Comments on: Only 100 Members, But They Already Have a Candidate for Governor

By: Jason Shepherd

Jason Shepherd — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:55:23 +0000

Roy’s a lawyer, but I think he secretly wants to be a barrister:

http://elvis-pelt.com/Images/ImagesK/ImagesK1/BarristerPoint.jpg

By: Will Hinton

Will Hinton — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:08:36 +0000

What’s the point when the deck is stacked making it pretty well impossible for 3rd party or independent candidates to even get on the ballot? I agree with many that 3rd parties will likely have little if any impact. But to essentially ban them from the process is anti-democratic. Unfortunately neither Dems nor Repubs. have any incentive to do the right thing and open up ballot access.

By: Bucky Plyler

Bucky Plyler — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:05:27 +0000

Maybe Roy will wear his wig inside out..sort of like a rally cap.

By: Dash Riptide

Dash Riptide — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:35:14 +0000

As a closet Tory bent on world domination, I welcome the challenge.

By: Steve Perkins

Steve Perkins — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:46:07 +0000

So you basically saying that Roy Barnes is a Whigger? I’m amazed that neither Erick or nor Pete have run with that yet!

By: macho

macho — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:31:35 +0000

Although this issues is decidedly un-Barneslike:

Political Re-districting- It is morally and ethically reprehensible that the ones re writing voting districts are the very people affected by them. This should be done in the state by a by-partisan committee and ratified by a judge without any partisan involvement.

The rest of their state issues could not be more mamby pamby and less innovative:

Education – some say it’s bad some say it’s not, let’s work together.

Transportation – let’s build some smart infrastructure.

Budget- we need more of a surplus for a rainy day fund and it needs flexibility.

Healthcare – don’t come up with a quick decision. Pick the low hanging fruit and consolidate the bad stuff.

Georgia Economy – follow the previous advice and we’ll do just fine.

Crime- We need to comprehensively reduce it by focusing on the bad variables. (Actually they didn’t have crime, but they are free to add my response.)

So as you can see, their issue statements basically say nothing at all, other than redistricting, which could not be more contrary to Barnes’ attitude about political districts.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:04:53 +0000

That’s actually exactly what I’m thinking. They are basically on that line between RLC/forgot the name of the equivalent Dem group and LP – which is really a very thin line to begin with.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:17:53 +0000

Too “Liberatarian-Lite” to be taken seriously by the fringes that would be interested in jumping their partisan ship.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:58:16 +0000

Actually, the Modern version looks decently close to Barnes' ideas, what little of them I remember (cut me some slack, I was 15 when he was first elected, not politically active at the time). The National tenets and detailed vision can be seen here - socially tolerant but still supports massive federal intervention in at LEAST Afghanistan, NASA, NOAA, and some others.

By: Steve Perkins

Steve Perkins — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:42:54 +0000

I don’t think King Roy was all that serious with the Whig reference. If I recall my history correctly, the Whigs’ big deal was believing that the legislature should have far more power than the executive. That’s about 180-degrees from his last term.

Besides, “Modern Whig” sounds kinda like “Trendy Square-Dance”. Unless it’s primarily a social club for history buffs, I’d pick a newer or more intuitive name like “Moderate Party” or something.