Your morning jolt: Why Roy Barnes can’t afford a runoff
Topics below include: Roy Barnes, Republican Governors Association, Fox News, polling, Eddie Long, Politifact, and Ralph Reed.
The same thought has been knocking around in my head, but Larry Peterson at the Savannah Morning News got to it first:
The Miami of Ohio football team and Georgia Democrats have something in common, and that should worry Roy Barnes.
Miami has never won an overtime game and Georgia Democrats have never won a statewide runoff.
Of course, different conditions trigger overtime and runoffs. A tie extends a football game into overtime; a runoff occurs when no one draws a majority of the votes.
But chronic inability to win overtime games and runoffs may have similar influences on strategy. That is, if Barnes faces the likelihood of a runoff, he may be tempted to make aggressive – even risky – moves to avoid one.
***
Longtime Atlanta PR man Charlie Hayslett passed along this product of an e-mail chain from a cousin:
“I just got an automated call conducting a poll for political races in Georgia. Since it was [automated], no way I could tell them they were talking to Mississippi, so I took the poll and voted for all the Republicans.
“Wonder how much money some organization is paying the polling company to poll the wrong state?”
***
Say what you will about the Eddie Long scandal – over the weekend, it drove dozens of journalists into church. The Washington Post included this tidbit about the scene at New Missionary Baptist that we haven’t seen anywhere else:
Parishioners said they worry the Long is under attack and some members seemed to assume a war footing Sunday morning, praying and singing and doing the Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop before Long came out.
A diversion of late-inning prayer helps explain the Braves’ September swoon.
***
The Athens Banner-Herald had this over the weekend:
The 19-year-old son of U.S. Rep. Paul Broun was arrested Friday night in downtown Athens and charged with driving under the influence of drugs, the third time in two years Paul Collins Broun III has faced drug or alcohol charges.
***
The Sunday morning news shows carried two new ads in the Georgia race for governor – one by the Republican Governors Association, on behalf of Nathan Deal, and another by Democrat Roy Barnes. Neither ad has been posted on YouTube.
The first reader to send a clip of either one would get a free Political Insider T-shirt – if such a thing existed.
***
Politifact Georgia this morning examines whether Democratic nominee for governor Roy Barnes is sticking to a pledge to run a campaign that doesn’t get down in the mud.
***
The connection between Fox News and Republicans is rich and deep. And may be posing problems for other news organizations. From Politico.com:
With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office.
The matter is of no small consequence, since it’s uncertain how other news organizations can cover the early stages of the presidential race when some of the main GOP contenders are contractually forbidden to appear on any TV network besides Fox.
***
Another Fox News connection: Former Sonny Perdue aide Nick Ayers was named the power player of the week by the conservative cable TV network this weekend:
Those jaded liberals at Media Matters think its worth noting that News Corp., the parent company of Fox, gave $1 million to the RGA this summer — implying that Fox is merely talking up its investment. Tsk.
***
More from the gubernatorial front: Roy Barnes chased the church vote in Brunswick over the weekend. From the Savannah Morning News:
The Democratic nominee for governor laid out components of a jobs program that he promised to present in full this week, and he assured the crowd of about 40 that churches would figure into it.
Barnes said he would create faith-based partnerships to help educate children and prepare workers. Churches and other faith-based organizations would help provide for children in foster care, would mentor students and help them prepare for tests.
Saying, “It’s time for us to take care of our own people,” Barnes said the state should implement programs to keep jobs at home. A bidder that comes within 1 percent of the lowest bid on a local government or state contract would get the contract rather than have an outside company do the work.
Barnes said he was amazed to be talking to a man in Missouri when he renewed his hunting license by phone.
“Georgia workers ought to perform Georgia taxpayer contracts …” he said.
Finally, the New Republic is crediting man known locally as Baby Jesus for Ralph Reed’s return to the national political scene:
[A]fter Barack Obama swept into the White House on the strength of a high-tech political organizing juggernaut, friends implored Reed—the former executive director of the Christian Coalition and one of the key architects of the GOP congressional takeover in 1994—to get back in the game.
As Reed tells his audience at the Mayflower, a phone call from Sean Hannity persuaded him. “I wanted to know that this was not me,” Reed says, “that this was not any ambition of mine. I wanted to know that this was the Lord.”
Reed breaks into a sly grin as he recounts Hannity’s response: “Ralph, God is speaking through this phone line right now, and he’s using me to deliver the message.”
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
150 comments Add your comment
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
1:26 pm
Truth-
You can add, he’s not elected.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
1:38 pm
@ Truth, well lets talk Monds then. He is not Deal and that is a plus. On the other issues:
Taxes – I don’t have an issue with focusing our revenue collection on sales tax so long as we collect enough to run the state properly.
Energy – Do nothing is not a solution. Don’t tell us what you won’t do tell us what you will do.
Non Violent Drug Offenses – Amen! Legalize and tax them.
Gun Rights – He is just pandering, this is a non issue.
Jobs – I don’t think legalized gambling and growing dope is going to get us out of the recession. Not that I am against it
Budget – He has some good ideas relative to indexing and zero based. Problem is his starting point.
Schools – We certainly need to be more efficient but we are underfunded period.
Transportation – again doing nothing is not a strategy nor is privatizing roads.
Marriage and Sunday Sales – Amen
Water – doesn’t look like he understands the issue.
Final analysis, some good ideas but not up to the job.
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
1:40 pm
JDW-
Still waiting?
Joseph Breyne
September 27th, 2010
1:41 pm
I’m voting John Monds all the way!
JDW
September 27th, 2010
1:46 pm
@ Retired, good question. I use a variety. The major ones are:
Print – Newsweek, Time, Economist, Harvard Business Review, Wall Street Journal, Business Week Financial Times, & AJC
Broadcast – some CNN, some Faux News, but mostly BBC or NPR.
Web – CNN, NY Times, Forbes, Real Clear Politics.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
1:47 pm
@ Retired, I left off the how about you? Where do you get your news?
When Hell Freezes Over
September 27th, 2010
1:56 pm
Reality:
If the goal was to provide insurance to the uninsured, it could have been done without forcing the entire nation into a healthcare program the majority of citizens didn’t want, and it could have been done much more cheaply than this monstrosity of a healthcare bill that was passed. The truth is that the healthcare bill is not really about healthcare but about redistribution of wealth.
Why should ANY income group be taxed at a higher rate than any other? Again, we are talking about redistribution of wealth.
“I will vote for a communist before I vote republican”
I think that statement just about sums you up.
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
1:57 pm
JDW-
Why the AJC of course, Wall Street, Wahington Post online.
Real Clear Politics, Fivethirtyeight, cqcongressional, peach pudit, msnbc
TV: 50% Fox News and 25% each MSNBC and CNN.
Even conservatives use a good cross section of sources.
Barry
September 27th, 2010
1:58 pm
Ralph Reed? This is Jesus speaking through the Internet. Ignore Glenn Beck. Stay out of politics. Forever. Go get a real job. Selling used cars would be a good fit, since carnival barker gigs are hard to come by.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:04 pm
@ Retired, we use some common sources. I will take a look at some of the ones you use that I don’t. If you get a chance both BBC and The Economist are good worldview sources. I spent a fair amount of time overseas so I still try to keep up.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:10 pm
@ Freezing
“Why should ANY income group be taxed at a higher rate than any other? Again, we are talking about redistribution of wealth.”
Everyone is taxed at the same rate. My first $50K and your first 50K are taxed exactly same as is your first Million and my first Million.
After all why should we ask Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a larger percentage of her income in taxes than he does…O’wait we do…bad example.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
2:12 pm
As did I overseas. I watched BBC in Germany and listened to it in Saudi and Iraq in the first Gulf War. I found BBC to be pretty liberal frankly ant-american. But in the desert you listen to what u can pick up.
td
September 27th, 2010
2:18 pm
JDW, And the bottom 48% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Everyone should pay something so that they will have a some skin in the game.
BTW: How much of an income is enough to pay the government? 30%? 40%? 50% +? If 10% is good enough for the God then why is it not good enough for the government?
When Hell Freezes Over
September 27th, 2010
2:26 pm
td:
“If 10% is good enough for the God then why is it not good enough for the government?”
Oh, horrors! That would mean, God forbid, that the government learn how to manage money and live within its’ means! Surely, you jest?
RGB
September 27th, 2010
2:27 pm
@Reality:
You should read more closely because words mean things.
I wrote:
“But some Republicans…”
And yes many Republicans spend like nearly all Democrats. Bush spent too much but looks like a tightwad by Obama standards–don’t you agree?
Probably not because you likely benefit from “government benefits” (AKA other taxpayers’ money).
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:27 pm
@ TD, “the bottom 48% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Everyone should pay something so that they will have a some skin in the game”
Not true at all, they pay Social Security, Medicaid, sales tax, property tax, auto tax etc…
What is enough? What it takes to balance a reasonable budget. Clinton balanced the budget with tax collections at around 21% of GDP, Duhbya managed to drive that number down to around 18%. It needs to be driven back up to 21%.
As for God he never said 10% was good enough, that was Man telling us what God thought.
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
2:33 pm
JDW-
But the discussion was about income tax, not those others. Property tax? Only some.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:36 pm
@ Retired, TD made the assertion that the other 48% had no skin in the game and that is not true. They pay a variety of taxes therefore the no skin argument does not hold water.
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
2:41 pm
JDW-
Couldn’t disagree with you more. At the federal level when you pay medicare and social security it is for a benefit you expect to get later.
When you pay income tax you are supporting the current activities of the federal government. Everyone should pay some income tax. Better yet, we should adopt the Fair Tax, them we all pay.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:42 pm
@ Retired and TD, but further to that point of the 48%….
There are people in that number that are most certainly dodging taxes by gaming the system to reduce income ie working off the books, collecting payment in cash etc…
There are also people that aren’t in that number that are consuming in the US foreign vistors that don’t choose to go home for example.
Both those situations could be addressed by some sort of consumption or VAT tax. There might still need to be a much reduced income tax as well but it seems to make sense to at least have some portion of the tax base consumption oriented.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:44 pm
@ Retired
“Couldn’t disagree with you more. At the federal level when you pay medicare and social security it is for a benefit you expect to get later.”
I don’t think expect is the right word…hope is a better one. As I am sure you know those dollars today are being spent and not saved. Everyone in that system is trusting that future tax dollars will be available to pay them. This along gives anyone paying those taxes “skin in the game”
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:44 pm
opps this alone gives anyone paying those taxes “skin in the game”
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:46 pm
RE the Fair Tax…while I favor a consumption tax the Fair Tax as written does not work.
td
September 27th, 2010
2:47 pm
JDW
September 27th, 2010
2:36 pm
@ Retired, TD made the assertion that the other 48% had no skin in the game and that is not true. They pay a variety of taxes therefore the no skin argument does not hold water
But then they receive the EITC(if they earn money if not then they just get about $30,000 per year in in kind support) and that pays for all their other taxes they pay for the year. I did say income taxes. If you want to include these other taxes then the top 25% of wage earners pay about 55 to 60% of their income in taxes. Is this enough? Again what percentage is enough for a person to pay? You spun and talked about GDP and did not answer the question?
BTW: Why is should we be taxed at 21% of our GDP?
You
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
2:48 pm
JDW-
Not in operating the federal government. Obviously you either are happy to pay more or you are part of the 48%. Either way you won’t be convinced and we’ll continue to have a “give me” mentality until the well is dry.
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
2:49 pm
JDW-
This will be good. Why won’t the Fair Tax work?
When Hell Freezes Over
September 27th, 2010
2:52 pm
JDW:
You speak of “skin in the game”. Now, would you like to explain the “Earned Income Tax Credit”, and how it relates to all these payroll taxes that are being paid?
The Centrist
September 27th, 2010
3:00 pm
If tuition at quality private schools is $20,000 that increase on average of 5% per year, what will a $4,000 tax credit or tuition voucher do to improve the overall education standards in Georgia? Compare this to the “throwing good money after bad” people who are screaming about spending $8,500 annually per child on public education.
Will
September 27th, 2010
3:26 pm
Deal is the lesser of two evils. Would love to see Monds get elected but it will never happen. I want to vote for Monds in the general but will hold my nose and vote for Deal.
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
3:28 pm
Enter your comments here
JDW
September 27th, 2010
3:34 pm
First the 21%–As the Clinton years proved that number balances the budget and does not encumber the economy.
First problem with the Fair Tax is the number is wrong…it is really 34% http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
Next problem is that it soaks the middle class. A family of 4 making 30K pays no tax while today they do pay social security and Medicaid. The entire tax burden is assumed by those families spending between $30K and say $750K. Problem with that is taxpayers making over a million per year, about the top ½ of 1%, pay about $250 Billion in taxes. Sorry but I don’t think the middle class is going to pick up that bill.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html#_grp1
JDW
September 27th, 2010
3:42 pm
On the EIC, frankly I have not given it much thought. From a cost standpoint it is ground noise. In 2007 it cost taxpayers about $89 Billion.
http://www.offeringofletters.org/2010/news/campaign-updates/146-how-much-does-eitc-cost-taxpayers-
Sounds like a lot but that equals less than 3% of Federal Outlays so as far as solving any budget problems you would not gain much if you canned the entire program.
On a philosophical level I have no problem paying a few extra tax dollars to support poor kids.
From an execution standpoint, like any government program it could be run better.
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
3:52 pm
JDW-
The first mistake you made is a family of 4 making 30k is not middle class. The second mistake is failing to mention the prebate that every family would receive up to that size family’s proverty level. Third you are assuming your source is correct, they are not. and fourth you assume higher incomes don’t send more, they do.
Nice try, but the Fair Tax is just that, the must fair way to fund our federal government.
Retired Soldier
September 27th, 2010
4:00 pm
JDW-
It might be before your time, Sen Dirkson of Ill. once said “..a million here a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.” Well only a committed liberal would blow off 89 billion as not important.
Maybe thats “walk around” money to you, but to the guys and gals that had their income taken away to give to others, it’s real damn money.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
4:10 pm
@ Retired, you need to review the post.
I did not ignore the prebate I simply picked the most logical number for comparison, two adults two children.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#3
I have heard many things about Fact Check but never that they are incorrect. They are non partisan and do very well researched work. If they are wrong they admit it. In this case they reviewed every point made by the Fair Tax Org and rebutted them. Given the time between our posts I am assuming you did not even read their post. Maybe that would be time well spent.
I do not assume higher incomes don’t spend more. Again I picked a point for ease of reference. The overall point that the Fair Tax proposal shifts the burden to the middle class is well documented.
As I said earlier, I believe that a consumption tax along the lines of the Fair Tax, combined with an income tax on the very high earners is likely the best option. However the Fair Tax as written will not accomplish the objective of balancing the budget.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
4:17 pm
“Well only a committed liberal would blow off 89 billion as not important”
See there you go with the name calling again, I average 50% Republican and 50% Democratic in almost every election year. I do however, unlike many, acknowledge the fact that the rhetoric preached by the Republicans does not match their actions.
Furthermore having had the benefit of solving several large scale organizational problems over the years I know that the place to start is not in the ground noise ie $89 billion in a $3.7 trillion budget. When we get down to the last $500 billion or so we can talk again about the EIC.
td
September 27th, 2010
4:22 pm
JDW, “I believe that a consumption tax along the lines of the Fair Tax, combined with an income tax on the very high earners is likely the best option.”
That is called a VAT(Value added tax). I will not support any type of tax system unless it is accompanied by repealing the income tax also. IF you do not then we will have a national sales tax on top of the state and local sales taxes.
findog
September 27th, 2010
4:22 pm
RS,
how are you going to redistribute that prebate witch out an IRS
When Hell Freezes Over
September 27th, 2010
4:29 pm
Retired Soldier:
“Sen Dirkson of Ill. once said”
Now, there is a blast from the past! Never forgave him for allowing LBJ to sucker him in on all his “Great Society” legislation!
When Hell Freezes Over
September 27th, 2010
4:33 pm
If the ObamaCare isn’t repealed or modified, anybody who buys/sells real estate will be looking at a 3.8% tax on the property – in addition to all other costs/taxes. We have to redistribute all this wealth, don’t you know?
john
September 27th, 2010
4:57 pm
if you want a government that will actually listen to the people and not just whatever it wants to, go vote in november and vote the democrats the hell out of office. roy is nothing but a career politician who already f’ed things up before when he was in office and couldn’t care less if you were dying in a ditch somewhere.
EffWhyEye
September 27th, 2010
6:36 pm
Georgia is a RUNOFF STATE. This means that if a candidate does not get more than 50% of the vote the race goes to a runoff.
READ THE LAW. You CANNOT “help” the other candidate you think is absolutely abysmal by voting for the one you like. If you vote for a candidate who isn’t polling as high and he doesn’t win, the WORST that can happen is that there will be a runoff between the top two finishers – the R and the D – and then you will truly be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Vote your conscience. If you vote for Roy Barnes or Nathan Deal, do it because you’ve done your homework and you think one or the other is the best candidate – not because you’re ignorant of Georgia election law.
Whoever said Georgia voters are stupid is 90% right. To that, I’d add gullible.
JDW
September 27th, 2010
9:00 pm
@ TD, you are right that is a VAT and I believe that it in conjuction with an income tax on high earners say top 5% or so is the best way to fairly distribute the tax burden, while minimizing the collection costs.
Karen Handel Supporter
September 28th, 2010
12:20 pm
I guess all Deal supporters are voteing for Monds so I guess that would make Barnes the winner. Because Karen Handel supporters are voteing for Barnes.
fsdf
September 30th, 2010
4:06 am
right that is a VAT and thank you
thank you صحيفة – أخبار محلية that very nicethank you صحيفة الكترونية – أخبار محلية that very nice
I believe that it in conjuction with an income tax on high earners say top 5% or so is the best way to fairly distribute the tax burden, while minimizing the collection costs.
fsdf
September 30th, 2010
4:07 am
READ THE LAW. You href=”http://www.saudistret.com”>أخبار محلية that very nice
thank you أخبار – اخبار that very nice
CANNOT “help” the other candidate you think is absolutely abysmal by voting for the one you like. If you vote for a candidate who isn’t polling as high and he doesn’t win, the WORST that can happen is that there will be a runoff between the top two finishers – the R and the D – and then you will truly be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
fsdf
September 30th, 2010
4:08 am
a runoff between
thank you صحيفة سعودية – صحف الكترونية that very nice
thank you اخبار اليوم – جريدة that very nice
thank you دليل – منتدى حواء that very nice
the top two finishers – the R and the D – and then you will truly be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
fsdf
September 30th, 2010
4:09 am
voting for the one you like.
thank you صحيفة سعودية – صحف الكترونية that very nice
thank you اخبار اليوم – جريدة that very nice
thank you دليل – منتدى حواء that very nice
If you vote for a candidate who isn’t polling as high and he doesn’t win, the WORST that can happen is that there will be a runoff between the top two finishers – the R and the D – and then you will truly be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils
fsdf
September 30th, 2010
4:11 am
Furthermore having had th جريدة
أخبار
اخبار محليه
صحيفةصحيفة
صحيفه
اعلانات
اعلانات مبوبة
مواقع اعلانات
e benefit of solving several large scale organizational problems over the years I know that the place to start is not in the ground noise ie $89 billion in a $3.7 trillion budget. When we get down to the last $500 billion or so we can talk again about the EIC.
Your morning jolt: Why Roy Barnes can’t afford a runoff | Conservative GA
September 30th, 2010
10:16 pm
[...] See the article here: Your morning jolt: Why Roy Barnes can’t afford a runoff [...]