There's been a little bit of a stir in the 'sphere about this Robert Novak article about Trent Lott's retirement and the possibility that Democratic former Attorney General Mike Moore would be his replacement in the Senate. That shouldn't come as a surprise to most Southern Dems, but alas they do not rule the liberal blogosphere.
Mississippi is 36% black, Alabama 26%, Georgia 29%, South Carolina 29% etc. All of them currently have Republican governors but had Democrats as recently as 2002. Neighboring Arkansas and Tennessee are only around 15% black yet have two Democratic Senators and one governor between them. Within these states, a Congressional district that is 29% black is considered in play. 36% districts are probably all held by Democrats and don't even warrant a serious challenge from a Republican.
So why can't these states be in play in a national Democratic election? Well part of it is a legacy of racial politics that has created a very polarized electorate. When Novak says "the GOP's Southern base, the bedrock of its national election victories, is an illegitimate legacy from racist Dixiecrats," he lets slip one of those uncomfortable truths of Southern politics. Nobody on either side is supposed to admit this, yet everyone knows that it is true.
Eventually, I think one of two things will happen. Culturally conservative Republicans, former Dixiecrats, will become alienated by the Republican party because it doesn't serve their economically liberal populist needs. Race is losing its currency with these voters, and the modern Republican party isn't able to make appeals to them like it's 1965. And if they do, they'll alienate their culturally moderate conservative suburban voters. A pro business Democrat (who may well be black himself) is ready to take their votes and the Chamber of Commerce's endorsement.
It's true, this has been predicted for a while and hasn't happened quite yet. Now is probably the time to write a book about it. After all, wily Southern Dems kept proving Merle & Earl Black wrong for decades, but they (the Blacks) were finally vindicated. And so will the many Southern Dems who keep pleading with national primary voters to nominate a Southern Dem (Edwards in 2004, Warner in 2008?).
Sonny Perdue has committed $20 million in state funds to reduce natural gas prices for Georgia consumers this winter. He did it by executive decree, and expects that his Republican lackees in the legislature will ratify his decision once the session started.
Hmm, too bad. I thought we had a legislature for a reason, and Perdue's willingness to just decree something and have the legislature nod OK at a later date has, in this case, prevented what could have been excellent policy from passing.
Let me explain: Perdue has already said that $20 million will be given to ratepayers in the form of an across the board sales tax cut of 2% on natural gas bills. In the 2000 census, Georgia had a little over 3,000,000 households. That means the average Georgia household will see (less than) a whopping $7 in savings on their natural gas bills.
Now, if you are on a fixed income, or live below the poverty line, you probably live in a pretty small house. And yet, with gas prices expected to be between 50% and 100% higher this winter, even someone that's only heating a small apartment will see their gas bill go up at least $40 per month this winter. That comes out to $120 (minimum) this winter, and they will get (on average, actually less since they are below the average) $7 back from the state.
So, their home heating costs will still be more than $110 than they were last winter. Some help, Sonny! Meanwhile, Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, who probably have home heating bills close to $500 (I can only imagine) will see maybe $12 in savings, even though their costs will be significantly higher. The savings are negligible for both the rich and the poor, but one segment of the population legitimately needs help, while another segment of the population might have to forego the more expensive bottle of wine for the slightly cheaper one. That's an if.
Sonny could have taken that $20,000,000 and given 200,000 of Georgia's poorest households (from downtown Atlanta to downtown Cuthbert) a $100 credit to help them with higher heating costs. I don't care how he could have done it -- on their tax returns, or the state could have given grant money that people could have applied for through their natural gas marketer, which would have been pretty easy as most low income seniors and families have a special relationship with the gas marketer of "last resort" anyway.
That $100 would go a long way to keeping Georgia's poor and elderly warm this winter. And Arthur Blank and Bernie Marcus wouldn't have missed their $12. Instead, Sonny's crack squad was more interested in being first to the punch and rushed out a b.s. tax cut that will generate good headlines for him.
Sonny, we have a legislature and we have Democrats for a reason. They can deliberate to find the best solution and are specifically ideologically interested in helping the lesser of society (respectively). Use them. You'll still get good headlines.
I was a little bit shocked to see Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R - Healthsouth) voting with the Democrats against the PATRIOT Act reauthorization today. But then someone reminded me that in order to ask for reconsideration, you have to vote no. It's actually pretty common for the majority leader to switch his vote to no when he thinks something isn't going to pass. That way if he gets the votes for it at a future date he can ask that they reconsider because now he (and others presumably) want to change their no vote to a yes.
I hate to break it to you, but most of the previously Democratic donors who are giving money to Sonny Perdue now are called lobbyists. They give to whoever is in power. Since a Republican had never been governor before Georgia voters made their big collective mistaken protest vote 3 years ago, those lobbyists/donors never had a reason to be Republicans before then.
I'm sure any screen that doesn't catch your two opponents (at their Capitol offices no less) can't be netting that much money for Perdue from beleaguered Dems. If Perdue's kids are going to brag about all of the money they're getting from Dems, they might as well at least qualify it with a reason why. If not I can only suspect that the reason is power and not principles. Which is fine for the people with fat checkbooks, but may not cut it for the rank and file crowd.
I for one would like to preclear a potential Braves sale to Arthur Blank's group, which also owns the Falcons. The Braves have a great manager, great talent, and a great frontoffice. And yet there is something missing which prevents them from winning 3 out of 5 games during the postseason.
Just maybe it is dedicated and passionate ownership. I know in some cases that can be a big problem for a team (think the Cincinatti Reds) but in this case with all of the ingredients seemingly in place, perhaps that is the kind of commitment the Braves need. And Blank has shown with the Falcons that he can be hands on without getting his hands too dirty.
Here's hoping that happens. The only downside to Time Warner selling the Braves: TBS will show fewer and fewer games. Turner South (also for sale) will pick up the slack. I guess the Braves will be less and less America's Team if they aren't on the superstation. With the lackluster support they receive from their own city, if they aren't America's team, will they be anyone's team?
Sherrod Brown's campaign releases an internal poll that shows Brown with a huge lead. A lot of the Daily Kos/netroots crowd can't believe it. It just shows what a huge disconnect (as some of the commentators pick up on) there is between the netroots and the actual voters.
A supermajority (something like 60%) of Ohio Democratic voters reside in either the Cleveland media market or the Youngstown (I think it's that market) market which is right next to Cleveland. Brown is a long time, popular Democratic Congressman from Cleveland. If you follow Democratic politics, and even if you don't, and you live in Cleveland, you know who he is. Hackett ran for a Republican Congressional district in a Republican part of the state where close to 0 Democratic primary voters live. Its like the Georgia equivalent of Mike Snow running against Shirley Franklin.
Another thing: Brown is a died in the wool liberal. He would unquestionably be the closest thing to another Paul Wellstone in the Senate (maybe not so much on the passion side) if he were elected. Hackett didn't even differentiate himself as that much of even a moderate Democrat when he ran for office. Now I understand he had a tough district and that everyone was excited about that race.
But, the netroots is easily deceived. They bitch all day about the Democrats needing to offer "real liberals" who present "real contrasts" and then they flock behind candidates like Hackett instead of a Brown. I don't get it. Are we really that dumb? Thank God the Democratic primary voters (the unkossed masses) usually inject some reason into this process.
The Atlanta District 6 election challenge will move to a Northwest Georgia court because local courts are not allowed to hear election challenges in their jurisdiction. At issue is whether write-in ballots should be combined with non-first place finishers (in this case, there were only 2 candidates) when the combination would prevent the first place finisher from receiving a 50% majority.
Brodie argues yes, that these write-in voters had their constitutional rights violated when Atlanta elections officials disqualified their votes because they did not vote for registered write-in candidates. We are about to find out whether the courts think throwing out a vote cast for "Mickey Mouse" violates the rights of the voter.
My own take is that it does not violate the right of the voter. We hold elections to elect living, breathing people who want the job. If Mickey Mouse can win an election, we're in trouble because he does not exist. If you want to run for office, you can either qualify (expensive) or register as a write-in candidate (cheap). But if you don't want to hold that office, votes for you shouldn't be counted -- you're effectively the same as Mickey Mouse. Plain and simple.
I'd be willing to consider one possible exception to that rule, which is write-in voters who vote for themselves. Clearly if they are voting for themselves, they want the job. At the same time, determining who cast a write-in vote violates the secrecy of the ballot, and again if you want the office that badly you should have either qualified or registered in advance.
Accepting all of what I've written above, it basically comes down to this: should the illegal write-in voters get to recast ballots in a runoff because they failed to choose from the legal list of candidates the first time? I once again side against Brodie on this point, because voters who skip a race don't prevent a candidate from reaching 50%, and these write-in voters are essentially skipping this race the same as the others. The denominator should only be affected if you choose from a list of valid candidates in the race, and not if you throwaway your vote either by voting for "Mickey Mouse" or skipping the race altogether. Voters may not have liked their choice in this race, but that's too bad. It's not as if a runoff between the same two candidates will offer a different one.
Ford to shutter Atlanta plant. Read about it in the AJC at some future hour.