Whoever wrote this doesn’t understand the point of the column. This is a left-wing column that this paper has too much of now. I hope the AJC does not hire this person!
I would think that a true conservative would recognize by now that the mechanism for funding schools is inherently socialist and this type of voucher program does nothing to change that. Additionally, I would have thought that a true conservative would also have realized by now that no government money comes without strings attached. Once this money is in the hands of private schools, there will be demands from many on both sides of the aisle demanding “accountability” or religious tollerance, or open adminssions, or whatever the cause of the day might be. There will be little for these private schools to do except bow to the demands as they will no longer be able to competitively reject the tainted funds.
Yes, the government schools are predictably not delivering on their utopian promise, but burdening the private sector with more government regulations and bureaucratic red tape will only serve to undermine these schools. A complete separation of government from the educational process, while being politically challenging to promote, would ultimately achieve results consistent with conservative philosophy and the goal of actually improving educational opportunities for all.
A supposedly conservative voice extolling the virtues of taxation to make his/her case. This seems to be typical of the kind of conservative voice the AJC would approve of.
There is certainly a case to be made for freedom, but conservatives these days are not known for their support of freedom. They rail against big government, but fail to realize that the freedom is inversely proportional to the size and scope of government. It can be no other way.
The author attempts to portray the republican party as having “Jeffersonian” roots, but the opposite is true. The republican party most definitively traces its roots back through Lincoln, Clay, and ultimately to Hamilton. The common denominator among all of these was their belief in big, strong government and their use of the government as a mechanism for transferring wealth and power to their friends in business at the expense of freedom and liberty. The Democratic party is actually the descendents of the party of Jefferson, though the incarnation they have become since the end of the 1800’s and especially the progressive era of the early 1900’s is so contrary to Jefferson’s ideals of small restrictive government and expansive personal freedom that they have no right making claim to “Jeffersonian” heritage either.
Government is the problem. True conservatives understand that. Alcohol sales should be legal on Sunday, just as they should be legal in supermarkets, convenience stores, or any other retail outlet. The current government protected monopoly on imports, distribution, and sales is just another example of big government control that true conservatives should be opposed to. Supporting sunday alcohol sales on the basis of further funding the oppressive state is anything but a conservative position on the subject.
I am not conservative, more like independant, but like to hear to all views. I read E, G, H, and J columns randomly. I thought H was the best most thought provoking, in terms of real discussion and dialogue. They showed their point of view with much to back it up. G seems to me to be neo-conservative, if that’s what your after. Lots of emotion and words that will turn readers off. Maybe if i have time later, I’ll read some more….. Good Luck!
Sorry, Clay, but this column is more libertarian than left. The outdated law banning Sunday sales is a joke, as are any “faith based” arguments against it. Can you see any similarity to this law and the imposition of Islamic Law upon folks in far away places? They both have their basis in religion. I thought we were above all that here in the U.S., but apparently not. No one is suggesting that we legalize murder or theft, nor are we mandating that you buy alcohol at any time.
Why not let the people decide? Are you afraid of the democratic process?
Please hire this writer, as they can see issues clearly.
Agreed. Good commentary. I only wish the General Assembly would spend as much time on state issues as they do tampering with local ones. If they are so smart, why is the state in such a mess? Can you imagine how bad things would be if they had been successful in eliminating the car tag tax and refunding surplus funds, as they attempted to do in the last session?
The next boondoggle – SB31 and their sweetheart deal on the Georgia Power nuclear plant.
Sounds like the typical Republican party-line of “Connect the dots so that Republicans win and America doesn’t.” No new ideas—just stuck in Republican fantasyland.
My sense from these two articles: Can’t trust G’s words. (Public schools spend $10,500. Private school tuition is $6,000.) I prefer private schools and I am in favor of vouchers, but what a parent pays in addition to tuition is significant and can easily approach five figures. This is the kind of fact and statistic minipulation thing that Bookman does so often. We don’t need that kind of dishonesty coming from the only conservative guy in the AJC.
Do you really think having one conservative columnist is going to change the AJC? You must be living a fairy land! As circulation and advertising continue to decrease, one conservative columnist isn’t going to save the AJC considering that Atlanta metro is a conservative area. Who wants to continue to read Tucker and Bookman? Obviously, fewer and fewer people.
Weighs real pros and cons (egghead in a good way), coming up with a Republican conclusion—-How can we take away the elephants from the people who want to see them? Ah…I can hear the tugging of all the Republican heartstrings.
From a lobbyist friend, I have long understood the “ban” on Sunday sales to be desired by the package store owners, not the churches. The package store owners would not have an increase in sales high enough to cover overhead costs. (whether this is true long term or just initially as the public grew accustomed to Sunday sales, I don’t know) Grocery stores, etc would not have the same increase in O/H as they are already open on Sunday.
Very well said. I did not previously hear the statement by Robert Reich, and as a long time laborer, contstruction worker, am totally disgusted. No longer being able to find work because I actually am a resident/native doesn’t sit well either. It’s time for change in this country, but this isn’t it.
I agree with the writer that education problems (and we have serious problems in Georgia) should be addressed at the state and local level, not by the federal government. The writer makes a good, but not necessarily compelling case for vouchers. I would have liked to have seen more about the studies he/she refers to. I do support the concept of vouchers, but the writer implies that they’ll do the most good in poorer, urban areas, where there is often a lack of interest by parents in education, so I have my doubts if many people would take full advantage of vouchers.
Overall, not a bad column, but not as good as it could have been.
A real egghead who understands more about carbon emissions than I ever could, and he/she is able to make a projected bad future all Obama’s fault! Not sure everyone can follow the intellectualism but a great Republican save on the end.
Candidate A was just boring. There was no fire there, nothing to cause me to WANT to read further.
Candidate B was okay, better than A but still not Wooten-like.
Candidate C was really good. He showed some great insight, was thought-provoking, and he did a good job of framing the issues from a conservative point of view.
Candidate D was pretty good also. He could have used a little editing (see “Whoa there, Cowboy), but overall did a good job of expressing conservative view in an interesting way.
Candidate E did a great job on his first column on the tax relief grants. It was one of the better columns that I read. The second column on the stimulus was well thought out and accurate, but a little boring.
Candidate F was a little simplistic. That may make it easier for the democrats to understand him, but it didn’t do much for me.
Candidate G is just not a very good writer. I hate one sentence paragraphs and the over use of commas.
Candidate H is an excellent writer. I thouroughly enjoyed reading both of his columns.
Candidate I was nothing special. The first column on steroids was better than the second one. I probably would not read him on a regular basis.
Candidate J was again, just not much of a writer. His columns were not very interesting. I couldn’t even finish the first one.
If I had to pick a “top 3″ I would place Candidate H as the best of the 3 followed closely by Candidate C. After that, Candidate D.
I liked the part about supporting limited government and individual liberties, that’s really what this issue is about and what conservatism is about. While I don’t drink alcohol, I do think that alcohol sales on Sunday should have been approved decades ago when the old Sunday blue laws were ereased. The writer makes this case pretty well, although I think it’s a reach to push Sunday sales as a way to increase tax revenues.
I don’t know if the writer was specifically assigned to write about the federal trial against the circus. If so, fine, but if the topic was the ESA, the real issue that should concern conservatives is the federal government’s zealousness about protecting endangered species to the point where they interfere with property owners’ rights to use their land as they see fit. The decision in the circus trial could be a landmark decision that will radically affect circuses and zoos, but the much bigger issue is how far should the federal government be allowed to go to protect animals. There has to be a sensible middle ground, but the zealots who call the shots in Washington don’t seem to understand the word “compromise.”
Overall, a well-written column, but for me, the focus was a bit off the mark.
Sounds like your winner right here! This Jim Wooten wannabe hits upon all things the modern conservative movement, especially the Southern following, is based upon — the black man is a bit too uppity, progressing too much and taking an undeserved job or one he or she is not allegedly qualified for.
These were Eric Holder’s word, rightly or wrongly, and he placed it within the context of Black History and black history month alone. And we are cowards when it comes to such.
Conservative commentators have, of course, wanted to extend his meaning to all facets of American society and infer that these are the words of Obama. This is exploitation politics, something Wooten trafficked in while making the single black mother the bogeyman over and over again in his columns during the last eight years while Bush and his Republican cronies, contractors and buddies were getting rich off the public trough and bringing this country to its knees. (Speaking of, funny, I never hear conservative commentators mention how underqualified Bush and his appointees were. Your Average Joe did a quite underaverage job! And the same mental midgets wanted to put Sarah “Bush in a skirt” Palin in the White House to take his place? Wow!)
Therefore, I predict this guy in a landslide. He pushed all the right buttons that so-called “conservatives” around Atlanta love to hear. He’s Wooten redux. And like W. and getting a rerun of him, that will be an awful thing.
A nice turn of the phrase ‘ “Regulating carbon is like trying to keep a head-count of the earth’s bacteria.” and the author helps us understand that there are a lot of bad unintended consequences from current efforts … and I like that the author is helping educate rather than just blasting the Obama plan .
An excellent column, although I think the writer got a bit off-track with the biofuel discussion. Biofuel are such a major topic that a column (or many columns) could be written about them, so I think the writer should have stuck strictly to carbon emissions and not dilute the thrust of his/her argument. The writer did make a very good case for the absurdity of regulating carbon.
Almost! Unfortunately, the space the writer used to gratuitously slam the bailout could have and should have been put to better use bolstering his or her argument for school vouchers. This was a competent but less-than compelling column. I’d like to see more rigorous thought; there was nothing especially forward-thinking about this piece.
A column that presents good insights ( why can’t the news columns do more of this !!!) , and I hope the legislators are reading it as well . Again, the author is helping educate the reader … a better way to persuade than simplistic advocacy.
An excellent column, perhaps the best of the five published in the Thursday AJC. The writer did a nice job of explaining what the “tax relief” grants really are and why the state should stay out of this and let the local governments determine taxes and be accountable to their citizens.
A good point is raised here. The fundamental problem about still having the ban is more a political problemt than moral problem. As we all know, Prohibition was supported not only by the legislators but by contrabandists too because, after all, restriction guaranteed premium profits.
The revenue problem raised here is an important one – imagine, the additional revenue raised from increased alcohol sales will not only help with Georgia’s budget deficit, but perhaps it may ease income tax or property tax as the two main ways of collecting revenue.
If Georgia allows alcohol sales on Sundays that will not violate the right of those against Sunday drinking, as they will still be free to do so, and will not violate the right of those who would like to have a drink or too.
A good question is raised here and I think that the debate will be open and civilised, because Georgia’s budget stability depends on little decisions just like this one.
Author would do better to promote conservative ideas that work ( charter schools , charter systems , , replacing poor teachers and principals , use of true national testing standards in place of watered down state standards…. is that enough ? ) in stead of promoting a plan that will weaken public education .
My compliments to the author. This is finally a truly conservative argument that I can get behind. Nice to finally read the writings of someone who realizes that all politicians will do whatever to cover their backsides and to provide cover for each other. Our founders realized that the most accountable government was local and attempted to forge a government that would enforce that. Great job. I hope that your committment to small government principles can stand up to the pressures to cave to republican party loayalty that derail so many other so-called conservatives.
Here we go again. The writer wrote: “Who can blame them? No sane person would take credit for this mess.” Is this not talk radio trying to creep into print? I’d love to see a conservative columnist become a voice of reason rather than another reactionary critic. There are some serious flaws in the stimulus bill, but no writer is believable to me who doesn’t acknowledge the fact that our current problems are so big that government’s help is necessary and that the reason we’re in the mess is in part due to Republican’s being sleep at the wheel. Yes, challenge the current administration, but do it in context.
I’m glad to see someone address this issue. The ban has to go.
This paragraph sums it up nicely:
“I think I speak for many Georgians when I say that it is puzzling why our elected officials would continue to restrict the actions of consenting adults engaged in a legal endeavor on one day of the week. Just as I respect the choice of the individuals who would not purchase alcoholic beverages on Sunday, I expect them to not interfere with my choice to purchase any legal product whenever I choose.”
The government has no right to restrict consenting adults in purchasing a legal product! Thus the conservative position is against the ban. We’re supposed to like limited governemnt, remember?
Aside from all moral arguements on whether folks should be able to purchase alcohol from the store on Sunday or not, the fact still remains that you can go to the restaurant and purchase as much alcohol as you like and drink it there. It defys all logic to me that we randomly select one day out of the week where we require those who want to pick up something to drink to drive somewhere, consume it on premisis, and figure out a way to get home which is where they wanted to have the drink in the first place.
Agree this is competently written. Would like more specifics, like real-life examples of children in the state who have no way out. Without examples, some of this commentary is supposition, bordering on straw-man tendencies.
It is very obvious that the ban on alcohol sales on sunday is directly connected to the ideals of southern christians. To continue to enforce the ideals of southern christians on the tax paying citizens of Georgia is a crime. Pass SB 16 and let the communities vote and the majority in that community decide their laws on alcohol sales.
As far as this columnist, I agree with the point, and recommned this person for the job. Very well written
Can you imagine if the recession continues and energy costs are driven up!? Families will have to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. I thought Obama’s environmental agenda would be tabled due to the economic crisis – thanks for pointing out that we need to remain vigilant!
This is libertarian. It doesn’t shed any new light on the subject, or have a unique perspective. I’m a moderate to liberal, and would like to comment on how the writer puts forth ideas, not merely disagree with conservative views. The writer sort of lost me here:
“We already have one gubernatorial candidate coming out to pander to the minority of the population who still want to force their views of morality on the rest of us. A word of advice: that may serve you well in the primary, but probably won’t speak to the electorate at large, much less the almost 70 percent of Georgians who support repealing this law.”
I’m pretty aware of state politics, but I have no idea who the writer is talking about.
The best point was made when the author wrote: “Legislators would scoff at the idea of restricting sales on a Saturday out of respect to the Sabbath of Seventh Day Adventists, yet Sundays remain off-limits. Perhaps we should respect an individual’s right to engage in free commerce every day of the week, while allowing them to choose how they celebrate their sacrosanct days.”
I’ve never understood why Georgia refuses to sell alcohol on Sundays. The croonies in the General Assembly & our govenor need to listen to the 70% who support the appeal.
I think you are a bit off on your views of wind and solar power. In as much as I am not an Obama supporter, his dedication to “clean” energy should be supported. As for your facts on wind energy, you might want to speak with some experts before discounting it as a possible alternative to what we currently use. I know of a pretty good one out in Salt Lake City, Utah who would love to speak to you about this.
Also agree with JamC. Also, writer should have specified the court case in the opening paragraph. As is, this is some vague federal court case I’m unaware of.
“That’s the EPA — not the executive branch.” What’s this saying? EPA is in the executive branch.
Some phrases are turned well, others are clunky, “heaving heavy air” “look through the looking glass”
Article doesn’t make a convincing case that the EPA is getting ready to regulate this matter. Writer contradicts his/her own purpose on taking EPA to task with this: “As unsettling as the EPA’s regulations seem, they’re somewhat irrelevant. A congressional cap-and-trade plan will likely supplant them — but brings the same toxic slurry of problems.”
I disagree with Kurt. A conservative can honestly believe we’re cowards when it comes to race, however, this writer managed to write 500 words and never make a strong point about why he or she agrees with Holder. A good writer doesn’t necessarily beat the reader into agreement, but he or she should make the reader think. In that regard, this essay fails miserably.
The benefit of regulating carbon is not to promote unproven science but to remove all doubt of highly-likely negative impacts from human activities. There are many times more scientific, scholarly studies that have found some level of environmental degradation as a result of human carbon pollution than those that dispute it. Therefore it’s reasonable to make sure that it’s not our fault by cutting these harmful emissions to a safe level.
Not to mention you totally forgot to mention Massachusetts v. EPA which, under the republican chosen ideals of Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the EPA was required by law to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
I actually think it would be novel to have a pundit who is not “conservative” or “liberal” and not hewing to partisan lines.
How about hiring a conservative to replace Wooten, hiring a non-partisan and keeping only one liberal from the group of Tucker, Bookman, Luckovich and Downey?
You got to be kidding me with this: “Just the big bursting corpuscles of a bill so bloated with blubber that the only thing it’ll stimulate is the layer of lard lapping the belt-loops of liberal lobbyists.”
Talking about bloated. Over-writing is a poor substitute for substance.
I think that all of them equally qualified as conservatives. They all seem to share the same worn out ideals and fantasies. All seem to think that despising government is a virtue. All hold firm to the belief that wealth will trickle down from the fat cats to the working class like crumbs falling from a rich man’s table. I did find that that some were more out of touch than others, but all were satisfactorily delusional. Any one of them could spout right wing talking points like a parrot with a caffeine buzz. Bravo!, a fine representation of the wing nut minority.
Unfortunately, this writer’s point of view will get people riled, so I am sure that AJC will hire him, just to get more paper sales.
How did the issue of race as purported by Eric Holder, get from him talking to his employees to being subscribed to Obama to minority set asides. People forget that the majority of minority set asides go to white women, so let that falacy die. Trying to make connections is the WORST of this writer, almost like a teen using “like, uhm, and ya know”.
Better writing skills are necessary to be an editor, not just that you can cause more devisiveness.
Poor marks for this candidate.
It isn’t necessarily a conservative viewpoint to critisize the Clayton County School Board. Liberalism didn’t make this board dysfunctional. Even so, the writer makes some good points. The opening paragraph, however, comes out strongly in favor of hiring a second attorney, but the writer kind of left it at that. Didn’t see the relation here to the rest of the column.
Funny how the AJC editorial board finds themselves in need of help when it comes to distinguishing between conservatives. Obviously further proof that diversified opinions are not high on the AJC’s progressive agenda..
This article is absolutely on point.Since this is simply a matter of
Separation of Church and State.This is true be it viewed as Partisan or
Bi-partisan,Extreme Left or Extreme Right.Anyone who is opposed to Sunday Sale of Alcoholic Beverages(Legally Manufactured and taxed),cannot agree with Separation of Church and state.
Good choice of topic. Vouchers is another way to say government welfare. Anytime the government is involved you get strings attached that never end. Those wonderful private schools will be forced to take kids who have vouchers, and we will finally see that private school is not all that it is cracked up to be. As far as vouchers going to poorer,rural areas, how will these families get to the nearest private school, as none are in poorer areas of towns?
Good try at supporting what is another Republican ploy to divide and conquer.
The article apparently was written by a passionate,eloquent person who did hit the nail on the head about the Jeffersonian roots of Small gov’t. She did not imply that Jefferson was a precursor to the republican party of today. They simply made a gesture that he was partially republican. I would have went the other way on this issue but the writer convinced me that liquor should be sold 7 days a week and it is up to us to decide whether or not we will buy it and what day we will buy it on. Well done!
I’m not interested in what a shill from a windmill company wants me to hear. You cannot deny the fact that wind energy is neither reliable nor efficient. We as taxpayers should not be forced to pay their outrageous salaries through gov’t subsidies bc it is a pet project of the Obama administration. And the industry should be forced to survive in the free market like every other company.
Not one columnist discussed the mindset of how we got where we are. Not one comment on the Repub mindset that whatever the rich do is good for our economy. Not one commnet on the sheer criminality of selling credit default swaps with no backing. Nothing on securitizing sub-prime and no-interest loans. In short fat cat CEOs on Wall St and in banks have driven our economy into the ground and the Dems are left to pick up the pieces. Now so-called conservatives get all saintly over spending to try and fix the situation, ignoring of course the stupendous deficits under GW for no good reason: tax cuts for rich and dropping bombs on backward people. Every candidate fails the test to see beyond their ideological noses. Maybe the AJC should ask for intelligent commentary instead of the Wooten kind. I can go to any truck stop and get Wooten analysis anyday without even buying a newspaper.
I agree with the comments that this should really be about animal abuse and not endangered specias. Personally I would very much like to see Ringling Bros. and all animal act circuses go out of business, but I would prefer that the market develope a greater respoect for these animals and boycott the circuses until such time as they wake up and leave the animals alone.
That having been said, the issue of property rights is clearly the more important topic when discussing the endangered species act or any similar law around the world. Property is the basis of all rights. If one is not the owner of one’s property or person then that privaledge belongs to the state. The supposed greatness of western culture was once its protection of property and individual rights, yet in today’s society property rights are little more than words on discarded paper. “Public accomodation” laws, property taxes, eminent domain laws, the endangered species act, wetlands protection laws and the like have all rendered property ownership a facade. Laws against commerce, drugs, prostitution, gambling, alcohol consumption and the like have rendered personal freedom mute as well.
In foreign countries the lack of property rights lies at the heart of not only the diminishment of species, but the deplorable economic conditions that plague so many. If one cannot be secure in their property, then there is no encouragement for investment, improvment, or even protection of the natural resources such as animals and plants. Even water quality is diminished when governments and not private land owners are in charge of use decisions.
The typical problem with republicans and most conservatives is in their inability to effectively communicate the essential ties between property and individual rights and liberty and prosperity. Too often they are plagued by their own lack of respect for one or the other in the interest of serving their own political agenda.
It’s a very well written and grammatically correct version of the conservative view, but doesn’t hit on the true topic of racial cowardice that is entrenched in the conservative rhetoric. For example, many of the higher, midlevel and management positions today, in government and private sector are still occupied by Caucasians. Many contracts continue to be handed over to well-connected family business in cities and states all over this country.
If conservatives really want to talk about racial injustices they should consider the criminal injustices that are rampant in this country. I bet Eric Holder can give you an earful regarding that topic. In the business sector, people who live in areas deemed low income or have high criminal rates can’t get insurance, medical treatment or business loans based upon their merits. Conservatives are very slow to speak about these types of injustices; because they usually have the mindset that if you are a certain ethnic group, that you are automatically a criminal and are not creditworthy.
If you want to talk about being judged by the content of your character and not by raced, I would suggest that our conservatives start talking about the racial issues that carryover into their business and thought practices. Take a look around you in corporate America and tell me who is sitting next to you in a meeting. In my opinion, one minority is not enough to represent diversity in a meeting of twenty professionals.
It’s not just a black/white issue; it is an issue for other diversity areas, as well. In many industries women, overweight people and gays are treated unfairly. Those are the real cowardice topics that Eric Holder was trying to address during Black History month.
This column presented a great opportunity to address the constitutional scope and limits of government and private alternatives to governmental regulation of pollution. Neither were discussed. Instead it presented the typical one-sided basing (well deserved) of the environmental movement and the new messiah’s role.
There is no reason to accept the status quo. Every Republican that opens their mouth except Ron Paul seems to come up with ways to tweak the existing system in ways that made red staters happy. The Federal Government has no constitutional role in anything related to carbon, biofuels, or anything else. They in fact are the largest environmental polluter in the nation and the laws congress passes do not apply to governmental agencies or employees. Must be nice.
Pollution is a trespass, plain and simple. There are well established torte laws governing water, air, and land violations. If our courts were not filled with consenting adults whose actions made some politician unhappy, there would be plenty of room to adjudicate property rights violations.
Further, EPA regulations provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution to problems that the free market (if left on its own for a change) might easily improve on year after year after year. And all this without one single bureaucrat sucking up revenue from the private sector for their salary. The bureaucracy that is prohibited by the constitution costs society an enourmous burden both in time and financial resources that could better be going to addressing the issues.
It would be nice to see a conservative begin any discussion about government with a reminder that there is no constitutional authority for these projects. If every republican in Congress (except Ron Paul who usually speaks out from this perspective) would remember this, then embarassments like the last 8 years would not weigh them down every time they attempt to assault the unconstitutional programs of the democrats.
Honestly, AJC, all of your candidates must be insane and dismissed immediately. What sane conservative (or independent, for that matter) would want to work in your environment? Tucker, Downey, Bookman, and Luckovich are as liberal as they come. You may as well link up to the dailyKos or Huffingtonpost, because your editorial mindset is no different.
And yet you wonder while your circulation numbers are slowly circling the vortex of death…
I agree with Mike’s suggestion. Bring on a conservative, an independent, and fire 3/4 of your regulars.
Enjoyed this article. Unfortunately, it’s obviously on-target so the AJC and the minority readership will make sure he/she doesn’t get the job. AJC mantra stays in effect: it’s only ok to criticize a race of people if you’re talking about whites and you’re black. And if you’re really good at it like Cynthia Tucker or Terence Moore, you can have a long career here in Atlanta doing just that!
One more thing Matt… why are you calling them “candidates?” It’s not as if there’s going to be a vote. You will simply pick the one with the most name recognition. To drive traffic of course. Bob Barr for instance. That’s what I’d do.
Please just STOP talking to your audience, readers, whatever the heck we are now to you, like we are children. Just STOP. Jeez. You publishers/editors at the AJC are worse than that Bobby Jindal in doing that. We are literate GROWNUPS out here, fer chrissake. And we’re mad as heck, and we’re taking it out on… you. Kinda juvenile, eh?
I agree with DavidS. This was NOT written by a true conservative! I sacrifice daily to send my kids to a great private school and I do not want ANY government welfare!
What “G” forgot to tell you is that those $6,000 private schools are not any better equipped than public schools. Parents are usually asked to help raise additional fund; plus a lot of programs such as multiple languages, science lab equipment and special education programs are non-existent. The goal of an advanced educational program is to equip out students for the future and that includes being able to communicate with our international business partners, develop new medical/technical and fuel efficiency programs. I don’t believe that liberals or conservatives believe in just throwing money into education, but making sure it is used wisely and that the right people are being held accountable for the education of America’s children.
The best education should not be given only to kids whose parents can afford private schools, but should be offered to all children. This was a very poorly written article; I gave you a higher mark on the other.
I wouldn’t turn around for the difference between the candidates. Just another group of ideologues who, if their butts were as narrow as their minds, they could all sit in the backseat of a Mini-Cooper.
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m not stupid or passive enough for a $300 tax credit to make me “indifferent to other tax hikes” as this writer suggests. Nor is that enough to make officials immune to public criticism if they do impose other hikes. Are we really as docile as this writer says we are? I know I’m not.
I never said or wrote that public sector jobs should not go to white, male construction workers. I wrote that government should also make every effort to find qualified women and minorities for these jobs too, and I suggested ways that people of whatever race, gender, or background could qualify for them through better access to job training.
I find it interesting and appalling that none of the candidates in criticising the stimulus package bothers to mention the root cause of this and every economic problem that has befallen this country since 1913 – The Federal Reserve.
As for any discussion of energy policy, there is certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that subsidizing any form of energy distorts the market and ultimately delivers a product that may or may not be the best or most appropriate as the example of ethanol clearly shows. What is missing from this discussion (again, a huge distraction from the root cause of the problem) is any talk of how free security services in the form of the bloated american military only serve to distory the market in energy as it relates to oil. Were those costs not socialized through taxation or covered by monetary inflation, the true cost of oil would no doubt have produced functional domestic alternatives decades ago. Republicans seem to lump oil in with “national interests” while forgetting that domestic coal, biofuel, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric are also “national interests” and should be allowed or forced to compete on a level market basis.
Again, it is a shame that the author got sidetracked by the details while ignoring the elephant in the living room that has been ruining our economy and the value of the dollar since its founding in 1913.
I enjoyed reading the column and thought the writer clearly articulated the argument. It was interesting to read, easy to understand, and did a good job of providing the reader with details that should help him make a decision about the issue.
It’s nice to finally see someone throwing the arguments about Republicans not wanting to fix our country back in the Democrats face. The sooner we all realize that more spending won’t fix the problem the better. This writer is sharp and can give it back to them!
Is this about endangered species or animal abuse? Anything that ends abuse of elephants and other circus animals is good, and if species are endangered they shouldn’t be in circuses or in zoos. Their survival is more important than an hour of our enjoyment. This seems very selfish and narrow-minded.
While “steroids in baseball” might be a worthwhile debate a the local sports bar, I fail to see what it has to do with politics. I encourage you to watch Chris Bell’s 2008 documentary “Bigger, Stronger, Faster”. How are the performance enhancing drugs consumed by fighter pilots in Iraq and Afghanistan (called “go pills”) different than the amphetamines gobbled by baseball players? How is the cortisone (a steroid) injected into an injured pitcher’s shoulder different than substance A-Rod injected into his body? Ethical debates are for jock-sniff sportswriters and fans. At the end of the medicine and technology “enhance” ALL aspects of life, and it seems silly for some to question the personal choices of adult professionals.
Mr. Robinson conveys one constructive point in his otherwise misinformed rant. What is critically missing from this post is any solid, sound alternative to the current appalling plan put forth by Mr. Obama that is ultimately just a continuation of the failed and misguided bailout by Mr. Bush. One can only wonder if the author has any serious alternatives to put forth.
As for Mr. Robinson, it is certainly incorrect to state as fact that these problems are so big that they require government’s help in solving. Government certainly has a role to play, but their typical version of “help” as exemplified by the inflationary and deficit spending welfare bill is not the answer. These same policies are the cause, so increasing them will certainly not solve the problem. This is intuitive. The history of the depression shows clearly that this is so.
The root cause of the problem is and has always been the Federal Reserve. Their manipulation of the interest rates (price fixing) and the massive creation of money out of thin air (or through debt obligations), has distorted the free market ever since they came into being in 1913. The first depression was their fault (and the actions of Hoover and FDR which made it last so long), and history is repeating itself once again.
The government must immediately abolish the Federal Reserve, all legal tender laws, and all taxes on precious metals. This will allow the market to divest itself before the inevitable dollar collapse and find a medium of exchange they can trust. They must slash government spending by unprecidented amounts, beginning with the withdrawl of all of our armed forces from the far ends of the earth. Business taxes should be eliminated along with the income tax, capitol gains tax and the death tax.
These are the kind of sound solutions that I would expect a conservative columnist to put forth. No, they are not the kind of suggestions Mr. Wooten would have put forth, but he was no conservative.
What exactly is conservative about charter schools, charter programs and federal control of education through national standards. You have been equating republicans with conservatives and there is no correllation. There is no way to support small government and still support forced theft through the tax system to support either a government education program or one that simply transfers wealth through a voucher, charter school, or otherwise. Government has no place in education except protecting against fraud or force that might be employed by individuals in their interactions. The sooner we realize that and work towards a truly free market alternative, the sooner everyone’s kids can start getting a good education.
We as a country need a stimulus package. The republican party has left us with a war in iraq that has a major cost to our country. During Greenspans watch in the Bush Admistration has cause the downfall of America.Americans have been dumbed down for too many years, because congress has not wanted to help those that have been left out.
Its not throwing money at the problem,what has happen is that we never set in place for our children to be well education. People are not going to bring our countries educational system up by just telling it to.You must put in place a funded system that encourage americans that we are our greatest product.
Ive notice that if you look back on the presidents that were before today, the democrates has always left the country in better shape than the republicans. It almost looks as if the republicans came an stole all the money in the government and then the democrate would come in and get it back in line. Has anyone notice this.
Lots of contradictions here. And how is updating textbooks every few years needless? Books have to be updated because new information is constantly coming out. That’s what makes for well educated students.
This has to be one of the most assinine things I have evr read. This is why we are in the shape that we are. Some of you Re-dumb-icans actually believe this rethoric that you are spewing. Do you remember Enron and all of the other huge Republicans donors that got away with murder when Bush took office. You attack the man for saying that we are a nation of cowards, when this is exactly what we are. Tell me Candidate G would you say these things to a mixed audience or only to the ones that look like you. Tell me do you talk about race with your one Black friend or do you wait until you get around the people that look like you? when people say something degrading someone else do you say something or go with the bit because you don’t want to be labele a killjoy. You sir are a coward in every sence of the word. You can not see the forest for the trees.
Bill up top complains about not being able to find a job and he is a “native”. Talk to your “native” foremans who hire the cheap labor and don’t want you. You blame the immigrants for working for less than you but not the people that look like you that hires them. Sit outside Home Depot or Lowe’s like they do waiting to be picked up or that’s not the good ole boy way.
You were in a workplace where a certain performance-enhancing substance (let’s call it Z) is banned. You’ve been told it’s banned. However, there are no random tests for Z. And co-workers you know are taking it are getting huge raises and accolades. Your bosses promote them, send them on all the best assignments and are the first people they talk and brag about to their fellow executives.
You’re not 100% sure that your bosses know that their favorite workers are on Z, but they have to know something is up. After all, those guys were mediocre at best before they were on it, but now they’re the best — even outperforming those guys who used to be considered the best.
That’s what was happening in MLB up until a few years ago. Steroids were banned, yes, but they needed to get fans back after the strike. So what better way to showcase an awesome HR chase between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa? Andro? What’s that? Nah, no steroids here. Must be a juiced ball.
MLB was paying and promoting guys who were taking steroids or HGH. The media and Bud Selig can get on their high horse now, but they either didn’t care about it back then or were willfully ignorant of the situation.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the individual player to do the right thing. But I certainly don’t blame an athlete for taking them, especially when his peers were on the juice and there was no testing in place. If I were in their shoes, I would have a very hard time not doing it myself.
This article goes to the heart of the issue. The Republican Party is in the midst of “rebuilding” itself because it has failed in its promise to protect individual liberty. This is a small step but has huge implications; it would force Republicans to “walk the walk” after neglecting to do so for so many years. I find the budget shortfall to be a less-important component of the argument. It’s a nice side-effect, but repealing the blue laws for their restriction of individual liberty is a positive end on its own.
This insipid screed brings new meaning to the words “bread and circuses”. Was this topic assigned (if so, shame on the AJC editorial staff), or does this columnist believe it worthy of debate? Most true conservatives dervie their positions from the Constitution, which affords Congress the right to “regulate commerce”. Be that as it may, how about regulating Wall Street or the banking industry. Seems to me de-regulation in these commercial markets has led to the endangerment of the American Middle Class.
This IS a true “conservative” view… Seems to me that anyone who believes that adults be allowed to shop for alcohol, no matter what day of the week, is a “conservative”. What happened to keeping guv-ment out of the privacy of our adult lives??? What we have down at the capitol of GA are a bunch of theocrats, not conservatives!
As my students were feverishly writing their essays in class, I read all the new AJC writing candidates. I tried to judge them strictly on the effectiveness of their writing rather than on any ideology. For me, clearly the best writer is Candidate D. He/she uses specific sensory examples to make the writing more interesting and accesible. The sentences are good. Development is good. The writing is more effectively organized: getting the reader’s attention, clearly making its point, supporting that point without digressing into whatever rant enters the writer’s mind at the moment. In addition, what really makes D the best is the strong voice. No matter how good an opinion is, if the reader dozes off or quits reading from boredom, the editorial is a failure.
However, I suppose the AJC’s criteria needs to be taken into consideration. If the objective is to make conservatives seem shallow, then Candidate F should be the choice. Development is poor (but development has never been Wooten’s strength either so maybe this is what the AJC is looking for). As for Candidate I, yikes, he/she has overdosed on quotation marks. Candidate G has strong sentences and has depth and intelligence. At least he seemed that way before I dozed off.
“But under the Obama administration, Labor Secretary Robert Reich”
Reich was Labor Secretary under the Clinton administration. What is his current connection to the Obama administration?
Tossing Shirley Franklin in because she was on a “short list?” for a cabinet position? M’kay. Is she on the list of suspected communists too?
But hey, factual inaccuracy is no impediment to these “conservatives” who don’t really care if Reich is current or past Labor Secretary, or that Shirley Franklin wasn’t appointed to jack squat. As long as people are libs, they’re the enemy, and can all be lumped into the category of Scary People Who Are Tenuously Connected Because—They Just Are. Sort of a liberal Illuminati.
Reich also didn’t write that construction jobs shouldn’t go to white male construction workers. He implied that women and minorities should (unfairly, IMHO) get those jobs first. He’s not proposing to bar white guys from picking up a shovel. It’s reverse discrimination, not an outright ban.
Yep, no logic, lots of divisive, paranoid rhetoric, misleading hyperbole, and factual inaccuracies. A surefire winner here.
I agree with the author. The fact that the issue has been long existing and not a life or death situation does not detract from its relevance to discourse about what our rights are, and what precedents are set. It’s a good example of a dialogue about regulatory prohibitions. bravo!
Greg is so right. These guys are so blind. People like Rush L which is what you call a PimP has really pull the blinds over the eyes of these neo conservatives.
If you notice , the republicans will do what ever it takes to take down anyone that dont agree with them. (Even the Country)
Lets stop supporting the news media and its investors that do not have the United States interest at heart. We must fight for our country.
I don’t care what Rush and Al Franken have to say about climate change. Neither Ted Kennedy and Jim Boehner (sic). Why can’t we ever hear the chair of Stanford climatology debate the chair of MIT climatology? That’s the only debate that matters, as far as the science is concerned. Duh!!! Everybody’s opinions are not equal on this. Do you advocate Rush and Al being consulted for updates to pilot training manuals for 747’s as well?
None of these would-be columnists has an original idea, so any one of them is qualified to take Jim Wooten’s place. But this little “ask the reader” stunt won’t stop the freefall of this newspaper.
So far…, all these candidates have bitch slapped the economic logic of Obama’s spendilous package. Not to mention the majority of the AJC editorial board..
This person not only makes her point well but is also correct. Separation of church and state and blue laws are not compatable. If the AJC hired more columnists like this, I would start getting the paper again.
If it is so easy for us, as citizens, to see wind and solar power is not as efficient as nuclear power, why can’t our representatives in Washington see it? This is a concise and well written article.
Gregg, thank for enlightening me (and all the other readers) as to why this country is in the shape it’s in. Name calling and poor grammar will certainly help us all become a stronger country. And bravo to C Mack for throwing some Rush-bashing in for good measure!
Now, when the two of you grow up and decide to discuss ideas with facts instead of name-calling and mass generalizations, conversations like this one will be informative and educational.
I, for one, am a conservative – not a republican or a democrat. I want a small government to provide a defense for this country and not much else. Let me, as a hard worker, make a life for myself and my family. If I’m successful, I happen to believe in “giving back” (which right now, exceeds the 10% I give my church off the top). But don’t tell me to help bail out someone who wasn’t smart enough to buy a house within their means. Don’t ask me to bail out a city like Atlanta that can’t balance their books and keep accurate records. If I make it, I should be allowed to choose how I spend it!
And I’m no coward with respect to race relations. I’ll tell you what I think of a person if you ask. I WILL NOT generalize an entire race of people, but I will tell you what I think of someone – white or black. But be ready for what I say, because it will be honest. Don’t call me a racist because you don’t like what I have to say, and dismiss it as “oh, you are just a white good ole boy.” Being a coward can be either 1) someone afraid to say what they really want to say or 2) someone afraid to hear the real truth!
I am glad someone is discussing the real effects some of the energy policies of Pres. Obama are going to have on our lives. As a single parent, significant increases in my electricity and gas bills are not things I can take lightly. It is time for the elected officials in Washington to come up with a realistic energy policy that isn’t going to force people like me to choose between paying an artificially inflated electricity bill or feeding my child.
Not a bad column, but I agree that the slaps at the bailout were largely irrelevant and unnecessary. (The first bailout slap fit and was enough.) I also thought that there should have been a little evidence of the claims made. I know this is not a research paper, but enough comment regarding source could have been made to allow readers fact check if they desired or at least have confidence this was not mere opinion. As for the writing style, I did not feel it was up to the standard of a major newspaper columnist. This would have been a better fit stylistically for a high school or perhaps college paper.
HOWEVER, if the GOP is to survive, it will HAVE to shed the so-called ‘conservatives’ who are really Big Government Liberals that simply hate gays, sex, and anything else fun and embrace its libertarian wing.
The article itself doesn’t provide enough truth to our current educational struggles. The current argument for vouchers is that you are going to get a better education in a private school environment. However, one of the qualities of a private school is that they are usually small and have a low student/teacher ratio. Very few private schools provide access to multiple foreign language opportunities, adequate science labs, transportation and extended libraries.
The issue I have with Senate Bill 90 is that I don’t believe that the transfer of money into the private school sector is going to help the overall educational system in Georgia. Many of the students in under performing schools are low-income and middle income families. The argument is that most people could afford to send their children to private school if a voucher is provided, in the set amount of, $5,000 for example. However, the parents would still have to come up with the additional cost, which can run in excess of $2,000 to $6,000 dollars per child. I’ll keep in mind that multiple student discounts are provided at many private schools. This would not include transportation cost and daycare for those who are not fortunate to have a stay at home mom or dad. Not only that, but the cost does not include lunch and private schools do not offer a free lunch program. So, those expenses would have to be taken into account by that middle income family; because lower income individuals would most definitely be excluded based upon the additional expenses.
Let’s go further and talk about rural areas, which usually have one or two private schools within 20 to 30 miles. They usually make far less and transportation would be an issue, due to the locations of the school from the students. If you have one high school with 350 to 500 students, but 175 have requested a $5,000 voucher. The private schools in the area have space for 50 additional students per school, what happens to the other 75 students. Will the private school increase the number of students in a class to accommodate? Will they have the need to expand buildings, hire new teachers and buy new text books? Oh, I forgot this is a private school so the parents would be responsible for these additional expenses. This is not just a scenario for the rural communities, but would also be a costly burden for metro area private schools. The only way it would not be a burden, is if the private school are hoping to get additional building, funds for new teachers, etc from the government or taxpayers.
Senate Bill 90 is just a transfer of money from one entity to another, which will create some of the same problems at the private schools that exist in the public school system. The goal of this bill is not to help those who really need access to a better educational system, but to help those higher middle-income parents (myself included) to gain access to private school without the extra burden on our pockets. This bill would also help those who currently have children in private schools.
My suggestion to our Georgia leadership is to fix the problem in the current system, so that our state as a whole can move from the bottom of the education system.
Wow, Robert Reich is reading this? This column uses a familiar technique of both the far left and far right, which is to take a one-day news flare-up (Americans are cowards, says the Attorney General), and turn it into a belligerant criticism of whatever pet cause is on the radar screen for these extremes – in this case, minority set-asides in Atlanta. Not a bad attempt, but if that’s truly Robert Reich, and this columnist gets picked, he/she needs to temper their ideology with some facts.
Hmm…did you actually want to have conservatives read your new columnist’s work? I can assure, you with a implied attack on Christians, I can assure you I would not make a point to read this person’s columns. If I want to listen to thoughts that attacked Christian while making valid points about limited government, I can get that from Boortz. And note, though liberals may not get this, Neal is a libertarian not a conservative.
As for the argument about Sunday sales increasing sales, does this withstand a logical check? How much is consumed ONLY because it can be drank on the day of purchase? That would be the nature of marginal increases in sales – alcohol not already consumed on Sunday which was not already purchased on another day of the week. I would think 5%-7% sounds high. If you buy alcohol on Sunday, then you likely will buy less on Monday when you might have bought before. If you are running low or have an event on Sunday, you will likely buy on Saturday. I do not buy this argument as it makes little logical sense.
I agree with the jounalist again. But what bothers me most about the
Stimulus package, is where in the world is all this money coming from?
Do we have the gold to back this money? What really lies ahead for this
great nation. How do we pay down this terrific defecit.
Jeff, if the GOP is to survive, it MUST return to its conservative roots. How successful has the libertarian party been? Not so much. I have a lot of libertarian streaks mind you, but libertarianism as a whole is too extreme to be successful.
No, the GOP must restore its conservative heritage. If they rebrand themselves as moderates to attract votes, then what is the point of even voting for them? If I wanted to vote for moderates, I could have voted for Dems (though many are raging liberals). I support conservatives first, Republicans second. And if the GOP does not want to be conservative, there are enough center-right people in America that will support a new party that will.
This is not left wing, it is real, limited government, individual liberty conservatism. The writing itself is not outstanding and I’ll bet this is a “citizen journalist,” rather than a professional. Good effort, though. My compliments.
Reference to “Legislature,” instead of Congress confirms suspicion this is one of the amateur applicants. However, characterization of wind and solar as neither reliable nor efficient is just plain wrong. Some areas need nuclear. Many others can depend on sun and wind all year ’round.
This column is fairly weak. His/her quiz of high performers is a straw-man that’s raised up so it can be knocked down. The suppostion that most high performing athletes would choose to die early deaths for current glory is highly suspect to anyone with common sense.
The line that a conservative does not like to regulate the lives of others is laughable – tell that to Terry Schiavo’s husband.
Maybe the AJC is intent on turning a reader into a writer. It’s cheaper, maybe. But this effort is poor. Bet it’s one of the amateur applicants. This stunt is stupid. They should just seek out a professional, who is a thinker and persuasive writer instead of looking to find a star sitting in the bleachers.
I say I agree with this columnist and it is high time that this issue was addressed. Should this pass, maybe we would have enough funds for our police and fire/emergency workers to be back at work in full force and helping us to live in a safer society.
This article gets an “F”, flatout. It is definitely a rant about the columnist unhappy view of the stimulus package. It doesn’t leave you thinking about anything that was read in the article.
I thought this line was interesting enough -
** Any “help” will arrive long after American workers have picked themselves up off the mat.**
I thought that statement was the root of the conservative agend, so based upon the columnist prediction of the stimulus bill, he should be extremely happy. — The result would be that the people would pick themselves up —– FYI…. but we needed the stimulus to do it, something to motivate or an incentive to buy products. Otherwise, I will continu to keep my money in my pocket because I might loose my job next week, month or year.
If you are going to write an opinion column, please provide a real solution. I could appreciate your rant a lot more.
Better effort than the other piece. But, if you are going to write for an audience like this, it’s best to check the spelling of Urkel if you’re going to make the reference.
The Dire Straits reference will be missed by some. I assume this columnist has been consistently aggravated by rosy budget projections through the years. Both parties are guilty of this.
While I certainly appreciate the Georgia take on the stimulus package and the commentary is certainly conservative, I am still appalled that none of the authors is bothering to mention that the Federal Reserve and its printing press are at the heart of the problem and that any government plan that doesn’t include abolishing this unconstitutional agency will be doomed to failure if not now some time in the future.
Yes, the one advantage that every state citizen has is that their governments cannot print money out of thin air. It does us all no good when the Fed does it and then sends a check. Again however, it is only the presence of the Federal Reserve in the marketplace that allows this to happen. It could not happen under a gold standard. A gold standard would force government to live within its means and would make it impossible to destroy our savings through the hyperinflation that is sure to come.
I thought this column was a nice mix of details about the stimulus coupled with some strategic, if familiar, conservative rhetoric. Well written, somewhat of a rant, but what isn’t these days?
I would recommend that all candidates give up this journalistic pipe dream and go back to school for science degrees. With a little more determination you too could be reaching for the stars…, and surprised when you rocket past the moon that once held all your wildest hopes and dreams.
I thought the article was interestingly written, so I give it a “B-“. I don’t agree with the writer, but interesting it was. The article caught my attention with the use of metaphors and the role playing of democrat and republican thought processes. I actually believe that the train from Disney to the Midwest would help the economy, because it will create job activity for those small towns and cities along the route. I would have taken it even further by suggesting that we create a bullet train from New York to California and from Illinois to Florida, with lines that extend into other metropolitan cities.
I find it interesting that everyone complains about the $89 million for new schools in Milwaukee, but no one ask about the condition of the current schools. I would suggest $89 million for schools in Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi and others, because I know that some of their schools should be condemned. I know of two high schools in Alabama where it looks like they are about to fall down. The schools in Georgia are not as bad as these schools, but some in rural Georgia need a lot of work.
I’m glad it wasn’t a rant like the other articles.
Just by reading the Vents, you can tell how backwards the folks in Atlanta are. And this is the progressive part of the state? Not complaining, but I can’t believe there are 4 liberal columnists, and only one self-congratulating knucklehead like Wooten. Just give in to your core group and hire those from the know-nothing Nazi party.
Who cares. You’re going to go out of business anyway inside of a year, does it really matter what token conservative you replace your last token conservative with? Maybe if you had taken the suggestion of some of those above and replaced some of your liberal writers with conservatives, then maybe your newspaper would have survived, but instead you chose to follow the model of pretty much every other paper in the country and ignore the fact that America is still split about 50/50 in terms of political views. Please go away and stop wasting our time.
AJC– Can we please choose a conservative columnist not for his/his ability to speak to those who are already unthinking followers, but for his/her ability to explain and advocate to those who do not agree with them and for their ability to provoke and make uncomfortable all those who think that they already know everything, whether they are conservative or liberal. Perhaps someone that cannot be pigeonholded and that thinks outside the box? As for your candidates, I looked only at the stimulus pieces and this is my initial reaction:
A. Superficial–no insight
B. Too narrow minded–misleading
C. Interesting — made me think, I liked this
D. Not very bright–no way
E. Similar to B. Questionable arguments. Not logical and just saying it is so does not make it so.
F. Similar to D. A waste of time. No way.
G. Not convincing in any way
H. Besides the point arguments but interesting as a historical note.
I. This writer is arrogant without being convincing. Not a good choice.
J. Somewhat interesting.
In summary–I think you can do better. Relying on a straw man argument or ignoring significant contrary facts/positions is very weak and many of these samples were exactly that. If that is the best they can do in their “best” writing samples, can you imagine how lazy they will be in their everyday columns? There have got to be provacative but thoughtful and rigorous conservative writers out there–or am I mistaken?
Sticks to the point, which is “I am most concerned by the incredible subsidy the solar and wind industries will receive”. The stimulus package is so huge that it doesn’t hurt to ‘attack’ it with specific programs to highlight where some of this could go off track. I supported Obama, but I’m listening to countervailing voices, and this voice sounds genuinely concerned.
An okay column, but I wish the author had pointed out a couple of obvious and damning indictments of the status quo:
1) Many of the highest-funded public school systems in the country (Washington, D.C., for instance) are also some of the most abysmal. This illustrates the futility and falsity of the left wingers’ constant pleas for more money.
2) Educational funding from Uncle Sam keeps going up, up, up, but the results don’t improve. Let’s see now, what’s the definition of insanity?
Just for good measure, rather than taking a slap at the pork bill (which richly deserves to be slapped around), the writer should have pointed out the glaring hypocrisy of so many of the liberal Democrats who kow-tow to the teachers’ unions: They do their best to keep poor urban children in wretched schools overrun with drugs, gangs, and mayhem, yet SEND THEIR OWN CHILDREN TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. President and Michelle Obama included. This is not the change I believe in!
This article is written by an amateur at best, so I give it a “B-“. I don’t agree with the article at all, but it was written with less malicious intent than the other articles.
I thought this statement was particularly interesting – **During the presidential election, then-candidate Obama pledged to support emissions-free energy and to “bankrupt” the coal industry, all with the goal of stopping so-called man-made global warming.**
What is the problem with funding a new source of energy in this country that would be a lot less harmful to the future generations? I find it funny that the writer doesn’t mind funding new energy sources, as long as it’s the energy source of their choice. It really gets interesting when I see conservatives wanting to put into practice European countries, such as France, as an efficient energy policy (nuclear); but have issues with other social policies such as healthcare.
If we can use the French energy policy, why not use their healthcare policy?
FYI.. even with nuclear energy, your energy bills will increase, all in the name of GREED for the companies providing the service.
Interesting twist on relating the stimulus bill to Georgia and to criticize, in a constructive way, the state legislature and governor as well. The writer could have been tempted to use this as another homily castigating the new Obama administration. One thing that will be hard to replace Jim Wooten on is his familiarity with state government/politics and his writing about it with authority. This comes close.
If you want to see the current form of public discourse, just write something for the public to view and invite comments – then stand back and wait for the reaction. I got as much from reading the comments as I did from reading the original article. I agree with the person who wrote the article and think it was well written. Just to identify my own personal position, I have never seen a valid rationale for “Blue Laws” for as long as I can remember. But I view with sadness the venom that always seems to flow when some folks perceive that they are being “attacked” when in fact they are just seeing an opinion that doesn’t happen to agree with their own point of view. We are not a civil society any more, and we geberally don’t seem to be aware of the price we are paying for having lost that part of our culture. Everybody is too busy shouting at somebody else…
The writer does a fine job of illustrating the complexities – and potential implications – of this case. Those who suggest that the author confuses the concepts associated with endangered species and animal abuse did not read the article carefully enough. The author’s contention that the plaintiffs in this case are using “ESA violations” as a guise for changes that are not aligned with ESA intent is thought-provoking. The author makes it clear that while the potential removal of elephants from circuses removes the possibility of animal abuse, it also eliminates the possibility of continued (zoo and circus-sponsored) breeding of these endangered animals. It seems that this latter implication stands in direct opposition to the aims of the Act. My vote is for this columnist.
Oh, right, this is the person who writes the clunky phrases [see carbon article]. Is there such a thing as purple alliteration?
I couldn’t resist:
Just the big bursting corpuscles of a bill so boisterously bloated with bombastic blubber that the only thing it’ll stimulate is the layer of lively lard lapping the belt-loops of licenteous, liberal lobbyists and their lilliputian lapdogs in la la land.
On the other hand, “rococo extras” is descriptive enough. Not bad, but somewhat juvenile in tone.
A well written commentary and a pretty clear statement of views that make sense. I’m not sure what pases for “logical thinking” these days because what I see happening doesn’t really make very much sense. I would be interested in what thw writer has to say on a wide variety of issues, and so would recommend his/her selection as a columnist.
The topic was a standard conservative cliche and, while “citing” numerous studies and surveys, the writer did not substantiate them. Inadequate detail on “the facts” made this column weaker. It also read way too much like a political stump speech. The political tone of the column is more likely to drive away readers than a more focused, nuanced, and thoughtful essay. While the writing flowed decently, the content could use some work. We don’t need a Wooten clone.
Finally, a truly conservative commentary on this issue. It is time for the pseudo-cons to get out of bed with the Falwell followers on this.
I don’t drink, and I am a devout Christian, but the government has no business restricting the sale of alcohol as long as the buyer is not intoxicated and is of legal age.
I appreciated the libertarian bent to this column, which I believe underlies much of the Southeast’s conservatism. It’s also nice that the author wasn’t a shill for the administration as many “republicans” are wont to do in the media. Pretty well-written with just occasional gaps in flow.
“Congress funded this massive bailout of state governments so that its stimulative efforts wouldn’t be cancelled out by spending cuts by states that, unlike Congress, are required to balance their budgets.”
Interesting thought. This writer, as with his/her previous article, has a fresh perspective. There’s opinion in each paragraph, supported by his/her take on the facts and issues.
As far as the quote, of course states have other ways to stimulate their economies that don’t rely on mere governmental spending. Incentives to businesses comes to mind.
This is the weakest article written of all the interested participants. I give this article a grade of ‘D’, because it’s written at the highschool level. It didn’t capture any highlights about the racial issues in this country. The race issue in this country is way bigger than statements made by Holder or Clyburn. I think this columnist is afraid to jump in and really talk about our racial problems.
If you are going to write opinion columns, you can’t be afraid to truly express your view. Stop skating over the topic and dig in.
A weird topic to write about and I’m not sure that the column adequately supports the conclusion of a “dramatic reshaping of the ESA itself”. Talking about the declines of captive Asian elephants in various environment (versus the entire population) does not justify all actions taken by the circus, or zoos for that matter. This column seems to be in support of rough handling and unnecessary captivity in order to continue “the good old days” of circuses and zoos. Should we also bring back bearded ladies and other human sideshow spectacles? Just because something has been done in the past does not mean that it should be done in the future. An anti-change attitude should not represent the soul of conservatism. Thus, this is not the strongest candidate in the columnist contest.
Hemingway was rumored to have said he could improve anyone’s writing, including his own, by lopping off the first few paragraphs of a draft. Would have worked here, if only the writer had started with paragraph five (or six, even).
I give this article a “B+”, but I have to disagree that Georgia leadership can still keep to their pre stimulus waste elimination.
Where does it say that you can’t eliminate waste in the stimulus package? Kill the programs that are wasteful and use the funds where it is truly needed (Healthcare, Unemployment, job creation, bridges & roads, etc..).
Now is the time to become efficient in our spending, but don’t forget about what the people of Georgia truly need to make it through these hardtimes.
As an engineer, the opening example of the Springsteen concert threw me off. There are air filtration systems in place at the arena that would prevent a noticeable and impactful carbon build-up inside, so little extra CO2 would come “whooshing out” if the roof was removed. Much more impactful would be the emissions generated by all the vehicles driven to Phillips Arena since it still seems to be the mode of choice over much more efficient (and low emission!) public transportation. Arg.
This column is full of stretched analogies and typically over-the-top adjectives and phrasing. We don’t need talk-radio inspired screeching to grace print as well. Wooten should be replaced, but not emulated.
The topic is fine, but the treatment is not as the column merely preaches to the choir and fails to draw in readers who may enjoy more nuance in what they read. Yes, I agree that corn-based biofuels were misguided, and so are palm oil plantations, but the CO2 regulation would deal with output, not input. It’s the other side of the system and not totally comparable. The language utilized for the column was not really appropriate.
This writer gets my vote. Global warming? carbon dioxide a pollutant? I just don’t buy those arguments. The climate has been changing since Earth was formed and it will continue to change long after man is no longer walking the planet. It is pretty arrogant to think mankind has the power to do more than mother nature in that regard.
I liked this column. Again, it seems to be a better representation of conservatism and libertarianism, rather than what passes for Republicanism these days. Good writing style, appropriate scope, and doesn’t insult the intelligence of readers. This column and the one on alcohol sales have my vote.
I thought this was well put. Others might quibble about some facts, but this is strategically focused commentary, aimed at what some might believe are die hard attitudes in ‘liberal’ education, such as slanted text books and esoteric training of teachers. This column basically says to get back to the fundamentals, and cleverly uses the stimulus package to get in some licks on education (right or wrong). In the D’Souza vein [Illiberal Education].
Let me say for the record that I am an African American Man who is APPALLED and OUTRAGED by the SENSELESS comment “Nation of Cowards” made by Attorney General Eric Holder. First of all, Eric Holder needs to understand that if he wants to engage Americans in a healthy and wholesome dialogue regarding race, you don’t do so by calling us a name such as “COWARDS”. How dare him to subtlely suggest that Whites are somewhat to blame for this so called lack of transparent dialogue between Blacks and Whites. Eric Holder Would not have been able to deliver this speech to the Justice Department had it not been for the courageous White Folks who voted for the first African American President Barak Obama who appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General. I am sure there were many conversations about race before millions of whites went out and voted for President Obama which was spearheaded by the Whites in Iowa. In fact, it was the Whites who gave us Blacks the courage to believe that Barak could win!
Part 2: Secondly, if President Obama keeps looking the other way when angry black members of his cabinet sound off in a fashion such as Eric Holder did, he will end up being a one term President. Whites are watching to see if President obama is really committed to bringing all of us together as a nation. Leadership from our President is needed in a vocal form against these divisive comments that were made by Eric Holder in order for many whites to be reassured that President Obama is serious about bringing us together as one nation. Attorney General Holder’s name calling (”COWARDS”) was a verbal assault against the citizens of this country that could potentially damage whatever gains that were made among race relations in this country during the last several years. President Obama cannot afford to have the attitude that incidents such as this will die for a lack of attention because if he does, he will continue to give license to other angry black folks to sound off whenever they like!
With regard to “It also seems in our overly politically correct culture, someone would have protested this law long ago,” I’m disappointed in the author’s failure to research the subject. A quick Web search reveals that 8 cases involving blue laws have gone to the Supreme Court, the last being McGowan v. Maryland in 1961.
I expect columnists to familiarize themselves with any subject they write about. Columns are supposed to inform as well as persuade.
This isn’t too bad, except it’s a rehash of talk radio’s points about FDR’s New Deal and its ‘failure.’
“Ultimately, unemployment and sustained economic growth were not remedied until America’s entry into World War II in 1941.”
Another Shawn Hannity point, but I don’t want to read talk radio. By the way, it wasn’t war spending that stimulated the economy. Half the world was decimated by the war. We rebuilt Europe and Japan and used the war industry to capitalize all but the communists and their sympathizers. During the 1950s, U.S. GDP was 50 percent of the entire world’s.
Another interesting, well-written, and tightly focused column by Candidate E, though I don’t agree with all the conclusions. I hope that this candidate is capable of levying praise and positive acknowledgement where it is deserved. It would be helpful for the columnist to offer vision and alternatives to perceived mistakes, and thus balance some of the criticism. In fact, this would be a nice action for all of our congressional republicans to take.
This was fairly interesting way to pose the question. B, C and E were the only writers I got much out of and I’d probably give the nod to B. Here’s my breakdown:
A1 good topic, useless article and pointless partisan sniping
A2 shallow analysis
B1 right answer for a conservative, well done
B2 Really? “cronies”; 5% is a small percentage but a huge amount of energy
C1 right answer for a conservative, well written but it’s obvious the suit is groundless
C2 disjointed but good point
D1 either doesn’t understand what he’s talking about or not backing up his facts — get some numbers
D2 pointless
E1 right answer for a conservative, but not much of an editorial
E2 good points, like the analysis of education
F1 snoozer
F2 Minus 5 for “cronies”; just partisan ranting, no thought or wisdom imparted
G1 snoozer
G2 muddled thinking
H1 snoozer
H2 more partisan cruft. Name-calling doesn’t lead to answers
I1 how about that the government has no business in this issue?
I2 Pelosicrats? Barro is one of my heros, I’m saddened to see him in this hack piece
J1 wow, this was weak
J2 not much here either
Sigh… A divisive topic (who chose this??) and a column with less than subtle undertones of victimhood. The column is a stereotypical and unconstructive rant.
If you want the AJC to be taken more seriously, hire an educated, calm, and nuanced conservative columnist that might actually get “the liberal readers” to look at the other side of the page. Wooten did not fit this bill, and neither does Candidate G.
Think about it here folks, you can already buy all of the alcohol you want to on Sunday…in a restaurant. I agree with the author that this old law should be repealed. The government needs to stop setting a double standard. If one business owner can make a buck on Sunday due to alcohol sales, why can’t those who deal solely in the sale of alcohol make a buck too? Well put author!
I think this is a weak column from start to finish. The subject matter is not really about elephants but about a legal maneuver in a lawsuit. Honestly, is this the most egregious legal argument the author has ever heard? No, so who cares about it? Lawyers make up stories all the time.
Anyone who would read this column is going to be interested in the elephants themselves, and whether the circus is treating them cruelly or not. The reader waits for the author to address this question and leaves disappointed.
The author shows a sad lack of ingenuity with the comment that a circus without elephants would be “the end of the traveling circus as we know it.” I highly recommend he or she get out sometime and see Cirque Du Soleil or some smaller circuses and find out if the show is miserable without elephants. I’m not the only one who would argue that the experience is improved when I don’t have to wonder whether my ticket price is supporting animal cruelty. Or that a lot of “traditional” activities are worth scrapping.
Overall, neither the topic nor the argument impressed me.
An interesting, if colloquial, column. While it took the topic of race head-on like Candidate G’s column, it did so in a more humorous and somewhat more evenhanded way. Not the best choice of topic for this contest, and it is apparent that the columnist is probably not a professional writer, but not necessarily a deal-breaker either. There are both better and worse essays here, and the candidate’s treatment of the stimulus would have to be a knock-out to get a vote from me.
The writer does make some good points at the beginning, but the lessons learned at the end, without much explanation for them, is puzzling. If those points are that important, they should have been dealt with more in-depth in the article and not just at the end.
Ugg. Equating steroid use with inhumane animal treatment to make a point that gov’t should not be involved in regulation? Weak. Regulation is about leveling the playing field and imposing the same rules on everybody, particularly when the actions of the regulated have impact on the general public. This column did not make a convincing case for deregulation of agriculture or baseball and, overall, was one of the least well-written columns among all ten finalists. I understand that “deregulation” is one of the battle cries of conservatism but surely this columnist could have found better examples, given the over-exposed media cliche that deregulation has become.
I liked this column better. Very fast-paced and colorful. It brought a topic to life that I would generally find about as interesting as an economics lecture and put a conservative anti-government-regulation spin on it …
… until I got to the “For some recent examples of climate change counter-measures gone wrong” paragraph. I just flat didn’t get it, and that paragraph seems intended to suuply the proof for the whole argument.
The language gets denser toward the end, possibly reaching a 17th-grade reading level. Can this writer make an argument the typical newspaper reader would understand? I’d say that remains to be seen.
Well said. Everyone needs to think long and hard about what trying to wipe out the coal industry in the United States would do to our already struggling economy. If you take a good look at your facts, you will realize that the United States has the world’s largest coal reserves. Well thought out there, Mr. President. Let’s stamp out the potential for millions of jobs. We need to find better ways to more efficiently and cleanly burn the coal we have. Also, I commend the author on calling him out on this issue.
I think the column speaks accurately to the conservative cause. To those of you (liberals) who say that the author should have offered a viable alternative to the stimulus bill, I would ask that you cite an example of your hero, Jay Bookman, offering constructive alternatives when he was ranting about the Bush administration.
A decent column by H, and a little better than his/her “random topic” column. Has more use of first-person than other columns, which adds to casualness and takes away from seriousness of topics. I’m not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Visual imagery and writing style probably make this candidate one of the top three or four, but it remains to be seen whether the candidate can translate overused platitudes (”common sense”) into actionable recommendations. Who wants to read an opinion columnist that whines about everything? Constructive applicants only need apply.
I’m not going to mince words here. This column is terrible, and how the writer was considered one of the top 5% of candidates reflects poorly on the AJC.
The column is all heat and no light. It consists entirely of name-calling and name-dropping, followed by the predictable blaming all problems on a vast left-wing conspiracy. This level of intellectual immaturity is more suitable for a teenager’s blog than a daily newspaper.
The shotgun approach lost my interest and I read only about half this column. Who exactly does the author think is racist? Eric Holder? Barack Obama? Shirley Franklin? Alinsky’s admittedly Machiavellian playbook? Get to the point.
I’m finding that few of the authors showcased here could have an honest, compelling conversation with your average newspaper reader, and this one is no exception. How does this information relate to my life right now? If I can’t answer that question by the second paragraph, I’m moving on. These writers may be conservative, but they are not columnists.
Here is precisely what Reich said: “if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.”
How, exactly, do white males, dominate the construction trades? By ratio of population? By the fact that they’re the one group not afforded special fiscal and tutorial privileges (and if you count white women with them, admission privileges) in attaining higher education at the echelons of community colleges, public universities, and male/female “pink-collar” professional fields?
By the fact that these are largely low-paying jobs that do not lead to much security these days?
How are they not members of the the poor and long-term unemployed because they’re white? That’s unbelievably offensive, and Reich should apologize.
How about: despite the fact that every major city already requires stringent set-asides, irrelevant of skill or performance or efficiency for minorities, those white males who do well manage to do well do so by working twice as hard, or doing the real work for companies necessarily fronted by minorities who pick up checks but don’t provide crews? I’ve done that work, Robert: have you? In Atlanta. And I’m a white female.
Is it even true that white construction workers have fewer economic needs? The ones I know, and I know many, having worked extensively in construction, are hurting from forty years of absurd affirmative action set-asides and intentional refusal by both the left and right elite to do anything about illegal labor. So enlighten me, Richard, since you’re reading this, where on earth are your facts, or are you just being prejudiced?
The author says, “let’s not be afraid to talk about race.” Well, why doesn’t he or she? The only point I could make out besides congratulating Holder for talking about race and bashing people who think Holder should not talk about race was a sentence claiming “Native Americans, Asians and Hispanics” are left out of all the talk. If that’s all the author has to say about race, perhaps he or she should not be telling others to talk about it.
Why should we talk about race? The question is begged and never answered, leaving this reader disappointed.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job)I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefor my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist A to be among the worthier and possibly even worthiest.
February 26th, 2009
7:23 pm
I appreciated that he or she gave a specific Georgia spin to the subject.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist C to be among the worthier and possibly even worthiest.
The author wrote a sports column and tried to expand its appeal to the A section reader by tacking on something about cows and vegetables in the first paragraph and a rant against parents in the last. The result is an ugly mutation.
And even the sports column is weak. I really can’t see the point. Whatever it is, it relies on name-calling (”the whiny adulterer”) and a large chunk of text being a quote from someone else.
And like nearly all the other candidates, this one fails to explain why I should care about this topic.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say I found Columnist D to be among the worthier.
Please explain how the Huckabee Republicans that you seem to be so fond of are anything other than the Taliban or even Barack Obama with different beliefs about the particulars.
**ALL THREE GROUPS** want the GOVERNMENT to make your decisions, though different decisions in occasionally different areas.
Libertarians (of both forms, this was simply the beginning of a sentence) want YOU to make your decisions and the Government to get the HADES out of it.
The reason wedge issues are so popular in campaigns is because there is **ZERO** inherent difference between the GOP and the Democrats.
Love, Like em, or hate em, at least parties like the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party stick to their guns and don’t back down,
While I agree with the overall theory of the article which is increased school competition leads to better performing schools I think school vouchers is not addressing the real problem at hand. What actually makes a school bad? I believe a person can get an education just about anywhere. All it takes is a willingness to learn. I would argue that the problem is that getting an education is not valued and therefore not a priority.
Oprah Winfrey grew up very poor in rural Mississippi. Was it more difficult to “escape?” Probably so. But when you want something bad enough you’ll find a way. Today’s school aged children are too ignorant to realize that unless they have a world class talent for athletics/entertainment or can start a successful business their education is a HUGE factor in their professional success. I think the reasons public schools “fail” is not for lack of funding, but for crappy curriculums. Sure, I think schools should make math, basic American history, politics and government, personal finance and writing and speaking English effectively required subjects. But I also think schools should allow students to pursue subjects they’re interested in pursuing. Not every high school student needs to take Trigonometry or human biology. Let’s face it…there are subjects in school that you will NEVER USE AGAIN! Why make a student take those types of classes?
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist F to be among the worthier.
Excellent comparison with the New Deal era of memory.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say I found Columnist H to be among the worthier and possibly even worthiest.
Thesis: “The money will come from [1] leaving Iraq, [2] requiring companies to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide, and, of course, [3] taxing ‘the rich.’”
Supporting arguments: “[1] the most that we could save by leaving Iraq … is about $140 billion. [2] Any permit system for carbon emissions will be undermined as a revenue generator … [3] Finally, taxing the rich is a false hope …”
Whether you agree with the arguments or not, at least the author makes a clear connection from start to finish. The other columns were mostly disorganized and confusing. The topic is also timely and relevant.
I think this is by far the best column. The first and last paragraphs are related, it’s colorful and uses simple language. The finish is just great. This is the only author I’ve seen that I can say I’d like to read more of.
Excellent insight into psychology of spending versus saving.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist I to be among the worthier and possibly even worthiest.
This is the worst of the Stimulus articles written, I give you an “F”. I have a huge problem with the columnist identifying the main points by Maxim 1 and Maxim 2.
As far as content, I thought this statement was the most thought provoking. ****The sad fact is that simple renewal of the Bush tax cuts would end the recession almost immediately, by alleviating business fears of future costs. ****
It made me think that this person must be completely out of his/her mind, to believe such a statement.
As far as fear/control being owned by the democrats – that’s a complete joke. The Bush administration used fear and control on a daily basis, since 2001. What we see on a daily basis, is not fear, but reality of the situation. We don’t need the democrats to tell us that we are in a huge bind; because we see it at our jobs, in the grocery stores and on our 401K statements.
I hope the AJC finds a conservative columnist who actually has a real clue.
The columnist clearly has no understanding whatsoever of climate change. The EPA understands well what this columnist does not: the carbon that matters is that which is released by the combustion of fossil fuels, carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years, not what animals exhale.
Also, the likely consequences of climate change do not include seeing the earth “combust” in any sense.
Hire this columnist only if you want to firmly equate conservatism with ignorance and irrationality.
Again excellent insight.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist J to be among the worthier.
I liked the column. I just wished the writer would have mentioned how a few years ago the superintendent, Dan Colwell, was fired for no reason except for the fact that he is white. He was the best thing they had going.
Robert, you may have written the best piece this paper and its web site have seen in a long time. Why don’t you apply for the job? I think your comments are as well stated as any of the potential applicants.
I’d socialize any day of the week with someone with such well-thought ideas (regardles of color and background). It might take away Holder’s platform, but we’d all enjoy each other’s company more with rational thinking like that.
I guess I just think it’s funny that all of y’all continue to suggest that “Conservative” means you favor individual liberties. How many laws about people’s private personal behavior with consenting adults have been put forth and then defended by conservatives? How many of the violations of our civil liberties created by the Bush administration continue to be supported by Conservatives?
Let’s face it – the only “liberty” you right-wing scum care about involves ammunition.
You people keep telling yourself that you believe in Liberty. I’ll keep laughing my butt off.
I am definitely not a conservative, and I am an animal welfare (not rights!) supporter. So, I began reading this piece expecting to disagree with it. Instead, I found it to be cogent, articulate, and compellng in its argument. Superb writing from an obviously good brain! Thanks for letting your readers have input on the candidates!
This person is a superb writer, an original thinker, and has fresh arguments. S/he is also cogent without being obnoxious. I agree with Mort; hire her/him!
I vote for this candidate. A thoughtful piece. I appreciate the writer’s constructive tone. The high-school-esque divisiveness that is characteristic of the other candidates is absent here.
Dear AJC: Since you seem so interested in your readers’ opinions and input about whom should be hired as your new “strong conservative” columnist, how about asking for our input as to whether or not to keep the current slate of Op-Ed staff? And since you chose to label Wooten and his replacement as “strong conservatives”, it’s only fair to tell your readers how you label Tucker, Bookman, Downey and Lukovich? While you’re at the labeling game, how about polling your readers to see where they fall on the political spectrum (strong liberal, moderate liberal, moderate, moderate conservative, strong conservative). Of course, you and anyone who has read more than a weeks’ worth of AJC papers knows the answers, but it would be shockingly candid to admit it and publish the results. If the AJC were on solid financial footing, you wouldn’t have to stoop to asking your readers to help pick the token conservative. It’s only because you are dying and desperate.
This is my favorite of the columns. The writer is clearly knowledgeable on the ESA, and does a great job making it easy to understand. He also gives me a way to identify with the controversy, making us think about whether we would choose to protect the elephants’ right to leisure or our desire to see them in zoos and circuses. He presents us with a difficult decision: Could we justify effectively shutting down the circus while they have a successful breeding program? I would enjoy reading this writer’s column in the future in the AJC. Great writing!
It seems that most of you are critiquing the actual stance of the writer as opposed to the effectiveness of his/her argument. As a true conservative, I would say that the argument isn’t whether or whether not to keep the Sunday sales ban in place…but that the state shouldn’t be legislating where localities could better make a decision that works the best for its residents.
Reagan federalism, which I believe extends beyond the states powers, would be the true conservative stance on this subject.
Right and wrong will never reach a consensus or convince anyone to change their point of view…but decisions based on a solid, consistent principle can’t be disputed.
The EPA is a bureaucracy…although the head of the EPA is appointed by the President, the agency itself does not fall under the supervision of the executive branch. I think the writers point is, much like the census, President Obama seems to want to micromanage…and presidential micromanagement never has the greatest outcome, if you know what I mean.
A 1:Second worst of the group. Ignores the cuts to education in GA in recent years. Ignores studies that have shown vouchers have little to no impact. Twisting of facts.
A 2: Better analysis here but still uses data one can’t help but question.
B 1: Strongest candidate. Sticks to sound conservative principles. Lets the principles guide his opinion rather than twisting them to appeal to a group. Gave me new insight
B 2: Employs sound reasoning rather than just trying to bash the other side. Challenged me to think about the topic rather than dismissively agree or disagree.
C 1: Good candidate. Good reasoning, but not a topic of the greatest interest.
C 2: Good analysis and writes in a manner that is easy to understand.
D 1: Average candidate. Best of the two pieces. Creative approach that gets the reader’s attention.
D 2: Reads like talk radio and does little more than echo what you’ve already heard from others.
E 1: Second best candidate. Good insight and analysis. Demonstrates sound conservative principles.
E 2: Creative approach to the subject again showing sound conservative principles.
F 1: Weak candidate. I liked the call for elective office to be a place of public service but the early part just seemed like ranting.
F 2: Reminded me of a student who didn’t want to do his homework and just slapped something together.
G 1: Worst candidate. Seemed like a tiresome topic and his approach did nothing to intrigue or move me.
G 2: Worst piece of all 20 submissions. Didn’t stick to topic, just went off on his own tangent.
H 1: Third best candidate. Took the same topic as candidate G but presented it in a fresh way that caught my attention and made me think.
H 2: Sound approach and conservative ideals.
I 1: Weak candidate. Not sure this is a genuinely conservative position.
I 2: Gives no evidence to support his confidence in the Bush tax cuts. Why would they work now? I deal with words every day and had to look up the word “aver.” Gave the piece a kind of elitist air.
J 1: Average candidate. Strong on research and analysis. Not the greatest writer.
J 2: Nothing about this caught my attention or moved me.
I agree with Kathi. The real failing of this article is that it collapses what is a dynamic and complicated situation into a banal swipe at blaming liberals. What has happened to Clayton County is tragic because it was once a county with a modest amount of economic and cultural promise. To understand what happened to this county you have to understand the context of racial tension, the failing economy and the county’s indebtedness to the sub-prime housing crisis, and, of course, the failure of the school board to place performance before politics.
Finally, Candidate F’s “three lessons,” besides being poorly conceived, signal that this writer suffers from the most simplistic and destructive kind of conservatism: the reductive kind. Ending the article with a slapdash list of moral lessons denies the truth and complexity of the county’s problems. How, if we are invited to ignore the socio-economic complexities of the situation, are we ever to arrive at lasting solutions?
AJC is, like it or not, a national, or even international, news site. If you are to have one designated conservative, he should write from a national perspective, not a GA-specific one. Let the Macon, Augusta and smaller Atlanta papers write on local viewpoints. (And yes, since we are conservative, we are not PC slaves: “he” means “he or she.” You don’t have to slavishly use “he or she,” “he/she” or any other banal formulation!)
This one is your most interesting applicant. The writing could use some editing, though. Without seeing the applicants’ resumes, we can’t really judge, can we? I think employers should be discriminating in the best sense of the word. If this one is 26, he has promise. If he is 55 and writes like this, he’s not as likely to improve. (That’s not pure age discrimination: you might tip the balance toward the older writer based on other factors…)
Very well written article. I don’t understand why the President is so opposed to nuclear energy and to the earlier comment about Frances’ social medicine the reason we don’t want it is because it doesn’t work. Do you want to wait 6 months to see a doctor? We have 49,000,000 uninsured. Were in the world do you think we will get the extra doctors and nurses to service these folks?
Please define “conservative columnist,” Matt or whomever. If Wooten is an example of a conservative, then we are equating conservative with ignorance. Hopefully all columnists are geared to staring reality in the face. For the most part, the AJC columnists are quite good. They may skewer the privileged, but usually with good reason.
Virtually all of the sample columns are noted only for their stereotypical, and yes ignorant, content. I detect virtually no analytical ability in any of them.
The comment about the AJC going out of business demonstrates fifth-grade stupidity. We need more newspapers, not less.
The author is far too generous to the wind and solar industries by giving them credit for producing 5% of the electricity used in the US. The Energy Information Agency, a statistical arm of the Department of Energy, produces a huge volume of statistics about energy production and consumption. On their web site, you can find pages that provide details about electricity production. In 2007, the last full year for which data analysis is complete, the US consumed 4,156,745 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. Wind and solar/PV together produced 32,749 billion kilowatt hours or about 0.75% of that amount.
Five percent would have been a small but useful portion of the electricity market, but 0.75% is sound and fury signifying nothing.
It boggles my mind that the stimulus package authors in the House and Senate conference committees bowed to the demands of the wind, solar, and fossil fuel industry by pulling a provision that would have enabled $50 billion in private investment in clean energy production with the allocation of just $500 million in taxpayer funds that might never have been needed.
Please understand this – the $50 billion that nuclear plants could have qualified to access was in the form of a loan guarantee subject to fee collection, it was not a grant. It was roughly equivalent to a student loan guarantee for a bright engineering student from a poor family or a VA loan guarantee for a veteran with his main job history as fighting in Iraq. Neither one is a particularly risky loan, but both might need some government backing in order to get to closing.
The writer takes up a common topic and a common viewpoint: Georgia does poorly on a statewide basis in k-12 education and especially secondary education. Some conservative solutions are offered and in that sense, I think the column is fine, but I’m troubled by some gaps in logic. The following should be addressed:
First, the writer wants Georgia to adopt universal school choice supported by an open voucher system because Georgia ranks 41st out of 50 in state education rankings. Yet the writer never establishes that any of the top ranked states employ choice and vouchers; nor does the writer offer examples of states that went from low to high rankings as a result of implementing school choice and vouchers. Unless the writer can draw that connection, the proposal can be easily rejected because it is not addressing whatever is really causing Georgia to rank 41st and what causes places like Minnesota or Massachusetts to rank in the top 10. If the absence of school choice and vouchers does not explain Georgia’s low ranking, then adopting such a system will not improve Georgia’s low ranking.
Second, the writer overgeneralizes and thereby weakens potential support for the proposal. Georgia has many underperforming schools and school systems, but it also has many top performing systems. Does the writer really mean to include top performing schools in the school choice and voucher policy? The reality is that top performing schools do not spring up by accident. High performing schools result from dedicated community support and the decisions of community leaders to place a high priority on education, even if it means limiting building and development, paying more in taxes, etc. Why should those communities support the writer’s proposal? The writer apparently fails to anticipate that people in communities with high performing schools are likely to oppose the writer’s policy because they will see the policy as exploiting their hard work and sacrifice in order to educate people from communities that have not made similar efforts to prioritize their schools. There is simply little incentive for communities with high performing schools to support a voucher/school choice system to address a problem they do not have. The writer never addresses this issue and it is a serious flaw.
Finally, the writer fails to squarely address an issue that is very important to conservatives: whether education is a matter of public concern such that it should continue to be funded by tax dollars. Many Georgians pay far less than $5000 annually in property and income taxes. The writer’s proposal assumes that that we will take money through taxation and transfer it to those people with children to spend as they see fit. Is the writer committed to public funding? If so, the writer needs to say that and explain why public funding is important. Otherwise, many conservatives will simply insist that we eliminate public funding (they’ll call it Socialist) and let each family figure out how to pay educate their kids. What is the writer’s response to that argument?
The AJC is like MSNBC and CNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS . . . completely irrelevant in these times . . . out of touch with the majority of Americans who are conservative with traditional values. A supposed “conversative” columnist has no chance with your liberal rag.
The data are pretty clear that the voucher gambit is not what it seems (and doesn’t “work” anyway). Arguments for a voucher system – and this is no different – are simply ploys to further resegregate the schools. Private schools do not want, nor will they tolerate, nor will they accept the students who for whatever reason do not want to be there – leaving the poor to the public schools (now with even fewer resources) so that they can continue to be called failures while the teachers continue to shed blood, sweat and tears to help the destitute kids from broken homes who haven’t eaten in weeks and, as the research clearly shows, have been poisoned by the lead paint in their homes. The voucher ploy is a nice con game, but it’s a transparent one. AND the perpetrators want to take public dollars to pull it off. With, of course, no so called “accountability” using the worthless (but dumbfoundingly expensive) minimum competency tests that the public has been conned into believing tell us something but are simply used by the resegregaters to further convince us that public schools are bad. Just like the previous administration in Washington, they know that if they put lies in front of us often enough, we will begin to believe them. Sadly, they seem to be right. As a lifelong conservative (having nothing to do with the label “Republican”) I vote no on this person.
Bravo. Whoever called this ‘left wing’ above is no conservative. Perhaps it’s time he or she at least learned how to spell the word, even if they don’t understand it. Today’s religious Republicans are not in ANY sense of the term “conservative.” Controlling someone else’s life is its antithesis. In practice, I don’t care. If I want to stay at home and have a beer on Sunday I can buy it on Saturday and put it in the fridge. The primary purpose of the blue law seems to be to get bad planners out to the bars on Sunday so they can put the rest of us at risk when they drive home drunk. How many innocents have been killed by this law? But in principle, as a conservative, it’s just none of anybody else’s business whether I want to buy a beer on Sunday – before, during or after my or anybody else’s church sermon – and drive sober to the safety of my own home to drink it.
I think the columnist has made all logical points as to why this ban needs to go. We are a free country (well we were at least) and the market should determine if it is worth a store to sell on sunday or not.
Love the fact that this author really seems to be getting under the skin of climate alarmists. [Sorry for the following non sequitur...but...I just have to thank Robert K. for pointing out that the climate change doesn't involve "spontaneous combustion". Gosh, to think of the panic that might have ensued with such a literal reading of this column! Kind of like a Wizard of OZ, Wicked Witch of the West Moment: "Help me, I'm not only melting, I'm spontaneously combusting!"]
Anyways…This author writes with style…and manages to point out some of the insanities involved with climate alarmism. The fact that the alarmists take issue only serves to confirm my initial impression that this was the most interesting and readable of the columns.
Of course, it takes a bit more effort than a “See Spot Run” reading to appreciate it.
In passing through these comments, did I really read that the Springsteen allusion was unrealistic because of the air filtration system at Philips Arena? There HAS to be a hidden joke in that comment that I’m missing. Air Filtration? Are you kidding me? Clearly, I’m being too literal in thinking that an engineer’s assessment of the CO2 impact from the Springsteen Concert reference was ridiculously pedantic?
“See Spot Run.
See Spot pant.
Spot pants because it’s hot outside.
Oh My God…We are melting! Climate change is upon us!
Cap Carbon before Dick and Jane spontaneously combust!”
I think that this candidate should win. He eloquently and effectively represented the conservative view point. I am not a conservative and disagree with his opinions. I think that as a writer he will spark intelligent debate between liberals and conservatives that may increase circulation. He appears to not have fear of tackling difficult issues, but is carefully not to say tham in an inflammatory or politically incorrect manner.
Great article……..I agree that we push through legislation making laws and rules that do not even relate to the situations they will ultimately impact. It sounds like to me that the captive elephants are the ones thriving so what’s the message here? This is the kind of baggage that is hanging onto all of the laws being passed today.
The writer has clearly done his/her homework and appeared to be knowledgeable about the sordid mess of a school board. A good case is made that the board members care more about their self-importance and chance to enrich themselves than for overseeing the county’s schools.
I liked the “three lesons” at the end of the column.
The writer said a lot of things that I (and probably others) have been thinking. Eric Holder is a disgrace from day one. The writer’s reference to Saul Alinsky was interesting, but then the rest of the column was about the evils of minority set-asides, which was a bit off the topic that he/she was addressing.
The writer was effective in noting why we don’t have meaningful discussions of racial issues in this country. The column did stray somewhat from the topic (Eric Holder), but tied things together together at the end.
After reading 11 of the 20 samples I reached this conclusion:
It is a mistake for the AJC to recruit a novice writer for this position. It has been clear for a long, long time that AJC management is not committed to serving the available Conservative market. This failure to bring service to that market, which is most likely larger than the AJC Liberal market, has impacted the AJC circulation and, thereby, the advertising revenue. Seize this is an opportunity to fix that.
I do not want to lose Bookman. Not because I agree with him, I almost never do, but because Bookman can effectively write opinions about a wide variety of issues. In my view, Tucker, Downey and King, when he was there, are all very limited regarding the subjects about which they can effectively comment.
I think the right thing to do here is bite the bullet. Do what you need to do to find and hire an experienced conservative to replace Wooten. One that can also perform the tasks required of whomever you must let go in order to afford the experience.
If having a majority of Liberal Opinion writers is critical, let the third Liberal be the novice.
Please show this respect to your conservative customers.
The author does make a conservative case for less regulation of steroids, but as a conservative, I also believe that these drugs are so dangerous that they should not be allowed. The fact that many kids now believe that they must use steroids to succeed in athletics is frightening. In my opinion, the drugs should be banned.
The bottom line is that although the writer does present a (theoretically) conservative viewpoint, I disagree with his/her opinion, and I think that many conservatives would agree with me.
I think this is the best writer of the bunch. It is a good thing to be able to write an interesting column about subject that is not on the front page.
Yes there are groups for and against lifting the restrictions for Sunday alcohol sales. That does not mean it is right or wrong. It is a changing world and if the Sunday alcohol sales will generate more revenue we need to strongly consider this option.
One of the most important things about a conservative columnist is her ability to go beyond “preaching to the choir.” This person does that. I found his/her original take on the impact of the stimulus on Georgia compelling, and almost convincing. I want so badly to disagree, but I find it hard to. It is by far the most well-written, focused, and original column.
Here is a campaign promise Mr. Obama appears to be keeping…“bankrupting” the coal industry. Coal is a fuel that we have an abundance of and has been utilized for many generations. How reliable is wind power?!
I could really care less whether alcohol is sold on Sunday in this state or not. I have never been denied the ability to get a drink on any day whether it comes from a restaurant or ball game or from the grocery store on Saturday evening. The real issue here that the author seems to miss is that we should not throw our principals away for a few extra $$. We leave that to the unethical immoral liberal democrats. The key to increasing revenue is to cut spending on social welfare programs that encourage irresponsible behavior.
Those of you who have harshly criticized this article, claiming the author was promoting abuse of animals have missed the point ENTIRELY! I think it’s safe to assume that each potential columnist was given free reign to write on any topic they desired. Since the goal of the contest was to choose a CONSERVATIVE columnist, it’s ridiculous to bash his/her opinion because they line up with the conservative viewpoint.
Namely…..
There are many ways that something which sounds good on the surface can be harmful in the long run. He/she did an excellent job of taking a subject of which we know little and delving deeper into the hidden agenda which would severely limit any and all facilities which come into contact with animals. He/she never said they condoned animal cruelty; but rather pointed out that there are already laws on the books which could have addressed the Plaintiff’s issue.
If the Plaintiffs prevail, we could all see the end to zoos, aquariums and circuses. Wouldn’t that be lovely for our children and grandchildren? Those of you with a liberal bend would love it, for sure, but this person is writing because they are in a competition for a CONSERVATIVE columnist position. The AJC already has a preponderance of liberal columnists — what’s the point of nominating someone who is a conservative-in-name-only? Oh….yea…..I forgot. Competition sucks.
This column has a major error and the writer does not seem to have researched the science. Human breathing emits only about 1 kg/day of carbon dioxide, but their energy use — cars, power, etc. — produces about 100 times that. Worrying about human respiration is just silly. But more, all the CO2 emitted by human respiration was first taken in by the plants we eat (and the animals we eat, who also ate planets). So the CO2 is really cycled, not newly emitted.
If the point of this contest is to critique the conservative viewpoint of each contestant as well as their overal ability to present a persuasive and cogent article, this person doesn’t make the grade.
I agree with One Man’s Opinion entered on Feb 26. I believe there are “conservative” opinions enough in other media. The AJC stands out in southern regional newspapers as presenting a balanced view of most topics. That said, if the AJC is determined to have a so-called conservative columnist my choice would be Candidate E. His column is well written and has thoughtful points to consider. However, I do miss someone with the fire of Molly Irwin although Bookman is outstanding.
I really enjoyed this author’s use of language to incite and illuminate. However, there were several times when I found myself re-reading sentences due to poor punctuation. I would put this person in 2nd place, though! (Behind C)
Wow, this writer presented a good conservative opinion and did an outstanding job of sticking to the point. I would definitely say this is now a toss-up in my mind between this potential columnist and the one who wrote about the elephants. Both did an excellent job of pointing out the hidden agendas that might otherwise have been missed by the public at large.
Why bother with a token conservative? With Luckovich, Bookman and Tucker kneeling before the far left altar, there is no balance or objectivity anyway.
I liked four of the columnists: B, D, H and J. I liked them because they all could write a coherent column. They had a point to make, supported it with facts, and their arguments were thoughtful and balanced. I don’t like Wooten because he just complains about everything, and never has any balanced discussion. I don’t think being a conservative should mean being against everything and arguing for the same old tired, unworkable solutions. How about a runoff between the columnists that get the most votes?
As much as I disagree with Wooten on most things, his columns are at least colorful and engaging. The opening paragraphs of this sounded directly like a campaign pitch, and I could only skim the rest of the column, finding nothing else too interesting. Best of luck to all of the contestants though.
A provocative piece from someone attempting to become a conservative columnist. The writer does a good job of showing that there are different viewpoints among conservatives, but if he were to apply this type of reasoning to other topics, I can see conservative readers thinking that the AJC didn’t hire someone conservative enough. Didn’t find the writing to be the most interesting or stylish. Best of luck to all of the contestants though.
I have many objections to the stimulus packages that President Obama has proposed, however, we as a country are to dependent on the energy sources we currently utilize. I think that any step in a direction that takes us away from our current situation is applaudable. If it fails, so what, haven’t the ideas of former presidents done the same, and quite miserably might I add. What the columnist does however, is serve the purpose for which she is is intended: to raise eyebrows; to cause us to question what we think we know to be right vs. wrong; and at best, to facilitate a friendly debate of sorts. Will we always share 100% of the views of our columnists? Absolutely not, and neither is that the point of a column. Job well done in “stirring the pot” a little.
Seems like an awfully obscure topic to flex Republican principles on. I could see if the writer wanted to suggest that this lawsuit was a slippery slope toward the government confiscating home kitties, but from what I can tell the biggest threat the writer reveals is that it will be harder for circuses to maintain elephants. Seems like a truly niche grievance. And not only was the topic obscure, but the obscure information the writer includes was presented in drowsy way. Best of luck to all of the contestants though.
I think it’s juvenile to start any writing with “Imagine that…” or to end it with a series of questions. That said, i think this writer did the best job so far of combining an anecdotal narrative while trying to make a persuasive argument. The problem is, that argument contained absolutely nothing fresh. It’s the same talking points. Granted, I’m a liberal and so it might be my bias that sees it as the same old drivel, but in this contest I would love for a writer to make me go, “Hey, I never really thought of it that way.” This column came nowhere near accomplishing that. Best of luck to all of the contestants though.
This is my kind of a conservative; arguments based on free market, limited government principles and not based on the desire to legislate socially conservative values. If you would gladly use government legislation as a tool to enforce your religious beliefs that makes you for big government by definition. Several of the previous commenters should just go join the Democrats, they have no problem with the government-as-a-nanny philosophy that they are espousing
I thought this was one of the better columns, honestly. I disagree with the writer that vouchers will really help, so I am coming from the other side. But our education system is in the toilet, and this is the Republican mantra for fixing it–so I’m not surprised by his/her views on it.
I enjoyed that s/he did admit that not all public schools are bad. I much more appreciate and enjoy reading pieces that admit that the “other side” has it’s positives and negatives, instead of just bashing them and using that vitriol (instead of facts for his/her side) to make his/her point.
So, though I disagree with the viewpoint, I like that this person is clearheaded, and able to see both sides (at least, in a way).
Fairly engaging and well written. Some interesting framing in terms of ” buying homeowners’ indifference to other tax hikes.” I don’t think this writer hit it out of the park, but it was a strong presentation of conservative principles.
Wow…a conservative who wants this ridiculous law repealed? That is refreshing! I am a Libertarian who leans ever-so-slightly left, and I liked this column. Honestly, it would be lovely for the AJC to have a “true” conservative columnist, as opposed to the “new” conservatives, who are in the pocket of the Religious Wrong.
There is absolutely no good reason for this law to still be in effect. Georgia is behind in so many areas, and yet Atlanta wants to think of itself as an international city? Folks like Sadie “My-religious-beliefs-should-be-law” Fields have held sway in politics for way too long.
Of course, my viewpoint is not what is being graded here. I think the article was well-written, and again, it’s nice to read something from a “real” conservative.
Oh, and as for liquor store owners not wanting to be open on Sundays? No one will hold a gun to your head. Stay closed, and the consumers will buy from grocery stores.
Very colorful writing. I think I’d definitely read more. It reads a bit choppy at parts, but this columnist is going to be replacing Wooten, right? No big change there. My only fear is that during intense debate, such colorful writing will veer toward Ann Coulter/Jim Wooten word play. You can be funny without being condescending. This writer is the first writer that makes me want to read his or her second entry on the stimilus to get more of a flavor.
Robert is either a self-hating sell-out or he doesn’t grasp the complexity and nuances of what Holder was saying. Or he’s truly not a black man and someone using the internet to push their own version of what a self-hating black man would say. Obama has stayed above the fray and never stopped down to many of the identity politics that many would attribute to him. And as far as JamC’s comments, what has Holder done — except say something courageous — that would make him a disgrace? Alberto Gonzalez lied and subverted the Constitution. If that’s the previous level the bar has been set at, Holder is a long way from being disgraceful.
Awfully lazy and cliche of someone to invoke “communists” and “radicals” … and then to offer as examples, 1.) Obama’s comment on Rush Limbaugh; 2.) Vague “lobs” that Obama has taken at Fox News folks, even though he’s appeared frequently on the channel, and 3.) Obama’s response to “a plumber who questioned his economic policies.”
It is disingenuous and irrational to portray what turned out to be a full-throttle campaign operative as “a plumber who questioned his economic policies.” The rest of this writer’s ideas are equally irrational since based on this column, one might think that minority contractors make up anywhere near a majority of all of the contractors that do business with the city. I would hate if the AJC hired a liberal columnist who blamed whitey for everything, and I would hate it if the newspaper hired someone who regurgitates the “Blacks got all the benefits, white man can’t catch a break in America” nonsense.
Conservative voter please do tell? Where were you on the issue when Bush suggested we bail out the private banking industry? Were you applauding John McCain for dropping his campaign and putting America first? Let me guess, yes you were. Yet in the same breath you bash President Obama for bailing out State governments. Why? These are the same bailout that will get Bill to the top a job but he doesn’t see it because it’s coming from a Democrat rather than a Republican.
I don’t know if you who prefer less government intervention understand this but less government means less regulation. If these past 8 years have not shown us what that does (i.e. mortagage, gas, banking) then what else will it take? I may not agree totally with everything that is going on however how can you right wingers expect this man to undo everything it took Bush to do in eight years. You unveil your criticism not based on any facts but what you have heard from that pill popping junkie (who once called for prison time for first time offenders until e got caught).
I still agree that we are a nation of cowards no matter what is said. We alienate ourselves from those that do not share our views or look like us. This is not exclusively a white thing, Holder gave all of us credit for this. I agree with him fully. I spent 10 years in the military and i have been with men who watched my back and I watched theirs on foreign grounds yet when we reached our grounds we parted ways until the next time we were called. We were work buddies and nothing more. willing to die with or for each other but not willing to hang out togeether or talk about issues dare to us.
Oh and sorry if my grammar and spelling are off but if you think this is why we are in the funk we are in. I trully implore of you to take your head out of the sand and pay close attention because the world is trully passing you by.
I think this is a far better column than the previous one addressing Eric Holder’s comments. Although it contains some loose ends in terms of arguments that aren’t fleshed out as much as I might like, it’s reads very easy and fresh. I’m not sure it’s strong enough to make me want to check out this writer’s other entry on the stimulus, but it was strong as a single entry.
Is it a requirement that a “conservative” columnist needs to be reactionary rather than visionary? Shouldn;t a thoughtful conservative be helping to address the problem of global warming rather than whining about the fact that things are going to have to change as we address it? On what planet does this person live, planet “it’s all about me”?
The writer uses strong words like adulterer and shrinking testicles, but his or her argument seems shallow, and I think the AJC can do better than hire a conservative columnist who has to tag on a paragraph about “A conservative does not…” Such a heavy-handed ending wouldn’t be necessary if the writer had laid it out better in the rest of the column.
When browsing the list of the applicants’ own picks for columns, this topic was certainly the most intriguing and warranted further reading. What a relief to have a thought provoking article unrelated to the economy, housing market, steroid use, etc.! The column was organized, well written, and obviously sparked good debate judging by the numerous and varied comments. I wonder what the outcome will mean for the symbol of the Republican Party – will that too have to be replaced by a barnyard animal?
If the AJC is looking for an engaging, thought provoking, strong conservative writer, I think they found their match!
I agree with many of the others. Why don’t you just get a an acknowledged professional conservative writer such as Laura Ingraham? At least you’d know what you’re getting.
Candidate G has written a column entitled Stimulus which bears only the most superficial relationship to the text of the article. It should have instead been entitled “More Fantasy Regarding School Vouchers.”
There are certainly some points with which I can agree in this article. An increased bureaucracy is without question something to be avoided if at all possible. Literacy is literacy and adding the modifier “multiple” is simply window dressing. That some students are unmotivated, the numeric value of some being undefined, is merely a restatement of the obvious.
Motivation is of course a major factor in the success of any endeavor. What the author fails to address is the level of motivation of those students attending private schools. While motivation cannot be quantified an increased motivation can be expected to derive from the parents’ payment of tuition out of pocket and their subsequent expectation that the student take full advantage of the costly education provided them. Remove the out of pocket expense and that motivation is nullified.
It is when the writer delves into statistics though, that the both the temperature and velocity of his exhalations increases. The assertion that “the average public school spends about $10,500 per student, while private school tuition in Georgia averages $6,000″ is a perfect example of the disingenuous ramblings of many conservative thinkers. The writer compares what “the average public school spends” to the average “private school tuition”; an invalid and deceptive comparison at best since the figures carry no citations and thus rise no farther than to the level of unsupported assertion. The amount cited as the average for private school tuition in Georgia matches closely to that cited by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation, a figure that Ann Abramowitz in her February 12, 2009 AJC column cites Brian Gottlob, a senior Foundation fellow, as acknowledging that the foundation’s figures are outdated and based on guesswork.
The obvious question is where exactly does the author get these figures? College costs always include tuition, fees and books. What about those of private schools? Does the tuition include the cost of books? Are there any additional fees? Policy decisions based on mere guesswork can be expected to carry many unforeseen negative repercussions. Surely the author’s conservative leanings don’t include the further crippling of our public school system based on imaginary numbers.
In addition, the author raises the issue of ideologically loaded textbooks. This veiled and nebulous reference, while sounding ominous, is a typical conservative tactic. It serves to raise the suspicions of the reader without putting forth any facts. What ideology is the author referring to? What specific texts are involved? We can only guess since the author fails to elaborate.
The subtext is clear enough however. The author disagrees with something that public schools are teaching and implies that private schools are better in some way because they are perhaps free of ideology. The absurdity of this position could not be more apparent. The vast majority of private elementary and high schools are associated with religious institutions the goal of which, stated or otherwise, is to imbue the education provided with a particular religious ideology.
In summation this is a poorly composed opinion article which ignores numerous issues while espousing support for a drastic public policy change based on only the most absurd and demonstrably false assertions.
A fine column, but rather unremarkable, Sparked indifference within me once it started playing pitty-pat between “Democrats rewarding special interest groups” and “the supremely important war in Afghanistan.” Yawn.
Wow as the mother of two almost adult kids this is a great reminder of the importance of teaching them to be financially resposible. It is great to have something positive that we can do when all we seem to hear is doom and gloom even from our leader of hope and change. I vote for C!
Another fairly interesting column, but completely standard in terms of conservative commentary — from reaching back to the good old days for a random pop culture reference (it’s Steve Urkel, by the way, you hip kat you!) to not even the slightest admission that the party and policies this writer supports played some (probably a significant) role in getting America into the economic crisis we are currently enduring. It’s fine to criticize Democrats and policies you disagree with, but do so within the context of reality, not from some imaginary start-point of infallability. Also a little concerned with the repetition of the “Instead of one lawyer, get a bunch” and “Instead of a stimulus bill, just give us the money” that the writer displays in his or her two pieces. Using that kind of construct once can be humorous; re-using it again and again is lazy and risks oversimplifying important issues.
As an animal lover, I am all for keeping animals safe and healthy but I am really sick of everyone acting like they are more important than the human race! Great article! I love the circus! THANK YOU! I vote for C!
It’s refreshing to read a column with a conservative viewpoint without the negative, sarcastic attitide and liberal bashing of most. I also like that the columnist related the stimilus package to Georgia – very clever and original.
After reading all examples, my opinion is that Candidate C is by far the best choice. Go ahead and make the hire. You will be doing your paper and your readers a favor.
Sensible, meaningful, well thought out. Bereft of the usual name-calling, snarky remarks, and scattershot accusations of so many conservative columnists. My choice.
This article is right on point! Coal is our largest natural resource in the U.S. and if we fail to develop clean coal tech. it ~DIRECTLY~ threatens our National Security and way of life…
Thank you for bringing this dirty little ‘national secret’ to light and cultivating some much needed discussion on a ’sensible’ and more realistic way forward; especially in a time when we simply can’t afford to make the wrong decision. . .
Here’s my vote : B and H write like professionals and cover their subjects well. C, F , and A follow, but are not quite as good (they couldn’t resist an unrelated barb or two). D and G are not only negative and nasty (vicious?), but used their subject , not to explain it , but to attack whatever they disliked. G seemingly misunderstood his topic.
I am not a Conservative, but this article was incredibly well-thought out, well argued, and completely convinced me. It is not anything like the stereotypical “conservative angry rant” that I have grown to expect and to hate so much. Bravo, Candidate C!!
I was going to write how poorly the column was written but that seems to be the consensus. Sounds like author was trying to cover everthing from star bashing to liberals in order to please everyone.
Great. I don’t fully agree with this person, but they clearly have a mind of their own. They aren’t just repeating the thoughts of others. I welcome any well-intentioned and original columns in the AJC!! Fabulous. A conservative columnist who doesn’t spout hateful-ness? Who knew it was possible?!?! Please hire this person!
There are too many insults and too much sarcasm in this column. A conservative columnist should provide ideas, not bore us all with Rush Limbaugh-esque insults. Please do not hire this columnist.
Is this really a pressing issue? Perhaps the “politically correct” have not protested this issue very loudly because:
1) Who really cares? There are people shooting each other in the streets, and the economy is in a free fall. I think our legislators have better things to do than to make it easier for people who can’t plan ahead to purchase alcohol.
2) Increasing our tax revenue by encouraging the consumption of dangerous substances does Not seem like a particularly good (or politically correct) thing to do.
I think candidate F captured the Clayton County issue perfectly. The majority of Georgia residents are embarrassed by the actions and attitudes of the Clayton County school board. My heart goes out to the students and parents for having to put up with this; as Candidate F says, you have to do your homework and vote accordingly in the next election.
[...] although as I said I’m not sure where the issue of age sits.) Attorney General Eric Holder remarked earlier this month that “in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many [...]
Bob Barr is already a columnist. Adding another glibertarian would just make the conservative voice of the paper even more of a parody. I suppose it is better than a Sadie Fields fan, but I would still suggest the paper keep looking for a deep thinker. Glibertarianism ultimately operates on naive assumptions about the world and that is likely where this columnist is heading.
This was a good article about the facts and figures and relative to today and is conservative in style. I do not feel any conservative compassion in the writing and wonder if this candidate is a true believer?
This columnist seems to dwell a bit on the technical side, but that is probably because they are intelligent. These two columns stand out as better than many of the other competitors.
I agree with the first post. This column doesn’t not express conservative view points. A liberal could have written this as well, just a poor topic choice.
Both columns wander around aimlessly without making a concise point. This columnist might do well with the “Thinking Right” bullet-point style columns and the Furman-Bisheresque train-of-thought columns, but is not likely to make an interesting cohesive argument.
Ellen, you lose credibilty when you refer to others as “loosing” credibility.
It seems to me that the article was purposely written to be “over the top” in response to an epic failure of leadership that is so far over the top that “bursting corpuscles” only begins to capture the outrage.
I agree with Hillary Jindal…this one–with a little editing help— has potential. The writing is a bit more lively than most if not all the others.
The line, “This plan is like trying to lose weight by eating bacon-wrapped broccoli” is the best one I’ve read in this series.
I subscribed to the AJC because you use to have the best sports pages in the area. The rest of the AJC is like reading a DNC handout, or worse. I agree with many of the other comments, AJC has lost touch with its readership, and until you become more Centrist and politically truthful in your articles and opinions, you will continue to lose subscribers.
Well said. What about minority preference in law school/college admissions? A minority can score way lower on an entrance exam and get in over a white person easily! That is not “fair.” A minority can study just has hard as a white person for an entrance exam…why should they be given preference? Now that our president is black, can we please end this??
This article begins with “As America rewards failure and poor judgment during this bailout frenzy, nothing is left for the student who wants to learn.”
A typical The Sky Is Falling, panic-stricken, exaggerated piece of nonsense. Later on, the author actually says they have nothing against public schools and justifies it by citing their mother. Really? Seriously?
But I have black friends! But my cousin is gay! My mother was a teacher! These are all very unconvincing arguments.
As with all the columnists’ specialized writings, one must first agree with the premise before making an objective analysis. I see merit in Eric’s proposal but I also see dangers, many of those have already been expressed in the comments. As one educated in equal time at public and private schools, private schools have their weaknesses: most notable are library resources, lack of total social exposure (good and bad), etc. I also agree that there are quiet dangers to private schools accepting larger amounts of government funding. However, in the mamouth effort needed to revive our public schools we need to keep all options on the table.
This writer deserves points for addressing the subject with specificity albeit not on a cause i embrace.
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
Another candidate who is smart and can pen the conservative view but is he/she a true believer? Also, I question if this person has lived in Georgia long enough to understand the local impacts of federal policy. There are no local references besides the reference to Phillip’s arena and Bruce Springsteen (huge supporter of Obama).
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
Mostly I want to comment on writing style and clarity of thought and this columnist is pretty good at both. However, his/her comments on special education are dangerously ignorant. I personally would not pick this person for that reason alone.
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
One reason people don’t want to hire minorities is because if you ever have to fire them they ALWAYS sue for discrimination. ALWAYS. Believe me, I know.
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
I liked the column, though I disagreed with some of the precepts. It nailed the problems with the Clayton County School Board. Pointing up the mess we get into when public office becomes a step-stone to broaden one’s own wealth and position instead of doing the job elected for, gets to the core of the matter. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, however. Loss of accreditation is a result of uninformed voters and unqualified candidates in a poor county with not enough resources. This entire country is showing repeatedly that organizations cannot or do not police themselves. It’s too bad that there wasn’t a mechanism for intervention from the state long before Clayton Schools lost accreditation.
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
This column really wanders around. It ends with a one-two-three recipe which would have been better as the lead in with explanation of each point. What this has to do with the obscure issue of hiring a second attorney is anybody’s guess. Not a well-written piece.
Simplistic, and not really on target. This barely discusses the stimulus package; it’s really about the administration’s energy policies. There is no substance to this article. Statements are made with no facts to back them up. Why should I believe you that solar power is unreliable and useless?
Unconvincing and simplistic. This doesn’t make me think, we learn nothing new, and it is utterly unconvincing unless you already agree. What’s the point?
Kelvin, I am not surprised that you can’t believe that a Black man can differ from the majority of black liberals such as yourself without being called a sell-out or some other name that you attribute when somebody disagrees with your Angry Rhetoric. Whenever the truth hits people like yourself you always resort to name calling rather than intelligent rebuttals to reinforce your stance of what you really believe. For the record again, I am an AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN who strongly disagrees with what Attorney General holder said about us being a “Nation of Cowards”. Every Black man does not think like you do so get over it! Eric Holder was wrong for calling us a “Nation of Cowards” just like you are wrong for calling me a “SELL-OUT” because I disagree with your ideas of what Blackness means. Just because Eric Holder is Black I should not be made to feel that I should agree with him just because he is THE FIRST BLACK ATTORNEY GENERAL. If you respond again to my comments please do so in an intelligent manner without resorting to NAME CALLING which is what people like you do when you don’t have any real platform to stand on when people like myself differ from familiar Black Angry Voices. So tell us Kelvin WHAT ARE THE COMPLEXITIES AND NUANCES OF WHAT ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER WAS SAYING?
PLEASE do not hire a race-baiter. There will be plenty of opportunities for a conservative columnist to hit on racial undertones in southern politics without going for someone who plans on going out of his/her way to create controversy. Saul Alinksy? Seriously?
I assume the writers have no choice of the subject they write on since of all the problems we presently face this one is trite. I also assume the increase in tax revenue is not specific for the day of the week, which begs the question: are we increasing alcohol consumption and do we want that. I am a senior who consumes 2 large glasses of wine a day RELIGIOUSLY (address that view)but despite my age and “infirmaties” I can remember to buy alcohol for Sunday ahead of time. Certainly NOT selling on Sundays is NOT defensible but again is the subject worth the space. Now the subject of the Ga legislators’ activities if magnified here could have carried the day.
My first brief comment failed to recognize that the author who cannot stay on topic is also the race-baiting columnist. This candidate is the worst choice of them all.
Geithner said the following: “I will start paying my taxes.”
Okay, that’s not true. Why should he start now? He’s the boss.
The statement “I will start paying my taxes” cannot be untrue until someone has failed to pay their taxes. You could say “How can we believe him?” or “I don’t believe him” or “I doubt that” but to say “that’s not true”….well, it isn’t true!
“Remember that bleak time from 1983 to 2007 when progress was mostly, well, even and uninterrupted? That was no fun.” What is this supposed to mean? It doesn’t even make sense. And for a conservative to imply that everything was fabulous during Clinton’s Presidency…well, they sure ain’t a real conservative.
I stopped reading after this because it was clear to me this author can’t get their ideas across well at all, and I refuse to read things when I have to re-read sentences repeatedly to try and figure out what the author was trying to say. Clarity, people, clarity!!!
I am with you Kelvin. I didn’t want to address him because he is either a liar (not being Black) or he is a real Clarence Thomas type indidvidual.
As far as Hiring Minorities I do believe you are going to an extreme. From which job have you ever fired a minority. Better how often have you been on a job and a desrving minority gets a job but you say or make them feel that they got only because they are a minority. Many of us Minorities take positions that are lower than our education and KSA’s becuase of the beliefs and the problems that people like you create. I have that President Obama wasn’t qualified, however if he were compared to Bush, McCain or Palin he was far superior. The only thing he lacked was the skin color. Let’s switch it, if McCain had want Obama had you would derail Obama and parade McCain as this great orator and thinker. Go figure!!!!
Law Student can I ask you how many “minorities” are in any of your classes? Are there that many that you can’t find a seat? Or do you prefer to go to a school where everyone looks, talks and acts like you?
Huh? This column is not even remotely thought provoking. Steroids are against the rules for people playing a sport. The column seems to suggest having rules in sports are antithetical to conservative beliefs about government. It is humorously dumb.
(C)warmbold, from where I sit and observe in Columbia County, most of the folks behave cowardly in the face of intergenerational disrespect, juvenile crime, educational mediocrity, amorality and anti-morality, prodigal consumerism, incivility, conformism as well as corporate and governmental bureaucratic ineptitude/corruption. Oh, by the way, did I mention cowardice in reaching out to people different from ourselves?
Well-written article. (Yay!!) Kind of spouting the same-old, same-old conservative talking points, but seems actually to have done the homework to back things up. I enjoyed it, but was not inspired.
Between this claptrap and the steroids article, the only way this person could be a finalist is if the AJC wants the conservative columnist to look like a buffoon. I would prefer the columnist not be so simple-minded.
This writer demonstrated he is no one’s definition of a coward. Well done. This may be what is called for in order to balance the outlandish and unAmerican media bias displayed in one of our most difficult times as a nation. Yet bipartisanship may suffer if there is to be an effort at that (so far… nahh) And I always dislike bringing communism comparisons onboard. There is much to criticize in our government without peddling fear… and of communists?!! Give me a break. Cuba and North Korea are real scarey.
Although there was not much exciting or new in the thoughts of this columnist, the arguments were well laid out, and the tone was good. This is one of the better options.
The candidate made made a semi- conservative argument but as others stated in their comments he/she did not get to the true conservative argument of property rights and freedom. I question if this person is a true believer or can just write the conservative point of view?
The stimulus column is too wordy. It needs better editing. The Eric Holder column does not really say anything. It ends up proving itself wrong by talking about the fear of discussing race and then never really discussing any particular racial issue. In any event, given an open choice of topics, the AJC should not seriously consider a columnist whose first instinct is to discuss racial issues. The column is less incendiary than the other race-baiter, but still not a wise choice. This columnist is in the bottom-middle of the pack.
This is an excellent article showing terrific INSIGHT into education. BRAVO! On that subject alone it is perhaps the worthiest of all. But as a column on the stimulus package it is too focused on just that one issue. The subject, stimulus deserves a broader focus than this writer gave it.
I thought Candidate G’s article was excellent. He/she seems to be a prolific writer and is very knowledgeable on the subject he/she wrote about. Actually, it is a toss-up betweeen Candidates G and J. If I had to make the decision between the two, it would be difficult.
This candidate is a libertarian at best and surely not a true conservative and the argument for the increase in the sin tax really makes me think of RINO or blue dog democrat. These types of arguments from the conservative columnist at the paper will not increase conservative readership.
I think the author’s last statment says it very clearly. True tax relief makes a gov’t more accountable. This is a well written piece of conservative opinion.
My rating:
1. C. A little technical but good thoughts.
2. J. Not very creative topics but decent writing which is more important.
3. E.
4. D. At this point, I remember these two as fine but not memorable one way or another.
5. A. Too many insults
6. F. Ideas were not clear.
7. H. Not good writing and questionable topic choice.
8. B. Glibertarians are good for a laugh, but not regularly.
9. I. Astoundingly stupid.
10. G. We do not need a race-baiting columnist.
This candidate is a moderate (liberal) republican and not a true conservative. Most true conservatives held their nose and voted for McCain but this person thinks McCain was the best choice to represent the party.
I think this candidate has some ruff edges to iron out but he/she is a true conservative believer and should considered at the top of the list for this position.
This writer gives a good rendition of the southern conservative point of view on racial issues. It would have been better if he/she would have also made the argument of conservative/liberal differences with regard to racial matters. I think he/she could be a true conservative believer. He/she should be a one of the top candidates for this position.
I understand the author’s point and find the article to be very well-written. I’d ask the author to consider the past statistics citing substantial increases in alcohol-related traffic crashes and fatalities in states where Sunday bans were lifted, and ask him/herself the question – is it worth it to help Georgia’s budget deficit at the risk of losing more lives to drunk driving and alcohol-related accidents? The author’s point is very valid, but I think a consideration of the negative effects of repealing this ban is also warranted.
Where does that $5,000 per child come from? Is that money removed from the public schools budget? Do I need to look that up myself? Otherwise, it’s a pipe dream.
If you drop down to Havanna, Florida on Hwy 27 south of Bainbridge, Georgia you will see 50% of the Sunday business to be from Decatur or Grady County Georgian tagged counties. So you can just see those Georgia Tax dollars headed straight to Florida tax base. I am sure this is repeated throughout Georgia where we border those States and Counties that allow Sunday package sales. This Columninist has hit the nail on the head.
Candidate J tackled THE issue right now, and did it with facts and figures. And yes, liberals are adverse to reality checks, but these are so desparately needed now. This one has done his/her homework and it shows.
The columnist looked at several angles of the issue but failed to cover any aspects to alleviate concerns of those that feel this law change will result in more “drunk” citizens than what we currently might have selling alcohol from Monday through Saturday. To thwart many argument against the sale of alcohol on Sunday, it would be needed to research and at least touch on the subject of how the state has laws set up to deter and/or punish those that over indulge. Yet, what about the laws that currently have oversights in them that would allow someone to be more drunk and operate heavy machinery? What if said equipment was used more on weekends, including Sunday, and could be linked to causing an issue if alcohol sales were to be allowed? Self compliance is usually based on education, and understanding is always preferred to maintain the behavior that conforms to public expectation resulting in a safe activity. Unfortunately, legislation is occasionally required to provide law enforcement the tools needed when non-compliance occurs to keep people and property safe. Being that an oversight does exist, it might be advantageous to look into our “Under The Influence” laws and find where the issue might have grounds to see more drunken accidents occuring. Allow me to steer you in the right direction, Georgia Senate Bill 71, OCGA: 27-3-7 and 52-7-12, Boating and Hunting Under The Influence of Alcohol remain at 0.10 grams – 2 point higher than our current proven effective highway standards which are 0.08 grams.
Well said. I like the idea of a government having to work under the same rules the rest of us do, namely spend less than what you take in. It’s a shame we don’t operate under the same federal mandate for a balanced budget that truly meant no deficit spending. Excellent article and gets my vote for the new columnist.
This candidate shows a good grasp of the issue in question. He/she points out the level of duplicity and hypocrisy that is clear in Obama’s prattle about a “post-racial” President. He/she also points out the continued sense of moral superiority and condescension that lies at the heart of most liberal sermons about race in this country. This person should be the top candidate for the position.
This guy made a good start, pulling me in…then made a grammatical error (”everyone springs to their feet”) that showed a lack of journalistic professionalism. Later he used two words I had to look up, and one of those words still doesn`t make sense to me in that context.
As a lover of distant (too many allergies for up close and personal)animals and biologist by trade, I am thankful for the diversity of species we have and wish them all free and long lives. This article is well written and gives a side or two to the discussion that is/are unique. Again I question the value of any public space given to a subject though that is relatively minor in the grand scheme of our national and local problems.
The bottom line of this subject is nothing is more cruel to animals than nature and survival of the fittest. And let us not forget that for better or worse humans are legitimate members of this food chain/ selection process.
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus has been the focus of repeated investigations conducted by the USDA for failure to meet minimum standards set forth by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). While its breeding program is noble, its success is nullified by the circus’s long history of alleged cruelty and neglect. Nevertheless, I think the writer makes a great argument by pointing out the implications of convicting Ringling Bros. based on violations of the ESA. I agree that if protection is truly the goal of the plaintiff, a case based on laws against animal cruelty would be more than sufficient. I really enjoyed the column. It was interesting and well written. I hope to see more soon!
This column was not as effective as it could have been. The writer spends the first half talking about the persons involved, then switches to the bill itself, then gives a few examples of pork. These topics could easily be three separate columns, but combining them diluted the thrust of the column.
The discussion of energy sources was interesting and informative, but compared to the huge costs of the so called “stimulus” bill, this topic isn’t timely enough for me. At this time, I would rather see a column more focused on the immediate and near-term effects of the bill.
A good writing style, I enjoyed reading the column.
I am a conservative reader of the AJC, one of the few left I feel, and I picked candidate G as the author coming closest to espousing my opinions. I am therefore amazed to read the above comments and find out that only liberals seem to be commenting. Isn’t this a contest for CONSERVATIVE VIEWS, and therefore, liberals should not comment? After all, you have Cynthia Tucker and Jay Bookman to state your views. Just saying.
You’re spelling of Broooce exposes you as one of the amateur applicants. AJC, quit this publicity stunt and hire a professional. Lord knows there are a lot of good ones out there looking for an opportunity like this right now.
This is a well written and mostly well reasoned piece but falls into blind ideology when it tries to make irresponsible politics a liberals-only trait.
A few good metaphors, and some good points, but I didn’t like the satirical part at the beginning too much. Overall, not one of the best columns of the ten.
A good case is made for keeping education decisions and spending at the state and local levels. I agree that the additional federal funding takes the states out of the loop and puts way too much control in Washington.
This columnist has written on a subject that he/she has totally failed to research. Evidence relative to climate change has reached the point that those with his/her opinions are in the same category as holocaust deniers.
Not an original idea, but the writer makes a good case for stimulating the economy by handing the mooney directly to people, although I object to spreading it out evenly, with deadbeats getting as much as a taxpaying worker. More actually, since deadbeats have more kids.
DavidS, be sure to differentiate between conservative and republican. The party that imperialistically sends us to police every nation and has no problem passing more and more pork and other huge spending projects such as the prescription drug bill (full republican control for the biggest expansion of government since the ’60s) is in no way conservative. They talk a good game and do the opposite, which in some ways makes them bigger traitors than their outright socialist counterparts in the democratic party.
Ha ha, Republicans can’t even work up any sympathy for their own mascot, much less any other living creature. It doesn’t matter who replaces Jimmy, it won’t slow down the AJC’s freefall.
Thank God this writer has the ability to perform a MRI on our new Chicago street talking President and his entourage. This writer (he/she) knows what a horrible mistake our new leader is for this country.
God help us. the is so much double talking to the masses and he/she recognizes it. I certainly hope this writer gets the job.
Candidate C stands out because of his research and well-thought through arguments which express a conservative’s point of view. He (or she) gets my vote.
I hope the writer chose this topic.
Everybody loves elephants, (except the guy with the big shovel). However, this mammoth issue has little to do with elephant care. The writer’s well-made point is that activists are using the courts to try to achieve what they can’t via legislation.
After reading the editorial I became agitated at the potential of our justice system’s complicity in the activists’ circumnavigation. Will Lady Justice stand blindfolded to the inevitable unintended consequences pointed out by the writer? Or worse, is she wide-eyed at the opportunity to overreach again in her zest for omnipotence?
As courts expand their rule beyond the original intent of legislation, we should all be alarmed at the bull ring being clamped on our nose – not to mention the shoveling.
I think the editorial strikes at the heart of conservative thought. It was well written.
I want more from C.
I applaud the AJC’s desire to have a conservative writer but I wish conservatives would at be honest. This writer’s statemtn “A conservative does not favor regulating the lives of others.” is so far from what today’s conservatives want to happen. Examples: (1) no alcohol sales on Sunday under the guise of preserving Sunday for Christians. Not everyone is a Christian, including me. (2) Limiting women’s choices to what they (the conservatives) say they know if best. (3) Denying all people equal rights when it comes to marriage. My choice, AJC? Forget having a conservative voice. It just ain’t worth it.
To tar all Clayton County voters – and to some degree all Georgia voters – with a broad brush would usually seem pretty extreme, but then the situation is pretty extreme. Perhaps it’s justified. Anyway, it’s effectively done.
This column selects evidence and twists facts to fit the opinions of the columnist. I hope the AJC will find a writer who investigates his topics and reasons things through, rather than following brain dead ideology. An excellent model is David Brooks of the NY Times.
DBR, there are many socially conservative libertarian/constitution party types that basically believe what the republicans claim to believe but realize that republican politicians aren’t much different from their openly big government democratic colleagues (with the notable exception of Ron Paul.) Do you think socialized prescription drug coverage for seniors is necessary and anyone opposed to this and further government expansion was “naive?” Are you for full universal health care? Are you “naive” if you’re not? I guess the idea of a limited government and stopping the expansion (and yes, even going through contraction as prescribed in the Contract with America such as getting rid of the Dept of Ed) is naive to you because the people you vote for are doing little or nothing to promote it.
I think this candidate’s article is thought provoking, well organized, and builds a case for the reader to make a decision. Furthermore, the reader is presented with the result of their assessment. I enjoyed the writing style of this candidate and I look forward to reading more articles.
Well, anyone can comment but overall, I agree w/ flwrgrl. I’m conservative and I like “G”. Yes, he/she focused on education and not “stimulus”,per se, but I liked the column.
After having read the ten guest columnists published in yesterday and
today’s paper, may I offer the follow observations…
Candidate A is a good writer and while I consider myself a liberal, he or
she made a persuasive argument for school vouchers and actually made me
think a bit more about the validity of the program. Nicely done.
Candidate B’s column was not very well written in my opinion and while not a
grammarian myself, I found reading the column laborious.
Candidate C’s take on animal rights had me walking away saying “Who cares?”.
She (I’m guessing here) failed to do much more than point out why animals
are endangered but did little to support the allegations that elephants were
being mistreated by Ringling Brothers. The writer is more passionate about
animal rights then I think a conservative would be, which makes me think she
(he) is really a liberal trying to slip into Jim Wooten’s bed.
Candidate D used the pretense of Regulating Carbon emissions to take swipes
at Obama…kind of Bob Barr style. No problem with that since this is
supposed to be a conservative column but I’m not exactly convinced this
person really cares that much about EPA rules as much as they want to put
the president on the spot.
Candidate E fueled one of my biggest peeves in column writing and that’s
assuming. The writer referred to state legislators in the masculine
(himself) when referring to legislatures not wanting to get into a local tax
fight. Don’t know what the numbers are but I’m betting there are quite a
few women on the floor. Perhaps I’m being a bit picky here but that kind of
dismissive tone towards gender could mean a dismissive attitude in other
areas like race, social structure economic status, etc.
Candidate F started out being fair when discussing the Clayton School
debacle but then they went on a mini tirade when the writer accused Clayton
County of ” really just being a logical extension of a liberal philosophy,
etc….”. Come on…stay on topic.
Candidate G could have been Bob Barr except Barr is a better writer and
while I often don’t agree with him, I do read him.
Candidate H may well be part of the media or certainly a follower of media
and media trends. Insightful and reasonably well written. Can’t say I
their rhetoric swayed me one way or the other but I could see their side and
it was not a bad piece.
Candidate I made an interesting case about steroid danger and while I found
it a good and informative read, hardly a conservative view and more of a
letter from a reader. Nicely written in my opinion however.
Candidate J spent the whole column finger pointing without bringing anything
new to the table. Lots of accusations but not one opinion about solutions.
I can tune in to Bortz or Limbaugh for that. Better this person stays with
their Vent contributions.
I agree with the writer that throwing more money at education is not the answer to improving education, but after the first two paragraphs, he/she was completely off the “stimulus” topic.
The column was well-written, but it had little to do with the stimulus issue.
I’m a middle-of-the-road admirer of most of Obama’s actions since taking office, but the shakiest thing about his budget is his set of assumptions about the fiscal status of the US in 2013. This very good column elucidates some reasons of which I’d not been aware, for the shakiness.
I thought this was the best or at least in the top 2-3 columns on the “stimulus” topic. The writer presents an opinion, then supports it with facts from history, which was very effective in making his/her case.
“There will be little for these private schools to do except bow to the demands as they will no longer be able to competitively reject the tainted funds.”
“Tainted funds”, as in “bad”. I just finished watching Dark Angel Season 2 finale, which is why I’m here. A next gen was having a baby and there was a super-brief mention of washing her “taint” before having the baby. In several postings I’ve noticed cropping up more and more often, “taint” is being taken as a general term as safe for posting terminology referring to male or female genitalia. His taint. Her taint. In the world of censorship that is becoming the United States, can we PLEASE find a better way of expressing this? Conservative, Liberal, I don’t much care.
That “bad thing” down there, your taint. The diseased serpent which crawls into the diseased cave to bring diseased life into the world. I abhor the usage of this word in it’s mutated sense. I see the word and think, “F*’d funds”, well was it good? It is, in fact, so wrong that I’m going to start using it liberally, until it too is banned.
(A note from the darkside; paying attention to the children.)
An excellent article: popular today, well thought-out and well written. Although Al Gore is too often credited with recognizing the problem the subject takes me back to a 1950 William S. Hanner’s college Chemistry class. He presented the somewhat cataclysmic (slow which is oxymoronic)prediction of severe climate change not as his own but as a well known theory he learned at Cornell. He did not tie it specifically to carbon production but to a somewhat cyclic pattern of global warming. I do pay attention to the prospect of its acceleration but do not appreciate the too one sided view we’re getting. I learned recently from the media that because of relying on one satellite and excluding another’s, arctic ice loss was overestimated by the size of California. THIS IS CALLED DATA SELECTION AND IS A SCIENTIFIC NO NO! Unless we can get a better educated bunch of journalist or politician we need to rely on scientific sources to evaluate this problem before we begin legislating or administrating on it.
The use of the concert opening was excellently done but the selection of a stereotypical dislike of most conservative had a hint of pandering.
The auto “BOOM HEADSHOT” just got derailed. I thought I’d find another failed argument here – at the same time, it’s not a good decider of conservatism. It’s like fighting a law against how horses are hitched in the time of the Blackberry. Common opinion, and safe. I guess that could be called conservative.
Very well done and would certainly rank with the worthiest if not for the too narrow focus on education. The writer pointed out very well the fact that this is a tradional nitch of state and local governments. But the focus was too narrow for the topic which was the Federal bailout, usually expected to center on economic issues. This article deserves space and strategic airing under education but not under economic stimulus.
1. It is correct to say that none of the Democrats (or any Congressman) read the entire stimulus bill, but in fact, they were not allowed to read the bill, which was the Obama administration plan all along. A minor point, however, since few if any of them would have read the bill anyway.
2. I loved the comparison of “using leeches to treat anemia” to “sucking capital out of the productive economy.
3. I disagree with the writer’s assertion that “renewal of the Bush tax cuts would end the recession immediately.” I just don’t think this is realistic to expect such a quick turnaround.
I simply can’t believe that so many of you approve of a column whose very basis is wrong. Man’s exhalations *do not* contribute to the global warming problem.
The last thing we need is another conservative columnist who doesn’t know any science. Don’t you conservatives care that this author is utterly wrong on the facts? Or doesn’t that matter as long as it advances your ideology?
Which arm of the GA Chamber of Commerce? The energy is good, the facts, and the “what we should do”? A little flaky. For an opinion column, not bad. For news – Horrid.
The writer starts off talking about the federal “stimulus” bill, then wanders into the state arena. That’s too much to cover in a single short column, and both of his/her points suffer because of this.
Not a bad writing style, but the writer just needs to stay more focused and stay on a single well-defined theme.
“Need a little extra cash to give your child a better life? Too bad. You should have signed a mortgage with huge balloon payments.”
I didn’t get past the first paragraph because of these three sentences. I’m all for balanced political opinion columns as long as they are written based on well thought out and researched fact not knee jerk fallacy.
*BOOM HEADSHOT* I finally get to use it, YES!! Anyone seeking out a column on race in GA is automatically suspect, just ask the feds.
I HATE THIS WRITER ON THE SPOT. Which means, you’ve found the conservative writer, as I’m quite the Librul. I shouldn’t have to look any further, and should turn that movie back on… but, I like to be thorough. (4th one read).
A rousing AMEN to this writer for this article. I felt wonderful after reading it and I’m not even a conservative but more a Tom Watson Populist cum Libeterian. This has needed screaming from roof tops. I even heard a supposedly well educated person express that “government money” (there IS NO such thing, it’s taxpayer money) doesn’t belong to anybody.
The writer was on topic and got the job done.
“After 15 years of HOPE scholarships and increased government spending on education, Georgia still languishes near the bottom (41st out of 50 in a recent survey) in national education rankings.”
This type of ranking tells us nothing! I don’t care how Georgia ranks against other states. I care about the quality of education our students are getting. 41 out of 50 could be excellent or terrible – we need to see the numbers and what they are based on. FOr instance, if the top 45 students out of 50 made an A on a test, then being number 41 would be a good thing.
“Gregg” I love having minorities in my classes, however, I do not enjoy watching my friends from undergrad get denied admission while the minority in my class got in with a lower GPA and a lower LSAT score. If the minority and the “white male” have equal stats ie same LSAT score/same gpa…then I’m fine with the favor going to the minority. However, take a school like Emory or Vanderbilt (very competitive law schools)…out of 100 students in a class, 90 of them made 165+ on the LSAT and 10 of them made 158 or less…all 10 are minorities (the majority of which are black females)…so 10 spots were denied to people with better credentials so that these 10 minorities could get in. You cannot tell me that is fair! It is in no way fair! The law school admissions councils are affecting people’s entire lives. The law school that you go to can mean a lot! And if said minority can’t pull more than a 158 on the LSAT, they will have a hard time surviving in a law school that is as rigorous and challenging as Emory or Vanderbilt. Gregg…please tell me why you think this (and all types of affirmative action/racial preference) are fair…
The message I got from Holder was that he wished he heard everyone’s private conversation on race which obviously he hasn’t and can’t do BECAUSE they’re private. The scarey part is that he assumes the right to. Holder further compounds that problem by heaping judgement on what he is not privy to. I found even choosing such an insipid topic unworthy of comment. But in choosing to address it the writer missed too many golden opportunities to be straight forward and instead gave a politically correct (abomniable words in these United States)reply that perhaps illustrated the point Holder was TRYING to make better than Holder did.
I like the variety of words. Went after race on the oblique, saving him from the (you know). On the shy side, looking hungry. Eloquent enough, tame enough, and cautious enough to turn into a decent reporter/editor/opinion etc.
I’ve decided. As a Librul, the race guy, and this guy
Candidate E, Column 1: Homeowner tax relief
are the one’s I find truly lacking. Which is good for conservatives.
I like the chops on this one. Bad for the contest, good for the rest of the world. A lot of rough edges, a diamond in the rough – possibly. My favorite – making you the official loser. Some people won’t have noticed that not all entrants to the contest use their names. It’s a wise move, I don’t. OR, a hard play for something one wants very much. Good luck with that.
Although not a subject I’m interested in, I found the writer cleverly made me think outside his or her box. We turn our lives over to pills in varying ways and degrees. As a strong supporter of family planning I had to ask myself if it were asking too much to have slapped American women on pretty stiff hormones in society’s need to control population when so much of the world has and still does clutter up the planet. And on ad infinitum. So despite the topic it was a well written article by a writer who proved thought provoking.
So this is what affirmative action is like, journalism-style? Did you just wake up one day and think, “Let’s get us one of them conservative columnists so that we can make ourselves believe that we are fair and balanced”? Frankly, why would anyone want to be the token conservative in such a liberal establishment?
This makes my head hurt but that’s my problem.I’m no fan of global economics because my heart isn’t in it but thank goodness some “hearts” and hopefully heads are. My talent lies in making family budget and seeing the ills in local, state and regional economics. This reaction is no reflection on the writer whose passion and talent in the subject are obvious.I just can’t wrap my small brain around the globe and projections. For me the writer needs to deal in spoonfuls and other, smaller doses. As I said, my problem.
(moderator, please add to my comment) Further thoughts stirred in me include: how did we take games and turn them into a national obsession? As an ex-physical education major in college the two driving points of athletics are competition and fun. I once chose it as a major because I liked nothing better than playing. We’ve kept the competition which spurs athletics to a major revenue producer, betting industry, drug abusing,etc. But we lost the fun long ago. An excellent chance for a writer to examine what exactly in our society feeds on this frenzy now that I was jilted into thinking about it by this writer.
Aerospace Engineer: I don’t consider myself either conservative or liberal; in making decisions I believe it’s best to examine all sides of an issue and then let the facts do the talking. This writer, above all others, delivers a convincing conservative message without lecturing, and leads the reader to think more deeply about the unintended consequences of not just the “ban the bull hook” litigation, but other liberal positions as well.
I hope that I’ll have the opportunity to read many more columns by this fine writer in the years to come; I may even become a true conservative.
This candidate gets it. Al Gore and his alarmist friends (many of whom are represented by comments at this site) do not get it. After the D.O.E. imposed standards for refrigerant emissions in 1992, one egghead reported less than a year later that the ozone layer was at less risk because of the “restrictions on flourocarbon emissions”.
In fact 99% of all refrigerants were at that time (and are today) being harmlessly blown into the atmosphere. Get a grip eggheads1
Don’t hire this one. Same old rhetoric, labels, spin and hyperbole. How about a column based on facts and cogent arguments that presents real alternatives? Guess they don’t have any of those, so they resort to classic disinformation techniques
Very turned off by the gratuitous slams, it’s lazy. Also, where’s the quality control for those private schools? What happens when we discover public funds are being used to send kids to schools that espouse views we personally don’t approve of (politically, religiously, morally, ethically; separation of church and state issues coming up!). Also, what the heck is wrong with national standards if they are good standards? A state can align its teaching standards with solid national standards without diluting quality (you know, like we do with the Constitution thingie).
The first 5 paragraphs were a waste of space (and I’ve read a variant of the time zone joke elsewhere). This line “Okay, that’s not true. Why should he start now?” was funny and made me hope this author might rally. But he didn’t. Combined with the other column, I’m afraid I don’t see this candidate as ready for their close-up.
I am so confused, I didn’t get how this column argues a conservative point. I want my booze on Sundays without tricky advance shopping planning, and without having to go to a restaurant, and without having to join the military (I hear you can buy it at military shops on sunday, hmmm??) so I’m pre-disposed to agree with the premise. Yet, presentation seems more of a libertarian argument, as others noted.
And I headed screaming in the other direction at argument of using Sunday sales to increase state revenue. I’m not happy with how they are using the money they are getting; based on that, I’ll sacrifice and get my grog in advance.
I subscribed to the AJC in the past, but the leftward slant has gone too far. The rest of the AJC is like reading a DNC handout, or worse. I agree with many of the other comments, AJC has lost touch with its readership, and until you become more Centrist and politically truthful in your articles and opinions, you will continue to lose subscribers.
I hate the circus and was ready to hate this item and think the elephant motif too cute a reference to the republican party mascot.
Instead I ended up seeing a bunch of angles considered: how should frivolous court cases be handled (what’s the liberal vs. conservative take on that?), how does this relate to the animal rights agenda (which goes beyond preventing animal abuse and ultimately aims to terminate all human/animal contact, as it’s considered exploitive). Next thing, I’m looking at the Ringling Bros website (which I assure you I wouldn’t have visited otherwise) and thinking how is this different from Sea World or the GA Aquarium or Zoo Atlanta, and what are the repercussions of this case for such beloved and destinations (that serve to educate and conserve biodiversity)?
Somehow, the author even gets a dig at communist countries. How does democracy compare with communism in the conservation front? Can a conservative care about conservation, is that even allowed? And if he/she did, what would that sound like?
I’m thinking, I’m wondering, I’m looking stuff up. Are editorials supposed to do that to readers?
“Thousands of bodies fill the rafters…” Is this phrased correctly? I’ve heard “full/packed to the rafters” and I’ve heard “raise the rafters” and something about “making the rafters ring” but this thing of bodies up there amid the rafters, gaah, I’m having “Jeepers Creepers” flashbacks.
The “tax your breath” argument seems forced, a way to work Bruce Springsteen into this piece. Plenty of other “tax your carbon footprint” examples would have worked and would have been more scarily realistic (wasn’t someone recently proposing that people be taxed on total mileage?).
I happen to agree with the argument. But can’t say I’d refer someone to this column to bring them around to my way of thinking.
I’ve several more to read but this is the first stimulus column that has the tone I’d expect from a newspaper editorial: calm and sensible, no gimmicks. Conservatives often warn about the dangers of a paternalistic uberstate, and this example nails it. It’s a terrifying concept, really: does the “Rich Dad / Poor Dad” model really track along the various layers of government, and how long until Rich Dad becomes permanently destitute? Will undisciplined citizens go all “Lord of the Flies” on each other when that happens?
I tend to read national news sources, so it was refreshing to get a bit of info on what’s going on at the state level (not all columns do this, just a couple of them?).
This is 2 for 2 for Candidate C. You know how they all said Obama sounded/acted “presidential” all along the way? Well, this candidate is sounding pretty darned “editorial” to me.
I found this column very easy to read (grammar, phrasing, flow, style), but difficult to follow.
If I got this straight, the author is saying that getting $300 is good if it means people pay fewer taxes overall, but in this case it’s bad because the payment keeps counties afloat without forcing them to do any financial streamlining (with ensuing savings benefiting taxpayers, long-term).
So it seems like some kind of monetary musical chairs game where property owners ended up with an extra $300 in their pocket. If that’s the case, the author can’t say the relief only goes to the county (allow me to extract $300 from your pocket and see if you notice). And I agree with the person who disagreed a $300 credit will blind taxpayers to future increases (that was a touch condescending).
I agree with the writer that this is not a permanent improvement or real change, and in that, he/she presents a conservative perspective for smaller government and less state intrusion in county affairs. But it could have been stated more clearly (IMO).
Peeps need to realize there’s such a thing as different audiences and you are supposed to target your writing to the style of the venue vs. just doing your thing. Just like they say “dress for the position you aspire to have” you should also write for the job you want to have. Ranting is cool for “The Vent” and Facebook and your buddy’s blog, but not for an actual writing/editorial job interview… which is what this is.
This columnist-to-be is certainly no one’s coward. Best point here, among many, is that ridicule is not an ACCEPTABLE form of debate.In fact it comes in before patriotism as a last resort. Jeers at an inauguration comes from people educted by television alone and tutored by the internet. Both come back to bite you in a most sensitive area. And yet the media relied on both as primary tools during the past election.SHAME. This writer showed class by avoiding both.
This column is like a 7 year old hitting a hornet’s nest with a stick, with the pretext he’s testing a THEORY (wink!) that the critter’s little wings will stir up a refreshing breeze.
I hate the smell of victimhood in the morning.
“This doesn’t sound like unity to me.” Indeed! How about leading by example?
I want to agree that the discussion on race is polarized and commandeered by extremists whose goal is to pit people against each other in a way that validates their world view (a place where their group is victimized, oppressed, underappreciated).
What he is saying is eminently sensible: that HUMANS don’t like it when others unfairly call them nasty names, undeserved/untruthful names. That some people on both sides have a vested interest in keeping the dialogue polarized, as it causes sensible folks to flee the room in despair and allows them to continue to push their agenda of victimhood. But I am missing the conservative angle to the argument, it’s not sufficiently developed.
“A conservative does not favor regulating the lives of others.” I think you mean libertarian. A conservative would not approve of the use of steroids in sports as it would be unsportsmanlike, would have very little issue whatsoever in making that judgment call, case closed!, and would pick another topic.
“mindlessly”… “friends of Nancy”… “Pelosicrats”… another writer with a credibility issue. One wishes to agree but is so profoundly annoyed by the writer’s verbal tics that one starts speaking as Ms. Manners, while sincerely praying for more formal, civilized language in the local paper.
Well written, mentions Georgia issues a bit. Both of these author’s columns are solid.
BUT: that’s 2 columns on money and the stimulus plan as topics for J. Is the economy the author’s (only) comfort zone? Were deadlines too tight to develop two independent topics?
Only two candidates are sufficiently consistent across both columns quality-wise. That would be C and J. My finalists!
I definitely preferred C’s columns–this candidate will go the distance. Each column had something memorable (elephants as hook (hah!) for other topics; overindulgent dad analogy re: stimulus); each was an original take; each covered both GA and national issues; and the conservative angle was identifiable. The tone was true, author showed good exposition and subtle persuasion without histrionics or condescension, and the pieces read cleanly. Bring on this new talent!
Don’t bother hiring another “conservative” columnist! The bilious people who write nasty things in your comments sections provide sufficient examples of modern “conservatism”. Unlike a paid columnist, their drivel is unconstrained by taste, truth, grammar, syntax, and spelling, and best of all, it’s priced at what it’s worth: nothing.
Don’t pander to disturbed people who cling to old prejudices and the failed politics of the Republican Party. These people don’t need a replacement for Jim Wooten: they need a proctologist and a psychiatrist, in that order!
Question: If the top were taken off Philips after Bruce’s last song, how much carbon dioxide would come whooshing out?
Answer: None, carbon dioxide is heavier than air.
If this was really on the editorial page, the author would have lost my interest after the first three paragraphs. When reading a newspaper – I have minimal time and want a columnist who gets right to his point so I can then decide whether to read further and understand his or her logic.
The writer needs to pay a bit more attention to detail. The error on the EPA not being part of the Executive Branch – detracts from the rest of the column. I assume that the writer was trying to convey the talking point of former Chairman Dingell (a Democrat) and many Republicans that the bureaucrats at EPA, part of the executive branch, are making this decision, and not our elected leaders in the Congress.
To Deanna – if EPA is not part of the Executive Branch – then what Branch is it a part of???
To Hugh – I don’t think that this column had anything to do with is or isn’t climate change real – it clumsily attempted to highlight some of the problems with regulating CO2 emissions. Yes, the “scientific consensus” is that CO2 and other emissions contribute to climate change – but this article has nothing to do with that – it is based on the assumption that that determination has been made and that policy makers from the President to the head of EPA to the Congress are all now trying to figure out what to do about it.
To David Appell – based on your numbers of 1Kg per day per person from breathing, U.S. human emissions account for 2% of total U.S. GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from cars, power plants, and cement production are not 100 times that of human breathing. Globally, those emissions account for 55% of all GHG CO2 equivalents – so it is fairer to say that our car and fossil fuel generated power accounts for up to 25 times our breathing. The rest of the total global emissions are due to other GHG sources. U.S. emissions from breathing represent a 300% increase since 1915! So If we are to fight the global scourge of climate change and evil carbon emissions – we can’t ignore any source, including human breathing.
I see the AJC is pushing hard to continue its mediocrity. Not a single one of these columnists addressed the core issue of the proper role of government or the insidious way in which Obama is changing it.
A real professional would be too much of a threat to Cynthia Tucker.
Really? Do we have to have a “Conservative” columnist? Seriously, anyone who considers themselves “Conservative” is simply using that term in an effort to identify themselves with something which they misguidedly believe will define who they are. Basically, “Conservative” means; Up-tight, pole-up-your-a$$, tightwad, smug, holier-than-thou, hypocritical prig. I’m amazed that anyone would want to align themselves with this image. I guess they can’t see themselves the way we all do. The annoying person never does.
Law Student I think you are right in your comment about your friends.Maybe you can see what this country has done to dumb down Americans. African Americans have been thru hell in this country to even get an education. Books was even band from them.Comming from a different country and different language.I would only hope you see thru the mase, of what they have had to endure over a short time, and be understanding.
This maybe too hard for you.
History explaines it all.
Until America creates a educational system that deals with early development. we will continue to deal with those that need a hand up.
I like the writer’s comments and totally agree. Any time a columnist or author can raise controversy and responses, both pro and con, they’ve done their job. Everyone has opinions and there will never be 100% agreement on any subject. I’m fed up with the government taking away individual rights and sick of the waste (and THEFT!)at all government levels. The thought of increasiing my property taxes by another 60% to offset the deficit gets me FIRED UP! I propose alcohol sales on Sundays and I further propose the taxing of churches and religious organizations as BUSINESSES. That’s exactly what they are. Churches are popping up on every corner….NOT liquor stores. Oh wait….there’s that “thang” about separation of church and state. Apparently the Christian lobbyists only see one side of this. Praise the Lord, Pass the Plate and PAY YOUR TAXES.
This columnist gets total THUMBS UP – HANDS UP on her article and needs to a permanent addition to the AJC!
What none of the columnists seem to want to discuss is the need for this plan to begin with – that the government is the buyer of last resort because it isn’t being done by private individuals or business and, as more jobs are lost, there is even less buying and investing.
I realize that with the size and scope of this plan, there are probably enough sections to aggravate just about everyone about one thing or another. This author talks about “clean coal” and nuclear power. Well, from what I’ve learned, there really isn’t any such thing as clean coal (maybe cleaner than what we have today, but a long way from “clean”) and nuclear energy produces some really nasty byproduct, both unmentioned in the column.
The idea that arguing against the ban is anti-Christian is ridiculous. Allow me to quote one of my favorite Christian writers, C.S. Lewis (this is from the cardinal virtues chapter of Mere Christianity):
“One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons–marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.”
Candidate D: straightforward without adjectival gluttony, stereotyping, or arrogant bias. Candidate makes a good argument that is open for individual thought; in other words, the candidate provokes thought. Good column.
Wouldn’t it be nice if vouchers worked to fix the actual problem of bad education? Switching the students in the bad schools doesn’t fix the problem of there existing a bad school in the first place. Th government should focus on fixing the problem, not avoiding it. We’ve seen too much of that for the last few decades.
I do believe this has been a battle for years and I still stand strong that the Sunday should be kept holy. America was founded on Christian beliefs and slowly but surley they are slipping away. This is another example of one.
Not to blow my own horn, but I read the opinion pages regularly, have strong, and I believe well-grounded opinions and have had several conservative letters printed in the AJC. Does that make me an expert? Heck no, but I think I can comment pretty well on these candidates. I’ve read the articles and Candidate H gets the nod from me, followed by “I”. “D” did well with his first article, but completely lost me with the spouty babble of his Stimulus article. My vote is H.
Candidate E’s first column was the best read, hands down. He writes as though he’s talking to you, not writing an assignment. He avoids the nasty sarcasm and finger-pointing that serves only to move the image of conservatives to that of pouty know-it-alls instead of the thoughtful protectors of our rights that they used to be.
As for the second column on the bailout, I am not as impressed. I still like the tone, and if the assignment was to comment only on some aspect of the bailout, I appreciate the choice of education. Where I am disappointed is in this writer’s failure to research recent developments in Georgia, particularly the metro Atlanta schools with their record of top notch student standings. Increasing class size from k-12 has received the governor’s blessing. In Fulton County alone, that redistribution of students has resulted in over 800 surplussed teachers, and over 400 part-time teachers (myself included) who were informed that we would not be returning next year. I am a high school math teacher, have a masters in education and have received consistently excellent reviews. Candidate E’s comments assume that “fewer” teachers equals keeping only the best. Not so. Seniority is paramount, not ability. I’m in a “critical field” and have no job next year because all part-time personnel are being let go to save money, even though I’ve taught in Georgia 29 years. He/she also assumes that they would be “well-paid”. Not so. No teacher is getting a raise this year. And the part-timers fall under the radar of the unemployed since teachers do not qualify, even if part-time employees are helped by the stimulus package.
Accuracy is important.
Nice job…As a longtime Dire Straits fan, I appreciate the reference to “Money for Nothing.” What an apt title in this era of collosal budget deficits and Fed printing presses cranking out the cash 24/7.
If our mainstream media were not made up of so many liberal sycophants, there would be much more critical coverage of this fantasy-laden budget. Massive government programs or endeavors, once launched, invariably A) take on a life of their own and continue to expand indefinitely; and B) end up costing far more than originally projected. Medicare and Social Security are prime examples.
This column probably should have addressed the frighteningly large unfunded mandates of Medicare and Social Security, which will be in the tens of trillions of dollars, as well as the ever-increasing cost of interest on the national debt, which itself will represent a huge annual expense.
Mention also could have been made of the worldwide nature of the economic meltdown, and how that bodes ill for future U.S. tax revenues due to diminished commerce. If Americans are tapped out, we buy fewer Asian electronics goods and vehicles, meaning people in those countries are hurting, which has a ripple effect on surrounding nations, and so on.
Tackling economic and fiscal issues in a newspaper column is tricky because unfortunately so many people these days are ignorant of economic issues since our schools do a poor job of teaching economics. Overall, a credible job on an important topic.
Candidate E’s first column was the best read, hands down. He writes as though he’s talking to you, not writing an assignment. He avoids the nasty sarcasm and finger-pointing that serves only to move the image of conservatives to that of pouty know-it-alls.
As for the second column on the bailout, I still like the tone, and if the assignment was to comment only on some aspect of the bailout, I appreciate the choice of education. Where I am disappointed is in this writer’s failure to research recent developments in Georgia. Increasing class size, in Fulton County alone, has resulted in over 800 surplussed teachers and released over 400 part-time teachers, regardless of their field or ability. Candidate E assumes that “fewer” teachers equals keeping the best. Not so. He/she also assumes that they would be “well-paid”. But no teacher is getting a raise this year. And the part-timers fall under the radar of the unemployed since teachers do not qualify for unemployment, even if part-time employees are helped by the stimulus package.
This candidate gets my unqualified vote. I especially liked that the article is non-ideological in its approach. Instead, the points are made with facts, citing sources. There is no name-calling, and political-party lines are not drawn in the sand. I am a person who respects many of the fiscal conservative ideals (smaller government,more individual freedom) and many of the social ideals of liberals (equal rights for all, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation). It would be nice to hear intelligent, reasoned opinions such as this one, and it makes me want to hear what he/she will say in other areas. My friends who have cancelled subscriptions say they did it because of “obvious bias,” regardless of which side. Articles like this one would help.
Gregg, one quick note. If you are truly too educated for you Job then I bet someone who appreciates it will take it off your hands. Oh and by the way, do not claim to be educated with a sentence in your post like ‘Let’s switch it, if McCain had want Obama had you would derail Obama and parade McCain as this great orator and thinker.’ Go back to school and learn proper english. Yes ‘Law Student’ is correct if you are a minority you can get in a lot easier because the schools must maintain a certain ratio of minorities. Studies have shown that the person that will find it hardest to get any financial aid or acceptance will be a white male because of the ‘ratio’ government schools are required to maintain.
[A]
(Vouchers)
I agree that steps need to be taken to improve education in Georgia and America. I would have liked to have seen more details instead of article that simply supported a specific piece of legislation. I would have preferred less of -what- to do and more of -why-.
(Stimulus)
I thought that [A] did a better job in addressing the fiscal & political realities of the stimulus bill.
[B]
(Sunday Sales)
I can accept the position of [B] even if the underlying point is celebrating an increase in tax receipts. Personally, I find it concerning to celebrate increased tax collections from Georgians (whether they result from tax increases or taxpayer choice – lottery, alcohol / tobacco taxes, etc).
(Stimulus)
I thought the review of the stimulus package did a very good job of addressing a specific component in reasonable detail instead of attacking scatter-shot with generalizations. I also liked that [B] addressed specifics of the package instead of griping about how partisan it was pushed. that provided specific information instead of regurgitating what we already know.
[C]
(Endangered Species Act) T
he writer did a very good job of highlighting a outside-the-norm story and leading a reader along their identification of problem / risk to their chosen conclusion. The risk is that this is indeed an esoteric topic that would probably not rate high on most reader’s list. It might be better cast as a blog article instead of a column topic.
(Stimulus)
Again, I thought that the article about the stimulus was more direct and understandable to column readers. I really liked how [C] compared a parent-child relationship to federal-state government and connected the risk and long-term damage to habitually “bailing out” those who make bad decisions or entirely abdicate their role to make them.
[D]
(Regulating Carbon)
Again, the writer does a very good job of highlighting the lunacy and fiscal irresponsibility of liberal environmental regulation. However, at the end, I felt like I had simply been told what I already knew with little identified that readers could do to correct it.
(Stimulus)
There is an effectiveness in highlighting absurdity by being absurd. My problem with the column was the 30% was wasted in hyperbole and the remainder was spent presenting why a bad bill, that we all know is bad, was bad.
[E]
(Homeowner Tax Relief)
[E] did a very effective job of addressing what is a current “hot button” issue in Georgia, frame the issue, and comment on it from a consistent conservative position. The writer labeled the players and correctly discussed their motivations even when it served as challenge to leaders of what are (probably) the writer’s party. I say well done.
(Stimulus)
In this column as well, [E] frames a specific component of the stimulus package and addresses mistakes and problems with it. Throughout, choices that would have been solutions are offered giving background and framework. My biggest compliment for [E] is the pattern of discussing issues and policy from the perspective of philosophy and principle. It is, in my opinion, an effective form of persuasion.
[F]
(Clayton County Schools)
I thought that the writer had a much better conclusion than introduction. Unfortunately, I am not sure that most readers would have gotten to the middle where the legitimate issues were raised and addressed. It is obvious that the writer is emotionally connected to this topic and holds a good bit of frustration and anger about it. That passion would have probably served for an effective and powerful introduction, but it seemed misplaced (and overplayed) as the makeup for probably 40% of the column. (Stimulus)
I found the column on the stimulus package to be much more succinct and effective. [F] highlighted the issue, stated the incorrect action by Democratic leaders, and proposed the much-simpler and would-be more successful one. The piece was much better absent the obvious personal connection for the other, but the delivery did not sacrifice passion or conviction. Personally, I liked this one much better than the column about Clayton County.
[G]
(Racial Cowardice)
President Obama’s connections to Alinsky and his use of Alinsky’s tactics in his time as a community organizer are simply fact. That he has learned well those lessons and is executing them in a well-concerted and still-continuing campaign mode of governance cannot be denied. Fowever, attempting to tie the comments of Holder, Reich, Emanuel, and the President as some type of grand conspiracy of intent, it a much farther stretch. In a like manner, if the administration is indeed as orchestrated and insidious as [G] contends, the nation has much more fearsome problems than speeches about race. (Stimulus)
The column addressed a number of problems that arise from the liberal influences of our education system. Many of those problems were highlighted. However, I would have preferred to have seen less emphasis on creating a laundry list of sins and more invested in presenting some solutions to them. It is one thing to rail against a collection of straw men that tend to be easily-targeted, but it entirely another to raise concerns and offer better solutions. Also, outside of a single introductory sentence stating the obvious that stimulus money would be spent on education (much of it probably wasted), it was difficult to see how this column related to the stimulus package or comment on it.
[H]
(Eric Holder)
I thought that candidate [H] presented a unique perspective well even if there never seemed to be the definitive conclusion of whether Holder was right, misguided, or wrong. The column was very on spot in highlighting that conversations of race in America do focus almost entirely on the relationship between Whites and Blacks lacking recognition to many of our other cultural / racial groups who truly should have a part in our national discussion. I honestly liked the perspective better than the column as a whole, but perception and vision are often much more differentiating skills than others like writing and construction which can be developed with practice.
(Stimulus)
This may be the best of the “stimulus” columns that I have read so far . Congratulations to the writer for their unwavering and matter-of-fact defense of conservative ideals of limited government compared versus the most recent historical examples of “liberal” government-expanding administrations (Roosevelt and Carter). In both examples, America had little show for their crushing deficit spending except more debt. Contrasted against the longest period of peacetime economic growth resulting from the policies of the Reagan administration, the writer frames this discussion from his position of greatest strength: history and common sense.
[I]
(Steroids)
I must admit – I did not see an evident conclusion to this column. It was unclear if the writer was excusing the usage of performance-enhancing drugs in athletics, creating a hypothetical inferring that readers (mostly non-athletes) would do it too, or blaming their behavior on human frailty or poor parenting. I was left scratching my head on this one.
(Stimulus)
I did like the verbal metaphor of “using leeches to cure anemia” as a comparison to using higher taxes and out-of-control spending (that impedes economic growth) as the measure to correct a recession. That said, one unique example of mental imagery cannot overcome what was a very limited column. Honestly, it was almost as if the entire column was written as filler around that one good line.
[J]
(Budget Deficit)
I thought that this was a very solid column effectively merging conservative principles and factual / statistical evidence to highlight the fallacy that is the current economic policy of the Obama administration. The writer also did a very effective job of introducing and using a cultural reference for comparison and defense of the premise.
(Stimulus)
Again, this article was a solid comparison between two economic philosophies related to the subject of tax cuts. It explains the ineffectiveness of the Bush administration “stimulus” checks, accurately predicts the upcoming stimulative failure of the Obama administration’s minuscule tax cuts, and defends a much better tax cut option for American business that would actually result in economic stimulus. It was a job well done.
If I were to rank the candidates and identify those from whom I would like to see more work, I would rank my top three as follows: [H] and [J] tied followed closely by [E]. For these three candidates,
I thought they each did well on both columns and their material represented good combinations of principle, facts, and vision.
I wish each of the candidates well and look forward to seeing more of their work in the coming weeks and months.
Focus more on your core message–the stimulus bill is all about reshaping America, not re-starting the economy. Your Rahm Emmanuel quote is the center piece, with your point about Pelosi/Reid showing how it was accomplished by bulling it through without debate, etc.
The quote from Morgenthau was excellent; just leave it at that. The examples of Carter & Reagan illustrate your main thesis, which should have been stated more strongly up front.
This writer is as sound and strong as Cynthia Tucker, only in the opposite political view. Since this is a contest for a conservative writer, this one gets my vote for topic and depth.I’d like to read more from this writer.
Paints a good picture but takes a while to get to the point. Global warming is an old and safe topic. I’d like to read more about the drive behind non-conservative movements. good try, though.
ugh…we start with failing schools and relate it to mortgage bailout. Should the writer know more about his topic? I graduated from a PRIVATE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE that was totally run on gov’t criteria to keep the gov’t subsidizing (yes private schools get it to a point) and keep the gov’t criteria for curriculum and graduation.
What is a private school or voucher opportunity? It wasn’t defined,really.
Is spending $5,000. a child plus my tax money already going to all types of schools the answer?
why are we reinventing the wheel by justifying more gov’t $ OR YOUR TAX Dollars for schools? Not very conservative opinion or research evident in this article.
The old model 30 yrs ago in public schools incl PE every year, and electives such as band, chorus, orchestra, typing, drivers ed, home economics,etc. My school friends and I went to community colleges, state colleges, private colleges, and out of state colleges. Graduated in 4 yrs and became productive citizens. I’ve met them at reunions.
A true conservative would research and write about when and how educ k-12 worked without pre-k, with elective elimination, without so much gov’t control.
Let’s re-write this article or delete the column…sorry
With a conservative on your staff, maybe we can use the Atlanta Journal for something besides fish wrappers. But I expect all the columnists are beholden to the owners and the editors idealogy.
This writer has shown that he or she is powerful – due to the fact that this column actually WAS able to generate debate. It’s not as easy as it sounds to spark a relatively “healthy” conversation about race — Good job, Candidate G.
I’ve read the articles and Candidate H gets the nod from me, followed by “I”. “D” did well with his first article, but completely lost me with the spouty babble of his Stimulus article. My vote is H.
Top Ten Beliefs Needed by Wooten’s Replacement:
10. Blind obedience to GA Republican Party
9. Strong belief that Trent Lott was right
8. Visceral dislike for Atlanta
7. No money for MARTA, pave four lane road in South Ty ty
6. Repeal GA corporate income tax, I’ll get a pay raise
5. Abolish social security, Georgians will save for retirement
4. Fossils are made in the devil’s workshop
3. Do we really need public education
2. I don’t care what happens to you
1. Pettiness will get you an AJC column.
Um – Robert Reich – you DID say that you wanted the construction jobs to go to the long-term unemployed, construction workers, women – people who are not necessarily construction workers. These are the people you want building the bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus package – right? It doesn’t have to be real, experienced construction workers who have lost jobs in this economy. You said that these other people have “needs” and they can be “trained” to do the job. Tell me – do you think that’s also true about auto workers? Are you going to train needy people to build the cars in the bailout?
In case you’ve forgotten – here’s the link to the YouTube video of your remarks –
Compared to the other nine, “Candidate B” is the best. There’s no way the entire stimulus package can be covered in one small op-ed, so “B” focused on one aspect. I disagree with the stance taken (having 10% of our energy needs shifted to wind and solar would be a HUGE benefit to us), but at least this is an honest argument not bogged down in personal politics.
As near as I can tell, “Candidate B” is the only conservative in the lot. The other nine are just GOP shills. Not the same thing. I also like it that “Candidate B” chose a local topic that actually impacts my life.
This was an excellent written article. Candidate showed a vast knowledge of his subject. It showed he had researched it well. This was by far the best candidate. Hire Him!! You need him.
Ok, but what was World War II but a big employment program for young people financed through government deficit spending? Why can’t we do that with bridges?
The New Deal didn’t completely alleviate the Depression because FDR balanced the budget in 1936, and the economy crashed again in 1937. It seems like deficit spending and government employment programs really can get you out of a Depression, at least if you want to invoke history….
This aren’t points, though. You could read at least the Wikipedia article on it first, before ranting about Keynesianism.
Keynes would argue, in fact, that we’re in a deflationary spiral, because of excessive saving in anticipation for hard times (business, for instance, not spending all their cash-on-hand, firing people, anticipating negative earnings), and that we need to expand the monetary supply, specifically to encourage economic demand in the form of job growth through government deficit spending.
This columnist makes two “points”: First, the assertion without warrant that most of the stimulus is corporate welfare. I don’t think that’s true by any stretch of the imagination, but the author doesn’t explain how it might be, so I’m not sure how to take it. Most of the stimulus goes to: Expanding entitlements (food stamps, etc.), aid to states to make up for budget shortfalls (so they don’t have to fire state workers), building projects, and a tax cut that’s not all one lump sum, so that consumers might spend it instead of depositing a check from the government in the bank. I’m not sure how any of that relates to corporate welfare, but if it did, the government is paying for work to get done, which “trickles down” (if you want to play around with terms outside of any meaning, apparently ironically or not) to the people, uh, hired to do that work. Or else, it’s just a handout of money or a service to someone, which, it turns out, leads to increased consumer spending.
The second point, that the stimulus can’t succeed if it doesn’t lower the cost of doing business, is also unwarranted, and belies whatever criticism is implicit in using the phrase “trickle down” regarding the stimulus itself. (Is that what conservatism largely aspires to today? Cutesy term-twisting, sophistry, instead of ideas and ponts?) Additionally, if you’re going to blame Democrats for arguing Keynesianism, at least acknowledge that in their framework, “lowering cost” for business would not encourage investment — it would just be another form of monetary inflation, as businesses banked that money waiting for the economy to get better, which it never would if somebody (Democrats would argue the big bad federal government) sticks their money out and spends it.
Also, I’ll point out that Maxims are usually a sentence or two long, and are succinct, witty commentary, not paragraphs of nonsense.
I dunno, Maybe “Candidate I” is what conservatives and the AJC wants: Someone Democrats like me will look at to watch with disgust the slackjawed descent of the well-constructed phase and insightful editorial. It’s like printing a car wreck, honestly; conservative win because it offends me, a liberal, at some visceral level, and the AJC because I might click on it once or twice just to see how bad it is.
This columnist starts with a false statement so what is the point of listening to them. The SPCA is against the treatment of the elephants. The animals are chained for long periods of time in an unhealthy manner. The Circus is violating treatment rules in place. They are breaking a law that has nothing to do with endangered species. The conclusion is the columnist is not well versed or paying attention to what goes on.
It is true however that hunters and others should be given credit for providing animal habitats that benefit more than the animals the hunters want. Why are there any tigers in India in the first place? Maharajahs wanted to hunt. Duck, quail and other birds have had habitats preserved by hunters.
This has nothing to do with leaving an elephant chained for 24 hours unable to move anywhere. Do we have to have elephants in circuses? No elephant parks would be just a profitable and popular. Cirque du Soleil has not animals and is great.
On the topic of their choice, candidates C & G did the best job of presenting their opinions in an organized way. Addressing the stimulus bill, only candidates F, H and I stayed on topic with F & H offering the best presentation.
I tried to judge not on what I agreed or disagreed with but on style and organization. Didn’t identify a candidate who did both well on both topics.
The columnist, unfortunately, has his or her facts wrong. The columnist writes that the stimulus lacked “any funding for ‘clean coal’” — in fact, it included $3.4 billion for fossil fuel R&D, much of which is expected to be used to finance “clean coal” projects. I would hope the AJC is interested in picking a columnist who respects facts.
I don’t really care who you pick as a right-wing columnist. Most of your editorial page is right-wing. When are you going to select a liberal/progressive columnist? Then I might resubscribe to your paper.
How many of you want to meet somewhere and have an honest face to face about race? After the discussion let’s decide what we are going to do about what the issue we have with the other race. I will find a a venue. Will you come? I really want the angry people to come because this can be ground breaking for Atlanta.
Candidate C’s cogent response addresses serious, specific concern for Georgians, but also illustrates the dangers of the stimulus package for all Americans. The apt reference to “The Millionaire Next Door” should be required reading for every politician, local and national. Apparently our politicians only read fiction. Perhaps Candidate C, if selected, can change this trend.
No comments Add your comment
Clay
February 26th, 2009
8:02 am
Whoever wrote this doesn’t understand the point of the column. This is a left-wing column that this paper has too much of now. I hope the AJC does not hire this person!
Report this comment
gigi
February 26th, 2009
8:07 am
Awesome
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
8:18 am
I would think that a true conservative would recognize by now that the mechanism for funding schools is inherently socialist and this type of voucher program does nothing to change that. Additionally, I would have thought that a true conservative would also have realized by now that no government money comes without strings attached. Once this money is in the hands of private schools, there will be demands from many on both sides of the aisle demanding “accountability” or religious tollerance, or open adminssions, or whatever the cause of the day might be. There will be little for these private schools to do except bow to the demands as they will no longer be able to competitively reject the tainted funds.
Yes, the government schools are predictably not delivering on their utopian promise, but burdening the private sector with more government regulations and bureaucratic red tape will only serve to undermine these schools. A complete separation of government from the educational process, while being politically challenging to promote, would ultimately achieve results consistent with conservative philosophy and the goal of actually improving educational opportunities for all.
A true conservative should know better.
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
8:36 am
A supposedly conservative voice extolling the virtues of taxation to make his/her case. This seems to be typical of the kind of conservative voice the AJC would approve of.
There is certainly a case to be made for freedom, but conservatives these days are not known for their support of freedom. They rail against big government, but fail to realize that the freedom is inversely proportional to the size and scope of government. It can be no other way.
The author attempts to portray the republican party as having “Jeffersonian” roots, but the opposite is true. The republican party most definitively traces its roots back through Lincoln, Clay, and ultimately to Hamilton. The common denominator among all of these was their belief in big, strong government and their use of the government as a mechanism for transferring wealth and power to their friends in business at the expense of freedom and liberty. The Democratic party is actually the descendents of the party of Jefferson, though the incarnation they have become since the end of the 1800’s and especially the progressive era of the early 1900’s is so contrary to Jefferson’s ideals of small restrictive government and expansive personal freedom that they have no right making claim to “Jeffersonian” heritage either.
Government is the problem. True conservatives understand that. Alcohol sales should be legal on Sunday, just as they should be legal in supermarkets, convenience stores, or any other retail outlet. The current government protected monopoly on imports, distribution, and sales is just another example of big government control that true conservatives should be opposed to. Supporting sunday alcohol sales on the basis of further funding the oppressive state is anything but a conservative position on the subject.
Report this comment
ktmac
February 26th, 2009
8:44 am
I am not conservative, more like independant, but like to hear to all views. I read E, G, H, and J columns randomly. I thought H was the best most thought provoking, in terms of real discussion and dialogue. They showed their point of view with much to back it up. G seems to me to be neo-conservative, if that’s what your after. Lots of emotion and words that will turn readers off. Maybe if i have time later, I’ll read some more….. Good Luck!
Report this comment
Kevin
February 26th, 2009
8:55 am
Sorry, Clay, but this column is more libertarian than left. The outdated law banning Sunday sales is a joke, as are any “faith based” arguments against it. Can you see any similarity to this law and the imposition of Islamic Law upon folks in far away places? They both have their basis in religion. I thought we were above all that here in the U.S., but apparently not. No one is suggesting that we legalize murder or theft, nor are we mandating that you buy alcohol at any time.
Why not let the people decide? Are you afraid of the democratic process?
Please hire this writer, as they can see issues clearly.
Report this comment
Kevin
February 26th, 2009
9:05 am
Agreed. Good commentary. I only wish the General Assembly would spend as much time on state issues as they do tampering with local ones. If they are so smart, why is the state in such a mess? Can you imagine how bad things would be if they had been successful in eliminating the car tag tax and refunding surplus funds, as they attempted to do in the last session?
The next boondoggle – SB31 and their sweetheart deal on the Georgia Power nuclear plant.
Report this comment
Denise D
February 26th, 2009
9:11 am
Sounds like the typical Republican party-line of “Connect the dots so that Republicans win and America doesn’t.” No new ideas—just stuck in Republican fantasyland.
Report this comment
lovelyliz
February 26th, 2009
9:12 am
Dangerous this one is. Sounds like a real conservative
Report this comment
T-Man
February 26th, 2009
9:12 am
You need to watch Family Matters a little closer. Steve’s last name is spelled Urkel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fyi.
Report this comment
Denise D
February 26th, 2009
9:17 am
Definitely a libertarian masquerading as a Republican. Not left, not right, but could appeal to both. More Patrick Henry than Thomas Jefferson.
Report this comment
Dennis Billew
February 26th, 2009
9:18 am
My sense from these two articles: Can’t trust G’s words. (Public schools spend $10,500. Private school tuition is $6,000.) I prefer private schools and I am in favor of vouchers, but what a parent pays in addition to tuition is significant and can easily approach five figures. This is the kind of fact and statistic minipulation thing that Bookman does so often. We don’t need that kind of dishonesty coming from the only conservative guy in the AJC.
Report this comment
Vernon Brown
February 26th, 2009
9:22 am
Do you really think having one conservative columnist is going to change the AJC? You must be living a fairy land! As circulation and advertising continue to decrease, one conservative columnist isn’t going to save the AJC considering that Atlanta metro is a conservative area. Who wants to continue to read Tucker and Bookman? Obviously, fewer and fewer people.
Report this comment
Denise D
February 26th, 2009
9:27 am
Weighs real pros and cons (egghead in a good way), coming up with a Republican conclusion—-How can we take away the elephants from the people who want to see them? Ah…I can hear the tugging of all the Republican heartstrings.
Report this comment
Jan
February 26th, 2009
9:29 am
From a lobbyist friend, I have long understood the “ban” on Sunday sales to be desired by the package store owners, not the churches. The package store owners would not have an increase in sales high enough to cover overhead costs. (whether this is true long term or just initially as the public grew accustomed to Sunday sales, I don’t know) Grocery stores, etc would not have the same increase in O/H as they are already open on Sunday.
Report this comment
Bill
February 26th, 2009
9:30 am
Very well said. I did not previously hear the statement by Robert Reich, and as a long time laborer, contstruction worker, am totally disgusted. No longer being able to find work because I actually am a resident/native doesn’t sit well either. It’s time for change in this country, but this isn’t it.
Report this comment
JamC
February 26th, 2009
9:31 am
I agree with the writer that education problems (and we have serious problems in Georgia) should be addressed at the state and local level, not by the federal government. The writer makes a good, but not necessarily compelling case for vouchers. I would have liked to have seen more about the studies he/she refers to. I do support the concept of vouchers, but the writer implies that they’ll do the most good in poorer, urban areas, where there is often a lack of interest by parents in education, so I have my doubts if many people would take full advantage of vouchers.
Overall, not a bad column, but not as good as it could have been.
Report this comment
Denise D
February 26th, 2009
9:36 am
A real egghead who understands more about carbon emissions than I ever could, and he/she is able to make a projected bad future all Obama’s fault! Not sure everyone can follow the intellectualism but a great Republican save on the end.
Report this comment
Chuck
February 26th, 2009
9:38 am
Candidate A was just boring. There was no fire there, nothing to cause me to WANT to read further.
Candidate B was okay, better than A but still not Wooten-like.
Candidate C was really good. He showed some great insight, was thought-provoking, and he did a good job of framing the issues from a conservative point of view.
Candidate D was pretty good also. He could have used a little editing (see “Whoa there, Cowboy), but overall did a good job of expressing conservative view in an interesting way.
Candidate E did a great job on his first column on the tax relief grants. It was one of the better columns that I read. The second column on the stimulus was well thought out and accurate, but a little boring.
Candidate F was a little simplistic. That may make it easier for the democrats to understand him, but it didn’t do much for me.
Candidate G is just not a very good writer. I hate one sentence paragraphs and the over use of commas.
Candidate H is an excellent writer. I thouroughly enjoyed reading both of his columns.
Candidate I was nothing special. The first column on steroids was better than the second one. I probably would not read him on a regular basis.
Candidate J was again, just not much of a writer. His columns were not very interesting. I couldn’t even finish the first one.
If I had to pick a “top 3″ I would place Candidate H as the best of the 3 followed closely by Candidate C. After that, Candidate D.
Report this comment
Denise D
February 26th, 2009
9:41 am
Lurking in this structured, job-interview column is an opinionated columnist itching to break out.
Report this comment
JamC
February 26th, 2009
9:43 am
I liked the part about supporting limited government and individual liberties, that’s really what this issue is about and what conservatism is about. While I don’t drink alcohol, I do think that alcohol sales on Sunday should have been approved decades ago when the old Sunday blue laws were ereased. The writer makes this case pretty well, although I think it’s a reach to push Sunday sales as a way to increase tax revenues.
Overall, a pretty good column.
Report this comment
Fredrick Robinson
February 26th, 2009
9:49 am
Nothing fresh or new about this perspective. A rehash of the same old stale arguments of yesteryear.
Report this comment
JamC
February 26th, 2009
9:52 am
I don’t know if the writer was specifically assigned to write about the federal trial against the circus. If so, fine, but if the topic was the ESA, the real issue that should concern conservatives is the federal government’s zealousness about protecting endangered species to the point where they interfere with property owners’ rights to use their land as they see fit. The decision in the circus trial could be a landmark decision that will radically affect circuses and zoos, but the much bigger issue is how far should the federal government be allowed to go to protect animals. There has to be a sensible middle ground, but the zealots who call the shots in Washington don’t seem to understand the word “compromise.”
Overall, a well-written column, but for me, the focus was a bit off the mark.
Report this comment
SaveOurRepublic
February 26th, 2009
9:55 am
Good/accurate commentary!
Report this comment
Fredrick Robinson
February 26th, 2009
9:55 am
Enter your comments here
Report this comment
Kelvin
February 26th, 2009
9:59 am
Sounds like your winner right here! This Jim Wooten wannabe hits upon all things the modern conservative movement, especially the Southern following, is based upon — the black man is a bit too uppity, progressing too much and taking an undeserved job or one he or she is not allegedly qualified for.
These were Eric Holder’s word, rightly or wrongly, and he placed it within the context of Black History and black history month alone. And we are cowards when it comes to such.
Conservative commentators have, of course, wanted to extend his meaning to all facets of American society and infer that these are the words of Obama. This is exploitation politics, something Wooten trafficked in while making the single black mother the bogeyman over and over again in his columns during the last eight years while Bush and his Republican cronies, contractors and buddies were getting rich off the public trough and bringing this country to its knees. (Speaking of, funny, I never hear conservative commentators mention how underqualified Bush and his appointees were. Your Average Joe did a quite underaverage job! And the same mental midgets wanted to put Sarah “Bush in a skirt” Palin in the White House to take his place? Wow!)
Therefore, I predict this guy in a landslide. He pushed all the right buttons that so-called “conservatives” around Atlanta love to hear. He’s Wooten redux. And like W. and getting a rerun of him, that will be an awful thing.
Report this comment
Josh Taylor
February 26th, 2009
9:59 am
A nice turn of the phrase ‘ “Regulating carbon is like trying to keep a head-count of the earth’s bacteria.” and the author helps us understand that there are a lot of bad unintended consequences from current efforts … and I like that the author is helping educate rather than just blasting the Obama plan .
Report this comment
JamC
February 26th, 2009
10:00 am
An excellent column, although I think the writer got a bit off-track with the biofuel discussion. Biofuel are such a major topic that a column (or many columns) could be written about them, so I think the writer should have stuck strictly to carbon emissions and not dilute the thrust of his/her argument. The writer did make a very good case for the absurdity of regulating carbon.
Report this comment
Fredrick Robinson
February 26th, 2009
10:02 am
Almost! Unfortunately, the space the writer used to gratuitously slam the bailout could have and should have been put to better use bolstering his or her argument for school vouchers. This was a competent but less-than compelling column. I’d like to see more rigorous thought; there was nothing especially forward-thinking about this piece.
Report this comment
Josh Taylor
February 26th, 2009
10:03 am
A column that presents good insights ( why can’t the news columns do more of this !!!) , and I hope the legislators are reading it as well . Again, the author is helping educate the reader … a better way to persuade than simplistic advocacy.
Report this comment
JamC
February 26th, 2009
10:04 am
An excellent column, perhaps the best of the five published in the Thursday AJC. The writer did a nice job of explaining what the “tax relief” grants really are and why the state should stay out of this and let the local governments determine taxes and be accountable to their citizens.
Report this comment
Tsvet
February 26th, 2009
10:10 am
A good point is raised here. The fundamental problem about still having the ban is more a political problemt than moral problem. As we all know, Prohibition was supported not only by the legislators but by contrabandists too because, after all, restriction guaranteed premium profits.
The revenue problem raised here is an important one – imagine, the additional revenue raised from increased alcohol sales will not only help with Georgia’s budget deficit, but perhaps it may ease income tax or property tax as the two main ways of collecting revenue.
If Georgia allows alcohol sales on Sundays that will not violate the right of those against Sunday drinking, as they will still be free to do so, and will not violate the right of those who would like to have a drink or too.
A good question is raised here and I think that the debate will be open and civilised, because Georgia’s budget stability depends on little decisions just like this one.
Report this comment
Josh Taylor
February 26th, 2009
10:10 am
Author would do better to promote conservative ideas that work ( charter schools , charter systems , , replacing poor teachers and principals , use of true national testing standards in place of watered down state standards…. is that enough ? ) in stead of promoting a plan that will weaken public education .
Report this comment
Kurt
February 26th, 2009
10:14 am
What a strange essay for someone vying for a conservative columnist position.
Report this comment
Josh T
February 26th, 2009
10:14 am
Why not a libertarian ? .. but maybe one is enough
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
10:15 am
My compliments to the author. This is finally a truly conservative argument that I can get behind. Nice to finally read the writings of someone who realizes that all politicians will do whatever to cover their backsides and to provide cover for each other. Our founders realized that the most accountable government was local and attempted to forge a government that would enforce that. Great job. I hope that your committment to small government principles can stand up to the pressures to cave to republican party loayalty that derail so many other so-called conservatives.
Report this comment
Josh T
February 26th, 2009
10:16 am
Topic is not one that is top of my list … agree with JamC
Report this comment
Fredrick Robinson
February 26th, 2009
10:17 am
Here we go again. The writer wrote: “Who can blame them? No sane person would take credit for this mess.” Is this not talk radio trying to creep into print? I’d love to see a conservative columnist become a voice of reason rather than another reactionary critic. There are some serious flaws in the stimulus bill, but no writer is believable to me who doesn’t acknowledge the fact that our current problems are so big that government’s help is necessary and that the reason we’re in the mess is in part due to Republican’s being sleep at the wheel. Yes, challenge the current administration, but do it in context.
Report this comment
American First
February 26th, 2009
10:35 am
Candidate G is absolutely right.
Report this comment
Eleanor Rigby
February 26th, 2009
10:38 am
Don’t forget about a Secretary of Treasury that is a liar and cheat.
Excellent article.
Report this comment
Allison
February 26th, 2009
10:38 am
Right on! These subsidies are yet another example of non-stimulus items clogging up the “stimulus” bill.
Report this comment
Allison
February 26th, 2009
10:43 am
I’m glad to see someone address this issue. The ban has to go.
This paragraph sums it up nicely:
“I think I speak for many Georgians when I say that it is puzzling why our elected officials would continue to restrict the actions of consenting adults engaged in a legal endeavor on one day of the week. Just as I respect the choice of the individuals who would not purchase alcoholic beverages on Sunday, I expect them to not interfere with my choice to purchase any legal product whenever I choose.”
The government has no right to restrict consenting adults in purchasing a legal product! Thus the conservative position is against the ban. We’re supposed to like limited governemnt, remember?
Report this comment
Barbara
February 26th, 2009
10:47 am
Excellent points and so well-written. This is your person!
Report this comment
CAM
February 26th, 2009
10:48 am
Aside from all moral arguements on whether folks should be able to purchase alcohol from the store on Sunday or not, the fact still remains that you can go to the restaurant and purchase as much alcohol as you like and drink it there. It defys all logic to me that we randomly select one day out of the week where we require those who want to pick up something to drink to drive somewhere, consume it on premisis, and figure out a way to get home which is where they wanted to have the drink in the first place.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
10:57 am
Agree this is competently written. Would like more specifics, like real-life examples of children in the state who have no way out. Without examples, some of this commentary is supposition, bordering on straw-man tendencies.
Report this comment
Jeffrey Filice
February 26th, 2009
11:05 am
It is very obvious that the ban on alcohol sales on sunday is directly connected to the ideals of southern christians. To continue to enforce the ideals of southern christians on the tax paying citizens of Georgia is a crime. Pass SB 16 and let the communities vote and the majority in that community decide their laws on alcohol sales.
As far as this columnist, I agree with the point, and recommned this person for the job. Very well written
Report this comment
Whitney
February 26th, 2009
11:08 am
Can you imagine if the recession continues and energy costs are driven up!? Families will have to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. I thought Obama’s environmental agenda would be tabled due to the economic crisis – thanks for pointing out that we need to remain vigilant!
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
11:08 am
This is libertarian. It doesn’t shed any new light on the subject, or have a unique perspective. I’m a moderate to liberal, and would like to comment on how the writer puts forth ideas, not merely disagree with conservative views. The writer sort of lost me here:
“We already have one gubernatorial candidate coming out to pander to the minority of the population who still want to force their views of morality on the rest of us. A word of advice: that may serve you well in the primary, but probably won’t speak to the electorate at large, much less the almost 70 percent of Georgians who support repealing this law.”
I’m pretty aware of state politics, but I have no idea who the writer is talking about.
Report this comment
LAW
February 26th, 2009
11:08 am
The best point was made when the author wrote: “Legislators would scoff at the idea of restricting sales on a Saturday out of respect to the Sabbath of Seventh Day Adventists, yet Sundays remain off-limits. Perhaps we should respect an individual’s right to engage in free commerce every day of the week, while allowing them to choose how they celebrate their sacrosanct days.”
I’ve never understood why Georgia refuses to sell alcohol on Sundays. The croonies in the General Assembly & our govenor need to listen to the 70% who support the appeal.
Report this comment
Jamie
February 26th, 2009
11:09 am
I think you are a bit off on your views of wind and solar power. In as much as I am not an Obama supporter, his dedication to “clean” energy should be supported. As for your facts on wind energy, you might want to speak with some experts before discounting it as a possible alternative to what we currently use. I know of a pretty good one out in Salt Lake City, Utah who would love to speak to you about this.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
11:14 am
Also agree with JamC. Also, writer should have specified the court case in the opening paragraph. As is, this is some vague federal court case I’m unaware of.
Report this comment
Ashley
February 26th, 2009
11:21 am
i think it is every persons “right” to choose or not to choose to drink a legal product on sunday.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
11:27 am
I probably would have stopped reading here:
“That’s the EPA — not the executive branch.” What’s this saying? EPA is in the executive branch.
Some phrases are turned well, others are clunky, “heaving heavy air” “look through the looking glass”
Article doesn’t make a convincing case that the EPA is getting ready to regulate this matter. Writer contradicts his/her own purpose on taking EPA to task with this: “As unsettling as the EPA’s regulations seem, they’re somewhat irrelevant. A congressional cap-and-trade plan will likely supplant them — but brings the same toxic slurry of problems.”
Huh?
Report this comment
Fredrick Robinson
February 26th, 2009
11:38 am
I disagree with Kurt. A conservative can honestly believe we’re cowards when it comes to race, however, this writer managed to write 500 words and never make a strong point about why he or she agrees with Holder. A good writer doesn’t necessarily beat the reader into agreement, but he or she should make the reader think. In that regard, this essay fails miserably.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
11:40 am
This column makes some good conservative points. It comes from a principled writer and treats the taxation issue with a fresh perspective.
I like the part about “buying homeowners’ indifference to other tax hikes.”
Also like,
“What county commissioner, city council or school board member wouldn’t want that kind of immunity from public criticism?”
Nice finish:
“Here’s a hint: Real tax relief makes government more economical and accountable, not less.”
These kinds of cogently expressed sentences make the liberal in me sit up and think. He/she would be a worrisome addition to your pages.
Report this comment
Daniel Jessee
February 26th, 2009
11:41 am
The benefit of regulating carbon is not to promote unproven science but to remove all doubt of highly-likely negative impacts from human activities. There are many times more scientific, scholarly studies that have found some level of environmental degradation as a result of human carbon pollution than those that dispute it. Therefore it’s reasonable to make sure that it’s not our fault by cutting these harmful emissions to a safe level.
Not to mention you totally forgot to mention Massachusetts v. EPA which, under the republican chosen ideals of Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the EPA was required by law to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Report this comment
Mike
February 26th, 2009
11:45 am
I actually think it would be novel to have a pundit who is not “conservative” or “liberal” and not hewing to partisan lines.
How about hiring a conservative to replace Wooten, hiring a non-partisan and keeping only one liberal from the group of Tucker, Bookman, Luckovich and Downey?
Report this comment
Steve
February 26th, 2009
11:47 am
This column raises some really good points….i like where this argument is headed.
Report this comment
Fredrick Robinson
February 26th, 2009
11:48 am
You got to be kidding me with this: “Just the big bursting corpuscles of a bill so bloated with blubber that the only thing it’ll stimulate is the layer of lard lapping the belt-loops of liberal lobbyists.”
Talking about bloated. Over-writing is a poor substitute for substance.
Report this comment
RealityKing
February 26th, 2009
11:55 am
Choose one!? The AJC needs all 10!!! America certainly isn’t going to miss 9 less clueless liberal in today’s media.
Report this comment
Emily
February 26th, 2009
12:00 pm
I liked the commentary as it focuses on the Energy Issues that seems to me to not have received much attention by other conservative commentators.
How scary our future may be!
Report this comment
Charles Slaughter
February 26th, 2009
12:01 pm
I think that all of them equally qualified as conservatives. They all seem to share the same worn out ideals and fantasies. All seem to think that despising government is a virtue. All hold firm to the belief that wealth will trickle down from the fat cats to the working class like crumbs falling from a rich man’s table. I did find that that some were more out of touch than others, but all were satisfactorily delusional. Any one of them could spout right wing talking points like a parrot with a caffeine buzz. Bravo!, a fine representation of the wing nut minority.
Report this comment
chanda
February 26th, 2009
12:06 pm
Unfortunately, this writer’s point of view will get people riled, so I am sure that AJC will hire him, just to get more paper sales.
How did the issue of race as purported by Eric Holder, get from him talking to his employees to being subscribed to Obama to minority set asides. People forget that the majority of minority set asides go to white women, so let that falacy die. Trying to make connections is the WORST of this writer, almost like a teen using “like, uhm, and ya know”.
Better writing skills are necessary to be an editor, not just that you can cause more devisiveness.
Poor marks for this candidate.
Report this comment
RealityKing
February 26th, 2009
12:07 pm
I like this one.., only liberals argue with numbers.
Report this comment
chanda
February 26th, 2009
12:07 pm
Too many metaphors. Please write and edit accordingly. Find a side and stick with it.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
12:12 pm
It isn’t necessarily a conservative viewpoint to critisize the Clayton County School Board. Liberalism didn’t make this board dysfunctional. Even so, the writer makes some good points. The opening paragraph, however, comes out strongly in favor of hiring a second attorney, but the writer kind of left it at that. Didn’t see the relation here to the rest of the column.
Report this comment
RealityKing
February 26th, 2009
12:13 pm
Funny how the AJC editorial board finds themselves in need of help when it comes to distinguishing between conservatives. Obviously further proof that diversified opinions are not high on the AJC’s progressive agenda..
Report this comment
Gerald
February 26th, 2009
12:13 pm
This article is absolutely on point.Since this is simply a matter of
Separation of Church and State.This is true be it viewed as Partisan or
Bi-partisan,Extreme Left or Extreme Right.Anyone who is opposed to Sunday Sale of Alcoholic Beverages(Legally Manufactured and taxed),cannot agree with Separation of Church and state.
separation
Report this comment
chanda
February 26th, 2009
12:15 pm
Good choice of topic. Vouchers is another way to say government welfare. Anytime the government is involved you get strings attached that never end. Those wonderful private schools will be forced to take kids who have vouchers, and we will finally see that private school is not all that it is cracked up to be. As far as vouchers going to poorer,rural areas, how will these families get to the nearest private school, as none are in poorer areas of towns?
Good try at supporting what is another Republican ploy to divide and conquer.
Report this comment
Michael Watson
February 26th, 2009
12:15 pm
The article apparently was written by a passionate,eloquent person who did hit the nail on the head about the Jeffersonian roots of Small gov’t. She did not imply that Jefferson was a precursor to the republican party of today. They simply made a gesture that he was partially republican. I would have went the other way on this issue but the writer convinced me that liquor should be sold 7 days a week and it is up to us to decide whether or not we will buy it and what day we will buy it on. Well done!
Report this comment
Windmill hater
February 26th, 2009
12:19 pm
I’m not interested in what a shill from a windmill company wants me to hear. You cannot deny the fact that wind energy is neither reliable nor efficient. We as taxpayers should not be forced to pay their outrageous salaries through gov’t subsidies bc it is a pet project of the Obama administration. And the industry should be forced to survive in the free market like every other company.
Report this comment
One Man's View
February 26th, 2009
12:20 pm
Not one columnist discussed the mindset of how we got where we are. Not one comment on the Repub mindset that whatever the rich do is good for our economy. Not one commnet on the sheer criminality of selling credit default swaps with no backing. Nothing on securitizing sub-prime and no-interest loans. In short fat cat CEOs on Wall St and in banks have driven our economy into the ground and the Dems are left to pick up the pieces. Now so-called conservatives get all saintly over spending to try and fix the situation, ignoring of course the stupendous deficits under GW for no good reason: tax cuts for rich and dropping bombs on backward people. Every candidate fails the test to see beyond their ideological noses. Maybe the AJC should ask for intelligent commentary instead of the Wooten kind. I can go to any truck stop and get Wooten analysis anyday without even buying a newspaper.
Report this comment
chanda
February 26th, 2009
12:24 pm
This is not a conservative view- conservatives want to keep the ban. Good essay, wrong argument.
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
12:28 pm
I agree with the comments that this should really be about animal abuse and not endangered specias. Personally I would very much like to see Ringling Bros. and all animal act circuses go out of business, but I would prefer that the market develope a greater respoect for these animals and boycott the circuses until such time as they wake up and leave the animals alone.
That having been said, the issue of property rights is clearly the more important topic when discussing the endangered species act or any similar law around the world. Property is the basis of all rights. If one is not the owner of one’s property or person then that privaledge belongs to the state. The supposed greatness of western culture was once its protection of property and individual rights, yet in today’s society property rights are little more than words on discarded paper. “Public accomodation” laws, property taxes, eminent domain laws, the endangered species act, wetlands protection laws and the like have all rendered property ownership a facade. Laws against commerce, drugs, prostitution, gambling, alcohol consumption and the like have rendered personal freedom mute as well.
In foreign countries the lack of property rights lies at the heart of not only the diminishment of species, but the deplorable economic conditions that plague so many. If one cannot be secure in their property, then there is no encouragement for investment, improvment, or even protection of the natural resources such as animals and plants. Even water quality is diminished when governments and not private land owners are in charge of use decisions.
The typical problem with republicans and most conservatives is in their inability to effectively communicate the essential ties between property and individual rights and liberty and prosperity. Too often they are plagued by their own lack of respect for one or the other in the interest of serving their own political agenda.
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
12:41 pm
It’s a very well written and grammatically correct version of the conservative view, but doesn’t hit on the true topic of racial cowardice that is entrenched in the conservative rhetoric. For example, many of the higher, midlevel and management positions today, in government and private sector are still occupied by Caucasians. Many contracts continue to be handed over to well-connected family business in cities and states all over this country.
If conservatives really want to talk about racial injustices they should consider the criminal injustices that are rampant in this country. I bet Eric Holder can give you an earful regarding that topic. In the business sector, people who live in areas deemed low income or have high criminal rates can’t get insurance, medical treatment or business loans based upon their merits. Conservatives are very slow to speak about these types of injustices; because they usually have the mindset that if you are a certain ethnic group, that you are automatically a criminal and are not creditworthy.
If you want to talk about being judged by the content of your character and not by raced, I would suggest that our conservatives start talking about the racial issues that carryover into their business and thought practices. Take a look around you in corporate America and tell me who is sitting next to you in a meeting. In my opinion, one minority is not enough to represent diversity in a meeting of twenty professionals.
It’s not just a black/white issue; it is an issue for other diversity areas, as well. In many industries women, overweight people and gays are treated unfairly. Those are the real cowardice topics that Eric Holder was trying to address during Black History month.
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
12:45 pm
This column presented a great opportunity to address the constitutional scope and limits of government and private alternatives to governmental regulation of pollution. Neither were discussed. Instead it presented the typical one-sided basing (well deserved) of the environmental movement and the new messiah’s role.
There is no reason to accept the status quo. Every Republican that opens their mouth except Ron Paul seems to come up with ways to tweak the existing system in ways that made red staters happy. The Federal Government has no constitutional role in anything related to carbon, biofuels, or anything else. They in fact are the largest environmental polluter in the nation and the laws congress passes do not apply to governmental agencies or employees. Must be nice.
Pollution is a trespass, plain and simple. There are well established torte laws governing water, air, and land violations. If our courts were not filled with consenting adults whose actions made some politician unhappy, there would be plenty of room to adjudicate property rights violations.
Further, EPA regulations provide a “one-size-fits-all” solution to problems that the free market (if left on its own for a change) might easily improve on year after year after year. And all this without one single bureaucrat sucking up revenue from the private sector for their salary. The bureaucracy that is prohibited by the constitution costs society an enourmous burden both in time and financial resources that could better be going to addressing the issues.
It would be nice to see a conservative begin any discussion about government with a reminder that there is no constitutional authority for these projects. If every republican in Congress (except Ron Paul who usually speaks out from this perspective) would remember this, then embarassments like the last 8 years would not weigh them down every time they attempt to assault the unconstitutional programs of the democrats.
Report this comment
SpaceyG
February 26th, 2009
1:02 pm
And what’s with the anonymity thing?! I can fix that with one Tweet. Going to go do that now.
Report this comment
Winston Wolf
February 26th, 2009
1:04 pm
Honestly, AJC, all of your candidates must be insane and dismissed immediately. What sane conservative (or independent, for that matter) would want to work in your environment? Tucker, Downey, Bookman, and Luckovich are as liberal as they come. You may as well link up to the dailyKos or Huffingtonpost, because your editorial mindset is no different.
And yet you wonder while your circulation numbers are slowly circling the vortex of death…
I agree with Mike’s suggestion. Bring on a conservative, an independent, and fire 3/4 of your regulars.
Report this comment
Conservative voter
February 26th, 2009
1:08 pm
Enjoyed this article. Unfortunately, it’s obviously on-target so the AJC and the minority readership will make sure he/she doesn’t get the job. AJC mantra stays in effect: it’s only ok to criticize a race of people if you’re talking about whites and you’re black. And if you’re really good at it like Cynthia Tucker or Terence Moore, you can have a long career here in Atlanta doing just that!
Report this comment
SpaceyG
February 26th, 2009
1:12 pm
One more thing Matt… why are you calling them “candidates?” It’s not as if there’s going to be a vote. You will simply pick the one with the most name recognition. To drive traffic of course. Bob Barr for instance. That’s what I’d do.
Please just STOP talking to your audience, readers, whatever the heck we are now to you, like we are children. Just STOP. Jeez. You publishers/editors at the AJC are worse than that Bobby Jindal in doing that. We are literate GROWNUPS out here, fer chrissake. And we’re mad as heck, and we’re taking it out on… you. Kinda juvenile, eh?
Report this comment
S B S
February 26th, 2009
1:13 pm
I agree with DavidS. This was NOT written by a true conservative! I sacrifice daily to send my kids to a great private school and I do not want ANY government welfare!
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
1:22 pm
What “G” forgot to tell you is that those $6,000 private schools are not any better equipped than public schools. Parents are usually asked to help raise additional fund; plus a lot of programs such as multiple languages, science lab equipment and special education programs are non-existent. The goal of an advanced educational program is to equip out students for the future and that includes being able to communicate with our international business partners, develop new medical/technical and fuel efficiency programs. I don’t believe that liberals or conservatives believe in just throwing money into education, but making sure it is used wisely and that the right people are being held accountable for the education of America’s children.
The best education should not be given only to kids whose parents can afford private schools, but should be offered to all children. This was a very poorly written article; I gave you a higher mark on the other.
Report this comment
Boots
February 26th, 2009
1:23 pm
I wouldn’t turn around for the difference between the candidates. Just another group of ideologues who, if their butts were as narrow as their minds, they could all sit in the backseat of a Mini-Cooper.
Report this comment
Sylvia
February 26th, 2009
1:28 pm
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m not stupid or passive enough for a $300 tax credit to make me “indifferent to other tax hikes” as this writer suggests. Nor is that enough to make officials immune to public criticism if they do impose other hikes. Are we really as docile as this writer says we are? I know I’m not.
Report this comment
Robert Reich
February 26th, 2009
1:30 pm
I never said or wrote that public sector jobs should not go to white, male construction workers. I wrote that government should also make every effort to find qualified women and minorities for these jobs too, and I suggested ways that people of whatever race, gender, or background could qualify for them through better access to job training.
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
1:33 pm
I find it interesting and appalling that none of the candidates in criticising the stimulus package bothers to mention the root cause of this and every economic problem that has befallen this country since 1913 – The Federal Reserve.
Check out the wonderful Youtube videos about the Fed, http://www.mises.org, http://www.lewrockwell.com, http://www.campaignforliberty.com, and all videos of Ron Paul, Bernake, and Greenspan.
As for any discussion of energy policy, there is certainly nothing wrong with pointing out that subsidizing any form of energy distorts the market and ultimately delivers a product that may or may not be the best or most appropriate as the example of ethanol clearly shows. What is missing from this discussion (again, a huge distraction from the root cause of the problem) is any talk of how free security services in the form of the bloated american military only serve to distory the market in energy as it relates to oil. Were those costs not socialized through taxation or covered by monetary inflation, the true cost of oil would no doubt have produced functional domestic alternatives decades ago. Republicans seem to lump oil in with “national interests” while forgetting that domestic coal, biofuel, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric are also “national interests” and should be allowed or forced to compete on a level market basis.
Again, it is a shame that the author got sidetracked by the details while ignoring the elephant in the living room that has been ruining our economy and the value of the dollar since its founding in 1913.
Report this comment
Alison
February 26th, 2009
1:35 pm
I enjoyed reading the column and thought the writer clearly articulated the argument. It was interesting to read, easy to understand, and did a good job of providing the reader with details that should help him make a decision about the issue.
Report this comment
Mary H.
February 26th, 2009
1:38 pm
A strong opening and well-reasoned argument that doesn’t wander off the path before reaching its conclusion.
Report this comment
Sylvia
February 26th, 2009
1:40 pm
It’s nice to finally see someone throwing the arguments about Republicans not wanting to fix our country back in the Democrats face. The sooner we all realize that more spending won’t fix the problem the better. This writer is sharp and can give it back to them!
Report this comment
Sylvia
February 26th, 2009
1:44 pm
Is this about endangered species or animal abuse? Anything that ends abuse of elephants and other circus animals is good, and if species are endangered they shouldn’t be in circuses or in zoos. Their survival is more important than an hour of our enjoyment. This seems very selfish and narrow-minded.
Report this comment
Babe Ruth
February 26th, 2009
1:47 pm
While “steroids in baseball” might be a worthwhile debate a the local sports bar, I fail to see what it has to do with politics. I encourage you to watch Chris Bell’s 2008 documentary “Bigger, Stronger, Faster”. How are the performance enhancing drugs consumed by fighter pilots in Iraq and Afghanistan (called “go pills”) different than the amphetamines gobbled by baseball players? How is the cortisone (a steroid) injected into an injured pitcher’s shoulder different than substance A-Rod injected into his body? Ethical debates are for jock-sniff sportswriters and fans. At the end of the medicine and technology “enhance” ALL aspects of life, and it seems silly for some to question the personal choices of adult professionals.
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
1:48 pm
Mr. Robinson conveys one constructive point in his otherwise misinformed rant. What is critically missing from this post is any solid, sound alternative to the current appalling plan put forth by Mr. Obama that is ultimately just a continuation of the failed and misguided bailout by Mr. Bush. One can only wonder if the author has any serious alternatives to put forth.
As for Mr. Robinson, it is certainly incorrect to state as fact that these problems are so big that they require government’s help in solving. Government certainly has a role to play, but their typical version of “help” as exemplified by the inflationary and deficit spending welfare bill is not the answer. These same policies are the cause, so increasing them will certainly not solve the problem. This is intuitive. The history of the depression shows clearly that this is so.
The root cause of the problem is and has always been the Federal Reserve. Their manipulation of the interest rates (price fixing) and the massive creation of money out of thin air (or through debt obligations), has distorted the free market ever since they came into being in 1913. The first depression was their fault (and the actions of Hoover and FDR which made it last so long), and history is repeating itself once again.
The government must immediately abolish the Federal Reserve, all legal tender laws, and all taxes on precious metals. This will allow the market to divest itself before the inevitable dollar collapse and find a medium of exchange they can trust. They must slash government spending by unprecidented amounts, beginning with the withdrawl of all of our armed forces from the far ends of the earth. Business taxes should be eliminated along with the income tax, capitol gains tax and the death tax.
These are the kind of sound solutions that I would expect a conservative columnist to put forth. No, they are not the kind of suggestions Mr. Wooten would have put forth, but he was no conservative.
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
1:55 pm
Josh Taylor,
What exactly is conservative about charter schools, charter programs and federal control of education through national standards. You have been equating republicans with conservatives and there is no correllation. There is no way to support small government and still support forced theft through the tax system to support either a government education program or one that simply transfers wealth through a voucher, charter school, or otherwise. Government has no place in education except protecting against fraud or force that might be employed by individuals in their interactions. The sooner we realize that and work towards a truly free market alternative, the sooner everyone’s kids can start getting a good education.
Report this comment
C Mack
February 26th, 2009
1:56 pm
We as a country need a stimulus package. The republican party has left us with a war in iraq that has a major cost to our country. During Greenspans watch in the Bush Admistration has cause the downfall of America.Americans have been dumbed down for too many years, because congress has not wanted to help those that have been left out.
Its not throwing money at the problem,what has happen is that we never set in place for our children to be well education. People are not going to bring our countries educational system up by just telling it to.You must put in place a funded system that encourage americans that we are our greatest product.
Ive notice that if you look back on the presidents that were before today, the democrates has always left the country in better shape than the republicans. It almost looks as if the republicans came an stole all the money in the government and then the democrate would come in and get it back in line. Has anyone notice this.
Report this comment
Sylvia
February 26th, 2009
1:58 pm
Lots of contradictions here. And how is updating textbooks every few years needless? Books have to be updated because new information is constantly coming out. That’s what makes for well educated students.
Report this comment
Gregg
February 26th, 2009
2:01 pm
This has to be one of the most assinine things I have evr read. This is why we are in the shape that we are. Some of you Re-dumb-icans actually believe this rethoric that you are spewing. Do you remember Enron and all of the other huge Republicans donors that got away with murder when Bush took office. You attack the man for saying that we are a nation of cowards, when this is exactly what we are. Tell me Candidate G would you say these things to a mixed audience or only to the ones that look like you. Tell me do you talk about race with your one Black friend or do you wait until you get around the people that look like you? when people say something degrading someone else do you say something or go with the bit because you don’t want to be labele a killjoy. You sir are a coward in every sence of the word. You can not see the forest for the trees.
Bill up top complains about not being able to find a job and he is a “native”. Talk to your “native” foremans who hire the cheap labor and don’t want you. You blame the immigrants for working for less than you but not the people that look like you that hires them. Sit outside Home Depot or Lowe’s like they do waiting to be picked up or that’s not the good ole boy way.
Report this comment
radiowxman
February 26th, 2009
2:01 pm
Of course steroid use is a personal choice.
However, consider…
You were in a workplace where a certain performance-enhancing substance (let’s call it Z) is banned. You’ve been told it’s banned. However, there are no random tests for Z. And co-workers you know are taking it are getting huge raises and accolades. Your bosses promote them, send them on all the best assignments and are the first people they talk and brag about to their fellow executives.
You’re not 100% sure that your bosses know that their favorite workers are on Z, but they have to know something is up. After all, those guys were mediocre at best before they were on it, but now they’re the best — even outperforming those guys who used to be considered the best.
That’s what was happening in MLB up until a few years ago. Steroids were banned, yes, but they needed to get fans back after the strike. So what better way to showcase an awesome HR chase between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa? Andro? What’s that? Nah, no steroids here. Must be a juiced ball.
MLB was paying and promoting guys who were taking steroids or HGH. The media and Bud Selig can get on their high horse now, but they either didn’t care about it back then or were willfully ignorant of the situation.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the individual player to do the right thing. But I certainly don’t blame an athlete for taking them, especially when his peers were on the juice and there was no testing in place. If I were in their shoes, I would have a very hard time not doing it myself.
Report this comment
Sylvia
February 26th, 2009
2:03 pm
Americans talk about race constantly! I’m so sick of hearing that we are all afraid not to.
Report this comment
RealityKing
February 26th, 2009
2:04 pm
I’m sending my kids to private school, even if that means beans for supper every night. Its best for them and my heart..
Report this comment
Sarah
February 26th, 2009
2:05 pm
This article goes to the heart of the issue. The Republican Party is in the midst of “rebuilding” itself because it has failed in its promise to protect individual liberty. This is a small step but has huge implications; it would force Republicans to “walk the walk” after neglecting to do so for so many years. I find the budget shortfall to be a less-important component of the argument. It’s a nice side-effect, but repealing the blue laws for their restriction of individual liberty is a positive end on its own.
Report this comment
Babe Ruth
February 26th, 2009
2:05 pm
This insipid screed brings new meaning to the words “bread and circuses”. Was this topic assigned (if so, shame on the AJC editorial staff), or does this columnist believe it worthy of debate? Most true conservatives dervie their positions from the Constitution, which affords Congress the right to “regulate commerce”. Be that as it may, how about regulating Wall Street or the banking industry. Seems to me de-regulation in these commercial markets has led to the endangerment of the American Middle Class.
Report this comment
Goldie
February 26th, 2009
2:08 pm
This IS a true “conservative” view… Seems to me that anyone who believes that adults be allowed to shop for alcohol, no matter what day of the week, is a “conservative”. What happened to keeping guv-ment out of the privacy of our adult lives??? What we have down at the capitol of GA are a bunch of theocrats, not conservatives!
Report this comment
Mike Hall
February 26th, 2009
2:09 pm
As my students were feverishly writing their essays in class, I read all the new AJC writing candidates. I tried to judge them strictly on the effectiveness of their writing rather than on any ideology. For me, clearly the best writer is Candidate D. He/she uses specific sensory examples to make the writing more interesting and accesible. The sentences are good. Development is good. The writing is more effectively organized: getting the reader’s attention, clearly making its point, supporting that point without digressing into whatever rant enters the writer’s mind at the moment. In addition, what really makes D the best is the strong voice. No matter how good an opinion is, if the reader dozes off or quits reading from boredom, the editorial is a failure.
However, I suppose the AJC’s criteria needs to be taken into consideration. If the objective is to make conservatives seem shallow, then Candidate F should be the choice. Development is poor (but development has never been Wooten’s strength either so maybe this is what the AJC is looking for). As for Candidate I, yikes, he/she has overdosed on quotation marks. Candidate G has strong sentences and has depth and intelligence. At least he seemed that way before I dozed off.
Report this comment
Sylvia
February 26th, 2009
2:09 pm
I got nothing from this article.
Report this comment
Aquagirl
February 26th, 2009
2:10 pm
“But under the Obama administration, Labor Secretary Robert Reich”
Reich was Labor Secretary under the Clinton administration. What is his current connection to the Obama administration?
Tossing Shirley Franklin in because she was on a “short list?” for a cabinet position? M’kay. Is she on the list of suspected communists too?
But hey, factual inaccuracy is no impediment to these “conservatives” who don’t really care if Reich is current or past Labor Secretary, or that Shirley Franklin wasn’t appointed to jack squat. As long as people are libs, they’re the enemy, and can all be lumped into the category of Scary People Who Are Tenuously Connected Because—They Just Are. Sort of a liberal Illuminati.
Reich also didn’t write that construction jobs shouldn’t go to white male construction workers. He implied that women and minorities should (unfairly, IMHO) get those jobs first. He’s not proposing to bar white guys from picking up a shovel. It’s reverse discrimination, not an outright ban.
Yep, no logic, lots of divisive, paranoid rhetoric, misleading hyperbole, and factual inaccuracies. A surefire winner here.
Report this comment
Dawn
February 26th, 2009
2:12 pm
I agree with the author. The fact that the issue has been long existing and not a life or death situation does not detract from its relevance to discourse about what our rights are, and what precedents are set. It’s a good example of a dialogue about regulatory prohibitions. bravo!
Report this comment
C Mack
February 26th, 2009
2:19 pm
Greg is so right. These guys are so blind. People like Rush L which is what you call a PimP has really pull the blinds over the eyes of these neo conservatives.
If you notice , the republicans will do what ever it takes to take down anyone that dont agree with them. (Even the Country)
Lets stop supporting the news media and its investors that do not have the United States interest at heart. We must fight for our country.
Lets take america back!
Report this comment
GT81
February 26th, 2009
2:26 pm
I don’t care what Rush and Al Franken have to say about climate change. Neither Ted Kennedy and Jim Boehner (sic). Why can’t we ever hear the chair of Stanford climatology debate the chair of MIT climatology? That’s the only debate that matters, as far as the science is concerned. Duh!!! Everybody’s opinions are not equal on this. Do you advocate Rush and Al being consulted for updates to pilot training manuals for 747’s as well?
Report this comment
Carla
February 26th, 2009
2:30 pm
I agree with Alison. The article was well written and easy to read. It is important for readers to understand the message written. Great Job!
Report this comment
Carla
February 26th, 2009
2:38 pm
The article was well written and concise. It’s a pleasure to read an article that does not bash and just presents a thought.
Report this comment
AJC Fail
February 26th, 2009
2:58 pm
None of these would-be columnists has an original idea, so any one of them is qualified to take Jim Wooten’s place. But this little “ask the reader” stunt won’t stop the freefall of this newspaper.
Report this comment
RealityKing
February 26th, 2009
3:01 pm
So far…, all these candidates have bitch slapped the economic logic of Obama’s spendilous package. Not to mention the majority of the AJC editorial board..
Report this comment
KERMIT
February 26th, 2009
3:03 pm
I AGREE WITH THE AUTHOR SO LETS HAVE A DRINK. THE GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR ME, I DON’T WORK FOR THEM.
Report this comment
Tim Krisher
February 26th, 2009
3:04 pm
This person not only makes her point well but is also correct. Separation of church and state and blue laws are not compatable. If the AJC hired more columnists like this, I would start getting the paper again.
Report this comment
Alex
February 26th, 2009
3:04 pm
Great column. Enjoyed the read.
Report this comment
Bud
February 26th, 2009
3:07 pm
If it is so easy for us, as citizens, to see wind and solar power is not as efficient as nuclear power, why can’t our representatives in Washington see it? This is a concise and well written article.
Report this comment
Conservative voter
February 26th, 2009
3:07 pm
Gregg, thank for enlightening me (and all the other readers) as to why this country is in the shape it’s in. Name calling and poor grammar will certainly help us all become a stronger country. And bravo to C Mack for throwing some Rush-bashing in for good measure!
Now, when the two of you grow up and decide to discuss ideas with facts instead of name-calling and mass generalizations, conversations like this one will be informative and educational.
I, for one, am a conservative – not a republican or a democrat. I want a small government to provide a defense for this country and not much else. Let me, as a hard worker, make a life for myself and my family. If I’m successful, I happen to believe in “giving back” (which right now, exceeds the 10% I give my church off the top). But don’t tell me to help bail out someone who wasn’t smart enough to buy a house within their means. Don’t ask me to bail out a city like Atlanta that can’t balance their books and keep accurate records. If I make it, I should be allowed to choose how I spend it!
And I’m no coward with respect to race relations. I’ll tell you what I think of a person if you ask. I WILL NOT generalize an entire race of people, but I will tell you what I think of someone – white or black. But be ready for what I say, because it will be honest. Don’t call me a racist because you don’t like what I have to say, and dismiss it as “oh, you are just a white good ole boy.” Being a coward can be either 1) someone afraid to say what they really want to say or 2) someone afraid to hear the real truth!
Report this comment
Tim Krisher
February 26th, 2009
3:07 pm
I agree this is labeled a stimulus bill not a one solution to fix every pet project that has some congressmens interest.
Report this comment
Judy
February 26th, 2009
3:17 pm
This is poorly written. It starts out with hiring the second attorney and then drifts off in to a rant about liberalism.
Report this comment
Brandi
February 26th, 2009
3:17 pm
I am glad someone is discussing the real effects some of the energy policies of Pres. Obama are going to have on our lives. As a single parent, significant increases in my electricity and gas bills are not things I can take lightly. It is time for the elected officials in Washington to come up with a realistic energy policy that isn’t going to force people like me to choose between paying an artificially inflated electricity bill or feeding my child.
Report this comment
FinanceBuzz
February 26th, 2009
3:20 pm
Not a bad column, but I agree that the slaps at the bailout were largely irrelevant and unnecessary. (The first bailout slap fit and was enough.) I also thought that there should have been a little evidence of the claims made. I know this is not a research paper, but enough comment regarding source could have been made to allow readers fact check if they desired or at least have confidence this was not mere opinion. As for the writing style, I did not feel it was up to the standard of a major newspaper columnist. This would have been a better fit stylistically for a high school or perhaps college paper.
Grade: B-
Report this comment
John
February 26th, 2009
3:22 pm
I agree with the journalist, it is time to move forward.
Report this comment
Jeff
February 26th, 2009
3:25 pm
Definetely a libertarian argument.
HOWEVER, if the GOP is to survive, it will HAVE to shed the so-called ‘conservatives’ who are really Big Government Liberals that simply hate gays, sex, and anything else fun and embrace its libertarian wing.
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
3:30 pm
The article itself doesn’t provide enough truth to our current educational struggles. The current argument for vouchers is that you are going to get a better education in a private school environment. However, one of the qualities of a private school is that they are usually small and have a low student/teacher ratio. Very few private schools provide access to multiple foreign language opportunities, adequate science labs, transportation and extended libraries.
The issue I have with Senate Bill 90 is that I don’t believe that the transfer of money into the private school sector is going to help the overall educational system in Georgia. Many of the students in under performing schools are low-income and middle income families. The argument is that most people could afford to send their children to private school if a voucher is provided, in the set amount of, $5,000 for example. However, the parents would still have to come up with the additional cost, which can run in excess of $2,000 to $6,000 dollars per child. I’ll keep in mind that multiple student discounts are provided at many private schools. This would not include transportation cost and daycare for those who are not fortunate to have a stay at home mom or dad. Not only that, but the cost does not include lunch and private schools do not offer a free lunch program. So, those expenses would have to be taken into account by that middle income family; because lower income individuals would most definitely be excluded based upon the additional expenses.
Let’s go further and talk about rural areas, which usually have one or two private schools within 20 to 30 miles. They usually make far less and transportation would be an issue, due to the locations of the school from the students. If you have one high school with 350 to 500 students, but 175 have requested a $5,000 voucher. The private schools in the area have space for 50 additional students per school, what happens to the other 75 students. Will the private school increase the number of students in a class to accommodate? Will they have the need to expand buildings, hire new teachers and buy new text books? Oh, I forgot this is a private school so the parents would be responsible for these additional expenses. This is not just a scenario for the rural communities, but would also be a costly burden for metro area private schools. The only way it would not be a burden, is if the private school are hoping to get additional building, funds for new teachers, etc from the government or taxpayers.
Senate Bill 90 is just a transfer of money from one entity to another, which will create some of the same problems at the private schools that exist in the public school system. The goal of this bill is not to help those who really need access to a better educational system, but to help those higher middle-income parents (myself included) to gain access to private school without the extra burden on our pockets. This bill would also help those who currently have children in private schools.
My suggestion to our Georgia leadership is to fix the problem in the current system, so that our state as a whole can move from the bottom of the education system.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
3:31 pm
Wow, Robert Reich is reading this? This column uses a familiar technique of both the far left and far right, which is to take a one-day news flare-up (Americans are cowards, says the Attorney General), and turn it into a belligerant criticism of whatever pet cause is on the radar screen for these extremes – in this case, minority set-asides in Atlanta. Not a bad attempt, but if that’s truly Robert Reich, and this columnist gets picked, he/she needs to temper their ideology with some facts.
Report this comment
FinanceBuzz
February 26th, 2009
3:32 pm
Hmm…did you actually want to have conservatives read your new columnist’s work? I can assure, you with a implied attack on Christians, I can assure you I would not make a point to read this person’s columns. If I want to listen to thoughts that attacked Christian while making valid points about limited government, I can get that from Boortz. And note, though liberals may not get this, Neal is a libertarian not a conservative.
As for the argument about Sunday sales increasing sales, does this withstand a logical check? How much is consumed ONLY because it can be drank on the day of purchase? That would be the nature of marginal increases in sales – alcohol not already consumed on Sunday which was not already purchased on another day of the week. I would think 5%-7% sounds high. If you buy alcohol on Sunday, then you likely will buy less on Monday when you might have bought before. If you are running low or have an event on Sunday, you will likely buy on Saturday. I do not buy this argument as it makes little logical sense.
Report this comment
FinanceBuzz
February 26th, 2009
3:33 pm
Forgot the grade.
Grade: C (b/c most conservatives are not going to watch to read implied attacks on Christians.)
Report this comment
FinanceBuzz
February 26th, 2009
3:34 pm
Forgot the grade.
Grade: C (b/c most conservatives are not going to watch to read implied attacks on Christians.)
Report this comment
John
February 26th, 2009
3:34 pm
I agree with the jounalist again. But what bothers me most about the
Stimulus package, is where in the world is all this money coming from?
Do we have the gold to back this money? What really lies ahead for this
great nation. How do we pay down this terrific defecit.
Report this comment
Mike
February 26th, 2009
3:34 pm
This writer will be swimming upstream in the AJC newsroom. He knows way too much about economics to work for a newspaper.
But, if it’s his or her lifelong dream, who am I to stand in the way?
Thumbs up.
Report this comment
RealityKing
February 26th, 2009
3:38 pm
The writing style is similar to A, are there really 10 candidates??
Report this comment
FinanceBuzz
February 26th, 2009
3:39 pm
Jeff, if the GOP is to survive, it MUST return to its conservative roots. How successful has the libertarian party been? Not so much. I have a lot of libertarian streaks mind you, but libertarianism as a whole is too extreme to be successful.
No, the GOP must restore its conservative heritage. If they rebrand themselves as moderates to attract votes, then what is the point of even voting for them? If I wanted to vote for moderates, I could have voted for Dems (though many are raging liberals). I support conservatives first, Republicans second. And if the GOP does not want to be conservative, there are enough center-right people in America that will support a new party that will.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
3:41 pm
Regarding one comment above, I think the writer is agreeing with Holder facetiously. I thought the column was nicely put, very conversational.
Report this comment
Mort
February 26th, 2009
3:49 pm
This is not left wing, it is real, limited government, individual liberty conservatism. The writing itself is not outstanding and I’ll bet this is a “citizen journalist,” rather than a professional. Good effort, though. My compliments.
Report this comment
Mort
February 26th, 2009
3:53 pm
Reference to “Legislature,” instead of Congress confirms suspicion this is one of the amateur applicants. However, characterization of wind and solar as neither reliable nor efficient is just plain wrong. Some areas need nuclear. Many others can depend on sun and wind all year ’round.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
3:55 pm
This column is fairly weak. His/her quiz of high performers is a straw-man that’s raised up so it can be knocked down. The suppostion that most high performing athletes would choose to die early deaths for current glory is highly suspect to anyone with common sense.
The line that a conservative does not like to regulate the lives of others is laughable – tell that to Terry Schiavo’s husband.
Report this comment
Mort
February 26th, 2009
3:56 pm
Maybe the AJC is intent on turning a reader into a writer. It’s cheaper, maybe. But this effort is poor. Bet it’s one of the amateur applicants. This stunt is stupid. They should just seek out a professional, who is a thinker and persuasive writer instead of looking to find a star sitting in the bleachers.
Report this comment
Shelby
February 26th, 2009
3:57 pm
I say I agree with this columnist and it is high time that this issue was addressed. Should this pass, maybe we would have enough funds for our police and fire/emergency workers to be back at work in full force and helping us to live in a safer society.
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
4:00 pm
This article gets an “F”, flatout. It is definitely a rant about the columnist unhappy view of the stimulus package. It doesn’t leave you thinking about anything that was read in the article.
I thought this line was interesting enough -
** Any “help” will arrive long after American workers have picked themselves up off the mat.**
I thought that statement was the root of the conservative agend, so based upon the columnist prediction of the stimulus bill, he should be extremely happy. — The result would be that the people would pick themselves up —– FYI…. but we needed the stimulus to do it, something to motivate or an incentive to buy products. Otherwise, I will continu to keep my money in my pocket because I might loose my job next week, month or year.
If you are going to write an opinion column, please provide a real solution. I could appreciate your rant a lot more.
Report this comment
Mort
February 26th, 2009
4:01 pm
Better effort than the other piece. But, if you are going to write for an audience like this, it’s best to check the spelling of Urkel if you’re going to make the reference.
Report this comment
Joe B.
February 26th, 2009
4:02 pm
Very focused and clearly explained. The parent-child analogy helps illustrate the point well.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
4:03 pm
The Dire Straits reference will be missed by some. I assume this columnist has been consistently aggravated by rosy budget projections through the years. Both parties are guilty of this.
Report this comment
DavidS
February 26th, 2009
4:09 pm
While I certainly appreciate the Georgia take on the stimulus package and the commentary is certainly conservative, I am still appalled that none of the authors is bothering to mention that the Federal Reserve and its printing press are at the heart of the problem and that any government plan that doesn’t include abolishing this unconstitutional agency will be doomed to failure if not now some time in the future.
http://www.mises.org and http://www.lewrockwell.com for more information.
Yes, the one advantage that every state citizen has is that their governments cannot print money out of thin air. It does us all no good when the Fed does it and then sends a check. Again however, it is only the presence of the Federal Reserve in the marketplace that allows this to happen. It could not happen under a gold standard. A gold standard would force government to live within its means and would make it impossible to destroy our savings through the hyperinflation that is sure to come.
Report this comment
Mort
February 26th, 2009
4:13 pm
This writer is a pro. The issue is spelled out clearly, citing examples and arguments are clear and reasonable. Very good effort.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
4:14 pm
I thought this column was a nice mix of details about the stimulus coupled with some strategic, if familiar, conservative rhetoric. Well written, somewhat of a rant, but what isn’t these days?
Report this comment
Mort
February 26th, 2009
4:17 pm
This candidate gets my vote. Sign her/him up.
Report this comment
RealityKing
February 26th, 2009
4:19 pm
I would recommend that all candidates give up this journalistic pipe dream and go back to school for science degrees. With a little more determination you too could be reaching for the stars…, and surprised when you rocket past the moon that once held all your wildest hopes and dreams.
Report this comment
Gerry
February 26th, 2009
4:21 pm
As a former (and possibly future) Georgian, let me say that I found candidate H’s writing to be the best of the group.
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
4:23 pm
I thought the article was interestingly written, so I give it a “B-“. I don’t agree with the writer, but interesting it was. The article caught my attention with the use of metaphors and the role playing of democrat and republican thought processes. I actually believe that the train from Disney to the Midwest would help the economy, because it will create job activity for those small towns and cities along the route. I would have taken it even further by suggesting that we create a bullet train from New York to California and from Illinois to Florida, with lines that extend into other metropolitan cities.
I find it interesting that everyone complains about the $89 million for new schools in Milwaukee, but no one ask about the condition of the current schools. I would suggest $89 million for schools in Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi and others, because I know that some of their schools should be condemned. I know of two high schools in Alabama where it looks like they are about to fall down. The schools in Georgia are not as bad as these schools, but some in rural Georgia need a lot of work.
I’m glad it wasn’t a rant like the other articles.
Report this comment
jd
February 26th, 2009
4:25 pm
Just by reading the Vents, you can tell how backwards the folks in Atlanta are. And this is the progressive part of the state? Not complaining, but I can’t believe there are 4 liberal columnists, and only one self-congratulating knucklehead like Wooten. Just give in to your core group and hire those from the know-nothing Nazi party.
Report this comment
Nick
February 26th, 2009
4:30 pm
Who cares. You’re going to go out of business anyway inside of a year, does it really matter what token conservative you replace your last token conservative with? Maybe if you had taken the suggestion of some of those above and replaced some of your liberal writers with conservatives, then maybe your newspaper would have survived, but instead you chose to follow the model of pretty much every other paper in the country and ignore the fact that America is still split about 50/50 in terms of political views. Please go away and stop wasting our time.
Report this comment
RealityKing
February 26th, 2009
4:31 pm
Petty complaints about miss-spelled names rather than anything about the contents of the article.., a good learning lesson.
Report this comment
RNH
February 26th, 2009
4:34 pm
AJC– Can we please choose a conservative columnist not for his/his ability to speak to those who are already unthinking followers, but for his/her ability to explain and advocate to those who do not agree with them and for their ability to provoke and make uncomfortable all those who think that they already know everything, whether they are conservative or liberal. Perhaps someone that cannot be pigeonholded and that thinks outside the box? As for your candidates, I looked only at the stimulus pieces and this is my initial reaction:
A. Superficial–no insight
B. Too narrow minded–misleading
C. Interesting — made me think, I liked this
D. Not very bright–no way
E. Similar to B. Questionable arguments. Not logical and just saying it is so does not make it so.
F. Similar to D. A waste of time. No way.
G. Not convincing in any way
H. Besides the point arguments but interesting as a historical note.
I. This writer is arrogant without being convincing. Not a good choice.
J. Somewhat interesting.
In summary–I think you can do better. Relying on a straw man argument or ignoring significant contrary facts/positions is very weak and many of these samples were exactly that. If that is the best they can do in their “best” writing samples, can you imagine how lazy they will be in their everyday columns? There have got to be provacative but thoughtful and rigorous conservative writers out there–or am I mistaken?
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
4:40 pm
Sticks to the point, which is “I am most concerned by the incredible subsidy the solar and wind industries will receive”. The stimulus package is so huge that it doesn’t hurt to ‘attack’ it with specific programs to highlight where some of this could go off track. I supported Obama, but I’m listening to countervailing voices, and this voice sounds genuinely concerned.
Report this comment
Tom Black
February 26th, 2009
4:44 pm
An okay column, but I wish the author had pointed out a couple of obvious and damning indictments of the status quo:
1) Many of the highest-funded public school systems in the country (Washington, D.C., for instance) are also some of the most abysmal. This illustrates the futility and falsity of the left wingers’ constant pleas for more money.
2) Educational funding from Uncle Sam keeps going up, up, up, but the results don’t improve. Let’s see now, what’s the definition of insanity?
Just for good measure, rather than taking a slap at the pork bill (which richly deserves to be slapped around), the writer should have pointed out the glaring hypocrisy of so many of the liberal Democrats who kow-tow to the teachers’ unions: They do their best to keep poor urban children in wretched schools overrun with drugs, gangs, and mayhem, yet SEND THEIR OWN CHILDREN TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS. President and Michelle Obama included. This is not the change I believe in!
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
4:51 pm
This article is written by an amateur at best, so I give it a “B-“. I don’t agree with the article at all, but it was written with less malicious intent than the other articles.
I thought this statement was particularly interesting – **During the presidential election, then-candidate Obama pledged to support emissions-free energy and to “bankrupt” the coal industry, all with the goal of stopping so-called man-made global warming.**
What is the problem with funding a new source of energy in this country that would be a lot less harmful to the future generations? I find it funny that the writer doesn’t mind funding new energy sources, as long as it’s the energy source of their choice. It really gets interesting when I see conservatives wanting to put into practice European countries, such as France, as an efficient energy policy (nuclear); but have issues with other social policies such as healthcare.
If we can use the French energy policy, why not use their healthcare policy?
FYI.. even with nuclear energy, your energy bills will increase, all in the name of GREED for the companies providing the service.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
4:52 pm
Interesting twist on relating the stimulus bill to Georgia and to criticize, in a constructive way, the state legislature and governor as well. The writer could have been tempted to use this as another homily castigating the new Obama administration. One thing that will be hard to replace Jim Wooten on is his familiarity with state government/politics and his writing about it with authority. This comes close.
Report this comment
John
February 26th, 2009
4:54 pm
If you want to see the current form of public discourse, just write something for the public to view and invite comments – then stand back and wait for the reaction. I got as much from reading the comments as I did from reading the original article. I agree with the person who wrote the article and think it was well written. Just to identify my own personal position, I have never seen a valid rationale for “Blue Laws” for as long as I can remember. But I view with sadness the venom that always seems to flow when some folks perceive that they are being “attacked” when in fact they are just seeing an opinion that doesn’t happen to agree with their own point of view. We are not a civil society any more, and we geberally don’t seem to be aware of the price we are paying for having lost that part of our culture. Everybody is too busy shouting at somebody else…
Report this comment
Orange Fan
February 26th, 2009
5:06 pm
The writer does a fine job of illustrating the complexities – and potential implications – of this case. Those who suggest that the author confuses the concepts associated with endangered species and animal abuse did not read the article carefully enough. The author’s contention that the plaintiffs in this case are using “ESA violations” as a guise for changes that are not aligned with ESA intent is thought-provoking. The author makes it clear that while the potential removal of elephants from circuses removes the possibility of animal abuse, it also eliminates the possibility of continued (zoo and circus-sponsored) breeding of these endangered animals. It seems that this latter implication stands in direct opposition to the aims of the Act. My vote is for this columnist.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
5:09 pm
Oh, right, this is the person who writes the clunky phrases [see carbon article]. Is there such a thing as purple alliteration?
I couldn’t resist:
Just the big bursting corpuscles of a bill so boisterously bloated with bombastic blubber that the only thing it’ll stimulate is the layer of lively lard lapping the belt-loops of licenteous, liberal lobbyists and their lilliputian lapdogs in la la land.
On the other hand, “rococo extras” is descriptive enough. Not bad, but somewhat juvenile in tone.
Report this comment
John
February 26th, 2009
5:10 pm
A well written commentary and a pretty clear statement of views that make sense. I’m not sure what pases for “logical thinking” these days because what I see happening doesn’t really make very much sense. I would be interested in what thw writer has to say on a wide variety of issues, and so would recommend his/her selection as a columnist.
Report this comment
Causticus
February 26th, 2009
5:12 pm
We are cowards. When is the last time the average white talked to a black about reverse discrimination and black racism?
Watch how quickly I get ridiculed for that question!
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
5:13 pm
The topic was a standard conservative cliche and, while “citing” numerous studies and surveys, the writer did not substantiate them. Inadequate detail on “the facts” made this column weaker. It also read way too much like a political stump speech. The political tone of the column is more likely to drive away readers than a more focused, nuanced, and thoughtful essay. While the writing flowed decently, the content could use some work. We don’t need a Wooten clone.
Report this comment
Causticus
February 26th, 2009
5:15 pm
The topic is stimulus, not education. Next?
Report this comment
Causticus
February 26th, 2009
5:18 pm
Finally, a truly conservative commentary on this issue. It is time for the pseudo-cons to get out of bed with the Falwell followers on this.
I don’t drink, and I am a devout Christian, but the government has no business restricting the sale of alcohol as long as the buyer is not intoxicated and is of legal age.
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
5:18 pm
I appreciated the libertarian bent to this column, which I believe underlies much of the Southeast’s conservatism. It’s also nice that the author wasn’t a shill for the administration as many “republicans” are wont to do in the media. Pretty well-written with just occasional gaps in flow.
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
5:20 pm
I though that this column and the one by candidate E (tax relief) were the best of the five presented in today’s paper.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
5:22 pm
“Congress funded this massive bailout of state governments so that its stimulative efforts wouldn’t be cancelled out by spending cuts by states that, unlike Congress, are required to balance their budgets.”
Interesting thought. This writer, as with his/her previous article, has a fresh perspective. There’s opinion in each paragraph, supported by his/her take on the facts and issues.
As far as the quote, of course states have other ways to stimulate their economies that don’t rely on mere governmental spending. Incentives to businesses comes to mind.
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
5:28 pm
This is the weakest article written of all the interested participants. I give this article a grade of ‘D’, because it’s written at the highschool level. It didn’t capture any highlights about the racial issues in this country. The race issue in this country is way bigger than statements made by Holder or Clyburn. I think this columnist is afraid to jump in and really talk about our racial problems.
If you are going to write opinion columns, you can’t be afraid to truly express your view. Stop skating over the topic and dig in.
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
5:29 pm
A weird topic to write about and I’m not sure that the column adequately supports the conclusion of a “dramatic reshaping of the ESA itself”. Talking about the declines of captive Asian elephants in various environment (versus the entire population) does not justify all actions taken by the circus, or zoos for that matter. This column seems to be in support of rough handling and unnecessary captivity in order to continue “the good old days” of circuses and zoos. Should we also bring back bearded ladies and other human sideshow spectacles? Just because something has been done in the past does not mean that it should be done in the future. An anti-change attitude should not represent the soul of conservatism. Thus, this is not the strongest candidate in the columnist contest.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
5:35 pm
Hemingway was rumored to have said he could improve anyone’s writing, including his own, by lopping off the first few paragraphs of a draft. Would have worked here, if only the writer had started with paragraph five (or six, even).
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
5:39 pm
I give this article a “B+”, but I have to disagree that Georgia leadership can still keep to their pre stimulus waste elimination.
Where does it say that you can’t eliminate waste in the stimulus package? Kill the programs that are wasteful and use the funds where it is truly needed (Healthcare, Unemployment, job creation, bridges & roads, etc..).
Now is the time to become efficient in our spending, but don’t forget about what the people of Georgia truly need to make it through these hardtimes.
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
5:40 pm
As an engineer, the opening example of the Springsteen concert threw me off. There are air filtration systems in place at the arena that would prevent a noticeable and impactful carbon build-up inside, so little extra CO2 would come “whooshing out” if the roof was removed. Much more impactful would be the emissions generated by all the vehicles driven to Phillips Arena since it still seems to be the mode of choice over much more efficient (and low emission!) public transportation. Arg.
This column is full of stretched analogies and typically over-the-top adjectives and phrasing. We don’t need talk-radio inspired screeching to grace print as well. Wooten should be replaced, but not emulated.
The topic is fine, but the treatment is not as the column merely preaches to the choir and fails to draw in readers who may enjoy more nuance in what they read. Yes, I agree that corn-based biofuels were misguided, and so are palm oil plantations, but the CO2 regulation would deal with output, not input. It’s the other side of the system and not totally comparable. The language utilized for the column was not really appropriate.
Report this comment
Charles David
February 26th, 2009
5:41 pm
This writer gets my vote. Global warming? carbon dioxide a pollutant? I just don’t buy those arguments. The climate has been changing since Earth was formed and it will continue to change long after man is no longer walking the planet. It is pretty arrogant to think mankind has the power to do more than mother nature in that regard.
Report this comment
greg
February 26th, 2009
5:43 pm
Sorry, don’t even try leaving it for free in my driveway
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
5:49 pm
I liked this column. Again, it seems to be a better representation of conservatism and libertarianism, rather than what passes for Republicanism these days. Good writing style, appropriate scope, and doesn’t insult the intelligence of readers. This column and the one on alcohol sales have my vote.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
5:49 pm
I thought this was well put. Others might quibble about some facts, but this is strategically focused commentary, aimed at what some might believe are die hard attitudes in ‘liberal’ education, such as slanted text books and esoteric training of teachers. This column basically says to get back to the fundamentals, and cleverly uses the stimulus package to get in some licks on education (right or wrong). In the D’Souza vein [Illiberal Education].
Report this comment
Robert
February 26th, 2009
5:51 pm
Let me say for the record that I am an African American Man who is APPALLED and OUTRAGED by the SENSELESS comment “Nation of Cowards” made by Attorney General Eric Holder. First of all, Eric Holder needs to understand that if he wants to engage Americans in a healthy and wholesome dialogue regarding race, you don’t do so by calling us a name such as “COWARDS”. How dare him to subtlely suggest that Whites are somewhat to blame for this so called lack of transparent dialogue between Blacks and Whites. Eric Holder Would not have been able to deliver this speech to the Justice Department had it not been for the courageous White Folks who voted for the first African American President Barak Obama who appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General. I am sure there were many conversations about race before millions of whites went out and voted for President Obama which was spearheaded by the Whites in Iowa. In fact, it was the Whites who gave us Blacks the courage to believe that Barak could win!
Part 2: Secondly, if President Obama keeps looking the other way when angry black members of his cabinet sound off in a fashion such as Eric Holder did, he will end up being a one term President. Whites are watching to see if President obama is really committed to bringing all of us together as a nation. Leadership from our President is needed in a vocal form against these divisive comments that were made by Eric Holder in order for many whites to be reassured that President Obama is serious about bringing us together as one nation. Attorney General Holder’s name calling (”COWARDS”) was a verbal assault against the citizens of this country that could potentially damage whatever gains that were made among race relations in this country during the last several years. President Obama cannot afford to have the attitude that incidents such as this will die for a lack of attention because if he does, he will continue to give license to other angry black folks to sound off whenever they like!
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
5:57 pm
With regard to “It also seems in our overly politically correct culture, someone would have protested this law long ago,” I’m disappointed in the author’s failure to research the subject. A quick Web search reveals that 8 cases involving blue laws have gone to the Supreme Court, the last being McGowan v. Maryland in 1961.
I expect columnists to familiarize themselves with any subject they write about. Columns are supposed to inform as well as persuade.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
5:59 pm
This isn’t too bad, except it’s a rehash of talk radio’s points about FDR’s New Deal and its ‘failure.’
“Ultimately, unemployment and sustained economic growth were not remedied until America’s entry into World War II in 1941.”
Another Shawn Hannity point, but I don’t want to read talk radio. By the way, it wasn’t war spending that stimulated the economy. Half the world was decimated by the war. We rebuilt Europe and Japan and used the war industry to capitalize all but the communists and their sympathizers. During the 1950s, U.S. GDP was 50 percent of the entire world’s.
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
6:03 pm
Another interesting, well-written, and tightly focused column by Candidate E, though I don’t agree with all the conclusions. I hope that this candidate is capable of levying praise and positive acknowledgement where it is deserved. It would be helpful for the columnist to offer vision and alternatives to perceived mistakes, and thus balance some of the criticism. In fact, this would be a nice action for all of our congressional republicans to take.
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
6:09 pm
I get it. Eight-hundred words, a cloud of paragraphs, and the Democrat party stuck in the mud ’cause I can slur your name.
Report this comment
Joe
February 26th, 2009
6:10 pm
This was fairly interesting way to pose the question. B, C and E were the only writers I got much out of and I’d probably give the nod to B. Here’s my breakdown:
A1 good topic, useless article and pointless partisan sniping
A2 shallow analysis
B1 right answer for a conservative, well done
B2 Really? “cronies”; 5% is a small percentage but a huge amount of energy
C1 right answer for a conservative, well written but it’s obvious the suit is groundless
C2 disjointed but good point
D1 either doesn’t understand what he’s talking about or not backing up his facts — get some numbers
D2 pointless
E1 right answer for a conservative, but not much of an editorial
E2 good points, like the analysis of education
F1 snoozer
F2 Minus 5 for “cronies”; just partisan ranting, no thought or wisdom imparted
G1 snoozer
G2 muddled thinking
H1 snoozer
H2 more partisan cruft. Name-calling doesn’t lead to answers
I1 how about that the government has no business in this issue?
I2 Pelosicrats? Barro is one of my heros, I’m saddened to see him in this hack piece
J1 wow, this was weak
J2 not much here either
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
6:14 pm
Sigh… A divisive topic (who chose this??) and a column with less than subtle undertones of victimhood. The column is a stereotypical and unconstructive rant.
If you want the AJC to be taken more seriously, hire an educated, calm, and nuanced conservative columnist that might actually get “the liberal readers” to look at the other side of the page. Wooten did not fit this bill, and neither does Candidate G.
Report this comment
Cap'n Yeth
February 26th, 2009
6:15 pm
Think about it here folks, you can already buy all of the alcohol you want to on Sunday…in a restaurant. I agree with the author that this old law should be repealed. The government needs to stop setting a double standard. If one business owner can make a buck on Sunday due to alcohol sales, why can’t those who deal solely in the sale of alcohol make a buck too? Well put author!
Report this comment
C. Allen
February 26th, 2009
6:15 pm
Boy, poor Candidate J, put at the end where the reader comments are dumped in all their exasperations. I thought J’s commentary was just fine.
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
6:17 pm
I think this is a weak column from start to finish. The subject matter is not really about elephants but about a legal maneuver in a lawsuit. Honestly, is this the most egregious legal argument the author has ever heard? No, so who cares about it? Lawyers make up stories all the time.
Anyone who would read this column is going to be interested in the elephants themselves, and whether the circus is treating them cruelly or not. The reader waits for the author to address this question and leaves disappointed.
The author shows a sad lack of ingenuity with the comment that a circus without elephants would be “the end of the traveling circus as we know it.” I highly recommend he or she get out sometime and see Cirque Du Soleil or some smaller circuses and find out if the show is miserable without elephants. I’m not the only one who would argue that the experience is improved when I don’t have to wonder whether my ticket price is supporting animal cruelty. Or that a lot of “traditional” activities are worth scrapping.
Overall, neither the topic nor the argument impressed me.
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
6:21 pm
An interesting, if colloquial, column. While it took the topic of race head-on like Candidate G’s column, it did so in a more humorous and somewhat more evenhanded way. Not the best choice of topic for this contest, and it is apparent that the columnist is probably not a professional writer, but not necessarily a deal-breaker either. There are both better and worse essays here, and the candidate’s treatment of the stimulus would have to be a knock-out to get a vote from me.
Report this comment
Jay
February 26th, 2009
6:25 pm
The writer does make some good points at the beginning, but the lessons learned at the end, without much explanation for them, is puzzling. If those points are that important, they should have been dealt with more in-depth in the article and not just at the end.
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
6:29 pm
Ugg. Equating steroid use with inhumane animal treatment to make a point that gov’t should not be involved in regulation? Weak. Regulation is about leveling the playing field and imposing the same rules on everybody, particularly when the actions of the regulated have impact on the general public. This column did not make a convincing case for deregulation of agriculture or baseball and, overall, was one of the least well-written columns among all ten finalists. I understand that “deregulation” is one of the battle cries of conservatism but surely this columnist could have found better examples, given the over-exposed media cliche that deregulation has become.
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
6:37 pm
I liked this column better. Very fast-paced and colorful. It brought a topic to life that I would generally find about as interesting as an economics lecture and put a conservative anti-government-regulation spin on it …
… until I got to the “For some recent examples of climate change counter-measures gone wrong” paragraph. I just flat didn’t get it, and that paragraph seems intended to suuply the proof for the whole argument.
The language gets denser toward the end, possibly reaching a 17th-grade reading level. Can this writer make an argument the typical newspaper reader would understand? I’d say that remains to be seen.
Report this comment
Cap'n Yeth
February 26th, 2009
6:40 pm
Well said. Everyone needs to think long and hard about what trying to wipe out the coal industry in the United States would do to our already struggling economy. If you take a good look at your facts, you will realize that the United States has the world’s largest coal reserves. Well thought out there, Mr. President. Let’s stamp out the potential for millions of jobs. We need to find better ways to more efficiently and cleanly burn the coal we have. Also, I commend the author on calling him out on this issue.
Report this comment
Tech82
February 26th, 2009
6:41 pm
I think the column speaks accurately to the conservative cause. To those of you (liberals) who say that the author should have offered a viable alternative to the stimulus bill, I would ask that you cite an example of your hero, Jay Bookman, offering constructive alternatives when he was ranting about the Bush administration.
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
6:44 pm
I also liked this column. It’s clear, timely, and unlike some other columns, relevant to what is on Georgians’ minds right now.
Report this comment
JIN
February 26th, 2009
6:46 pm
A decent column by H, and a little better than his/her “random topic” column. Has more use of first-person than other columns, which adds to casualness and takes away from seriousness of topics. I’m not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Visual imagery and writing style probably make this candidate one of the top three or four, but it remains to be seen whether the candidate can translate overused platitudes (”common sense”) into actionable recommendations. Who wants to read an opinion columnist that whines about everything? Constructive applicants only need apply.
Report this comment
Elmer Fudd
February 26th, 2009
6:51 pm
The fact is that any knucklehead that wants to drink on Sunday is just going to buy his/her liquor on another day and store it.
This law has always been useless.
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
6:52 pm
I’m not going to mince words here. This column is terrible, and how the writer was considered one of the top 5% of candidates reflects poorly on the AJC.
The column is all heat and no light. It consists entirely of name-calling and name-dropping, followed by the predictable blaming all problems on a vast left-wing conspiracy. This level of intellectual immaturity is more suitable for a teenager’s blog than a daily newspaper.
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
7:04 pm
The shotgun approach lost my interest and I read only about half this column. Who exactly does the author think is racist? Eric Holder? Barack Obama? Shirley Franklin? Alinsky’s admittedly Machiavellian playbook? Get to the point.
I’m finding that few of the authors showcased here could have an honest, compelling conversation with your average newspaper reader, and this one is no exception. How does this information relate to my life right now? If I can’t answer that question by the second paragraph, I’m moving on. These writers may be conservative, but they are not columnists.
Report this comment
Tina
February 26th, 2009
7:10 pm
Here is precisely what Reich said: “if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.”
How, exactly, do white males, dominate the construction trades? By ratio of population? By the fact that they’re the one group not afforded special fiscal and tutorial privileges (and if you count white women with them, admission privileges) in attaining higher education at the echelons of community colleges, public universities, and male/female “pink-collar” professional fields?
By the fact that these are largely low-paying jobs that do not lead to much security these days?
How are they not members of the the poor and long-term unemployed because they’re white? That’s unbelievably offensive, and Reich should apologize.
How about: despite the fact that every major city already requires stringent set-asides, irrelevant of skill or performance or efficiency for minorities, those white males who do well manage to do well do so by working twice as hard, or doing the real work for companies necessarily fronted by minorities who pick up checks but don’t provide crews? I’ve done that work, Robert: have you? In Atlanta. And I’m a white female.
Is it even true that white construction workers have fewer economic needs? The ones I know, and I know many, having worked extensively in construction, are hurting from forty years of absurd affirmative action set-asides and intentional refusal by both the left and right elite to do anything about illegal labor. So enlighten me, Richard, since you’re reading this, where on earth are your facts, or are you just being prejudiced?
Good piece.
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
7:21 pm
The author says, “let’s not be afraid to talk about race.” Well, why doesn’t he or she? The only point I could make out besides congratulating Holder for talking about race and bashing people who think Holder should not talk about race was a sentence claiming “Native Americans, Asians and Hispanics” are left out of all the talk. If that’s all the author has to say about race, perhaps he or she should not be telling others to talk about it.
Why should we talk about race? The question is begged and never answered, leaving this reader disappointed.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 26th, 2009
7:23 pm
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job)I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefor my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist A to be among the worthier and possibly even worthiest.
Report this comment
former peach
February 26th, 2009
7:25 pm
an interesting twist on an old topic. the unforseeable consequences of a well-meaning law.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 26th, 2009
7:31 pm
Lulu Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 26th, 2009
7:23 pm
I appreciated that he or she gave a specific Georgia spin to the subject.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist C to be among the worthier and possibly even worthiest.
Report this comment
oldmac
February 26th, 2009
7:33 pm
We have a winner.
Clear, concise, pointed, logical (imagine logical in the AJC)-we can hope.
Best of luck.
JB
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
7:35 pm
The author wrote a sports column and tried to expand its appeal to the A section reader by tacking on something about cows and vegetables in the first paragraph and a rant against parents in the last. The result is an ugly mutation.
And even the sports column is weak. I really can’t see the point. Whatever it is, it relies on name-calling (”the whiny adulterer”) and a large chunk of text being a quote from someone else.
And like nearly all the other candidates, this one fails to explain why I should care about this topic.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 26th, 2009
7:36 pm
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say I found Columnist D to be among the worthier.
Report this comment
Jeff
February 26th, 2009
7:36 pm
FinanceBuzz:
Please explain how the Huckabee Republicans that you seem to be so fond of are anything other than the Taliban or even Barack Obama with different beliefs about the particulars.
**ALL THREE GROUPS** want the GOVERNMENT to make your decisions, though different decisions in occasionally different areas.
Libertarians (of both forms, this was simply the beginning of a sentence) want YOU to make your decisions and the Government to get the HADES out of it.
The reason wedge issues are so popular in campaigns is because there is **ZERO** inherent difference between the GOP and the Democrats.
Love, Like em, or hate em, at least parties like the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party stick to their guns and don’t back down,
Report this comment
KBH
February 26th, 2009
7:38 pm
While I agree with the overall theory of the article which is increased school competition leads to better performing schools I think school vouchers is not addressing the real problem at hand. What actually makes a school bad? I believe a person can get an education just about anywhere. All it takes is a willingness to learn. I would argue that the problem is that getting an education is not valued and therefore not a priority.
Oprah Winfrey grew up very poor in rural Mississippi. Was it more difficult to “escape?” Probably so. But when you want something bad enough you’ll find a way. Today’s school aged children are too ignorant to realize that unless they have a world class talent for athletics/entertainment or can start a successful business their education is a HUGE factor in their professional success. I think the reasons public schools “fail” is not for lack of funding, but for crappy curriculums. Sure, I think schools should make math, basic American history, politics and government, personal finance and writing and speaking English effectively required subjects. But I also think schools should allow students to pursue subjects they’re interested in pursuing. Not every high school student needs to take Trigonometry or human biology. Let’s face it…there are subjects in school that you will NEVER USE AGAIN! Why make a student take those types of classes?
Report this comment
Lulu
February 26th, 2009
7:39 pm
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist F to be among the worthier.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 26th, 2009
7:46 pm
Excellent comparison with the New Deal era of memory.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say I found Columnist H to be among the worthier and possibly even worthiest.
Report this comment
Kathi
February 26th, 2009
7:49 pm
Wow, finally, a TRIPOD THESIS!
Thesis: “The money will come from [1] leaving Iraq, [2] requiring companies to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide, and, of course, [3] taxing ‘the rich.’”
Supporting arguments: “[1] the most that we could save by leaving Iraq … is about $140 billion. [2] Any permit system for carbon emissions will be undermined as a revenue generator … [3] Finally, taxing the rich is a false hope …”
Whether you agree with the arguments or not, at least the author makes a clear connection from start to finish. The other columns were mostly disorganized and confusing. The topic is also timely and relevant.
I think this is by far the best column. The first and last paragraphs are related, it’s colorful and uses simple language. The finish is just great. This is the only author I’ve seen that I can say I’d like to read more of.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 26th, 2009
7:50 pm
Excellent insight into psychology of spending versus saving.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist I to be among the worthier and possibly even worthiest.
Report this comment
Debate101
February 26th, 2009
7:51 pm
This is the worst of the Stimulus articles written, I give you an “F”. I have a huge problem with the columnist identifying the main points by Maxim 1 and Maxim 2.
As far as content, I thought this statement was the most thought provoking. ****The sad fact is that simple renewal of the Bush tax cuts would end the recession almost immediately, by alleviating business fears of future costs. ****
It made me think that this person must be completely out of his/her mind, to believe such a statement.
As far as fear/control being owned by the democrats – that’s a complete joke. The Bush administration used fear and control on a daily basis, since 2001. What we see on a daily basis, is not fear, but reality of the situation. We don’t need the democrats to tell us that we are in a huge bind; because we see it at our jobs, in the grocery stores and on our 401K statements.
I hope the AJC finds a conservative columnist who actually has a real clue.
Report this comment
Robert K
February 26th, 2009
7:52 pm
The columnist clearly has no understanding whatsoever of climate change. The EPA understands well what this columnist does not: the carbon that matters is that which is released by the combustion of fossil fuels, carbon that has been sequestered underground for millions of years, not what animals exhale.
Also, the likely consequences of climate change do not include seeing the earth “combust” in any sense.
Hire this columnist only if you want to firmly equate conservatism with ignorance and irrationality.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 26th, 2009
7:53 pm
Again excellent insight.
After trying to read both columns by each candidate (and, of course all the comments on them) I decided it would be easier to expect our ELECTED Congressman to do their job by reading the 1000 page stimulus bill (Do those clowns have a second job or a note from home saying they are excused from doing their job) I decided it was POSSIBLE for me to read each column on the stimulus by every candidate before commenting.
Therefore my opinion on those I found worthier are found under their piece on the stimulus. Sufficient to say here I found Columnist J to be among the worthier.
Report this comment
Truth
February 26th, 2009
8:02 pm
I liked the column. I just wished the writer would have mentioned how a few years ago the superintendent, Dan Colwell, was fired for no reason except for the fact that he is white. He was the best thing they had going.
Report this comment
OTP reader
February 26th, 2009
8:03 pm
Robert, you may have written the best piece this paper and its web site have seen in a long time. Why don’t you apply for the job? I think your comments are as well stated as any of the potential applicants.
I’d socialize any day of the week with someone with such well-thought ideas (regardles of color and background). It might take away Holder’s platform, but we’d all enjoy each other’s company more with rational thinking like that.
Thank you for your submission!
Report this comment
Lol!!!
February 26th, 2009
8:20 pm
I guess I just think it’s funny that all of y’all continue to suggest that “Conservative” means you favor individual liberties. How many laws about people’s private personal behavior with consenting adults have been put forth and then defended by conservatives? How many of the violations of our civil liberties created by the Bush administration continue to be supported by Conservatives?
Let’s face it – the only “liberty” you right-wing scum care about involves ammunition.
You people keep telling yourself that you believe in Liberty. I’ll keep laughing my butt off.
Report this comment
Alice Carnahan
February 26th, 2009
8:41 pm
I am definitely not a conservative, and I am an animal welfare (not rights!) supporter. So, I began reading this piece expecting to disagree with it. Instead, I found it to be cogent, articulate, and compellng in its argument. Superb writing from an obviously good brain! Thanks for letting your readers have input on the candidates!
Report this comment
Alice Carnahan
February 26th, 2009
8:47 pm
This person is a superb writer, an original thinker, and has fresh arguments. S/he is also cogent without being obnoxious. I agree with Mort; hire her/him!
Report this comment
Sowega
February 26th, 2009
9:12 pm
Well, if this candidate is a product of public schools, he has made his case very well. Was one of the Children Left Behind?
Grade: D
Report this comment
AJC_Reader
February 26th, 2009
9:19 pm
I vote for this candidate. A thoughtful piece. I appreciate the writer’s constructive tone. The high-school-esque divisiveness that is characteristic of the other candidates is absent here.
Report this comment
Fred
February 26th, 2009
9:56 pm
Dear AJC: Since you seem so interested in your readers’ opinions and input about whom should be hired as your new “strong conservative” columnist, how about asking for our input as to whether or not to keep the current slate of Op-Ed staff? And since you chose to label Wooten and his replacement as “strong conservatives”, it’s only fair to tell your readers how you label Tucker, Bookman, Downey and Lukovich? While you’re at the labeling game, how about polling your readers to see where they fall on the political spectrum (strong liberal, moderate liberal, moderate, moderate conservative, strong conservative). Of course, you and anyone who has read more than a weeks’ worth of AJC papers knows the answers, but it would be shockingly candid to admit it and publish the results. If the AJC were on solid financial footing, you wouldn’t have to stoop to asking your readers to help pick the token conservative. It’s only because you are dying and desperate.
Report this comment
Lindsay
February 26th, 2009
10:13 pm
This is my favorite of the columns. The writer is clearly knowledgeable on the ESA, and does a great job making it easy to understand. He also gives me a way to identify with the controversy, making us think about whether we would choose to protect the elephants’ right to leisure or our desire to see them in zoos and circuses. He presents us with a difficult decision: Could we justify effectively shutting down the circus while they have a successful breeding program? I would enjoy reading this writer’s column in the future in the AJC. Great writing!
Report this comment
KBH
February 26th, 2009
10:20 pm
I agree with writer. Well written.
Report this comment
KBH
February 26th, 2009
11:18 pm
Well written. Good argument presentation. Best of the 5!
Report this comment
KBH
February 26th, 2009
11:27 pm
DavidS…you’re an intelligent man! If you didn’t apply for the columnist position you should have.
As for the article, I thought it was pretty good.
Report this comment
Deanna Berry
February 27th, 2009
12:01 am
It seems that most of you are critiquing the actual stance of the writer as opposed to the effectiveness of his/her argument. As a true conservative, I would say that the argument isn’t whether or whether not to keep the Sunday sales ban in place…but that the state shouldn’t be legislating where localities could better make a decision that works the best for its residents.
Reagan federalism, which I believe extends beyond the states powers, would be the true conservative stance on this subject.
Right and wrong will never reach a consensus or convince anyone to change their point of view…but decisions based on a solid, consistent principle can’t be disputed.
Report this comment
Deanna Berry
February 27th, 2009
12:08 am
C. Allen,
The EPA is a bureaucracy…although the head of the EPA is appointed by the President, the agency itself does not fall under the supervision of the executive branch. I think the writers point is, much like the census, President Obama seems to want to micromanage…and presidential micromanagement never has the greatest outcome, if you know what I mean.
Report this comment
Carlton Allen
February 27th, 2009
12:37 am
A 1:Second worst of the group. Ignores the cuts to education in GA in recent years. Ignores studies that have shown vouchers have little to no impact. Twisting of facts.
A 2: Better analysis here but still uses data one can’t help but question.
B 1: Strongest candidate. Sticks to sound conservative principles. Lets the principles guide his opinion rather than twisting them to appeal to a group. Gave me new insight
B 2: Employs sound reasoning rather than just trying to bash the other side. Challenged me to think about the topic rather than dismissively agree or disagree.
C 1: Good candidate. Good reasoning, but not a topic of the greatest interest.
C 2: Good analysis and writes in a manner that is easy to understand.
D 1: Average candidate. Best of the two pieces. Creative approach that gets the reader’s attention.
D 2: Reads like talk radio and does little more than echo what you’ve already heard from others.
E 1: Second best candidate. Good insight and analysis. Demonstrates sound conservative principles.
E 2: Creative approach to the subject again showing sound conservative principles.
F 1: Weak candidate. I liked the call for elective office to be a place of public service but the early part just seemed like ranting.
F 2: Reminded me of a student who didn’t want to do his homework and just slapped something together.
G 1: Worst candidate. Seemed like a tiresome topic and his approach did nothing to intrigue or move me.
G 2: Worst piece of all 20 submissions. Didn’t stick to topic, just went off on his own tangent.
H 1: Third best candidate. Took the same topic as candidate G but presented it in a fresh way that caught my attention and made me think.
H 2: Sound approach and conservative ideals.
I 1: Weak candidate. Not sure this is a genuinely conservative position.
I 2: Gives no evidence to support his confidence in the Bush tax cuts. Why would they work now? I deal with words every day and had to look up the word “aver.” Gave the piece a kind of elitist air.
J 1: Average candidate. Strong on research and analysis. Not the greatest writer.
J 2: Nothing about this caught my attention or moved me.
I enjoyed this opportunity for response.
Report this comment
Joe
February 27th, 2009
1:23 am
I agree with Kathi. The real failing of this article is that it collapses what is a dynamic and complicated situation into a banal swipe at blaming liberals. What has happened to Clayton County is tragic because it was once a county with a modest amount of economic and cultural promise. To understand what happened to this county you have to understand the context of racial tension, the failing economy and the county’s indebtedness to the sub-prime housing crisis, and, of course, the failure of the school board to place performance before politics.
Finally, Candidate F’s “three lessons,” besides being poorly conceived, signal that this writer suffers from the most simplistic and destructive kind of conservatism: the reductive kind. Ending the article with a slapdash list of moral lessons denies the truth and complexity of the county’s problems. How, if we are invited to ignore the socio-economic complexities of the situation, are we ever to arrive at lasting solutions?
Report this comment
Hillary Jindal
February 27th, 2009
2:04 am
AJC is, like it or not, a national, or even international, news site. If you are to have one designated conservative, he should write from a national perspective, not a GA-specific one. Let the Macon, Augusta and smaller Atlanta papers write on local viewpoints. (And yes, since we are conservative, we are not PC slaves: “he” means “he or she.” You don’t have to slavishly use “he or she,” “he/she” or any other banal formulation!)
Report this comment
Hillary Jindal
February 27th, 2009
2:15 am
This one is your most interesting applicant. The writing could use some editing, though. Without seeing the applicants’ resumes, we can’t really judge, can we? I think employers should be discriminating in the best sense of the word. If this one is 26, he has promise. If he is 55 and writes like this, he’s not as likely to improve. (That’s not pure age discrimination: you might tip the balance toward the older writer based on other factors…)
Report this comment
Billc
February 27th, 2009
2:40 am
Very well written article. I don’t understand why the President is so opposed to nuclear energy and to the earlier comment about Frances’ social medicine the reason we don’t want it is because it doesn’t work. Do you want to wait 6 months to see a doctor? We have 49,000,000 uninsured. Were in the world do you think we will get the extra doctors and nurses to service these folks?
Report this comment
Political Man
February 27th, 2009
4:27 am
Please define “conservative columnist,” Matt or whomever. If Wooten is an example of a conservative, then we are equating conservative with ignorance. Hopefully all columnists are geared to staring reality in the face. For the most part, the AJC columnists are quite good. They may skewer the privileged, but usually with good reason.
Virtually all of the sample columns are noted only for their stereotypical, and yes ignorant, content. I detect virtually no analytical ability in any of them.
The comment about the AJC going out of business demonstrates fifth-grade stupidity. We need more newspapers, not less.
Report this comment
Rod Adams
February 27th, 2009
4:55 am
The author is far too generous to the wind and solar industries by giving them credit for producing 5% of the electricity used in the US. The Energy Information Agency, a statistical arm of the Department of Energy, produces a huge volume of statistics about energy production and consumption. On their web site, you can find pages that provide details about electricity production. In 2007, the last full year for which data analysis is complete, the US consumed 4,156,745 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. Wind and solar/PV together produced 32,749 billion kilowatt hours or about 0.75% of that amount.
Five percent would have been a small but useful portion of the electricity market, but 0.75% is sound and fury signifying nothing.
It boggles my mind that the stimulus package authors in the House and Senate conference committees bowed to the demands of the wind, solar, and fossil fuel industry by pulling a provision that would have enabled $50 billion in private investment in clean energy production with the allocation of just $500 million in taxpayer funds that might never have been needed.
Please understand this – the $50 billion that nuclear plants could have qualified to access was in the form of a loan guarantee subject to fee collection, it was not a grant. It was roughly equivalent to a student loan guarantee for a bright engineering student from a poor family or a VA loan guarantee for a veteran with his main job history as fighting in Iraq. Neither one is a particularly risky loan, but both might need some government backing in order to get to closing.
Report this comment
Southsidetoby
February 27th, 2009
6:05 am
The writer takes up a common topic and a common viewpoint: Georgia does poorly on a statewide basis in k-12 education and especially secondary education. Some conservative solutions are offered and in that sense, I think the column is fine, but I’m troubled by some gaps in logic. The following should be addressed:
First, the writer wants Georgia to adopt universal school choice supported by an open voucher system because Georgia ranks 41st out of 50 in state education rankings. Yet the writer never establishes that any of the top ranked states employ choice and vouchers; nor does the writer offer examples of states that went from low to high rankings as a result of implementing school choice and vouchers. Unless the writer can draw that connection, the proposal can be easily rejected because it is not addressing whatever is really causing Georgia to rank 41st and what causes places like Minnesota or Massachusetts to rank in the top 10. If the absence of school choice and vouchers does not explain Georgia’s low ranking, then adopting such a system will not improve Georgia’s low ranking.
Second, the writer overgeneralizes and thereby weakens potential support for the proposal. Georgia has many underperforming schools and school systems, but it also has many top performing systems. Does the writer really mean to include top performing schools in the school choice and voucher policy? The reality is that top performing schools do not spring up by accident. High performing schools result from dedicated community support and the decisions of community leaders to place a high priority on education, even if it means limiting building and development, paying more in taxes, etc. Why should those communities support the writer’s proposal? The writer apparently fails to anticipate that people in communities with high performing schools are likely to oppose the writer’s policy because they will see the policy as exploiting their hard work and sacrifice in order to educate people from communities that have not made similar efforts to prioritize their schools. There is simply little incentive for communities with high performing schools to support a voucher/school choice system to address a problem they do not have. The writer never addresses this issue and it is a serious flaw.
Finally, the writer fails to squarely address an issue that is very important to conservatives: whether education is a matter of public concern such that it should continue to be funded by tax dollars. Many Georgians pay far less than $5000 annually in property and income taxes. The writer’s proposal assumes that that we will take money through taxation and transfer it to those people with children to spend as they see fit. Is the writer committed to public funding? If so, the writer needs to say that and explain why public funding is important. Otherwise, many conservatives will simply insist that we eliminate public funding (they’ll call it Socialist) and let each family figure out how to pay educate their kids. What is the writer’s response to that argument?
Report this comment
suzi
February 27th, 2009
8:04 am
I agree. I liked the article.
Report this comment
Ann
February 27th, 2009
8:14 am
The AJC is like MSNBC and CNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS . . . completely irrelevant in these times . . . out of touch with the majority of Americans who are conservative with traditional values. A supposed “conversative” columnist has no chance with your liberal rag.
Report this comment
Fred Wagner
February 27th, 2009
8:14 am
The data are pretty clear that the voucher gambit is not what it seems (and doesn’t “work” anyway). Arguments for a voucher system – and this is no different – are simply ploys to further resegregate the schools. Private schools do not want, nor will they tolerate, nor will they accept the students who for whatever reason do not want to be there – leaving the poor to the public schools (now with even fewer resources) so that they can continue to be called failures while the teachers continue to shed blood, sweat and tears to help the destitute kids from broken homes who haven’t eaten in weeks and, as the research clearly shows, have been poisoned by the lead paint in their homes. The voucher ploy is a nice con game, but it’s a transparent one. AND the perpetrators want to take public dollars to pull it off. With, of course, no so called “accountability” using the worthless (but dumbfoundingly expensive) minimum competency tests that the public has been conned into believing tell us something but are simply used by the resegregaters to further convince us that public schools are bad. Just like the previous administration in Washington, they know that if they put lies in front of us often enough, we will begin to believe them. Sadly, they seem to be right. As a lifelong conservative (having nothing to do with the label “Republican”) I vote no on this person.
Report this comment
Fred Wagner
February 27th, 2009
8:26 am
Bravo. Whoever called this ‘left wing’ above is no conservative. Perhaps it’s time he or she at least learned how to spell the word, even if they don’t understand it. Today’s religious Republicans are not in ANY sense of the term “conservative.” Controlling someone else’s life is its antithesis. In practice, I don’t care. If I want to stay at home and have a beer on Sunday I can buy it on Saturday and put it in the fridge. The primary purpose of the blue law seems to be to get bad planners out to the bars on Sunday so they can put the rest of us at risk when they drive home drunk. How many innocents have been killed by this law? But in principle, as a conservative, it’s just none of anybody else’s business whether I want to buy a beer on Sunday – before, during or after my or anybody else’s church sermon – and drive sober to the safety of my own home to drink it.
Report this comment
Jimmy
February 27th, 2009
8:46 am
It takes a Carter to make a Reagan, so it takes an Obama to make a ……? PLease let us find someone good to plug into the end of that sentence.
Report this comment
Jimmy
February 27th, 2009
8:52 am
I think the columnist has made all logical points as to why this ban needs to go. We are a free country (well we were at least) and the market should determine if it is worth a store to sell on sunday or not.
Report this comment
SALLY
February 27th, 2009
8:58 am
I LIKE C’S COMPARISON OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ADULT CHILDREN. IT RANG A TRUE BELL. BOTH C’S ARTICLES WERE WRITTEN WITH KNOWLEDGE AND COMPASSION.
Report this comment
Danny D.
February 27th, 2009
8:58 am
Love the fact that this author really seems to be getting under the skin of climate alarmists. [Sorry for the following non sequitur...but...I just have to thank Robert K. for pointing out that the climate change doesn't involve "spontaneous combustion". Gosh, to think of the panic that might have ensued with such a literal reading of this column! Kind of like a Wizard of OZ, Wicked Witch of the West Moment: "Help me, I'm not only melting, I'm spontaneously combusting!"]
Anyways…This author writes with style…and manages to point out some of the insanities involved with climate alarmism. The fact that the alarmists take issue only serves to confirm my initial impression that this was the most interesting and readable of the columns.
Of course, it takes a bit more effort than a “See Spot Run” reading to appreciate it.
In passing through these comments, did I really read that the Springsteen allusion was unrealistic because of the air filtration system at Philips Arena? There HAS to be a hidden joke in that comment that I’m missing. Air Filtration? Are you kidding me? Clearly, I’m being too literal in thinking that an engineer’s assessment of the CO2 impact from the Springsteen Concert reference was ridiculously pedantic?
“See Spot Run.
See Spot pant.
Spot pants because it’s hot outside.
Oh My God…We are melting! Climate change is upon us!
Cap Carbon before Dick and Jane spontaneously combust!”
This columnist gets my vote.
Report this comment
Not Conservative
February 27th, 2009
9:06 am
I think that this candidate should win. He eloquently and effectively represented the conservative view point. I am not a conservative and disagree with his opinions. I think that as a writer he will spark intelligent debate between liberals and conservatives that may increase circulation. He appears to not have fear of tackling difficult issues, but is carefully not to say tham in an inflammatory or politically incorrect manner.
Report this comment
CB
February 27th, 2009
9:08 am
Great article……..I agree that we push through legislation making laws and rules that do not even relate to the situations they will ultimately impact. It sounds like to me that the captive elephants are the ones thriving so what’s the message here? This is the kind of baggage that is hanging onto all of the laws being passed today.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
9:11 am
The writer has clearly done his/her homework and appeared to be knowledgeable about the sordid mess of a school board. A good case is made that the board members care more about their self-importance and chance to enrich themselves than for overseeing the county’s schools.
I liked the “three lesons” at the end of the column.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
9:17 am
The writer said a lot of things that I (and probably others) have been thinking. Eric Holder is a disgrace from day one. The writer’s reference to Saul Alinsky was interesting, but then the rest of the column was about the evils of minority set-asides, which was a bit off the topic that he/she was addressing.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
9:22 am
The writer was effective in noting why we don’t have meaningful discussions of racial issues in this country. The column did stray somewhat from the topic (Eric Holder), but tied things together together at the end.
Report this comment
Dennis
February 27th, 2009
9:22 am
After reading 11 of the 20 samples I reached this conclusion:
It is a mistake for the AJC to recruit a novice writer for this position. It has been clear for a long, long time that AJC management is not committed to serving the available Conservative market. This failure to bring service to that market, which is most likely larger than the AJC Liberal market, has impacted the AJC circulation and, thereby, the advertising revenue. Seize this is an opportunity to fix that.
I do not want to lose Bookman. Not because I agree with him, I almost never do, but because Bookman can effectively write opinions about a wide variety of issues. In my view, Tucker, Downey and King, when he was there, are all very limited regarding the subjects about which they can effectively comment.
I think the right thing to do here is bite the bullet. Do what you need to do to find and hire an experienced conservative to replace Wooten. One that can also perform the tasks required of whomever you must let go in order to afford the experience.
If having a majority of Liberal Opinion writers is critical, let the third Liberal be the novice.
Please show this respect to your conservative customers.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
9:30 am
The author does make a conservative case for less regulation of steroids, but as a conservative, I also believe that these drugs are so dangerous that they should not be allowed. The fact that many kids now believe that they must use steroids to succeed in athletics is frightening. In my opinion, the drugs should be banned.
The bottom line is that although the writer does present a (theoretically) conservative viewpoint, I disagree with his/her opinion, and I think that many conservatives would agree with me.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
9:33 am
To me, this was the best of the Friday columns. The facts and figures were clearly presented, and Obama’s plans were blown out of the water.
The writing style and use of a Dire Straits song title were very effective.
Report this comment
Joey
February 27th, 2009
9:37 am
I think this is the best writer of the bunch. It is a good thing to be able to write an interesting column about subject that is not on the front page.
Report this comment
Frank
February 27th, 2009
9:40 am
None of the candidates are very inspiring; however, Candidate G made more good points.
Report this comment
VJW
February 27th, 2009
9:44 am
Yes there are groups for and against lifting the restrictions for Sunday alcohol sales. That does not mean it is right or wrong. It is a changing world and if the Sunday alcohol sales will generate more revenue we need to strongly consider this option.
Report this comment
Liberal Democrat
February 27th, 2009
9:45 am
One of the most important things about a conservative columnist is her ability to go beyond “preaching to the choir.” This person does that. I found his/her original take on the impact of the stimulus on Georgia compelling, and almost convincing. I want so badly to disagree, but I find it hard to. It is by far the most well-written, focused, and original column.
Report this comment
VJW
February 27th, 2009
9:50 am
Here is a campaign promise Mr. Obama appears to be keeping…“bankrupting” the coal industry. Coal is a fuel that we have an abundance of and has been utilized for many generations. How reliable is wind power?!
Report this comment
Sandy
February 27th, 2009
9:53 am
I could really care less whether alcohol is sold on Sunday in this state or not. I have never been denied the ability to get a drink on any day whether it comes from a restaurant or ball game or from the grocery store on Saturday evening. The real issue here that the author seems to miss is that we should not throw our principals away for a few extra $$. We leave that to the unethical immoral liberal democrats. The key to increasing revenue is to cut spending on social welfare programs that encourage irresponsible behavior.
Report this comment
Daxter
February 27th, 2009
10:06 am
Those of you who have harshly criticized this article, claiming the author was promoting abuse of animals have missed the point ENTIRELY! I think it’s safe to assume that each potential columnist was given free reign to write on any topic they desired. Since the goal of the contest was to choose a CONSERVATIVE columnist, it’s ridiculous to bash his/her opinion because they line up with the conservative viewpoint.
Namely…..
There are many ways that something which sounds good on the surface can be harmful in the long run. He/she did an excellent job of taking a subject of which we know little and delving deeper into the hidden agenda which would severely limit any and all facilities which come into contact with animals. He/she never said they condoned animal cruelty; but rather pointed out that there are already laws on the books which could have addressed the Plaintiff’s issue.
If the Plaintiffs prevail, we could all see the end to zoos, aquariums and circuses. Wouldn’t that be lovely for our children and grandchildren? Those of you with a liberal bend would love it, for sure, but this person is writing because they are in a competition for a CONSERVATIVE columnist position. The AJC already has a preponderance of liberal columnists — what’s the point of nominating someone who is a conservative-in-name-only? Oh….yea…..I forgot. Competition sucks.
This person gets my vote!
Report this comment
Daxter
February 27th, 2009
10:17 am
This article was not compelling, succinct or to-the-point. Thumbs down.
Report this comment
David Appell
February 27th, 2009
10:28 am
This column has a major error and the writer does not seem to have researched the science. Human breathing emits only about 1 kg/day of carbon dioxide, but their energy use — cars, power, etc. — produces about 100 times that. Worrying about human respiration is just silly. But more, all the CO2 emitted by human respiration was first taken in by the plants we eat (and the animals we eat, who also ate planets). So the CO2 is really cycled, not newly emitted.
Report this comment
Daxter
February 27th, 2009
10:31 am
If the point of this contest is to critique the conservative viewpoint of each contestant as well as their overal ability to present a persuasive and cogent article, this person doesn’t make the grade.
Report this comment
Don H.
February 27th, 2009
10:40 am
I agree with One Man’s Opinion entered on Feb 26. I believe there are “conservative” opinions enough in other media. The AJC stands out in southern regional newspapers as presenting a balanced view of most topics. That said, if the AJC is determined to have a so-called conservative columnist my choice would be Candidate E. His column is well written and has thoughtful points to consider. However, I do miss someone with the fire of Molly Irwin although Bookman is outstanding.
Report this comment
Daxter
February 27th, 2009
10:44 am
I really enjoyed this author’s use of language to incite and illuminate. However, there were several times when I found myself re-reading sentences due to poor punctuation. I would put this person in 2nd place, though! (Behind C)
Report this comment
Elizabeth Schmidt
February 27th, 2009
10:45 am
I think this article is the best of all the candidates too.
Report this comment
Daxter
February 27th, 2009
10:56 am
Wow, this writer presented a good conservative opinion and did an outstanding job of sticking to the point. I would definitely say this is now a toss-up in my mind between this potential columnist and the one who wrote about the elephants. Both did an excellent job of pointing out the hidden agendas that might otherwise have been missed by the public at large.
Report this comment
George P Burdell
February 27th, 2009
10:58 am
Why bother with a token conservative? With Luckovich, Bookman and Tucker kneeling before the far left altar, there is no balance or objectivity anyway.
Report this comment
CNDeLucia
February 27th, 2009
11:01 am
The author makes some great points and the article is well written.
Report this comment
Gary
February 27th, 2009
11:02 am
Keep your blue laws. Florida needs your money. Thanks!
Report this comment
Pam
February 27th, 2009
11:09 am
I liked four of the columnists: B, D, H and J. I liked them because they all could write a coherent column. They had a point to make, supported it with facts, and their arguments were thoughtful and balanced. I don’t like Wooten because he just complains about everything, and never has any balanced discussion. I don’t think being a conservative should mean being against everything and arguing for the same old tired, unworkable solutions. How about a runoff between the columnists that get the most votes?
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
11:13 am
As much as I disagree with Wooten on most things, his columns are at least colorful and engaging. The opening paragraphs of this sounded directly like a campaign pitch, and I could only skim the rest of the column, finding nothing else too interesting. Best of luck to all of the contestants though.
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
11:18 am
A provocative piece from someone attempting to become a conservative columnist. The writer does a good job of showing that there are different viewpoints among conservatives, but if he were to apply this type of reasoning to other topics, I can see conservative readers thinking that the AJC didn’t hire someone conservative enough. Didn’t find the writing to be the most interesting or stylish. Best of luck to all of the contestants though.
Report this comment
Tammy
February 27th, 2009
11:23 am
I have many objections to the stimulus packages that President Obama has proposed, however, we as a country are to dependent on the energy sources we currently utilize. I think that any step in a direction that takes us away from our current situation is applaudable. If it fails, so what, haven’t the ideas of former presidents done the same, and quite miserably might I add. What the columnist does however, is serve the purpose for which she is is intended: to raise eyebrows; to cause us to question what we think we know to be right vs. wrong; and at best, to facilitate a friendly debate of sorts. Will we always share 100% of the views of our columnists? Absolutely not, and neither is that the point of a column. Job well done in “stirring the pot” a little.
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
11:27 am
Seems like an awfully obscure topic to flex Republican principles on. I could see if the writer wanted to suggest that this lawsuit was a slippery slope toward the government confiscating home kitties, but from what I can tell the biggest threat the writer reveals is that it will be harder for circuses to maintain elephants. Seems like a truly niche grievance. And not only was the topic obscure, but the obscure information the writer includes was presented in drowsy way. Best of luck to all of the contestants though.
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
11:34 am
I think it’s juvenile to start any writing with “Imagine that…” or to end it with a series of questions. That said, i think this writer did the best job so far of combining an anecdotal narrative while trying to make a persuasive argument. The problem is, that argument contained absolutely nothing fresh. It’s the same talking points. Granted, I’m a liberal and so it might be my bias that sees it as the same old drivel, but in this contest I would love for a writer to make me go, “Hey, I never really thought of it that way.” This column came nowhere near accomplishing that. Best of luck to all of the contestants though.
Report this comment
LR
February 27th, 2009
11:35 am
This is my kind of a conservative; arguments based on free market, limited government principles and not based on the desire to legislate socially conservative values. If you would gladly use government legislation as a tool to enforce your religious beliefs that makes you for big government by definition. Several of the previous commenters should just go join the Democrats, they have no problem with the government-as-a-nanny philosophy that they are espousing
Report this comment
Troglodyke
February 27th, 2009
11:35 am
I thought this was one of the better columns, honestly. I disagree with the writer that vouchers will really help, so I am coming from the other side. But our education system is in the toilet, and this is the Republican mantra for fixing it–so I’m not surprised by his/her views on it.
I enjoyed that s/he did admit that not all public schools are bad. I much more appreciate and enjoy reading pieces that admit that the “other side” has it’s positives and negatives, instead of just bashing them and using that vitriol (instead of facts for his/her side) to make his/her point.
So, though I disagree with the viewpoint, I like that this person is clearheaded, and able to see both sides (at least, in a way).
I give it a B.
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
11:39 am
Fairly engaging and well written. Some interesting framing in terms of ” buying homeowners’ indifference to other tax hikes.” I don’t think this writer hit it out of the park, but it was a strong presentation of conservative principles.
Report this comment
Troglodyke
February 27th, 2009
11:44 am
Wow…a conservative who wants this ridiculous law repealed? That is refreshing! I am a Libertarian who leans ever-so-slightly left, and I liked this column. Honestly, it would be lovely for the AJC to have a “true” conservative columnist, as opposed to the “new” conservatives, who are in the pocket of the Religious Wrong.
There is absolutely no good reason for this law to still be in effect. Georgia is behind in so many areas, and yet Atlanta wants to think of itself as an international city? Folks like Sadie “My-religious-beliefs-should-be-law” Fields have held sway in politics for way too long.
Of course, my viewpoint is not what is being graded here. I think the article was well-written, and again, it’s nice to read something from a “real” conservative.
Oh, and as for liquor store owners not wanting to be open on Sundays? No one will hold a gun to your head. Stay closed, and the consumers will buy from grocery stores.
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
11:45 am
Very colorful writing. I think I’d definitely read more. It reads a bit choppy at parts, but this columnist is going to be replacing Wooten, right? No big change there. My only fear is that during intense debate, such colorful writing will veer toward Ann Coulter/Jim Wooten word play. You can be funny without being condescending. This writer is the first writer that makes me want to read his or her second entry on the stimilus to get more of a flavor.
Report this comment
Kelvin
February 27th, 2009
11:51 am
Robert is either a self-hating sell-out or he doesn’t grasp the complexity and nuances of what Holder was saying. Or he’s truly not a black man and someone using the internet to push their own version of what a self-hating black man would say. Obama has stayed above the fray and never stopped down to many of the identity politics that many would attribute to him. And as far as JamC’s comments, what has Holder done — except say something courageous — that would make him a disgrace? Alberto Gonzalez lied and subverted the Constitution. If that’s the previous level the bar has been set at, Holder is a long way from being disgraceful.
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
11:55 am
Awfully lazy and cliche of someone to invoke “communists” and “radicals” … and then to offer as examples, 1.) Obama’s comment on Rush Limbaugh; 2.) Vague “lobs” that Obama has taken at Fox News folks, even though he’s appeared frequently on the channel, and 3.) Obama’s response to “a plumber who questioned his economic policies.”
It is disingenuous and irrational to portray what turned out to be a full-throttle campaign operative as “a plumber who questioned his economic policies.” The rest of this writer’s ideas are equally irrational since based on this column, one might think that minority contractors make up anywhere near a majority of all of the contractors that do business with the city. I would hate if the AJC hired a liberal columnist who blamed whitey for everything, and I would hate it if the newspaper hired someone who regurgitates the “Blacks got all the benefits, white man can’t catch a break in America” nonsense.
Report this comment
Gregg
February 27th, 2009
12:01 pm
Conservative voter please do tell? Where were you on the issue when Bush suggested we bail out the private banking industry? Were you applauding John McCain for dropping his campaign and putting America first? Let me guess, yes you were. Yet in the same breath you bash President Obama for bailing out State governments. Why? These are the same bailout that will get Bill to the top a job but he doesn’t see it because it’s coming from a Democrat rather than a Republican.
I don’t know if you who prefer less government intervention understand this but less government means less regulation. If these past 8 years have not shown us what that does (i.e. mortagage, gas, banking) then what else will it take? I may not agree totally with everything that is going on however how can you right wingers expect this man to undo everything it took Bush to do in eight years. You unveil your criticism not based on any facts but what you have heard from that pill popping junkie (who once called for prison time for first time offenders until e got caught).
I still agree that we are a nation of cowards no matter what is said. We alienate ourselves from those that do not share our views or look like us. This is not exclusively a white thing, Holder gave all of us credit for this. I agree with him fully. I spent 10 years in the military and i have been with men who watched my back and I watched theirs on foreign grounds yet when we reached our grounds we parted ways until the next time we were called. We were work buddies and nothing more. willing to die with or for each other but not willing to hang out togeether or talk about issues dare to us.
Oh and sorry if my grammar and spelling are off but if you think this is why we are in the funk we are in. I trully implore of you to take your head out of the sand and pay close attention because the world is trully passing you by.
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
12:07 pm
I think this is a far better column than the previous one addressing Eric Holder’s comments. Although it contains some loose ends in terms of arguments that aren’t fleshed out as much as I might like, it’s reads very easy and fresh. I’m not sure it’s strong enough to make me want to check out this writer’s other entry on the stimulus, but it was strong as a single entry.
Report this comment
T
February 27th, 2009
12:08 pm
Is it a requirement that a “conservative” columnist needs to be reactionary rather than visionary? Shouldn;t a thoughtful conservative be helping to address the problem of global warming rather than whining about the fact that things are going to have to change as we address it? On what planet does this person live, planet “it’s all about me”?
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
12:13 pm
The writer uses strong words like adulterer and shrinking testicles, but his or her argument seems shallow, and I think the AJC can do better than hire a conservative columnist who has to tag on a paragraph about “A conservative does not…” Such a heavy-handed ending wouldn’t be necessary if the writer had laid it out better in the rest of the column.
Report this comment
K. Day
February 27th, 2009
12:21 pm
When browsing the list of the applicants’ own picks for columns, this topic was certainly the most intriguing and warranted further reading. What a relief to have a thought provoking article unrelated to the economy, housing market, steroid use, etc.! The column was organized, well written, and obviously sparked good debate judging by the numerous and varied comments. I wonder what the outcome will mean for the symbol of the Republican Party – will that too have to be replaced by a barnyard animal?
If the AJC is looking for an engaging, thought provoking, strong conservative writer, I think they found their match!
Report this comment
Jim
February 27th, 2009
12:22 pm
I agree with many of the others. Why don’t you just get a an acknowledged professional conservative writer such as Laura Ingraham? At least you’d know what you’re getting.
Report this comment
Skeptic
February 27th, 2009
12:25 pm
Candidate G has written a column entitled Stimulus which bears only the most superficial relationship to the text of the article. It should have instead been entitled “More Fantasy Regarding School Vouchers.”
There are certainly some points with which I can agree in this article. An increased bureaucracy is without question something to be avoided if at all possible. Literacy is literacy and adding the modifier “multiple” is simply window dressing. That some students are unmotivated, the numeric value of some being undefined, is merely a restatement of the obvious.
Motivation is of course a major factor in the success of any endeavor. What the author fails to address is the level of motivation of those students attending private schools. While motivation cannot be quantified an increased motivation can be expected to derive from the parents’ payment of tuition out of pocket and their subsequent expectation that the student take full advantage of the costly education provided them. Remove the out of pocket expense and that motivation is nullified.
It is when the writer delves into statistics though, that the both the temperature and velocity of his exhalations increases. The assertion that “the average public school spends about $10,500 per student, while private school tuition in Georgia averages $6,000″ is a perfect example of the disingenuous ramblings of many conservative thinkers. The writer compares what “the average public school spends” to the average “private school tuition”; an invalid and deceptive comparison at best since the figures carry no citations and thus rise no farther than to the level of unsupported assertion. The amount cited as the average for private school tuition in Georgia matches closely to that cited by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation, a figure that Ann Abramowitz in her February 12, 2009 AJC column cites Brian Gottlob, a senior Foundation fellow, as acknowledging that the foundation’s figures are outdated and based on guesswork.
The obvious question is where exactly does the author get these figures? College costs always include tuition, fees and books. What about those of private schools? Does the tuition include the cost of books? Are there any additional fees? Policy decisions based on mere guesswork can be expected to carry many unforeseen negative repercussions. Surely the author’s conservative leanings don’t include the further crippling of our public school system based on imaginary numbers.
In addition, the author raises the issue of ideologically loaded textbooks. This veiled and nebulous reference, while sounding ominous, is a typical conservative tactic. It serves to raise the suspicions of the reader without putting forth any facts. What ideology is the author referring to? What specific texts are involved? We can only guess since the author fails to elaborate.
The subtext is clear enough however. The author disagrees with something that public schools are teaching and implies that private schools are better in some way because they are perhaps free of ideology. The absurdity of this position could not be more apparent. The vast majority of private elementary and high schools are associated with religious institutions the goal of which, stated or otherwise, is to imbue the education provided with a particular religious ideology.
In summation this is a poorly composed opinion article which ignores numerous issues while espousing support for a drastic public policy change based on only the most absurd and demonstrably false assertions.
Report this comment
kilgore trout
February 27th, 2009
12:26 pm
Save your money on hiring a new columnist. Instead, go buy a parrot. The bird can spew out the same drivel a lot cheaper.
Report this comment
WPWW
February 27th, 2009
12:27 pm
Causticus – Absolutely! It’s all about the cultural Marxists and their double standard!
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
12:30 pm
A fine column, but rather unremarkable, Sparked indifference within me once it started playing pitty-pat between “Democrats rewarding special interest groups” and “the supremely important war in Afghanistan.” Yawn.
Report this comment
Ellen
February 27th, 2009
12:34 pm
Wow as the mother of two almost adult kids this is a great reminder of the importance of teaching them to be financially resposible. It is great to have something positive that we can do when all we seem to hear is doom and gloom even from our leader of hope and change. I vote for C!
Report this comment
blah
February 27th, 2009
12:42 pm
Another fairly interesting column, but completely standard in terms of conservative commentary — from reaching back to the good old days for a random pop culture reference (it’s Steve Urkel, by the way, you hip kat you!) to not even the slightest admission that the party and policies this writer supports played some (probably a significant) role in getting America into the economic crisis we are currently enduring. It’s fine to criticize Democrats and policies you disagree with, but do so within the context of reality, not from some imaginary start-point of infallability. Also a little concerned with the repetition of the “Instead of one lawyer, get a bunch” and “Instead of a stimulus bill, just give us the money” that the writer displays in his or her two pieces. Using that kind of construct once can be humorous; re-using it again and again is lazy and risks oversimplifying important issues.
Report this comment
Ellen
February 27th, 2009
12:43 pm
As an animal lover, I am all for keeping animals safe and healthy but I am really sick of everyone acting like they are more important than the human race! Great article! I love the circus! THANK YOU! I vote for C!
Report this comment
Ellen
February 27th, 2009
12:46 pm
The problem with this article is that when you are so over the top you loose credibility.
Report this comment
K. Day
February 27th, 2009
12:49 pm
It’s refreshing to read a column with a conservative viewpoint without the negative, sarcastic attitide and liberal bashing of most. I also like that the columnist related the stimilus package to Georgia – very clever and original.
Report this comment
HCS
February 27th, 2009
12:50 pm
After reading all examples, my opinion is that Candidate C is by far the best choice. Go ahead and make the hire. You will be doing your paper and your readers a favor.
Report this comment
HCS
February 27th, 2009
12:53 pm
Not nearly up to the quality of candidate C
Report this comment
Political Mongrel
February 27th, 2009
1:00 pm
Sensible, meaningful, well thought out. Bereft of the usual name-calling, snarky remarks, and scattershot accusations of so many conservative columnists. My choice.
Report this comment
Homeland Security Non-Government Offical (NGO)
February 27th, 2009
1:04 pm
This article is right on point! Coal is our largest natural resource in the U.S. and if we fail to develop clean coal tech. it ~DIRECTLY~ threatens our National Security and way of life…
Thank you for bringing this dirty little ‘national secret’ to light and cultivating some much needed discussion on a ’sensible’ and more realistic way forward; especially in a time when we simply can’t afford to make the wrong decision. . .
Report this comment
Virginia H. Hein
February 27th, 2009
1:06 pm
Here’s my vote : B and H write like professionals and cover their subjects well. C, F , and A follow, but are not quite as good (they couldn’t resist an unrelated barb or two). D and G are not only negative and nasty (vicious?), but used their subject , not to explain it , but to attack whatever they disliked. G seemingly misunderstood his topic.
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
1:08 pm
I am not a Conservative, but this article was incredibly well-thought out, well argued, and completely convinced me. It is not anything like the stereotypical “conservative angry rant” that I have grown to expect and to hate so much. Bravo, Candidate C!!
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
1:13 pm
This is the kind of “conservative” argument that makes people think Conservative is a dirty word. Disgusting.
Report this comment
Sandra
February 27th, 2009
1:16 pm
I was going to write how poorly the column was written but that seems to be the consensus. Sounds like author was trying to cover everthing from star bashing to liberals in order to please everyone.
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
1:27 pm
Great. I don’t fully agree with this person, but they clearly have a mind of their own. They aren’t just repeating the thoughts of others. I welcome any well-intentioned and original columns in the AJC!! Fabulous. A conservative columnist who doesn’t spout hateful-ness? Who knew it was possible?!?! Please hire this person!
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
1:38 pm
There are too many insults and too much sarcasm in this column. A conservative columnist should provide ideas, not bore us all with Rush Limbaugh-esque insults. Please do not hire this columnist.
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
1:39 pm
Is this really a pressing issue? Perhaps the “politically correct” have not protested this issue very loudly because:
1) Who really cares? There are people shooting each other in the streets, and the economy is in a free fall. I think our legislators have better things to do than to make it easier for people who can’t plan ahead to purchase alcohol.
2) Increasing our tax revenue by encouraging the consumption of dangerous substances does Not seem like a particularly good (or politically correct) thing to do.
This article is silly at best.
Report this comment
Mike
February 27th, 2009
1:40 pm
I think candidate F captured the Clayton County issue perfectly. The majority of Georgia residents are embarrassed by the actions and attitudes of the Clayton County school board. My heart goes out to the students and parents for having to put up with this; as Candidate F says, you have to do your homework and vote accordingly in the next election.
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
1:40 pm
If I wanted thoughtless insults I would waste my money on an Ann Coulter book. Please do not hire someone just to hurl sarcastic aphorisms.
Report this comment
HEART for Women Act Hides Race-Based Medicine Research Agenda
February 27th, 2009
1:44 pm
[...] although as I said I’m not sure where the issue of age sits.) Attorney General Eric Holder remarked earlier this month that “in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many [...]
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
1:44 pm
Bob Barr is already a columnist. Adding another glibertarian would just make the conservative voice of the paper even more of a parody. I suppose it is better than a Sadie Fields fan, but I would still suggest the paper keep looking for a deep thinker. Glibertarianism ultimately operates on naive assumptions about the world and that is likely where this columnist is heading.
Report this comment
April Clark
February 27th, 2009
1:45 pm
I saw this article and like the way it was presented. This writer made it informative and easy to read. It intrest me to want to read more about it.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
1:46 pm
This was a good article about the facts and figures and relative to today and is conservative in style. I do not feel any conservative compassion in the writing and wonder if this candidate is a true believer?
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
1:47 pm
This columnist seems to dwell a bit on the technical side, but that is probably because they are intelligent. These two columns stand out as better than many of the other competitors.
Report this comment
LC
February 27th, 2009
1:49 pm
I agree with the first post. This column doesn’t not express conservative view points. A liberal could have written this as well, just a poor topic choice.
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
1:50 pm
Both columns wander around aimlessly without making a concise point. This columnist might do well with the “Thinking Right” bullet-point style columns and the Furman-Bisheresque train-of-thought columns, but is not likely to make an interesting cohesive argument.
Report this comment
O'Connor
February 27th, 2009
1:50 pm
Ellen, you lose credibilty when you refer to others as “loosing” credibility.
It seems to me that the article was purposely written to be “over the top” in response to an epic failure of leadership that is so far over the top that “bursting corpuscles” only begins to capture the outrage.
I agree with Hillary Jindal…this one–with a little editing help— has potential. The writing is a bit more lively than most if not all the others.
The line, “This plan is like trying to lose weight by eating bacon-wrapped broccoli” is the best one I’ve read in this series.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
1:51 pm
This candidate is a true believer and can break down the issues so that the regular reader will understand the conservative prospective.
Report this comment
Ed D
February 27th, 2009
1:51 pm
I subscribed to the AJC because you use to have the best sports pages in the area. The rest of the AJC is like reading a DNC handout, or worse. I agree with many of the other comments, AJC has lost touch with its readership, and until you become more Centrist and politically truthful in your articles and opinions, you will continue to lose subscribers.
Report this comment
Law student
February 27th, 2009
1:54 pm
Well said. What about minority preference in law school/college admissions? A minority can score way lower on an entrance exam and get in over a white person easily! That is not “fair.” A minority can study just has hard as a white person for an entrance exam…why should they be given preference? Now that our president is black, can we please end this??
Report this comment
Obama is half white
February 27th, 2009
1:56 pm
I love how everyone forgets that Obama is half white and raised by white people. He even forgets it himself…
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
1:57 pm
This article begins with “As America rewards failure and poor judgment during this bailout frenzy, nothing is left for the student who wants to learn.”
A typical The Sky Is Falling, panic-stricken, exaggerated piece of nonsense. Later on, the author actually says they have nothing against public schools and justifies it by citing their mother. Really? Seriously?
But I have black friends! But my cousin is gay! My mother was a teacher! These are all very unconvincing arguments.
C-
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
1:57 pm
As with all the columnists’ specialized writings, one must first agree with the premise before making an objective analysis. I see merit in Eric’s proposal but I also see dangers, many of those have already been expressed in the comments. As one educated in equal time at public and private schools, private schools have their weaknesses: most notable are library resources, lack of total social exposure (good and bad), etc. I also agree that there are quiet dangers to private schools accepting larger amounts of government funding. However, in the mamouth effort needed to revive our public schools we need to keep all options on the table.
This writer deserves points for addressing the subject with specificity albeit not on a cause i embrace.
Report this comment
LC
February 27th, 2009
1:58 pm
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
1:58 pm
Another candidate who is smart and can pen the conservative view but is he/she a true believer? Also, I question if this person has lived in Georgia long enough to understand the local impacts of federal policy. There are no local references besides the reference to Phillip’s arena and Bruce Springsteen (huge supporter of Obama).
Report this comment
LC
February 27th, 2009
1:58 pm
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
1:59 pm
Mostly I want to comment on writing style and clarity of thought and this columnist is pretty good at both. However, his/her comments on special education are dangerously ignorant. I personally would not pick this person for that reason alone.
Report this comment
LC
February 27th, 2009
1:59 pm
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
Report this comment
Hiring minorities
February 27th, 2009
1:59 pm
One reason people don’t want to hire minorities is because if you ever have to fire them they ALWAYS sue for discrimination. ALWAYS. Believe me, I know.
Report this comment
LC
February 27th, 2009
1:59 pm
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
Report this comment
Ellen Ulken
February 27th, 2009
1:59 pm
I liked the column, though I disagreed with some of the precepts. It nailed the problems with the Clayton County School Board. Pointing up the mess we get into when public office becomes a step-stone to broaden one’s own wealth and position instead of doing the job elected for, gets to the core of the matter. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, however. Loss of accreditation is a result of uninformed voters and unqualified candidates in a poor county with not enough resources. This entire country is showing repeatedly that organizations cannot or do not police themselves. It’s too bad that there wasn’t a mechanism for intervention from the state long before Clayton Schools lost accreditation.
Report this comment
LC
February 27th, 2009
1:59 pm
Just pay Herman Cain a stipend to write the column. I’m sure he’d enjoy it and it would provide some credibility to an otherwise inept group of writers.
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:03 pm
This column really wanders around. It ends with a one-two-three recipe which would have been better as the lead in with explanation of each point. What this has to do with the obscure issue of hiring a second attorney is anybody’s guess. Not a well-written piece.
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
2:03 pm
Simplistic, and not really on target. This barely discusses the stimulus package; it’s really about the administration’s energy policies. There is no substance to this article. Statements are made with no facts to back them up. Why should I believe you that solar power is unreliable and useless?
Unconvincing and simplistic. This doesn’t make me think, we learn nothing new, and it is utterly unconvincing unless you already agree. What’s the point?
D
Report this comment
Robert
February 27th, 2009
2:06 pm
Kelvin, I am not surprised that you can’t believe that a Black man can differ from the majority of black liberals such as yourself without being called a sell-out or some other name that you attribute when somebody disagrees with your Angry Rhetoric. Whenever the truth hits people like yourself you always resort to name calling rather than intelligent rebuttals to reinforce your stance of what you really believe. For the record again, I am an AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN who strongly disagrees with what Attorney General holder said about us being a “Nation of Cowards”. Every Black man does not think like you do so get over it! Eric Holder was wrong for calling us a “Nation of Cowards” just like you are wrong for calling me a “SELL-OUT” because I disagree with your ideas of what Blackness means. Just because Eric Holder is Black I should not be made to feel that I should agree with him just because he is THE FIRST BLACK ATTORNEY GENERAL. If you respond again to my comments please do so in an intelligent manner without resorting to NAME CALLING which is what people like you do when you don’t have any real platform to stand on when people like myself differ from familiar Black Angry Voices. So tell us Kelvin WHAT ARE THE COMPLEXITIES AND NUANCES OF WHAT ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER WAS SAYING?
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:06 pm
PLEASE do not hire a race-baiter. There will be plenty of opportunities for a conservative columnist to hit on racial undertones in southern politics without going for someone who plans on going out of his/her way to create controversy. Saul Alinksy? Seriously?
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:08 pm
What does this have to do with the stimulus bill?
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
2:09 pm
I assume the writers have no choice of the subject they write on since of all the problems we presently face this one is trite. I also assume the increase in tax revenue is not specific for the day of the week, which begs the question: are we increasing alcohol consumption and do we want that. I am a senior who consumes 2 large glasses of wine a day RELIGIOUSLY (address that view)but despite my age and “infirmaties” I can remember to buy alcohol for Sunday ahead of time. Certainly NOT selling on Sundays is NOT defensible but again is the subject worth the space. Now the subject of the Ga legislators’ activities if magnified here could have carried the day.
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:10 pm
My first brief comment failed to recognize that the author who cannot stay on topic is also the race-baiting columnist. This candidate is the worst choice of them all.
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
2:11 pm
Geithner said the following: “I will start paying my taxes.”
Okay, that’s not true. Why should he start now? He’s the boss.
The statement “I will start paying my taxes” cannot be untrue until someone has failed to pay their taxes. You could say “How can we believe him?” or “I don’t believe him” or “I doubt that” but to say “that’s not true”….well, it isn’t true!
“Remember that bleak time from 1983 to 2007 when progress was mostly, well, even and uninterrupted? That was no fun.” What is this supposed to mean? It doesn’t even make sense. And for a conservative to imply that everything was fabulous during Clinton’s Presidency…well, they sure ain’t a real conservative.
I stopped reading after this because it was clear to me this author can’t get their ideas across well at all, and I refuse to read things when I have to re-read sentences repeatedly to try and figure out what the author was trying to say. Clarity, people, clarity!!!
Report this comment
Gregg
February 27th, 2009
2:14 pm
I am with you Kelvin. I didn’t want to address him because he is either a liar (not being Black) or he is a real Clarence Thomas type indidvidual.
As far as Hiring Minorities I do believe you are going to an extreme. From which job have you ever fired a minority. Better how often have you been on a job and a desrving minority gets a job but you say or make them feel that they got only because they are a minority. Many of us Minorities take positions that are lower than our education and KSA’s becuase of the beliefs and the problems that people like you create. I have that President Obama wasn’t qualified, however if he were compared to Bush, McCain or Palin he was far superior. The only thing he lacked was the skin color. Let’s switch it, if McCain had want Obama had you would derail Obama and parade McCain as this great orator and thinker. Go figure!!!!
Law Student can I ask you how many “minorities” are in any of your classes? Are there that many that you can’t find a seat? Or do you prefer to go to a school where everyone looks, talks and acts like you?
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
2:15 pm
It’s very unclear until the last few sentences what the stance of the author is on this issue. That’s a very basic mistake.
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:15 pm
Huh? This column is not even remotely thought provoking. Steroids are against the rules for people playing a sport. The column seems to suggest having rules in sports are antithetical to conservative beliefs about government. It is humorously dumb.
Report this comment
Craig Spinks /Evans
February 27th, 2009
2:17 pm
(C)warmbold, from where I sit and observe in Columbia County, most of the folks behave cowardly in the face of intergenerational disrespect, juvenile crime, educational mediocrity, amorality and anti-morality, prodigal consumerism, incivility, conformism as well as corporate and governmental bureaucratic ineptitude/corruption. Oh, by the way, did I mention cowardice in reaching out to people different from ourselves?
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
2:18 pm
Well-written article. (Yay!!) Kind of spouting the same-old, same-old conservative talking points, but seems actually to have done the homework to back things up. I enjoyed it, but was not inspired.
B+
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:18 pm
Between this claptrap and the steroids article, the only way this person could be a finalist is if the AJC wants the conservative columnist to look like a buffoon. I would prefer the columnist not be so simple-minded.
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
2:21 pm
Ugh. Awful.
F
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
2:22 pm
This writer demonstrated he is no one’s definition of a coward. Well done. This may be what is called for in order to balance the outlandish and unAmerican media bias displayed in one of our most difficult times as a nation. Yet bipartisanship may suffer if there is to be an effort at that (so far… nahh) And I always dislike bringing communism comparisons onboard. There is much to criticize in our government without peddling fear… and of communists?!! Give me a break. Cuba and North Korea are real scarey.
Report this comment
Rachel C
February 27th, 2009
2:22 pm
This article was pretty good. Some awkward sentence structures, but I’m picky.
They would be my second choice, but a distant second to Candidate C.
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:23 pm
Although there was not much exciting or new in the thoughts of this columnist, the arguments were well laid out, and the tone was good. This is one of the better options.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
2:23 pm
The candidate made made a semi- conservative argument but as others stated in their comments he/she did not get to the true conservative argument of property rights and freedom. I question if this person is a true believer or can just write the conservative point of view?
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:29 pm
The stimulus column is too wordy. It needs better editing. The Eric Holder column does not really say anything. It ends up proving itself wrong by talking about the fear of discussing race and then never really discussing any particular racial issue. In any event, given an open choice of topics, the AJC should not seriously consider a columnist whose first instinct is to discuss racial issues. The column is less incendiary than the other race-baiter, but still not a wise choice. This columnist is in the bottom-middle of the pack.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
2:29 pm
This is an excellent article showing terrific INSIGHT into education. BRAVO! On that subject alone it is perhaps the worthiest of all. But as a column on the stimulus package it is too focused on just that one issue. The subject, stimulus deserves a broader focus than this writer gave it.
Report this comment
Natalie
February 27th, 2009
2:31 pm
A columnist that doesn’t bash and rant…he/she just presents his or her side and lets the reader decide…how refreshing!
Report this comment
Betty Delk
February 27th, 2009
2:31 pm
I thought Candidate G’s article was excellent. He/she seems to be a prolific writer and is very knowledgeable on the subject he/she wrote about. Actually, it is a toss-up betweeen Candidates G and J. If I had to make the decision between the two, it would be difficult.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
2:31 pm
This candidate is a libertarian at best and surely not a true conservative and the argument for the increase in the sin tax really makes me think of RINO or blue dog democrat. These types of arguments from the conservative columnist at the paper will not increase conservative readership.
Report this comment
Betty Delk
February 27th, 2009
2:34 pm
I like Candidate J’s article very much. Choosing between Candidates J and G would be difficult for me.
Report this comment
Sandy
February 27th, 2009
2:37 pm
I think the author’s last statment says it very clearly. True tax relief makes a gov’t more accountable. This is a well written piece of conservative opinion.
Report this comment
DBR
February 27th, 2009
2:38 pm
My rating:
1. C. A little technical but good thoughts.
2. J. Not very creative topics but decent writing which is more important.
3. E.
4. D. At this point, I remember these two as fine but not memorable one way or another.
5. A. Too many insults
6. F. Ideas were not clear.
7. H. Not good writing and questionable topic choice.
8. B. Glibertarians are good for a laugh, but not regularly.
9. I. Astoundingly stupid.
10. G. We do not need a race-baiting columnist.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
2:40 pm
This candidate is a moderate (liberal) republican and not a true conservative. Most true conservatives held their nose and voted for McCain but this person thinks McCain was the best choice to represent the party.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
2:48 pm
I think this candidate has some ruff edges to iron out but he/she is a true conservative believer and should considered at the top of the list for this position.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
3:04 pm
This writer gives a good rendition of the southern conservative point of view on racial issues. It would have been better if he/she would have also made the argument of conservative/liberal differences with regard to racial matters. I think he/she could be a true conservative believer. He/she should be a one of the top candidates for this position.
Report this comment
td
February 27th, 2009
3:06 pm
I was not very impressed and really do not see the conservative prospective from the article.
Report this comment
Piper
February 27th, 2009
3:08 pm
I understand the author’s point and find the article to be very well-written. I’d ask the author to consider the past statistics citing substantial increases in alcohol-related traffic crashes and fatalities in states where Sunday bans were lifted, and ask him/herself the question – is it worth it to help Georgia’s budget deficit at the risk of losing more lives to drunk driving and alcohol-related accidents? The author’s point is very valid, but I think a consideration of the negative effects of repealing this ban is also warranted.
Report this comment
Tina
February 27th, 2009
3:35 pm
Where does that $5,000 per child come from? Is that money removed from the public schools budget? Do I need to look that up myself? Otherwise, it’s a pipe dream.
Report this comment
Smitty
February 27th, 2009
3:37 pm
If you drop down to Havanna, Florida on Hwy 27 south of Bainbridge, Georgia you will see 50% of the Sunday business to be from Decatur or Grady County Georgian tagged counties. So you can just see those Georgia Tax dollars headed straight to Florida tax base. I am sure this is repeated throughout Georgia where we border those States and Counties that allow Sunday package sales. This Columninist has hit the nail on the head.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
3:40 pm
Candidate J tackled THE issue right now, and did it with facts and figures. And yes, liberals are adverse to reality checks, but these are so desparately needed now. This one has done his/her homework and it shows.
Report this comment
Susan
February 27th, 2009
3:43 pm
Candidate G was by far the best writer and made good points. And I think you should pick someone who knows how to write!
Report this comment
Lucky Jim
February 27th, 2009
3:46 pm
Candidate J’s columns were the best.
Report this comment
Drew
February 27th, 2009
3:58 pm
The columnist looked at several angles of the issue but failed to cover any aspects to alleviate concerns of those that feel this law change will result in more “drunk” citizens than what we currently might have selling alcohol from Monday through Saturday. To thwart many argument against the sale of alcohol on Sunday, it would be needed to research and at least touch on the subject of how the state has laws set up to deter and/or punish those that over indulge. Yet, what about the laws that currently have oversights in them that would allow someone to be more drunk and operate heavy machinery? What if said equipment was used more on weekends, including Sunday, and could be linked to causing an issue if alcohol sales were to be allowed? Self compliance is usually based on education, and understanding is always preferred to maintain the behavior that conforms to public expectation resulting in a safe activity. Unfortunately, legislation is occasionally required to provide law enforcement the tools needed when non-compliance occurs to keep people and property safe. Being that an oversight does exist, it might be advantageous to look into our “Under The Influence” laws and find where the issue might have grounds to see more drunken accidents occuring. Allow me to steer you in the right direction, Georgia Senate Bill 71, OCGA: 27-3-7 and 52-7-12, Boating and Hunting Under The Influence of Alcohol remain at 0.10 grams – 2 point higher than our current proven effective highway standards which are 0.08 grams.
Report this comment
Talley
February 27th, 2009
4:13 pm
Well said. I like the idea of a government having to work under the same rules the rest of us do, namely spend less than what you take in. It’s a shame we don’t operate under the same federal mandate for a balanced budget that truly meant no deficit spending. Excellent article and gets my vote for the new columnist.
Report this comment
Joan Jachino
February 27th, 2009
4:19 pm
This was one of the best…very clearly written with no flowery language or grammatical errors.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:23 pm
This person chose a boring topic. It`s been done to death. Also, he talks about data but gives no facts or examples to back up his claims.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:25 pm
This was not a good topic choice to give show a conservative viewpoint.
Report this comment
Brian E. Biednow
February 27th, 2009
4:28 pm
This candidate shows a good grasp of the issue in question. He/she points out the level of duplicity and hypocrisy that is clear in Obama’s prattle about a “post-racial” President. He/she also points out the continued sense of moral superiority and condescension that lies at the heart of most liberal sermons about race in this country. This person should be the top candidate for the position.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:30 pm
This guy made a good start, pulling me in…then made a grammatical error (”everyone springs to their feet”) that showed a lack of journalistic professionalism. Later he used two words I had to look up, and one of those words still doesn`t make sense to me in that context.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:34 pm
Clearly written and informative.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:36 pm
This was a bit scarcastic with one typo (or grammatical error).
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:39 pm
I didn`t care for the scarcasm.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:40 pm
I didn`t care for the choice of topic.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:43 pm
There was no point in referring to Alex Rodriquez as “the whiny adulterer”. Stick to the topic.
Report this comment
Joan
February 27th, 2009
4:44 pm
Very well done!
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
4:48 pm
As a lover of distant (too many allergies for up close and personal)animals and biologist by trade, I am thankful for the diversity of species we have and wish them all free and long lives. This article is well written and gives a side or two to the discussion that is/are unique. Again I question the value of any public space given to a subject though that is relatively minor in the grand scheme of our national and local problems.
The bottom line of this subject is nothing is more cruel to animals than nature and survival of the fittest. And let us not forget that for better or worse humans are legitimate members of this food chain/ selection process.
Report this comment
Jeb
February 27th, 2009
4:49 pm
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus has been the focus of repeated investigations conducted by the USDA for failure to meet minimum standards set forth by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). While its breeding program is noble, its success is nullified by the circus’s long history of alleged cruelty and neglect. Nevertheless, I think the writer makes a great argument by pointing out the implications of convicting Ringling Bros. based on violations of the ESA. I agree that if protection is truly the goal of the plaintiff, a case based on laws against animal cruelty would be more than sufficient. I really enjoyed the column. It was interesting and well written. I hope to see more soon!
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
4:50 pm
This column was not as effective as it could have been. The writer spends the first half talking about the persons involved, then switches to the bill itself, then gives a few examples of pork. These topics could easily be three separate columns, but combining them diluted the thrust of the column.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
4:53 pm
The discussion of energy sources was interesting and informative, but compared to the huge costs of the so called “stimulus” bill, this topic isn’t timely enough for me. At this time, I would rather see a column more focused on the immediate and near-term effects of the bill.
A good writing style, I enjoyed reading the column.
Report this comment
flwrgrl
February 27th, 2009
4:54 pm
I am a conservative reader of the AJC, one of the few left I feel, and I picked candidate G as the author coming closest to espousing my opinions. I am therefore amazed to read the above comments and find out that only liberals seem to be commenting. Isn’t this a contest for CONSERVATIVE VIEWS, and therefore, liberals should not comment? After all, you have Cynthia Tucker and Jay Bookman to state your views. Just saying.
Report this comment
Pol Pot's ghost
February 27th, 2009
4:57 pm
You’re spelling of Broooce exposes you as one of the amateur applicants. AJC, quit this publicity stunt and hire a professional. Lord knows there are a lot of good ones out there looking for an opportunity like this right now.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
5:02 pm
The writer makes a good point that has been overlooked by many, about the effects the federal “stumlus” plan will have on states.
A well-written column.
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
5:03 pm
This is a well written and mostly well reasoned piece but falls into blind ideology when it tries to make irresponsible politics a liberals-only trait.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
5:06 pm
A few good metaphors, and some good points, but I didn’t like the satirical part at the beginning too much. Overall, not one of the best columns of the ten.
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
5:06 pm
This is a good column but provides no opportunity to see how the columnist would handle conservative-liberal issues.
Report this comment
Eric
February 27th, 2009
5:06 pm
Here’s a new math equation:
Lulu= copy+paste-old columnist letter+new columnist letter
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
5:08 pm
This columnist has chosen a subject about which most of us couldn’t care less.
Report this comment
Eric
February 27th, 2009
5:08 pm
Here’s a new math equation:
Lulu= copy+paste-old columnist letter+new columnist letter
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
5:09 pm
A good case is made for keeping education decisions and spending at the state and local levels. I agree that the additional federal funding takes the states out of the loop and puts way too much control in Washington.
A pretty good, well-written column.
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
5:13 pm
This columnist has written on a subject that he/she has totally failed to research. Evidence relative to climate change has reached the point that those with his/her opinions are in the same category as holocaust deniers.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
5:13 pm
Not an original idea, but the writer makes a good case for stimulating the economy by handing the mooney directly to people, although I object to spreading it out evenly, with deadbeats getting as much as a taxpaying worker. More actually, since deadbeats have more kids.
Not a bad column, and I like the writing style.
Report this comment
Bob
February 27th, 2009
5:13 pm
Enter your comments here
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
5:14 pm
This columnist has chosen a subject that requires a very clear explanation, and has failed to provide one.
Report this comment
Eric
February 27th, 2009
5:18 pm
DavidS, be sure to differentiate between conservative and republican. The party that imperialistically sends us to police every nation and has no problem passing more and more pork and other huge spending projects such as the prescription drug bill (full republican control for the biggest expansion of government since the ’60s) is in no way conservative. They talk a good game and do the opposite, which in some ways makes them bigger traitors than their outright socialist counterparts in the democratic party.
Report this comment
AJC Fail
February 27th, 2009
5:20 pm
Ha ha, Republicans can’t even work up any sympathy for their own mascot, much less any other living creature. It doesn’t matter who replaces Jimmy, it won’t slow down the AJC’s freefall.
Report this comment
Bob
February 27th, 2009
5:27 pm
Thank God this writer has the ability to perform a MRI on our new Chicago street talking President and his entourage. This writer (he/she) knows what a horrible mistake our new leader is for this country.
God help us. the is so much double talking to the masses and he/she recognizes it. I certainly hope this writer gets the job.
Report this comment
Betty Hamrick
February 27th, 2009
5:31 pm
Candidate C stands out because of his research and well-thought through arguments which express a conservative’s point of view. He (or she) gets my vote.
Report this comment
Richard
February 27th, 2009
6:00 pm
I hope the writer chose this topic.
Everybody loves elephants, (except the guy with the big shovel). However, this mammoth issue has little to do with elephant care. The writer’s well-made point is that activists are using the courts to try to achieve what they can’t via legislation.
After reading the editorial I became agitated at the potential of our justice system’s complicity in the activists’ circumnavigation. Will Lady Justice stand blindfolded to the inevitable unintended consequences pointed out by the writer? Or worse, is she wide-eyed at the opportunity to overreach again in her zest for omnipotence?
As courts expand their rule beyond the original intent of legislation, we should all be alarmed at the bull ring being clamped on our nose – not to mention the shoveling.
I think the editorial strikes at the heart of conservative thought. It was well written.
I want more from C.
Report this comment
CM
February 27th, 2009
6:03 pm
I applaud the AJC’s desire to have a conservative writer but I wish conservatives would at be honest. This writer’s statemtn “A conservative does not favor regulating the lives of others.” is so far from what today’s conservatives want to happen. Examples: (1) no alcohol sales on Sunday under the guise of preserving Sunday for Christians. Not everyone is a Christian, including me. (2) Limiting women’s choices to what they (the conservatives) say they know if best. (3) Denying all people equal rights when it comes to marriage. My choice, AJC? Forget having a conservative voice. It just ain’t worth it.
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
6:34 pm
To tar all Clayton County voters – and to some degree all Georgia voters – with a broad brush would usually seem pretty extreme, but then the situation is pretty extreme. Perhaps it’s justified. Anyway, it’s effectively done.
Report this comment
Daria
February 27th, 2009
6:39 pm
Very fascinating and well-written. I would like to read more by this writer.
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
6:39 pm
This column selects evidence and twists facts to fit the opinions of the columnist. I hope the AJC will find a writer who investigates his topics and reasons things through, rather than following brain dead ideology. An excellent model is David Brooks of the NY Times.
Report this comment
Eric
February 27th, 2009
6:40 pm
DBR, there are many socially conservative libertarian/constitution party types that basically believe what the republicans claim to believe but realize that republican politicians aren’t much different from their openly big government democratic colleagues (with the notable exception of Ron Paul.) Do you think socialized prescription drug coverage for seniors is necessary and anyone opposed to this and further government expansion was “naive?” Are you for full universal health care? Are you “naive” if you’re not? I guess the idea of a limited government and stopping the expansion (and yes, even going through contraction as prescribed in the Contract with America such as getting rid of the Dept of Ed) is naive to you because the people you vote for are doing little or nothing to promote it.
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
6:42 pm
One of the two best columns among your first ten, in my opinion. Brains and guts make a good combination in a columnist.
Report this comment
The Queen
February 27th, 2009
6:42 pm
Very well written and brings up points which are sure to get folks talking. Just look at the above comments which attest to this.
Report this comment
Shauna
February 27th, 2009
6:43 pm
I think this candidate’s article is thought provoking, well organized, and builds a case for the reader to make a decision. Furthermore, the reader is presented with the result of their assessment. I enjoyed the writing style of this candidate and I look forward to reading more articles.
Report this comment
The Queen
February 27th, 2009
6:49 pm
Well, anyone can comment but overall, I agree w/ flwrgrl. I’m conservative and I like “G”. Yes, he/she focused on education and not “stimulus”,per se, but I liked the column.
Report this comment
The Queen
February 27th, 2009
6:50 pm
Didn’t like this dude or dudette.
Report this comment
The Queen
February 27th, 2009
6:54 pm
I agree w/ LC. Just hire Herman Cain. He’s a true conservative and he makes sense (and cents….)
Report this comment
Allen Facemire
February 27th, 2009
6:54 pm
After having read the ten guest columnists published in yesterday and
today’s paper, may I offer the follow observations…
Candidate A is a good writer and while I consider myself a liberal, he or
she made a persuasive argument for school vouchers and actually made me
think a bit more about the validity of the program. Nicely done.
Candidate B’s column was not very well written in my opinion and while not a
grammarian myself, I found reading the column laborious.
Candidate C’s take on animal rights had me walking away saying “Who cares?”.
She (I’m guessing here) failed to do much more than point out why animals
are endangered but did little to support the allegations that elephants were
being mistreated by Ringling Brothers. The writer is more passionate about
animal rights then I think a conservative would be, which makes me think she
(he) is really a liberal trying to slip into Jim Wooten’s bed.
Candidate D used the pretense of Regulating Carbon emissions to take swipes
at Obama…kind of Bob Barr style. No problem with that since this is
supposed to be a conservative column but I’m not exactly convinced this
person really cares that much about EPA rules as much as they want to put
the president on the spot.
Candidate E fueled one of my biggest peeves in column writing and that’s
assuming. The writer referred to state legislators in the masculine
(himself) when referring to legislatures not wanting to get into a local tax
fight. Don’t know what the numbers are but I’m betting there are quite a
few women on the floor. Perhaps I’m being a bit picky here but that kind of
dismissive tone towards gender could mean a dismissive attitude in other
areas like race, social structure economic status, etc.
Candidate F started out being fair when discussing the Clayton School
debacle but then they went on a mini tirade when the writer accused Clayton
County of ” really just being a logical extension of a liberal philosophy,
etc….”. Come on…stay on topic.
Candidate G could have been Bob Barr except Barr is a better writer and
while I often don’t agree with him, I do read him.
Candidate H may well be part of the media or certainly a follower of media
and media trends. Insightful and reasonably well written. Can’t say I
their rhetoric swayed me one way or the other but I could see their side and
it was not a bad piece.
Candidate I made an interesting case about steroid danger and while I found
it a good and informative read, hardly a conservative view and more of a
letter from a reader. Nicely written in my opinion however.
Candidate J spent the whole column finger pointing without bringing anything
new to the table. Lots of accusations but not one opinion about solutions.
I can tune in to Bortz or Limbaugh for that. Better this person stays with
their Vent contributions.
Allen Facemire
Norcross
770.448.3181
Report this comment
Uma
February 27th, 2009
7:00 pm
We are one of three states that doesn’t allow liquor sales on Sunday. This columnist is right, we need to move ahead and repeal the “blue laws”.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
7:04 pm
I agree with the writer that throwing more money at education is not the answer to improving education, but after the first two paragraphs, he/she was completely off the “stimulus” topic.
The column was well-written, but it had little to do with the stimulus issue.
Report this comment
Hugh L
February 27th, 2009
7:08 pm
I’m a middle-of-the-road admirer of most of Obama’s actions since taking office, but the shakiest thing about his budget is his set of assumptions about the fiscal status of the US in 2013. This very good column elucidates some reasons of which I’d not been aware, for the shakiness.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
7:09 pm
I thought this was the best or at least in the top 2-3 columns on the “stimulus” topic. The writer presents an opinion, then supports it with facts from history, which was very effective in making his/her case.
Good writing style too.
Report this comment
DLink
February 27th, 2009
7:12 pm
“There will be little for these private schools to do except bow to the demands as they will no longer be able to competitively reject the tainted funds.”
“Tainted funds”, as in “bad”. I just finished watching Dark Angel Season 2 finale, which is why I’m here. A next gen was having a baby and there was a super-brief mention of washing her “taint” before having the baby. In several postings I’ve noticed cropping up more and more often, “taint” is being taken as a general term as safe for posting terminology referring to male or female genitalia. His taint. Her taint. In the world of censorship that is becoming the United States, can we PLEASE find a better way of expressing this? Conservative, Liberal, I don’t much care.
That “bad thing” down there, your taint. The diseased serpent which crawls into the diseased cave to bring diseased life into the world. I abhor the usage of this word in it’s mutated sense. I see the word and think, “F*’d funds”, well was it good? It is, in fact, so wrong that I’m going to start using it liberally, until it too is banned.
(A note from the darkside; paying attention to the children.)
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
7:13 pm
An excellent article: popular today, well thought-out and well written. Although Al Gore is too often credited with recognizing the problem the subject takes me back to a 1950 William S. Hanner’s college Chemistry class. He presented the somewhat cataclysmic (slow which is oxymoronic)prediction of severe climate change not as his own but as a well known theory he learned at Cornell. He did not tie it specifically to carbon production but to a somewhat cyclic pattern of global warming. I do pay attention to the prospect of its acceleration but do not appreciate the too one sided view we’re getting. I learned recently from the media that because of relying on one satellite and excluding another’s, arctic ice loss was overestimated by the size of California. THIS IS CALLED DATA SELECTION AND IS A SCIENTIFIC NO NO! Unless we can get a better educated bunch of journalist or politician we need to rely on scientific sources to evaluate this problem before we begin legislating or administrating on it.
The use of the concert opening was excellently done but the selection of a stereotypical dislike of most conservative had a hint of pandering.
Report this comment
DLink
February 27th, 2009
7:22 pm
The auto “BOOM HEADSHOT” just got derailed. I thought I’d find another failed argument here – at the same time, it’s not a good decider of conservatism. It’s like fighting a law against how horses are hitched in the time of the Blackberry. Common opinion, and safe. I guess that could be called conservative.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
7:22 pm
Very well done and would certainly rank with the worthiest if not for the too narrow focus on education. The writer pointed out very well the fact that this is a tradional nitch of state and local governments. But the focus was too narrow for the topic which was the Federal bailout, usually expected to center on economic issues. This article deserves space and strategic airing under education but not under economic stimulus.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
7:23 pm
Not a bad column, but three comments:
1. It is correct to say that none of the Democrats (or any Congressman) read the entire stimulus bill, but in fact, they were not allowed to read the bill, which was the Obama administration plan all along. A minor point, however, since few if any of them would have read the bill anyway.
2. I loved the comparison of “using leeches to treat anemia” to “sucking capital out of the productive economy.
3. I disagree with the writer’s assertion that “renewal of the Bush tax cuts would end the recession immediately.” I just don’t think this is realistic to expect such a quick turnaround.
All in all, not a bad column.
Report this comment
David Appell
February 27th, 2009
7:25 pm
I simply can’t believe that so many of you approve of a column whose very basis is wrong. Man’s exhalations *do not* contribute to the global warming problem.
The last thing we need is another conservative columnist who doesn’t know any science. Don’t you conservatives care that this author is utterly wrong on the facts? Or doesn’t that matter as long as it advances your ideology?
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
7:25 pm
Well written and right on target.
Report this comment
DLink
February 27th, 2009
7:27 pm
Which arm of the GA Chamber of Commerce? The energy is good, the facts, and the “what we should do”? A little flaky. For an opinion column, not bad. For news – Horrid.
Report this comment
JamC
February 27th, 2009
7:28 pm
The writer starts off talking about the federal “stimulus” bill, then wanders into the state arena. That’s too much to cover in a single short column, and both of his/her points suffer because of this.
Not a bad writing style, but the writer just needs to stay more focused and stay on a single well-defined theme.
Report this comment
Heather Hunter
February 27th, 2009
7:35 pm
“Need a little extra cash to give your child a better life? Too bad. You should have signed a mortgage with huge balloon payments.”
I didn’t get past the first paragraph because of these three sentences. I’m all for balanced political opinion columns as long as they are written based on well thought out and researched fact not knee jerk fallacy.
Report this comment
DLink
February 27th, 2009
7:37 pm
*BOOM HEADSHOT* I finally get to use it, YES!! Anyone seeking out a column on race in GA is automatically suspect, just ask the feds.
I HATE THIS WRITER ON THE SPOT. Which means, you’ve found the conservative writer, as I’m quite the Librul. I shouldn’t have to look any further, and should turn that movie back on… but, I like to be thorough. (4th one read).
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
7:37 pm
A rousing AMEN to this writer for this article. I felt wonderful after reading it and I’m not even a conservative but more a Tom Watson Populist cum Libeterian. This has needed screaming from roof tops. I even heard a supposedly well educated person express that “government money” (there IS NO such thing, it’s taxpayer money) doesn’t belong to anybody.
The writer was on topic and got the job done.
Report this comment
Heather Hunter
February 27th, 2009
7:43 pm
Free from spin. Straight constitutional talk with no personal ideology thrown in. I like it.
Report this comment
Oren
February 27th, 2009
7:52 pm
“After 15 years of HOPE scholarships and increased government spending on education, Georgia still languishes near the bottom (41st out of 50 in a recent survey) in national education rankings.”
This type of ranking tells us nothing! I don’t care how Georgia ranks against other states. I care about the quality of education our students are getting. 41 out of 50 could be excellent or terrible – we need to see the numbers and what they are based on. FOr instance, if the top 45 students out of 50 made an A on a test, then being number 41 would be a good thing.
Report this comment
Law Student
February 27th, 2009
7:55 pm
“Gregg” I love having minorities in my classes, however, I do not enjoy watching my friends from undergrad get denied admission while the minority in my class got in with a lower GPA and a lower LSAT score. If the minority and the “white male” have equal stats ie same LSAT score/same gpa…then I’m fine with the favor going to the minority. However, take a school like Emory or Vanderbilt (very competitive law schools)…out of 100 students in a class, 90 of them made 165+ on the LSAT and 10 of them made 158 or less…all 10 are minorities (the majority of which are black females)…so 10 spots were denied to people with better credentials so that these 10 minorities could get in. You cannot tell me that is fair! It is in no way fair! The law school admissions councils are affecting people’s entire lives. The law school that you go to can mean a lot! And if said minority can’t pull more than a 158 on the LSAT, they will have a hard time surviving in a law school that is as rigorous and challenging as Emory or Vanderbilt. Gregg…please tell me why you think this (and all types of affirmative action/racial preference) are fair…
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
7:56 pm
The message I got from Holder was that he wished he heard everyone’s private conversation on race which obviously he hasn’t and can’t do BECAUSE they’re private. The scarey part is that he assumes the right to. Holder further compounds that problem by heaping judgement on what he is not privy to. I found even choosing such an insipid topic unworthy of comment. But in choosing to address it the writer missed too many golden opportunities to be straight forward and instead gave a politically correct (abomniable words in these United States)reply that perhaps illustrated the point Holder was TRYING to make better than Holder did.
Report this comment
DLink
February 27th, 2009
8:03 pm
I like the variety of words. Went after race on the oblique, saving him from the (you know). On the shy side, looking hungry. Eloquent enough, tame enough, and cautious enough to turn into a decent reporter/editor/opinion etc.
I’ve decided. As a Librul, the race guy, and this guy
Candidate E, Column 1: Homeowner tax relief
are the one’s I find truly lacking. Which is good for conservatives.
I like the chops on this one. Bad for the contest, good for the rest of the world. A lot of rough edges, a diamond in the rough – possibly. My favorite – making you the official loser. Some people won’t have noticed that not all entrants to the contest use their names. It’s a wise move, I don’t. OR, a hard play for something one wants very much. Good luck with that.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
8:09 pm
Although not a subject I’m interested in, I found the writer cleverly made me think outside his or her box. We turn our lives over to pills in varying ways and degrees. As a strong supporter of family planning I had to ask myself if it were asking too much to have slapped American women on pretty stiff hormones in society’s need to control population when so much of the world has and still does clutter up the planet. And on ad infinitum. So despite the topic it was a well written article by a writer who proved thought provoking.
Report this comment
tmer
February 27th, 2009
8:13 pm
So this is what affirmative action is like, journalism-style? Did you just wake up one day and think, “Let’s get us one of them conservative columnists so that we can make ourselves believe that we are fair and balanced”? Frankly, why would anyone want to be the token conservative in such a liberal establishment?
And you wonder why your readership is down?
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
8:26 pm
This makes my head hurt but that’s my problem.I’m no fan of global economics because my heart isn’t in it but thank goodness some “hearts” and hopefully heads are. My talent lies in making family budget and seeing the ills in local, state and regional economics. This reaction is no reflection on the writer whose passion and talent in the subject are obvious.I just can’t wrap my small brain around the globe and projections. For me the writer needs to deal in spoonfuls and other, smaller doses. As I said, my problem.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 27th, 2009
8:39 pm
(moderator, please add to my comment) Further thoughts stirred in me include: how did we take games and turn them into a national obsession? As an ex-physical education major in college the two driving points of athletics are competition and fun. I once chose it as a major because I liked nothing better than playing. We’ve kept the competition which spurs athletics to a major revenue producer, betting industry, drug abusing,etc. But we lost the fun long ago. An excellent chance for a writer to examine what exactly in our society feeds on this frenzy now that I was jilted into thinking about it by this writer.
Report this comment
Aerospace Engineer
February 27th, 2009
8:49 pm
Aerospace Engineer: I don’t consider myself either conservative or liberal; in making decisions I believe it’s best to examine all sides of an issue and then let the facts do the talking. This writer, above all others, delivers a convincing conservative message without lecturing, and leads the reader to think more deeply about the unintended consequences of not just the “ban the bull hook” litigation, but other liberal positions as well.
I hope that I’ll have the opportunity to read many more columns by this fine writer in the years to come; I may even become a true conservative.
Report this comment
Mike Ashley
February 27th, 2009
9:19 pm
This candidate gets it. Al Gore and his alarmist friends (many of whom are represented by comments at this site) do not get it. After the D.O.E. imposed standards for refrigerant emissions in 1992, one egghead reported less than a year later that the ozone layer was at less risk because of the “restrictions on flourocarbon emissions”.
In fact 99% of all refrigerants were at that time (and are today) being harmlessly blown into the atmosphere. Get a grip eggheads1
Report this comment
Molly Harper
February 27th, 2009
10:49 pm
Don’t hire this one. Same old rhetoric, labels, spin and hyperbole. How about a column based on facts and cogent arguments that presents real alternatives? Guess they don’t have any of those, so they resort to classic disinformation techniques
Report this comment
Crosby
February 27th, 2009
10:53 pm
I loved Column C! It wins my vote!
Report this comment
Crosby
February 27th, 2009
10:55 pm
This is the best one by far! Go column C!
Report this comment
Spiel
February 27th, 2009
11:45 pm
Very turned off by the gratuitous slams, it’s lazy. Also, where’s the quality control for those private schools? What happens when we discover public funds are being used to send kids to schools that espouse views we personally don’t approve of (politically, religiously, morally, ethically; separation of church and state issues coming up!). Also, what the heck is wrong with national standards if they are good standards? A state can align its teaching standards with solid national standards without diluting quality (you know, like we do with the Constitution thingie).
This one’s a no-go for me.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 27th, 2009
11:56 pm
The first 5 paragraphs were a waste of space (and I’ve read a variant of the time zone joke elsewhere). This line “Okay, that’s not true. Why should he start now?” was funny and made me hope this author might rally. But he didn’t. Combined with the other column, I’m afraid I don’t see this candidate as ready for their close-up.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
12:13 am
I am so confused, I didn’t get how this column argues a conservative point. I want my booze on Sundays without tricky advance shopping planning, and without having to go to a restaurant, and without having to join the military (I hear you can buy it at military shops on sunday, hmmm??) so I’m pre-disposed to agree with the premise. Yet, presentation seems more of a libertarian argument, as others noted.
And I headed screaming in the other direction at argument of using Sunday sales to increase state revenue. I’m not happy with how they are using the money they are getting; based on that, I’ll sacrifice and get my grog in advance.
Report this comment
C Corrigan
February 28th, 2009
12:23 am
I subscribed to the AJC in the past, but the leftward slant has gone too far. The rest of the AJC is like reading a DNC handout, or worse. I agree with many of the other comments, AJC has lost touch with its readership, and until you become more Centrist and politically truthful in your articles and opinions, you will continue to lose subscribers.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
12:42 am
I hate the circus and was ready to hate this item and think the elephant motif too cute a reference to the republican party mascot.
Instead I ended up seeing a bunch of angles considered: how should frivolous court cases be handled (what’s the liberal vs. conservative take on that?), how does this relate to the animal rights agenda (which goes beyond preventing animal abuse and ultimately aims to terminate all human/animal contact, as it’s considered exploitive). Next thing, I’m looking at the Ringling Bros website (which I assure you I wouldn’t have visited otherwise) and thinking how is this different from Sea World or the GA Aquarium or Zoo Atlanta, and what are the repercussions of this case for such beloved and destinations (that serve to educate and conserve biodiversity)?
Somehow, the author even gets a dig at communist countries. How does democracy compare with communism in the conservation front? Can a conservative care about conservation, is that even allowed? And if he/she did, what would that sound like?
I’m thinking, I’m wondering, I’m looking stuff up. Are editorials supposed to do that to readers?
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
1:15 am
“Thousands of bodies fill the rafters…” Is this phrased correctly? I’ve heard “full/packed to the rafters” and I’ve heard “raise the rafters” and something about “making the rafters ring” but this thing of bodies up there amid the rafters, gaah, I’m having “Jeepers Creepers” flashbacks.
The “tax your breath” argument seems forced, a way to work Bruce Springsteen into this piece. Plenty of other “tax your carbon footprint” examples would have worked and would have been more scarily realistic (wasn’t someone recently proposing that people be taxed on total mileage?).
I happen to agree with the argument. But can’t say I’d refer someone to this column to bring them around to my way of thinking.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
1:21 am
Ditto Ellen on the credibility crisis due to hyperexcitability. Somebody chugged one too many Redbulls?
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
1:46 am
I’ve several more to read but this is the first stimulus column that has the tone I’d expect from a newspaper editorial: calm and sensible, no gimmicks. Conservatives often warn about the dangers of a paternalistic uberstate, and this example nails it. It’s a terrifying concept, really: does the “Rich Dad / Poor Dad” model really track along the various layers of government, and how long until Rich Dad becomes permanently destitute? Will undisciplined citizens go all “Lord of the Flies” on each other when that happens?
I tend to read national news sources, so it was refreshing to get a bit of info on what’s going on at the state level (not all columns do this, just a couple of them?).
This is 2 for 2 for Candidate C. You know how they all said Obama sounded/acted “presidential” all along the way? Well, this candidate is sounding pretty darned “editorial” to me.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
2:33 am
I found this column very easy to read (grammar, phrasing, flow, style), but difficult to follow.
If I got this straight, the author is saying that getting $300 is good if it means people pay fewer taxes overall, but in this case it’s bad because the payment keeps counties afloat without forcing them to do any financial streamlining (with ensuing savings benefiting taxpayers, long-term).
So it seems like some kind of monetary musical chairs game where property owners ended up with an extra $300 in their pocket. If that’s the case, the author can’t say the relief only goes to the county (allow me to extract $300 from your pocket and see if you notice). And I agree with the person who disagreed a $300 credit will blind taxpayers to future increases (that was a touch condescending).
I agree with the writer that this is not a permanent improvement or real change, and in that, he/she presents a conservative perspective for smaller government and less state intrusion in county affairs. But it could have been stated more clearly (IMO).
Report this comment
Lulu
February 28th, 2009
2:35 am
Eric:
This is about the writers competing not Eric vs Lulu
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
2:46 am
Could barely get past the first few paragraphs.
Peeps need to realize there’s such a thing as different audiences and you are supposed to target your writing to the style of the venue vs. just doing your thing. Just like they say “dress for the position you aspire to have” you should also write for the job you want to have. Ranting is cool for “The Vent” and Facebook and your buddy’s blog, but not for an actual writing/editorial job interview… which is what this is.
Report this comment
Lulu
February 28th, 2009
2:51 am
This columnist-to-be is certainly no one’s coward. Best point here, among many, is that ridicule is not an ACCEPTABLE form of debate.In fact it comes in before patriotism as a last resort. Jeers at an inauguration comes from people educted by television alone and tutored by the internet. Both come back to bite you in a most sensitive area. And yet the media relied on both as primary tools during the past election.SHAME. This writer showed class by avoiding both.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
2:58 am
This column is like a 7 year old hitting a hornet’s nest with a stick, with the pretext he’s testing a THEORY (wink!) that the critter’s little wings will stir up a refreshing breeze.
I hate the smell of victimhood in the morning.
“This doesn’t sound like unity to me.” Indeed! How about leading by example?
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
3:02 am
(Looks at title, looks at text, scratches head, wanders off)
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
3:17 am
Alas, not sufficiently memorable, nothing I haven’t heard elsewhere.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
3:35 am
I want to agree that the discussion on race is polarized and commandeered by extremists whose goal is to pit people against each other in a way that validates their world view (a place where their group is victimized, oppressed, underappreciated).
What he is saying is eminently sensible: that HUMANS don’t like it when others unfairly call them nasty names, undeserved/untruthful names. That some people on both sides have a vested interest in keeping the dialogue polarized, as it causes sensible folks to flee the room in despair and allows them to continue to push their agenda of victimhood. But I am missing the conservative angle to the argument, it’s not sufficiently developed.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
3:40 am
“A conservative does not favor regulating the lives of others.” I think you mean libertarian. A conservative would not approve of the use of steroids in sports as it would be unsportsmanlike, would have very little issue whatsoever in making that judgment call, case closed!, and would pick another topic.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
3:47 am
“mindlessly”… “friends of Nancy”… “Pelosicrats”… another writer with a credibility issue. One wishes to agree but is so profoundly annoyed by the writer’s verbal tics that one starts speaking as Ms. Manners, while sincerely praying for more formal, civilized language in the local paper.
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
3:51 am
Nicely written, and a welcome respite after the assault of the columns immediately preceding it!
Report this comment
Spiel
February 28th, 2009
4:24 am
Well written, mentions Georgia issues a bit. Both of these author’s columns are solid.
BUT: that’s 2 columns on money and the stimulus plan as topics for J. Is the economy the author’s (only) comfort zone? Were deadlines too tight to develop two independent topics?
Only two candidates are sufficiently consistent across both columns quality-wise. That would be C and J. My finalists!
I definitely preferred C’s columns–this candidate will go the distance. Each column had something memorable (elephants as hook (hah!) for other topics; overindulgent dad analogy re: stimulus); each was an original take; each covered both GA and national issues; and the conservative angle was identifiable. The tone was true, author showed good exposition and subtle persuasion without histrionics or condescension, and the pieces read cleanly. Bring on this new talent!
Report this comment
Gerald West
February 28th, 2009
6:28 am
Don’t bother hiring another “conservative” columnist! The bilious people who write nasty things in your comments sections provide sufficient examples of modern “conservatism”. Unlike a paid columnist, their drivel is unconstrained by taste, truth, grammar, syntax, and spelling, and best of all, it’s priced at what it’s worth: nothing.
Don’t pander to disturbed people who cling to old prejudices and the failed politics of the Republican Party. These people don’t need a replacement for Jim Wooten: they need a proctologist and a psychiatrist, in that order!
Report this comment
Dan Laubler
February 28th, 2009
7:00 am
In my 40 years relationship with the constitution I dont recall you ever employing a liberal columnist this way.
What are you up to?
This is the way you do the news as well.
Evaluating content and OBJECTIVITY requires knowing the person as well.
Artists can copy or foist themselves off as masters and never have anything in common with them.
After a time and scrutiny you eventually realize you have been had.
Why dont you just give us all the information.
Why is the AJC always out to deceive.
When will you ever get your objectivity back and report the facts rather than create stories?
Report this comment
Aerospace Engineer
February 28th, 2009
8:16 am
Question: If the top were taken off Philips after Bruce’s last song, how much carbon dioxide would come whooshing out?
Answer: None, carbon dioxide is heavier than air.
Report this comment
Chris
February 28th, 2009
9:00 am
If this was really on the editorial page, the author would have lost my interest after the first three paragraphs. When reading a newspaper – I have minimal time and want a columnist who gets right to his point so I can then decide whether to read further and understand his or her logic.
Report this comment
Perry
February 28th, 2009
9:00 am
A refreshingly new conservative approach that gives thoughtful opinion rather than knee-jerk, red-meat one-liners.
Report this comment
b6542
February 28th, 2009
9:56 am
Happy days are here again. Let’s go shoot some hoops !
Report this comment
Chris
February 28th, 2009
10:19 am
The writer needs to pay a bit more attention to detail. The error on the EPA not being part of the Executive Branch – detracts from the rest of the column. I assume that the writer was trying to convey the talking point of former Chairman Dingell (a Democrat) and many Republicans that the bureaucrats at EPA, part of the executive branch, are making this decision, and not our elected leaders in the Congress.
To Deanna – if EPA is not part of the Executive Branch – then what Branch is it a part of???
To Hugh – I don’t think that this column had anything to do with is or isn’t climate change real – it clumsily attempted to highlight some of the problems with regulating CO2 emissions. Yes, the “scientific consensus” is that CO2 and other emissions contribute to climate change – but this article has nothing to do with that – it is based on the assumption that that determination has been made and that policy makers from the President to the head of EPA to the Congress are all now trying to figure out what to do about it.
To David Appell – based on your numbers of 1Kg per day per person from breathing, U.S. human emissions account for 2% of total U.S. GHG emissions and CO2 emissions from cars, power plants, and cement production are not 100 times that of human breathing. Globally, those emissions account for 55% of all GHG CO2 equivalents – so it is fairer to say that our car and fossil fuel generated power accounts for up to 25 times our breathing. The rest of the total global emissions are due to other GHG sources. U.S. emissions from breathing represent a 300% increase since 1915! So If we are to fight the global scourge of climate change and evil carbon emissions – we can’t ignore any source, including human breathing.
Report this comment
Mike Lowry
February 28th, 2009
10:54 am
I see the AJC is pushing hard to continue its mediocrity. Not a single one of these columnists addressed the core issue of the proper role of government or the insidious way in which Obama is changing it.
A real professional would be too much of a threat to Cynthia Tucker.
Report this comment
Hellbent
February 28th, 2009
11:36 am
Really? Do we have to have a “Conservative” columnist? Seriously, anyone who considers themselves “Conservative” is simply using that term in an effort to identify themselves with something which they misguidedly believe will define who they are. Basically, “Conservative” means; Up-tight, pole-up-your-a$$, tightwad, smug, holier-than-thou, hypocritical prig. I’m amazed that anyone would want to align themselves with this image. I guess they can’t see themselves the way we all do. The annoying person never does.
I, for one, consider myself a human being.
Report this comment
C Mack
February 28th, 2009
12:16 pm
Law Student I think you are right in your comment about your friends.Maybe you can see what this country has done to dumb down Americans. African Americans have been thru hell in this country to even get an education. Books was even band from them.Comming from a different country and different language.I would only hope you see thru the mase, of what they have had to endure over a short time, and be understanding.
This maybe too hard for you.
History explaines it all.
Until America creates a educational system that deals with early development. we will continue to deal with those that need a hand up.
Report this comment
Patricia
February 28th, 2009
12:19 pm
I like the writer’s comments and totally agree. Any time a columnist or author can raise controversy and responses, both pro and con, they’ve done their job. Everyone has opinions and there will never be 100% agreement on any subject. I’m fed up with the government taking away individual rights and sick of the waste (and THEFT!)at all government levels. The thought of increasiing my property taxes by another 60% to offset the deficit gets me FIRED UP! I propose alcohol sales on Sundays and I further propose the taxing of churches and religious organizations as BUSINESSES. That’s exactly what they are. Churches are popping up on every corner….NOT liquor stores. Oh wait….there’s that “thang” about separation of church and state. Apparently the Christian lobbyists only see one side of this. Praise the Lord, Pass the Plate and PAY YOUR TAXES.
This columnist gets total THUMBS UP – HANDS UP on her article and needs to a permanent addition to the AJC!
Report this comment
Grizz
February 28th, 2009
12:26 pm
What none of the columnists seem to want to discuss is the need for this plan to begin with – that the government is the buyer of last resort because it isn’t being done by private individuals or business and, as more jobs are lost, there is even less buying and investing.
I realize that with the size and scope of this plan, there are probably enough sections to aggravate just about everyone about one thing or another. This author talks about “clean coal” and nuclear power. Well, from what I’ve learned, there really isn’t any such thing as clean coal (maybe cleaner than what we have today, but a long way from “clean”) and nuclear energy produces some really nasty byproduct, both unmentioned in the column.
Report this comment
Allison
February 28th, 2009
1:35 pm
The idea that arguing against the ban is anti-Christian is ridiculous. Allow me to quote one of my favorite Christian writers, C.S. Lewis (this is from the cardinal virtues chapter of Mere Christianity):
“One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons–marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.”
Report this comment
Allison
February 28th, 2009
1:39 pm
Good stuff! I’d rank them:
B
E
J
A
F
H
I
D
C
G
Report this comment
Al
February 28th, 2009
2:19 pm
I found both columns of candidate A’s were well written and would be of interest to the average citizen of Gwinnett. A gets my vote.
Report this comment
Cherri Brown
February 28th, 2009
2:31 pm
Candidate D: straightforward without adjectival gluttony, stereotyping, or arrogant bias. Candidate makes a good argument that is open for individual thought; in other words, the candidate provokes thought. Good column.
Report this comment
Cherri Brown
February 28th, 2009
2:34 pm
Oh Sorry, Candidate D on Stimulus. The nonstimulus arguments from all candidates seemed not very objective.
Report this comment
Richard
February 28th, 2009
3:00 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if vouchers worked to fix the actual problem of bad education? Switching the students in the bad schools doesn’t fix the problem of there existing a bad school in the first place. Th government should focus on fixing the problem, not avoiding it. We’ve seen too much of that for the last few decades.
Report this comment
Bob
February 28th, 2009
3:25 pm
I do believe this has been a battle for years and I still stand strong that the Sunday should be kept holy. America was founded on Christian beliefs and slowly but surley they are slipping away. This is another example of one.
Report this comment
b6542
February 28th, 2009
3:25 pm
AJC – Why even try……..
Report this comment
Daniel Benson
February 28th, 2009
4:08 pm
Not to blow my own horn, but I read the opinion pages regularly, have strong, and I believe well-grounded opinions and have had several conservative letters printed in the AJC. Does that make me an expert? Heck no, but I think I can comment pretty well on these candidates. I’ve read the articles and Candidate H gets the nod from me, followed by “I”. “D” did well with his first article, but completely lost me with the spouty babble of his Stimulus article. My vote is H.
Report this comment
Cathy Vilar
February 28th, 2009
4:16 pm
Candidate E’s first column was the best read, hands down. He writes as though he’s talking to you, not writing an assignment. He avoids the nasty sarcasm and finger-pointing that serves only to move the image of conservatives to that of pouty know-it-alls instead of the thoughtful protectors of our rights that they used to be.
As for the second column on the bailout, I am not as impressed. I still like the tone, and if the assignment was to comment only on some aspect of the bailout, I appreciate the choice of education. Where I am disappointed is in this writer’s failure to research recent developments in Georgia, particularly the metro Atlanta schools with their record of top notch student standings. Increasing class size from k-12 has received the governor’s blessing. In Fulton County alone, that redistribution of students has resulted in over 800 surplussed teachers, and over 400 part-time teachers (myself included) who were informed that we would not be returning next year. I am a high school math teacher, have a masters in education and have received consistently excellent reviews. Candidate E’s comments assume that “fewer” teachers equals keeping only the best. Not so. Seniority is paramount, not ability. I’m in a “critical field” and have no job next year because all part-time personnel are being let go to save money, even though I’ve taught in Georgia 29 years. He/she also assumes that they would be “well-paid”. Not so. No teacher is getting a raise this year. And the part-timers fall under the radar of the unemployed since teachers do not qualify, even if part-time employees are helped by the stimulus package.
Accuracy is important.
Report this comment
Tom Black
February 28th, 2009
4:17 pm
Nice job…As a longtime Dire Straits fan, I appreciate the reference to “Money for Nothing.” What an apt title in this era of collosal budget deficits and Fed printing presses cranking out the cash 24/7.
If our mainstream media were not made up of so many liberal sycophants, there would be much more critical coverage of this fantasy-laden budget. Massive government programs or endeavors, once launched, invariably A) take on a life of their own and continue to expand indefinitely; and B) end up costing far more than originally projected. Medicare and Social Security are prime examples.
This column probably should have addressed the frighteningly large unfunded mandates of Medicare and Social Security, which will be in the tens of trillions of dollars, as well as the ever-increasing cost of interest on the national debt, which itself will represent a huge annual expense.
Mention also could have been made of the worldwide nature of the economic meltdown, and how that bodes ill for future U.S. tax revenues due to diminished commerce. If Americans are tapped out, we buy fewer Asian electronics goods and vehicles, meaning people in those countries are hurting, which has a ripple effect on surrounding nations, and so on.
Tackling economic and fiscal issues in a newspaper column is tricky because unfortunately so many people these days are ignorant of economic issues since our schools do a poor job of teaching economics. Overall, a credible job on an important topic.
Report this comment
Cathy Vilar
February 28th, 2009
4:25 pm
Candidate E’s first column was the best read, hands down. He writes as though he’s talking to you, not writing an assignment. He avoids the nasty sarcasm and finger-pointing that serves only to move the image of conservatives to that of pouty know-it-alls.
As for the second column on the bailout, I still like the tone, and if the assignment was to comment only on some aspect of the bailout, I appreciate the choice of education. Where I am disappointed is in this writer’s failure to research recent developments in Georgia. Increasing class size, in Fulton County alone, has resulted in over 800 surplussed teachers and released over 400 part-time teachers, regardless of their field or ability. Candidate E assumes that “fewer” teachers equals keeping the best. Not so. He/she also assumes that they would be “well-paid”. But no teacher is getting a raise this year. And the part-timers fall under the radar of the unemployed since teachers do not qualify for unemployment, even if part-time employees are helped by the stimulus package.
Report this comment
Carolyn
February 28th, 2009
5:01 pm
This candidate gets my unqualified vote. I especially liked that the article is non-ideological in its approach. Instead, the points are made with facts, citing sources. There is no name-calling, and political-party lines are not drawn in the sand. I am a person who respects many of the fiscal conservative ideals (smaller government,more individual freedom) and many of the social ideals of liberals (equal rights for all, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation). It would be nice to hear intelligent, reasoned opinions such as this one, and it makes me want to hear what he/she will say in other areas. My friends who have cancelled subscriptions say they did it because of “obvious bias,” regardless of which side. Articles like this one would help.
Report this comment
Veteran
February 28th, 2009
9:43 pm
Gregg, one quick note. If you are truly too educated for you Job then I bet someone who appreciates it will take it off your hands. Oh and by the way, do not claim to be educated with a sentence in your post like ‘Let’s switch it, if McCain had want Obama had you would derail Obama and parade McCain as this great orator and thinker.’ Go back to school and learn proper english. Yes ‘Law Student’ is correct if you are a minority you can get in a lot easier because the schools must maintain a certain ratio of minorities. Studies have shown that the person that will find it hardest to get any financial aid or acceptance will be a white male because of the ‘ratio’ government schools are required to maintain.
Report this comment
Swami Dave
February 28th, 2009
10:11 pm
[A]
(Vouchers)
I agree that steps need to be taken to improve education in Georgia and America. I would have liked to have seen more details instead of article that simply supported a specific piece of legislation. I would have preferred less of -what- to do and more of -why-.
(Stimulus)
I thought that [A] did a better job in addressing the fiscal & political realities of the stimulus bill.
[B]
(Sunday Sales)
I can accept the position of [B] even if the underlying point is celebrating an increase in tax receipts. Personally, I find it concerning to celebrate increased tax collections from Georgians (whether they result from tax increases or taxpayer choice – lottery, alcohol / tobacco taxes, etc).
(Stimulus)
I thought the review of the stimulus package did a very good job of addressing a specific component in reasonable detail instead of attacking scatter-shot with generalizations. I also liked that [B] addressed specifics of the package instead of griping about how partisan it was pushed. that provided specific information instead of regurgitating what we already know.
[C]
(Endangered Species Act) T
he writer did a very good job of highlighting a outside-the-norm story and leading a reader along their identification of problem / risk to their chosen conclusion. The risk is that this is indeed an esoteric topic that would probably not rate high on most reader’s list. It might be better cast as a blog article instead of a column topic.
(Stimulus)
Again, I thought that the article about the stimulus was more direct and understandable to column readers. I really liked how [C] compared a parent-child relationship to federal-state government and connected the risk and long-term damage to habitually “bailing out” those who make bad decisions or entirely abdicate their role to make them.
[D]
(Regulating Carbon)
Again, the writer does a very good job of highlighting the lunacy and fiscal irresponsibility of liberal environmental regulation. However, at the end, I felt like I had simply been told what I already knew with little identified that readers could do to correct it.
(Stimulus)
There is an effectiveness in highlighting absurdity by being absurd. My problem with the column was the 30% was wasted in hyperbole and the remainder was spent presenting why a bad bill, that we all know is bad, was bad.
[E]
(Homeowner Tax Relief)
[E] did a very effective job of addressing what is a current “hot button” issue in Georgia, frame the issue, and comment on it from a consistent conservative position. The writer labeled the players and correctly discussed their motivations even when it served as challenge to leaders of what are (probably) the writer’s party. I say well done.
(Stimulus)
In this column as well, [E] frames a specific component of the stimulus package and addresses mistakes and problems with it. Throughout, choices that would have been solutions are offered giving background and framework. My biggest compliment for [E] is the pattern of discussing issues and policy from the perspective of philosophy and principle. It is, in my opinion, an effective form of persuasion.
[F]
(Clayton County Schools)
I thought that the writer had a much better conclusion than introduction. Unfortunately, I am not sure that most readers would have gotten to the middle where the legitimate issues were raised and addressed. It is obvious that the writer is emotionally connected to this topic and holds a good bit of frustration and anger about it. That passion would have probably served for an effective and powerful introduction, but it seemed misplaced (and overplayed) as the makeup for probably 40% of the column. (Stimulus)
I found the column on the stimulus package to be much more succinct and effective. [F] highlighted the issue, stated the incorrect action by Democratic leaders, and proposed the much-simpler and would-be more successful one. The piece was much better absent the obvious personal connection for the other, but the delivery did not sacrifice passion or conviction. Personally, I liked this one much better than the column about Clayton County.
[G]
(Racial Cowardice)
President Obama’s connections to Alinsky and his use of Alinsky’s tactics in his time as a community organizer are simply fact. That he has learned well those lessons and is executing them in a well-concerted and still-continuing campaign mode of governance cannot be denied. Fowever, attempting to tie the comments of Holder, Reich, Emanuel, and the President as some type of grand conspiracy of intent, it a much farther stretch. In a like manner, if the administration is indeed as orchestrated and insidious as [G] contends, the nation has much more fearsome problems than speeches about race. (Stimulus)
The column addressed a number of problems that arise from the liberal influences of our education system. Many of those problems were highlighted. However, I would have preferred to have seen less emphasis on creating a laundry list of sins and more invested in presenting some solutions to them. It is one thing to rail against a collection of straw men that tend to be easily-targeted, but it entirely another to raise concerns and offer better solutions. Also, outside of a single introductory sentence stating the obvious that stimulus money would be spent on education (much of it probably wasted), it was difficult to see how this column related to the stimulus package or comment on it.
[H]
(Eric Holder)
I thought that candidate [H] presented a unique perspective well even if there never seemed to be the definitive conclusion of whether Holder was right, misguided, or wrong. The column was very on spot in highlighting that conversations of race in America do focus almost entirely on the relationship between Whites and Blacks lacking recognition to many of our other cultural / racial groups who truly should have a part in our national discussion. I honestly liked the perspective better than the column as a whole, but perception and vision are often much more differentiating skills than others like writing and construction which can be developed with practice.
(Stimulus)
This may be the best of the “stimulus” columns that I have read so far . Congratulations to the writer for their unwavering and matter-of-fact defense of conservative ideals of limited government compared versus the most recent historical examples of “liberal” government-expanding administrations (Roosevelt and Carter). In both examples, America had little show for their crushing deficit spending except more debt. Contrasted against the longest period of peacetime economic growth resulting from the policies of the Reagan administration, the writer frames this discussion from his position of greatest strength: history and common sense.
[I]
(Steroids)
I must admit – I did not see an evident conclusion to this column. It was unclear if the writer was excusing the usage of performance-enhancing drugs in athletics, creating a hypothetical inferring that readers (mostly non-athletes) would do it too, or blaming their behavior on human frailty or poor parenting. I was left scratching my head on this one.
(Stimulus)
I did like the verbal metaphor of “using leeches to cure anemia” as a comparison to using higher taxes and out-of-control spending (that impedes economic growth) as the measure to correct a recession. That said, one unique example of mental imagery cannot overcome what was a very limited column. Honestly, it was almost as if the entire column was written as filler around that one good line.
[J]
(Budget Deficit)
I thought that this was a very solid column effectively merging conservative principles and factual / statistical evidence to highlight the fallacy that is the current economic policy of the Obama administration. The writer also did a very effective job of introducing and using a cultural reference for comparison and defense of the premise.
(Stimulus)
Again, this article was a solid comparison between two economic philosophies related to the subject of tax cuts. It explains the ineffectiveness of the Bush administration “stimulus” checks, accurately predicts the upcoming stimulative failure of the Obama administration’s minuscule tax cuts, and defends a much better tax cut option for American business that would actually result in economic stimulus. It was a job well done.
If I were to rank the candidates and identify those from whom I would like to see more work, I would rank my top three as follows: [H] and [J] tied followed closely by [E]. For these three candidates,
I thought they each did well on both columns and their material represented good combinations of principle, facts, and vision.
I wish each of the candidates well and look forward to seeing more of their work in the coming weeks and months.
David Adams (Swami Dave)
Report this comment
Fred Lewis
February 28th, 2009
11:10 pm
After reading the others I feel that G’s is the only one worth commenting on. This writer can only raise the bar for the AJC.
Report this comment
Fred Lewis
February 28th, 2009
11:12 pm
I actualy might buy the AJC to read this writer
Report this comment
Fred Lewis
February 28th, 2009
11:13 pm
This writer can only raise the bar for the AJC
Report this comment
Dale
February 28th, 2009
11:56 pm
File this one under “L” for long winded diatribe I will never read again
Report this comment
Gary
March 1st, 2009
5:42 am
This is a well constructed, well written article. The balance of philosophy/perspective and facts is spot on.
Report this comment
Gary
March 1st, 2009
5:46 am
Focus more on your core message–the stimulus bill is all about reshaping America, not re-starting the economy. Your Rahm Emmanuel quote is the center piece, with your point about Pelosi/Reid showing how it was accomplished by bulling it through without debate, etc.
Report this comment
Gary
March 1st, 2009
5:49 am
The article contains enough facts and references, but it’s completely off message. This is a column on education and choice, not the stimulus.
Report this comment
Gary
March 1st, 2009
5:53 am
The quote from Morgenthau was excellent; just leave it at that. The examples of Carter & Reagan illustrate your main thesis, which should have been stated more strongly up front.
Report this comment
Gary
March 1st, 2009
5:58 am
Weak beginning; decent discussion on corporate taxes, but even that could use a little more substance.
Report this comment
Gary
March 1st, 2009
6:04 am
The writer took an unusual topic and made it informative and interesting. This writer should definitely survive to the next round!
Report this comment
Gunner
March 1st, 2009
9:15 am
Anything that you can do to get the “invisible hand” working for education is, IMHO, a good thing.
Report this comment
Jackie
March 1st, 2009
9:20 am
This writer is as sound and strong as Cynthia Tucker, only in the opposite political view. Since this is a contest for a conservative writer, this one gets my vote for topic and depth.I’d like to read more from this writer.
Report this comment
Jackie
March 1st, 2009
9:28 am
Paints a good picture but takes a while to get to the point. Global warming is an old and safe topic. I’d like to read more about the drive behind non-conservative movements. good try, though.
Report this comment
Jackie
March 1st, 2009
10:05 am
ugh…we start with failing schools and relate it to mortgage bailout. Should the writer know more about his topic? I graduated from a PRIVATE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE that was totally run on gov’t criteria to keep the gov’t subsidizing (yes private schools get it to a point) and keep the gov’t criteria for curriculum and graduation.
What is a private school or voucher opportunity? It wasn’t defined,really.
Is spending $5,000. a child plus my tax money already going to all types of schools the answer?
why are we reinventing the wheel by justifying more gov’t $ OR YOUR TAX Dollars for schools? Not very conservative opinion or research evident in this article.
The old model 30 yrs ago in public schools incl PE every year, and electives such as band, chorus, orchestra, typing, drivers ed, home economics,etc. My school friends and I went to community colleges, state colleges, private colleges, and out of state colleges. Graduated in 4 yrs and became productive citizens. I’ve met them at reunions.
A true conservative would research and write about when and how educ k-12 worked without pre-k, with elective elimination, without so much gov’t control.
Let’s re-write this article or delete the column…sorry
Report this comment
Jackie
March 1st, 2009
10:06 am
whoops, 2nd to last paragraph should have read… “without elective elimination”, and without so much gov’t control.
Report this comment
Boris
March 1st, 2009
10:32 am
With a conservative on your staff, maybe we can use the Atlanta Journal for something besides fish wrappers. But I expect all the columnists are beholden to the owners and the editors idealogy.
Report this comment
Cerebration
March 1st, 2009
10:54 am
This writer has shown that he or she is powerful – due to the fact that this column actually WAS able to generate debate. It’s not as easy as it sounds to spark a relatively “healthy” conversation about race — Good job, Candidate G.
Report this comment
Daniel Benson
March 1st, 2009
11:07 am
I’ve read the articles and Candidate H gets the nod from me, followed by “I”. “D” did well with his first article, but completely lost me with the spouty babble of his Stimulus article. My vote is H.
Report this comment
steve lanier
March 1st, 2009
11:08 am
Top Ten Beliefs Needed by Wooten’s Replacement:
10. Blind obedience to GA Republican Party
9. Strong belief that Trent Lott was right
8. Visceral dislike for Atlanta
7. No money for MARTA, pave four lane road in South Ty ty
6. Repeal GA corporate income tax, I’ll get a pay raise
5. Abolish social security, Georgians will save for retirement
4. Fossils are made in the devil’s workshop
3. Do we really need public education
2. I don’t care what happens to you
1. Pettiness will get you an AJC column.
Report this comment
ShooShee
March 1st, 2009
11:10 am
Um – Robert Reich – you DID say that you wanted the construction jobs to go to the long-term unemployed, construction workers, women – people who are not necessarily construction workers. These are the people you want building the bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus package – right? It doesn’t have to be real, experienced construction workers who have lost jobs in this economy. You said that these other people have “needs” and they can be “trained” to do the job. Tell me – do you think that’s also true about auto workers? Are you going to train needy people to build the cars in the bailout?
In case you’ve forgotten – here’s the link to the YouTube video of your remarks –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KI61z5Dyo&eurl=http://unitedstatesliberty.com/featured/emergencey-white-people-obamas-labor-secretary-caught-on-video-saying-he-wants-to-make
Report this comment
Jeff Boatright
March 1st, 2009
11:33 am
Compared to the other nine, “Candidate B” is the best. There’s no way the entire stimulus package can be covered in one small op-ed, so “B” focused on one aspect. I disagree with the stance taken (having 10% of our energy needs shifted to wind and solar would be a HUGE benefit to us), but at least this is an honest argument not bogged down in personal politics.
Report this comment
Jeff Boatright
March 1st, 2009
11:44 am
As near as I can tell, “Candidate B” is the only conservative in the lot. The other nine are just GOP shills. Not the same thing. I also like it that “Candidate B” chose a local topic that actually impacts my life.
Report this comment
Patti Brown-Traylor
March 1st, 2009
3:36 pm
This was an excellent written article. Candidate showed a vast knowledge of his subject. It showed he had researched it well. This was by far the best candidate. Hire Him!! You need him.
Report this comment
Pierce Randall
March 1st, 2009
4:04 pm
Oh gosh! Not the traveling circus!!!!
Report this comment
Pierce Randall
March 1st, 2009
4:14 pm
So basically, tax cuts don’t work unless they go to rich people?
Report this comment
Pierce Randall
March 1st, 2009
4:20 pm
Ok, but what was World War II but a big employment program for young people financed through government deficit spending? Why can’t we do that with bridges?
The New Deal didn’t completely alleviate the Depression because FDR balanced the budget in 1936, and the economy crashed again in 1937. It seems like deficit spending and government employment programs really can get you out of a Depression, at least if you want to invoke history….
Report this comment
Pierce Randall
March 1st, 2009
4:42 pm
This aren’t points, though. You could read at least the Wikipedia article on it first, before ranting about Keynesianism.
Keynes would argue, in fact, that we’re in a deflationary spiral, because of excessive saving in anticipation for hard times (business, for instance, not spending all their cash-on-hand, firing people, anticipating negative earnings), and that we need to expand the monetary supply, specifically to encourage economic demand in the form of job growth through government deficit spending.
This columnist makes two “points”: First, the assertion without warrant that most of the stimulus is corporate welfare. I don’t think that’s true by any stretch of the imagination, but the author doesn’t explain how it might be, so I’m not sure how to take it. Most of the stimulus goes to: Expanding entitlements (food stamps, etc.), aid to states to make up for budget shortfalls (so they don’t have to fire state workers), building projects, and a tax cut that’s not all one lump sum, so that consumers might spend it instead of depositing a check from the government in the bank. I’m not sure how any of that relates to corporate welfare, but if it did, the government is paying for work to get done, which “trickles down” (if you want to play around with terms outside of any meaning, apparently ironically or not) to the people, uh, hired to do that work. Or else, it’s just a handout of money or a service to someone, which, it turns out, leads to increased consumer spending.
The second point, that the stimulus can’t succeed if it doesn’t lower the cost of doing business, is also unwarranted, and belies whatever criticism is implicit in using the phrase “trickle down” regarding the stimulus itself. (Is that what conservatism largely aspires to today? Cutesy term-twisting, sophistry, instead of ideas and ponts?) Additionally, if you’re going to blame Democrats for arguing Keynesianism, at least acknowledge that in their framework, “lowering cost” for business would not encourage investment — it would just be another form of monetary inflation, as businesses banked that money waiting for the economy to get better, which it never would if somebody (Democrats would argue the big bad federal government) sticks their money out and spends it.
Also, I’ll point out that Maxims are usually a sentence or two long, and are succinct, witty commentary, not paragraphs of nonsense.
I dunno, Maybe “Candidate I” is what conservatives and the AJC wants: Someone Democrats like me will look at to watch with disgust the slackjawed descent of the well-constructed phase and insightful editorial. It’s like printing a car wreck, honestly; conservative win because it offends me, a liberal, at some visceral level, and the AJC because I might click on it once or twice just to see how bad it is.
Report this comment
RLM
March 1st, 2009
4:57 pm
This columnist starts with a false statement so what is the point of listening to them. The SPCA is against the treatment of the elephants. The animals are chained for long periods of time in an unhealthy manner. The Circus is violating treatment rules in place. They are breaking a law that has nothing to do with endangered species. The conclusion is the columnist is not well versed or paying attention to what goes on.
It is true however that hunters and others should be given credit for providing animal habitats that benefit more than the animals the hunters want. Why are there any tigers in India in the first place? Maharajahs wanted to hunt. Duck, quail and other birds have had habitats preserved by hunters.
This has nothing to do with leaving an elephant chained for 24 hours unable to move anywhere. Do we have to have elephants in circuses? No elephant parks would be just a profitable and popular. Cirque du Soleil has not animals and is great.
Report this comment
RLM
March 1st, 2009
4:59 pm
The SPCA is fighting the circus’s. This is not the work of the endangered species act. Get someone who knows what they are talking about.
Report this comment
RLM
March 1st, 2009
5:03 pm
Superficial argument. Lets aim for a little more depth on a comples issue.
Report this comment
RLM
March 1st, 2009
5:07 pm
This is not about liberalism. This is about electing people who are unqualified and who lack integrity. The author is not thoughtful enough.
Report this comment
RLM
March 1st, 2009
5:16 pm
Better than other comments. Finally someone is thinking
Report this comment
TRTL Audrey Chambers
March 1st, 2009
5:22 pm
On the topic of their choice, candidates C & G did the best job of presenting their opinions in an organized way. Addressing the stimulus bill, only candidates F, H and I stayed on topic with F & H offering the best presentation.
I tried to judge not on what I agreed or disagreed with but on style and organization. Didn’t identify a candidate who did both well on both topics.
Report this comment
Steve L.
March 1st, 2009
5:35 pm
This guy/gal is supposed to be a conservative? In what world?
Report this comment
Bob of DC
March 1st, 2009
5:46 pm
The columnist, unfortunately, has his or her facts wrong. The columnist writes that the stimulus lacked “any funding for ‘clean coal’” — in fact, it included $3.4 billion for fossil fuel R&D, much of which is expected to be used to finance “clean coal” projects. I would hope the AJC is interested in picking a columnist who respects facts.
Report this comment
Devildog
March 1st, 2009
7:12 pm
They’re all so boring they put me to sleep.
Report this comment
Roger Bell
March 1st, 2009
7:14 pm
I don’t really care who you pick as a right-wing columnist. Most of your editorial page is right-wing. When are you going to select a liberal/progressive columnist? Then I might resubscribe to your paper.
Report this comment
Renee
March 1st, 2009
7:36 pm
How many of you want to meet somewhere and have an honest face to face about race? After the discussion let’s decide what we are going to do about what the issue we have with the other race. I will find a a venue. Will you come? I really want the angry people to come because this can be ground breaking for Atlanta.
Report this comment
David M.
March 1st, 2009
8:25 pm
Candidate C’s cogent response addresses serious, specific concern for Georgians, but also illustrates the dangers of the stimulus package for all Americans. The apt reference to “The Millionaire Next Door” should be required reading for every politician, local and national. Apparently our politicians only read fiction. Perhaps Candidate C, if selected, can change this trend.
Report this comment
David M.
March 1st, 2009
8:52 pm
What an eye-opening account of