Thursday, November 09, 2006

Barrow Claims Victory

OK, moving on now. New topic. Given the change in leadership in the house, is a Barrow victory really a good thing for progressive democrats?

'cause he really smells a lot like Zell Miller these days....

29 comments:

DoubleDawgDareYa said...

Yes, but only because the alternative would have been slightly worse, and because Barrow and Marshall's wins keep the victory flawless.

Anonymous said...

Okay, don't want to rub it in. But I think we have unfinished business on McKillip thread. Todd Mitchell, Publius, DoubleDawgDareYa, Blackfid_Day, JMac - Anyone want to say that Doug might not be the Spawn of Satan this blog has made him out to be? You'd rise exponentially in my book. = )

Blackfin_Day said...

I never said he was the Spawn of Satan. I also, like JMAC, don;t think there's anything wrong with being a RESPONSIBLE developer, if he is one.
I said I thought he showed bad judgement during his campaign and it cost him MY vote. For others, it wasn't a big deal, clearly.

Obviously, I can't speak for the other named posters, and I really can't speak for the anons (really, guys, just make up a name and stick with it so we can keep track!), but my real interest in the "issue" was... the interest in the issue.
As a political observer, I find it unusual for there to be this much comment after an election like this, that, on it's face, seems to be coming at least in some part from fellow democrats.

So, as I said before, let's pick on someone else now.

DoubleDawgDareYa said...

I don't know anything about Doug other than what he put out there about himself. And what I saw was an overly slick lawyer who wanted to get elected to something. I share the confusion of many of the commenters as to why Doug fudged the truth on the endorsement ad and the developer question. We can go back and forth all day on whether he technically "lied" in either situation, but that's like the debating what the meaning of is is. The point is that the controversy was easily avoidable in both situations, and Doug actually would have looked better and probably gotten even more votes if he had done so. The fact that he still got 52% is either a testament to his campaigning ability or the proclivity of Athens voters to vote "D" no matter what; probably a combination of both.

There's nothing wrong with being a developer, or quoting an endorsement of an opponent, or in living in different places in Athens over a period of years. Just be straight with us about it, that's all. Nobody thinks Doug is the "spawn of Satan", whatever the hell that means. We just want somebody with integrity to represent Athens and the Democratic Party in the General Assembly. So Doug, if you or a staffer are reading; prove us wrong. Go do a good job, and we'll send back in two years.

Now, let's follow the advice of Blackfin and move on to another topic, hmmm?

Anonymous said...

That's unfortunate. At least Doug apologized when he was wrong.

Jmac said...

Why should we apologize for coming to an existing belief that we have on evidence that no one has really effectively refuted?

Listen, I think McKillip's going to do a nice job in the Georgia General Assembly. Yay Democrats! Whoo!

But I think honest discussion about what went down is, well, OK.

Jmac said...

Re: Barrow ...

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that it's another vote in the caucus is good, but no in the sense that he is more to the right on many issues than most Democrats ... and, heck, I'm a moderate Democrat offering that criticism.

Anonymous said...

hey,listen I've been pouring over the numbers, and the biggest surprise is that he got over 50%. This was not a cake walk for any Democrat in GA., and I really think it's kind of odd that people are jumping all over Doug. Yes, he's gotbucks. Yes, he talksfast. Sure, he's a littleslick. But to call him out after the fact, instead of when it was on upsets me.
His staff ran a better race than the other two very qualified candidates who tried for that seat. He WON. I say congratulations, and why not watch him over the next couple of years. Nancy Denson has been waiting for a house race to run in, and if he doesn't do right by us, we'll elect her to the seat then.

Meanwhile, can we move on to something like the fact that the senate went to the dems a couple of hours ago?

Or even jump on Mark T, Jimbob Marshall or even poor John Barrow(c'mon, you know you want to jump in on that characterization, lol), or for that matter the sorest loser in the world ever, Ed Vaughn. (who obviously lacks any political temperment and needs a vacation from this whole thing, poor guy. he ran a hard race and lost awful bad, and I hope he gets over it soon, really.)

I must be missing something, and I'm sorry if I'm seeming deliberately obtuse here.

Doug, congratulations. Seriously. And Bo, kick some butt for Kelly, too, will you?
Rumor has it that you're jumping in to help him out, and I think that's great news for Kelly G.

Anonymous said...

The real question to me is whether or not McKillip is a resident of ACC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the law state that you have to be physically present in the district for a year prior to the election and have the intention of remaining in the district?

I have a real problem with a guy whose first response to difficult questions is to lie or "shade the truth" (as some have characterized it), and it appears to me that he's doing the same thing on the residency question.

Why would McKillip in April of 2006 swear under oath that he was borrowing $500,000 for the construction of his primary residence in Oconee County.

Deed records, Oconee Co. Superior Court, Deed Book 866, page 110-131: Paragraph 6 "6. Occupancy. Borrower shall occupy, establish and use the Property as his principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower's principal residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy..." Paragraph 8 "Material misrepresentation include, but are not limited to, representations concerning Borrower's occupancy of the Property as Borrower's principal residence."

So either he "shaded the truth" under oath when he signed this deed in April of 2006 or he is not and never intended to be a resident of ACC.

Anonymous said...

John Barrow deserves credit for winning a pretty conservative district. He had to move to the center to do so, and his chameleonic transition occured smoothly.

I know he isn't the type of "D" to give out federal health care on the street; provide welfare for anyone and everyone that asks (especially if they're willing to have more babies); or set a living wage at $30k, a 3 bedroom home, and a minivan for everyone. But he can move a little more left in DC as part of a majority party. Be patient with him. But always remember, his father was a VERY conservative judge while his mom was the left wing of the family. John was evidently his momma's boy.

Anonymous said...

Barrow's dad presided over desegregation for whatever it's worth.

Anonymous said...

Once again with regards to McKillip, put up or shut up. Yes, you are right about residency requirements. If you are just so convinced that Doug didn't meet the legal requirements to live in the district then there's a process for that. Call the Secretary of State's office and file a complaint. They have already disqualified Mell Traylor, I'm sure they will disqualify Doug if he doesn't live in the district. They don't do disqualifying at Athens Politics.

Anonymous said...

If anyone would like to keep up with Doug and what's going on in the legislature, send me your e-mail address at robert@dougmckillip.com

Dawg Corleone said...

Lord, I love it when Dems eat their own.

But I wouldn't have expected it so soon after they actually, you know, won some elections. I mean, we haven't made it to the weekend, and (a) Doug is slick and (b) John ain't liberal enough.

You guys are almost as entertaining when you win as you are when you lose.

DoubleDawgDareYa said...

A) Those two criticisms existed before those guys won, and they won anyway, so I don't know that anybody ate anybody; and
B) Republicans got ate pretty good nationwide on Tuesday.

Happy to entertain as always.

Ryanetics said...

Speaking as a very progressive/liberal Democrat, I have been dissapointed with John since he won the last election. His support for the war and opposition to equal rights for all human-Americans (you know the gays are people too right John?) pissed me off. But those views got him elected and another D in the House helps when it comes to doling out Congressional leadership positions, etc. Plus I live in Georgia so should I really expect any better? If I wanted to live amongst my own I could always drag my carpetbagger ass back to Maryland.

Anonymous said...

I'll take moderate John over Conservative Max any day!

Todd Mitchell said...

I don't how "moderate" Barrow really is. Did you see some of his campaign commercials? "I ain't one of them cut 'n run, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy Democrats." He came out against "guest worker programs", against embryonic stem cell research, and supports the war unquestioningly...still. Hell, even the president has backtracked in recent days, but not Barrow.

His and Marshall's victories are sweet from a national perspective, but I wouldn't expect them to fall in line with the new leadership in the House. Those guys are "BlueDawg" Dems (which I guess is a new spin on what we used to call "yellowdawg" dems).

They may support some progressive initiatives (raise in minimum wage, health care, etc.) but there really isn't a spit's worth of difference between them and a Republican, imo.

Anonymous said...

Here's a link that's posted on Max Burn's campaign site: http://www.johnthecon.com/

Pretty brutal hit piece.....After reading, it actually resurrects John somewhat, in my view....

Apparently the Savannah Morning News is finally declaring John the winner, by less than 1000 votes (according to John's campaign site)....

I remember clearly that John ran against the war, at least in the 2004 primary (I was supporting Doug Haines, at that point). He wasn't in congress when they voted to authorize the war....

Also, Doug McKillup is a good guy, congratulations are in order to him and his team. It's refreshing to see someone who is a strong democrat, fights for education and virtually every important democratic value, while still possibly bucking the trend on cavorting with developers (they aren't all bad, apparently)....

Of course, voting for a D is important as well, maintaining seats within the legislature does matter...I'd expect this argument is less poignant to independent voters, but not to Democrats, who are the majority here in Athens...It's silly to vote against party to make a statement (remember Ross Perot or Ralph Nader?)....I'll leave that to the independents....

If I lived in the new 12th, I'd have voted for John Barrow, even though I'd have been conflicted about it....The alternative is beyond acceptable....

The most important vote any member of a legislature ever makes is who they elect as the speaker...

Jason

Anonymous said...

Again, Barrow is better than Burns and given Barrow's narrow win over Burns he was most likely just as progressive as he could be. I think everyone knows Barrow is liberal as shit.

Patrick Armstrong said...

RE: Barrow.

I think the more moderate members of the new Congress are going to be the real point people in getting legislation across. Second of all, I just don't think Pelosi is going to direct legislation as badly as everyone is predicting.

Lets not forget that Democrats just won some nationwide elections because Republicans are losing the Iraq War in Washington, refuse to do much more than talk about illegal immigration, keep bringing up culture war issues to rile folks up, haven't brought any kind of tax relief to the middle class that's reflected in my paycheck, have presided over soaring health care costs, let several government cabinet level organizations fall into ineptitude (FEMA comes to mind), and acted like spoiled children the whole while blaming the then minority Democrats and the media for their failings.

Barrow is a centrist and a pragmatist no matter how far to the right or left some of his personal opinions drift. It is how well he gets the job done now that his Party has some clout in Washington City, and how well his Southern liberal/centrist leanings allow him to blunt any excesses some of the northern or western members of his party wish to engage in.

As we've seen with the Republican Party recently, when the extremes take over the debate, everyone loses.

raven said...

Barrow is a scumbag. He's liberal when it suits him and conservative when it suits him. Thinks Zell Miller.

Anonymous said...

"It's refreshing to see someone who is a strong democrat, fights for education and virtually every important democratic value,..." - about Doug McKillip.

Tell me something he didn't lie about. Endorsements, development, residency (although it appears he skirted this issue enough to qualify semi-legitimately). You are right, he fights for every important "democrat"ic value. Lie, pander to the least among us, and win on the prospect of what handouts you can give.

Anonymous said...

Such bitterness really does not become you 9:26. It's all quite clear that you don't have the facts to back up your claims and you really sound like a sore loser. I suggest you drop the topic so you can retain whatever small amounts of dignity you still have left.

Fishplate said...

"I have a real problem with a guy whose first response to difficult questions is to lie or "shade the truth" "

And how is that different from any other professional politician?

In my opinion, wanting the job shouldd immediately disqualify you.

Jmac said...

It's all quite clear that you don't have the facts to back up your claims and you really sound like a sore loser. I suggest you drop the topic so you can retain whatever small amounts of dignity you still have left.

You know, with all due respect, simply saying 'gosh you don't have facts to back up your arguments' despite the fact that court cases, newspaper columns and articles and other public record legal documents keep popping up from a variety of folks to support the criticism looks kinda silly.

If this criticisms are misguided, I suggest you point out why they are flawed. Because, quite frankly, you look a little ridiculous just saying 'you've got nothing' when, in fact, the other folks have at least something ... particularly when this something is in direct response to your claims there is nothing.

You obviously believe deeply in McKillip, and that's to be applauded. So, again, if such criticism is wrong then show why it is wrong.

Jmac said...

In my opinion, wanting the job shouldd immediately disqualify you.

That seems kind silly, doesn't it? I mean, shouldn't even the noblest of politicians seek office because he/she is convinced he/she can do the best job?

Anonymous said...

Have you heard the new country song? Doug McKillip shot my dog, stole my woman, clear cut my land, and lied about my endorsement.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, don't they call him the People's Man in that song?