Politics Never Sleeps – Open Season on Jon Ossoff
A brief note: As sad I am about the passing of Editor in Chief Jon Richards, I couldn’t add anything worth reading to the eloquent and moving tributes written by so many others. He was a good man, one who I respected and admired, and I will miss him. I am pretty certain, though, that he would not want me or any of the other contributors to let up in covering Georgia’s special grade of political shenanigans. Politics never sleeps. May God keep him close while we carry on.
It’s Open Season on Jon Ossoff, and Judson Hill has fired the latest shot, accusing him of being an “Anti-Gun Liberal™” in a mailer.
There’s also a report out of the Washington Free Beacon that Ossoff may have padded his resume a wee bit:
AJC Political Insider Greg Bluestein has also posted a timeline showing that Ossoff’s campaign ads may have oversold his qualifications.
What’s clear is that Democrats are almost all behind Ossoff, in terms of national money and celebrity support. He’s been blessed by Congressmen Hank Johnson and John Lewis. The old Clinton adage about “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line,” is proving true in Georgia’s 6th District.
But it IS Georgia’s 6th, a solidly red and reliably Republican District. And while Democrats may be fired up about young star power, it’s a long way from 40% to 50%+1.
About Author
Mike Hassinger
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m not quite sure the point of wearing camo if you’re going to go hunting with a blinding white piece of plastic, but that’s just me. Then again, the Boy Scouts generally taught me you should shoot at what you want to hit and not, you know, the clouds.
Meanwhile: If you’re laundering your oppo research through the Free Beacon, it ain’t that good oppo research.
The most annoying part of that kind of hunt is when you miss the duck and your dog pops up and laughs at you.
Yeah, Free Beacon…no fake news there. This is the same tired kind of throw it at the wall and hope it sticks type ad. I’m amazed they dont have anything better than this. Of course these type of ads only give him more name recognition and energize democrats that much more to show up…at least thats what the last two polls have insinuated.
You’re welcome to gripe about the Free Beacon all you want, but I had forgotten to include a link the AJC coverage on the story in this morning’s Morning Jolt by Greg Bluestein. Even as a Republican, I give the AJC credit for keeping their political coverage about as straight down the middle as reporting can be.
“Straight down the middle”? Not at all, Mike. You’ve put your finger on an aspect of politics that some of us — anybody want to join me? — find especially frustrating. Namely, the fact that hack politicians and their media enablers take the rest of us for idiots. We’re not.
The AJC’s reporting — from Greg Bluestein and Jennifer Brett, for example — on this race has consisted of the following: (1) amplifying all the lines of GOP attack on Ossoff, by reporting on the process from a vantage point that is solidly on the righthand side of “the middle.” This has included reposting YouTube videos of campaign ads by The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC. From the AJC, we’ve heard loud and clear about Ossoff and Hollywood celebrities, Ossoff and lightweight liberalism, Ossoff and Star Wars, Ossoff and beer pong, etc. (2) Reporting on predictable political endorsements of various GOP candidates, as if were news. (3) “Reporting” that comes off as regretful commentary on the infighting among GOP candidates.
It’s not down the middle. It’s meant to appear to be. But a person of average intelligence understands that Bluestein’s reporting is tilted right, probably because (A) he has sources and contacts in the Republican Party that he lacks in the Democratic Party and (B) he takes it for granted that it’s the GOP’s race to lose, and so the REAL action is taking place among the Republican candidates. Ossoff is news only in the sense that he’s standing in the way of the GOP retaining the seat.
8,000 volunteers? Not worth a story, apparently. 29 year old running for Congress, where the current youngest member is 32 — how did that happen? What led him to decide to run in a race he had to know he was likely to lose? Not worth a story, apparently.
A reporter has to ask himself or herself: what’s the story here? Bluestein apparently thinks the story is how the GOP will eventually manage to beat this young man. I think the story is obviously the fact that a 29 year old (for goodness sake!) who is adamantly and vocally pro-choice, pro-Planned Parenthood, pro-investigation of #TrumpRussia, pro-safety net, pro-action on climate change, pro-criminal justice reform, etc., is leading this race.
Secondarily, I believe there’s a story in the Congressional Leadership Fund’s “Al Jazeera” insinuations about Ossoff. This is essentially another version of the lamebrain comment by Roswell mayor Jere Wood: “If you just say ‘Ossoff,’ some folks are gonna think, ‘Is he Muslim? Is he Lebanese? Is he Indian?’ It’s an ethnic-sounding name, even though he may be a white guy, from Scotland or wherever.” The CLF has support from some very prominent Atlantans (“The Loose Group”): Pete Correll, David Ratcliffe, Fred Cooper, Jim Balloun, Bernie Marcus, et al. If I were Bluestein’s editor, I’d urge him to ask some of those guys if they’re happy to see their money spent on negative attacks that smack of nativism, xenophobia, and anti-religious bias.
You’re new here, and might not be aware that I’m a Republican political consultant. (Disclosure: I have no client in this race, although I do live in the district.)
As a consultant, a conservative, a Republican, and a voter in the 6th District, let me point out that nothing would make ME happier than story after story describing Jon Ossoff as “a 29 year old… who is adamantly and vocally pro-choice, pro-Planned Parenthood, pro-investigation of #TrumpRussia, pro-safety net, pro-action on climate change, pro-criminal justice reform…” Why? Because those stories would destroy any chance Ossoff has at breaking 40% of the vote. This is a 60% Republican district -55% on a really bad day. Demographically, we’re older, whiter, wealthier and have more college degrees than the average district. If you think some liberal kid with Hollywood money is going to win that voting cohort with those issues, well, you’re going to be very disappointed in June.
You ought to send the AJC a note and thank them for NOT doing those stories.
“If you think some liberal kid with Hollywood money is going to win.”
Mike, this comment is demeaning to the tens of thousands of people in the metro area who are eagerly supporting Ossoff’s campaign, including many thousands who are participating in his ground game. It goes to my point about insult to intelligence. No one here reading this exchange will fail to recognize that by inaccurately (and dishonestly, it must be said, if dishonesty reaches as far as fudging the truth) characterizing Jon Ossoff as a “liberal kid with Hollywood money,” you are transparently trying to create a “meme,” as we’ve learned to say in the 21st century. Your comment suggests that it’s all a kind of game: “How can I fix in the public mind a given impression of this person?” you think. Well, it may be similar to a game to some degree, but what the GOP just learned in the healthcare debacle is that it’s a lot more than a mere game. Political questions can be life and death issues, as (to take yet another example) civilians in Mosul certainly realize these days.
Moreover, your comment further reinforces my original post in that it’s totally and completely focused on “winning.” You’re clearly implying that Ossoff should SAY that he believes and intends to pursue X, when he actually believes and intends to pursue Y. All so that he can win in a red district. As you’re a political consultant, that’s your mindset, naturally. But I think you misread the public mood. We’re ready for a better kind of politics. If Ossoff loses in June running on his true and actual positions — which are on his website, after all, and which he’s talking about every day — then so be it. The pendulum swings, you know, and it was not so long ago that Richard Nixon was creating the EPA and signing the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, to take just two examples.
Have you ever actually participated in a campaign in any way other than voting? What you describe above is called campaigning. Put your big boy pants on or your going to be in a corner crying when liberal kid loses.
Yep, canvassed for Barack Obama — a great experience, being in the West End near Morehouse and Spelman on the day before the election — and am doing so now for Ossoff. Thanks again for your interest in my comments.
Demeaning? That must mean you’re “offendeddddddddd!!!” And “tens of thousands?” That’s a joke! You’ll be lucky to get that many to even vote for all 100 candidates! Sheeesh! This liberal kid is gonna get beaten like a rented mule/yard dog, whether it be in the initial contest or in the sainted runoff! You enjoy your delusion.
Oh, c’mon man. The issues YOU ascribed to him make him a liberal. His age makes him a kid. (I have a bottle of scotch older than he is.) And when an actual Hollywood actress (Alyssa Milano) is campaigning for you, that’s not “fudging” anything -it’s an accurate and factual description of the situation.
I urge you and your thousands of fellow travelers to continue campaigning for Ossoff. You may not move the heavens, but you can certainly raise some hell.
“I don’t think he has an established enough track record”
By being a democrat he does have a track record of sorts, it’s called the democrat party policy and platform. It’s not important this kid has no political experience but it is important that he has no life experience.
But has he distanced himself from democrat policy? For instance has he said he wants to limit Medicaid? Of course not. Instead, he sticks to non controversial/generic stuff like governmental waste and accountability.
As an FYI, you may want to update your talking points:
Hating on Medicaid doesn’t seem to be mainstream Republican philosophy in Georgia now that the AHCA cratered.
http://www.myajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/after-gop-health-plan-fails-georgia-explores-medicaid-changes/HA7M1NCrZEKuwFVnvtmNnO/
“Hating on Medicaid”
I said limit, not hate.
Ahh, I love liberal tears in my morning coffee. Instead of whining on a blog about your poor candidate not getting all positive coverage go knock on doors. That’s part of a campaign. Also, he will be an “also ran 29 year old.” Not a member of congress at 29.
Yep, I’m knocking on doors and sending money. Thanks for the suggestions, though.
Glad to see you are invested in the race. Don’t take things so personally. You mention this not being a game, but it is. If you take it personal and get too invested you will get chewed up and spit out. Take it for what it is. A political game that you either play or get run over.
That’s excellent advice, in its own way. Thanks. Ultimately, though, I think the vast majority of people don’t believe it’s just a game. Maybe Trump will come back from 36% approval, but maybe people are sensing increasingly that his heart’s not in it, that he doesn’t really care, that it’s just a game to him that he is determined to win because, well, he’s Trump. We’ll see. Thanks again.
36%? Laughable! Take a gander at his rallies! Thousands, upon thousands still there. Just like with the election, you people continue to be just plain wrong. They ain’t going nowhere, despite fake news and even “faker” polls!!!
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time…
Thanks for letting us know we should add the 50 year old Gallup weekly res approval rating to the ‘fake’ list. Let me know when we can put it back in the ‘real’ column – sort of like when we moved the ‘fake’ (pre February) Labor unemployment numbers back to the ‘real’ column 4 weeks ago.
I’ll tell you what’s not “fake” and that is the 1000 or so seats the Dems have lost since Obama was elected in 08. Yall are a bi coastal irrelevancy. And soon to be a 6th district one as well.
It all makes sense now…
http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/wednesday-march-29th-natasha-boris-fake-news?intcid=mod-latest
Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
I can’t help it that your brain has been warped in some way that you are incapable of seeing the light that is my point of view. You can shall remain on the dark side.
Yes, he wreaked havoc in the galaxy with his dark evil until he was killed by a kid with a light saber.
You will never beat me on Star Wars trivia.
Wait. Was the Star Wars trivia gauntlet just thrown down? Cause I WANT IN! 😀
The AJC timeline strikes me as fairly impressive for a young guy. I mean, he has a lot more political experience than the President.
Then again, I also can’t find any indication that he’s an “anti-gun liberal” who wants to take our guns, so maybe I just don’t read this stuff right.
“I mean, he has a lot more political experience than the President.” +1
As a Democrat who hopes to see the 6th flipped, I welcome the latest negative attack on Jon Ossoff. By insinuating he’s a fraud, Republicans are clearly going straight at what they think is his greatest strength: his integrity. I agree, and I think that any open-minded voter in the 6th who spends a few minutes listening to and observing this young man will feel the same about his perfectly obvious idealism, public-spiritedness, and integrity.
Ossoff is the anti-Trump candidate par excellence. I feel comfortable with a future in which Republicans tie their policy aims to Trump-style cynicism and ends-justifies-the-means negativity, while Democrats like Ossoff appear to voters to represent foundational American values, confidence about the future, and belief that our politics can be about more than winning elections and using power to enrich cronies.
The first part of making our politics “about more than winning elections” is actually winning elections. Y’all haven’t figured that out yet.
This realization briefly flowered in Democratic consciousness during the DLC era but quickly faded. Some strategists get it. But I think this comment is largely fair for the Democratic voting coalition and most of the party organization (an oxymoron in most states and counties). The party can occasionally catch a wave, but it’s really bad at paddling.
You just keep on keeping on Jim. That cool-aide rush of an unwinnable campaign will wear off soon enough.
It does seem to be odd to attack the guy most likely to finish first in Round 1—Ossoff—if you have not assured yourself you will win the second spot (in other words, that you are assured no one else is going to finish second in your place). Seems like the anti-gun attack would be more useful in the all but certain runoff.
Addressing earlier points about how the district is “red”, yes it is—no Democrat has carried it in a statewide election since its creation in 2011. But “red” does not in this instance mean hard right. A majority of the district’s residents are not even native to Georgia (I think two-thirds according to the Census); nearly half the state’s Jewish population lives in the district and there is a large Catholic population too (judging by the large Catholic churches in the district). The district voted over 75% in favor of Sunday retail alcohol sales back in 2012, and only gave lukewarm support to the “personhood” provision on the GOP ballot (advisory question) back in 2012. Back in 1996, GOP primary voters in this district would have backed Isakson over Guy Millner in that year’s Senate runoff (and Isakson was running as a vocal pro-choice candidate in those days). Accordingly, one ad attacking Ossoff (I think sponsored by Club for Growth) focuses on economic issues—that he would be a supporter of Pelosi’s higher taxes and regulatory agenda—and not on where he stands on abortion or Planned Parenthood (you would probably find the issue of abortion is more tricky in this district than in other GOP ones in Georgia—in other words, positions are more mixed in this district, probably pro-choice in DeKalb part, mixed in Fulton and more conservative in the Cobb portion)
Social issues haven’t been on the top of the list of issues in the 6th since the last redistricting cut Cherokee County out of the district. Tax reform and the overall economy are there biggest concerns. Which is why when Congress passes a tax reform package during the runoff Ossoff will lose by 10 plus points. You are correct to say that there is a lot to happen between now and the Summer.
I still think/hope that some type of healthcare deal will pass before tax reform. That will make the difficult task of tax reform slightly easier to handle. If they try to repeal the ACA taxes along with overall tax reform I think that dooms the package from the beginning. They still need to address that before tax reform. We will see.
The AHCA was nothing but a top ended tax cut hiding in a healthcare cloak. Them not passing it makes tax reform a harder task because they were trying to front load the tax cuts first. That aint happening now, and its hard to sell top end tax cuts with one side of your face and screaming about the deficit (that still doesnt matter IMO) on the other. When you train people to respond certain ways to ideology, its hard to change the response when its not so convenient anymore.
C’mon Mr. Pope. “pro-choice, Pro Planned Parenthood” was not MY description of Ossoff -those were Jim’s words. Which is why I put quotation marks around them when I used them.
People also tend to forget this isnt the same district Newt won. It was redrawn after the 2010 census. Before that it was harder right. I dont remember the particulars but they added more of the Atlanta ‘burbs to the 6th. Tom Price won big because there was never a credible challenger (if there was one at all). This district has over 60,000 healthcare workers and the AHCA would have left 29,300 people with no insurance had it passed. If you think that makes no difference then we shall see, but I think it will.
Add to that Club for Growth attacking Handel (along with every other republican)…and who knows?
“AHCA would have left 29,300 people with no insurance had it passed.” You guys will never stop with the outright lies will you. It’s just in your blood to sound like a lying broken record.
Don’t have the time to debate you today. All I can say is that if the ACA was so wonderful why are premiums and deductibles still so high? If it was so wonderful why do 1/3 of the counties in US only have one insurance provider? These are real facts. Your answer cannot include “it’s the republicans fault.” The ACA was suppose to address all these problems, but in reality is has only made the problem worse.
You can accuse me of not knowing anything about health policy (which is pretty freaking amusing) but you cannot show anyone where the ACA has really helped bring down the costs of healthcare. All you will say is Medicaid expansion helped cover people and the governors who knew that they couldn’t afford the expansion down the road and didn’t expand Medicaid are evil and it’s their fault the ACA has been a complete failure. That would be a lie.
The Obama Administration had their opportunity to fix the problem. It failed to do any other than force another expensive, long term unfunded mandate on to states, employers and individuals.
“helped bring down the costs of healthcare”
How about this:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/02/kff-chart.png
Premium increases are a lot less than they were before ACA.
As far as your other issues:
– Sicker people got insurance early.
– Healthier people continue to (finally) get health insurance.
– As more healthier people get health insurance, costs per capita will go down.
– ACA needs more time to work.
Thanks for posting a link that shows workers earnings are at an all time low under Obama. Some how that is W’s fault. I also love how you all point to a reduction in the increase in premiums as the greatest example of how the ACA worked. We call that a piss poor example. Instead of getting hurt a ton you are saying people are just getting hurt a lot. The cost cure that the Obama administration talked about was a bunch of crap. And both you and GregB continue to repeat the bogus talking points about “bending the cost curve.” Do you even know what that means? It means in stead of actually lowering premiums (which is what I and other republicans want) You are saying instead of paying $600 a month you will pay $580. I know you are currently paying $450, but see…. at least you aren’t paying $600. It’s a load of crap.
“Thanks for posting a link that shows workers earnings are at an all time low under Obama”. That’s why I voted for Bernie!
1. The cost curve has bent. It’s hard to say how much of the recent decline is due to the ACA and it remains to be seen if healthcare inflation will remain at historically low levels.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7-JMrbWsAAp_RD.jpg
2. Real efforts from Congress to improve cost controls would be nice, but of course *someone* hates any possible cost-control measure (insurers, pharma, providers, voters…), so it would require real courage and political capital. Don’t hold your breath for this bunch to conjure up either of those.
3. Premiums have been volatile but they’re still below CBO projections.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/07/21/obamacare-premiums-are-lower-than-you-think/
4. Complain about high premiums and cost controls, or high deductibles and narrow networks, but not both, if you value logic.
1) The cost curve is a load of crap.
2) Of course it takes courage and the entire freedom caucus should lose there seats over voting against the AHCA. They took the easy way out and had no courage.
3) Again, you and others are still just satisfied with decreasing the large increases by a fraction. That will not fix our long term problems. It’s a talking point and not even a good one.
4) I value logic and will complain about both if I damn well please. They are both problems and the fix isn’t a one or the other. You can lower both at the same time.
Okay, I don’t know how to respond to “the cost curve is a load of crap.” I’d assumed we were all concerned about the amount of money we spend on healthcare.
AHAC is a good acronym for the AHCA.
I’d love to hear your ideas about further reducing insurance premiums. “AHAC” scored poorly on this measure, and did so only by making it too expensive for old and sick people to purchase health insurance.
You can complain about both all you damn-well please, but you can’t do so logically. You can’t have the Cadillac for the Chevrolet price.
You don’t know how to respond to it because there is no way to respond. The cost curve talking point is a load of crap. Costs are not going down. It’s that simple. They continue to climb just at a fraction of a reduction. That isn’t good enough and not something to be proud of.
Clearly, I meant the AHCA.
Pope and I’ve been around and around on what the answer is to lowering insurance premiums. Ask him or I’ll try to get back to you later this afternoon. Short answer is the federal government mandating what has to be covered and using a one size fits all answer for insurance coverage isn’t the answer. It has not worked.
Not everyone needs or wants a Cadillac. Why can’t someone want or need a Chevy and simply want to pay a Chevy price? Why is that so hard for democrats to understand? Not everyone needs a Cadillac. By making everyone drive a Cadillac then subsidizing the purchase of a Cadillac with government money you do what??????? Drive up the cost of a Cadillac. Which is what is happening right now and why 1/3 of the counties only have one insurance provider.
Eiger, short of recessionary periods, prices are going to go up. That being the case, we’d prefer that prices increase slower rather than faster…
The ACA doesn’t force anyone to buy a Cadillac. You can buy a Chevy. It will have higher deductibles and a more narrow network, all things being equal…
I do think Alexander and Corker’s proposal that Americans in counties with no exchange options would be able to use their ACA subsidy to purchase non-exchange plans has some merit. Something will have to be done to stabilize insurance options in predominately rural markets that have a hard time attracting insurance companies.
“The number of uninsured Americans is at a record low.”
Yeah, no wonder….you have the heavy hand of the IRS snooping into your tax returns, seeing if you have health insurance…when the appropriate answer to that should be “none of your business.” You compel, require, subsidize…why, if this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you should not have to compel people to join in.
But that is RobertsCare………
Well we have to pay for EMTALA somehow. Unless you want to repeal it.