Comments on: 9th District Leading Candidates Augment Staff

By: benevolus

benevolus — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:53:50 +0000

Lobbyist.

By: ByteMe

ByteMe — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:17:23 +0000

Methinks “county” is funnier.

By: rugby

rugby — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:09:25 +0000

“Methinks “county” should be “country””

Didn’t even catch that.

Looks like I’m the moran now!

By: Joshua Morris

Joshua Morris — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:39:49 +0000

appy, you still don’t get it. He can’t keep the money from being spent here. He’s just saying that it’s better to support private businesses with infrastructure that will help them create jobs than to create wasteful public jobs with the money.

This project was not building a statue, building an expansion to a college, or building a road. It is an infrastructure project. It should have been a local project, but the Feds did it. So we’re glad that at least it helps local business.

By: Part-Time Atlanta

Part-Time Atlanta — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:23:30 +0000

Or crazy…

By: Part-Time Atlanta

Part-Time Atlanta — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:11:17 +0000

“all of the crap that goes into drafting legislation”

Couldn’t have said it better.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:00:13 +0000

“…The goal of Team 180 is to turn the direction our county 180 and back to the roots on which it was founded.”

Methinks “county” should be “country”.
And
IMHO “180″ should be “180 degrees”.
Of course in skateboard vernacular you can “do a 180″. But “do a 180″ doesn’t really resonate with moi in the political context. If you’re using the ship analogy, many would be happy with a click or two to the right. For a short time. Otherwise you’re going to go in circles.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:40:48 +0000

Jackster
The philosophical questions abound. For example, some would say only the most devious sociopath could get up at the podium to address “the people” with the talking points when he/she KNOWS the whole time that he/she is really doing the bidding of his corporate sponsors. As far as who pays for the campaign the need for a large budget in relation to other candidates would stem from the fact that the large contributors have created the need in the first place. They’ve created the playing field. But the big difference between the individual and the PACs and the lobbyists vs. the constituents is the former are making a financial investment or “business decision” with the expectation of a decent ROI. “The people” aren’t quite so savvy or sophisticated. Or selfish. Or unprincipled.

By: Captain Phatbeard

Captain Phatbeard — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:08:13 +0000

Ap Trail,

Here are some from this session:

I don’t have time at the moment to describe what each of those does (Saints-Vikings, you know) but those are bills sponsored by Hawkins on health care reform at the Georgia level. One or two I may have a quibble with but on the whole I think they are very good. I have heard him talk about health care reform and what he says goes much further than Graves’s very incorrect decree that “fixing health care is easy.”

By: Captain Phatbeard

Captain Phatbeard — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:58:41 +0000

If you can describe phone bank members as an “elite group” of “Freedom fighters” with a straight face then you’re a better actor than I am.

By: AlanR

AlanR — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:55:13 +0000

appachtrail — I thinks its highly unethical to support a system that adds a committee member who shows up only when needed to vote the Speaker’s way. The hawks weren’t real committee members, they did none of the boring work on committee. They just showed up when the speaker said show up, and voted the way the speaker said.

Sorry if we disagree, but the whole hawk thing sounds like something Pelosi thought up.

By: appachtrail70

appachtrail70 — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:58:09 +0000

@Joshua Morris, Because Captain Phatbeard is doing something entirely different.

“”Government has no place in increasing bureaucracy in order to create jobs,” said Hawkins. “Instead, government should be supporting projects like the North Georgia Network that provide the tools businesses need to keep employees employed and to expand their reach.”

If you honestly believe government should be providing pork to Congressional districts, then go ahead and support Hawkins. Maybe he can be the only Republican to vote for the next stimulus package.

By: appachtrail70

appachtrail70 — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:39:07 +0000

Most true Conservatives are supporting Tom!

By: appachtrail70

appachtrail70 — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:38:04 +0000

How is it unethical to accept a position your given? Do you understand the concept of ethics? You could argue that it was unethical if Graves ever didn’t vote his conscious as a Hawk to appease Richardson. Find me an example and I will stop supporting him. But watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu3QWFDwfiA, you will see Graves’ true principals.

The 216 group members had a massive target on their shoulders. The group was starting to become ineffective because house leadership would shut down everything they did. They starting working covertly and got a lot of good things passed, Jobs Act to name one bill.

Now w/o fear of retribution and w/the house leadership shaken up, they decided to bring it back. I don’t know how you can see fault in any of this, but not see fault in donating to Cleland and standing with the VP to accept Pork.

What has Hawkins ever done in the Senate besides get slapped around by Casey C?

By: Jackster

Jackster — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:34:22 +0000

To me, it’s simple – Who pays for campaigns? It certainly isn’t me, the guy working a career job, one kid, and paying taxes, barely living paycheck to paycheck.

It’s the PACS, and the lobbyists they employ. It angers me that we are having such a lively debate on healthcare, when we should first be having a national discussion about one fundamental question – Who actually pays for your congressman/senator, etc’s campaign? If you don’t like it, then are you willing to pony up the $$?

By: Jackster

Jackster — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:28:30 +0000

Mother Goose – I agree. It’s almost like you’re trying tosay there’s a conflict of interest by employing someone who was a lobbyist. By DEFINITION, whn you take a job running a campaign, don’t you cease to be a lobbyist for whatever cause you were employed by?

And aren’t you hired because you have a good network, know how to play the game, and can give good advice?

To me, the dirty word should be incumbent. All that really is to me is a REASON not to vote for you.

By: Joshua Morris

Joshua Morris — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:00:05 +0000

Come on, people. Senator Hawkins isn’t responsible for $50 of anyone’s tax dollars going to broadband infrastructure. He didn’t “accept” any “pork,” and he couldn’t haved turned it down if he wanted to, either. He’s just glad that if the federal govt insists on spending this money it’s getting spent on something that will help business. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m seeing federal dollars going to roads getting repaved in my district that don’t need repaving. Building infrastructure that will at least have some economic benefit is a better use.

The thread-trolling, the lame attacks on Hawkins and the twisted misrepresentations of his loyalties only demonstrate that you Graves folks know you’re not leading this race. If I were you, I’d spend my time trying to help your guy’s image rather than hurting it by anonymously posting nonsense here.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:21:00 +0000

Kellie
If you’re a “people” and not a lobbyist then you would be naturally opposed to the lobbyists overall. Even LOBBYISTS are opposed to other lobbyists, so why shouldn’t THE PEOPLE raise a stink now and again? “The people” surely get cursed by the lobbyists, so what is this, a one way street? And if you “follow the money” Game Fan is betting it don’t start and end here in GA but rather up here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_(Washington,_D.C.)

Sooo, this whole GA politicians with their “GA bills” is phony right out of the starting gate, see?

By: Back in Black

Back in Black — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:06:52 +0000

hahahahaha! knee slapper.

how could he be fired if he wasn’t a hawk? of course he was! Tom Graves was actively involved in the most unethical power abuse by the House — stacking the decks on all committees. He WAS a hawk!

And he buckled and disbanded his 216 group because, in his own words, he was afraid of offending the leadership.

Graves is young coward. Congress needs more than sycophants.

By: appachtrail70

appachtrail70 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:35:17 +0000

Captain Patbeard. Can you point me to some legislation?