As I was saying at AVI's place, I think that Republican candidate Brian Kemp has performed disgracefully in his current role, and I don't trust him nor think that you should either. I don't repose any trust in the voting system he has built, and I can't see why anyone would. His insisting on sitting atop that warped system while the vote is counted -- even saying he'd preside over his own recount, if necessary -- could hardly be more well-designed at destroying whatever confidence remains that Georgia will have a fair vote according to democratic norms.
No, wait... he's found a way to make it worse.
That said, it is a noteworthy irony that his Democratic opponent is talking about door-to-door confiscation of 'assault weapons' on the same day that her New Black Panther Party allies are posing with her signs -- and such weapons.
As of the move last spring I am no longer a citizen of Georgia. I will not return but to visit, though it was the beloved nest of my childhood and young adulthood, and the place where I was educated. I cannot but wish Georgia well, and there are some parts of her that will always be parts of me too. Still, her destiny and mine must now diverge, and her new citizens will have to decide what to do with her and her painful heritage.
As a parting gift, I might endorse a path, as final advice to Georgia from one who loves her. I wish I could do so in earnest. Neither of these characters deserves the office: the one because he is an insincere scoundrel, and the other because she is completely sincere.
The scoundrel will likely do less harm. He'll feather his pockets, he'll abuse his power, but he won't take hammer and tongs to the foundations.
That's the best I can offer. Do what you will.
Well, then, when I visit daughter in ATL, are we still able to meet for pizza?
ReplyDeleteAtlanta is a good pull from here. Email me and we will see what can be worked out.
ReplyDeleteWell, I thought when you made the move you landed in the north Georgia Mountains. Surprised you moved out of Georgia. However, anywhere in the mountains in the Tri-state area is good. Me, I am looking at TN.
ReplyDeleteMost of my family since the mid-1700s have been from East Tennessee, including both parents and all my uncles and cousins. Our stay in Georgia was brief, even though for me it seemed eternal: dad moved down for work shortly before I was born, and all of us moved back out after he died there.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I’d seen Georgia. It was time for new country, new adventures, and higher mountains.
This is also my analysis of the California race for the US Senate, with the exception that there is no R involved, so I lose no matter what.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Diane Feinstein acted unethically in the Kavanaugh matter, and I know she knows better. But the radical nobody running against her, also a D, may well have been selected because he'd be worse.
Also in California, they have a bunch of Propositions on the ballot, with no way for a voter to make a truly intelligent decision on many of them. Voters don't get to see the actual legislation. The published information says what the legislation will do (in the writer's opinion) without demonstrating what language will allegedly accomplish the result. The titles and text the voters are given are in at least one case misleading. Some of these matters relate to regulations, which should be handled in another manner.
I will vote not-D wherever possible because the bums need to be thrown out, but I do not look forward to any great effect, even if the Rs score some unprecedented wins. That is because, like black voters, I do not yet have an opportunity to demonstrate a credible threat to flip the State.
Valerie
Yes, when I was considering donating to various Senate campaigns I couldn't decide whether to donate to Feinstein's opponent. If the Senator from California was going to be a Democrat no matter what, I wouldn’t mind if Feinstein lost her seat for her behavior. On the other hand, Feinstein may be damaged goods after her behavior with regard to Kavanaugh. Weighing all this, I decided I'd prefer a damaged Feinstein to an undamaged, further left Democrat and so didn't donate to her opponent.
ReplyDeleteA friend who lives in California told me there's a proposition on the ballot regarding dialysis centers. That seems odd. I think the proposal on the ballot here in Alabama regarding the trustees of the University of Alabama seems weird, too, but at least that's a State University so there's some sense to it.
new country, new adventures, and higher mountains
Canadian Rockies? It is gorgeous there. :+)
"The scoundrel will likely do less harm. He'll feather his pockets, he'll abuse his power, but he won't take hammer and tongs to the foundations."
ReplyDeleteThat's tough to argue against, Grim. I think that's often the best we can hope for, politics being politics.
I didn't realize you were out here too, Val. I was leaning toward not voting for either candidate, but I just don't know how they read the results- does it matter to Feinstein if she sees she had far less votes than other statewide candidates? IS it more impactful to apply Grim's logic from the Georgia Governor's race? Should that thinking be modified by the fact that seniority matters in the Senate, and DeLeon being fresh, might have less power, especially as one of one hundred?
I wish that someone influential to Republicans (Trump, Rush, whoever) would have advised California Rs to vote for Feinstein, but then remind her constantly that she owed her re-election to them. That probably would have been the best outcome.
As for the propositions, mostly you vote "No" because they're usually looking for money for things that are either:
ReplyDelete1) Something that provides a lot of opportunity for state funds to special interests.
2) Asking for money for projects that are important enough that they should have come from the general fund already (so you're really just voting for more ability to use the general fund as slush money)
One of the obvious exceptions this time is Prop 6, which will repeal an excessive gas tax.
Then there's this (from the Yes on 6 website):
"California is so wasteful with our infrastructure funds that we get far less for our funds than other states. The Reason Foundation report shows for every $1 spent in the other 49 states to maintain one mile of highway California state government spends $4.7 for the same mile – that’s a 470% cost inefficiency factor."
Of course, any government this inefficient with tax payers money hardly deserves more, so a sound default is, if they want money, the answer is "No".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete