Monday, November 07, 2005


Also reported in today's ABH is a surgery undergone by Charlie Norwood to remove a small malignant tumor from his left lung. He already has a replaced right lung, although apparently this surgery was unrelated and did not affect the new lung. According to the article, also unaffected by the surgery is Norwood's intent to run for reelection in the 10th.


RandomThoughts said...

Question: How much does a candidate's health have to do with their electibility?

Publius said...

How much does a candidate's health have to do with determining whether you vote for him/her or not? Then multiply that by every likely voter.

It depends on the electorate, and how well the campaign handles the issue.

Probably a better reason for Norwood to retire would be his promise to limit himself to six terms. He was elected in 1994.

bulletdawg said...

First off, I hope Rep. Norwood has a speedy recovery.

With that said, it is time for Norwood to retire. Beyond his promise to only serve 12 years in the House, Norwood has been ineffective for nearly three years as he's fought health-related problems. He rarely comes home to his district, instead spending his time in DC.

We need a healthy, active, and trustworthy member of Congress. We can do better than two more years of Charlie Norwood.

RandomThoughts said...

I've never considered myself "average" so my feelings about voting for someone with medical problems might differ from those of "normal" people. I was just curious and was not suggesting that he should retire. In fact, it was just a generic question and not necessarily about this particular incident.

Thanks for the answers.

monticello_pres said...

I have continued to be amazed that Norwood is a lock - most prognosicators' opinion. You would think he was Ronald Reagan or JFK the way folks talk. I've basically heard that anyone with a "D" near their name should run from this district. Why?

I tend to be politically conservative. That is not to be confused with republican... although history may show that I have voted "R" more than "D". So one might suppose I am a Norwood supporter. Well, I wish him excellent health and a peaceful and long retirement. But I do not think he can be effective any longer.

bulletdawg said...

Norwood is not effective. Unfortunately that fact will not hurt his chances for re-election. These ding-bat GOP voters will vote for Norwood as long as he keeps that "R" by his name.

Dawg Corleone said...

I imagine by "not effective" you mean he doesn't vote the way you want him to.

If he can cast a congressional ballot, he's effective. His staff handles the constituent stuff. His job is to vote on legislation and, if he sees fit, introduce it.

I could argue that John Barrow is "not effective." He's in the minority in the Georgia delegation and he's in the minority in the national delegation. He's a freshman with seniority or with any significant committee assignments. He has no clout, and his hometown has been penciled out of his district.

So I could build a much better case for an inneffective John Barrow, but I won't. Because he has a vote, and there are only 435 of those.

Publius said...

To answer the question a few comments ago, as to why Democrats should run far away from that particular district, I can tell you that the numbers aren't very encouraging, even with the addition of Athens to the district.

You've got two major metros in the district, Athens and Columbia County. While Athens is solid D, it usually breaks about 60-40, which isn't nearly enough to balance the votes coming out of Columbia County (suburban Augusta), which usually breaks about 75-25 for the GOP. That means that any Democrat running in the 10th will have to do extrememly well in Athens, and clean up un the North Georgia rural counties just to have a chance against the Columbia County GOP base. On top of that, add in the 10,000 or votes that are going to come out of Oconee County, and you can see why it's a daunting district for Dems.

Which isn't to say that the District isn't winnable by a Democrat. But, to win, the Democrat would have to be well-funded. I'd mention here that, from a fundraising standpoint, Norwood has not had serious competition since 1996 (David Bell was the Democrat then). His last challenger, Bob Ellis, raised a paltry $113K, which was the most anyone has raised since that 1996 race. In 2002, Norwood's challenger raised less than $20 (if memory serves), and in 98 and 2000, his challenger raised significantly less than $100,000.

So, show me a Democrat who is committed to spending hours every day for 11 months asking strangers for money, and I'll show you someone who can win that district, or at least make it interesting.