Congressman Andy Ogles is going After Belmount.

by Rod Williams, July 18, 2025- In case you missed it, Congressman Andy Ogles is going after Belmont University. The reason for his ire is that Belmont maintains an office of Hope, Unity, and Belonging, which replaced their office of DEI. Ogles claims it is the same thing under a different name.

I am all in favor of the effort to curtail the excesses of DEI. DEI often discriminates against some people in order to benefit others. Asians, Jews, and Caucasians are often denied opportunities in order to promote certain minority groups. Also, some DEI programs have been used to disadvantage people with conservative or traditional values and views and used to promote transgenderism, speech codes, cancel culture, a woke ideology, and viewpoint conformity.  In general, I support a rollback of DEI. I especially support ending government encouragement and promotion of DEI policies. 

There is a difference, however, in reverse discrimination, viewpoint discrimination, the promotion of wokeism, and affirmative actions to attract minorities and promote a diverse student body. I tend to think that a university with a diverse student body is a positive thing. 

I have no way of knowing if Belmont is engaging in offensive DEI practices or if they are simply promoting hope, unity, and belonging for a diverse student body.  My perception is that the university tends to lean conservative.  I don't see Belmont as a woke institution or a bastion of liberalism. Several prominent Republicans have been funders of the university, such as businessman Jack Massey. Alberto Gonzales, former United States Attorney General under George W. Bush, heads the School of Law. The music business school at Belmont is named after Mike Curb who served as Ronald Reagan's lieutenant governor of California, and Curb has been a big financial contributor to the university. You never hear of Belmont students shouting down conservative guest speakers or engaging in antisemitic protests. I would believe Ogles' accusation much more if it were leveled at TSU or Vanderbilt or even UT, than I am it being aimed at Belmont. 

The attack on Belmont seems to fit a pattern of forcing institutions to bend to Trump's will, and Andy Ogles, being a leading Trump sycophant, listens closely to Trump's words, discerns Trump's desires, and does Trump's bidding before he is even asked. According to Ogles' statement on the matter, there also seems to be an element of Christian nationalism at play in Ogles' attack on Belmont.

Here is the Andy Ogles press release on the matter:

Congressman Andy Ogles (TN-05) sent a formal letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon demanding an immediate compliance review of Belmont University for its alleged rebranding of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in defiance of federal law and Executive Order 14173, “Combating Radical Ideologies in Higher Education.”

Despite public claims of compliance with President Trump’s directive to eliminate DEI programs, Belmont appears to have rebranded its DEI bureaucracy under a new label: “HUB”—Hope, Unity, and Belonging. Leaked video footage and whistleblower reports suggest this rebranding is an intentional effort to deceive federal authorities and continue promoting discriminatory programming under a new name.

“Belmont University claims to be a Christian institution grounded in Biblical principles—but its administration is injecting anti-gospel DEI ideology into its curriculum,” said Congressman Ogles. “President Trump has rightly demanded that colleges and universities dismantle the DEI cartel or lose federal funding. Belmont officials, however, have been caught on camera bragging about their ‘clever’ scheme to rebrand DEI and continue pushing the same radical agenda under a new name.

“I am demanding a full investigation into Belmont—and, if necessary, a cut to their federal funding. The preservation of faithful Christian education in Middle Tennessee is non-negotiable.”

Top Stories

Republicans can’t do it alone.

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook Post, July 18, 2025- The successful attempt to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for two years should teach us a lesson that most of you don’t want to hear.  Republicans can’t do it alone.  They must include Democrats to find real spending cuts. 

Republicans would like to believe that their cuts to Medicaid and kicking NPR and PBS off the federal government teat shows they can make hard choices, but it shows the opposite.  It shows that just Republicans alone can barely make even the easy choices when it comes to spending cuts.  

The spending cuts to Medicaid are substantial, but still only a small fraction of what is needed to eliminate the debt threat. The hard choices are the ones that reduce the people’s reliance on the giant entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security.  That is going to take a bipartisan deal. 

 

If President Trump is the dealmaker he thinks he is, he should be licking his chops over the chance to make a deal with Democrats that would cut spending enough to eliminate this one existential threat to our nation. He wouldn't just be a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, but the Nobel Prize in Economics as well. 

He can’t run for re-election, so he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. It will not be popular.  It can’t be, or it won’t work.  That’s what makes it so hard.  We have allowed the spending to get so far out of control that reining it in is going to hurt, and if doesn’t hurt nearly everyone, it won’t eliminate the debt threat. 

That’s what makes it the biggest deal any president will ever make.  

I find it unlikely that this president has any interest in being that deal-maker.  No-one wants to be the one to make that deal, but it’s better that one does it willingly, rather than losing the game of musical chairs and having nowhere to run when the time runs out and circumstances force his hand.  I have discussed before what those circumstances will be: a failed bond sale that sends interest rates skyrocketing, a stock market crash, followed by massive unemployment and a recession that becomes a depression.  

Austerity is not fun, but it will be easier if it is planned, rather than imposed.  Those are our choices: planned or imposed austerity, for a period long enough to get our national debt down to around 50% of GDP.  Recovery will be gradual because federal spending is part of the economy, so when the spending cuts are imposed by the inability to borrow as much as necessary to keep up with the current level of spending, it will impact economic growth. The economy will grow slower, so it will take longer to grow ourselves out of the problem.

 

Never in our history has the United States needed the services of the nation’s best deal maker more than now.  If President Trump is the unsurpassed deal-maker he is advertised to be, and he doesn’t make this deal, he is not only missing the opportunity of a lifetime, and a potential Nobel Prize in Economics, he is denying his nation the life-saving care that only he has to offer.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

Rep. Andy Ogles Wants to Put Donald Trump on Mount Rushmore

by Rod Williams, July 16, 2025- You can't make this stuff up. This is not a Babylon Bee joke. Andy Ogles is the joke. He is such an embarrassment. His cultish worship of Trump is cringe-worthy. Ogles is a cult cheerleader. He is a Trump suck-up ass-kisser. In addition, Ogles has ethical problems and problems with the truth. 

There is probably no chance of a sane Republican mounting a successful primary challenge to Ogles. I wish there was but unfortunately, Ogles probably is representative of his constituents. 

A sane moderate Democrat could perhaps peel away enough disgusted Republican voters to beat Ogles, but I doubt that will happen. Sane, moderate Democrats seem to be an endangered species. I doubt a sane Democrat could motivate the base. Dems will probably nominate some woke progressive with no chance of winning. There is no middle anymore. I hope I am wrong, and I hope Dems nominate a sensible candidate, but I suspect they will nominate someone like Rep. Justin Jones or Council member Jenny Welsch. 

I don't live in District 5, but if I did, and the democrats nominate the type of candidate I suspect they will nominate, I would have to just sit out the election. We are probably stuck with Ogles. We'll see. 

Top Stories

Metro Council will Vote on a Resolution Recognizing July 16 as International Drag Day in Nashville and Davidson County.

The Pamphleteer, July 17, 2025- Tonight, Metro Council will vote on a resolution recognizing July 16 as International Drag Day in Nashville and Davidson County. “International Drag Day celebrates the resilience, creativity, and empowerment of drag artists while recognizing their significant impact on the LGBTQ+ movement,” reads the document. “Drag performance is an art form rooted in self-expression and performance and serves as a beacon of creativity and a symbol of community pride.” It continues by highlighting the bravery of drag artists who perform in the face of discrimination, and “shine despite state laws that attempt to limit their ability to perform and express themselves.”

Rod's Comment: I don't get all worked up in a lather of outrage over drag shows. I'm kind of indifferent to the whole thing. If some dude wants to dress up like Dolly Parton and lip sync, I don't care. If there was a Metro Council resolution condemning the moral degeneracy of drag shows and I was in the Council, I would vote against it. I approve of leaving gay clubs and drag shows alone. I also think we should have left strip clubs alone instead of sanitizing them some twenty years ago or so. I am kind of a live and let live kind of guy when it comes to that sort of thing. I am for minimal policing of other people's morals and would grant a large latitude to self-expression and sexual expression. Having said that however, if I were in the Council, I would vote against the International Drag Day recognition. I do not approve of this pandering. Being tolerant of degeneracy, doesn't mean you have to celebrate it.  

Top Stories

All 7 Republican Mayors in Williamson County Endorse Lee Reeves for Congress in D7

Top Stories

Mark Green Endorses Matt Van Epps in District 7 Race

 Fox 17 News: Mark Green endorses Matt Van Epps in Tennessee race

Top Stories

WORST IDEA EVER:

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook Post, July 14, 2025-

RESOLVED:  Borrowing $1.5 trillion to create a sovereign wealth fund, to save Social Security 75 years from now, is the single worst policy idea ever to cross the Potomac.  

THE PLAN: Two U.S. Senators, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Tim Kaine of Virginia propose to create a $1.5 trillion Sovereign Wealth Fund with borrowed funds and invest it for 75 years, after which it would pay back the loan with interest.  In the meantime, the Treasury would make up the shortfall that will occur in Social Security after the year 2032 or 2033 when the trust fund no longer has enough income and assets to fully fund the program. The Sovereign Wealth Fund would pay back its loan and that collective shortfall, plus interest. Then, it would be responsible for funding the shortfall in Social Security forever. Problem solved forever – starting 75 years from now.  The fund would invest in “stock, bonds and other investments.”

GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

If there were no other reason this is a terrible idea, this would be enough. The most significant difference (I’m tempted to say the only significant difference) between communist countries and ours is communist countries governments are the primary owners of their countries’ means of production.

In the United States, we leave the production of wealth up to private people and companies. The government regulates the companies and taxes that wealth to fund the government.  The taxation and regulation of companies and people ultimately leads to some corruption, especially now that industrial policy* is being increasingly employed by both political parties. (*Industrial policy: when government intentionally targets and/or supports specific industries or sectors to transform the structure of economic activity.)

If our government becomes one of the largest stockholders of our most productive and profitable industries, which it would, that will inspire a new level and form of industrial policy and corruption that is much closer to that of communist countries, and that is not conducive to optimum wealth production (or stock market returns, which the government would be depending on as the center-piece of this 75-year scheme.)

This reason alone, makes this the single worst serious policy proposal to grace the halls of Congress. But wait, there’s more.

INFLATION PLUS INTEREST

Normally, when one invests in the stock market, one must only beat inflation and taxes to achieve positive returns over time. That’s challenging enough, but when you borrow money to invest, you have to beat the combination of the inflation rate and the interest rate on the money you borrowed, which no financial planner would ever recommend except for a very sophisticated investor, and then only with a very small part of his or her overall portfolio because subtracting both interest and inflation from long-term stock market gains will leave you with very little, if any, net gain. 

Of course, the government, unlike other investors, would not have to worry about taxes on its gains, so the fund would have that advantage. Still beating both inflation and interest is a hard target, unless of course, you control interest rates, which some government officials are becoming more interested in doing.  If you can shield yourself from both taxes and interest, borrowing money to invest may in fact be a good idea...which brings me back to the first reason.  The government would not only have regulatory and tax hammers it can hold over the companies’ heads, it can manipulate taxes to benefits the companies in which it invests. The corruption potential is staggering. Corruption destroys capitalism and greatly weakens wealth creation. 

THE NUMBERS

According to the Social Security Administration, the annual shortfall after insolvency occurs in 2032 or 2033, which the Treasury would have to cover over the next 75 years, would amount to an average of about $384 billion a year, which means in addition to the original $1.5 trillion, the fund would owe Treasury about $27.5 trillion more dollars in 75 years, plus interest, which, at 3% a year, would be $65 trillion, bringing the total debt to $94 trillion. It’s very hard to project that far in advance, so these are rough estimates. 

The fund that starts with $1.5 trillion would have to pay its lender about $94 trillion to be out of debt before it could start funding the shortfall in Social Security –That’s a lot to ask of a $1.5 trillion investment.  

But, If it grows at an average annual rate of 7% over 75 years, it would be worth $172 trillion in the year 3000.  After it paid back the $94 trillion, it would have about $80 trillion left over, to help fund Social Security, which will cost about $10.4 trillion a year 75 years from now.  It wouldn’t have to pick up the full cost.  The payroll tax would still be in effect, but the two senators believe the Sovereign Wealth Fund will be able to pay 85% of the cost of Social Security with its growth and income after 75 years. 

These are the approximate set of assumptions Senators Cassidy and Kaine believe makes this a viable plan. I find these assumptions to be wildly speculative, leaving very little room for error or “unforeseen circumstances.”  I can’t imagine we’ll have any of those between now and the year 2100.

IT'S A GIMMICK TO AVOID SPENDING CUTS

The purpose of the plan is to avoid spending cuts.  We don’t need new ways to avoid spending cuts.  We need spending cuts, including in Social Security. 

We can no longer afford the generous Social Security retirement system FDR created for a completely different generation – under demographics (worker/retiree ratios) that have changed so drastically that comparable benefits are no longer affordable.  We need to pare them back – for everyone but the truly impoverished – about 10 percent of the beneficiaries.  

I don’t think it’s wise to wait and do it all at once in 2033 or 2032 when the trust fund can no longer pay the full bill.  It would be better to phase in the benefit cut between now and then, but we should allow everyone’s benefit to fall to whatever level is necessary – the same percentage across the board – rather than raising one more penny of taxes or borrow one more cent to fund Social Security.  No more taxes. No more borrowing. No more means testing. 

I know this won’t happen.  I’m probably the only person in the country who thinks this is the right approach, but you can only keep a 1940 Ford in top condition for so long if you are driving it harder and farther every day, before you are just throwing good money after bad.  It’s time most of us started relying less on our 1940 Social Security system and more on our own savings.  It’s not like we didn’t have plenty of warning that something like this was coming. I’ve been hearing people say since the 1990s that they didn’t expect to have Social Security when they retired.  They were telling themselves they need to save more, and they were right.

They will have Social Security, but they should not expect it to be as generous as it was for the WWII generation. That generation lived through the Great Depression and WWII, and they didn’t live as long back then because they didn’t have all the expensive health care we have now, funded by another government program that also needs to be cut back. 

The programs created for the greatest generation are not suited for we Baby Boomers or any of the generations after us.  Ours should be the transition generation, one that has received the full benefits for part of our retirement, but will receive smaller benefits for the last half.  Future generations should all receive smaller retirement benefits and depend more on their own savings, which means they should be spending less and saving more than we did, and we saved a lot.  Most of us can afford to do with less from the government.  We won’t like it, but we should expect it, and accept it. 

FINAL THOUGHTS

No Certified Financial Planner has or will ever recommend to a client, especially one that has nine times more debt than annual income, to borrow a ton of money and invest it in the market to solve the client’s solvency issues.  And if a CFP would make such a recommendation, no bank would ever loan the client the money!

Of course, the U.S. is not just any client, and the financial planners recommending this fix are not CFPs. They are two U.S. Senators, one a doctor, the other a lawyer.  In the words of President Trump, when Israel and Iran temporarily broke their cease fire, “they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”  

Fortunately, President Trump has not endorsed this plan, at least not yet. He did sign an executive order in February to develop a plan within 90 days to create a different sovereign wealth fund, by selling or monetizing public lands, redirecting trade/tariff revenues, and selling federal assets.  That is still in the planning stages and no action has been taken, or at least announced.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

An Eye On Spending After Metro Budget Increase

From The Pamphleteer, July 14, 2025- During Friday’s media roundtable, Fox17 investigative reporter Dennis Ferrier asked the mayor why his office spends taxpayer dollars on lobbyists instead of utilizing his staff. “This is not something new to the city of Nashville,” said O’Connell. He went on to explain that lobbyists engage with the Metro Council and the General Assembly, as well as create relationships within Congress and the White House.

As far as the pinch on local taxpayers, the mayor was asked whether Metro has seen any real effects from DOGE cuts—something he repeatedly mentioned during budget season as his office fended off pushback regarding this year’s spending and property tax increase. In reply, O’Connell mentioned the loss of Metro Public Health Department employees “related to cuts that seem to have originated from a DOGE department of government efficiency approach at the federal level.” Referring to one-time COVID-19 grants cut short in MPHD, the funds that supported those positions would have sunset regardless. (The Trump administration has since been blocked from withholding those funds.) 

Metro departments have spent one-time funding on initiatives now categorized as indispensable, creating fiscal cliffs that the mayor and council claim they attempted to help reconcile in the recently passed budget. For example, Metro schools got $64.5 million to continue programs that would have been cut as federal funding expired. It’s also worth noting that taxpayers have had to pick up the tab for multiple lawsuits, settlements, blunders, and refunds for unconstitutional policies that the city imposed. 

Top Stories

The Constitution Limits Trump’s Power to Push States Around

By Walter Olson. Cato Institute, July 13, 2025- Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has used presidential power, both lawfully and otherwise, to overawe many of the alternative power centers in American society, from universities to the legal profession to the media. He has been somewhat more cautious thus far about trying to push around state governments, which, under our Constitution, pose a unique and formidable check to federal power distinct from that supplied by the separation of powers between the three federal branches.

But a High Noon showdown may be coming. Earlier this month CNN reported that the Trump administration “is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California:

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. Sources said the administration is specifically considering a full termination of federal grant funding for the University of California and California State University systems.

“No taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement Friday afternoon, criticizing California for its energy, immigration and other policies. “No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the Administration have been made, and any discussion suggesting otherwise should be considered pure speculation.”

There have been preliminary skirmishes. Early on, Trump threatened to withhold response funds from California after the catastrophic Palisades and Altadena fires unless it enacted a voter ID law, but soon backed off, whether on advice of counsel or in response to public revulsion. Trump appointees cut off some federal funds to the state of Maine over its handling of trans athletes in schools, a dispute that settled following a federal judge’s ruling in favor of the state.

This spring, Trump ordered the Election Assistance Commission to withhold federal funds from states that did not adopt a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day as part of an executive order seeking to encroach on election powers constitutionally reserved to the states and Congress. A federal judge in California this month struck down that and several other portions of the order. (Another federal judge in April had found a challenge to defunding premature at that point.)

State justice systems have been targets of Trump’s wrath as well. Last month, he said he was directing the US Department of Justice to “take all necessary action to help secure the release of” former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters from jail in Colorado, and an investigation has followed. A jury convicted Peters on seven counts, four of them felonies, after she enabled illegal access to county voting machines in hopes of helping Trump’s cause; Trump’s constitutional pardon power cannot help her since she was convicted under state law. Local Colorado allies of Peters have urged Trump to hold back federal funding to the state to pressure Gov. Jared Polis to pardon her, though there have been no reports yet (so far as I know) of the administration taking any such tangible steps.

Funding threats aren’t the only kind of coercive pressure. On immigration policy, Trump administrators have suggested that state governors as well as big-city mayors could be charged and taken into custody for frustrating the goals of federal law, whether by “obstructing” its enforcement or by “harboring” illegal migrants. (States like California and Illinois have denied that they are doing either of those things.) On June 9, Trump suggested that border czar Tom Homan arrest California Gov. Gavin Newsom, though Homan has put the brakes on that idea for now.

But Trump’s favorite leverage, because it is typically the most powerful, remains unilateral holdbacks of federal funding. The attraction is that doing so can quickly cripple the operations of a target institution, and thus perhaps force it to the negotiating table before it can get a court ruling on whether the federal government’s demands are proper.

On this point, though, Trump runs smack into the Constitution. In neither the university case nor that of the states does that document permit the government to use such threats to coerce targets into surrendering certain essential constitutional rights. On the university side, this is the central issue in the case of Harvard v. HHS, in which my own Cato Institute joined an amicus brief this month along with the ACLU and six ideologically diverse legal advocacy organizations. And while states enjoy fewer rights than do private entities on topics like First Amendment law, the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution guarantees them distinctive protections against the trampling of their proper sovereign sphere. As I noted earlier this year,

[T]he Supreme Court’s Spending Clause jurisprudence provides serious limits on Washington’s power to make states dance to its tune by attaching conditions to funding. Congress must have provided clear notice of the strings in question; the condition must be related to the underlying purpose of the spending … the level of funding threat must not be serious enough to “coerce” the state; states and their agencies must not wind up “commandeered”; and so forth. Trump and his administration often act as if they had never heard of these constitutional constraints.

Writing in the Washington Post, Mitchell Berman of the University of Pennsylvania notes that justices across the spectrum have agreed on the wider point:

Conservatives have historically been at least as vigilant as liberals in guarding against the selective granting and withholding of government benefits as a tool to pressure right-holders into exercising their rights the government’s preferred way. Take the Affordable Care Act decision from more than a decade ago. The Supreme Court invalidated a portion of the act that conditioned all Medicaid funding on states’ agreement to partner with the feds to provide health care to a new beneficiary class. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rightly reasoned that it was unconstitutional for Congress “to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding” — even though, unquestionably, Medicaid funding is a privilege, not a right.

A quarter-century earlier, the court held that a state zoning authority could not leverage its control over land-use variances (also a privilege, not a right) to pressure a family into conveying a public easement across its private beach. To threaten to withhold permits because of how landowners exercise their property rights, Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned, was “an out-and-out plan of extortion.”

Colleague Ilya Somin agrees with Berman on the relevance of this history:

A standard response to criticisms of such policies that people have no right to these grants in the first place. Receiving federal grants and other government benefits, it is said, is a “privilege, not a right.” Thus, the federal government can impose whatever conditions it wants on recipients.

The courts have long taken the better view: the government cannot selectively extend and withdraw privileges to get people and organizations, in Somin’s words, “to give up their constitutional rights or submit to constraints that go beyond the constitutional authority of the federal government.”

Yesterday, as this post was ready to go to press, a federal court in Rhode Island issued a preliminary injunction in a suit filed by twenty states challenging a Transportation Department edict requiring them to pledge cooperation with federal immigration policy as a condition of receiving transportation grants. The court said the edict would probably be found in violation of the Spending Clause as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. 

If Trump tries to pull a Harvard-style comprehensive defunding of California or some other state, the courts will almost certainly stand in his way.

Top Stories

July 11th Update: Who is Running for Mark Green's Seat.

by Rod Williams, July 11, 2025- On July 8th, News Channel 5 published the following list of Republicans who have declared or could soon potentially declare they will run for the open U.S. House seat.

• Tennessee House District 69 Representative Jody Barrett (declared)
• Healthcare Executive Jeff Beierlein (undeclared)
• Clarksville Ward 3 City Councilman Jason Knight (declared) 
• Deputy Director, Americans for Prosperity Tennessee, Michael Lofti (undeclared)
• Tennessee House District 68 Representative Aron Maberry (undeclared)
• Former Tennessee House District 61 Representative Brandon Ogles (undeclared)
• Real Estate Businessman Stewart Parks (declared)
• Tennessee House District 74 Representative Jay Reedy (declared)
• Tennessee House District 65 Representative Lee Reeves (undeclared)
• Social Media Influencer Robby Starbuck (undeclared)
• Former Tennessee General Services Administrator Matt Van Epps (declared)
• John Wilt (undeclared)

Note that the only two name that are additions to the names I have previously listed are Lee Reeves and John Wilt. I had posted a stand-alone post about Lee Reeves candidacy. 

What is most notable is that important names of people who I had previously listed are not on the Channel 5 list. Alice Rolli is not on the list. John Rich is not on the list and several others. I am going to assume they are not running. 

by Rod Williams, July 3, 2025 update -(Draft of a Work in Progress) Some names have been added to this list but the big news is that Robby Starbuck is jumping in the race. More to come. Stay tuned.

by Rod Williams, June 24, 2025 -With Congressman Mark Green's announcement that he will be resigning his seat in Congress as soon as the Great Big Beautiful Bill is passed, a bunch of people have indicated, or announced, or let speculation grow that they may be seeking the vacant seat. Since it is very doubtful that a Democrat can win the seat, whoever wins the Republican primary for the nomination will most likely become the next Seventh District Congressman. Here is a list of potential candidates:

Robby Starbuck

Robby Starbuck attempted to run for the 5th Congressional district in 2022 but was deigned ballot access to run as a Republican because he failed to meet the party's definition of a bonafide Republican. He had not been in the state long enough to vote in the required number of Republican primaries. That denial of the right to run as a Republican led to legal challenges and appeals but in the end the Party prevailed. 

Since then, Starbuck has stayed active and been in the public eye challenging corporate policies on diversity, equity and inclusion and donations to pride events. He had several impressive victories taking on companies such as Lowe’s, Jack Daniel’s, Indian Motorcycle and Polaris. Starbuck has received national attention, having appeared on Fox News and having spoken at CPAC and having been covered by the national mainstream press. 

I do not know if Starbuck lives in the 7th Congressional District or not. When he attempted to run for the 5th Congressional District, he lived in the 5th. A candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives does not have to live in the specific congressional district they are seeking to represent. 

If Starbuck does run, I suspect he would be a leading contender. To learn more about Starbuck's background see the Wikipedia entry at this link. To see previous Disgruntled Republican blog post regarding Robby Starbuck follow this link.

Matt Van Epps

Matt Van Epps, Tennessee Department of General Services Commissioner has resigned his post as Commissioner and announced his candidacy two weeks ago. Van Epps graduated from West Point and served multiple combat deployments as a helicopter pilot with the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment based in Clarksville and continues to serve in the Tennessee Army National Guard. A Nashville resident, he was previously senior vice president of operations at Main Street Health, a rural healthcare company. (link) (link)

Alice Rolli

Alice Rolli, former mayoral candidate, told Axios she's thinking about running.

Jon Thorp of Springfield, a former officer in the U.S. Army who served several tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, is labeling himself as a political outsider under the "Liberty Reset" movement. He is calling for "fiscal sanity," congressional and bureaucratic term limits and full audits of government agencies. Thorp acknowledges he hasn't voted in 24 years because he didn't like candidates from either major political party.  

Maj. Jason Knight of Clarksville is veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. He is a Montgomery County commissioner and former Clarksville City Council member. He describes himself as "staunch constitutionalist and a proven conservative" who would support increased border security and efforts to deport "criminals." (link) 

Michael Lotfi, Deputy State Director of Americans for Prosperity, has said he is considering entering the race. Lotfi has ties to disgraced former House Speaker Glen Casada who six years ago put him on the state payroll in a move that generated controversy.  

Republican state Sen. Bill Powers of Clarksville out

Republican state Rep. Jody Barrett of Dickson (link)

Former Republican state Rep. Brandon Ogles of Brentwood, who is a cousin of Fifth Congressional District Congressman Andy Ogles.

House Speaker Cameron Sexton

State Rep. Gino Bulso

Chris Burger, a Tennessee political operative

John Rich

John Rich, County music star and half of the Big & Rich duo, and owner of the Redneck Riveria honkytonk on lower Broadway and a Trump enthusiast is being mentioned. I have no idea how seriously to take this; however, we know that Trump likes celebrities, and Rich would fit the mold of the type of people Trump has previously endorsed for office and a Trump endorsement would go a long way in securing the nomination. However, often Trump's celebrity picks help a nominee win the Republican nomination to go on to lose a relatively safe seat to a Democrat. 

Jeff Beierlein

Eric Deems

Rep. Aaron Mayberry

Mark Moore is out

Robby Moore, mayor of Lobelville in Perry County

Steward Parks, a real estate developer and Jan. 6th prisoner.

Republican State Rep. Jay Reedy

On the Democrat side, former Nashville mayors Megan Barry and John Cooper are also being floated as potential contenders. State Rep. Vincent Dixie, state Rep. John Ray Clemmons, former Tennessee State University President Glenda Glover and Darden Copeland, founder of Nashville-based land use consulting, State Rep. Bo Mitchell, and state Sen. Jeff Yarbro are potential candidates.

This is a draft of a work in progress. Updates will occur as I learn more. Stay tuned. 

If by chance any candidate is reading this blog, please put me on your press distribution list. If you have issued a statement regarding your candidacy, please send it to be at Rodwilliams47@yahoo.com.

Top Stories

Tennessee Democrats have a chance in a looming special District 7 congressional election

by Tyler Brasher, Tennessee Lookout, July 10, 2025-If you haven’t heard, Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Green announced his intent to resign from Congress on July 20 and there will be a special election to replace him in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, a district which spans from deep blue Davidson County in the east to deep red Decatur County in the west. Under Tennessee law, an election to fill a congressional vacancy must take place by early November — a tight turnaround. 

Democrats in Davidson County, in District 7, in Tennessee, and across the rest of the country have a

unique opportunity to flip this seat. The Republican margin in Congress is already razor thin: Republicans can lose just three votes on any given legislation. A few strategic seat flips could place Democrats within striking distance of retaking the majority in the House. 

Now, if you’re a good self-defeating Democrat, you may be thinking to yourself, “Self, didn’t former Nashville Mayor Megan Barry lose this race just eight months ago by 21.5 points?” Well, yes. She did. Flipping the district will take some work, but there are a few factors that narrow the gap. 

• The two Democrats competing in special congressional elections since November have vastly outperformed the expectations for their districts. In April, Democratic candidate Gay Valimont in Florida’s 1st Congressional District moved her district 17 points from November in the special election to replace Rep. Matt Gaetz. Similarly, Joshua Weil improved the margin in Florida’s 6th Congressional District by 19 points, also in April. That sounds like an average of 18 points to me, and I do basic math every single day for a living. 

• The gap in Tennessee’s District 7 of 21.5 points is not insurmountable. Nashville Democratic Rep. Aftyn Behn announced Tuesday she will run for the congressional seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. Mark Green. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout) Nashville Democratic Rep. Aftyn Behn announced Tuesday she will run for the congressional seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. Mark Green. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout) This special election has national implications. There are three other vacancies in Congress — Texas’s 18th Congressional District, Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, and Virginia’s 11th Congressional District are vacant due to deaths — right now which will require special elections: All three are in safe Democratic districts which are not likely to swing toward Republicans this cycle. In that case, all eyes will be on Tennessee as the premiere special election in the country. For once, a Tennessee Democratic candidate will have significant resources from outside the state. Assuming the other seats are retained by Democrats, once Green’s seat flips, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, will have a majority of just three members (he could lose just one vote on any given bill). Get your popcorn ready for a knockdown, drag-out fight for this seat. 

• President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans just handed the American public a hot mess with their One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBA”). The bill is certainly big, in terms of the tax cuts that the wealthy will reap and in terms of the harm that will be done to the poorest Americans, but it is anything but beautiful. The bill will cost millions of Americans their health coverage, shutter rural hospitals and the federal deficit will explode. (I’m beginning to think maybe it was never about fiscal responsibility?) This is not to mention the clean energy cuts and expansion of unaccountable Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation measures. Republicans may not realize just yet, but the bill harms Americans. Democrats are fired up and ready to go shout this from the rooftops. 

The Tennessee race is winnable for Democrats, with the right candidate. So, what does that candidate look like? I’d say they’re looking for someone who is: 

• Pragmatic and can rise above petty politics to do the right thing at all costs; 
• Deeply caring about their community, their district, our country, and humanity at large; 
• Capable of crafting and delivering a message built on kitchen table, economic issues like better public schools, cheaper health coverage, lower prices and eliminating Trump tariffs; 
• Unafraid to stand up against the Trump political movement and stand up for those among us who are marginalized and forgotten; 
• Experienced in public service and knows the ins and outs of getting things done; 
• Exciting to the base, who can deliver a win with an effective campaign that is built on the fundamentals.

Democrats have a number of options to choose from that might fit the bill. Within days of Green announcing his resignation, two Democratic state representatives announced their candidacy for the seat: Rep. Bo Mitchell and Rep. Aftyn Behn, both of Nashville. A few other names are being tossed around as well, including Nashville Rep. Vincent Dixie and former Nashville Mayor John Cooper. Better buckle up, as Democrats are in for an exciting primary. At the end of the day, no matter who you support this special election season, it’s important to engage in the process. Politics is about people after all. Democracy, if we work for it, gives people, like you, a voice.

Top Stories

Rep. Vincent Dixie to Run in Dem Primary for D-7

  

Rep. Vincent Dixie

Rep. Vincent Dixie, a Nashville Democrat, tells the Lookout he will formally announce his campaign for the open seat in Congressional District 7 on Tuesday. He will be the third Democrat, all of whom are state lawmakers, to enter the race. (link)

Top Stories