The local paper (VDT) Valdosta Daily Times announced it will not endorse any candidates. Yes you heard right no endorsements at all.
The local debate GA-01 between D-Bill Gillespie (a longshot?) and R-Jack Kingston was cancelled by Jack.
And then we have Genn Greenwald's remarkable discussion of D-Jim Martin GA-Sen, the once long shot candidate for senate speaking forcefully against the FISA law that so many of us vigorously opposed earlier this year.
Do these things make sense in relation to each other??
I see a positive pattern. Deep Red South Georgia Republicans are scrambling for cover. Outspoken traditional Republican rhetoric can become a full blown candidate disaster in this environment.
- On Friday, Oct 17th a debate was scheduled between 16 year incumbent R-Jack Kingston who was scheduled to debate D-Bill Gillespie a 20 year Army veteran. Kingston cancelled.
I went to Kingston's web site and there was not any mention of his cancellation or failure to show up. Not a generic statement that he was ill, or doing critically important big business. No, it was as if he were hoping that no one would notice. His new strategy is to hide. No more Bill Maher for Jack Kingston. It is potentially disasterous for him. We have heard nothing of his anti Obama flag pin rhetoric recently. Nada Nothing Zilch.
You see, media pundits consider this race a longshot for Gillespie, even though I have seen no polls that support that conclusion. Because of Kingston's long time in office and large war chest, it is assumed Gillespie will fail. The local university is doing a local Lowndes county telephone poll in one of the political science classes. Pundits may be surprised about Gillespie. You can make a difference here and now. Drain the swamp and flush away Kingston.
- Then Sunday morning I went to the Valdosta Daily Times. Their editorial page contained this headline: OUR OPINION: VDT: No endorsements.
It seemed no one on the editorial staff thought that by now 1/4th of South Georgians will have voted. So rather than make late endorsements, for the other 3/4 of the electorate they would make no endorsements this year. Here is a quote from the editorial:
This year’s very early voting took the editorial board, and likely, many candidates by surprise. As one local candidate mentioned recently, every time he asks people to vote for him, the answer is often that they have already voted.
So rather than make an effort to interview candidates and make their editorial choices known to those who may have not voted, they choose to not endorse anyone. Why and how can the editorial board think that is appropriate? Are they afraid to endorse?
- Lastly after I read Glenn Greenwald's Salon article: Jim Martin: Principle vs. cowardice it became clear. Democrats running on any number of the progressive issues such as the recently passed FISA legislation are making headway in this race even among Southern Republicans.
Republicans and even some Democrats have long assumed the FISA issue was a lock for them. Martin speaks truth to incumbents, and that is the task at hand for all Dems running aginst incumbent Republicans in South Georgia.
- One needs no further proof than to look to Elwyn Tinklenberg's massive haul when Michele Bachmann spouted the Republican thinking points. Hiding in the swamp is Jack's new tactic to avoid talking about Republican talking points and defending his hideous record.
Any sunshine on Jack's record will only favor Bill Gillespie.
Speaking truth to power and especially speaking truth to those that have controlled the collective destiny of the Republican Agenda can only be favorable. spare change for change.