OPINION: Just a year ago, I moved to suburban Atlanta from New England for mostly business reasons. I must say that to a degree I never expected, it has been a delight. I should have listened. My son – also a former Marine jet fighter pilot, living in Cumming, Georgia – has been boosting this community to me for the thirty years he and his family have lived here. As he has claimed, the surround to my home is beautiful, the medical care is excellent, the schools are good, shopping is convenient and enjoyable, restaurants top-notch, and the people are more than pleasant. Now Georgia is the hotspot of the United States, with a runoff election looming.
But the state is suffering, along with its 49 sisters. It is beleaguered by a disease which moves like quicksilver and is too often – and too quickly – deadly. We have a medical crisis and a wounded economy whose recovery is hampered in many essential quadrants by lack of business, closed schools, and a consequential loss in income. The failure of Congress to give more courageous help to the needy and hungry will long be remembered as an exercise in congressional selfishness – by the obstructors – without a parallel in history. Thankfully, and commendably, relief may be on the way, slowly.
Our country’s cultural pride was built on the willingness of the “haves” to give help to the “have nots.” That spirit seems somewhat limpid now. Washington is beset with whining, bickering, and – I hate to say it – whoredom – by those who believe that being a sycophant is justified if it helps you win or reclaim your congressional seat. If the voters are short-changed, the selfish say, “it is what it is”, a stupefying concession that snuffs all ambition. The oath of office taken to become or remain a congressman or senator in my view, requires far more fealty to its spirit.
I have said that Georgia is now the focal point of the nation for the obvious reason that control of the United States Senate is at stake in two elections anchored to this single state, a dynamic probably more rare than Halley’s Comet. A few weeks from now, votes will be cast. The resulting Senate control will guide us – for better or worse – out of this quagmire, painfully and slowly if candidates of conscience gain or keep command of the ship’s bridge so long as the storm is raging. Therefore, the people of this country (and those who depend on her) are blessed by – or stuck with – the outcome on January 5, 2021, no matter what it may portend. I propose, as a window into who these candidates really are, a truly “great debate” that at least has a shot at “greatness.”
I am an independent. I vote the person—man or woman—and not the party. I offer these thoughts because despite more than 70 years of “sizing up” people—jurors, judges, clients, witnesses—I don’t have enough information here to make two informed choices. My source bank is almost entirely limited to political ads which run incessantly, over and over, and bespeak too much campaign money and not enough imagination to be interesting. Looking at the information asserted in the ads by the four candidates, I think the content is possibly useful for voting against someone, but not for them.
Republican incumbents Mrs. Kelly Loeffler and Mr. David Perdue have both been accused by their opponents of insider trading, having gotten an official confidential warning that all virus hell could break loose, and dumped stock likely to tumble when the threat became public. If in fact such trades were made by these two senators, felonies were inevitably committed. This is insider trading of the most classic kind. Any defense lawyer worth his or her salt has a number of clients in the federal clink for doing precisely what has been described.
The responses are tepid. Each had said, essentially, that they have been “cleared” by their peers, and bureaucrats controlled by their party. What peers or public officials have the authority or the power to “clear” such offenses, if they occurred? Only the President of the United States. The documents supposedly excusing or forgiving these felonies need to be made public. Would either Republican candidate submit to some quick, tight scrutiny of their “exonerations?” There is a way.
Democratic candidates Rev. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff are also tarred with allegations of the most serious misconduct by Mrs. Loeffler and Mr. Perdue. Mr. Warnock is said to be a rabble-rouser, terrorist sympathizer, and sometime supporter of an alleged radical ugly named Wright. Should that be the end of the Reverend, or is that an overblown and single instance of a resentful and historically beleaguered minority venting, trying to get the attention of the overweight, lazy, racially crippled majority? Why can’t we know more? He might be a power on Capitol Hill if elected. Someone needs to be there to carry on the traditions of the late great Congressman John Lewis.
Mr. Ossoff, if Mr. Perdue’s claims are to be believed is, the most dangerous candidate of all. He is said to have taken un-reported illicit money from Chinese communists, and to have helped terrorists. This is not some piddling federal felony, but could be treason, for which the federal government can snap your neck. How did he get this far along? Is Mr. Perdue the only one privy to these startling claims? Has he told law enforcement about the dangers of Mr. Ossoff? If not, why not?
If there are frivolous accusations bound up in these political javelins, or even outright lies, we need to know it, and now. Sending liars with critical votes in their pockets to Washington is to be avoided, if we can. How can we know?
I propose an exercise which the candidates might not like but would go a long way toward separating the wheat from the chaff. It is simple and straightforward:
Hold a single debate, which would probably draw an international audience. All four candidates would appear. The moderator and initial questioner would be a seasoned, tough, retired trial judge, who would not accept non-responsive answers. The penalty for refusing to answer a question directly? Forfeit your turn. For running your mouth like a magpie? Turn off the speaker’s microphone. Trial lawyers of quality and skill for both sides would then ask further pointed questions based on the original answer, and the judge would require meaningfully responsive replies. The voters would get a new look at who has the courage, integrity, and dedication to bite the bullet when necessary, a steady hand on the helm in the face of heavy seas, and as might be appropriate against mealy-mouthed colleagues: “Kick ass, take names!”
I do agree on how to get the wheat from the chaff, however with today’s political candidates, you will have a tough time getting candidates to show who they really are.