Galloway’s correct, Snuggles is the man to beat.

From Jim Galloway’s article yesterday:

There’s no doubt that, after eight years in the rough-and-tumble of DeKalb politics, Jones — the only African-American in the contest — enters the U.S. Senate race with baggage that would crush a normal career. No other candidate in the race has been singled out with a web page dedicated to the public documents generated by his encounters with law enforcement authorities.

But we are not in normal times. Jones remains the man to beat. Under no circumstances should you count him out — for two reasons. One is Barack Obama, and the other is Hillary Clinton.

To best Jones, a candidate must be able to attract a healthy percentage of African-American voters, who make up roughly half of the Democratic electorate.

21 comments

  1. IndyInjun says:

    So Georgia’s contested seat in the U.S. Senate will remain in liberal hands……..

  2. Goldwater Conservative says:

    If Chambliss is your idea of a liberal, “indy”injun, I do not want to imagine what a moderate or a conservative is to you.
    I am thinking Hitler and Gengis Kahn…perhaps Stalin or even Usama bin Ladin are more in line with your brand of conservatism after that remark.

  3. Donkey Kong says:

    The only policy of Saxby’s that I think is blatantly liberal is his support of agricultural subsidies.

  4. Goldwater Conservative says:

    He does not support the subsidies because he is a liberal. Have you ever looked at his campaign disclosures?

  5. John Konop says:

    Highway bill, No child left behind, Energy Bill, Farm bill, Drug prescription bill…….I can think of 9 trillion reasons and growing why SAXBY is liberal!

  6. Progressive Dem says:

    Government subsidies to business are widely supported by southern conservative Republican senators. Ultimately he is a captive of agri-business special interests. It is an old southern tradition. His predecessors were tools of the peanut, sugar, tobacco and cotton barrons. It has little to do with liberal and conservative. However business subsidies are more likely to favored by Republicans/conservatives and transfer payments are more likely to be supported by Democrats/liberals.

  7. SouthFultonGuy says:

    If the democrat superdelagates give the presidential primary to Hillary Clinton, the black vote might actually question their unwaivering support for dems and Snuggles might not be a shoe in.

  8. Progressive Dem says:

    JK,

    No. We are in the red because we have thrown over $400 BILLION into a rat hole called Iraq!

  9. John Konop says:

    Progressive Dem

    I was clear that I am no fan of the current Iraq strategy. But the honest truth is even without Iraq we are running up out of control debt. The real debt is much higher than reported because it is on a cash basis not taking into consideration future liabilities. In the private world this is illegal.

    Watch this interview of David Walker former head of the GOA.

    http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/david-walker-60-minutes-summary-by-steve-kroft

  10. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I believe that there are a number of issues that do not have to fall into this false paradigm of liberalism vs. conservatism.

    I am not certain, but I do not think Saxby supports subsidies as an ideological concession. Just like many entrenched politicians, Saxby in more interested in getting re-elected and supporting a coalition of citizens that he represents than being a standard-bearer of a failing ideological/political cause.

    Furthermore, the subsidies keep Georgia agriculture competitive. I always get a kick out of you “ideological conservatives” that complain about America losing jobs to foreign competitors, but arguing for strict “free-market” economics. Guess what? America does not measure up in many industries or in quite a few markets.

    I really do not like repeating myself…but Saxby’s support of subsidies is probably not ideological…it is electoral.

    Whether you believe it is corrupt…whatever. Those are the rules that were made.

  11. John Konop says:

    Goldwater Conservative

    The problem is workers must have the same legal rights as employers. As Adam Smith warned if that is no part of the trade agreement you would have the issues we have today. The truth is we have managed trade not free trade.

  12. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I agree that workers should have the same legal rights as employers, but so long as there is any nationalistic spirit free trade will not be a politically viable position for many elected law-makers.

    Total free trade will not be possible until more international labor laws are put in place. To keep developed economies viable.

  13. IndyInjun says:

    Would Goldwater have championed Chambliss’ votes to aggressively expand the power and scope of government, amongst which was the biggest social spending program in 40 years, thereby indebting the USA to the point of bankruptcy?

    I AM an Indy, but you are not only not a conservative, you are the antithesis of a Goldwater Conservative.

    A lot Indies are former GOPers who didn’t over and play dead when the GOP abandoned its principles.

  14. Goldwater Conservative says:

    The GOP has not had principles since the mid 70s.

    Most of the positions that are currently held by the GOP are in conflict with each other. Like the fore mentioned problem of nationalism and free trade. You can not have both…but they are used candidly in hopes of electoral gain.

    You can have principles or you can have electoral victory…you can not always have both. That is the republican principle that was discussed at length throughout the Federalist Papers (notably #9 and #10 with their consideration of pluralism).

  15. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Our system was not designed to water down hyperpartisanship.

    There is no room for tyranny in America, Indy.

  16. John Konop says:

    Goldwater

    I am all for real free trade. That means no subsidies, system that respects Intellectual property laws, basic human rights, a real legal system that guarantees rights for all and strong Sherman anti-trust laws.

    This is what the father of free market economics wrote about in Wealth of Nations. He was clear anything less would create many of the issues we face today.

    This is not a liberal or conservative issue it is basic common sense.

  17. Goldwater Conservative says:

    You’re right, it is common sense.

    Our system is now global though.

    It is just not possible (sorry, it is not intelligent) when we are dealing with over 100 economies that have different labor laws, product standards, environmental standards, economic systems, etc.

    We (America) has a standard of living that it must live up to. At present, considering all of the things mentioned earlier, going for the “real free trade” idea will force the citizens of the U.S. into a race to the bottom. IKEA and Walmart are not really competitors, but trade would not be possible between them. Standards.

    Poisonous dog food and childrens toys maybe acceptable in China, we will not live with that in the U.S. Standards.

    Syrian oil or Venezuelan oil? Venezuelan…again Standards.

    Free trade is only free if it is fair.

  18. IndyInjun says:

    Goldwater,

    I hear you and largely agree, but what about the poison finance that Wall Street pedaled to the rest of the world?

    The globalists seem to reign supreme, but there are very serious cracks about the foundation.

    “Free” trade is a misnomer as long as the USA is bearing huge defense costs as a % of GDP, versus nil for its major competitors.

    Squeezing the American people between the downdraft of global wages and the updraft of global costs is about to cause chaos here.

  19. John Konop says:

    Goldwater Conservative

    Adam Smith was all for retaliatory tariffs. That is why in the trade agreements you must have real teeth if the other country violates the agreement.

    Adam Smith was clear that in your trade agreement the lack of basic legal rights. Monopolies….would be violations and subject to tariffs.

    I have no issue if Honda comes to our country and hires U.S workers and is successful that is business. But if a company uses child/slave/prison labor with limited rights and calls that competition than I have a problem.

    I will remind people during are own civil war many felt freeing the slaves would kill our economy. As we know the opposite happen and that is what Adam Smith promoted.

Comments are closed.