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.
No comments:
Post a Comment