Washington, D.C.

Well, I'm back. It was a long drive up there, and a long drive back but I always enjoy the trip. I promised I would report on what I found in the nation's capital and here it is: it's just like any other place...except with a tourist filling. Going places like DC, where there are so many historical monuments, markers, and buildings can be troubling for someone like me. You see, I have this problem where I think people should be at least minimally informed about their government, and when they aren't, it's hard for me to understand. And when your uninformed AND you're standing at the center of the nation's government, talking loudly enough for me to hear your misinformation, I have a problem with that.

The prime example from this trip was a nice family from a nice Southern state standing in front of the White House on Tuesday night. (The gates were closed when we got there, but a lot of people waited...this particular family did not) You hate to think "country goes to Washington", but that's what comes to mind. They were friendly and talkative, but in the course of conversation with the DC officer protecting the gate, the father was talking about how they had visited the House of Representatives earlier. He then proceeded to tell the DC officer that the House was voting on "war with Pakistan." He then tossed in a couple of procedural mistakes that apply to the Senate and not the House, and went about his merry way. Now. I have a problem. If the House of Representatives was voting on "war with Pakistan", do you think the first person we'd all hear it from would be a middle aged father from Arkansas? I doubt it. But that's the kind of half-truth/misunderstanding that paying attention would correct. The House may have taken war funding under consideration, but it would have been for Afghanistan. The procedures he was talking about were legislative procedures, but they happen in the Senate. Simple mistakes, but those who don't know any better may go out into the world thinking that this congress is starting a war with Pakistan because nobody pays attention anymore.

I guess I just expected too much. The trip to DC is always a nice one. I mean, let's be honest, that's like a big playground for me. But there's just always something. The first time it was the guard at the Supreme Court who couldn't name two justices, and now this man. I thought having an informed citizenry might start in DC; I mean, you're at the capital. How can information happening right in front of you get screwed up? But I guess I'm just a dreamer. As self-righteous as this story has been, it all had a happy ending: I got to see the President's motorcade; black suburbans, limos, police cars, flashing lights, sirens, motorcycles and all. And you can't tell me that doesn't make everything better.

Election Night

So yesterday was election day. I voted, came home and rested, and then took off for Atlanta to watch the returns come in with some of my favorite candidates. I stayed at Manuel's with Carol Porter and RiRa's with Michael Mills for the most part, but I stopped by 12 Atlantic Station for a minute, where Roy Barnes was, but it was late and there weren't very many people left. Setting my itinerary aside, let's get into it:

Governor's Race: Roy Barnes wins and wins BIG. At last count he had about 66% of the vote, blowing the need for a runoff out of the water. I think people need to realize how impressive that really is; in a primary with 7 candidates, 2 out of every 3 voters in Georgia voted for Roy. Thurbert Baker was second, Poythress 3rd and Porter 4th. I think both Poythress and Porter deserved better than they received. I liked them much better than Thurbert Baker, but not every voter asks me. On the Republican side (not to pat myself on the back), I called that one. Karen Handel and Nathan Deal will go into a 3 week runoff to get the nomination. I said that all those attacks and all those debates only served to help Ms. Handel, and she came away with 1st place by about 11%, or ~86,000 votes. I will concede this, Deal's saving grace may be the fact that the candidates who didn't make the runoff are NOT going to endorse Karen Handel. They'll endorse him; so we'll see.

Lieutenant Governor: Carol Porter garnered about 70% of the vote in her thrashing of Tricia McCracken. And I still would like for the 30% who voted for Ms. McCracken to have to answer why. I think we'd all like to know. I think we all already know how I personally feel about Ms. Carol (see earlier post if you don't). She is the most impressive and most dynamic candidate in any race, in either party. She is the cream of this year's proverbial crop. I spent about two hours or so at Manuel's Tavern with her and her boys; and don't let them fool you. They stand back and great folks, shaking hands and engaging in conversation, playing it somewhat cool. But they are just as invested in their Mom's campaign as anyone else. They've put in the man hours, the effort, and the sweat, and they deserve to be recognized for that help. I'm so ready to see Carol on stage with Casey Cagle, if he's man enough. She'll rip him apart, and the only weapon she'll have to use: the truth.

Attorney General: What can I say? I said when the sketchy ad came out that it would be a knockout blow for someone. I just so happened to be on the wrong side of that one. Ken Hodges took the race by a WIDE margin. (About 66% of the vote). I think this has already been said by many others, but this may be a statement about purely negative campaigning: people don't care for it.

Secretary of State: This was the one I was most disappointed in. Don't misunderstand me, I wasn't disappointed in my vote or my candidate, just in the way things came out. I vehemently backed Michael Mills and I still do. I still believe he was the best candidate for that job. As I sat at RiRa's Irish Pub, I (and the others at the table) were flabbergasted as the returns came in. Michael ended up finishing 4th. The runoff will be between Gail Buckner and Georganna Sinkfield. And to be quite honest, I'm completely lost as to who to support. There's a part of me that doesn't even want to endorse in the runoff. I'll re-endorse Michael. He may not be able to get any more votes, but my conscience will be clear.

U.S. Senate: It was a Michael Thurmond kind of night. And I don't understand why. RJ Hadley put in so much more effort, and took the time to travel around this state, shaking hands and getting his name out there. I guess people were just more familiar with Mike, because the quality of his campaign certainly didn't get him the 84% that he ended up receiving. I guess RJ hadn't had enough time or "kissed the ring" on the hand of Georgia politics, as a friend of mine put it. Here's to hoping he's a little more visible against Johnny Isakson. It wouldn't take much.

State School Superintendent: Joe Martin pulled it out, no runoff needed. He ended up taking about 55% of the vote. Beth Farokhi was second, and Brian Westlake third. I had endorsed Mr. Martin, and was proud to see that he was in front all night long as the results were coming in. He'll move on to November to face John Barge, who took 52% of the Republican vote.

Commissioner of Agriculture: The only race was on the Republican side. And my hometown man, Gary Black won a resounding victory, taking 76% of the overall vote, including 87% of the vote here in our own Jackson County. Congrats Gary.

Commissioner of Labor: This is the interesting one. It is STILL yet to be called on the Democratic Side (I'm typing this at 11:40 a.m. on Wednesday the 21st). As of right now, Darryl Hicks leads Terry Coleman by 479 votes (out of about 332,000). There are some areas still out: 25% of the vote hasn't been counted in Dougherty County, and 34% of the vote is still out in Lanier County. Terry Coleman pulled in extremely close when Laurens County came in, but the two counties still out are very close, so Coleman is running out places to pull from.

So I think it's safe to say that you win some and you lose some. I went from ecstatic, to disappointed, to surprised and everything in between at some point last night. I'm proud of the candidates that won that I endorsed. I'm proud of the candidates that I endorsed that didn't win. I'm proud candidates that I didn't endorse and didn't win too. This could get confusing. Let me just say, I appreciate all the candidates in all the races who put themselves out, ready to answer questions and dedicate their time and services to the people of this state. There were a lot of good people in a lot of these races, and picking who to vote for was difficult. But that's what these elections are all about. ON TO THE GENERAL!!!

2012?

I'm going to pose this question, though I'm aware it's pretty far in advance: who will you be voting for in 2012? Come on, give me an answer...right now! Hurry! You have to know already!

Do you see the insanity in that question as much as I do? I realize this entry isn't specifically about Georgia politics, but as Georgians, we will vote for the candidate we want our electors to cast their votes for in the presidential election, so it still matters. It doesn't take long after one presidential election for people/pundits/folks like me to begin talking about the next one; and to begin speculating as to the candidates who will enter the race. But I think we all need to bring ourselves down a notch or two, and realize that it's only 2010. Big things can happen. Big changes can be made. The political arena is one permeated with fluidity. Otherwise, it'd be easy to tell who was going to win and why. One huge success, one huge failure, one huge scandal, can always make one huge difference, and things can change overnight. My point being that if you've already decided the candidate you want to vote for (or explicitly won't vote for) in 2012, then I personally believe you've jumped the gun a little bit. It's alright to have a general idea, sure. I, for one, could not fathom a circumstance that would merit me voting for Sarah Palin, if she's the Republican nominee. My vote just won't swing that way. But it's completely different for me say that in 2012 I'm going to vote for Barack Obama, no matter what, circumstances notwithstanding. That's insane.

I voted for President Obama in 2008, proudly. It was the first presidential election I was able to cast a vote in, and I will forever remember that feeling. All the people that I voted for in 2008 did not win (Jim Martin), but I will never forget the elation of having found a candidate who I vehemently supported, and then seeing millions of other citizens join with me in casting our votes and pushing him to victory. Since then, his poll numbers have fluctuated a bit though, and that's a part of what motivated this writing. Just recently, I saw a poll of "disaffected" Obama voters:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39779.html

I'm not fully aware of what constitutes a "disaffected" Obama voter; it could be that you're disappointed with one thing, it could be that you're disappointed with fifty things, or it might be voters who wish they could go back and change their votes...I don't really know. But these voters are, I assume, willing to concede that they could vote for someone else in 2012 for the sake of this poll. And the only Republican even pulling marginal numbers with disaffected Obama voters is...drum roll please...Mitt Romney. As if we all couldn't have guessed that. He's the only one viewed more positively than negatively (by 1 percentage point). Granted, I am not totally well versed in all of Mr. Romney's policies, but if I had to name someone out of the Republican field who I think is at least coherent and viable, it would be him. And he would fall right in line with the Republican norm of runners up grabbing the bar. Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, etc., were all runners-up/candidates previously at some point in time. Mitt Romney would fit that bill. The problem is, he's not viewed very favorably by the hardcore Republican base, which sometimes has the power to swing the primaries. I wouldn't exactly call myself a disaffected Obama voter, I'm actually quite proud of many of his accomplishments. I just always find it curious that some voters are willing to entertain questions about the next presidential election as soon as they've walked out the doors of their local polling precinct having cast their vote in the current one. So the next time someone asks you about who you're going to vote for in 2012, tell them that it's completely up to you to decide that, and you will.....in 2012.

OH I ALMOST FORGOT...who are you going to vote for in 2012? ;-)

WSB-TV Governor's Debate

I watched, or at least attempted to watch, both Democrats and Republicans debate their way to the Governor's mansion this morning. I'm going to manage this post in a slightly different manner than I did with the last debate. Instead of going through the whole hour's worth of a debate, I'm only going to do an analysis of things that stood out or were a bit different from the Fox 5 one. And I'll start with the DEMOCRATS...

First off, I was glad to see all candidates on stage with one another instead of just the top four. I had not had the opportunity to hear from the bottom 3 (Randal Mangham, Carl Camon, and Bill Bolton) until just this morning. It didn't change my life, but everyone deserves the chance to be heard. Here were the things I wrote down as major differences, either between the candidates or between the two debates:

1. Tranportation and the Rail System---D. Porter/T. Baker vs. R. Barnes/D. Poythress

This tag team match-up pits the largest proponents of the system (Porter and Baker) against the skeptics of the plan (Barnes and Poythress). Don't get me wrong, all these candidates agree that there needs to be public transportation/commuter rail, it's just that Barnes and Poythress are skeptical of the plan that Porter and Baker buy into. Barnes says that outside of metro Atlanta we need a corridor system, instead of one regionally based, because a one-size-fits-all system won't work for the whole state.

2. Carl Camon throws down with Thurbert Baker---Less than 10 minutes into the debate, Thurbert Baker had said the word "BINGO" ~4 times. And then, out of no where, Carl Camon decided to step up and take him on. Camon says that the state shouldn't be "gambling our way out of debt." And even though Baker said that an attitude like that would have prevented the creation of a HOPE scholarship, the floodgates were already opened. Porter and Poythress both jumped in, saying that they also don't buy it as and "end all, be all" solution. And I agree.

3. In this debate, the question of illegal immigrants attending state colleges and universities was a little more specific---basically, a follow up question was asked as to whether or not we should be actively throwing out current students who are found to be illegal. All candidates agreed that from here on out, illegal immigrants should not be allowed to attend, but there was some disagreement of we should toss out those already attending. Porter was a yes, Barnes was a no, Poythress reiterated his position that it should not be the job of the Board of Regents to actively engage in this activity (so...no), and Baker said that immigration (once again) was a federal issue. Barnes said that students currently enrolled should be made to answer once they graduate, as should their parents, but we should not throw these students (like the girl at K.State) out because they didn't walk here on their own from Mexico; they were brought here. Poythress made the most emotional statement, saying we shouldn't be "beating up" on a schoolgirl because her parents brought her here from Mexico and she's trying to get an education.

4. Water issues bring out Carl Camon as a speaker---Carl Camon transformed into a very articulate speaker when the issue of water came up. He spoke about sitting down and talking with our neighboring states and having to use a "degree of diplomacy." Of the bottom 3 candidates, he certainly seemed to be most coherent.

5. Jim Galloway sets up Roy Barnes---Roy Barnes had blamed his 2002 loss on the issue of the flag, but Jim Galloway said that a couple thousand teachers might have something to say about that. Dubose Porter jumped at the opportunity...and who could blame him? He made the most pointed statement, saying that "teachers haven't had the support of the governor in 12 years." If you notice, that conveniently includes Mr. Barnes's last term. David Poythress jumped on the bandwagon too, saying that teachers are not looking to the past to help solve the problems of the future. This is going to be an issue that Governor Barnes will ALWAYS have to answer for. He will NEVER be able to apologize enough. He's really just going to need to come to terms with that fact.

6. Poythress's hard line on ethics---We didn't have the opportunity to hear this in the last debate, but David Poythress took a strong stand for ethics reform, saying that lawmakers should receive ZERO gifts from lobbyists. Not a maximum on the number. Zero. None. Period. At all. And he said that executive sessions SHOULD be recorded for the public knowledge. This was a definite positive for him.

7. Referring back to #2, Carl Camon throws down with with everyone in the room---including Jim Galloway. Camon accused Galloway of not publishing documents in the AJC exonerating him of wrongdoing with respect to the accusation about inappropriate comments/interactions with students while Camon was a teacher. There may be more to this story, but sadly for Mr. Camon, I don't think it's going to matter after Tuesday.

This debate wasn't Earth shattering for anyone in particular, but it did provide some differences from the Fox 5 debates and, as evidenced by the paragraphs above, did provide the opportunity to highlight some true policy differences. I think the voters win on the issue of transportation, because there are a couple different solutions to the problem, and someone has to come out on top. I think Porter wins again on education; his background is impeccable. I think Barnes won on immigration and on the budget, primarily because of his prior executive experience, and I think Poythress won on conservation/water issues and issues regarding ethics reform. Either way, the voters were provided another opportunity to make an informed decision. And that's a win for everybody.

REPUBLICANS

Here is my paragraph about the Republicans, and it's going to seem partisan and it's going to seem callous, but I was just so disgusted by what was going on, I couldn't do it.

So, I watched the Republican debate for a while, until I realized it was completely worthless to the citizens of Georgia. They'd be better off running for congress if they want to make this national. Number one, the tension was removed because Karen Handel wasn't present. She still won't be on stage with all the other candidates. Petty, isn't it? Number two, here was my general feeling about the debate: you could have taken those men on stage (except Eric Johnson, who seemed like he was actually giving some substantive effort), removed the color from the television and we could have been watching a debate in Georgia in the 1950s and 1960s. You would think we were still in the era of Jim Crow or the Red Scare. Obamacare, Sunday alcohol sales, hell I thought the next question might be about whether women should have jobs outside of the home. It was awful. Once you begin bowing out your chest, thumping your misplaced uber-patriotism, tossing out words and phrases like Marxism, loss of liberty, Lenin, nullification and imposition (which are the same words segregationists loved) and regime, you lose me. This debate looked like a little pandering get-together. If you've never seen the episode of Family Guy where Lois runs for office and doesn't get a response during the debate on the issues, you should watch it. She can't get a response when she gives a substantive answer, so she just begins to throw out one word answers: "liberty", "freedom", "terrorists", "America", etc. That's exactly what this looked like. Period. Eric Johnson, to his credit, seemed to be trying; he had specific answers and specific plans on specific issues. But combining that mainly hollow display with the fact that Handel was absent, really took the fun out of it. Or the seriousness, to be quite honest.

P.S.,

Ray McBerry is the standard barer for the disgruntled, old, white man type of crazy whose head is always on the verge of exploding because he's being forced to live in an era of Obama. It's the 21st century. I'm sorry you can't have your "country back." Take a college history course. Please.

Barnes's Hard Line on Immigration

Today the Atlanta Journal broke the story that Former Governor Roy Barnes gave the strongest endorsement to an Arizona-style immigration law here in Georgia. The comments were made during the taping of the Democratic debate for the governor's race which will air on Saturday morning at 10 a.m.:

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/barnes-says-he-supports-571952.html

Now, I have endorsed Mr. Barnes in his run for governor so I decided to make a whole post out of this. I understand the potential backlash facing the former governor from members of his own party, but if you'll notice, everyone at the debate (at least the major players) seemed to hedge their statements a bit; with most saying they would want to see the outcome of the federal lawsuit, they would want to make sure that there would be no profiling, or would like to see how it works in Arizona, etc. I think Roy was very careful in his remarks, at least as they've been reported and I'm going out on a limb to say that I'm with him on this position.

They way Mr. Barnes framed the "legislation" that is purely hypothetical in this state, was to say that he backed the use of state officers to enforce federal law. And he has a point; that is done routinely in many facets of law enforcement. He also emphasized that a great amount of training would need to be undertaken to ensure that racial profiling did not become a large problem, and he's correct in saying that that goal can be accomplished. He also said that he doesn't believe in making being in this country illegally a state crime, because the monetary burden would then fall on the states, and once again, he's nailed it. My only personal problem with an Arizona-style illegal immigration law is the burden that it could potentially put on the law enforcement officers themselves. I don't think that in the middle of an arrest or confrontation a law enforcement officer should have to worried about dotting his i's and crossing his t's by checking the immigration status of an offender. The burden that officers (and their families) carry is already too large for their pay grades. What I am okay with is a system like E-verify, which is specific to employers. If taken into custody and found to be in the country illegally, the offender would be in the process of violating federal law, so I say use a system like that to then turn them over to the federal government. Being here illegally IS a crime, just as much as violating any other law is. There should not be special treatment. If found to be in violation of immigration law, then offenders should be reprimanded in whatever way the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT deems best, whether it's a path to citizenship, a worker's visa, deportation for serious crimes, or some other option. I do not have a problem with any state like Georgia having a law allowing officers to (at some point in time during an arrest, booking, etc.) view the immigration status of any offender and then subsequently turning that offender over to the correct authorities. And that is what I believe Mr. Barnes is talking about.

What I do not want to happen is for officers of the law to go around flippantly checking the immigration status of anyone that they view as a potential illegal immigrant. That is profiling, and that is disgraceful. I also don't want the federal government to completely relinquish all responsibility. What I do believe is that states should have the right to enforce, or at the very least the right to help the federal government enforce, immigration laws. At the heart of the issue, immigration is a federal problem. But it's not very often that every day petty offenders are stopped by U.S. Marshals; and if the the Georgia State Patrol can assist in that fight, without violating discrimination policies and without having the federal government default on their co-requisite duties, then I say more power to them. What Roy Barnes DID NOT do is endorse Arizona's specific law, and if he were to do that, then I would NOT be beside him on that issue; he provided all the right caveats to address the faults of Arizona's law. What he DID do is demonstrate an intention to effectively address a real problem. And I commend his willingness to do so.

Crazy, Stupid, Conservative

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." ~Edmund Burke

Just when you think Karen Handel is fighting back against the low-down tactics on the Republican side trying to use abortion and gay marriage to make her seem not "Republican" enough, she goes and runs her mouth again...and all those independent votes she might have garnered before, are tossed out the window. This is the link for the video of her interview on the bus with 11Alive News, and she's being taken to task on the issues of gay marriage and gay adoption:

http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?aid=121054&storyid=146501#/Handel%3A+Gay+Parents+Not+in+the+Best+Interest+of+Child%22/114804829001

It would be much easier to deem this video "crazy" if we didn't all know how serious she is; and if we didn't all know that most of the Republican field is right there beside her on this issue. How dare she be so damn offensive in the 21st century? Here in this country, there are gay couples everywhere...happy, gay couples doing their best to live in peace under an already almost unbearable stigma (especially around election time), and they have to turn on the news and hear things like this trash. It's quite sad to me that she feels the need to tack so far right just to win a primary. I guess the real sad fact is that she knows by tacking that far right, there will actually be people who agree with her and cast their votes because of what she said. I thought, as recently as a couple days ago, that Karen Handel was attempting to set herself up as a viable alternative in the general election; someone women voters and independent voters could feel comfortable casting their votes for. Now I realize how wrong I was.

If Ms. Handel has nothing better to do than act as "Big Brother" (ooooh, the words conservatives supposedly fear most) in people's bedrooms, then I have no use for her. And neither does this state. I guess she's never read the study suggesting that children of lesbian couples are actually more successful in life? Though I guess she'd just choose not to believe it if she did. Because when you're a Republican, you apparently have the privilege of ignoring facts and data. Who knew? Or maybe she just never thought that kids in foster care, or kids with nobody at all, or kids getting the hell beaten out of them in unhappy homes everyday might just be better off with a loving gay or lesbian couple. I guess that doesn't matter to Karen. This is the kind of 1960s hatred that some people still buy into. And that's disgusting. I can only pray that the people of this state see this video and react in the same nauseating manner that I have. And as for Karen, she can take her hatred and shove it up her Handel.

Carol Porter for Georgia

After spending a pretty good chunk of time this morning reviewing my pictures from the Commerce Rally here in my hometown, the Carol Porter webisodes, the posts she's made over the last month and every single interview I could find, I feel pretty much compelled to dedicate a post to this dynamic woman running for Lieutenant Governor. She's one of a kind.

When I heard Ms. Carol speak here in Commerce (and I have addressed her as "Ms. Carol" since meeting her, so I will do the same in this post), it was the first time I'd had the privilege to hear from her. Some of the other candidates I had seen before and listened to give speeches, but I had not yet come across Ms. Carol's campaign. And I can say this with full force: out of all the candidates in attendance for any office, she impressed me the most. Head and shoulders above everyone else. And for a while, I couldn't quite figure out why...but I think I've got it now. It's because she has shown that you (as a candidate), can hone in on a single issue(ethics/abuse of power/corruption/whatevery you want to call it) and take it directly to the people. And that's what she's doing. The problem, in my opinion, with running for office a lot of times is that people are oblivious to two things in particular:

1. What the duties of that office are---and Ms. Carol is defining this in a way that is most helpful: by telling voters how the incumbent is abusing/executing activities that someone with respect for the office would be appalled by.

2. Why the incumbent needs replacing---and once again, Ms. Carol has described in great detail, and with an impressive grasp of policy and procedure, how Casey Cagle has used the office as his own personal, immature, unethical play-toy.

Carol Porter has taken of message of ethics,abuse of power, and corruption and really stripped it down to the bare essentials, so that voters can understand what is going on. Casey Cagle is using his office to benefit Casey Cagle, the things Casey Cagle likes, and the people who, in return, like Casey Cagle. And that's no Lieutenant Governor. That's a bully on a playground. "Ethics" is a term that gets tossed around every election year. But never before have I seen a candidate with so much ammunition on an incumbent, and such a keen ability to relate to the voters who need to know about it. As you can tell by the picture, I had the opportunity to stop and talk with Ms. Carol here at our rally. She's cordial, respectful, remarkably knowledgeable and has a quality lost on most politicians running for such a high office: attentiveness. In my mere minutes of talking to her, it was as if SHE was hanging on every word that I was saying, and that's normally the other way around with those seeking office. They expect you to listen to them, to hear their ideas, to be enthralled with them; but that was not the case. She may be seeking office, but she came across first as a person, a human being, with true compassion and emotion; as a mother surrounded by her sons helping with her campaign and as a citizen seeking office to help everyone who she could possibly affect. In a word: inspiring.

If you haven't given Ms. Carol Porter a second look by now, it would be an excellent time to. Those of us who follow this race carefully know that she does have a primary opponent who will be listed first on the ballot. But this opponent, one Ms. McCracken, hasn't shown up hardly anywhere, isn't publicly visible via signs, a website, or anything else, won't respond to questions about her positions on the issues and obviously isn't comfortable enough to immerse herself in the ideas and situations of the people and families of Georgia; and quite frankly, for her unwillingness to participate in this election in one of the most precarious times in history, Ms. McCracken doesn't deserve to get 1 vote in this primary. Tricia McCracken would vote for Carol Porter if she had the people's best interest at heart. Either way, here's to hoping that Carol Porter makes it to November; that she garners the opportunity to rip Mr. Cagle to shreds in a face-to-face debate sometime, and really take him to task on his abuse of the citizens of this state. Carol Cuts Corruption. Give her the chance and I have full confidence that she will. And yes Ms. Carol, you may be second on our ballots, but you are unequivocally FIRST in our hearts.

Ad Blitz!

Get ready for it, because it's coming. And it's going to be ferocious. We sit here now with ONE week left before primary election day and the Atlanta Journal had a really good article yesterday about the television advertising blitz that's going to occur:

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/tv-ads-to-heat-569267.html

So be prepared if you watch a lot of local television, you're going to have to sit through more and more ads. In the thirty minutes or so that I've been sitting here, using the computer and watching TV, I've already seen ads for Roy Barnes, Ralph Hudgens, Nathan Deal, Thurbert Baker, Brian Kemp, Karen Handel and Eric Johnson. I'm sure by the time I'm through typing John Oxendine and Sam Olens will make their presence known also. These 30 second TV spots are EXTREMELY CO$TLY, as demonstrated by the figures in the AJC's article. Politicians are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure that you know who they are when you walk into the voting booth. They want you to remember their names, a kind face and a short, simple message. I don't have a problem with that on principle. I think TV ads have been shown to be one of the most effective ways of advertising in political campaigns. My problem is with the fact that these ads are a crutch on which most politicians have chosen to lean.

30 seconds in no where near long enough for you to learn everything you need to know. There is always another side to the story. The Republicans aren't going to mention their plethora of ethics violation (accusations), and Roy Barnes won't emphasize his "King Roy" persona, just as Thurbert Baker won't tell you that he's lost a lot of respect in the African-American community because of his handling of the Genarlow Wilson case. Those are the counter-ads that you'll never see on TV...until the general election. You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a candidate pledge to run only as many ads as the number of meet-and-greets that he or she is willing to attend. 1 instance of personal interaction with a question and answer group gets you 1 piece of airtime on television; because I can sit here and yell at the Republican ads about eliminating the income tax and ripping a $9 Billion hole in the state budget and what a worthless, pandering idea that is that they're trying to wrap up in pretty political bows to sell to Tea Partiers...but try as hard as I might, they won't hear me.

If TV ads work to drum up interest in candidates or elections, then I say more power to them, they're doing their job. But if 30 seconds worth of airtime is all you take into the polling place with you, then be careful in the next week; your brain may not be able to process all the soundbites you're gonna hear.

Team Ox

Ahhh...don't you love it when this happens? Let's say, hypothetically, you love elections. And you notice that the opposing side is insistent upon nominating a candidate that has more skeletons in his/her closet than Eminem. What do you do? You jump for joy right? That's what I do. With today's news that Sarah Palin has endorsed Karen Handel, I have spent a little time thinking about the Republican candidates that could potentially be nominated for governor. The obvious frontrunner is Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine...and his team Ox...or team of Oxen...or whatever the proper term might be. We're talking about a man who every time I see him walking around on TV, I'm impressed. Because one would think that the burden of all those ethics violation investigations would wear a man out! But it doesn't seem to. And I've had numerous conversations with many people about how surprised I am that Karen Handel hasn't made these more well known, especially this late in the game.

Now, it's well known that I'm no general election Republican, nor am I a primary Republican, but Karen Handel's story, her demeanor, her grasp of state issues would make her at least a more viable candidate. Coming from nothing, never graduating from college, operating far out of what would be considered her general league for someone with her level of education. I may not agree with her stances in many areas, but I have to at least give her credit for rising from an unhappy home to get to where she is. I know, I know. She's had her own violation accusations thrown at her, but apparently to even be considered in the Republican gubernatorial primary this year, you must meet that standard. So all things considered, the accusations against her are mild. John Oxendine has cornered the market, whether it's using mentally disabled voters for signatures (when he was still a Democrat), misuse of state cars, taking insurance money from insurance companies while holding the office of Insurance Commissioner...not to mention that those companies were in Alabama.

I don't make it a point to agree with or quote Nathan Deal that often, but when it comes to the frontrunner in this year's Republican race, I think he summed it up best; it was about the $120,000 in campaign money from Insurance companies in Alabama that was given to John Oxendine and somehow slipped past him. I'm paraphrasing when I say this, but Mr. Deal said: Has anyone ever given you $120,000 and you didn't know about it? No, Mr. Deal. Nobody has. Ever. So I'd love to see this race go to a runoff. Oxendine vs. Handel. More money, more mudslinging, more weeks for Democrats to prepare. But I can say one thing: if we want Democrats to have a better shot at taking back the Governor's Mansion, let's all sign up to bat for Team Ox!

President Clinton Endorses...

Former President Clinton has endorsed Thurbert Baker in the Democratic Primary for Governor, one week ahead of election day. And after I spent the better part of yesterday's blog ripping into Mr. Baker about not having the answers that the state needs. I am a great admirer of President Clinton, but I stand by my statements about Mr. Baker. I read this first on the Georgia Politics Unfiltered blog:

http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2010/07/former-president-bill-clinton-endorses.html

I must say that when I put head to pillow last night, I didn't expect to wake up this morning and find out that President Clinton had chosen to insert himself into the Georgia Governor's race. Now, Unfiltered makes an excellent point: Thurbert Baker stuck by Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries when other lawmakers, other prominent African-American lawmakers, were jumping ship over to the Obama campaign. However, Bill Clinton doesn't just slap his name on anything. I mean, no matter how you feel about him personally, he is still Bill Clinton. He's "Bubba." And yes, he is the last Democrat to carry this state in a presidential election (though he only did it once in 1992, not 1996).

And that, to me, is where the story is found. In 1992, Bill Clinton carried Georgia in the general election by winning in counties in North Georgia, like Franklin, Lumpkin, Pickens and Chattooga counties; by winning in Middle Georgia, like Monroe, Jones, Newton and Morgan counties; and by winning in South Georgia, in places like Worth, Bleckley, Laurens, Brantley, Bacon and Jeff Davis counties. Those, of course we not all of the places he won, but I listed them to demonstrate his widespread appeal. There is another common denominator among the listed counties: Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and they flipped on him in 1996...when he lost this state. It takes someone like Bill Clinton, who is experienced in winning and in losing, to know how to relate to a broad base of people. The state of Georgia encompasses a wide variety of people, places, business, wants and needs; and I guess President Clinton thinks Thurbert Baker can best represent that. That's cool. I respectfully disagree. Only one man in this race knows what it's like to win counties, and then subsequently make a mistake and have those counties flip on you next time around: Roy Barnes. I appreciate President Clinton's loyalty to Mr. Baker, but I'm sticking by the man most akin to the former president...and that just so happens to be the former governor.

Fox 5 Democratic Governor's Debate

If you don't want to read about the whole debate itself, simply scroll to the bottom of the page; my simple analysis is in blue at the very end. If you're deeply interested, then I went step by step through the whole hour. Enjoy!

If you were looking for game changer, I'm not sure you got what you wanted...

But if you were looking for an awesome drinking game, you should have taken a shot every time Thurbert Baker said "BINGO"!

Roy Barnes was the most noticeable candidate, mainly because he wearing a white suit, while the others were in black. He started out with the first question about Georgia's budget situation. He suggested suspending some special interest tax breaks. Only to be followed up by General Poythress, calling for a full repeal of those tax breaks. Thurbert Baker sounded like a politician in his answer, thanking Fox 5, using phrases like "lots of things" and vague answers. But there was no question that the winner of the first question was Dubose Porter. He showed an unbelievably impressive grasp of the issues dealing with sales taxes and uncollected revenue.

Candidates were also asked individual questions:

*About the budget and jobs situation, Poythress pledges to TAKE NO PAYCHECK until the state's unemployment rate is below 7% (I think this is a very honorable pledge)

*About his BINGO program, Baker had to be repeatedly asked if it was regressive tax, affecting low income families who play the lottery the most...and still managed not to answer

*About education being a long term solution to a short term job problem, Dubose Porter listed many industries (wood chips, pellets, and passenger rails) that could help with the short term problems

*About Democrats having difficulty winning in Georgia, Barnes called the state maybe "purple" or even "pink", said it would be more about message than party, and reinforced his disdain for "nuts" on both sides of the ideological spectrum

The second question addressed to all candidates was about flexibility in education funding at the local level. General Poythress spelled out a pretty good (though a bit off topic) answer about having more flexibility in the classroom and to stop blaming teachers for everything. Thurbert Baker again offered a big picture answer, including his BINGO plan while talking about the state has failed to adequately fund school systems as they should. And he is right, but there was no fundamental answer in his "answer." Mr. Porter gave a very specific answer including things that could be done AND be funded, including a very good idea about partnering 11th/12th grade students with community colleges. Governor Barnes took a hard line against having 162 day school years, against having huge class sizes and insisted that the number one responsibility of the state is to FUND EDUCATION, though there must some flexibility at the local level.

Another round of individual questions:

*About trailing Governor Barnes in the black community and about the Genarlow Wilson case, Thurbert Baker said his job is to "follow the law" and did not admit to regretting anything. He went on to speak about taking on Governor Barnes and comparing it to "David versus Goliath." Again, he avoided the heart of the question.

*About commuter rail and how it would be done, Porter said "you've got to have it go where they want them to go." He offered up de-committing motor fuel taxes from specifically going to motor fuel and applying them to all transportation purposes (specifically the "fourth penny" of the tax)

*About losing (mainly due to teachers) in November of 2002, Governor Barnes doubled down on his assertion that his ideas were not wrong, but his failure to explain them or listen to those speaking out was

*About why he was running again this year, General Poythress emphasized the need for real "leadership"

A viewer question was directed to all the candidates about school funding being based on local sales taxes and the inability of a governor to guarantee no furloughs, etc. Baker again reiterated that states must continue to fund education as the highest priority, using his BINGO plan as an example. Again. Porter explained his Salary Protection Act, putting a firewall around education and teachers, while Barnes and Poythress stuck together, making sure viewers knew that while schools are funded locally, teachers are funded by the state, and full funding must be reinstated.

Individually:

*About experience in the state's government but no executive experience, Dubose Porter rattled off his impressive credentials, 28 years legislative experience, Zell Miller's floor leader and the such, but seemed to get a little too in the trenches for me... "the subcommittee on appropriations on the appropriations committee", etc.

*About what some have called "pie in the sky" promises, Governor Barnes continued to remind voters that he has held this office before, and been told a multitude of times that something couldn't be done...and then got it done anyway

*About why he was trailing even though he's held state office many years, Baker continued to talk above the level of the debate and without specificity

*About stringent water conservation, Poythress revealed himself as a true conservationist with the highest priority (in my view) out of any of the candidates about the state's water problem

The other viewer questions were about illegal immigration, which all four candidates addressed as a federal issue over which the state doesn't have much control, and about lifting Sunday alcohol sales bans, and again all four stuck together saying that the issue was local and should be voted on.

If you wanted to watch the most interesting part, it would have been the LIGHTENING ROUND. One question posed to every candidate, with 15 seconds to respond:

1. Should illegal immigrants be allowed to attend state colleges and universities?

Baker- Immigration is a federal problem (a.k.a., he AGAIN didn't answer the question)

Porter- No

Barnes- No

Poythress- Not the Board of Regents' job, but if their status is known, no

2. Do you support offshore drilling off the Georgia coast?

Porter- No. Supports wind, solar, woodchips, etc.

Barnes- Would need safety assurances, but generally do support drilling

Poythress- Not "absolutely" no, but would need assurances for tourism's sake

Baker- Moratorium should remain in place until we've been reassured

3. On the issue of public/state funding for MARTA

Barnes- Yes, public funding from a state source but also regional sales taxes for transportation

Poythress- Yes

Baker- Yes

Porter- MARTA needs flexibility with their "own money"

4. On changing HOV lanes to toll lanes

Poythress- Not opposed in principle, would try it

Baker- "Take a hard look" at it

Porter- No, because it hurts working people

Barnes- Like Poythress, give it a shot

5. Name one Georgia Republican you admire

Baker- Johnny Isakson...he called him bipartisan. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it

Porter- Asked living or dead, rattle off some none-Georgians, then named David Ralston

Barnes- Deceased: Paul Coverdale. Alive: David Ralston, Billy Ray, Nathan Deal's son...

Poythress- Finished with Johnny Isakson also...I just don't get it?

6. If you weren't running, which candidate would you support?

Porter- Said it wasn't a fair question because he is running, and it drew a laugh

Barnes- Demurred on the question also

Poythress- He said he was "punting as well"

Baker- Gave another politician's answer, which included a reference to his BINGO plan

They ended the debate with 3 more questions, addressed to all the candidates. The first was about regional votes for transportation taxes. Dubose reiterated his re-committment of the 4th penny plan to all transportation, Barnes advocated "light rail" in the Atlanta region and passenger rail too, but a "corridor" system elsewhere. A bit off topic. Poythress seemed skeptical about the practicality of the system for the whole state, outside of Atlanta, while Baker said that the we "must" have a statewide transportation plan. The second question was about whether there should be another federal stimulus to help out the states. Barnes said that there may need to be some kind of specific federal stimulus to the states for education, but not another whole package. Poythress and Baker said no, and that we should maximize the money we haven't even utilized yet. And Dubose Porter said that we need not become dependent on federal funding. The last question was about the burden Medicaid would put on the state due to new healthcare law. All four candidates were in agreement that the law needs to be felt out until 2014 when it takes hold, but that the state would not be able to bear the burden of a drastic increase.

ANALYSIS

If you scrolled all the way down here, I don't blame you at all. I would've only looked at the lightening round. It was the most fun. David Poythress needed a really strong showing to improve his name recognition and I'm not sure that he did it. He really did set himself apart in my opinion, focusing on issues of water and conservation, and emphasizing that everything in education CANNOT be blamed on teachers. They already carry a huge burden. He did a good job, but it wasn't election altering. Thurbert Baker. I seriously had a problem with. He barely answered any questions, he sounded like a politician running for national office and seemed to have his head in the clouds the whole hour. I think he may have actually hurt himself with people who were looking for specific solutions to the state's problems. Dubose Porter showed that with his 28 years of legislative experience he has developed a truly magnificent grasp of specific issues ranging from education to uncollected sales taxes. I think he may have helped himself the most of all the candidates on stage. People needed to see him and know who he is. He has done a lot of good work for this state, but a lot of it is unnoticed by those not in his district. I think he may get a good bump from this. He at least deserves to. I think Mr. Porter won the debate on specifics. But your overall winner by default? Roy Barnes. How? By not losing. He needs to make it through the next nine days without slipping up and saying something arrogant or egregious, and he managed to coast through this debate just fine. Can one of the other candidates take him to a runoff? I think there's a greater chance now than before, depending on how many people watched and how many people will watch the last two (On WSB-TV or GPB). But he didn't do anything to de-throne himself. And I'd call that a win in my book.

Chirp Chirp

I just read an interesting article from a local paper, about one county away from me:

http://www.barrowjournal.com/archives/3284-Obama-supporter-angered-over-rude-gesture.html

I know, right? So this is how it's done now? With rude gestures. What's fair is fair, I'll admit, and those of us who were not major GW Bush supporters were very harsh on him while he was in office. And we still are. I can't speak for everybody when I say this, but I tried my best to keep it about the issues. I dislike No Child Left Behind, the fact we were lied to about Iraq and his massive bungling of Hurricane Katrina. But I do not recall flipping people the bird who did support Mr. Bush. I never claimed he was not a legitimate president, never in 8 years requested to see his birth certificate, and cannot recall a pastor or Facebook group praying for the death of President Bush while in office. But welcome to my world. Welcome to my area.

This display of what can best be described as ignorance is shameful. If you have the knowledge, you don't need to superfluous antics. Yeah. That was a shot at you, Tea Party. I do not know who the people are that are involved in this story, but my guess would be that if you asked "bird guy" what specific problems or policies differences he has with President Obama, he might not be able to rattle them off. There's just a general discontent about this president here. I don't think it's coincidental that he did so poorly in the South, no. I don't think it's all about race, but I think to deny the history is to short yourself a legitimate explanation. He looks different than any other president; I've seen the emails making a joke of that fact. But he is the President of the United States. If you'd like to step up and debate him about policy on stage, then be my guest. I would have happily done that with President Bush. But please, do not make a mockery of someone's vote. It is very personal decision, that SHOULD mean a great deal of importance to him/her. If we cannot do that, then what does the future look like. It'll be loud, vibrant, and obnoxious. But there will be no substance to it. Speaking of those qualities, cue the Palin supporters to show you what the future will look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

A vote is a vote is a vote is a vote. And I used that video to demonstrate the power of an uninformed vote. I know it can cut both ways, but just between me and you, that video also just flat out amuses me. Attacking (or gesturing) to someone because you don't like the person they support and you think that person is "destroying the country" is not really a substantive argument. And I hope you don't base your vote on it. How about we respect the vote the way it should be respected? Carefully, in a well thought out manner and passionately. Otherwise, if you're somewhere else in this state and you hear the birds chirp, just know that somebody in my area is getting a friendly gesture for his/her opinion.

Rural Civics and Participation

Since I've been up since 7:30 a.m., and I'm about to make the drive down I-85S to help Michael Mills garner some votes, I thought it high time I spoke about civic participation. When you live in a rural county in North Georgia like I do, the opportunities to help out with statewide (or larger) campaigns are few and far between. If you factor in the statistic that I live in county that voted more than 70% for John McCain in the 2008 election, then the ability to help out Democratic candidates becomes an even more daunting task. Right off the top of my head I cannot think of any city or county elected officials here that are Democrats.

None. Zero. Zip.

But through a stroke of good fortune this year I had the opportunity to meet and greet many candidates for a variety of offices, and I'm taking the initiative to help some of them out. I know it's a worn out and hackneyed phrase but: you can't complain if you don't vote. And how can really even complain if all you do is walk into a voting booth and pick a name without knowing why? Why don't people take the time to learn about candidates like they learn about singers, actors, etc? People (especially those my age...I'm going to be 20 next month) think that this is unusual or weird, the fact that I'm getting up hours before I normally would to help out a candidate I like, and statistically it is. Setting aside 2008, youth civic participation is normally abysmal. And that's a damn shame. Most people my age would get up at the crack of dawn for concerts or stay up until midnight for a movie release...but what I'm doing isn't important enough to do the same thing? No. It is. This is my Lady Gaga, this is my next Twilight movie. And THIS will matter more in the long run. From the small town where I'm sitting, the chance to learn about government firsthand, meet incumbent or potential elected officials, or even to just get my name out should I ever decide to run for office does not come every single day. So, I'm putting some effort into it. And I wish everyone would. Would we not all be better off for it?

A Word About Michael Mills

I wanted to use this medium to share with you something about a candidate that I have endorsed for Secretary of State, whose campaign I'm involved with, and one I'm extremely excited about:

I write to introduce you to my friend Michael Mills who I am supporting for Secretary of State in the July 20th Democratic Primary. Michael is committed to bringing "a new way forward" in Georgia. This isn't just a campaign slogan. It's a vision for inspiring and empowering people to participate in our government and creating a government that works for people.

Georgians need a state government that helps them dream about a brighter future, while providing the basic resources to make those aspirations possible. That's why as Secretary of State, he will focus on:

*Building a Georgia that allows citizens to have a voice, become prosperous and is a place we are all proud to call home

*Ensuring the security of Georgia's election system while limiting unneccessary barriers to voting for all eligible citizens

*Growing jobs and revenue by moving the Corporations Division from a 20th Century bureaucracy into a 21st Century business center

*Protecting citizens against financial ruin and fraud through the Professional Licensing and Securities Divisions

Georgia has been a place of tremendous prosperity and opportunity - the engine of the "new south." But the bills of this growth and success are now coming due. We need new leadership to tackle these tough issues, while providing the inspiration and vision to usher in a brighter future for all Georgians. Yet another reason I am supporting Michael!

He worked in politics, launched a non-profit to improve civic participation and tackled environmental, education and elections issues in the private sector. These experiences inform his vision and uniquely qualify Michael Mills to lead Georgia back to prosperity. Visit http://www.michaelmills2010.com/ to learn about his background, vision and to get involved today.

Make sure to vote for Michael on July 20th in the Democratic Primary and get involved today if you are as moved as I am about his plan for creating "a new way forward" in Georgia!

Willie Horton Part Deux (Attorney General Version)

Well guys, I've finally seen it after a few days of reading about it. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's Rob Teilhet's new television ad, and if there ever was a negative one, this is it. It's actually quite hard to even stomach, but here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPEXCujlQkc

I warned you didn't I? As you can see, the ad is an attack on Mr. Teilhet's opponent, Ken Hodges, for missteps in the prosecution of a white police officer for shooting an unarmed African-American man twice in the head, while he was on the ground. (That, of course, is his mother speaking in the ad) Now, I'm not claiming to be an expert on that case, so I won't even go there. I'm just talking about the ad itself. If you read the title and the reference was lost on you, then you're either too young, or not quite the political junkie that I am. Willie Horton was serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole in the state of Massachusetts while Michael Dukakis was governor. Governor Dukakis was a proponent of the work-release program in Massachusetts' prisons, but while Mr. Horton was out on release he committed more heinous, violent crimes. When Governor Dukakis ran for President in 1988, George H.W. Bush used a simple ad to convince voters that Mr. Dukakis was soft on crime. And it was a complete knockout blow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

I'm calling this one in Georgia a knockout blow as well. I have endorsed Mr. Teilhet for Attorney General in the primary, and I am NOT rescinding that endorsement. I am standing by it, and I think the content of the ad can be a legitimate issue, even though the ad is distasteful to me. What I don't know is who this knockout blow will land on. Either Mr. Teilhet has pulled a G.H.W. Bush and completely crushed Ken Hodges out of this race...OR...the people of Georgia are going to think this is a couple of steps too far. Either way, the ad is going to leave one of these candidates down and out for the count.

OBAMACARE!!!!! (GASP)

As I sat today watching local television, I came across a plethora of campaign ads. Let's not kid ourselves; that's the only reason I watch local television. I did notice that there will be a theme to the Republican ads this year, and I doubt it will end with just the primary: "ObamaCare." It's used as a scary term, made more frightening by that creepy political voiceover gentleman. And yes, let's admit it: the use of this word to describe a healthcare bill that will potentially help a countless number of people gain access to health care just annoys the hell out of us Democrats.

Was the bill perfect? I don't believe anyone has said it was. Was it everything I hoped it would be? Not at all. Did it include things that I didn't want it to and not include things that I did want it to?Absolutely. But it's what we've got. It was the final bill; it passed. That's how government works. And for all the debate about the deficit and deficit spending, it's become obvious what Republicans are choosing to say (even if implicitly): $ > People. Period. That's what it comes down to. What's lost in the debate about health care, and these ads that I saw of Ralph Hudgens, Sam Olens, etc., is that when it comes to health care, people's lives are at stake. And I have serious doubts that even one of these people screaming at the top of his/her lungs about the deficit wouldn't do a complete 180 if a family member was gravely ill and bankrupt. That's all I'm saying. Prioritize people. When you prioritize money, you get yourself into situations where the rich get rich, the poor get poorer, the sick get sicker, profitable companies get more profitable at the expense of the blue collar worker...and these all statistically seem to recur under Republican administrations. Deficits are unsustainable over the long-term, but Tea Partiers kid themselves if they think this country hasn't always operated with short-term deficits. They are workable and manageable. And there are many ways to cut spending. These days, "excessive spending" just conveniently seems to translate to "spending on programs I don't approve of." (Like health care or clean energy) Trying to make this a national election instead of one about Georgia is the last thing that this state needs. Get over yourselves.

You're going to see these ads frequently, and you can't stop them from using the word "ObamaCare", but if you encounter someone who is voting Republican and that's one of his/her big issues, then I have some advice: next time you hear a person use the word "ObamaCare", just bite your tongue and smile. Accept the word as it is...but then alter your vocabulary a little bit too. Social Security will now become "Roosevelt Security", and Medicaid and Medicare will now respectively be "LyndonAid" and "JohnsonCare." Toss ObamaCare in with them; all we're proving is that when it comes to caring for the people of this country, providing compassionate safety nets, and helping those who aren't so fortunate...Democrats have cornered the market.

Redemption

Hey now, hold on just a minute. I have explicitly endorsed Roy Barnes in the Democratic primary. It was not an easy choice to make. In my finale it came down to Mr. Barnes and Dubose Porter, who I still have a lot of respect and admiration for. To be dangerously honest, if Governor Barnes hadn't jumped back in this race, I'd be covered in "Dubose Works For Me" stickers from head to toe. But I'd like to take a minute to say something to those who believe Democrats would be "stupid" to renominate someone for Governor who has lost an election already. I've had people say it to me personally, it's all over every discussion board about the race that you can find, and I imagine some people do truly wonder why it would happen. What I would like to know is: WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM?

Roy Barnes, and correct me if I'm wrong, oversaw what was a pretty prosperous time in this state. Most of you may not remember, because it's been quite a while since Georgia had a prosperous time. Many people may not have liked some of his techniques (i.e., King Roy), but you cannot argue that he didn't get things done. He fought for bills to make health care more affordable and to hold insurance companies liable that delayed urgent care. He did focus on education, lowering class sizes and having more accountability, though he no doubt made a mistake with the teachers. But I must say, the ability to look back on past accomplishments and failures, learn from them, and then put them to good use in the present is not a quality I want held against someone running for office. Barnes is hitting all the right notes with GA voters; remember, he's been here...he knows what he did wrong (Hence the TV spot completely dedicated to apologizing to teachers). Do you seriously think he'll make that mistake again??? Bear in mind too, the voters of this state did not thump Mr.Barnes out of office by a resounding margin, they didn't do it because he was a failure, they didn't do it because of misconduct or ethics violations (cough, cough, Sonny cornered the market on lack of ethics); no, for those of you who believe Mr. Barnes is "hoodwinking" GA voters into voting for him again, remember, hoodwinking is part of what lost him his job in the first place. Don't pretend like you don't remember the damn flag. I know you do. Looking back now, was that really such an enormous issue? Should people have based their votes on that? No, again Governor Barnes's heart was in the right place. Did they base their votes on that? Some did I'm sure, especially in those middle Georgia counties that flipped on him in 2006. If you cast aside the non-issues that got him voted out, that leaves you with his spat with teachers. They got shafted. That's legitimate. He'll have to work to earn those votes back. But the voters of GA have been truly shafted by a Republican governor focused on personal land deals and a Republican legislature focused on roadkill. Not to mention microchipping and secession. See the new ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW3kTLTV6eU&feature=PlayList&p=011211B43356C747&playnext_from=PL&index=0


This election (primary and general) will be a true test of Governor Barnes's ability to relate directly to the people, and not get lost in the heat of one issue (like the flag in 2006 or Republicans trying to bully voters with the issue of illegal immigration this year). He lost his last one because the people stopped listening. I hate to channel my inner-Reagan...I can't very well do that...I don't have an inner-Reagan...but I wish the people of Georgia would ask themselves if they believe they are better off now than they were, oh say, 8 years ago? Well, don't count on any other Republican making it better. They've proven they can't follow through. Turn to someone who is willing to put the effort into putting Georgians back to work. And who knows? Maybe he can get you a job sewing old Georgia flags for Stone Mountain souvenirs. Redemption.

Primary Votes

This is really just a formality. I realized that I had released my endorsements for the primary in the form of a note. But not everyone that follows this blog would have seen my note, so this is for you guys...

Georgia State Senate District 47

TIM RILEY

U.S. Representative Georgia District 10

RUSSELL EDWARDS

U.S. Senate-GA

RJ HADLEY...this one is infamous by now, as it received a whole post by itself...

Commissioner of Insurance

MARY HODGES SQUIRES

Commissioner of Labor

DARRYL HICKS

State School Superintendent

JOE MARTIN

Attorney General

ROB TEILHET

Secretary of State

MICHAEL MILLS

Lieutenant Governor

CAROL PORTER

Governor

ROY BARNES

Not all of these were easy picks. Some were painstakingly difficult. One I even changed after my first publication. As I've always said, I'm not telling you who to vote for; I'm telling you who I am voting for in an effort to get you involved! Research, watch the news, listen to the candidates...whatever you do, VOTE! And please, give me your feedback, whether it's on here or on the Facebook fan page. If you're taking the time to read this, then I'll take the time to hear what you have to say about it.

After Further Consideration...

Earlier this week, Tuesday to be exact, I released a list of Democratic Primary "endorsements" for 2 weeks before Election Day. After further consideration, one race has really been nagging at me: United States Senate. The list was released in the form of a simple note on Facebook. I began thinking about all the candidates' names that were on there, and one stuck out: Michael Thurmond. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Michael Thurmond is a bad guy, actually he's probably a really nice gentleman; the problem is...I've never seen him. He has not been in the news, he hasn't been on TV or Radio that I know of, I can never find out if he's making an appearance anywhere, he didn't show up at my hometown rally even though his name was listed...you see where I'm headed? I think Michael Thurmond's experience as Labor Commissioner would have made for a great selling point for the U.S. Senate in these uncertain economic times, but the lack of engagement or excitement is truly just a let-down. And his website wasn't much better. That's the biggest difference between the two primary candidates: Engagement. RJ Hadley has crisscrossed this state from one corner to the other and back again. In this article from the Thomasville Times Enterprise, Mr. Hadley highlights that exact point:

http://timesenterprise.com/homepage/x1703948026/Hadley-seeks-to-oust-Thurmond-for-run

I can only view Michael Thurmond's lackluster primary campaign as an indication of his view on the general election. And therefore, after further consideration, I am throwing my full support behind RJ Hadley. For anyone to defeat Johnny Isakson, he'll at least need to put a modicum of effort into the fight. Give 'em hell RJ.

Russell Edwards is the Real Deal

Just thought I'd like to share this with everyone: Russell Edwards is the real deal. Just read the campaign fundraising filing from the first quarter.

http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1GuQVUBO5zld3jXtFmT7ef1-st_fY8IA3OofQ_Hk3_pI

Around these parts, a lot of people look at Paul Broun and think, "hey, he's a good guy" or "he seems pretty nice" or they don't really know anything at all about his policy positions or EXTREMIST language. Paul Broun seems to have one goal: scaring people (especially older people) into being too afraid not to vote for him. His slogan may as well be "Vote For Paul Broun Or My Opponent's Policy Will Kill You." Let's see past that this time please. Take a minute to look at the continuous misrepresentation of facts that Paul Broun spouts at every chance he gets, and look to a credible alternative. Russell Edwards is that alternative. He will better represent the interests of the people. Paul Broun made it to Washington and stopped caring. Let's show him that those of us who've been forgotten still care. Let's stop having to defend this state from Paul Broun's comments. Let's bring him home, and send Russell Edwards in his place.

First And Foremost

First and foremost, I've discovered that blogging really is a simple, efficient way to get your opinions out. And I'm not short of opinions. This 2010 election season in Georgia has really gotten me involved in politics, even more so than before. So, I'd like to thank you if you're reading this. You may be from far away from my hometown, or you may be from my hometown, or maybe just a hometown very similar to mine; either way, I've found that sometimes it can be difficult to be Democrat in a small town setting, even if you're fairly moderate (and I am) and you don't dwell in the most extreme left wing of the party (and I don't). Don't get me wrong, I love this place. I've never had a problem with it, and no one has ever really given me any trouble; it's just that we don't always see eye to eye. So if you can relate, please check back from time to time and keep up with me. I'd greatly appreciate it.