Broun on the endangered species list?

From today’s AJC:

Some state Republican leaders have lined up behind state Rep. Barry Fleming of Harlem, Ga., who began organizing in the district’s 21 counties and has set up a fund-raising machine that is out-raising the incumbent Broun 5 to 1.

Broun, who once claimed he was too busy doing the people’s business to raise campaign cash, had $125,000 on hand at the end of January, the most recent reporting period; Fleming had $488,000.

The race expanded this week when state Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville) announced that she, too, would challenge Broun in the July primary.

The lack of a competitive war chest, however, doesn’t mean Broun is about to lose his seat in November. He faced similar obstacles in 2007 in the race against Whitehead. At least half of Broun’s money for that race, more than $200,000, came out of his own pocket. He still owes himself more than $185,000 of that.

What helped Broun win, however, wasn’t the money but his tireless campaigning between election day and the runoff election with Whitehead, according to former Whitehead campaign aides.

Whitehead did too little while Broun was racking up hundreds of voters who didn’t support him in the primary but did in the runoff, his former aides said. And while the race was pitched as a geographic power struggle between Augusta and Broun’s hometown of Athens, Broun managed to build a coalition of Republicans, Democrats and independents from both areas.

John Stone, a former Norwood aide who worked for Whitehead, said there was no doubt that Broun would be challenged this year.

“That was a truly eccentric election and people weren’t satisfied with it,” Stone said.

Broun’s showdown is July 15, the date of Georgia’s state primaries, and he knows how rough it is going to get.

“What do people want? Do they want somebody that comes out of the Republican establishment that continues the status quo? Or do they want somebody who’s going to represent their interests, the district’s interests?”


  1. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Is that last quote from Broun?

    Does he know that interests are different from issue advocacy?

    It is in the interest of the people be able to go to work, get and education, have accessible health care etc etc; but to have their congressman spend his time proposing right to life bills and support for a ten commandments commission is just deplorable. Our district continuously misses out of new job possibilities and new infrastructure because this new congressman would rather use his office to make up for his inadequacies in fundraising.

  2. Ms_midtown says:

    Goldwater is right.
    If you’re a Republican Broun has not been helpful and putting forth ideas or proposals to restore true conservative credibality to the Republican brand and start a path to regaining the house majority.

    If you’re a Democrat Broun has been polarizing and done little for his district or state.

    And when state reps and senators give up safe seats to take you on . . . somebody has good intuition that Broun’s a sitting duck.

  3. ProfG says:

    Nixon Conservative – issue advocacy can go hand-in-hand with constituent service and representation of constituent interests. See: Rep. Ron Paul, who just won again in his district 2-to-1. And your bloodlust for free tuition, universal healthcare, pork and earmarks belies where YOUR true interests lay.

  4. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Then you should be calling me a hamiltonian, Mr. Greene. As Ms. Midtown pointed out, however, neither side of the aisle is being represented in the 1oth. I would be saying the exact same thing if my district (not yours Mr. Greene, you do not live in the 10th) were represented by a single issue liberal. There are a number of people that Broun is representinig…I will concede that much. Unfortunately the group he represents does not really know anything…they just have beliefs. If he actually had a record of helping his constituents, I would have no quarry with the man. It just so happens that he has done nothing that he promised to do, nor has he compensated for his lack of enthusiasm. The man is a complete failure, before his election and after. This is a guy with 3 failed marriages, an unheard of number of malpractice and sexual harassment suits, a personal bankruptcy, failed medical practices, and whose only claim to success is his father’s name…not his or his own merits.

  5. ProfG says:

    Unfortunately the group he represents does not really know anything…they just have beliefs.

    Nixon Conservative – your pomposity is matched only by your self-misnomer.

    What exactly did Broun (who’s not in my district, after all) promise to do that he has not done? I seem to recall hearing most of his promises first-hand, and I guess I’m just in the dark. But I’m sure your luminosity will bring us all out of the dark, into the wonderful light of your kingdom, no?

  6. Goldwater Conservative says:

    He promised to lead. While vague, he did mention a few issues that he would take the lead on: repealing or seriously revising NCLB. He committed to taking the lead on the health-care issue because: (and this is a paraphrase) after being a doctor for some many years, he understands the needs of patients and the health-care industry…then he would go into a ramble about red blood cell counts and how they cost more at the clinic as opposed to his [house-call] practice. He has done nothing to keep the naval-supply school in athens open…the list goes on a little but I really do not intend on going further myself.

    Fact is, while he may have made a vote or two on some of the issues that were mentioned in the campaign…he has not co-sponsored or proposed any bills that would fulfill his campaign commitments. He even changed his position on I-3 completely. I may have been told something different from you, but Rep. Broun promised me that he would not allow I-3 to be created. He told me that “if anything about the I-3 proposal were to be considered, it would be having a highway from Savannah to Augusta” and that he would leave our mountains and forests in the N.E. corner alone.

    Now, Bill, I hope you will allow me to address you as such. It is obvious that we have been at each others throats. Just to let you know, though, I do respect you. You ran for public office, and I know what kinds of criticisms candidates (and former candidates face)…you can call some of my acts Jeffersonian, if you will.

    While you and I differ greatly, I still think that you have an incredible resevoir of relavant knowledge. I can only hope you would say the same. At a secular level, at least.

    While I will never again believe in your faith (religiously), I would take your leadership before Paul Broun’s any day.

    I have no kingdom. As a life long educator, not a rhetoritician, I merely provide the means for individuals to shed light upon what they choose.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    Bill Greene,

    You said this to Goldwater: “And your bloodlust for free tuition, universal healthcare, pork and earmarks belies where YOUR true interests lay.”

    Let me ask you a simple question, Bill: Are you in favor of requiring prayer in public schools as an interest near-and-dear to your heart?

  8. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Regardless of how Mr. Greene responds, so long as he will fight to bring jobs and prosperity to the district…how his social positiions fit into partisan/ideological fit into the regular scheme of political behavior are irrelevant. The can be offset. Even if he is against Roe…what is beneficial to the 10th is the ability to come home and provide a meal for your family as well as the right to be represented in congress. Your vote is your choice…but as long as the interests of the district are considered, prioritization is up to whose best for the position.

  9. bowersville says:

    GC, have we witnessed a conversion or the 1st steps of a Greene campaign after redistricting?

    Or are we all being hoodooed?

  10. Holly says:

    I think Bill Greene should run for Congress in 2012, but I think he already knows I think that.

    That said, Bill, please tell me after everything from last summer that you’ve not become a Broun supporter?

  11. Bill Simon says:


    Regarding “fight to bring jobs and propserity to the district,” does that mean any congress representative should fight to steal (via earmarks) taxpayer money and send home that pork…even when less money could have ACTUALLY been collected from that district?

  12. Carpe Forem says:

    It’s not congress’s job to bring jobs to a district. Lower taxes, reduce spending and end a lot of the intrusive regulations and the free market will do the rest. Keep the BIG government “master planners” out of the 10th and we’ll do just fine. The collusion practices of congress (you vote yes for my pork and I’ll vote yes on your pork) has got to stop. We can’t afford it and it is an inefficient way to create jobs. Unless creating a need for more lobbyist is you goal.

  13. Holly says:

    Bill, do you know how earmarks really work? Once I actually learned about the budget process, I realized I want Congress to retain that power.

    Why I support them:

    1. Congress has Constitutional authority to set spending.
    2. The budget levels are set before earmarks are included. Earmarks do not increase the amount of spending; rather they require a certain amount of the overall budget funds to be spent a certain way. Unearmarked funds do not go back to the taxpayer; they are part of the general budget.
    3. In fiscal year 2007, there was no omnibus package. There was a “continuing resolution” for the previous year’s budget which contained no earmarks. In fiscal year 2008, there were earmarks in the omnibus package. The earmarks year saw a more even spread of funding throughout the country than the non-earmarks year. The Administration set projects in 2007 in which a few areas were awarded whopping amounts of federal money. (CongressDaily AM, 3/7/08)

    Why would the 435 Members of the House and 100 Senators let the Administration take total control of that process, particularly when the Administration has a clear plan for using the money that may or may not be what the local areas need? How can we rely on the Administration to know the local needs? How is it “stealing” when it’s Congress’ job?

  14. Carpe Forem says:

    Congress has Constitutional authority to set spending. In order to accomplish specific items mentioned in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. If they stuck to that there would be no need for earmarks. Currently, it is “stealing” because the Big gov D’s mostly uses earmarks for redistribution and the Big gov R’s uses them for cronyism.
    That being said, if congress decides to pass a billion dollar earmark to be given to me to become a better communicator… well, that would be OK… it would be for the “general welfare” of all and “for the children.”

  15. Carpe Forem says:

    ‘earmarking according to Ron Paul.’
    “If they’re gonna “tax and spend” or “print and spend” , they might as well spend some in my district.”

    If they cease and desist on the priors, there would be no need for the latter.

  16. Jane says:

    There is going to be a big fight between the Chamber of Commerce Republicans and the rural/suburban social conservatives. This fight is seen in the property tax debate, the Right to Life debate, just to name two issues. With two social conservatives fighting it out in this district, the Chamber candidate Fleming may have an easier time than what many people thought. This is unfortunate because cause we need our hard right conservatives to keep the chamber people honest on fiscal issues, immigration, and sometimes even moral issues.

  17. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Bill Simon, it is not stealing. I often find it difficult “to [maintain] a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” with out spending a little bit of money. I have heard many times that our freedom is paid for with blood…and while that is true, it is also true that the infrastructure required to maintain the forementioned constitutional priorities is paid for with money. The bridge to nowhere, an often cited ear-mark, would be an example of stealing because of various circumstances…but Congressman Barrow’s earmark to the Waynesboro police department, for the puchasing of equipment and updating of their facilities is neither wasteful nor is it non-necessary. Try presenting an argument rather than rhetoric for a change sir.

    Mr. Greene, those are not just words. It is what I believe.

    Bowersville, it is no conversion. It is Mr. Greene’s decision to run for office again, if he so chooses. I mean no offence to Mr. Greene, but if there is an individual who I think would do a better job, I will lend my support to him/her. I could care less what party an individual belongs, or which candidate I will benefit from…it is about the interests of the district, the state, and our country. Wanting the best for our society is not socialist…it is American.

  18. Bill Simon says:

    Okay, fine, change “stealing” to “forced taking of money from those districts in this country that pay more taxes and giving more money to those districts that do NOT pay that amount of taxes.”

    Because…if every district received no more than what it paid in federal taxes, then we wouldn’t be experiencing this thing called “deficit spending.”

    Holly, it’s simple math: Cash Inflow Must Be Equal To Or Less Than Cash Outflow…otherwise, someone is getting more than what they put into the system

  19. Holly says:

    Bill, I’m all for reducing the overall budget size. That would be effective. Getting rid of earmarks hands more power to bureaucracy. I don’t believe in that at all.

  20. Harry says:

    I have a hadr time believing that purchasing equipment and facilities for a certain politically-connected local police and fire department is a federal budgetary responsibility.

  21. Holly says:

    Those are Homeland Security Grants, by and large, Harry. They have to go toward the purchase of equipment, not salaries.

  22. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Harry, politically connected? It is called constituent services. I was providing one example. The list can go on, but I do not feel it necessary to “copy and paste” about 2/3 of the budget. Yes, there is wasteful spending…what can we do about it? I propose something similar to what our founders would have probably said (I say this because once that little word “founders” makes it into any argument…it becomes valid for pedants such as your self). A non-political/non-partisan (which by today’s standards mean bi-partisan) group of individuals should be appointed and confirmed to review the budget. The OMB is not sufficient, and it as become over ridden with partisan hacks. I can not support a line item veto for the president either…no matter who the president is. Separate the powers. Congressional committees are a step better than our previous methods…but we are in an advanced age of democratic republicanism now.

    Furthermore, and I do not mean to seem partisan, but , Bill, if we did not have this ridiculous war…we would be fine. In addition to that, certain taxes and social benefits need to be adjusted to compensate for inflation. The original progressive income tax system was sufficient when it was devised. Unfortunetly the parties played politics with said system. While the GOP has refused to increase taxes…they have continuously increased spending. Then when the Dems take the majority, taxes increase and spending is maintained at its previous levels. This is not an indictment on the GOP…had the timeline been different I am certain that the roles would be reversed.

    As to your use of the word “forced,” Mr. Simon, we are a society. By all means, secede. You will face the wrath that our country has become so good at executing. Taxation and representation go hand in hand. Sometimes I wish we (America) would allow a select number of individuals not pay taxes and try to be part of our community. We call those people homeless though. To watch your little half acre, suburban nation be embargoed and surrounded by military force would be amusing. While it sounds like Soveit behavior…it is anything but. How productive a member of society becomes is determined, ultimately, by what they contribute. I know that I am not alone in this, there are very few people such as your self, Mr. Simon, who believe that America should be represented by an aristocracy comprised of individuals that represent corporations rather than districts.

  23. Bill Simon says:

    “I know that I am not alone in this, there are very few people such as your self, Mr. Simon, who believe that America should be represented by an aristocracy comprised of individuals that represent corporations rather than districts.”


    Goldwater…you sound a lot like…a fruitcake. One of those fruitcakes that has been heavily laced with brandy.

  24. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Yes…I may have had a few drinks. Nonetheless, this does not make my argument incorrect.

    I have called this “economic pluralism” since I was a doctoral student. I actually proposed such arguments the basis of a national defense system. Just as you understand the Democrats as pandering to their economic base, (i.e. labor unions and trial attorneys) the other side, Republicans, have their own economic interests. Corporations and other companies that outsource the jobs of middle and lower class Americans. There is a catch 22. We all want the same thing, but we seek financiering from groups that have alterior motives.

    It is a conclusion to debates concerning campaign finance law. The democrats, behind the scenes, have been lobbying for full public financing. It would level the playing field and force candidates to run on the issues and their record (personal, public or political). The GOP has resisted hoping to keep wealthy private interests on their side. Little did they know, there is actually more money in the Democratic arena because of how many lawyers and middle class businessmen have been getting screwed by the GOP since the mid-nineties.

    I hope this does not go over you head, Bill. It is fact. My sobriety is much more keen to current events than your conspiracies.

    Stop being a partisan hack and thinking that your party is morally superior.

  25. Bill Simon says:

    LOL! Our party IS “morally superior.” But, you would not know that based on the morons who have been elected and served.

    The really GOOD ones left public office in disgust. The other ones who left got indicted.

    Still, I’m pretty sure the Dems’ scorecard has more convicted crooks on it than does the GOP scorecard.

  26. Holly says:

    I think this begs the question of why “the really GOOD ones left public office in disgust,” doesn’t it? And the argument of “we’re bad, but not as bad as they are” doesn’t get us very far. (See Election 2006.)

Comments are closed.