Tom Graves for Speaker

The man shows no interest in running for Speaker, instead being content to be one of 435 members of the United States House of Representatives.

I think it is impressive how many people overnight jumped in the prior post to say he would be a terrific Speaker.

You might want to tell him yourself. You can email him here.

He is my choice for Congress in the 9th. I’ve talked him up everywhere. But he would be one heck of a Speaker of the House and a solid break with the culture of scotch and strippers that has so tainted the GOP leadership in the House.

By the way, here is the list of all the House members. If you feel strongly, you might want to let them know too.

46 comments

  1. Doug Deal says:

    I wonder if Graves realizes that as a member of Congress he will be nothing more than a pawn in the hands of leadership. US House members are nothing more than warm bodies that vote for a speaker and other leadership every two years.

    Look at Jim Marshall as an example. He is considered to be a “conservative” member of the House, yet he votes with Barney Frank 85% of the time when considering all roll call votes. He votes with Lynn Westmoreland around 45% of the time. When put in a list from those that vote with the Republicans most often to those that vote the least, he comes out more liberal than even the most so called liberal Republicans.

    Those “liberal” and “moderate” Republicans that purists rail against are all still more “conservative” than the supposedly right leaning Dems when you look at more than just their abortion votes. There are no real mavericks in the House.

    Basically, what this means is that Graves has a choice to be a minor cog in a big machine or be a leader. If he wants to make a major difference, being Speaker is the way to go.

  2. AthensRepublican says:

    Tom Graves has also served what I consider about the right amount of time in the legislature to have the experience necessary to be Speaker and to have viewed what not to do from Murphy, Coleman and Richardson. He showed courage (unlike Austin Scott) in standing up to Glenn Richardson last year.

      • ksuowls81 says:

        AthensRepublican doesn’t go by facts Icarus. He just likes throwing rhetoric out there to see if he has any biters. You know an ignore button would be a great addition to this sight.

        I know he lost his position because of a vote (just like Austin Scott did) but wasn’t he the Speakers Hawk, hand chosen by the leadership team.

        • AthensRepublican says:

          I have backed my position up with statements Austin Scott himself made. Do you have anything better to offer?

          • ksuowls81 says:

            Yeah you also agreeing with me in an earlier section. I guess you figure that things never change. Things stay static. Sorry but life doesn’t work that way.

          • ksuowls81 says:

            And not to mention the fact that Austin went against leadership on many votes. He actually proved his willingness to buck leadership with actions not just words.

          • AthensRepublican says:

            Waiting to hear that from Austin Scott. You attacking the concerns I (and others have) raised are not making me any more likely to switch to him.

            Also, for Speaker I don’t know that the caucus would risk backing someone with as weak re-elect numbers as Austin Scott has had against Democrats in what should be a safe Republican district.

          • ksuowls81 says:

            I attack concerns that are flemsy at best. I am not a “dedicated” Austin Scott support but some of the attacks you through around are not right. Not for any candidate under the same circumstances. My job isn’t to help you choose a candidate for Governor, but to not let you get away with throwing around your opinion like it is fact. You say you want Austin to say something but don’t you think that when he comes out and is the FIRST to state that he would sign a petition to kick the Speaker out that he is making a statement then? What did would you have him do? Gather a mob with pitchforks and torches and storm his office. All I ask is for you to not have tunnel vision. You are looking at ONE statement and ignoring years of contridictory evidence of him going against the leadership.

          • AthensRepublican says:

            No, I was basing my opinion on several emphatic statements Austin Scott has made in the past year.

        • Ken in Eastman says:

          I think Austin Scott is a good man, but first of all he has expressed no public interest in the position of Georgia House Speaker. He may not be interested. My understanding is that Scott was approached by some fellow Republicans about running against Democrat Jim Marshall in the 8th Congressional District but Scott stated he was running for Governor. As far as I know he has not changed that position.

          Secondly, he did originally stand up to Richardson, but then abruptly changed. I don’t know why, but there may have been good reason. Perhaps it was to better represent his constituents. For what ever reason, if he is interested in being Georgia House Speaker, then Austin Scott needs to address that issue. Even the public statement that supporting Richardson was a mistake would be welcome.

          Finally, if he is set on running for Governor, the apparently endless speculation about his candidacy for the speakership is not helping his gubernatorial campaign. It may help name recognition, but it is certainly hurting donations. People do not donate to campaigns that they believe are about to end.

          For the record, I have not decided whom I will support for the next governor, other than they will have an R after their name.

          • Culpepper says:

            Scott is going to be branded, rightly or wrongly, as a Richardson supporter by the press and the dems.

            His reply will be “I was for him before I was against him”.

            Republicans will be toast.

    • Back in Black says:

      Actually, Tom Graves was completely gutless.

      Tom did NOT stand up to Richardson last year.

      In fact, DAVID RALSTON stood up to Richardson last year and ran against Richardson for Speaker.

      Graves VOTED FOR Glenn Richardson in the election. Just ask him.

      Graves KNEW better. Ask Tom why he voted for Richardson when he KNEW better.

      Email him and ask.

      I will wait here and watch for the Graves campaign to respond to this.

  3. YossarianLives says:

    Graves is young enough, and in a safe enough district, that he could become a Congressional leader in years to come.

  4. Muscadine says:

    Erick, you have zero credibility. If you want to Graves to be Speaker, you should endorse somebody else. Didn’t Graves vote for the GA Power bill?

  5. Debra says:

    If he is a Hawk and voted for the Ga Power Bill, he wouldn’t be the man I would want for Speaker. If those two things are true, looks like he would be same ole, same ole.

  6. provisional says:

    Two Questions:
    1) So should we expect an endorsement of Tom Graves for Congress from Red State?

    2) If Mike Evans was a still a member of the House Republican Caucus would there be any kind of push to make him Speaker like we are seeing about Tom Graves?

    • Icarus says:

      There was a huge push here to keep Mike Evans on the DOT board. He squandered that opportunity, and virtually all of Sonny Perdue’s political capital with regards to transportation reform.

      I’m pretty sure Mike Evans has used (and abused) all of the push he’s going to get here.

        • Icarus says:

          Don’t take this so personally. Politics is all about agreeing where you can, and knocking folks between their eyes when you can’t.

          Lighten up. This is usually a pretty fun place.

          • provisional says:

            Tom Graves is getting the push because he is a true conservative who serves with integrity and leadership, what we would hope to find in all those in public office. If Evans isn’t wanted to be Speaker, how can he be wanted to represent the 9th District in Washington. We should have a standard for all those who serve us in elected positions.

          • ByteMe says:

            … because he is a true conservative…

            Everyone wants to be the “true conservative”, but there are literally 500 definitions for what that means, so it’s meaningless and nothing more than sloganeering.

            As speaker, you want someone who can herd dogs and cats and a few llama (I’ll let you decide who is which) without letting it go to his/her head.

            It’s not just the current leaders who are corrupt; the corruption is all over the place under the Dome, so expecting a knight in shiny conservative armor to come from a vote of the corrupt is ludicrous at best.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            @Joshua Morris

            The late Dr. Russell Kirk was a genius.

            If I’m going to quibble, it would be that his excellent essay is more of a description than a definition, still it’s a remarkable piece. Thanks for the link.

        • Ken in Eastman says:

          AR,

          Whom did you tick off?

          At this time Icarus has a +2. You agree with Icarus and have a -2.

          Well, have fun – and I’m sure you will.

  7. Back in Black says:

    Still waiting for a response to this post below.

    Either (wrongly) dispute it or agree to it. It was Ralston who did the right thing. Graves voted for Richardson even though he KNEW better.

    Gutless.

    “Actually, Tom Graves was completely gutless.

    Tom did NOT stand up to Richardson last year.

    In fact, DAVID RALSTON stood up to Richardson last year and ran against Richardson for Speaker.

    Graves VOTED FOR Glenn Richardson in the election. Just ask him.

    Graves KNEW better. Ask Tom why he voted for Richardson when he KNEW better.

    Email him and ask.

    I will wait here and watch for the Graves campaign to respond to this.”

      • YossarianLives says:

        Ask Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay how they feel about pseudonyms.

        • ChuckEaton says:

          I didn’t say I had a problem with pseudonyms, I understand there are Capitol staffers, lobbyists, and politicians who provide useful information that wouldn’t be available otherwise. It’s just that the irony get’s a little thick in the air, and something else gets thick on the ground, when folks under a pseudonym, start refering to a friend running for Congress as gutless.

          Besides it’s a bit over-the-top to be comparing this thread, and any criticisms somebody might have of Tom, to the ratification of the US Constitution.

          • ByteMe says:

            I didn’t say I had a problem with pseudonyms

            You called it “gutless” to use one to criticize. Sounds like you have a problem or else you incorrectly use “gutless” as a compliment.

          • ChuckEaton says:

            I think I’ve made myself clear: fine to criticize anything under a pseudonym, but ironic to call someone gutless or a coward unders an alias.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            ByteMe has now made me laugh aloud twice in two days.

            Where’s that bottle of Glenfiddich? I think I need a shot.

          • ChuckEaton says:

            I guess it’s an exercise in futility, when I’m the only one not using a pseudonym in a thread, to try and explain the irony of calling someone gutless under a pseudonym.

    • steelfist says:

      Back in Black – Tom didn’t vote for Richardson. If you’ve got the proof that Tom voted for Richardson, then lay it out on the table. If not, your attacks are baseless. And don’t tell me to prove that he didn’t – you are one making the baseless accusation.

      Tom is running for Congress and will quickly become a leader in Washington.

Comments are closed.