From the beginning, I was wary of Lisa Collins, the “Democratic” candidate in the Special Election for Senate District 11.  If you look at her voting history, you would know what I mean.  She voted Republican in 2012 (both primaries), the 2008 Presidential Primary, 2004 (both primaries), and 2002 (both primaries).  Then, if you take a look at her Facebook page, the totality of her Democratic “likes” are former Rep. Ralph Long III, Vernon Jones, DuBose Porter, and Roy Barnes.  Her Republican, likes, however, include Paulette Rakestraw Braddock, Rand Paul, Herman Cain, Casey “Shoelaces” Cagle, Phil Gingrey, and the Chip Rogers (just to name a few).

From the beginning, I knew she wasn’t a Democrat.  But I shut up, because she was “our candidate.”

Now, thanks to a fantastic press release from the Senate Caucus staff, we all know that Lisa Satterfield Collins is no longer “our candidate.”  Not that she was ever “our candidate,” but she is absolutely not anymore.

Indefensible.  It’s indefensible that we ever even put up a candidate that was not 100% sure that she was in it to win it.  It’s indefensible that we put up a Republican to run as a Democrat in the first place.  But it’s beyond inexcusable that we don’t have any candidate in this race anymore.  This is a marginal seat, and a good, well-funded Democrat could absolutely win it in a general election, much less a free-for-all special election where multiple Republicans are vying against each other as well.  So, therefore, we just lost our best chance to pickup a seat in the Georgia Senate.  Worse yet, we just lost our chance to stop the Republican supermajority.

So congratulations for a job well done, Senate Caucus staff.  We’re really moving forward.


28 Responses to Indefensible

  1. Raquel Morris says:

    Just for future reference, since we’re now using Facebook “Likes” as an arbiter of Democratic-ness, I would love to know whether the issue was that the candidate in question failed to garner enough Democratic “Likes” on her Facebook page or whether she had the “right” Democratic “Likes.” Any explanation that makes us look less like 6th grade girls trying to decide who is the prettiest would be appreciated. Thanks.

    • Steve Golden says:

      The issue, I believe the author is saying, that the individual “liked” a TON of Republicans, and only a tiny handful of Democrats. I, for example, like 0 Republicans and likely over 100 Democrats. Though it is rather unscientific, certainly, I think the point that was brought up is that a Democrat is unlikely to “like” a massive amount of Tea Party Republicans (from in and out of Georgia) and only a couple of local Dems.

  2. Hatefulbitch says:

    Now, if only the bylaws posted on their website were as accurate and current as that contact list.

  3. Tim says:

    I actually don’t have a problem with the candidate they recruited. Honestly the Dems needed someone with deep financial pockets and community ties to win that Senate seat, and this candidate fit the bill.

    Relying only on votebuilder stats (i/e which primary the person votes in) for identifying party loyalty is not the way to judge a person’s party identification. If that was the case, a good deal of my friends in Cherokee and Hall counties who are hard-core Democrats would be labeled as Republicans.

    Secondly, why is our responsibilty – those who have been forcibly pushed out of the state party structure – to define how that same org should do its recruiting and manage its organization? The fact that we point out our party’s inability to attract, retain and train decent candidates at all levels of government is an issue the current party’s leadership at the state, congressional, county and city level should address. We tried over years and got nothing but a cold shoulder and lawsuits in return.

    If you need to know who’s responsible for party structure, vision (or lack thereof), recruitment, here’s some links. You try to figure it out.!caucus-leadership/c1vxl

    Note that in a few cases above, the respective groups/persons do actual recruiting of candidates, but with little and usually no resources, no support and no overall party plan that addresses short-term and long-term candidate recruitment needs and efforts.

    • Steve Golden says:

      And that’s where the real problem lies. There is a nominal structure, sure, but there is no actual structure. Like I said above, I intend to meet with Chairman Berlon when I return to the state in the New Year to share some of my thoughts.

  4. Waldo says:

    3) don’t live in the district.

    There sure were quite a few folks that got kicked off the ballot, and at least one that shouldn’t have been on the ballot that didn’t meet that requirement. Sure there are always a few that get challenged but they usually win. Not this year.

    IMHO, that is also indenfensive considering the qualifiers must verify registration status and receive an oath from the qualifee before accepting that money. With a cash strapped party, I think they skipped a few steps.

  5. Frank says:

    Tell, me who the hell is “batgurl” and why is she an authority on candidate suitability? Perhaps this political genius could recruit her own candidate? Maybe lend us some other wisdom?

    • Batgurl says:

      I have chosen to remain anonymous, simply because some folks that I know well (some of whom post to this blog regularly) have lost their positions within the Democratic Party structure for speaking their mind. As I am an extremely active member of that very structure, I have chosen to post under an assumed name.

      But, since you would rather denigrate me, I would be happy to tell you that I have recruited many candidates over the years through my roles in the Democratic Party. I would be happy to give you any other “wisdom” you so sarcastically desire. On what topic shall I pontificate?

      As to your final point, I think any half-wit could tell you that a Democratic candidate is not suitable if 1) they are not a Democrat or 2) they drop out of the race before the election.

      Merry Christmas.

  6. UpTheHillLookingDownOnYou says:

    While you all were complaining about Democrats, you all missed two gold opportunities to hit Republicans, one for putting forth insane and inappropriate gun legislation in light of a national tragedy. The other, an attempt by a racially insensitive woman to become one of the most powerful members of the Senate.

    If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, what does that make a friend to my enemy?

    • CrazyFakeMadeUpName says:

      Why are people like you always more concerned with who is complaining about the Democratic Party of Georgia or the Senate or House Caucus and not the actual problems that exist within those organizations?

      If someone screws something up, why are you more upset with the person who says “hey, y’all screwed up” rather than the actual people who screwed up?

      • UpTheHillLookingDownOnYou says:

        Because all organizations have problems. Generally, the best way to deal with organizational problems is within the organization.

        More importantly, it is a level of importance issue. I’m much more worried about what the Republicans are doing that can be called out publicly.

        BTW, when John Lewis made his troublemaker speech, he did so about calling out Republicans.

        I have no problem with you calling out Democrats when it is appropriate – but when it becomes the main focus and you ignore a major story or two, one begins to wonder if the point is to support a cause or drive a wedge.

        • BatGurl says:

          Problems means problems, not complete disarray. The ability to field candidates is a basic function of a political organization, yet we seem unable to manage that.

          • UpTheHillLookingDownOnYou says:

            And who exactly is responsible for fielding candidates? The county party, the Congressional District chair, the Senate Caucus, or the State Party?

            • Steve Golden says:

              Maybe that’s exactly the problem. Who the hell is responsible? Frankly, there’s no coordination or no communication, so there are about 20 different, quasi-independent actors working to recruit candidates, and none of them seem to know what the 19 others are doing.

              To illustrate the problem, one “hand” had a candidate recruited to run in SD 11, but called it off upon hearing secondhand that the Senate Caucus had found someone. And when I say called off, I mean on Wednesday morning, when that candidate had already driven up to Atlanta.

              This is a problem. I don’t know who is responsible for the larger recruitment issue, but it needs to be addressed, and quickly.

              • UpTheHillLookingDownOnYou says:

                Exactly, I agree 100%.

                And instead of addressing that issue, this website spent time complaining about an email the state party sent out and then complaining about the Senate Caucus’s recruitment strategy.

                Maybe, instead of complaining, you all could put together an to-be model of how operations should work and then present that to the organization. I know it isn’t as fun and easy as complaining, but hey… are you trying to help a cause, or drive a wedge?

                • Steve Golden says:

                  Okay, so this might come off a little snarky and what not, but so be it.

                  You obviously don’t know very much about me. I HAVE been putting together an operations plan, and Chairman Berlon and I will be meeting at some upcoming time. I sincerely hope that the DPG allows me to take a leadership role in that project, as I believe that my experience lends itself to candidate recruitment. So that addresses your second point.

                  As to your first, if you think that blind acceptance of everything your Party does will make it better, you are sadly mistaken. Fact is that criticism can actually HELP bring problems to light. But here’s the thing, anonymous person. A lot of people are really ticked off about some things right now, and they have the right to complain about them in any way they see fit. The sad fact is that these posts (agree or disagree) bring to light very serious issues Georgia Democrats are having with candidate recruitment. Sometimes, the problems need to be pointed out so we can better figure out solutions. If we just remain silent every time something bad happens, then history is doomed to repeat itself.

                  I am a proud State Committee member of the DPG, and a proud party leader and activist. I want to see the DPG/GHDC/GHSC and its leadership and staff succeed. But I am not the sort of person who believes that the way to support a party is to always be a cheerleader, letting go of any serious problems. I, as well as many others on this blog, believe that they need to be addressed head-on. So I guess I don’t quite understand your point. Is your point that we should (individually and collectively) be more active within the Party? Is the point that if we have a problem, we should just keep it to ourself? Or is it that there are people on this blog that stand opposed to the current DPG leadership? Frankly, no matter how you answer, it looks bad for you. Many of us (myself included) are very active within the Party structure, some are formerly very active, but everyone here plays an active part of Democratic and progressive politics. And, just to be clear, BfD is not a Berlon-hating organization. I, for one, am not going after the Party leadership. But even if I was, I have been to many State Committee meetings where I have heard Chairman Berlon and others say that we should “Move forward” from the past and “work together” in the future. Criticism is neither looking in the past nor preventing individuals from working together.

                  • UpTheHillLookingDownOnYou says:

                    Steve, I actually do know you and know you are a little better than some of the stuff I have seen spewed here. “You all” was meant to be more generic, not directed specifically at you.

                    BFD have the right to criticize. Westboro has the right to picket the funerals of the children who were laid to rest in Connecticut. The KKK has a right to march because they hate blacks/jews/gays/etc. However, I would argue that none of that is constructive in nature and doesn’t help to move us forward.

                    I would love to see Amy, Tim, and other writers here have done to be constructive. What plan they have written out to make things better. I too have been working on an operations /organization plan. We should get together and compare notes.

                    • Steve says:

                      So what is wrong with the people here? And, for that matter, who is Amy? And how exactly is comparing bloggers here to the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church moving any part of conversation forward (I will also be happy to note that you said that those two organizations are not constructive; you failed to discuss how our criticisms are not constructive). Frankly, it just seems like an infantile ad hominem comparison, so kudos to you for that.

                      Other bloggers can speak for what they do and have done for themselves, but given what you have said thus far, I’m not sure you know how crucial every one of these people have been.

                    • BatGurl says:

                      Uh, who is Amy?

                      Maybe your first problem is you don’t even know who the people on this blog are, better yet the people who work in Democratic politics in Georgia.

                      Tim was a part of the team that did recruitment in 2008 and 2010 that was very successful.

                      Many other writers here have done a ton for the Democratic Party and as thanks have been fired, attacked, removed from committees, forced to resign and so forth. Any time they dare say anything that does not meet the party’s talking points, good foot soldiers like you come and start trying to act like you know what you are talking about.

                    • UpTheHillLookingDownOnYou says:

                      Sorry, I get Melanie and Amy confused. My bad >_<.

                    • Waldo says:

                      And another overreach by a DPG mouthpiece…..

                      I would say learn to play your strengths, but I guess you are as it seems their real collective talent is bullying and misinformation.

                      Learn to take constructive criticism for what it is. Be willing to learn from your mistakes and the mistakes of others.

                      Oh, and If you want my plan your going to have to pay me for it. Its a shame that the smart, free labor has left party. And I can tell you how to fix that too!

                    • Anitia Moorecock says:

                      Of course you *would* get confused by Amy and other powerful women with strong opinions and no love for DPG leadership.

                      Makes complete sense now.

                      Especially when they are more effective on the outside of the DPG than being smothered by the ridiculous waste of time that is the current organization of do nothings, money blowers and dolts.

  7. Vera Charles says:

    Gunner, I completely agree.

    In so many ways opportunities have slipped away. It’s not even a new issue.

    When the DPG/Senate/House Caucus fails to recruit, train and field candidates in any meaningful way whenever opportunities pop up we are always going to be caught flat footed.

    This goes back to the issue with trying to find someone to fill the vacant spot left by the death of Congressman Charlie Norwood. From the get go, a struggle was on to attempt to field a candidate.

    They never seem to learn. Instead of spending money on sky boxes at Charlotte for Mayor Reed, that money could have been spent on a targeting plan, training, fundraising and charm school.

    The real freak show will be on in 2014 when our retreads and hot air showboaters ( sometimes the same people) run for the five constitutional officers.

    I can tell you, my days of “good party solider” are over.

    If you suck as a candidate, be prepared to hear me say it.

  8. Gunner says:

    I don’t think this action was the action that lost our chance at a Republican Supermajority. My thought is that we lost that chance long ago. Now we are just watching it happen.

  9. griftdrift says:

    I could move back down there and establish residency and run for y’all.

    But then you’d start looking at my Facebook friends…on second thought

  10. JackandJill says:

    Wasn’t it this blog who earlier said that the Senate Caucus and DPG did so poorly in recruiting that it was indefensible. And now, you are saying it is their fault that the candidate they “didn’t recruit” dropped out. >_< #fail

    • GoUpYourHill says:

      The Senate Caucus did recruit this candidate. Happy trolling to you.

      The “poor recruiting” was for the general election. This is indefensible recruiting.

    • BatGurl says:

      GoUpYourHill is correct. I cannot recall anyone on this blog that ever said that the Senate Caucus did not recruit this candidate. The issue was with the candidate the DPG claimed to have recruited to run in Cherokee County.

      And yes, the poor recruiting is an ongoing problem. Nobody has a bench.

      Happy trolling.