Parent Wins Senate Race, Valarie Wilson Headed To Runoff for State Superintendent
Decatur Metro | May 21, 2014 | 9:16 amThe votes have been tallied and here’s a smattering of races with a local connection:
- Elena Parent won the Democratic nomination for Jason Carter’s vacated Senate seat, attracting 65% of the vote to Kyle Williams’ 35%
- Decatur former School Board member Valarie Wilson is in a strong position to be the Democatic candidate for State School Superintendent, with the most votes of any Democratic candidate. But without “50% plus one” vote – Wilson will need to enter into a runoff with the second place candidate, which looks to be state Rep. Alisha Thomas Morgan to secure the nomination.
- And of course, Gov. Nathan Deal and Jason Carter now officially are poised to go head-to-head in the governor’s race.
- Also, DeKalb Sheriff Jeff Mann and former DeKalb CEO Vernon Jones are headed for a runoff for County Sheriff.
I tried to warn Kye about the bowtie. Bowties are election losers.
Also, negative campaign ads to liberal voters who think of themselves as nice people. I wonder if the AJC rating of Mostly False hurt.
I never received the negative mailings from the Williams side; I wish I had so I’d have something to compare. The only mail I received were the ones with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney’s picture on them! Huge, scary pictures. The whole “Williams is supported by a group who supports Republicans” but not actually naming the group just felt so shady to me and left a really sour taste. I need I get over it before November.
That’s interesting that you didn’t get all the negative Williams ads! Why did I? Big scary (super-imposed) pics of Deal and Parent. I got them all first which left a really sour taste in my mouth. I hate that the race turned so ugly. Both are great people and would have served our district well. I wish I hadn’t gotten any of those ads! I’m jealous!
Both sides were guilty of the crapola. I held my nose and voted.
Yeah, you could feel the panic rising as the mailers increased both in frequency and the specious claims. Williams probably won on sheer volume, but as New Scott mentioned, Parent’s had the comically vague assertions about Williams supposed connection to Palin and Romney, complete with MASSIVE SCARY HEAD SHOTS of said bogeymen. Sad.
This is why I have zero desire to go into politics and wonder about those who do. Not sure if these types of shenanigans are just the stock and trade of the political set, or if good, sane people are driven to them once they are confronted by the realities of running a campaign. (See also: Jason Carter’s Guns Everywhere vote.)
Carter’s guns everywhere vote would be a reason to support him, if he really meant it. But he didn’t. As you note, it was a purely political vote, and he’s admitted as much. Which to my mind raises the question: if you are willing to compromise core values to get elected, what’s the point of getting elected in the first place, other than the desire to acquire power?
I’ve known Jason for 12+ years, and have never heard him to be anti-gun, and that includes a conversation more than a decade ago- so I don’t think he is being inconsistent with his recent vote. Did he love all aspects of that bill? I doubt it. Does his wife support it? NO. Would he be inclined to consider reasonable requirements for gun ownership? I personally speculate maybe, but it is just not his priority. He’d rather build consensus where we can as a state, around important issues such as education and jobs. While I don’t agree with his vote on the guns everywhere terrible law, I am really looking forward to building consensus, working together and potentially making some big positive changes in this state in education, jobs and transportation. I’m sick of all the single-issue items pausing the entire discussion/action, which is countrywide. I’d rather figure out where we might agree and get something done.
If there was an alternative, it would be an instant disqualifier for me.
There is already a consenus in this red state: we want less government.
What about better performing government? I think that is a broader consensus (and maybe smaller is part of that).
Such baloney-the idea that the GOP wants less government. Who wants to regulate women’s reproductive rights? Who wants to criminalize even the mildest of recreational drugs? Who wants to criminalize the use of sex novelties? Who lobbied for millions and millions of federal dollars for the Savannah Port to deepen the river to improve the profits of private businesses? Who wants to force citizens to “show their papers” unless of course the papers are for that lethal weapon you have in your pocket. Pure right wing baloney.
To what passes for GOP leadership these days, “less government” = “NO government oversight/interference with business, because ‘free market’ should mean the unfettered ability to do whatever it takes to separate the people from their dollars & put them into corporate pockets.”
And we have a winner! Ding, ding, ding.
“Who lobbied for millions and millions of federal dollars for the Savannah Port to deepen the river to improve the profits of private businesses?”
Surely you have a deeper understanding that that ludicrous statement.
What comes and goes through the port? Goods from China. Cars from Japan. Deeper river equals bigger ships meaning the cost to ship goes down. More profits for the importing businesses. Forget the incredible amount of damage that will be done to the river and the marsh ecosystems. All that bottom dredging has to be dumped somewhere. The oxygen level will be so reduced they plan to pump air into the river to keep the fish alive. All for WalMart and other businesses to save a few cents per unit in shipping costs.
Yes, I know exactly what I am talking about. Do you?
Maybe it’s that you’re implying that it was only the Republicans pushing for the project. http://youtu.be/TfHfLXYWS-w
By that “logic” we should eliminate scads of federal and state programs because the money ultimately ends up in corporate coffers.
Who is the largest end beneficiary of food stamps? Wal Mart.
Federal cell phone assistance? Verizon, AT&T.
Medicaid and medicare? Tenet and other masive for-profit providers.
Obamacare? Health insurers, who lobbied for it furiously and whose profits are now federally guaranteed.
AMB wasn’t arguing against the plan solely because it benefits corporations but because of the possible environmental problems. And the point of bringing it up it at all was to point out that this red state is lobbying for federal dollars for it (a red state, I must add, that is refusing federal Medicaid dollars for purely political reasons; so Deal and others shouldn’t act so surprised when federal dollars for this port expansion are held up for purely political reasons).
Gee, if we actually had a living wage then government programs would not be necessary but some people seem to think protecting big business from the living wage isn’t actually a back door form of corporate welfare. The logic fail of “conservatives” is always shocking.
Yeah, b/c those who have only qualified themselves for minimum wage would immediately stop demanding thier entitlements if there was a living wage. The opposition to a living wage isn’t about protecting the businesses – it is about preserving the jobs that will be lost. It is about keeping costs down for all consumers. It is about not rewarding someone who hasn’t learned a marketable skill. Your “logic” isn’t derived between your ears – it is based on an emotional feeling – thus, not “logic”.
There’s a series airing on NPR this week about people who get in the downward spiral of job loss, fines, penalties, and even jail, which then makes it impossible to get a job that pays enough to handle the fines. Listening to some of the stories, I’ve thought “Oh, that was dumb. I’d never do that.”. But other stories have demonstrated how a little bad luck led to a downward spiral into a hole that few can get out of. Not sure I’d have the stamina and know-how to do it despite all my education, CV, and sense of entitlement. Some of the stories are heart-wrenching and involve veterans, widows, persons with unexpected medical bills, etc., who lose their job, can’t afford to pay something essential like car insurance or registrations, so they get a fine, which they have trouble paying, so interest fess are applied, which puts them even further behind, so they get called into court and court fees and penalties and interest payments then apply, finally they get so far behind that they are put in jail for contempt of court, then they have a record so it’s hard to get a job, and if they do get a job, it’s so low-paying that they still can’t pay the growing fee debt that didn’t go away while they were in jail…………….etc. Makes me think that life, luck, poverty, American opportunity is a little more complex than learning a marketable skill.
Then I guess that story had its exact intended effect. We can’t enact legislation that applies to all b/c there are a handful of sob stories (which will always be the case no matter what policies we adopt). And do you really think that any of those people would be better off earning a couple of more dollars per hour (especially if there are less jobs and less hours available)? We already have policies/procedures in place to address many of the above circumstances, although admittedly they are flawed. But, no system will be perfect. This is a macro economics discussion, not micro.
How is not a true statement? They don’t want to expand it so we can take boat rides from Savannah to China. Not arguing whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea, but increased business is certainly the reason, and they’re (not just GOP) seeking federal dollars for it.
Yes, it is about increased business. But I know you are smart enough to understand that wasn’t AMB’s point. It isn’t about increasing profits for foreign business. It is about creating local jobs. It is about creating tax revenue. And, yes it will create/increase some wealth. But, if you don’t increase wealth, you don’t have more jobs or increased tax revenue. The motive is not to enhance WM’s earnings.
“And, yes it will create/increase some wealth. But, if you don’t increase wealth, you don’t have more jobs or increased tax revenue.”
True, but if there’s one thing “progressives” can’t abide, it’s rich people getting richer. As Margaret Thatcher said, they’d prefer that the poor be poorer so long as the rich are less rich.
DEM, I know we’re in a pool of generalizations here, but please don’t believe all progressives want to keep people from getting richer. I’m happy for those who can improve on their circumstances and increase their wealth, even if it was considerable to begin with. However, I prefer the wealth building to be done in a manner that raises all ships- not through handouts, but via good paying jobs and not the insane gap between CEO pay and the lower workers. Look at the 1950s- that model does work.
I’m not gonna speak for AMB anymore, but my view is this: Conservatives have no problem using government to “interfere” with the environment (dredging for port expansion, for example) to help certain business activities, but “interfering” with the market to do something positive for the environment (net-metering for solar power, for example, which, by the way, helps business activities too) is somehow sacrilege. Because all the experts must be right that port expansion will bring more jobs, but all the scientists must be wrong about climate change.
Well, at least the number of new jobs can be quantified. And, if the numbers don’t support the plans, “experts” don’t simply re-name and re-brand when the statistics don’t support the theory.
And, I wasn’t advocating for or against port expansion. I just took issue with AMB’s gross mischaracterization (or absolute misunderstanding) of the “conservative” position. And who knew Biden was a rebel flag waving, gun toting Republican?
And enough of the conservative bashing. It doesn’t add anything to the conversation, and your comments are factually inaccurate. Is Biden a conservative? Do all conservatives have “no problem” with interfering with the environment? Or did many do the same analysis as you and arrive at a different conclusion (i.e. the impact on the enviroment may not be as apocalypic as you claim)?
“Is Biden a conservative? Do all conservatives have “no problem” with interfering with the environment? Or did many do the same analysis as you and arrive at a different conclusion (i.e. the impact on the enviroment may not be as apocalypic as you claim)?”
No, I was making a generalization, but generally there is less concern for the environment among conservatives than among liberals (though this is less true on the west coast). I didn’t make any analysis about the port; I have no idea if the port expansion is that bad for the environment or if it will help people in Georgia. But it is definitely an example of using government to interfere with the environment, an example that supports AMB’s point that the GOP is not all about “less government.” Another example would be the continued support from (mostly) Republican officials for certain defense programs that even the Pentagon says are unnecessary. Or how about that awful word “regulation”? Not so awful when it’s used to require doctors to have hospitial admitting privileges to perform abortions.
“Look at the 1950s- that model does work.”
I hear that a lot, and maybe you’re right. But, setting aside the unique issue of post-war reconstruction, I know you realize that the 1950s predates the great society. I don’t think you are advocating taking us back to the 1950’s era scale of government, are you? If so, then you and I are probably a lot closer politcally than it might appear.
In other discussions I’ve had, however, what this argument usually means is we’d like 1950’s era marginal tax rates plus the welfare state that was mostly enacted after 1963. On that, no thanks, since my view is that it hasn’t worked at all.
No, I was specifically referring to the differential between CEO and ground-level employee pay– that was much closer than the incredible gap of today. I think the greater relative earnings of the ground level employees helped fuel our growth, though of course there were other things fueling it as well, including the growing military industrial complex, as you stated, as well as the GI Bill. The latter is also something we seem to have forgotten as a society- the more our populace is educated at an extremely low cost, the more opportunity for advancement on an idividual and collective basis. Right now, our stagnent wage growth and huge student debt load seems like a recipe for nothing good.
I note you have absolutely no defense of the point that for the GOP, “small government” includes extensive regulation of personal choices w/r/t marriage, drug use, etc.
THE GOP: Government so small you can drown it in the bathtub…. or hide it in your bedroom.
…or hide it under a paper drape worn in a doctor’s exam room.
Nope. As with other red states, the only consensus is that they want lower taxes. Less government is OK only when it doesn’t affect their lives or clash with their beliefs.
We are not as red as they want to think. Georgia is tilting back to blue and it will be in the near future
You should leave Decatur occasionally.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/stacey_abrams_michelle_nunn_and_georgia_can_georgia_democrats_mount_a_comeback.html
Sorry, but Georgia is turning purple. It won’t be Massachusetts anytime soon, but it’s changing.
“There is already a consenus in this red state: we want less government.”
If that were true, in red states we’d see fewer military bases, fewer prisons, proportionally smaller expenditures for “homeland security” instead of dis-proportionally larger, legalized marijuana, and legal gay marriage. The opposite is the case.
What he means by “less government” is “more tax breaks for rich people”.
By the way, our property taxes are going up 6.6%. So we’ve got that going for us.
The millage rate will stay the same, so any increase in your property taxes will be due to an increase in your assessment. If your assessment didn’t change, your taxes won’t change, at least for COD. The 6.6% figure is because the overall combined total assessments went up by that much.
. . . which is nice
(hate to leave a brutha hanging)
The runoff for Sheriff scares me. Jones might be able to fill up that truck of his with voters a few times and walk away with the election. Turnout was so lousy to begin with; I just hope the statewide Dem runoff for school superintendent moves people to vote in July.
The good news is that Mann’s campaigners don’t have to stretch the truth to do effective negative campaigning!
Can we amend the recently passed tree ordinance to protect future trees from these candidates? Mail sent to our household alone must’ve reduced the tree canopy by a few percentage points.
maybe we need to get our new reps to propose legislation that would limit campaign flyers to one a week (I’d prefer less, but…).