Tired Of Our Advice? Seek These For Counsel

It is appearing more and more likely that the House Republican caucus will fill all four top leadership positions sometime between now and Christmas. The group will meet tomorrow morning in Atlanta on the campus of a school with the ACC’s best, but Georgia’s second best NCAA football program. We’re told that tomorrow will be for “discussion only”, but that a vote within the caucus will occur before Christmas, with December 21st as the targeted date as of now.

I remain firmly convinced that the House has one chance to get this right. The new team will have to go to work immediately and demonstrate that Republicans are part of the solution to Georgia’s problems, not just another problem. And while many of us outside that room would like to have a say in the process and selection, the fact remains that the House members are each familiar with the candidates, and probably resent some of the kibitzing about what they should do.

Since that has never stopped me before, I won’t let it now either. But today, I’m not going to recommend who from the House should or should not be elected (though I definitely stand by my earlier position of who should not remain in leadership). Rather, I’m going to list five people whom I think each House member should talk to before they make any final decisions, or at least if they are wavering on their opinions at all:

1) Austin Scott. He’s one of you, but he plans on being on the ballot statewide in November. He’s at been loyal to the House and leadership, yet stood up against the grain when he felt it necessary. He understands your caucus, but is equally concerned about the effect of this choice on the statewide race. He sees all sides, and the implications of a good or bad decision.

2) Tom Graves. He’s bucked the system more than many of you are comfortable with. You may even resent some of the attention he brought to the house when he decided to do what he thought was right instead of what a lot of you did because you were told to do so. But, it turns out, many of you were listening to the wrong people when being told what to do. Seek this man out and at least hear his thoughts on what should happen next.

3) Mike Jacobs. Many of you still arrogantly believe that there is no way you will lose the majority in the house in 2010. And chances are, you are right. You may just lose a member here or there. When you’re talking to Mike Jacobs, be sure to look him in the eye and tell him why voting for a “safe” choice is worth having a Democrat sitting in his seat next year.

4) Lynn Westmoreland. Probably the most independent voice any of you guys (and gals) respect. He’ll be reelected no matter how badly you screw this up. But it was his leadership that made possible the majority you have today – and may squander tomorrow. If you need a reminder of what core conservative values look like, give Lynn a call. The same holds true if you need a reminder of what it was like when we were in the minority.

5) Johnny Isakson. Another person who is running statewide, and someone you should think about when deciding that the pain at the ballot box to maintain status quo. We almost lost a U.S. Senate seat last year, and the other side will be aiming all they have to get this one. Do we really want to give them an assist by not solving our “image” problems now, nor give ourselves the opportunity to make real rule and policy changes that show commitment to our ideals?

You’ll probably see a lot of our regular commenters disagree with some or all of my choices, and say they’re also part of the problem. Guess what, these same commenters want ALL of your heads too, not just the ones in leadership. Talk amongst yourselves, but do look for some outside influences like the ones I mentioned above whom YOU respect, but are not necessarily tied to their future as House members. I think you’ll find that despite differing backgrounds, they will offer you some sound advice.

32 comments

  1. Joshua Morris says:

    Johnny? I don’t know about that. He’s more interested in bipartisanship than he is in the stated principles of his own party.

    • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

      yeah, bipartisanship is such and evil concept…everything should just be My way or the highway. To hell with progress and getting things accomplished.

    • IndyInjun says:

      You beat me to it.

      Isakson best keep as low a profile as possible.

      The man is EXTREMELY vulnerable, if he gets a primary challenge.

    • Joshua Morris says:

      LIMH, to me, principle is more important than bipartisanship. The idea is not “My way or the highway”–it’s just that there are some concrete truths that I will not compromise.

      I watch many politicians and wonder if they have any concrete truths that they stand by. Sometimes it seems that many are willing to compromise anything in the name of ‘progress.’ What good is calling something ‘progress’ if you don’t really understand the principles behind the matter and the long term effects?

      Some compromise, obviously, is necessary, but bipartisanship should not be a primary legislative goal.

      • ByteMe says:

        Yes, bipartisanship should not be a goal, no matter how much Congressional Republicans claim it should be a top goal. 🙂

        • Ken in Eastman says:

          Yes, and while I know that was supposed to be a shot at the GOP in Washington, it’s still true.

          Principles are more important that pragmatism (at least most of the time).

          • ByteMe says:

            One person’s “principles” is another person’s “apartheid”. It’s all in how you look at it.

            I’d rather have pragmatism and realism when it comes to creating legislation. The moralists want everything to be about morality; the “constitutionalists” want everything rolled back to 1780; the corporatists want everything to be about making business more profitable; and the Progressives want everything to look like Europe.

            The reality is that none will ever get everything they want because each group taken individually tries to impose a burden on enough other people who don’t believe that those “principles” are the right ones.

          • IndyInjun says:

            Byte,

            You left out one thing I DEMAND …..

            That Isakson keep his word.

            He didn’t. He lied about being for every element of what he claimed to be – a REPUBLICAN.

          • Joshua Morris says:

            Byte, you have demonstrated what I believe to be the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives–principle vs. emotion.

            Emotions change, but principles do not. One can rely on tested principles to form a foundation to guide everything he does. If someone is not settled on the core beliefs on which to base his decisions, he will be unstable and vulnerable to bad decisions based on the emotion of the moment.

            We’re seeing bad decisions by liberals (in both parties) in Washington right now because of policy built on emotion-based coffeehouse philosophies rather than on solid principles (healthcare, global warming, stimulus, etc.). Proven principles teach us what the long term effects of policy will be. Emotion causes people with good intentions to make bad long term decisions in an effort to solve a present issue.

            Pragmatism in the short term can create some real nightmares in the long term. Entitlement programs are perfect examples.

          • ByteMe says:

            Some unasked-for advice: The minute you use the word “liberal”, I’m sure you have no idea what you’re talking about. At that point, I stop reading.

      • benevolus says:

        “I will not compromise”. Just because you don’t get everything you want RIGHT NOW doesn’t mean you have abandoned your principles. It just means that there are other people in the world who believe differently, and you can keep on working towards your goal even in little steps if that’s what it takes.

        • ByteMe says:

          The reality is that our government has been designed to prevent quick and radical change in favor of incremental changes.

        • IndyInjun says:

          It ain’t the politician’s ‘goal’ he should work for. He should work to keep his promises and to protect the interests of his constituents and when 95% call in opposition, to heed their wishes and vote according to his previously stated principles which are in accordance with the people’s wishes.

          Isakson threw these things out the window and now he is demonstrably the biggest fool in Georgia Politics.

  2. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Austin Scott?
    Are you kidding me?
    I just don’t understand people’s fasination with this guy. He’s rash, arrogant, lacks any grasp of all but the most easily understood policy, and he’s just a plain dumb jerk.

    • NorthGAGOP says:

      Loyalty,
      When I met Austin he came across as arrogant, and did lack an understanding of the issues. When asked about the water issue, he said we can conserve our way out of it.

  3. Bill Greene says:

    AHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha…..

    That’s the funniest post Charlie’s written in a long time! Hoo-boy, he almost had us going there with that crazy list! *sniff* lol…

    Right….?

  4. IndyInjun says:

    Do we really want to give them an assist by not solving our “image” problems now…

    YOUR image problems are very firmly and squarely rooted in supporting an IMPOSTOR of a “Republican” in name only like Isakson, a man who has demonstrably and repeatedly stabbed conservatism and REPUBLICANISM in the back with his votes.

    I grant you this. Now is the time to save the GOP in Georgia by dumping this guy for someone with a sense of principles.

    Isakson is no more qualified to be in the US Senate than I am qualified to pilot a space shuttle.

      • IndyInjun says:

        I have faith our guys and gals will do the right thing.

        Ah, how is this different than the faith you put in them BEFORE all of this?

        Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

        • Ken in Eastman says:

          Indy,

          MAYBE without Speaker Richardson’s threats – and the knowledge that a lot of people are very angry and motivated – we will finally get the right result.

  5. GOPGeorgia says:

    Interesting mix of those to seek council from.

    A few thoughts about some of the posts on this thread. I think that each legislator should have a set of core beliefs that they want to uphold. There will inevitably come legislation before them where these beliefs will not apply. That is an area where it is safe to compromise, strike deals, reach across the aisle and foster a working relationship. Bipartisanship has it’s place, and so do party line votes. It depends on the legislation. Notice, this applies equally to members of all parties.

    There is no such things a pure candidate that you agree with 100% of the time. I think that Johnny is an good US Senator that I agree with a lot more than I disagree with. Some posters on here might have their attitudes improved for a while of the were injected into deep space. Just kidding, kind of. A lot of posters have nothing positive to say about anyone. You know who you are.

    “I can’t believe I spend my time reading crap like this. What an idiot.” Is the idiot that you are referring to yourself?

    • ByteMe says:

      Ok, I’ll return the favor and agree with you on this post. Now we’re even 🙂

      The best politicians we’ve seen over the years have been the ones who understood that compromise gets you closer to your goals than dogmatic principle. Getting a portion of what you want now is better than getting nothing, even if you have to prioritize your goals. And if you’re really really “right” about something, that time is on your side and people will eventually come around to your way of thought… or else you probably weren’t really right to begin with.

Comments are closed.