Max Gets Endorsed

It is rather unusual to have newspapers endorsing a Republican, particularly the Augusta Chronicle and Savannah Morning News. But both have decided to endorse Max Burns over John Barrow.

In Macon, don’t hold your breath for the Telegraph to endorse Mac Collins. The majority of the editorial board are friends of Jim Marshall. All you had to do to figure that out is pay attention to the coverage of the race, if you weren’t paying attention.

16 comments

  1. GetReal says:

    “[P]articularly the Augusta Chronicle” – are you kidding? That editorial page is so right wing whacked out it’s a joke.

  2. That is more of an endorsement of a right wing Congress than Burns personally. The message boils down to this: Max Burns would vote for a Republican speaker.

    However, it looks increasingly likely that a vote for a Republican speaker will be a vote wasted. So you have to ask yourself, if you live in the 12th, do I cast a meaningless protest vote against Nancy Pelosi and then have without a doubt the most ineffective member in the newly controlled Democratic Congress…or do I vote to continue to send Barrow to Congress, although now he will have 2 years of seniority in the party that will control Congress and will be eager to cater to its rural members to keep that control.

    Hmm, I mean the Augusta Chronicle’s editorial board might not be smart enough to figure that one out but I think most voters in the 12th are.

  3. Fogle says:

    “… and then have without a doubt the most ineffective member in the newly controlled Democratic Congress…or do I vote to continue to send Barrow to Congress, although now he will have 2 years of seniority in the party that will control Congress and will be eager to cater to its rural members to keep that control.”

    Chris,

    If you are referring to Max as “without a doubt the most ineffective member, you are dead wrong. I’ll assume for the sake of the argument that Democrats do regain control of the House and Max is elected.

    You’re forgetting that Max would go in with the same “seniority” as Barrow. Max served in the 108th and he would go in as a sophomore, not a freshman. Granted Barrow’s party would have control, but Barrow is ineffective for reasons other than being in the minority.

    Max was infinitely more effective in the 108th than Barrow has been in the 109th and, while being in the majority helps, there’s a heck of a lot more to it than that. If you want to know why, then visit Blogging for Max.

  4. LymanHall says:

    Erick: Augusta and Savannah are both Morris papers. They frequently endorse Republicans. This is no surprise. Same thing goes for the Athens paper.

  5. martinmatheny says:

    Ummm…didn’t the Augusta Comical endorse Burns in 2004 as well? (http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/102604/edi_burns.shtml)

    So no, it isn’t that “unusual” at all for the Republican-leaning Morris newspapers to endorse a Republican.

    As far as the line, “The majority of the editorial board are friends of Jim Marshall. All you had to do to figure that out is pay attention to the coverage of the race” is concerned, any reputable newspaper has a huge barrier between the newsroom and the editorial suite. The only exception would be the obviously “pay for play” papers, or really small papers where the editor is also the principal news reporter.

    I know it’s easy and convenient to tie the two together, but most times, any presumed “biased coverage” isn’t biased when viewed objectively, and any reputable paper (including the Macon Telegraph) is going to go to great lengths to preserve the barrier between the news and the editorial content.

    The board can be good friends of Marshall’s. I don’t know, and can’t deny it. And that might influence the board’s endorsement. But vast media conspiracy theories about the editors pushing reporters to cover stories favorably towards one candidate or the other is usually hooey.

  6. RuralDem says:

    The AJC is so liberal yet candidates have no problem quoting them in their ads.

    Anyway, that is great for Burns. I am not going to pick between Burns and Barrow as I am not totally familar with either. I do like the fact that Barrow is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. I also believe Barrow is similar to Marshall in the sense that they are both willing to buck the party in order to do what is best for their constituents.

    As far as the Marshall/Collins race, Marshall is the perfect fit for the district. He’s one of the few politicians out there who puts his constituents before his party. Add to that the fact that he’s a true moderate-conservative, he should be re-elected.

  7. IndyInjun says:

    Burns was VERY EFFECTIVE at spending money like a drunken sailor…….wait even a drunken sailor can’t spend money he doesn’t have.

    Burns is a total imposter as a conservative and has no principles beyond enriching the clients of his lobbyist friends.

  8. Fogle says:

    As we reported in late July, IndyInjun, John Barrow received the worst possible score on Jeff Flake’s (R-Ariz.) 19 anti-pork amendments by the Club for Growth. That means that he voted against Flake’s 19 amendments aimed to curb unnecessary spending.

    John Barrow was also shown by NAM to be anti-jobs and anti-growth. Sounds like an economic liberal to me.

    In case you were wondering, Max Burns received a perfect NAM score during his stint in the 108th.

    Bottom line: Max Burns is a fiscal conservative who wants to cut spending, lower taxes and bring growth to Southeast Georgia. John Barrow is your “total impostor.”

  9. Fogle says:

    Also, the NRCC has started running an ad that exposes the insane amount of spending increases Barrow has voted for and his complete lack of even INTRODUCING any anti-spending legislation.

    I’ll link it here when I find it, but I don’t think it’s on YouTube yet.

  10. IndyInjun says:

    Fogle,

    Burns voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, an $8 TRILLION (mid-range estimate per financial report of the US) unfunded liability, the largest entitlement program since LBJ and one that even FDR could be proud of.

    The Dems held Congress for 30 years from 1964 to 1994 and THEY never even dreamed of passing such a monstrocity.

    One of the most fundamental principles of the GOP was smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Burns utterly and completely abandoned this principle.

    Congressman Norwood was adamant in his refusal to vote for it on these same grounds.

    We need 535 Charlie Norwoods.

    One Max Burns is one too many.

    His opponent voted to extend the Bush tax cuts, voted for the tough Sensenbrenner bill on immigration, and voted to kill the death tax.

    Which one is the REAL CONSERVATIVE?

    One thing it would seem voters can count on from Max Burns – being stabbed in the back.

  11. IndyInjun says:

    “Unfortunately, if there ever was a case of true fiscal irresponsibility embodied in a bill – this would be the one. ”

    – Charlie Norwood, explaining his vote AGAINST the Medicare Drug Bill.

  12. ColinATL says:

    Max Burns is another Bush rubber stamp, as he proved during his first unsuccessful term. The only way the man could ever have been re-elected was to have the Georgia GOP redraw the district to excise the liberals in Athens. So that’s where we are now, and the fact that it’s still a close race just goes to show that Burns is a lackluster candidate in a state that’s generally bucking the anti-GOP trend.

  13. Fogle says:

    “The only way the man could ever have been re-elected was to have the Georgia GOP redraw the district to excise the liberals in Athens.”

    Actually, they re-drew the district to get rid of the snake that Dems drew to ADD Athens to a 50-50 district. All the state legislature did was RESTORE the district to a more geographically proportionate one.

    Honestly – before you shoot your metro-Atlanta mouth off – take a look at the old 12th and tell me that Dems didn’t gerrymander it. Athens had NO PLACE whatsoever in the 12th.

Comments are closed.