Safe as Houses

Now that we have an actual name to assist in our routine ridiculing of Rogue109, today's odd venture into feigned intelligent discourse is ... a weird 'correction' of Roy Barnes's statement on Georgia's geography ...

Vapid and ignorant rhetoric like this shows that the arrogance of King Roy hasn’t left…it has just been repackaged. And for someone who professes such superior knowledge about Georgia and its place as the “largest state geographically east of the Mississippi,” it is amusing he seems unaware that Michigan actually is the largest state geographically (including water within its borders) east of the Mississippi with 97,990 square miles. Georgia is only 59,425 square miles in size, water included.

I suppose we can leave aside the comical irony that drips from Pete's observation on 'vapid and ignorant rhetoric' and focus instead on a few other things. For starters, the obessive examination of geography as a defining factor in whether or not to vote for Barnes is rather stupid off the bat (particularly for a guy who gleefully pulled the lever for George W. Bush twice), but whatever.

Yet Pete - who never met a 32-word headline he didn't like - takes that absurdity and morphs it into something even more spectacularly pathetic by absolutely botching the 'correction' because, of course, Georgia is the largest geographical state east of the Mississippi River in terms of land mass and is fourth in total area. As a result, Barnes wasn't factually wrong (as neither is the U.S. government).

Regardless, it's just a tremendously shallow conversation to have, isn't it? Not that I'm stunned. In fact, the only thing that truly stuns me about the post was that he didn't work in his usual anger-laced attack on African-Americans, women or any other demographic group that isn't classified as 'white male.'

In the truly weird, somewhat comical and, yes, obviously terrifying news department ... more than 40 percent of Georgia Republicans think the state would be better off as an independent nation, while one-third of the state's GOP voters would favor Georgia leaving the Union.

Granted those numbers are lower than the ones we saw in Texas, where roughly half of the state's Republicans favored secession, but they're nonetheless eye-opening. And it would explain why John Oxendine is catering to the neo-secessionist crowd these days, and why folks like Rep. Nathan Deal and State Sen. Eric Johnson will do all they can to appeal to that segment of the population.

Safe to say, it'll be an interesting primary to watch.

Since he's across the border, I suppose it's local enough to opine on, but Sen. Jim DeMint - gunning with our own Rep. Paul Broun for most delusional elected conservative - suggests that the reason Sen. Arlen Specter switched parties was because 'forced unionization' drove people away from Pennsylvania and into the arms of anti-union havens like South Carolina.

Of course, this doesn't really make sense seeing how, since 1990, Pennsylvania has added more than 1 million people to its population, while South Carolina has added a little more than 500,000. There's also the fact that Democrats almost doubled their advantage in voter registrations in the Keystone State, and such an advantage was overwhelmingly fueled by Republicans switching their party affiliation.

RuralDem offered his perspective on what Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party means, and from his seat he views it as an endorsement of a centrist agenda. While I respect his opinion, I do think he's misguided on this.

I firmly believe the country can now be classified as 'center-left' and, based on existing statistical data, is trending more to the left and away from the center. The South, as evident by recent elections and its current political representation, is still firmly entrenched in the right (and, as I would also argue, is artificially deflating exactly how much the country has moved to the left in the past 10 to 20 years).

Specter's switch was about two things:

1. The protection of his own political career, which is patently obvious;

2. A judgement of how far to the right the Republican Party has moved in not just the last couple of years, but the last couple of months.

Attempting to quantify Specter's switch as an endorsement of moderate politics is to miss the point altogether since it overlooks the former and underemphasizes the latter. And it's the latter that merits focus given the GOP's hard lurch to the right coupled with a clearly defined and overwhelming popular progressive agenda adovocated for by the Obama Administration.

If Specter wasn't willing to side with Democrats on issues like the environment and health care - or at least willing to sit down at the table and find workable solutions to these challenges - then a switch to being an independent would make more sense (given that he'd attract, arguably, anywhere from 40 to 45 percent of the vote based on his long-standing history in Pennsylvania). But that isn't the case at all as Specter made a calculated decision to join the Democratic Party to, yes, save his own hide, but also to indict the Republican Party.

So, what then does Specter bring? And what to make of my original argument that this is, on the whole, a good thing for progressives?

Specter, by all indications, will vote for cloture on reforms for health care and the environment ... and that's all that he's needed for. Once cloture is achieved, then Democrats have 53 to 56 reliable votes that will be utilized to bring about much needed progressive reform in those areas.

While Specter may be a moderate, even still a conservative, his switch lays the foundation for progressive change to happen ... with or without his vote.

One other thing ... I find it almost impossible to even suggest that the moderates in the party have 'lost their voice' ... particularly in light of the stranglehold Sen. Ben Nelson, Sen. Mary Landrieu and Sen. Evan Bayh currently have on existing legislation. Right now the moderates are what is preventing a popular progressive agenda from being enacted, so I fail to see how they lack influence in the party or over the process.

Rather quickly, the Democratic field for Secretary of State appears to be getting crowded ... though it might offer a glimpse of some things to come.

Today, Gary Horlacher, a longtime player in Democratic players, just announced his candidacy, while Gail Buckner quietly jumped into the race within the past two weeks. In addition, Darryl Hicks is seeking the seat as well. This comes just as there is increased chatter that Vernon Jones might seek the nomination as well.

Buckner ran for the seat in 2006 and lost to Karen Handel, but her entry into the race isn't that shocking. Horlacher, who worked as press secretary for Roy Barnes during his campaign for governor in 1998, is rather interesting. Given that, for the past few months, we've heard all sorts of rumors that Barnes was working to assemble a slate of candidates to run on a unified platform, having someone with close ties to him seeking another statewide office adds more intrigue to the mix.

Barnes, based on what I've heard from multiple sources, is planning on jumping into the race ... and, from those same sources, his entry would presumably force out at least one, if not two, of the three declared candidates for governor on the Democratic side.

Rather quickly, the Democratic field for Secretary of State appears to be getting crowded ... though it might offer a glimpse of some things to come.

Today, Gary Horlacher, a longtime player in Democratic players, just announced his candidacy, while Gail Buckner quietly jumped into the race within the past two weeks. This comes just as there is increased chatter that Vernon Jones might seek the nomination as well.

Buckner ran for the seat in 2006 and lost to Karen Handel, but her entry into the race isn't that shocking. Horlacher, who worked as press secretary for Roy Barnes during his campaign for governor in 1998, is rather interesting. Given that, for the past few months, we've heard all sorts of rumors that Barnes was working to assemble a slate of candidates to run on a unified platform, having someone with close ties to him seeking another statewide office adds more intrigue to the mix.

Barnes, based on what I've heard from multiple sources, is planning on jumping into the race ... and, from those same sources, his entry would presumably force out at least one, if not two, of the three declared candidates for governor on the Democratic side.

Seeing how more and more polls suggest that Roy Barnes would, at the very least, begin any primary campaign in a commanding position - coupled with reports that he's aggressively going after big donors in the Atlanta business community who have traditionally supported Republicans, but are frustrated with the lack of action on transportation and economic development - it's safe to suggest that the former governor is probably going to get in this thing.

The question, then, is what happens next? Because from where I'm sitting, I could see at least one, if not two candidates bowing out. It's not implausible to think that Thurbert Baker would give this thing a pass, and Rep. DuBose Porter might opt to hold off for a few years and focus on winning some seats back in the Georgia House of Representatives. Granted, that's only my instincts telling me this and nothing else, but if Barnes jumps into this thing with 55 percent or more of the voters already in his camp, it's going to be difficult for anyone to climb into this thing, force a runoff and then take down a well-funded, fairly popular former governor.

The only one who's staying in no matter what, based on his repeated assertions, is David Poythress.

And if someone like Baker bows out, then does he seek Lt. Governor or seek re-election at Attorney General (thus moving Rep. Rob Teilhet back to the Georgia House ... or, again only my instincts speaking here, but prompt him to ponder Lt. Governor ... which, quite frankly, I would love to see him do)? Would Porter look at a statewide race, knowing, in all likelihood, he'd have Barnes at the top of the ticket?

The next few weeks are going to be interesting to watch as Barnes ponders his future.

It may seem like I'm picking on them, but I'm really not. It's just that some of the releases the David Poythress camp is throwing out are pretty puzzling ...

An independent poll conducted by national polling firm, Survey USA, shows results that “surprised” the authors.  They found that among the overall electorate I have the strongest support with a 16% favorable and 7% unfavorable rating among Democrats and a 13%/6% ratio among Republicans.  My overall favorability rating is +6 (14%/8%), which was higher than former Governor Roy Barnes (+5).  In addition, they found what they called “lackluster support” for Attorney General Thurbert Baker.  DuBose Porter fared the least well among Democrats with a 9%/9% ratio.

Looking more closely at the details of their survey, you’ll see more good news for us.  In 18 of 19 demographic categories, my numbers stay positive.  I do the best (have much higher favorable and low unfavorable ratings) among those 18-49 years old (13%/5%), self described liberals (18%/1%) and those below the gnat line in south Georgia (18%/8%).  Add these stats to my solid showing among the folks you would expect me to appeal to - older, conservative voters - and you see that the Primary is looking good.

The Survey USA report, however, offers a more detailed picture than merely cherry-picked statistics.
 
Because the Poythress campaign omitted the actual overall numbers for Barnes, which showed that the former governor had a 27 percent favorability rating ... which is almost twice as high as Poythress's total. And, in each of those demographic subgroups, Barnes has markedly higher favorability ratings than Poythress (i.e. 26 percent to 14 percent in the 18-35 demographic).

Plus, Barnes has a 37 percent favorability rating among the moderates that Poythress argues you have to win, while the general only has a 12 percent favorability rating. 

Furthermore, Baker has an overall favorability rating of 14 percent, which is the same as Poythress's.

Listen, I get that you want to generate positive press, but the stream of inanity that's come out of your camp since you drew a challenger suggests its more likely that paranoia is at work rather than confidence.

While we all had a good laugh at the expense of the teabaggers this past week, there is an unfortunate serious side to the antics of the extreme right and its marriage to the mainstream Republican Party, particularly here in Georgia. It's something I've mulled over for a little bit, but this post at Daily Kos regarding President Obama's plans to modernize our rail system crystalized it for me ...

The northeast corridor is actually in good shape. That Chicago hub could use some serious help, as well as the Sacramento-San Diego line in California. That Georgia network might be nice, but they want to secede, so send the money (and jobs and economic development) elsewhere.

Granted, it's just a blogger and not an administration official, but I think the point is valid.

If Georgia is going to be run by a state legislature that refuses to pass a resolution honoring the sitting president, but has a State Senate that gleefully passes a resolution laying out the guidelines for our secession, why would the administration want to work with us?

If Georgia is going to be repesented by a collection of Republican congressmen who are openly discussing the president's non-existent plan to implement a Marxist dictatorship, who is going to credibly fight for us in the Capital?

If Georgia is going to have a governor who thinks he can pick and choose what elements he wants to take from the economic stimulus package, all the while bashing the actual package, then how can he seriously work to secure said funding?

If Georgia is going to play host to the largest of the preposterous tea parties, inviting Sean Hannity to broadcast live from the event and lining up countless elected Republican officials to throw out unfounded and comically inaccurate accusations and insults at various Democratic leaders, why should the president have much of a desire to see that we get our fair share?

Those who were involved with the Organized Tea-mper Tantrums gladly just made stuff up regarding 'taxaxtion without representation' but they failed to recognize the broader picture ... which is their shenanigans are marginalizing Georgia to the point that we don't have anyone really making a credible case on why we should, for instance, be included in the national vision for a high-speed rail system.

Their own actions - and misguided, self-serving and ill-informed arguments - are doing nothing but stirring up the most fervent of right-wing believers, frustrating a majority of independents and moderate Republicans and leaving the rest of us progressives to sit back and watch the slow-motion car crash unfold before our eyes.  All the while, we're viewed as even more of a laughingstock and shut out of the discussions regarding the serious issues of the day.

Don't be surprised to see Congress redraw that national rail system plan, shaving a few lines away from Georgia and the Southeast, and if that happens, I think we need to start asking in a louder voice ... 'where exactly are the grown-ups in Atlanta?'

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle has dropped out of the governor's race, the same day we learned of a poll where he was the presumptive frontrunner for the Republican nomination for governor.

I would expect this to make Karen Handel the new frontrunner for the GOP?

In between getting his hair and makeup ready for tonight's lovefest with Sean Hannity, Erick dares to suggest what I think we all might be thinking ...

Anyone else have thoughts on it?