This is part 2 of a 3 part series.  Part 1 is here.

These are some folks who have been mentioned as possible candidates, but probably shouldn’t be.


We’re hearing rumors that Congressman Bishop might consider a run, but we don’t think he should do it.  The Congressman lacks any state-wide network and has not been exposed to a metro Atlanta audience before.

Sanford Bishop also has a recent track record on national issues that can only serve to hurt him.  He can’t run away from his votes on PPACA, the bailouts, and much more.  He’s basically got a ton of fodder for Republicans to use against him that a non-Congressman would not have.  For that reason alone, he probably could not win statewide.

There isn’t an heir apparent to his Congressional seat, leaving us to assume he’d likely run both races at once in 2014.  Either way, it’s bad.

We need a candidate that can fully focus on the 2014 Senate race, but we also can’t afford to lose his seat in Congress.  We’d recommend he stay where he is.


We have extreme respect for these three gentlemen, but so far none of them have indicated they’re looking at the office and none of us see any reason to push any of them in.

Governor Barnes seems happy practicing law and staying involved without having the “target on his cows.”

Attorney Gen. Baker just recently got a new position that pays quite well.

Senator Cleland has shown no interest in running again, though he has stayed active in the background.


13 Responses to 2014: Those Who Might Consider Possibly Running But Probably Shouldn’t

  1. Lester Frederick says:

    Let me say that if there is any sitting elected person who should run it is SANFORD BISHOP.

    1. Only Cong. John Lewis has been in Congress longer than him. Bishop came in the same year as Kingston, Gingrey, and Scott.

    2. He’s been handling Georgia’s business in DC longer than Isakson.

    3. Corrupt?? Nope you have that completely wrong. His wife – possibly so. But what consultant is going to make hay of what his wife has done. As many times as her antics have been splashed across the newspapers, Sanford keeps winning his seat.

    4. He has so much background to create tons if different mailers: US Army, Eagle Scout, Mason, Shriner – all boy groups (except Army) and there’s nothing like boys wanting to hang out with boys who are in the same group.

    5. Metro Atlanta affiliations – he went to Emory Law School – duh! He is the best and only option who can get some of the Obama donors to contribute to a Senate campaign. For the record, if any Dem wants to raise money, ya’ll are gonna have to figure a way to get into the deep pockets of Black Metro Atlantans. So far, the Dems has yet to put up a candidate beyond Thurbert Baker who Black Metro Atlantans trust with their money. Sanford can do this.

    6. He speaks rural and urban, white and black, has a track record of being fiscally conservative, has served on the House Committee on Appropriations for the last 9 years (during and after Bush), supports Veterans, supports women reproductive rights.

    7. Endorsements= Booyah money! Scores high with the National Rifle Association, League of Women Voters, NARAL, Children’s Defense Fund, Sierra Club, American Nurses Association, Labor and Unions, American Bar Association.

    Do your own research and see why Bishop can win if he decides to run.

    • John Q. Public says:

      The problem is less whether he is or is not corrupt (he is), but the fact that a non-partisan organization labeled him “corrupt.” Play THAT out on the campaign trail.

      I also doubt you’ve ever worked on a campaign, because you don’t need to be black to have black donors.

      And no, I do not believe Sanford Bishop can win. Period.

      • Lester Frederick says:

        CREW is to nonpartisan as Santa Claus is to coming down my chimney. Now play with that. The day Georgia politics allow a DC group to define their politicians is the day that I will receive a refund check for the GoFish fiasco.

        • John Q. Public says:

          So you seriously don’t understand how a major organization labeling him as “One of the Ten Most Corrupt Members of Congress” could come back to bite him, yet you have the utmost concern about the fact that DuBose Porter’s wife filed for divorce?

          You seem to really “get” politics.

        • Drew says:

          Shelley Berkley’s supporters probably thought the same thing.

      • Lester Frederick says:

        You’re right “you don’t need to be black to have black donors”, but you do have to be able to offer something to the Black community – as in trust. And frankly, very few Georgia politicians have given Black folks the trust that they will serve the Black population well. Lots of big words and promises, but in the end, the Black community barely has a voice once most Georgia politicians are elected.

        • Trevor Southerland says:

          “The Black Community barely has a voice once most Georgia politicians are elected.”

          Considering most are Republican, you are correct.

          However, out of Democrats, 80% of our Congressmen are black… our highest elected official, the Mayor of Atlanta, is black… 66% of our Senate Caucus leadership are black… 72% of our House Caucus leadership are black… 86% of our state party officers are minorities… and 50% of our state party Congressional District Chair’s are black.

          The black community has a voice in Georgia Democratic politics, we welcome the Republican Party to offer them that same voice.

  2. Drew says:

    “He can’t run away from his votes on PPACA”

    Is the implication that a candidate for the Democratic nomination should have voted against Obamacare? Or should have opposed it? I certainly hope not.

    Bishop would be a bad candidate because in 2011, CREW labeled him one of the most corrupt members of Congress. That is toxic. So toxic that it almost cost him his seat in 2010. If anything, Democrats should be looking for a person to beat him in a primary now, rather than wait for another 2010, when Republicans will do the job for them.

    • Jen B. says:

      “If anything, Democrats should be looking for a person to beat him in a primary now, rather than wait for another 2010, when Republicans will do the job for them.”

      Exactly this.

    • Steve Golden says:

      I don’t think that’s the implication at all.

      The problem with a sitting member of Congress running for Senate in a state where Republicans are favored to win is that, unlike someone like Kasim Reed or DuBose Porter or Jason Carter, Sanford Bishop has a national voting record that Republicans can attack him on. I’m glad he voted for PPACA. But most Georgians won’t be, and that vote (as well as many others) could be a poison pill that someone not currently in Congress would not bring to the table.

      • Drew says:

        Okay. But while Reed or Porter or Carter won’t have to defend their vote on an issue, on any issue of importance – like Obamacare – they will have to take a stand, and they will have to defend it. A member of Congress will have taken a stand and will have had to defend it; there is value in having that experience. Look at Romney: being untethered to any position on any issue was supposed to help him, but more often it left him flailing.

        I’d say the problem is less that they have had to take a stand and more that they have taken an indefensible stand. None of us think that Obamacare is one of those, and while no one liked the bailout, a candidate can defend it as an unpopular-but-necessary position that a leader must take.

        Sanford’s got issues, but I wouldn’t say those are among them.

        • Steve says:

          My point was moreso that it’s a liability, not something that should stop him from running. But I think you admitted, as I meant, that it’s a liability.

          • Drew says:

            It’s a trade-off. Having taken a position means you may have taken the wrong position. Having never taken a position means you have no experience defending that position. Both are liabilities.