The latest entry from Tom Crawford, writing at his new blog Human Behavior, on Thurbert Baker’s questionable decisions. It’s a lengthy study (by blog standards), on why Thurbert failed to prevail:

Baker’s chances of running any kind of competitive race in the Democratic primary were really killed by a decision he made more than three years ago in June 2007. That was when he was in the middle of the legal farce known as the Genarlow Wilson case.

Schrenko’s case was one of the worst instances of public corruption in the state’s history. As Georgia’s top legal official, Baker would have been fully authorized to haul her before a grand jury and launch a criminal prosecution.

For added fun, he’s singled out some of your favorite and not so favorite bloggers in Some people just shouldn’t make predictions.

Go check him out and share the love. We’ve also added his free content feed to our stream on the sidebar, just above Galloway, because we like him better.

Tagged with:
 

6 Responses to Thurbert Baker’s questionable decisions

  1. Will Spice says:

    Melb,
    Genarlow Wilson was precisely why Baker never got as much as a consideration from me and that same sentiment was echoed throughout Atlanta since he declared that he was running. So when you say his campaign never got any energy it was because people didn’t forget. It was retribution. He knew it was coming.

  2. JerryT says:

    My problem with Crawford is that his comments are too closely aligned with my own, leaving me no room to challenge. :-)

  3. Sid Cottingham says:

    Mel:

    As usual, we are on the same page (well, at least we are usually in the same chapter anyway). I knew it was a positive and not a negative comment, but I had to joke with my friend a bit nonetheless since I know each of the subjects of your comment pretty well and knew each would take it in jest.

  4. Sid Cottingham says:

    My Dearest Mel:

    With regard to your comment that the Blog has “added [Tom Crawford's] free content feed to our stream on the sidebar, just above Galloway, because we like him better,” I am reminded of Mr. Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

    For me, I was wondering what you mean by “like.” I know both gentlemen, and like them both very much. They are both warm and neither has an in-your-face approach in their interviewing or reporting.

    Tom Crawford is most definitely left of center, and personally I have always found Jim Galloway to be middle-of-the road.

    But I may have missed something, and recognize that it may all depend on what the meaning of “like” is.

    • Mel says:

      It was just a little joke Sid. I’m sure Mr. Galloway is a very nice man, but Tom is a friend who is (at least), equally talented and deserves a larger share of the audience. That is all.

  5. Melb says:

    I don’t think it was Genarlow Wilson. I think that his campaign never seemed to have any energy. They seemed to keep a low profile instead of pushing something bold that made Baker stand out (I don’t think Bingo counts). He could have made ads stating how he stood up to people trying to sue the Federal gov’t over HC or he could have had a differing opinion on immigration or had pictures with him and Clinton talking about bringing jobs and improving the economy. Instead he went with “bingo for education” which just sounds stupid even if the idea could possibly work.