make their rounds from the house and perhaps the senate, where will they go? They will look to the executive branch, as there are plenty of federal jobs in the various executive departments. So once the congressman is term limited, he may want to help the current president with a bill or two so that the congressman can get that cushy job.

    And speaking of Term-Limits and the President…. How is that working out for you? We have Term-Limits for Presidents, but has that helped us have better Presidents?

    I think the internet will help us become better voters because we will have the advantage of doing our own research, analysis, and comparison. We will have more dialog with our elected officials and with each other. We can have our own virtual town-hall meetings, our own soap-box and we can help each other stay informed on our current congressman and together hold his feet to the fire.

    But in the long run, I don’t think the issue is Term-Limits, it is a Constitutional Convention. Term-Limits is just a sound-byte that the establishment is trying to hook unthinking voters into wanting to change the Constitution. They have been trying for years to force the states to call a Constitutional Convention. Once is was for Equal Rights, then it was for a Balance Budget, next even a Line-Item veto, now, it is the Term-Limit issue. The laymen here in the trenches are unhappy with the government and term-limits seem to be a ‘easy’ way to fix the problem. Make no mistake about it, they want to rewrite our constitution, and make you think we need just a little change here or there. And remember, those that voted for the current elected officials would vote you a new constitution. Will they vote a better one in than the one we have now? I don’t think so. Don’t Do IT!

  • Pingback: Wednesday, September 16

  • Avatar
    Misty Pardner says:

    Well, that ends any chance of him getting re-elected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *