- Why the DNC wants to co-opt the Occupy Wall Street Protesters -

Why would former US House Speaker and legislative airhead Nancy Pelosi go out of her way to embrace the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters? Why would civil rights movement icon John Lewis attempt to address the OWS group in Atlanta’s Woodruff Park? Why would President Obama praise these groups even after hundreds were arrested in New York City?

These are legitimate questions because of the significant political risks undertaken by these nationally known Democrats. They risk their personal reputations, if not their re-election chances, to mingle their fortunes with an little known group of protesters. They are also placing their party’s lower tier candidates at greater risk with this affiliation. Generally a high risk should have an opportunity to generate high rewards, and this is the case. Democrats are playing high stakes poker to counter the Tea Party.

Publicly, Democrats deny that the Tea Party had any effect on the 2010 elections and will soon disappear. No one really believes Democrats are that stupid and recalcitrant regarding reality. Having failed to destroy the Tea Party movement, though slandering it so that the movement’s popularity has decreased, the Democrats want a left-wing movement to counter the Tea Party.

Whipped in the 2010 elections, Democrats want a Tea Party of their own; some tame version they can co-opt and use to mobilize voters in the 2012 elections. Enter the OWS people and some Democrats are salivating at the opportunity to control a movement that could be labeled “spontaneous”.

There are two significant problems for the Democrats. First, they have started to believe their own press releases about the Tea Party, buying the lie that the Tea Party is a centrally-controlled creature of the Republican Party. That’s not the case. In fact, the Tea Party has had a large impact on the GOP rather than the reverse. Personally, I believe those changes were for the better because they refocused the GOP on smaller government and lower taxes. Those two things were arguably missing from the GOP over the past 15 years or so.

The second problem for the Democrats is that they assume the OWS groups simply need to be directed by someone who knows better. I don’t necessarily believe that the OWS people will bend their knees to the arrogance of the Democrat central planners. They have their own agenda and while that agenda is apparently unknown to the mass protesters, the leaders have made demands that reflect the agenda of their central committees.

Unless the OWS leaders make an ill-advised Faustian bargain with the Democrats, the Democrats must be willing to accept and openly endorse many of the communist-based ideas of OWS. While the facts are that those beliefs are closer to Democrats’ current beliefs in wealth redistribution than they profess, the public acknowledgement of those principles will still shock the casual voter.

In the end, the leftists fears of the Tea Party may lead to actions causing a terrible setback for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in the United States. Democrats seem to be risking everything to maintain a failing President and a do-nothing majority in the US Senate in 2012. They perceive a counter to the much-hated Tea Party as a necessary step, even if they risk political ruin.

I remember my dad calling himself a “Southern conservative Democrat” when I was growing up. They were pretty numerous and easily won election after election dispite the national party moving farther and farther to the left. Now many of those Southern Democrats have switched to become Republicans, but there are a few that still remain…mainly at the local level.

So, what is the long-term viability of these Southern Democrat candidates? It would seem to me that they would not want to associate themselves with the likes of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid in areas where liberal Democrats are very much unpopular. I would not be surprised to see a few local Democrats who have suddenly “seen the light” and qualify as Republicans because their values aren’t reflected in the Democratic Party.

At what point should the voter start to consider the sincerity of those party switchers? Have these folks finally seen that the liberal wing has a strong lock on the Democratic Party, or do they just see themselves agreeing with the Republicans just enough to play on their team just so they can advance their political egos and goals down the field? Some (former) Democrats may escape unscathed by putting on new uniforms, but how will 2012 be affected by local Tea Party organizations? Will they focus more of their efforts on getting President Obama and national Democrats defeated, or will they try to live up to their grassroots origin and focus more on local races?

Ultimately, I believe the Southern Democrat, by its various names, is riding into the sunset.

To restate some of what I wrote yesterday in my post entitled “10 Most Vulnerable Republican Districts”:

There are a hundred ways to determine how vulnerable a legislative district is for a takeover by the opposing political Party.

Just because a district or a legislator appears on this list does not mean that they are in political trouble.  It does generally mean that the legislators who represent these districts must be able to find ways of winning over voters from the opposing Party.

These rankings are not a statement about the legislator who represents them. This ranking is simply a mathematical formula that determines how strong or weak a district is compared to all the other districts in the state.

The following is a list of Democratic House members representing districts in which Republicans can win a majority, or a significant percentage, of the vote. Of all the Democratic-held districts in Georgia, these 10 Democratic-held districts have the highest capacity for Republicans to win votes, a figure that is stated in the right column: The Democratic Ideal.

The Republican Ideal is the average of multiple election results within each district for the best-performing statewide (non-Presidential) Republican candidates in 2006, 2008 or 2010.

Thanks to Mike Seigle, Gabriel Sterling, Mark Pettitt and Andrew Pantino here at Landmark for researching and contributing to this targeting report. Doing a report like this requires hundreds of man-hours, accumulating thousands of pieces of information including election results, voter history, and geographic and demographic information.

Rank            District            Democrat Incumbent                   Republican Average Ideal

#1.            16                        Rick Crawford                                         72.84%

#2.            12                        Barbara Massey Reece                          72.44%

#3.            137                      Debbie Buckner                                       56.41%

#4.            81                        Elena Parent/Scott Holcomb             55.32%

#5.            145                      Rusty Kidd                                                 54.30%

#6.            132                      Carl Von Epps                                         53.49%

#7.            41                         Terry Johnson                                         53.19%

#8.            96                         Pedro Marin                                            51.25%

#9.           64                         Virgil Fludd                                             46.00%

#10.            128                    Sistie Hudson/Mack Jackson            45.31%

For those who watch legislative elections closely, it may be a bit of a surprise to see Fludd on the list. His district, while partly South Fulton, is also has significant parts of Northern Fayette. Because this is a “Top Ten” List we include the district, but the Republican Average Ideal vote is below 50% and is not actually very vulnerable at this point.

Some of these districts are clearly vulnerable to being won by Republicans — will likely do so in 2012. Others less so.

As mentioned in other rankings, there are a hundred ways to determine how vulnerable a legislative district is for a takeover by the opposing political Party.

Just because a district or a legislator appears on this list does not mean that they are in political trouble.  It does generally mean that the legislators who represent these districts must be able to find ways of winning over voters from the opposing Party.

These rankings are not a statement about the legislator who represents them. This ranking is simply a mathematical formula that determines how strong or weak a district is compared to all the other districts in the state.

The following is a list of Republican House members representing districts in which Democrats can win a majority, or a significant percentage, of the vote. Of all the Republican-held districts in Georgia, these 10 Republican-held districts have the highest capacity for Democrats to win votes, a figure that is stated in the right column: The Democratic Ideal.

The Democratic Ideal is the average of multiple election results within each district for the best-performing statewide (non-Presidential) Democratic candidates in 2006, 2008 or 2010.

Thanks to Mike Seigle, Gabriel Sterling, Mark Pettitt and Andrew Pantino here at Landmark for researching and contributing to this targeting report. Doing a report like this requires hundreds of man-hours, accumulating thousands of pieces of information including election results, voter history, and geographic and demographic information.

Tomorrow we’ll release the Top Ten List of Most Vulnerable Democratic Districts.

Rank        District               GOP Incumbent                              Democratic Ideal

#1.            151                       Bob Hanner/Gerald Greene        66.57%

#2.            171                       Jay Powell                                           59.46%

#3.            138                      Mike Cheokas                                     59.43%

#4.            117                       Doug McKillip                                    58.05%

#5.            119                       Chuck Williams                                  56.08%

#6.            158                       Butch Parrish                                     56.02%

#7.            13                         Katie Dempsey                                  55.88%

#8.            40                        Rich Golick                                           55.39%

#9.            149                       Jimmy Pruett                                     54.58%

#10.          164                       Ron Stephens                                    54.03%

Common characteristics of Vulnerable Districts:

Only 1 of the 10 are in metro Atlanta (Golick). 9 of 10 are outside of Metro Atlanta;

2 of the 10 are in the Athens area (McKillip and Williams).

Only 1 of the 10 are in North Georgia (Dempey). Most of the House Districts where Democrats can still muster a majority are in South Georgia.

**Tomorrow morning we’ll release the Top 10 List of Most Vulnerable Democratic Districts.

There are 180 House districts in the state of Georgia. Which ten have experienced the biggest Swing Vote in recent statewide elections?

To determine the answer we utilize three primary pieces of information. On a precinct-by-precinct basis for every precinct of the state:

1. We average the election results of multiple Republican candidates who won by the largest election results in statewide (non-Presidential) elections. This establishes the Republican Ideal Vote (the average best a Republican can do).
2. We average the election results of multiple Democratic candidates who won by the largest election results in statewide (non-Presidential) elections. This establishes the Democratic Ideal Vote. The converse is the Republican Base Vote: the average worst a Republican can do.
3. The difference between those Republican Ideal (the top-end of what a Republican can do) and Republican Base (the lower-end of what a Republican can do) is the Swing Vote: we simply subtract the two numbers from each other.

We’ve done this report for 20 years now. We do not use Presidential election results because we do not consider these results to be of a comparable  election because they were not for an election for a Georgia-level office.

My colleagues Mike Seigle, Gabriel Sterling, Mark Pettitt and Andrew Pantino were essential in accumulating, inputting, researching and analyzing the data.

The following 10 House Districts saw a greater Swing Vote in statewide elections than the other 170 House Districts:

Note: The purpose of this report is not to determine vulnerable legislators, per se. This is simply a review a list of legislative districts which have had the largest Swing Vote in statewide elections during 2006, 2008, and 2010.

We’ll release a list of Most Vulnerable Districts soon.

RANK    DISTRICT #      SWING VOTE %       NAME/AREA

                                               (Rounded)

 #1.         12                          24%                             Barbara Massey Reece  (Chattooga)

#2.         13                           23 %                            Katie Dempsey  (Chattooga/N & W Floyd)

#3.         157                        23%                              Delvis Dutton  (Tattnall/Evans)

#4.         16                          23%                              Rick Crawford   (Polk/N Haralson/SW Bartow)

#5.         5                            23%                              John Meadows  (W Gordon, SW Murray)

#6.         170                       21%                               Penny Houston  (Berrien/Cook/E Tift)

#7.         32                         21%                                Alan Powell  (Hart/Franklin / N Madison)

#8.         11                         21%                                Rick Jasperse (Pickens/E Gordon)

#9.         8                           21%                                Stephen Allison (Union/Towns/Rabun/W White)

#10.      10                          21%                                Rick Austin  (Habersham/White)

What are the common characteristics of the House districts with the largest swing vote in statewide elections?

Democratic incumbents hold only two of the Top Ten Swing districts: Barbara Massey-Reece and Rick Crawford.

All swing districts are all demographically heavily white

Most of the districts on this list are in generally rural areas (exception: Rome area).

None of the districts on the “Top Swing List” are in metro Atlanta.

Eight of ten of the swing districts are north of Metro Atlanta. These districts are in either in the North Georgia Mountains or right near them.

With the new House district lines finalized, it’s time to do our biennial ranking of the Most Republican Districts and Democratic Districts. We’ll do the Senate districts later.

Like I pointed out yesterday in the post on “The 10 Most Republican Districts”, there are a hundred different methods to determine which districts are the Most Democratic Districts. See my other post on Republican Top 10, yesterday, to look at some of the other formula options that we can use. There’s not just one way to define it.

But these Top 10 rankings are based  on a formula that averages, on a district by district basis, multiple of the best performing Democratic (non-Presidential) statewide candidates’ election results over the past six years. This ranking is not intended to show how popular individual legislators may be, nor any individual legislator’s election results. The purpose of this report is simply to determine the Ideal partisan voting strength of House districts relative to all other House Districts in statewide candidate elections.

My colleagues Mike Seigle, Gabriel Sterling, Mark Pettitt and Andrew Pantino were essential in accumulating, inputting, researching and analyzing the data.

THE TOP TEN DEMOCRATIC HOUSE DISTRICTS….

Defined by averaging the best election results for non-Presidential statewide Democratic candidates in various elections from 2006-2010, rounded:

Rank    District    Ideal Democratic %       Incumbent

#1.       89                 92%                                 Stacey Abrams                      (SW DeKalb)

#2.       77                 90%                                 Darryl Jordan                     (Riverdale/Clayton)

#3.       59                 90 %                                 Margaret Kaiser              (Atlanta/E Point)

#4.       56                 89%                                 Kathy Ashe                         (Atlanta)

#5.       85                 89%                                 Karla Drenner                   (S-Central DeKalb)

#6.       74                 89%                                 Roberta Abdul-Salaam  (Clayton)

#7.       60                 88%                                 Gloria Tinubu                    (S Fulton/N Clayton)

#8.       83                 87%                                 Stuckey/Mosby                 (SW DeKalb)

#9.       84                 86%                                 Rohn Mayo                         (S-Central DeKalb)

#10.     55                 86%                                 Tyrone Brooks                   (SW Atlanta)

On Wednesday: The Top Ten House Districts with the biggest swing vote in statewide elections

With the new House district lines finalized, it’s time to do our biennial ranking of the Most-Republican Districts and Most-Democratic Districts.  We’ll do the Senate districts later.

Just like with Rolling Stone Magazine’s Top 500 Songs, there are a hundred methods to judge “Most Republican” or Most Democratic”.  After all…Rolling Stone puts Rod Stewart’s “Do Ya Think I’m Sexy?” above Billy Joel’s “Piano Man.”  (really.)

This is a report of the Ideal Republican Vote, district by district. It’s an average of several of the most successful election results for statewide (non-Presidential) Republican candidates over the past six years. This ranking does not take into account individual legislator’s election results. It’s about districts themselves relative to all other districts – not the legislator.

Other methods to determine the Most Republican or Most Democratic districts include comparing election results for Public Service Commission candidates to determine relative partisan voting strength, and/or identifying the lowest Republicans have statistically done on a district-by-district basis (and then picking the ‘highest of the lowest).

But this simply identifies the statistical Ideal of GOP candidates within each district.

My colleagues at Landmark, including Mike Seigle, Gabriel Sterling, Mark Pettitt and Andrew Pantino, were essential in accumulating, inputting, researching and analyzing the data. For our own utilization we have ranked them 1-180.

TOP TEN REPUBLICAN HOUSE DISTRICTS:

Defined by averaging the best election results for non-Presidential statewide Republican candidates in various elections from 2006-2010, rounded:

Rank    District    Ideal Republican %     Incumbent

#1.        27                86 %                          Doug Collins (Hall/Forsyth/White (to be open in ’12)

#2.       26                85 %                          (OPEN/Forsyth)

#3.       24                84 %                          Mark Hamilton (Forsyth)

#4.       22                83 %                          Calvin Hill (Cherokee/N Fulton/SW Forsyth)

#5.       31                83%                            Tommy Benton (Jackson)

#6.       25                83%                            Mike Dudgeon (Forsyth)

#7.       10                81%                            Rick Austin (Habersham/White)

#8.       9                  80%                           Amos Amerson (Lumpkin/Dawson)

#9.       21                80%                           Sean Jerguson (Cherokee)

#10.     114            80%                            Len Walker (W. Walton)

Tomorrow…the Top 10 Best Democrat House Seats

Below is an excerpt of a memorandum written by Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams outlining some of the initial Democratic objections to the GOP’s Redistricting map. That map has now passed the House. Minority Leader Abrams has raised additional objections since this memo was written, including legal arguments of retrogression and isolating minorities from the majority.

Abrams is respected by both Parties in the House as a very smart, critical thinker. She is an attorney and a creative author of books by profession, assets which keep her political opponents on their toes.

Republicans were projected to win about 123 seats, Democrats 57, of which 49 would be majority-minority districts (though a few of these districts would likely be represented by white Democrats). Writes Minority Leader Stacey Abrams (all words below are hers):

“BOTTOM LINE:  Democrats would hold between 56 seats (if all GOP-leaning seats are picked up by the GOP) and 59 seats (if our current incumbents draw in to GOP districts all perform above GOP levels).  Although there is one less pairing, there is also one less open Democratic seat, creating a wash.

PURGING WHITE DEMOCRATS:  As compared to our earlier estimates:  we see an intended potential loss of at least 9 White and 1 Latino member of the Democratic Caucus (which currently has 20 White members, 1 Latino member and 42 Black members).  There is a potential loss of at least 8 White members and 1 Latino member.  In addition, the Black Voting Age Population has increased for several other White members; however, we continue to decipher the maps provided to align existing districts with new lines.  The potential remains for at least 3 additional White members to be draw into competition due to increased packing of Majority-Minority Districts, including Floyd, Buckner and Drenner.   Targeting White elected officials is as unlawful as targeting any other race.

• PACKING MAJORITY-MINORITY DISTRICTS:  Our analysis shows an increase from 42 to 49 Majority Minority Districts, with rates as high as 72% Black Voting Age Population.  This level of packing is not necessary.

• DILUTION OF VOTING STRENGTH:  By packing Majority Minority Districts and targeting White Democrats, the proposed GOP map dilutes and reduces the effectiveness of minority voting strength by eliminating the ability to build multi-racial coalitions.  Georgia has a demonstrated history of multi-racial coalitions, which will be eviscerated by the proposed scheme.

• SILENCES MILLIONS OF VOTERS:  In the 2008 and 2010 statewide elections, Democrats won 47% of the votes cast; however, under the proposed maps, Democratic voters would only have an opportunity to elect 31% of the House of Representatives.

• POLITICAL PAYBACK IS BAD FOR VOTERS:  Democrats did not seek to increase their numbers in the General Assembly, nor have they offered maps to diminish the GOP’s control of the House.  However, the dilution of minority voting through packing and through targeting White elected officials has been justified by the GOP leadership by comparing it to the unconstitutional actions of earlier administrations.  Both maps show political vindictiveness during a time when the GOP leadership promised a fairer process and Democrats simply ask for fairness to the voters – not to themselves.

Rep. Edward Lindsey, an attorney, is regarded as one of the smartest guys in the House. He’s released an e-Newsletter this weekend covering the legal talking points on the House redistricting map that passed this week.  I don’t normally copy/paste things to PeachPundit, but this is essential reading for those who want more than a 30,000-foot aerial view of redistricting.

By Representative Edward Lindsey, Georgia House Majority Whip:

1.     Does the Redistricting Plan for the Georgia House of Representatives (HB 1EX) violate the Federal Voting Rights Act (VRA)? No

“The redistricting plan passed by the Georgia House on August 18, 2011, was created in accordance with guidelines issued by President Obama’s Justice Department and creates 49 African American “majority-minority” districts, which are the same number that exist at the present time. This will keep us in full compliance with the VRA. In addition, we will have for the first time a Hispanic Majority Minority district.

By contrast, the alternative proposal presented to the House Reapportionment Committee by the Democratic Party through its caucus leadership on August 16, 2011 only maintained 43 African American “majority-minority” districts according to the testimony of the House Minority Leader.  If true, their plan is likely retrogressive and in violation of Section 5 of the VRA. Furthermore, the alternative plan created by the Democratic Party has four districts with African American populations that are 80+%. This would also likely be considered unlawful packing under the VRA.

What legal rationale has the Democratic Party tried to use to justify its proposal and attack the plan passed by the Georgia House? It argues that the state of Georgia should move away from protecting “majority minority” districts and instead create more “cross-over districts” in order to comply with the VRA.

A “cross-over district” is a somewhat nebulous term defined as a district in which minority voters make up less than a majority of the voting-age population, but the minority population is potentially large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with help from majority voters who cross over to support the minority’s preferred candidate. How you prove this has occurred, however, is not clear and that is why such districts have been rejected as a legitimate barometer under the VRA both statutorily and in court decisions.

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision Ashcroft v. Georgia (2003), Justice O’Connor allowed using such districts in analyzing compliance under section 5 of the VRA, but did not mandate their consideration in drawing new districts. However, in the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA, the U.S. Congress amended Section 5 in order to legislatively overrule Ashcroft in regards to permitting consideration of cross-over districts. The legislative history contains the following statement from the House Judiciary Committee: “the committee makes clear that Congress explicitly rejects all that logically follows from Justice O’Connor’s statement; [that “cross-over districts” can be utilized in determining compliance under Section 5 of the VRA].

The Supreme Court returned to the issue of “cross-over districts” in the case of Bartlett v. Strickland (2009). This time the court looked at whether it could consider such districts when considering possible violations under Section 2 of the VRA. Justice Kennedy in Bartlett decided against expanding consideration under the act to include such districts. He reasoned that to do so “would require courts to make complex political predictions and tie them to race-based assumptions.”

Given the clear law to the contrary, why would the Democratic Party nevertheless argue for use of “cross –over districts” under the VRA? Simply put, it is desperate to cling to any rationale in order to protect the seats of its incumbents in areas that have lost population in the past ten years.

Of the 20 smallest districts in Georgia, measured by population, 19 of them are presently held by members of the Democratic Party.

By contrast, of the 10 largest districts in Georgia, measured by population, all of them are held by members of the Republican Party. This will naturally lead to a migration of districts to the areas of growth in Georgia –which is away from the Democratic Party’s historical geographic strongholds.

2. Does the redistricting plan passed by the Georgia House  (HB 1EX) unduly pair existing Democratic House Representatives? No

All total, 10 Democratic Representatives inside the perimeter (I-285) of metro Atlanta and two in rural east Georgia have been paired and will have to run against each other in Democratic primaries next summer. The reason is simple. According to the census numbers gathered in 2010, 8 of the 10 smallest State House districts by population were Democratic seats inside the I-285 perimeter in Metro Atlanta. Many more Democratic seats in this urban area were also in the bottom twenty five in population. In addition, Democratic districts in east Georgia also lost significant numbers of residents.

Under the guiding principle of one person, one vote, if an area loses population it loses seats. This is not partisan. This is not personal. This is simple math. In fact, the same thing is happening under the passed redistricting plan in rural South Georgia where 8 Republican legislators are being paired because of a loss of population in their area.

In contrast to the redistricting plan passed by the House, it is interesting to look at the alternative redistricting proposal submitted by the Democratic Party at the House Reapportionment Committee on August 16, 2011. By gerrymandering and slicing up suburban Republican areas, it found a way to protect its members and instead pair 16 Republicans and only one Democrat. The Republicans paired were Chairman Joe Wilkinson, Chairman Sharon Cooper, Speaker Pro Tem Jan Jones, Chairman Mark Hamilton, Chairman Mike Jacobs, Chairman Ben Harbin, Rep. Barbara Sims, Rep. Jason Shaw, Governor’s Floor Leader Rep. Amy Carter, Chairman Penny Houston, Rep. Darlene Taylor, Chairman Jay Powell, Rep. Delvis Dutton, Chairman Greg Morris, Rep. Bob Hanner, and Rep. Mike Cheokes. Only Democrat Elena Parent faced a pairing.

It should be of little surprise that the Democratic Party took this path in 2011. It similarly paired 37 Republicans and only 9 Democrats in its redistricting plan in 2001.

3. Does the redistricting  plan passed by the Georgia House (HB 1EX) have unduly odd shapes and destroy communities of interest? No

Nevertheless, a mathematical analysis of the passed plan and Democratic alternative proposal was done using a well established formula called the “Polsby-Popper Test” The analysis is intended to determine the overall compactness of all drawn districts in a state’s redistricting map. The resulting measurements were virtually identical for each map, with the district map passed by the Georgia House being slightly better but only by a .001 margin.

Furthermore, with regards to splitting counties, the passed redistricting plan splits fifteen fewer counties than the Democratic Party’s alternative proposal and five fewer than the map drawn by the Federal Court for Georgia in 2004.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The photo above shows the church where I exercise my First Amendment right to worship as I am called to. On April 15, 2009, many of us gathered at the Georgia State Capitol under the protection of our right to assemble. Most weekdays in January through April we may petition the legislative branch of our state government. And on this blog, as well as other place online and off, we exercise our rights to free speech and to publish opinions and information that the government may not like.

(Before you say it, SOGTP, the Supreme Court held in Gitlow v . New York that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extends the protections of the First Amendment to the states. Love it or hate it, I don’t make the rules.)

I’ve written here recently about the pitched battle between Atlanta Progressive News and the Atlanta City Council.

Now, the Fulton County Daily Report is covering the actions of the City of Atlanta Law Department as it sought and received in Fulton County Superior Court a prior restraint (subscription required) against APN’s publication of the infamous memoranda.

On Aug. 9, Cardinale began reporting on his news site about a series of memos sent by city lawyers to council members, some drafted before he had filed his lawsuit and some after. Although Cardinale didn’t post copies of the memos on his site, his Aug. 9 story discussed in some detail an April 4 email Senior Assistant City Attorney Kristen Denius sent to Councilwoman Felicia Moore, copying city council members and staff and others in the city Law Department.

When they saw the memos quoted on Cardinale’s site, the city’s lawyers asked for their memos back. Cardinale, who said he received the memos from a confidential source, refused.

So on Aug. 12 they sent Baxter a motion for a temporary injunction to keep Cardinale from discussing or publishing the memos further, at least until the court could hold a hearing. The lawyers argued the memos could be damaging to the city’s attempts to settle a potential lawsuit by the state Law Department over related issues.

Baxter granted the temporary injunction but set the matter for a Monday hearing. According to Cardinale and Dow Lohnes lawyer Lesli N. Gaither, who sat in on the hearing on behalf of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, the city quickly withdrew its request for a permanent injunction Monday, given the memos already had been posted over the weekend by Todd Rehm on the Georgia political blog Peach Pundit.

The city moved to hold Cardinale in contempt over the possibility that he had violated the temporary injunction by giving the memos to Peach Pundit. But Cardinale was able to show Baxter emails that proved he gave Rehm the memos before Baxter entered his order, and Baxter denied the contempt motion.

Allow me a moment to discuss the idea of “prior restraints”. A prior restraint is a form of government censorship that prevents someone from saying something the government doesn’t like or publishing information the government wishes to keep from the citizens. A prior restraint is considered particularly loathsome because it prevents an idea from being heard and either accepted or rejected, it prevents a citizen from sharing information and accepting whatever consequences might attend. It is inimical to the”marketplace of ideas,” an analogy to the free markets that we all cherish around here.

In New York Times Co. v. United States, the United States Supreme Court rejected the lower courts imposition of restraining orders preventing a newspaper from publishing government documents obtained in a questionable manner. This case, also known as The Pentagon Papers case, is frequently cited for the principle that prior restraints are usually unconstitutional.

In Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, the Supreme Court expanded on the Pentagon Papers case to state in that “prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.” A concurring opinion stated that prior restraints could issue against the media only if the government could show that such publication would present a “clear and present danger” in that case to a defendant’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. Another concurring opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell articulated a nearly identical standard.

Given these clearly articulated standards for the government imposing a prior restraint, it should be only under the most extraordinary and exigent circumstances that an American government would seek to impose a prior restraint. Unfortunately, the Law Department of the City of Atlanta doesn’t seem to think so. In this case, what was at stake from the City’s perspective was its strategic position in a pending lawsuit that might be brought by Attorney General Sam Olens to force the City Council to abide by the Open Meetings Act.

But, you say, you guys are the press, are you? You’re not “legitimate media” to quote another government official or two.

Chief Justice Hughes, writing for the Supreme Court in Lovell v. City of Griffin, which originated in Georgia, stated that “[t]he press, in its historic connotation, comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”  That sounds like us.

Hollie Manheimer, Executive Director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, which filed an amicus brief against the prior restraint, told the Daily Report that “[t]here is more room for blogger and citizen action now, and we expect that role and activity to grow.”

How far was the City Law Department willing to go to defend their right to break the law?

The City Law Department is apparently so embarrassed at having their ass hat handed to them by a non-lawyer that they are willing to attempt to harass and intimidate Cardinale. In my opinion, they are using armed guards to prevent Matthew Cardinale from exercising his First Amendment right to petition his government. Shame on them.

The City of Atlanta government appears to have pulled out all the stops in its assault on the First Amendment rights of one of its citizens. They’re also willing to harass and attempt to intimidate Peach Pundit, or at least its most annoying contributor.

In this Motion, the City requested to take depositions of APN’s Editor, Rehm of Peach Pundit, and an activist named Robert Schreiber, who sent the Peach Pundit blog post to the City.

In its Motion, the City provided a screenshot of Rehm’s Facebook page, as well as a series of posts on Rehm’s Facebook wall, as emailed to the City by someone named Rob[ert Taylor] O’Neal.

Since Assistant City Attorney Kristen Denius seemed so interested in my facebook postings, I sent her a friend request so that she can view them herself, rather than enlisting  Robert Taylor O’Neal. I’m disappointed that she hasn’t accepted.

Matthew Cardinale is well-known for singing and rapping in his comments to the Atlanta City Council. Since the City lawyers lost their motion, I suspect they’re no longer interested in deposing me. But just in case, I’ve given my lawyer instructions to pass on to them: they’re taken from another song you may have heard. (link not safe for work or around young kids)

I am admittedly an absolutist complete nutjob with respect to the First Amendment, but it’s only because it protects so many of the most important things in our lives. If you’re a government official who deals with the press, you should acquaint yourself with the First Amendment and our rights under it.

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

-Barry Goldwater

If the First Amendment protections against our government fail, our next bulwark is the Second Amendment. And nobody wants it to ever come to that.

P.S. Matthew Cardinale and Atlanta Progressive News have spent a considerable sum defending the rights of all of us. Consider visiting their site and making a donation to offset their legal expenses; I have. I also highly recommend subscribing to their newsletter. Even though I disagree with his politics, I read every single edition as he covers topics neglected by the mainstream media.

P.P.S. The American Spectator used to publish a semi-humorous (if you appreciate droll humor) list of “enemies of the people”. I’m starting my own list.

I suppose it’s not really news when a statement by Senator Robert Brown is deemed to be “barely true” but since it deals with reapportionment and Brown is not the only Democrat whining about how unfair it all is I thought it worthy of a post.

Politifact takes issue with Brown’s statement that Democrats have been shutout of the reapportionment process.

We have trouble with Brown’s comment that Democrats had “no input” in location of the hearings because all members of the Georgia Legislature were asked for suggestions of sites. Some of the sites are in largely Democratic terrain such as Atlanta, Albany, Columbus and Macon.

As for Brown’s point about being left out of the process, his argument is based on not being asked to speak at the hearings and how Seabaugh has asked other lawmakers for input. Seabaugh did ask lawmakers not to ask or answer questions. Seabaugh has written letters to lawmakers asking them for their ideas or concerns about reapportionment.

Brown’s claim and argument ignore some critical facts we believe will give the casual reader a different impression of this issue.

We rate his claim Barely True.

Que the Democratic sock puppets in 3, 2, 1…..

The AJC reports today on a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Michael Rothenberg, who ran unsuccessfully for DeKalb Superior Court in 2010.

The SEC complaint appears to originate with the same transaction that birthed a federal lawsuit against Rothenberg just before the December 2011 runoff election.

The SEC alleges that Rothenberg transferred $169,o00 of money from defrauded investors to his campaign account. In November, the Fulton Daily Report noted Rothenberg denying having transferred the funds in questions to his campaign.

But long before the November general election, there were other warning signs.

In 2008, Michael Rothenberg announced his candidacy for another seat on the DeKalb Superior Court. Erick Erickson, writing on Peach Pundit challenged Rothenberg’s eligibility. Rothenberg and his Campaign Manager/attorney responded in the comments with their version of his qualifications.

Two days later, Erick published a lengthy analysis and concluded that Rothenberg did not meet the statutory requirements to hold the office of Superior Court Judge at that time. This would not be the last time Rothenberg had no comment.

Rothenberg ultimately withdrew from that race over his qualifications. Erick wished him the best and said “[we] hope to see him run in two years.” Erick’s wish was fulfilled.

On November 18, 2010 the Daily Report ran a story that Rothenberg implied that his campaign was supported by Congressmen Hank Johnson and John Lewis and State Senator Jason Carter. All three of those elected officials denied having endorsed Rothenberg.

On November 29th, the AJC reported that State Representative Mike Jacobs withdrew his personal endorsement of Rothenberg based on concerns over the private lawsuit. That article also reported that DeKalb County Commissioner Elaine Boyer (R-Smokerise) denied having endorsed Rothenberg, despite her picture appearing on Rothenberg’s mailings under the heading “Endorsed By”.

Liz Carter, the Republican Candidate for the Fourth Congressional District, had the day earlier emailed  a number of DeKalb Republicans stating that she had not approved the printed endorsement that Rothenberg attributed to her and was asking people not to vote for Rothenberg in the runoff.

Both DeKalb Libertarians stood by their endorsement of Rothenberg.

After Courtney Johnson won the runoff election with 61% it wasn’t clear how much of her victory could be attributed to the last news cycles of the election.

But precinct-level returns shed some light.

Mike Jacobs’s district comprises eleven precincts in North DeKalb. During early runoff voting, Rothenberg ran the table here, carrying 66% of the vote and all but two of the eleven precincts. On election day, voters gave Courtney Johnson 56% of the vote, a twenty-three point gain over the weekend, and she carried nine of eleven precincts.

Courtney Johnson won the rest of the county handily, approaching 90% in a number of precincts. But it is instructive to view the sea-change in voter sentiment in reaction to a news story about candidate ethics.

Disclaimers: I was a consultant to Mike Jacobs during this drama. On November 1, 2010, I recevied a payment for robocalls from Michael Rothenberg’s campaign. That expenditure appears never to have been disclosed.

From Peanut Politics:

I’ve been holding back from talking about this issue for sometime, but now is the time to talk about it. I compile a list of code words I’ve heard politicians utilize to speak about race issues without coming off as bigoted:

White

Average Joe
Joe six-pack
Moral voters
Independent voter
Evangelical voter
Hockey Mom
Soccer Mom
The southern vote
blue collar workers

Black

Welfare recipient
Poor people
Inner-city
Affirmative action supporter

These are just a handful of examples of how our media and politicians (not to mention everyday people) use racialized language to refer to groups of Americans without sounding like they are mentioning anything overtly bigoted. They can use these words and say “the southern vote looks high for…….John Doe” without saying that most southern whites will vote for John Doe. They can say “I don’t support just handing out welfare to recipients while hard working Americans bust their asses” without saying “I think blacks are lazy and whites are industrious”.

Going all the way back to the 1920s, racially coded language have been used by politicians to describe certain groups of people in hoping to appeal to a much greater audience in winning a race for Governor, President of the United States, Senator, even Mayor & County Commission. Sadly this kind of tactic has worked & it shows no sign of going away.

I hear so much talk about how much better we are in terms of racism in our country. Yes, we’ve gotten rid of terms such as ‘nigger’, ‘spic’, ‘gook’ from our daily vocabulary, but have we done much in the way of conditioned messages? I don’t think so, and many seem intent on keeping things this way by claiming racism is” over”, “that stuff ended long ago”, “get past it”, etcetera.

It’s funny how ready most liberal whites were to vote for Obama in the name of change and hope, and not to mention the fact that he’s black and how this would “end racism” or something like that. However, three years later, when the country is back to debating issues and race becomes an inevitable facet of the discussion.

Other racial code words include terms like “states’ rights,” “crime in the streets,” and “welfare queens, quotas, reverse racism are uninitiated, racial code words are words politicians (usually Republicans) are accused of using to supposedly help them win votes by raising whites’ fears of minorities.

At his now infamous presidential kick-off campaign rally at Neshoba County (Philadelphia), Mississippi in 1980, held virtually a stone throw from where the three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, Ronald Reagan shouted to a lily white crowd that “I believe in states’ rights.” He laced his campaign speech with stock racial code words and phrases, blasting welfare, big government, federal intrusion in state affairs, and rampant federal spending. He used the term Welfare Queens to justify cutting back social programs. Only being removed from the civil rights era 10 years earlier, that kind of “wink, wink” approach was gobbled up by those who was duped & conned by the Southern Strategy of 1968, which was, above all else, about winning the rural, white Southern vote into the Republican sphere because the Democratic Party falling apart because of its inability to contain the contradictions of being both the formal party of civil rights in the North and the party of Jim Crow in the South.

Other words like “Uppity” which Congressman Lynn Westmoreland called president Obama one time late in the 2008 campaign & GOP congressional candidate Rick Goddard criticized an MSNBC reporter’s sharp questioning of former House speaker Newt Gingrich at the Republican National Convention. Goddard called the African-American reporter, Ron Allen, “uppity“

When the current President is called a criminal, a welfare cheat, they’re using new terms to get the point across: he’s Black, he’s urban, and he’s out of step with the rest of us. Plain & simple.

When Newt Gingrich said at the Ga GOP State Convention over the weekend that Obama was a Food Stamp president, now lets be real hear, anytime the words food stamps are mentioned, black people comes to mind, as well as hispanics. That is racially coded my friend.

Sometimes they don’t have to be racially coded. Here are a few code words the Democrats think Republicans use, along with the “real” meanings Democrats believe.

State’s rights.” That really means legalized racial discrimination.

Family values.” That really stands for legalized gender discrimination.

Junk lawsuits.” That is any lawsuit by an individual that demands a corporation be held accountable for their misdeeds.

Tort reform.” That is taking away a victim’s right to sue criminal corporations and putting rich people above the law.

Socialist: communist, liberal, progressive, community organizer.”

All these words actually are Republican code for “black.”“We share your values.” That means we are bigots like you.

The Republicans have some code words they attach to the Democrats as well.

In their heads, if a republican hear a Democrat utter the following words, you have to understand the real meaning behind them.

Invest.” That means spend.“

Stimulus. That is spending devoted to liberal causes.

Racism.”Well, I can’t win this argument with you, so this is all I’ve got!

Fiscal responsibility: You don’t pay enough taxes.

Comprehensive immigration reform.” Amnesty.

Republicans are the party of fear” They want to take your Medicare, your Social Security and free school lunches for poor kids.“

Freedom of religion. For everybody but traditional Christians

I can on on & on in talking about this subject, but one thing’s for sure, the use of racially coded words to appeal to certain demographics & voting blocs are harmful to the political process. But sadly politicians (most of the time republicans) use this to their advantage & it works.

On Saturday, the Democratic Party of Georgia will open its “inaugural field office” outside of Metro Atlanta in Augusta.

A ceremony will mark the opening. If you are so inclined to intend, the address is 1101 Greene Street (706-722-8111).

Your intrepid correspondent will be present. If you go, look for the cantankerous dude looking for anyone who will listen to him ramble. Feel free to say hi.

N.B.: Ignoring the poor use of “inaugural”, I seem to recall the DPG having a field office in 2008, yes it was separate from OFA. I’m almost certain one of my old Jefferson-Jackson Dinner programs lists several DPG regional field offices as well. Either way, I hope this is successful.

Today’s Courier Herald Column:

It wasn’t supposed to be close.

Nathan Deal released his plan for restructuring Georgia’s HOPE scholarship program with not only Republican leadership of both House and Senate flanking him at his press conference, but also Representatives Stacey Abrams and Calvin Smyre. Abrams is the new House Minority leader, a respected in-town Atlanta Democrat from the state’s more progressive wing of the party.  Smyre, a former Democratic Party of Georgia Chairman, served in House leadership when Democrats were the only party in Georgia, and represented a more broad governing coalition.

Abrams was tapped by Governor Deal to be inside the room, and given a real voice to alter key provisions of HOPE.  She is credited with protecting key provisions such as maintaining funding for remedial programs in technical schools, as well as initiating a loan program to assist funding gaps caused by reduced tuition coverage.  In exchange for these concessions, Abrams became an advocate.

The inclusion of Abrams and Smyre was, in political reality, political gravy for new Governor Deal.  Elected in November with a 10% spread over his Democratic rival, Deal came into office with a full slate of Republican constitutional officers, 35 (of 56) Republican Senators, and 116 (of 180) Republican House members.  With the first major policy initiative of a new Republican Governor backed by near super-majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, HOPE adjustments were assured passage by the new one party Georgia. 

That is, until that whole “two Georgias” issue resurfaced.

Back when Georgia was a one party state under that other party, Democrats often had a campaign theme of “two Georgias”.  While never given specific boundaries, there was presumed a rural Georgia and a metro Atlanta Georgia.  Sometimes it was a rich Georgia versus a poor Georgia.  Black versus White.  North Versus South.  Us against them. 

Folks assuming that one party rule would be an end to competitive politics under the gold dome received a wakeup call Monday and Tuesday when Senator Jason Carter (D-Decatur)  somewhat unexpectedly made the coronation of Deal’s HOPE reform package an actual contest for passage.  Though the bill won Senate approval, Carter was able to appeal to rural Georgia Republicans by using a simple spreadsheet to make a sharp point: voting for his proposal to means test HOPE would ensure 100% college funding for virtually all of HOPE recipients in their district.

In placing clear data in the hands of rural Senators, Carter was able to send a direct message.  If he can hand you this today, an opponent can mail or robo-call your voters this same info next November.  And in a state where HOPE has become our own untouchable entitlement, a vote for reducing HOPE benefits to 90% of tuition for all when 100% can be preserved for their constituents if more was taken from suburban Atlanta families was compelling.  In the end, it was enough to extract a guarantee that the top two students from every high school in Georgia would receive a full ride, not just those with a 3.7 GPA and 1200 SAT.

In winning these concessions, Carter has also begun to crystallize a potential path forward to Democratic relevancy, and perhaps, his own upward trajectory.  Republicans moved from obscurity to majority party by picking off coalitions within the Democratic party to systematically win issues, build a platform, and eventually, the state.

Democrats, meanwhile, have been consumed with hand wringing and teeth gnashing over how to reunite their urban Atlanta base with rural Georgians who are bolting the party in droves.  Carter of Decatur has the Atlanta Democratic base covered.  But just down the road from his district is a Presidential library bearing his family name, one with its roots still firmly entrenched in Southwest Georgia’s peanut producing soil. 

At the end of this day, Deal and the Republican majority won the day with their solution to preserve HOPE.  The silver lining for Democrats is that Jason Carter may be reason for them to maintain hope as well.

My Courier Herald Column today:

Tomorrow on the steps of Georgia Capitol, there will be dueling rallies over teachers’ rights to negotiate with union representation.  The Service Employees International Union will host a rally in support of Wisconsin state workers who are currently the subject of a now national debate on government employees’ ability to collectively bargain.  The Tea Party Patriots, perhaps Georgia’s largest and best known Tea Party Organization, will stage a counter protest.  The matchup is scheduled for 4pm.

The nationalization of the Wisconsin debate does not have direct ties to Georgia, though some background on the topic may be in order.  Whenever we write on education reform at PeachPundit.com, we will inevitably have a commenter boldly assert that the first step in fixing Georgia’s education problems is to “get rid of those teachers’ unions.”

Georgia does not currently recognize teachers’ unions, nor allow public employees to collectively bargain.

Georgia has two major teachers’ organizations, The Professional Association of Georgia Educators (PAGE) and the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE).  The GAE is the Georgia affiliate of the National Education Association, which is the nation’s largest teachers’ union.  In Georgia, however, without the ability to participate in collectively bargain nor strike, these groups primarily provide liability insurance for teachers, and lobby on their behalf at the State Capitol.

Georgia is one of five states that currently bar teachers from collective bargaining.  The others are all Southern: North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.  Those supporting the unions are quick to point out that each of these states are near the bottom in state education rankings, while Wisconsin ranks near the top. 

Democrats, nationally, have seized on this issue as drawing a line in the sand in a battle to fight for their core values.  Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests the public may not be ready to support their plight.  Taxpayers have already supported a bailout of heavily unionized General Motors and Chrysler, with these bailouts likely to represent most of any losses to the taxpayer under TARP.  Meanwhile, Delta airlines has just survived multiple union elections, with newly merged Northwest employees joining to shed their former union memberships in all major employee groups except pilots. 

Yet, it’s easy to see why Democrats would engage this fight.  Union members are a nationwide base for Democrats, and government unionized members, at roughly 7.6 Million, now represent more than half of all unionized workers in America.  National Democrats view this battle as nothing less than a fight for their survival.

But as is so often the case, what is good for the national Democratic Party is an anathema for Georgia Democrats.  In a recent interview with the left-leaning Georgia political website Blog For Democracy, newly elected Democratic Party of Georgia Mike Berlon gave this answer on how Democrats plan to broaden their base where they can again be competitive statewide:

“If you put together a message that is about education, and about jobs, and it’s about family security, that cuts across everything. It cuts across religious lines, it cuts across ethnic lines, it cuts across everything. That’s what people are really concerned about. Our task is to try to come up with the message that works for everybody.”

The current debate in Wisconsin is about education, jobs, and family security.  Georgia, however, has a long history as a “right to work” state, with current trends showing public attitudes remaining anti-union.  The debate over collective bargaining for Government workers is not likely one Berlon would like to have underway as he tries to right the ship of the Democratic Party of Georgia.  While the Wisconsin issue appeals to Berlon’s entrenched base, if it succeeds in defining education and jobs issues for Georgians and their view of party perception, then the Democrats time in the wilderness likely just got extended.

There’s already been a lot posted on this whole Sunday Sales deal but I figured what the heck.

There are tons of other issues that are far more pressing right now in Georgia than whether or not alcohol should be bought and sold on Sundays. I get that, and quite frankly, I’m tired of the discussion over it dominating everything year after year. It’s very easy to take the perspective of “let’s vote on it and move on with life” and, in many ways, that’s the most common sense approach to take.

But I think there’s a bigger picture here. On one level it comes back to the fundamental principle of letting people decide for themselves (which I strongly support). That’s a principle that has been clearly discussed and established and there is no point in me going  on about it here.

So what is the big picture? For Republicans specifically.

In many ways, I see this issue as being a (probably very small in the grand scheme of things) watershed moment for the GOP in Georgia.

Georgia is changing. Politically speaking, what works today won’t necessarily be the case in twenty years. The demographics of the state are shifting, people are becoming more moderate socially and Georgia will shift towards the center eventually.

I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again, the time is now for the Republican Party of Georgia to become the “big tent” party of this state. It needs to happen sooner rather than later. With the current state of affairs in Georgia, Republicans could play their cards right and shift the focus so much so that the GOP primary would be the place where elections are decided for the next twenty years (or more).

It just makes sense. Finally bringing this bill to a vote would not solidify that, but I would view it as a step in the right direction. The stranglehold of extreme social conservatism will be broken sometime or another. Now is the chance we Republicans have to begin doing it on our own terms. If the opportunity is missed, then it will be the Democrats doing it their way when they inevitably return to power. Politics is cyclical and the Democrats will be back in Georgia if steps are not taken now.

Democrats mastered it for generations in the South. It’s time for Republicans to learn how to do the same. This bill, to simply allow local counties to decide for themselves, is a chance to begin moving that way.

A lot of people say that “too often politicians are concerned with…the next election”.

Well, I’m thinking about the next 10.

Cong. John Lewis has signed a publishing deal for a graphic novel about his life. The book is called “March”.

Cong. Lewis (center) and Andrew Aydin (right) will co-author a graphic novel about the congressman's life.

Andrew Aydin, a staffer (and all around good guy) for Cong. Lewis will co-author the book.

“I am very pleased to be participating in this effort,” said Congressman John Lewis. “This is something I really wanted to do some years ago and there is no better time to do it than now. It is not just a story of struggle; it is a story of involvement. It shows the ups, the downs, the ins and the outs of a movement.

“It is my hope,” said Congressman Lewis, “that this work will be meaningful and helpful to future generations to give many people here in America and around the world the urge, the desire, to seek, to build, their own world, their own future.”

Top Shelf Productions will publish the book, and an artist is yet to be selected.

Sounds like a pretty cool project.

Here is also a little fun fact from Roll Call: Top Shelf Productions claims to be the first and only graphic novel publisher to be certified by the House Ethics Committee.

My column from this morning’s Courier Herald:

While speaking to the Atlanta Press Club yesterday, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed spoke on a variety of topics with a somewhat common theme: Working with various other state leaders to “reduce the notion of two Georgias”. 

A Couple of weeks ago, I wrote for PeachPundit.com that Kasim Reed is the man with political clout in Georgia.  He has been the point man to work with President Obama’s Democratic administration in an attempt to secure funding for expanding the Port of Savannah on behalf of a solidly Republican state.  He has become the key negotiator in solving the Atlanta regions’ transportation plan in preparation for an upcoming regional transportation sales tax vote.  And he has stood shoulder to shoulder with the Governor to announce the two would use every means necessary to ensure that Atlanta Public Schools do not lose accreditation.

As mayor of the capitol city, Reed has influence far beyond his half million constituents.  His frequent references to “unprecedented cooperation” with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, and Congressional delegation underscored the symbiotic relationship the various parts of the state have, and the abilities of Reed and the others to bring Georgians together.

Many of the issues that Reed spoke of centered on economic development, and most of those issues have transportation at the core.  He spoke of the state’s long history as being a center for logistics, and shared a vision that Georgia would be nothing less than the logistical center of the Western Hemisphere.  Thus, the Port of Savannah will be linked to Hartsfield airport, with massive cargo ships bringing in goods that can be distributed quickly throughout the southeast and beyond by Hartsfield’s massive network and expanding air cargo capabilities. 

But Reed also discussed issues that are closer to home, that if left unchecked would threaten the image of the city and blunt the best economic development efforts.  In addition to his firm stance toward the Atlanta School Board, Reed discussed plans to reduce crime, increase environmental sustainability, and deal with the city’s massive housing/foreclosure problem.

But the real challenge for Reed will begin today, when he will receive recommendations to deal with the City’s significantly underfunded pension program.   Though he said he could ignore the problem through his expected two terms, he indicated if he did so, the next mayor would have to declare the city bankrupt.   He would prefer to get the city back on track to a properly funded program now, while actions can still be taken.

City employees, however, are a large and influential voting bloc in Atlanta.  Changing their compensation package is not without significant political risk, and poses perhaps the first real test of his administration. 

During his first year in office, Reed has built up considerable clout and goodwill from Republican Georgia.  It will be interesting to see if that translates into the ability to convince his Democratic base to accept less.  If it does, we’re a lot closer to having “one Georgia” than most might expect, and Kasim Reed will be its undisputed mayor.

Newly elected State Representative Stacey Evans and Senator Doug Stoner will host a town hall meeting at the Smyrna Community Center (200 Village Green Circle) on Thursday, February 3^rd at 7:00PM.

According to the press release “State Representative Evans and Senator Stoner are interested in hearing from the community. All are welcome.”

So if you’re in the Smyrna area Thursday and looking for a rollicking good time, now you know where to go.

N.B.: I would like to take this time to say how absolutely sick I am of the phrase “town hall meeting”. Not sure why. Find a new name for your meetings politicians!