More on Cox v. Taylor

This comment deserves promotion:

Spoke with a good friend who’s in the Cox camp (though not on the campaign) and this is basically what they said about the info in this post:

Not sure what the tipster above meant about Robert Brown: he’s already come out for Taylor, that was in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution weeks ago. Sounds like someone trying to set us up for a fall; Taylor is telling everyone that he has the entire Senate locked up and we can’t believe he’d do that unless there’s truth to the matter. There’s no reason Taylor shouldn’t have 99% of the Senate with him.

What we ARE hearing from the Senate is a general dislike of Taylor and his chances. Even many of those who will endorse him (and make no mistake, it will be most everyone) don’t like him, don’t respect him, and don’t think he can win. Also, many Senators are telling us that they still expect Taylor to accept the writing on the wall and run for reelection, and they don’t want to have to work with him for years to come after endorsing Cox.

16 comments

  1. Rebel says:

    “Taylor is telling everyone that he has the entire Senate locked up and we can’t believe he’d do that unless there’s truth to the matter. There’s no reason Taylor shouldn’t have 99% of the Senate with him.”

    But Senator Curt Thompson has endorsed Cathy. Thus he doesn’t have the ENTIRE Senate locked up nor does it give him 99%. (it would be 96%)

  2. Silence says:

    Count on the fact that MT is far from locking the Senate up, for a couple of reasons:

    1. Widespread, general dislike, though not yet disdain, for Taylor in the Democratic caucus.

    2. Pressure from their respective colleagues in the House, many of whom have signed onto Cox campaign.

    3. The recent development in felony charges against Taylor’s son.

    4. Bobby Khan is still trying to recruit a good, strong candidate for LG. Until that’s lain to rest, really no one will feel comfortable committing one way or the other.

  3. Tater Tate says:

    Robert Brown is solidly in MT’s camp.

    Don’t count MT down and out just yet. My money is still on him to win the Democrat primary. He is a good campaigner, and Rick Dent, his consultant, is an experienced pro in Georgia Democrat state-wide races.

  4. Pappy says:

    The Cox camp’s speading all of these rumors while the Taylors are going through such a crisis is VERY low-class.

  5. Tater Tate says:

    Obviously Rick took that one on because he had too. No one expected a win. Look further back over the last decade or two for significant results on his part.

  6. Decaturguy says:

    Rick Dent is one of those guys like the Democrats have on the national level – i.e, Bob Shrum. He’s had some success, (wait a minute has Bob Shrum ever had any success?) but how do you not have success as a Democratic campaign manager in Georgia up until about 3 years ago? Until only a few years ago, only a few Republicans have ever won a statewide race. Now he’s just looking for work. I don’t buy that he’s some political genius.

  7. Dent was part of the Miller ’94 team. Contrary to what may be popular belief, that was a very tough election and certainly no gimme. Ask Ann Richards or the many other Democratic governors who got swept out of office or the 100 or so Democratic Congressmen who lost their job.

    Sure he worked for Majette, but Tate is right, that was a charity case. You can’t expect someone that raises $800,000 to beat someone who spent $8,000,000. Hopefully Denise will ask for a second opinion the next time God tells her to run.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Pappy, the Cox campaign is running a race and they have refrained from commenting on MT’s family crisis. On the contrary, I think they’ve shown a lot of class. If that had been a Cox family member, I’ll bet Taylor would have taken the opportunity to use it against her…he has demonstrated no qualms at using any political opportunity that comes his way.

  9. stephaniemills21 says:

    I actually thought the Governor’s spokesperson showed a lot of class in his comment about the incident and was more than surprised that Cox refused comment. No condolences or anything, at least in the news. Makes me wonder why she did not comment.

  10. Silence says:

    I agree with Bill one hundred percent. You can bet Taylor wouldn’t show near as much restraint if the tables were reversed.

  11. Pappy says:

    Decling to offer comment on the record while feeding a reporter dirt off the record is hardly demonstrative of class. Also, to suggest (or to theorize, in this case) that Mark would use this kind of thing against Cathy if given the chance just demostrates the double standard at play: It’s OK for Cathy to use this against Mark because he’s a big boy, but were she to find herself on the receiving end, heaven hath no wrath…

  12. Bill Simon says:

    Uh, I don’t think “not commenting” on an unfortunate event is the same as “dishing in dirt” on an unfortunate event.

    What “condolences” was Cathy supposed to offer and to whom? The family of the kid who got killed while Fletcher was DUI, or to the family of Mark Taylor for having an irresponsible kid that he treated to a Lincoln Navigator?

  13. Pappy says:

    Bill, I wasn’t suggesting that “no comment” equaled dirt, but rather, “no comment” + dirt = dirt.

    Something just doesn’t smell right when Cox has nothing to say about what is arguably the first bit of campaign-related news that your average voter might actually care (or hear) about since the candidacy announcements themselves. And since when does any politician, who as you so graciously pointed out, is “running a race”, turn down an opportunity for uncritical press? It’s not like she’s been averse to jumping in front of microphones, nor cameras for that matter, in the past.

    As for the latter queries (rhetorical, no doubt), I wonder whether anyone who puts as straightforward a word as “condolences” in quotes would even understand the answer.

    For cryin out loud, even a galoot like Perdue managed to pull it off magnanimously.

Comments are closed.