Even though I understand the importance of Georgia’s runoff election today for the Senate, I’m not confident in the outcome. In my experience, the typical Georgian is about as politically progressive as a desert is lush. Yes, there is a community that understands that Saxby Chambliss is a card-carrying Bush-Cheney Republian, but I think the majority will go to Chambliss, for better or worse.
Michael Grunwald in his Time article discusses why this runoff election is important, writing:
Sixty seats would be better for the Democrats than 59, which would be better for the Democrats than 58. Six years is also a long time. In fact, Georgia is still an extremely conservative state, so if Chambliss can win at a time when the Republican Party is at its lowest ebb, he can probably hold his seat as long as he wants — which would be good news for Bush-style Republicans and bad news for Obama-style Democrats, no matter who is in power.
I’m not sure a “filibuster-proof 60-seat majority” for the Democrats is necessarily a good thing. I mean, too much power to one person, group, or organization rarely turns out well. However, with the state of the economy, the environment, and international affairs, it seems that a radical solution is necessary.
That will be unlikely with a business-as-usual Congress. In many ways, Georgians like business-as-usual in their politics, religion, environment, and social institutions. According to Grunwald’s assessment, Chambliss seems the most likely to give them what they want:
He has supported the administration on just about everything but its efforts to rein in outrageous farm subsidies. He is so tight with the sugar industry that he attacked a whistleblower who reported safety problems after an explosion at a Georgia mill killed 14 people. He has been an ardent supporter of sending American troops into harm’s way even though he avoided serving in Vietnam through student deferments, as well as an allegedly bum knee that hasn’t hampered his reputation as one of the best golfers in Congress. . . . Like many Republicans in Washington, Chambliss has trumpeted the idea that the GOP’s electoral difficulties are the result of insufficient conservatism, and can only be reversed by a stronger defense of traditional values and more consistent opposition to government spending. But it’s not as if Republicans in Washington have failed to defend traditional values; they got two conservative justices on the Supreme Court, passed all kinds of laws restricting abortion and stem-cell research, and practically shut down the government to try to save Terri Schiavo. And while it is true that Republicans spent taxpayer dollars like drunken sailors when they controlled all three branches of government – Chambliss was not a notable abstainer – there is little evidence that Americans soured on the GOP because of its profligacy. They don’t seem to be crying out for austerity and deregulation.
A Chambliss victory would just reemphasize Georgia’s commitment to Bush-Cheney conservativism and remind the country that we prefer business-as-usual. On the other hand, if Jim Martin were elected, it would prove that Georgia is aware of the precarious state of the union that the current adminstration has left us with, and that we need to change our attitudes and practices if the US — indeed, the world — is to survive.
Georgians, go vote. Prove me wrong.
Bill Maher’s new rule:
