I‘m already discouraged about the 2006 midterm elections. Yesterday, Democrats were endorsing using my taxpayer dollars to pay for a Bible study class. Today, it’s reported Secretary of State Cathy Cox — a Democrat, and by all accounts the most “progressive” candidate for governor — broke a 2-2 tie on the state elections board vote to fund a $2 million legal defense fund for the Voter ID law. Among those who voted against the fund were Randy Evans, a longtime Republican partisan. So don’t tell me she had to vote the way she did.
Anyway… if these folks are just going to push the same agenda as the Republican governor and legislature, why even bother voting? If the agenda is going to be identical or close to identical, why choose someone else to run it?
Sometimes, I think Lush is right that it’s stupid to even pay an iota of attention to any of this.
Come on, Rusty, buck up, it’s not so bad here.
As a Yankee carpetbagger I can certainly see your point. I grew up, and have lived most of my life, in states where the liberal ideal (taking “liberal” in its dictionary sense and not as the epithet it’s lately become) has held sway. Once upon a time, Georgia was not so far from the ideal, and it still shows flashes of common sense and forward thinking (state agencies like GRTA and the Department of Health and even the DOT generally do a good job at spreading the virtues and benefits of public administration broadly through the population).
We’re not Tennessee or North Carolina (each of which is driven away from right-wing excesses by the moderating influences of several large, diverse cities). But, on the other hand, we’re not South Carolina, either (which, but for the moderating influence of the Lowcountry, would be dominated by pinheads).
One of biggest challenges Georgia has faced is that our urban-rural divide is so stark. All the urban power is concentrated in the massive Atlanta conurbation, and everything else in the state is arrayed against it.
The political arena is a place for exactly what it sounds like…games. NO politician can ever be trusted. It’s their job to be a politician, except at the very local level. They have their best interests in mind at all times. They have to tow the party line of their affiliation and then move toward the middle as much as they can. The main differences between politicians of different political affiliation is a matter of rhetoric and standings on a few pointless hot-button issues. They’re the same. It’s a big pageant put on for us. It’s like professional wrestling.
No there is one big difference professional wrestling is “real” and most politicians are “unreal”.
I wasn’t really feeling Kathy Cox anyway, I guess this is just one more thing for me. I can’t even believe this voter ID law was proposed in the first place, let alone passed.
Given a choice between Cathy Cox & Mark Taylor, I still choose Cox. It’s not an enthusiastic choice at this point, though.
My problems with Cox go beyond this voter ID money, though. I’m also still pissed at her for getting the Diebold voting machines and then refusing to have paper ballots that verify each citizen’s vote.
Come on, Rusty! Instead of thinking of it as individual candidates and campaigns, think of the long haul. We all have to work together to bring about change here in Georgia and beyond. It’s a long fight - a marathon - not a sprint.
Rusty, I am a longtime reader first time commenter. I don’t quite agree with your statement “by most accounts” Cox is the most progressive. I’ve seen this argument go back and forth and wanted to air my opinion on it here because I’ve seen you be very fair in coming to an opinion in the past.
I think when you look at the record of both candidates, it is hard to say by most accounts Cox is the most progressive. If anything Mark is the more progressive candidate.
I have followed Georgia politics for a long time, as an observer, as a lobbyist, campaign volunteer and even government employee. I knew of Cathy and Mark when they were in the legislature.
She entered the legislature as one of the conservative rural “good old boys.” Mark represented a majority black district and was quite progressive. The good old boys, especially the ones that ran the House under Tom Murphy never got along with him. He was loyal to Zell Miller when they considered him a sellout because of attempting to change the flag and other issues.
However, Cathy does have a lot of liberal supporters simply because she is a woman and Mark is a fat man. Admit it, a lot of us are very superficial when it comes to the clothes we wear, the people we date and yes, the politicians we choose. These liberals desperately want to believe that a “true progressive” can win a red state like Georgia, and so they have latched on to Cox and spread the gospel, even though many of them know little about her. Cox has mostly kept quiet, she hasn’t given them any reason to doubt their incorrect first impressions.
Even the things they do know — like Diebold, this voter ID funding vote, her obsession with courting Republican voters, they rationalize away, because it interferes with their worldview based around the liberal Cathy Cox they so desperately want to exist. It is very similar to what happened with Howard Dean, and a lot of the same people who were guilty then of dreaming up the Dean they wanted to exist compared to the Dean who had a 12 year record as a moderate/conservative governor are guilty now of clinging to the liberal/progressive Cathy Cox vs the one who has a record that is at best inconclusive and at worse anything but progressive.
I know Mark Taylor’s website sucks (does it ever!) but if you compare his bio to the one on Cox’s website, you will see quite a contrast emerge. You will see one individual who seems to be involved in politics because they have wanted to make a difference by changing policy. Just look at all of the bills Taylor has passed and proposed. And you will see another candidate who seems to have gotten into government not to change the fundamental underlying issues but because she thinks she is the best administrator.
And I think all progressives need to ask themselves a question: Are we happy with the underlying way that things are, but we just need a better person in charge? If you answer yes than by all means Cox is the way to go.
But if you answer no, if you’re not satisfied with what our government does and want a different approach and a politician who has been using his position to implement new and better programs to help people since day 1, I think it is clear that Mark is the choice to make.
Quite frankly, I think too many progressives have put aside their principles, their reasons for becoming activists in the first place, which is to change government to help people’s lives and have made a cold calculation of who do we think polls better and can win. And they may be right that Cox has a better chance of winning, but will it be worth it when they want to pass progressive legislation and instead she is seeking out “moderate” Republicans so that she can get a good photo-op instead?
-HES
HES,
I don’t know how apt the Dean analogy is. Dean’s record was more mixed than his supporters probably noticed (balanced budgets, more hawkish on foreign policy than his opposition to the Iraq war would indicate), but he did support universal health care and gay marriage (the latter I would argue is actually a conservative issue… government not making family planning decisions, etc., but nonetheless it’s somehow considered “liberal” in today’s flawed parlance). I have yet to hear any proposals out of Cox that are anywhere close to that liberal, and do share your befuddlement in how she’s been labeled as particularly liberal/progressive, short of the dollars from pro choice groups she accepted early on.
To be fair though, neither Dem seems to have talked much about what their plans for the office are beyond “We’re not this guy.” You’re right, though, that Taylor at least has a past record to give folks an idea of how he’d act whereas Cox has little to go by beyond opposing paper trails for voting machines.
I’d go one step further and say Cox’s message is “We’re not these guys” meaning Perdue or Taylor. That’s fine, I don’t like Perdue but you read Taylor’s history and watch him on TV and the newspaper standing up to bad Republican proposals these last four years, which incidentally is one of the reasons his approval rating isn’t as high as Cox’s because dyed in the wool Republicans don’t like a Democratic attack dog, anyway, I understand why Cox says we need someone different than Perdue, but if she’s also so much different than Taylor just what exactly does she stand for or want to do in office.
Seems like she doesn’t want to be a Republican or a Democrat. I could understand this appealing to some moderates or independents, but I’m amazed at how the activists eat this up ignoring that it goes against their core reasons for being activists. So far we don’t have that much to go on, but I’ll take Taylor’s PeachKids proposal over Cox’s boring ethics whitepaper any day of the year.
A quick note about Vermont. Dean let a civil unions bill pass, but they don’t have full on gay marriage there.
Oops, yes, you’re right about him supporting civil unions in Vermont vs. actual marriage. It was early when I wrote that response.
Having closely monitored this primary, I am intrigued by the Cathy Cox bashing that has been emerging of late. I especially enjoy that people point out how she’s obviously a raging liberal. Oh wait, no she’s way too conservative. I propose this as an option: could it be that the labels don’t fit her well? It is so bad that she can’t be put in a political box? I find it refreshing, actually, and I think it’s what everyone always SAYS they want, but when it happens, they don’t know what to do with it.
As far as the state elections board vote, I think this propaganda is just that. She voted the way she had to as a responsible member of the board. The state is about to be stuck with millions in legal bills; she made the right decision to step up to the plate and pay for it. No mention, I notice, of the fact that she’s listed as a defendant. Beyond that, everyone knows how opposed to this bill Cox is and was. At least she made legitimate efforts to try to stop the thing. She is constitutionally bound to legally defend it, but is clearly against it and has been all along. When called to testify, she very vocally and eloquently pointed out the FLAWS of the bill. this is an extremely weak attack and is simply being used as a distraction tool.
By the way, she just put forth her first policy proposal this week–not titled “Not Those Guys,” by the way. Label it progressive, label it conservative; it’s a workable government reform package that would assist our state officials in serving the public better. It would mandate that elected officials like Lt. Gov. Taylor report the business that they (and their families–especially important in this case) do with the state. That is certainly the people’s right to know. The talk of “ethics reform” coming out of politicians’ mouths is funny bordering on blatant hypocricy most of the time. I think Cox has some real solutions. Find them at cathycox.com.
Finally, I guarantee you that she doesn’t beat Taylor in the polls because she’s a woman and not fat, as was expressed above. Is it such a crazy idea that a female candidate can just be better? Please join us in the 21st century–it’s fun.
Wow, Rusty–Cathy Cox’s campaign manager commented on your blog!
Joseph,
Cathy Cox’s campaign manager is Morton Brilliant unless she switched in the past few days and I didn’t hear about it. I’m going to respond to Mr. White’s comment soon, I’ve just got to get some work finished up tonight (gah! Work on Sunday!).
EW, I recommend you research the Georgia Constitution, specifically the part about the duties for statewide officers.
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/conart5.htm
There is nothing in there about the secretary of state being required to defend laws that the state passes. Nothing. The Attorney General already authorized paying in full for the defense of the Voter ID when HE hired the attorneys in question. The Elections Board voted to join the case. And then they had a second vote, the only one that mattered, as to whether or not they wanted to HELP pay for the funding, which I might add deprives the SOS’s office of much needed funds in other areas. And Cathy cast the deciding vote in favor. Her supporters are lying when they say the state wouldn’t be paying its bills and other nonsense had she voted the other way.
Randy Evans, one of the top lawyers in the state, a partner at one of the most powerful firms in the state/country, voted no. Surely he understands the Constitutional powers of the office, and as a lawyer, I don’t think he’d vote to jeopardize the hard earned paychecks of fellow lawyers for doing their jobs. Just the fact that they had a vote on the funding should tell you that it was a choice and not a Constitutional requirement to join the defense and the funding thereof.
I’d also be careful about throwing family members and their business with the state into the mix. May I ask in which century was Cathy Cox’s husband a lobbyist?