I’m really looking for a factual answer, but I cannot conceive of arguments not breaking out, so I’m opening this here.
Before the election, the Georgia Senate had 33 Democrats and 23 Republicans — a decisive advantage for the Democrats.
After the elections, the Democrats had lost 3 seats, and the balance shifted to 30 Democrats and 26 Republicans.
Yesterday, Don Cheeks of Augusta and Dan Lee of LaGrange switched parties from Democrat to Republican, which wiped out the Democrats’ advantage and left 28 Democrats and 28 Republicans.
Now, according to Fox News, more Democrats are thinking of switching, and Georgians are expecting a majority by the time the new session opens.
According to Free Republic, Democrat Lt. Governor, Mark Taylor, will become rather moot if that happens, since he would have served as a tie-breaker.
His spokesperson, Christy Huller, cries foul saying, “The new leadership [the Republicans] is lying, cheating and stealing and doing everything possible to make this happen, including offering a cancer center, floor leaderships and threatening senators’ futures.” I reckon that’s hyperbole, but maybe not.
The Republicans ARE gloating. Eric Johnson, current minority leader, brags “There’s a new sheriff in town. It’s all about power. The governor has it, and the lieutenant governor doesn’t. If senators want to get in the governing coalition, they’re going to have to be supportive. They have to pick sides, and the governor’s gun is bigger than the lieutenant governor’s gun.”
So, do any Georgians or expert Dopers on politics know what’s going on in Georgia? Is this some kind of political revolution?
It’s a partisan realignment - and note that I said “partisan”, not “political”. The Democratic Party in Georgia has historically been quite conservative, just as used to be the case throughout much of the South. Likewise, the Republican Party used to be irrelevant, just as was the case throughout much of the South -they burned down Atlanta, you know :). Over the past few years, that’s changed in most southern states, and in Georgia, it’s overwhelmingly changed in national elections - Zell Miller was an exception, and he’s quite the conservative himself. What you’re seeing is gentlemen who, in any other state, would have joined the Republican party, deciding that now’s the time to do it.
Why now? Two answers: Obviously, the fact that Sonny Perdue won, and that Barnes and Cleland lost. Georgia can no loger be considered a one-party state, so there’s no longer as much of an advantage to stick with the (ex) monopolists when one canget support from both the electorate, and the national party, as a Republican. Answer two, however, is something that isn’t being reported quite as widely nationally: Rep. Tom Murphy, who’s been Speaker of the House (and the prime politician in Georgia, Governor or no Governor) for the last several million years, managed to lose to a random Republican whose name nobody can even remember. For the past fifteen years or so, all he’s had to do is sign up for the election in order to be assured a 70% majority of the vote, but now,somehow, that didn’t work.
Without Murphy’s leadership, the Democrats had lost a huge amount of power, even though they still have a majority in both houses of the legislaure. When they convene in Jauary, they’re actually going to have to find someone qualified to fill Murphy’s shoes, and whomever that is, they can’t possibly match his political influence. To a lot of Georgia’s rural senators, who would be Republicans if only Republicans were politically viable, that’s the signal that it’s okay to switch. More importantly, by switching now, they have a lot of power to affect how early organizational votes are going to proceed, which will benefit them with greatly increased influence in the legislature.
Seriously, though, first of all, just wanna point out that that’s Christy Huller’s official opinion, not Lt. Gov. Taylor’s, although it’s entirely possible that he shares it (see below).
I can’t find any info on exactly who she is, other than she’s “Taylor’s spokeswoman” (“Communications Director”) and that her name is spelled “Kristi”.
Anyway, I detect the cranky tones of someone who is deeply annoyed that Her Team lost a crucial game, and that Her Boss now has to work with this guy from the Other Team, and whose party compatriots are all busy jumping on the Other Team’s bandwagon. Can’t say I really blame her for being cross.
One tends to think that what is ours has been gained honorably, and what has been taken from us has been taken by fraud. This can make things difficult in an environment where some things are lost and some taken, but where one’s insinct is crying out that all has been taken by monsters.
What hawthorne said. I don’t doubt that the Georgia Republican party is doing everything it can to induce more legislators to switch, but to a major Democratic party official like Taylor, that’s either not playing fair, or must be portrayed thus.
It’s worth noting that, as of today, enough state senators have switched to place the Senate, at least, under unambiguous Republican control - Taylor will still have influence, but not much of a chance to vote.
Fascinating that these Georgia Democrats did not similarly register their outrage when control of the U.S. Senate was ceded to the Democrats after Jim Jeffords’ defection.
While I do think the ultra-honorable thing to do in that case, and these cases, would be for the individual to resign and run again under his new party flag, I also agree that there’s no particular requirement that they do so. It’s similar to the “no controlling legal authority” argument of some years past: true, there’s no controlling authority, but a person truly interested in integrity would bend over backwards to ensure that his hands were clean. In this type of case, neither Jeffords nor these Georgia Republicans did that.
First, I think it worthwhile to note that the state’s major newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), was formed by the merger of the more liberal Journal and the more conservative Constitution. The editorial board contains both extremes, and therefore the overall editorial position tends to be quite centrist, or moderate.
It is then interesting to note that the AJC endorsed Barnes (D) for Governor and Cleland (D) for US Senate, but then endorsed Steve Stancil ® for Lieutenant Governor. In their endorsement, the AJC said of Mark Taylor:
And the endorsement said of Steve Stancil:
Perhaps it is also worth noting that the AJC endorsements didn’t appear to carry much weight with voters.
The issue that Taylor and the Democratic leadership is complaining about is that these sudden defections of Democratic State Senators over to the Republican party isn’t on idealogy or platforms - it is outright bribery, the old pork-barrel way.
One of the defectors, State Senator Don Cheeks (formerly D, now R), simply desires a cancer center be built in his district of Augusta.
One of the other defectors, Dan Lee, was suddenly a “floor leader” in the Republican team.
Personally, I find such behavior unbecoming. But then again, I find most behavior of politicians unbecoming. What I find humorous, however, is that Taylor is apparently offended that the Republicans, now in power, are taking plays from his playbook.
In the endorsement for his opponent Steve Stancil linked above, the AJC said:
Please note the coincidence that Charles Walker and Don Cheeks are both from the Augusta area.
But then the same endorsement continues:
Which is either clearly untrue, or at least advice that the Republicans have chosen not to accept.
My take: I thought that Cleland was a bit vulnerable, but I didn’t think Perdue had a chance to unseat Barnes. I certainly couldn’t have predicted that the dinosaur House Speaker Tom Murphy (first elected before I was born) could have been unseated. So I can’t really explain it.
I do think the behavior of the Republicans is reprehensible, but quite frankly, criticism from the Democrats in this state is quite hypocritical. They certainly weilded their power in a similar manner for many, many decades.
I don’t expect the political process in Georgia to be improved with the arrival of the Republicans. Just different.
One last thought: I don’t think this is all that analogous to the defection of Jim Jeffords. Jeffords didn’t move to the Democratic party, he became an independent. I believe he made the move for idealogical reasons, at great potential political costs. I am not aware of pork promises made to Jeffords by the Democrats. I admire his conviction. If you will recall, when he left the Republicans, there was a good bit of talk of the Republicans trying to convert an existing Democratic Senator, and the one most often mentioned - Sen. Zell Miller (D) of Georgia. If this change of state power had happened two years earlier, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see Zell make that change.
Yeah, Luce, the possible bias of a source is only relevant if it involves an opinion from that source, but the Free Republic is merely forwarding something originally reported by the AJC, so it doesn’t matter here.
One observation: how do Republicans who were so outraged at the treacherous defection of Jim Jeffords feel about the equally treacherous defection of these Georgia Democrats? Personally my feeling is that you “dance with the one that brung you”. I think the Republicans should not encourage this, on principle.
(This does not apply to more principled party switches, e.g. Phil Gramm - I’m talking to opportunistic ones like the ones we are dealing with in both of these recent cases).
Well, it seems to me that these Georgia politicians can credibly claim their switch was ideologically motivated – it’s been said before that they are generally conservative, and one could reasonably ask not why they switched, but what took them so long.
At the same time, it would be naive to assume their switch was not influenced at least a bit by the inducements mentioned above.
I am leery of trying to divide such party defections into the “pure and noble” ideologically based, and the “greedy and selfish” camp. I think we either agree that party switches are OK, or they’re not – that is, you can’t switch parties without running again.
I don’t disagree with your post. My characterizing Gramm’s switch as honorable was not based on admiration for Gramm or speculation about his motives, but based on the circumstances of his switch and his handling of it. Specifically, he was switching from the party in power to the party out of power, so there was nothing in it for him other than principle. Perhaps more significantly, he did not keep the seat that his former party had help elect him to, while using its rewards in favor of his newfound friends. Instead he resigned from Congress, to run again in a special election as a Republican.
Anyone else who switches parties in this manner has my admiration. But, politicians being what they are, such principled stands are few and far in between.
Pretty much what Some Guy said, though I would like to add that I think that disgust with the traditional Democratic “good old boy” network finally reached a point where it could effect real change.
Murphy’s district was slightly changed since the last time he ran, so that might have something to do with his loss. As I moved from GA 5 years ago, though, I can’t really say with impunity how it changed his electorate.
I do not know Jim Jeffords, but I do have a feeling he was ‘induced’, how I don’t know, but the timing was vaguely suspicous, IMHO.
Granted, he did not move to the Democratic Party, but he gave the Democrats the majority (50-49) which in effect changed all the commitee heads and hence, the balance of power.
IIRC, he had just been re-elected, sort of a strange time to switch after the election. If he had been thinking of changing, methinks before the election would have made him look more honorable.
I think it may be a little different. The Georgia Republicans are being offered specific goodies to switch parties. The Senator from Augusta was offered the cancer research center he has been trying unsuccessfully to get for his district. I.e., taxpayer money is being spent to ensure a party switch. Others have been offered floor leadership positions.
(Was Jeffords offered any specific incentives to switch? If so, what were they?)
I’m still not sure any of that qualifies as “lying, cheating and stealing,” but then you’d expect a little hyperbole from a politician who sees his power slipping away.
A couple of points not made:
Though this shift is often characterized by pundits as old-time Southern Democrats showing their true conservative colors, the fact is that migration into Georgia by Northern Republicans is a big part of the shift. The most solidly Republican distriicts are those Atlanta suburbs populated largely by Northern transplants. Meanwhile, rural districts (where actual old-time Southern Democrats were found) remained largely Democratic. (The rural counties went Republican this election in large part due to resentment over the Confederate flag issue. Democratic governor Barnes had the emblem removed from the state flag.)
Speaker of the House Tom Murphy got solid support in the rural parts of his district, but lost because the district is becoming suburbanized, and the (largely Northern) transplants who are moving in are voting Republican.
Also, Mark Taylor has the reputation among his colleagues of being an abrasive bully. His own past conduct may have created some resentments which are contributing to the party-switching.
For more information regarding the Tom Murphy loss, feel free to read this article.
It sounds like the redistricting bug caught him. In an effort to make others areas safer for on the edge Democrats, Murphy’s district took on Republican areas that paid no attention to his position as Speaker or his power. They simply voted against the Democrat. Add that to some erosion of support in his home areas and you have an upset.
PhiloVance, don’t succumb to the conspiracy theorist. Just to clarify my Jeffords comment, yes, I recognize that his switch was quite political in nature, but I believe it was idealogical, nonetheless. He only decided to switch after it became obvious that the Republicans controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. Idealogically, he was having some problems with the Republican leadership, and thought that his agenda had a better chance if the Republicans didn’t control the entire legistlative branch.
According to conservative Tucker Carlson:
He did it on principles, not pork for his district or bribes from his new party. I see that as a significant difference. I would have problems with his honor if his constituents felt betrayed by his switch to become Independent (but could really care less what any other Republicans felt). As I understand it, his approval rating in Vermont went over after his switch.
As for Tom Murphy, I find it amusingly ironic that the Democrats controlled the redistricting process, made changes they believed would be to their benefit, and ended up getting burned. When you play with fire…
True enough, I suppose, but you could argue that Murphy took one for the team. He agreed to take a Republican-leaning suburb into his district (rather than foisting it on a fellow Democrat) in the hope that he could persuade its residents of the benefits of being represented by the Speaker of the House. Like he said in the article Mullinator linked, the new constituents just saw “R” and “D” on the ballot and voted accordingly.
