GA-9 Has A New Election Starting Today; Lee Hawkins Needs A New Focus

There is always an interesting dynamic the morning after votes are counted when that same morning is the first day of the runoff. Expectations have to be recalibrated. There is precious little time to absorb, analyze, and accept what just happened, while simultaneously launch an entirely new campaign. And make no mistake, a runoff is a separate and brand new campaign.

In GA-9, there are two teams planning to move ahead on the fast track, with a runoff on June 8th scheduled. Others are having to analyze if it makes personal and political sense to continue a campaign toward a July primary date. While others may take this opportunity to do so, I will not call for, nor recommend, anyone drop out of this race. It’s up to each candidate to decide what is best for them, their campaign team, and the 9th District of Georgia. I’ll trust each candidate to make their own decision here.

For those two candidates who are looking for a June decision, there are decidedly different moods between the camps. Team Graves, of whom I am a supporter and contributor, is cautiously optimistic this morning. The results from last night were near if not slightly ahead of expectations. Moreover, Graves proved that his support extends across the entire congressional district. Winning Forsyth county by a more than 2 to 1 margin over perceived favorite Hawkins in that county was Graves’ significant trophy of the evening.

Team Hawkins, however, is having to adjust to some new realities today. They are no longer the perceived front runner in this race. Quite the contrary, they are a distinct underdog. And there are quite a few reasons why.

Hawkins has never made a compelling case why he needs to be the Congressman from the 9th. Most of the arguments for Lee Hawkins to date have involved not his compelling record, but his compelling geography. He hails from the population center of the district, and his supporters tend to start with this argument when soliciting his support. I’m not a fan of the “you need to support him because he will win” argument. If I was, we would probably all be supporting Mike Evans.

So moving beyond inevitability, we have a very mixed message that has been delivered by the Hawkins team. Early support to try to claim stimulus dollars as evidence of Hawkins ability to bring jobs to the 9th opened him up to questions of his ability to reduce spending once in Washington. Further adding to the mixed message was when Hawkins decided to call Graves’ jobs bill a “sham”, despite having supported an earlier version and the bill’s eventual passage by a near unanimous General Assembly.

The mixed message of Hawkins’ conservatism pulled Club For Growth into the race strong behind Graves. Hawkins then played the “victim of carpetbaggers” card, claiming the Club For Growth was flooding the 9th with outsider special interest money. Problem is, Hawkins was for special interest money before he was getting beaten by it.

Early in the campaign, Hawkins was dogged by online critics for contributing to “liberal democrats” like Max Cleland. At the time, I didn’t see it as a fairly serious line of attack, as Hawkins was the head of the Georgia Dental Association. But a man that once headed a large association with a political arm, and used that group as a primary fundraising base, seems to be a little bit pregnant when he then attacks other groups for trying to enter his race. Creative Loafing may have an early nominee for next year’s “It’s not hypocrisy if I do it” award.

As the campaign entered the home stretch, there was the last minute direct mail. Hawkins has already tried to play fast and loose with his mail earlier by stating that his grandchildren knew what it was like to attend dangerous underperforming schools. In reality, Hawkins’ oldest grandchild attends a private Christian pre-school.

But a last minute attempt to turn an old dismissed lawsuit into an active mailer against Tom Graves appears to have backfired, and has cost Hawkins both credibility and respect. A man who started the race trying to distance himself from Max Cleland ended it by invoking a Clintonesque discussion of the correct spelling of the word judgment. It’s wasn’t quite was the definition of “is” is, but it wasn’t a strong close of selling conservative values, either.

The weeks between now and the runoff promise more of the same, but the tone will be set by Hawkins. Hawkins is in a hole, and he must stop digging. Doubling down on contrived negative attacks will not help his cause, nor will trying to claim Graves is a faux conservative. It’s time for Lee Hawkins to talk about Lee Hawkins. It’s a brand new election, and that is the only way – though mostly a long shot at this point – that he will be called “Congressman” this January.


  1. McDawg81 says:

    “Problem is, Hawkins was for special interest money before he was getting beaten buy it.” Priceless!!

    • macho says:

      It’s usually not a bad place to be in when you lose by a few percentage points, but when you’re more than 10 points behind, in a 9 man field, it gets tough to overcome.

    • Romegaguy says:

      2nd place heading into a runoff is NOT generally a bad place to be.

      Ask Congressman Jim Whitehead who had a LARGER margin of victory for the special election to replace Congressman Norwood. What’s that? Whitehead didnt get elected in the runoff?

  2. LeeAlpharetta says:

    You gotta think Hawkins will pick up most of the ‘other’ vote in Hall county. That will put his numbers pretty close to even. This will be a tight runoff that I’m sure will continue to be ugly.

  3. Joshua Morris says:

    Nice try, Ic. This is just another biased and inaccurate spiel on A few items:

    1) You have no idea what is happening within Team Hawkins.
    2) Lee has made a very compelling case for why he is the most qualified, honest, supply side conservative in this race, while your friend’s campaign machine has consistently maligned him with lies and misrepresentations.
    3) Nearly a half million dollars of Washington special interest money poured into this race, which Tom is scrambling to distance himself from, in the last couple weeks. CFG’s message was false and misleading, and I’m pretty sure its impact is not what the Graves team was hoping for. Further, the ADA input, which represents support from Lee’s colleagues who respect him, was far smaller and was positive.
    4) Lee is right about the so-called jobs bill. The bill is purely a smoke and mirrors do-nothing campaign line. It does NOTHING this side of a $1 billion state surplus, an approval from the United States secretary of labor, and January 1, 2012. Saying that it is tax-cutting, job-creating legislation is a huge stretch. Saying that Lee opposed it because it cuts taxes is an outright lie.
    5) While Hawkins was a leader among his professional peers in the GDA, which does have a political arm, I give you three words: Capitol Strategy Group.
    6) Whether you admit it or not, the mail piece about Graves’ poor business record is completely accurate. I want a congressman whose business practices are clean. Lee Hawkins has *never* been sued in 32 years of practice.
    7) Lee Hawkins has, in fact, been talking about Lee Hawkins, and he will continue to do so. He has the right experience and the right principles, and I firmly believe that on June 8, he’s going to win this thing.

    • macho says:

      “I want a congressman whose business practices are clean. Lee Hawkins has *never* been sued in 32 years of practice.”

      Seriously, in America, land of the lawyers, this is going to be the standard. If I had to choose, I’d want a businessman who has been sued, because he knows what it’s like to be a small businessman and have to deal with frivolous lawsuits.

      • Joshua Morris says:

        “If I had to choose, I’d want a businessman who has been sued…”

        Wow. ‘Nuff said. I hope your guy’s campaign picks that up and runs with it.

        • macho says:

          The “photoshopped” court documents appeared to be the cornerstone of Hawkins’ last week campaign strategy. Hopefully, he’ll go with that strategy for the last week of the runoff and so forth. The reality is, most Georgians, especially businessmen, know that frivolous lawsuits have unfortunately become a cost of doing business. The outcome of the trial is what’s important. I think the folks in the 9th could see through a lawsuit, that was tossed out, and then subsequently “photoshopped” by the Hawkins’ campaign.

          • Joshua Morris says:

            The only thing “photoshopped” was a stamp for emphasis. That lawsuit was not tossed out. There was a judgment against Tom Graves, and the Fi Fa was not cancelled until the lienholder was satisfied with either payment or some other settlement.

            This is just more lies from you folks. I know better, and you should educate yourself before showing everyone that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            Suits have not been a “cost of doing business” for Dr. Hawkins, because he has kept his business dealings clean and honest.

          • reaganrev4 says:

            Enough with the lawsuit, why is no one talking about his businesses that were closed down by the secretary of state! He can’t keep the lights on, Lee can and has for 32 years and never had to cut jobs. Tom can’t and hasn’t, end of story. A simple stamp telling the reader what they are looking at changes nothing of the content in the LEGAL COURT DOCUMENTS, quit spinning for “The Anointed one”.
            Oh yeah and for those who think the CFG add wasn’t a complete and total lie, I would like to turn your attention to SR 830 where you will notice Lee’s name as a main sponsor for the Resolution

    • Gary Cooper says:

      “Lee Hawkins has, in fact, been talking about Lee Hawkins, and he will continue to do so.”

      Funny, because for the last two weeks I received a flier every two days from the Hawkins campaign. Outside of the first flier – which touted his support from some local Forsyth County families – everything coming from the Hawkins campaign was a negative attack on Tom Graves. Not much was being said about what Lee stands for.

      “I want a congressman whose business practices are clean.”

      Do you feel the same way about Lee’s top supporters? You do know some of his most prominent supporters in Forsyth County are not some of the most ethical business owners out there. You guys like to talk about the CFG’s support for Tom, would you care to discuss some of your supporters from Forsyth County and their business and public service past?

      • Joshua Morris says:

        We all know better, Gary. Apparently, since your guy had a Washington special interest group do his dirty work, you feel like you can attack Lee by misrepresenting his mailings. The trouble you have is that everything Hawkins sent out was true.

        And are you trying to say that Tom’s top supporters are all squeaky clean? That path may not go where you want it to.

        • Gary Cooper says:

          Misrepresenting his mailings? What exactly am I misrepresenting? Please name me one mailing that Lee Hawkins sent out that was positive and spoke about his positions?

          No, I am not saying they are all squeaky clean. What I am saying is the Hawkins campaign has top supporters who have business issues just like Tom had. And you ramble on about the CFG, but one of your top supporters from Forsyth County was a lobbyist for Federal stimulus funds.

          • Joshua Morris says:

            Seriously, Gary. There’s a stack of them on my kitchen counter.

            And a supporter’s business record is far less important than the candidate’s.

            • Gary Cooper says:

              Well Josh, I and about 45 of my neighbors have not received them. Maybe if you have sent more of those “positive” ones out, Hawkins may have done better in Forsyth.

              • provisional says:

                Warning: Using rational arguments and facts with Joshua could get you facebook stalked, just ask Justin T.

                • Gary Cooper says:

                  My facebook is set to private. Plus there is nothing on there that would be of any use to them anyway. That is a pretty low thing to do though.

                • Joshua Morris says:

                  If you guys start using “rational arguments and facts”, we’ll all be shocked. Still, you should try it.

                  • reaganrev4 says:

                    I’m still waiting to hear someone answer Josh’s question about how the “JOBS” bill is conservative, not useless piece of legislation. And further, how it is the “shot in the arm” Georgians need right now as he touts it?

        • Gary Cooper says:

          Like I told Josh, they are all not squeaky clean. But the Hawkins camp acts like they are above all this which it’s not. You guys talk about the CFG and Freedom Works giving Tom money, but you won’t mention that Lee Hawkins has a supporter in Mike Evans – a lobbyist paid to get Forsyth County Federal stimulus funds.

    • If he has never been sued, has he ever reached an out-of-court settlement? I’m honestly curious and have no dog in this race.

      I know dentistry isn’t exactly a huge med-mal field.

        • And still waiting. Where are the Hawkins supporters? I have a valid question. I’m not a Graves sock-puppet, nor supporter. You guys keep raising this point, and I have asked a question regarding it.

          I’m going to assume he has settled out of Court before if no one tells me he hasn’t. While I normally would not make an assumption as such, no one is answering me – yet you guys are still replying to this post. Now please, just give me something – even a “I don’t know!”

    • seekingtounderstand says:

      I want a congressperson who tried to stop the corruption in HAll County government and rip off taxpayers with sleazy land and bond deals.
      The Hall County Commissioners are under GBI investigation.
      Hawkins does not help the citizens who live in his district and his staff will not only avoid emails, but will send out misinformation.
      Whether he knows it or not, his customer service is awful.
      He has done nothing for those who elected him. Its probably the Norton Agency that gave him the votes in Hall, not the people.

      • reaganrev4 says:

        So it is Obama and the federal governments job to stop corruption at our state capitol? Because the Federal government is to the state government what the state government is to local governments. Ive heard Hawkins talk about how local government is best handled locally. I’m not sure what a state legislator can do about local government issues such as “corruption”.

          • Lady Thinker says:

            You are absolutely correct Byte. It was one of the Federal Offices of Inspector Generals and the rumor mill ran daily with details of the investigation. As I recall, the investigation started in the summer of 1997 or was it 1998?

    • gagop77 says:

      A couple of things:
      1) Lee’s business practices are clean in the sense that Lee cleans other people’s teeth for a living. I will give him that.
      2) Joshua, how can you call it a “so-called jobs bill”? It is literally called the JOBS Act.
      3) Could you please clarify what you mean by “I give you three words: Capitol Strategy Group”?

      • Captain Phatbeard says:

        This post is hereby called the “2010 Phatbeard JOBS Post.”

        Under this post I pledge to create jobs if I make $1M in taxable personal income this year.

        This post is therefore now just as valid as the JOBS act.

      • Joshua Morris says:

        1) Do you have evidence that his business practices have been anything but clean in any other sense?
        2) Names can be deceiving.
        3) You apparently don’t know Tim Baker very well.

        • gagop77 says:

          Corrosponding responses:
          1) It was just a lighthearted joke. I meant no offense nor accusation, because I mean come one, what would Lee be sued over as a dentist? You told me my teeth would be whiter than this!!
          2) I agree, names can be deceiving. Take, for example, the “stimulus bill” that Lee tried to get money from.
          3) I actually do know Tim. I am honestly asking you to clarrify/elaborate on what you said “I give you three words: Capitol Strategy Group.” Forgive my ignorance, but I truely don’t know what you were/are implying. Would you please say specifically what you mean by that?

          • Joshua Morris says:

            1) Hygienists clean teeth–Dentists do much more. And yes, some do get sued for bad work or unscrupulous business practices. You have to at least acknowledge that Lee has run his business cleanly and honestly.
            2) Lee didn’t try to get any money from any stimulus bill. You Graves people are constant lie machines, aren’t you?
            3) From the front page of their website: “A Full Service Company, Providing Government Affairs, Fundraising Consulting, and Lobbying..”

            Ic says that Lee “was for special interest money before he was getting beaten by it,” and makes an insinuation with a statement that he “headed a large association with a political arm,” all while Graves’ campaign manager works for a professed lobbying firm. Glass house.

            I’m at a loss here for why none of you can back Graves and his record with the truth. Really. I am constantly correcting dishonesty from his supporters. What a screwed up way to try to get someone elected. How can you feel good about that? There is no way anyone can defend Graves in this race based on conservative principles. I wish voters would really educate themselves on the facts of this race. Lee Hawkins would win in a landslide.

            • provisional says:

              It is hard for the voters to educate themselves when Hawkins campaign continues to send out false, personal attack mailers and misleading e-mail solicitations. Besides the ones Ic mentions in his post, I got a mailer from Hawkins on Monday saying that Graves campaign was being run by a DC lobbying Firm and provided me a link to go to. I went to the link and the group is in Atlanta? but who cares about those pesky facts when you are trying to win an election at any cost.

            • GOPGrassroots says:

              Joshua, since you are talking about the importance of truth, and you support Lee Hawkins. I have one simple question:

              Is Capitol Strategy Group is Washington, D.C. based lobbying firm as Lee Hawkins last mail piece stated?

              Since you said you have that stack of positive mail pieces from Hawkins, I’m sure you also got his last negative one.

              Simple question – a yes/no answer will suffice.

              • Factcheck says:

                Poor, pathetic Joshua seemingly cannot get his facts right on much of anything – so no surprise he continues to miss the mark in defending himself and his baseless claims. To clarify, since he can’t read or chooses to lie – per their website, Capitol Strategy is based here in Atlanta and most of their team lives and works here in GA. Again, assuming the sad fool can read – it would appear that they work with many GA candidates – some of which the Hawkins’ consulting clowns work with too. But since he continues to bring up that group and raise silly questions, Josh Jones – Hawkins’ campaign manager – is registered with the GA Ethics Commission as a lobbyist and his silly group Red Clay Something claims to have a presence in other states and Washington. And finally, the goons at Landmark ( What a joke) Communications, have photos of the GA Capitol and the US Capitol on the front of their website – where do they do work? GA or DC?

              • reaganrev4 says:

                Provisional, I dont know how many times I have to prove, with bill numbers and FACTS, how the CFG and Tom Graves are liars and not a single thing in their ads or mailers are true! Not a single point they made is true, so stop trying to take the high road and saying things like “It is hard for the voters to educate themselves when Hawkins campaign continues to send out false, personal attack mailers and misleading e-mail solicitations”.
                -CFG said Hawkins wont repeal Obamacare – LIE look at SR 830 where you will find Hawkins name at the top of the resolution
                -CFG said Lee wont do anything to stop earmarks – LIE, look at SR992 which is the one subject rule that makes it so that earmarks cannot make its way into bills like it did in the obamacare bill.
                -CFG said he sided with Liberals on tax cuts – LIE, if you are referring to the “JOBS bill” (i uses that term very loosely), this a complete lie. Saying the bill is a smoke and mirrors, do nothing, campaign line, does not mean he sided with liberals on this. It just means he thinks it is very misleading and almost a complete lie when Tom totes this bill around like it actually does something and is the “shot in the arm Georgia needs”. HOW DUMB DOES TOM THINK THE VOTERS ARE?

                • GOPGrassroots says:

                  “CFG and Tom Graves are liars and not a single thing in their ads or mailers are true! Not a single point they made is true” WOW.

                  Clearly falling short of the claimed victory (as a Hawkins staffer did on WDUN on Tues) has enraged Team Hawkins. lol

                  Chill out dude.

                    • GOPGrassroots says:

                      You don’t like the truth, and when you are called out on it, you blow a gasket.

                      Why did your last piece say Graves campaign is run by a DC based lobbying firm? Is this true, or not? It’s either a complete lie, or more shoddy research. Not passing “judgement” just saying.

                      You continue to ignore this bald faced lie while screaming that Team Graves is lying about everything.

                      This is why you have no credibility on here, and your candidate has no credibility in the District. Telling folks you were going to win on Tuesday, lol, that didn’t happen.

                • reaganrev4 says:

                  Oh and I just noticed when reading through SR 830 that the resolution actually addresses earmarks and how they are bad and have no place in government
                  “WHEREAS, the Nebraska Compromise guaranteed Nebraskans that they would never have to pay for their citizens’ expanded access to Medicaid benefits included in H.R. 3590; and

                  WHEREAS, the Nebraska Compromise violates the principle that federal legislation must have a legitimate national interest and cannot benefit any one state over another; and” – HA with one resolution I debunked 2 lies!
                  But your right, Provisional, Tom and his CFG buddies are oh so honest and genuine; as long as you can still sleep at night…

                  • GOPGrassroots says:

                    You guys still haven’t answered my question about your Monday attack piece charging that Graves campaign is run by a “D.C. based lobbying firm.”

                    Is that the truth? You said so in your last ditch effort to smear Graves.

            • gagop77 says:

              1) Your lack of a sense of humor never ceases to amaze me. It is no wonder Lee did so poorly if his supporters spend their time arguing with people they have never met on blogs about what dentists do at work instead of say, coming up with alternative job creating legislation instead of just lying about the JOBS Act.
              2) As for Capitol Strategy Group, the fact that Tom’s campaign manager comes from a CONSULTING firm that also has the know-how to do some lobbying does not mean Tom’s campaign is being run by a lobbying firm. Also, you pointed to Tim Baker as an example of Tom’s campaign being run by a lobbying firm. Look at their site closely. Guess who in the firm is in no way a part of the branch of the firm that does some lobbying…? And you STILL haven’t said yes or no on whether you still believe CSG is “a DC-based lobbying firm” or not. (I’ll give you a hint, you were lying)

              • Joshua Morris says:

                1) Show me where I’m lying about the Jobs “maybe-someday-in-the-distant-future” act:
                [Hint: Look for “United States secretary of labor” – Section 1(g)(1), “state fiscal year in which the revenue shortfall reserve is funded at the level of $1 billion or more” – Section 2(17)(A) & Section 3(16)(A), and “shall become effective on January 1, 2012.” – Section 6(b)]

                I’ve mentioned this “alternative job creating legislation” before, which Lee worked on with Rep. Stephens.:
                You guys called it a “dumb bill”, although it would create a tax credit for hiring THIS YEAR.

                2) I haven’t said anything about where CSG is based. (hint: that means I didn’t lie.) What does it matter where it’s based?

                “A Full Service Company, Providing Government Affairs, Fundraising Consulting, and LOBBYING..” All under the same roof. My point here is that any Gravesbot who tries to incorrectly classify Lee Hawkins is sitting precariously in their glass house.

                • gagop77 says:

                  You seem to have covered everything except…oh wait, Lee SUPPORTED the JOBS Act before he pulled a John Kerry and flip-flopped when it was in his political interest to do so. Except I’m not even sure it is in his political interest to oppose a bill that is supported nearly unanimously by the general assembly, many well-respected conservative groups and organizations, and most recently Congressman Lynn Westemoreland who just endorsed Graves in this race.

                  • reaganrev4 says:

                    Hawkins I don’t believe ever indicated how he would vote on the legislation, he was pointing out how disingenuous Graves is being to the 9th district voters by saying this is the “shot in the arm” GA needs and Hawkins was being honest to the voters about this do-nothing bill. Something Tom and the CFG have had trouble with (see my post above where i provide facts for how all of the CFG mailers/ads have lied about Hawkins)

                • provisional says:

                  to answer number 2) and to reask my question from yesterday, it matters where it is based because your guy Hawkins sent a mailer to my house nad many other voters saying the campaign was being run by a dc lobbying firm and provided me a link to go to. When I went to that link, it pulled up a firm in Atlanta, not DC that offers several services. So the question I am asking is why would Hawkins try to knowingly mislead voters again? It is a lie, yes or no. It was in a mailer that said “paid for by Hawkins”.

                  • reaganrev4 says:

                    Im pretty sure they have an office in DC but cant speak on that for certain, never saw the mailer. But since you guys want to stick to the issues so much, and I have tried to facilitate that by showing evidence for every single lie that Tom and the CFG has made on Lee’s stances on HC, taxes, and earmarks, why don’t ya’ll want to discuss that? Those are the issues that have been brought up and I am trying to talk about them, but no one seems to want to respond. Every time i list out the facts, as I did above on this thread, you guys try and go back to a mailer about where Toms’s LOBBYING firm is from. You say it is misleading; what do you call saying a bill that needs Obama’s secretary of Labor’s approval, a Billion dollar surplus or the year 2012 to come, the “shot in the arm Georgia needs now”? Usually when people shoot things into their arm it takes effect IMMEDIATELY. Not 2 years from now or for hell to freeze over (Obama’s secretary of labor approving it)

                    • provisional says:

                      Lee has lied and mislead voters repeatedly in mailers and e-mails with “paid for by” with his name next to it, THAT is an issue. I haven’t recieved one mailer that has been paid for by the Graves campaign that has contained a single falsehood about Lee. Maybe you should go refresh yourself with FEC law about third party group and candidates coordination. If you have issues with CFG, you should call them and ask them. I am sure you can find their number on their website. While your there, you can see that the Repeal Pledge is open to all candidates to sign. After listening to a radio interview of Lee’s and getting e-mails from the Hawkins campaign painting Lee as a victim because he “never was mailed the Repeal it Pledge” …it is kinda of a dumb argument when all the other candidtes running for office who believe in Repealing the Pledge can figure out how to log on to a website and sign the pledge. If Lee believes in it, he can sign the pledge today.

                • Steve Ellis says:

                  The provision of the JOBS Act of 2010 that you reference when you say look for “United States Secretary of Labor” is the same as it was in the JOBS Act of 2009 that Hawkins voted for.

                  The provision of the JOBS Act of 2010 that you reference regarding the State Revenue Shortfall Reserve is a capital gains tax cut of 25% in the first year and 50% in the second year for corporations and individuals. Yes, this is a change from the JOBS Act of 2009 by requiring the Shortfall Reserve to be $1 Billion prior to it being implemented. If memory serves me correctly, this provision was amended so that the Governor would actually sign the bill. A vetoed bill is useless. You argue that Graves caved to the Governor. My argument would be that an effective legislator works with his peers to produce the best bill possible that will actually pass and be signed into law by the Governor.

                  You reference “Shall become effective on January 1, 2012.” You fail to mention that the section referenced applies only to section 5 of the bill, which eliminates corporate net worth taxes beginning 01-01-12. The JOBS Act of 2009 that the Governor vetoed would have eliminated that tax on 01-01-10. Having been delayed a year because of the veto, the JOBS Act of 2010 only delays that tax cut one additional year. Again, my understanding is that this was done to avoid a veto.

                  Regarding the Stephens bill that you reference, the argument you link to on PP was that the bill was a “dumb bill” because it would have allowed employers to fire all their employees and then re-hire them in order to claim the tax credit. You claim that it would create a tax credit this year.

                  First, that is not true: “(b) Business enterprises shall be allowed a tax credit for taxes imposed under this article for each eligible new full-time employee job created on or after January 1, 2010, and prior to January 1, 2012, beginning with the second taxable year following the taxable year in which the new full-time employee job is created and for the immediately succeeding taxable year.” The tax credit applies in the second taxable year. Additionally, it only applies for one more year after that, meaning that it is not a permanent tax cut, but a temporary one.

                  Although some provisions of the JOBS Act of 2010 are delayed in going into effect, they are permanent tax cuts and incentives that are a long-term solution, not a quick-fix gimmick.

                  Further, you fail to mention the provisions of the JOBS Act of 2010 that provide long-term investment incentives for entrepreneurial businesses designed for permanent job creation. The bottom line is real job creation expanding the tax base while cutting taxes in a fiscally responsible manner. The result will be greater tax revenues for the state. Once revenues increase and the Reserve Fund is met, even more tax cuts go into effect.

                  This seems like a well thought-out plan for responsible economic growth, which explains why so many conservative groups and individuals applaud it. I won’t spend the time and space to list them all here again.

                  Disclaimer: the opinions above are mine and mine only.

                  • Joshua Morris says:

                    Thanks for the book and for agreeing that everything I said about the bill is true. If you have to make a good bill into a bad bill so that the Governor will sign it, I don’t see that as “effective.” Being effective is working with the Governor to bring him to your side on the issue or being sure that you can override his veto. The State’s revenue reserve may never reach $1 billion this decade. The bill is nothing more than a campaign line.

                    Tom didn’t do anything in the Gen Assembly until his 7th year there. So now he’s the picture of a perfect conservative because of a bunch of bandwagon groups are impressed with a smooth talking celebrity? Please.

                    Regarding your statement that “[t]he bottom line is real job creation expanding the tax base while cutting taxes in a fiscally responsible manner,” bull hockey. Businessman and Dalton Mayor David Pennington disagrees:

                    Tax credits for hiring should not be permanent, but should be a short term booster for getting people back to work. The bigger problem is that if you don’t lower taxes in other areas right now so that businesses have a reason to increase production, they won’t hire people anyway. There’s no need to hire people without work for them to do, credits or not.

              • Factcheck says:

                Joshua can’t seem to get it right – again! Who cares who any of the campaign staff works with – has this ever been a real issue in any campaign? Really? In the Hawkins’ camp, Josh Jones is registered as a lobbyist in the state of GA.
                Mark “I couldn’t win a race if I had to” Rountree’s website indicates they do work in DC too – who cares? Get a grip and let’s talk about the issues before the 9th District. This is not one, not sure what your issue with this firm is but grow up.

                • reaganrev4 says:

                  I believe it has been gagop and provisional making an issue of this. I never got the mailer and have been trying to talk about the issues CFG and Tom brought up with lies…I have even provided facts if you look near the beginning of this thread. I agree, this crap about an office means nothing, I haven’t even seen the mailer.

                  • GOPGrassroots says:

                    All good, Joshua Morris didn’t say anything about where Capitol Strategy is based, so he didn’t lie.

                    However, Lee Hawkins did…claiming it was a lobbying group based in D.C. in his mail piece.

                    Bottom line on this – Team Hawkins lied.

                  • provisional says:

                    I am not the one making an issue about campaign staff, Hawkins did when he spent money to mail it out to voters, apparently he thought it was an issue they cared about. I am making an issue of the fact that he has a repeat pattern of minsrepresnting truth to the voters, even going so far as to provide a link that when one goes to his lie becomes apparent, so it is hard for the voter’s to trust him on anthing he says or puts out.

                    • reaganrev4 says:

                      Only Tom gets the luxury of having special interests do all the lying for him. Maybe Lee should stop raising money within the district. And Tom aligns himself with the CFG every time he speaks, and he has never once condoned their flat out lies that I have proven as such. Guilty by association but still guilty of lying nonetheless. You guys are talking about some lie about where an office is located that I haven’t even seen or know to be a lie, I am talking about Tom and his CFG support group lying about issues such as healthcare (which will never be repealed as long as Obama is president and if you think a pledge will do that you are out to lunch), earmarks, and voting for tax increases…all lies. Oh and the one mailer sent of by CFG saying
                      Lee voted for a 1% transportation tax was also voted yes by Mr. Graves, I dont see how this meets his 5 way conservative test – . If you would turn your attention to the house votes you should find Graves YES vote for the bill.

                    • reaganrev4 says:

                      And what CFG claimed as a tax increase you will notice is a vote to have a referendum put on a ballot to give the voters the choice…your talking about some office location, I am talking about flat out lies to voters on the candidates stances on issues

                    • steelfist says:

                      reaganrev4 (aka Sharon Hawkins) – if you want to keep to the facts then let’s keep to the facts. I received the mailings from the CFG and they never once cited SB 39. It was SR 845 in 2008 and Hawkins voted for it and Tom voted against it. So why don’t you turn your attention to the correct vote and stop these silly games. He his against the capital gains tax cut. He is against the elimination of the net worth text. He isn’t going to try and repeal ObamaCare because it can’t be done. He voted for the largest tax increase in Georgia’s history. Oh and he gave money to Roy Barnes and Max Cleland. By the way 51% of Hall County voted AGAINST him.

                • Joshua Morris says:

                  You’re really stretching, aren’t you? Where’s LOBBYING on Rountree’s front page? And Josh Jones is not Hawkins’ campaign manager. Being registered is a loooong way from working for a LOBBYING firm.

                  Like I said, glass house.

  4. redrock says:

    While others may take this opportunity to do so, I will not call for, nor recommend, anyone drop out of this race. It’s up to each candidate to decide what is best for them, their campaign team, and the 9th District of Georgia.

    A little narcissistic this morning are we. How kind and benevolent of you to not “call for” your minions to do as you say.

    Just a reminder of history – Lee Hawkins was also the underdog in a runoff for State Senate in 2006 against Musselwhite. Just saying. Don’t write the guy off yet.

  5. GVilleMan says:

    Bill Stephens has withdrawn from the race, It is sad to see him go. It is a true shame that the people of the district chose to dismiss his proven conservative leadership abilities and opt for big money campaigners and negative ads. The only man who continually focused on the important issues is no longer in the race. I am truly dissapointed with my district.

    • Gary Cooper says:

      I am disappointed too, but for the fact that our district only mustered a 9% turnout for a very important election. I know its not going to be good for the runoff either, but maybe we can show up and save some face come July.

    • Gary Cooper says:

      And good luck to Senator Stephens. He ran a good campaign and hopefully we will see him step up to lead Georgia in some capacity in the future.

  6. Captain Phatbeard says:

    The real story in this result is the 2-1 shellacking Graves put on Hawkins in Forsyth County. I have been hearing for months about how the Hawkins campaign was focused on winning the runoff instead of the first election; now is the time to see how that strategy unfolds.

    I think the tone of the race here in Forsyth changed when Graves moved his headquarters here; after that move the county has been carpeted with Graves yard signs in a way that Hawkins and the others have not managed to duplicate.

    That said the Hawkins campaign did not purchase any billboards that I have seen; Steve Tarvin and Chris Cates did and I wonder if Hawkins is preparing to do the same.

    The showing by Stevens is no surprise; I think I have seen three or four Stevens yard signs here in the last 5 months.

  7. Lady Thinker says:

    I like to take a piece of paper , draw a line down the center and list the issues candidates deem important and the plan they have come up with to deal with the issues. I haven’t seen enough posts from either side giving that information, just the color and thickness of the mud going back and forth.

    Can anyone here list and explain their candidate’s positions on specific issues other than the generic reverse Obamacare statement?

  8. Glen Ross says:

    I think the difference maker in this race is Tom Graves articulates his message on a level where people believe that he really believes what he’s saying. Lee Hawkins comes across as an old school, good ole boy type who will say the right things to get elected (warranted or not). I think people trust Graves more. These differences are only going to be magnified in a head to head matchup.

    Does anyone care to offer an explaination into Tarvin’s better than expected result? I’m not from the district, so this was a little bit of a surprise for me.

  9. birdfan says:

    Let me say, that I like Lee Hawkins as a person. He is a nice, family man. However, I support Graves because I think he possesses those same qualities and more. I think he will make a better Congressman for the 9th District and has more potential leadership in Congress.

    If you look at last night’s results, then you have to conclude that Lee Hawkins has a hard road if he wants to win the Run Off, which I hope he doesn’t.

    Why do I say this? I think you have to look at the results per county. With a large field and candidates from various areas, no one was going to hit the 50 % mark. However, when you examine the county results…what Graves accomplished is truly remarkable (in this crowded race with candidates from various areas within the Congressional District).

    The only county (out of 15 counties) that Hawkins beat Graves in was Hall County. So, Graves beat him in 14 out of the 15 Counties. When you throw in that Hawkins finished 4th or 5th in more than HALF of the counties, then I don’t see where he can make up the numbers. Maybe he is expecting greater numbers in Hall in a “run off” election…but that would be difficult because it is a run off and Hawkins didn’t even reach 50% in his own county.

    Let’s compare how Graves and Hawkins finished in each county:
    Catoosa: Graves 2nd Hawkins 4th
    Dade: Graves 1st Hawkins 4th
    Dawson: Graves 1st Hawkins 2nd
    Fannin: Graves 1st Hawkins 3rd
    Forsyth: Graves 1st Hawkins 2nd
    Gilmer: Graves 1st Hawkins 4th
    Gordon: Graves 1st Hawkins 3rd
    Hall: Graves 2nd Hawkins 1st
    Lumpkin: Graves 1st Hawkins 2nd
    Murray: Graves 1st Hawkins 4th
    Pickens: Graves 1st Hawkins 5th
    Union: Graves 2nd Hawkins 4th
    Walker: Graves 2nd Hawkins 5th
    White: Graves 1st Hawkins 2nd
    Whitfield: Graves 1st Hawkins 4th

    Clearly, Graves has much more widespread support throughout the district and I would expect the other candidates’ (who should be thanked for their sacrifice and effort) supporters would more likely support Graves over Hawkins…since more people in those counties already chose Graves more often than Hawkins. (14 out of 15 Counties).

  10. Icarus says:

    After reading these comments, I can only assume that the Hawkins team is choosing to maintain status quo for the runoff.

    Insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

    So, good luck with that.

Comments are closed.