Randy's Views

No one is very interested in the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Georgia anymore. Incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss has steadily built an impressive war chest. Georgia Democrats failed to recruit a viable candidate. Georgia Republicans decided that a primary challenge would not be a particularly good idea. National Democrats decided that Georgia was no longer a meaningful target. National Republicans committed early to raising the resources to defend a reliable incumbent Republican. The result - no one is very interested in the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Georgia.

On the other hand, there has recently been a dramatic increase in the interest in the 2010 U.S. Senate race. The current incumbent is Republican Senator Johnny Isakson. He is a popular and powerful conservative Senator that has few enemies and many friends.. The fact is that Senator Johnny Isakson can remain in the United States Senate as long as he wants. The big question is whether he wants stay in a chamber where he is but one out of 100 when he could become the chief executive of Georgia. For Senator Isakson, there is another option.

In 2010, Georgia will elect its next governor. Incumbent Republican Governor Sonny Perdue is term limited and cannot seek another term. Senator Isakson could seek again Georgia’s highest office. In 1990, Johnny Isakson was the Republican nominee for governor. In the 1990 General Election, he lost narrowly to Governor Zell Miller. Obviously, it was not the end of his political career. Many believe that serving as the Governor of Georgia has been a lifelong ambition for the Marietta native. Most agree that if he seeks the Governor’s Mansion, he would be the heavy favorite to win both the primary and the General Election - easily.

Of course, should he seek the office of governor, it would leave his Senate seat without an incumbent in the 2010 election. Hence, the sudden increase in interest in the 2010 Senate race in Georgia. For many, the first question is whether current Governor Sonny Perdue might be interested in the United States Senate. After all, he is the other “900 pound gorilla” on the Georgia political scene. Yet, most agree that Governor Perdue has little appetite for the largely unproductive and overly partisan United States Senate. Without Governor Perdue, the 2010 Senate race in Georgia would be wide open in both political parties.

For the Democrats, it could provide the opportunity for former Secretary of State Cathy Cox to make a come back. Her tenure as the President of Young Harris affords her the opportunity to travel, speak, and otherwise stay connected with old allies and new Democrats. In addition, should he be tempted enough to leave an otherwise lucrative law practice, former Governor Roy Barnes could mount a 2010 Senate bid and return to public life. There is also Eighth Congressional District Democratic Congressman Jim Marshall. By 2010, he would undoubtedly leave the constant battle of two-year terms in the House of Representatives for a shot at the Senate (with its six-year term). Finally, it is possible that former Democratic Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor might enter the fray. Most agree it is unlikely that he has left politics permanently.

For the Republicans, the list is equally long. Third District Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland would likely enter the race. His conservative credentials provide a strong base from which to run. First District Republican Congressman Jack Kingston would probably enter the race as well. In 2010, he will have served sixteen years in the House of Representatives. His time for a move will have come. Current Secretary of State Karen Handel might take a shot. By all accounts, she has taken the steps to build a statewide structure capable of winning a contested Republican primary and a General Election.

Of course, by 2010, there will be a new President. Undoubtedly, this will play a major role in both the primaries and the 2010 General Election. After all, a President can raise a lot of money and can easily influence the outcome of a primary.

But none of this is of any consequence absent a decision from Senator Johnny Isakson about his future in the 2010 election. After all, it is a decision that only he will make. Yet, it is a decision that has everyone interested -- in 2010.

Just a few days ago, media reports suggested that the Democratic Presidential nomination belonged to New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Polls indicated that she was opening a commanding lead over all of her Democratic opponents. Senator Clinton’s fundraising operation appeared unfazed by some missteps resulting in returned contributions. Other Democratic Presidential candidates struggled to penetrate the political ground noise surrounding the overcrowded Presidential race. So, all of the attention focused on the Democratic frontrunner - and something happened - voters flinched.

Now, no one should mistake a bad couple of weeks for a failed Presidential bid. Even after a less than optimal debate performance and non-stop concentrated attacks from her opponents (both Democratic and Republican), Senator Hillary Clinton remains the odds-on favorite to become the next President of the United States. However, another Clinton Presidency is far less than inevitable. Instead, the stress fractures from presumptive nominee status has revealed some chinks in the political armor of the former First Lady.

First, “Clinton fatigue” remains a factor in the current political environment. As the media moved toward non-stop Clinton news coverage, based on her emerging dominance in the Democratic Presidential contest, voters started to remember why they tired of the last Clinton Presidency. There was always something, and it was tiring. As a result, upon being reminded of the sheer political energy required for a Clinton Presidency, voters took a deep breath, and blinked.

Second, the possibility of another divisive “Clinton Presidency” is worrisome for voters interested in a leader who could unite America. Senator Clinton’s campaign challenge is difficult. No matter what political strategy her team adopts, the fact is that a sizable number of Americans will never support her - either as a Presidential candidate or as an elected President. Yet, Americans are ready for someone who can bring Americans together, not cement the political divisions that have dominated the political landscape over the last several years. Of course, this only worsens the “Clinton fatigue” factor. Most Americans are not too excited about the possibility of at least four more years of brass knuckles political street fighting in Washington, D.C.

Finally, Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. President Bill Clinton was a smooth communicator who felt comfortable conveying emotion in the context of a raging political debate. Senator Hillary Clinton is anything but comfortable with communicating emotion - real or feigned. Hence, she has had to find her own way in connecting with voters. In prepared remarks in response to anticipated questions, she can effectively say something without saying anything. This is a learned science. On the other hand, she has yet to master the art of communicating matters of the heart.

When confronted with the reality of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, the polling numbers reflecting the mood of America were not only fluid, they were downright soft. These softening numbers were not the result of surging Democratic opponents. So far, no other Democratic presidential candidate has demonstrated the ability to compete in a head to head competition with the former First Lady. Instead, the numbers confirm that the only strategy yielding any sign of meaningful hope for any of Senator Clinton’s Democratic opponents has been to focus on making the race about one thing and one thing only - Senator Hillary Clinton.

But then, Senator Clinton knows all of this. She knows that she must win in spite of, not because of, the first Clinton Presidency. She knows that she must fight every step of the way for the right to fight every step of the way. She knows that she is not the politician that her husband was and she has probably never wanted to be the politician that he was.

For next year, Senator Hillary Clinton must win a series of election contests culminating in the General Election in which the most formidable opponent she faces is Hillary Clinton. In the end, the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton. As the polls reflect, when the only issue is Hillary Clinton, the race is still up in the air.

On December 10, 2007, Brian Gene Nichols will celebrate his thirty-sixth birthday in jail pending trial on a fifty-four count indictment for murder, kidnapping, robbery, aggravated assault on a police officer, battery, theft, carjacking, and escape from law enforcement authorities. He has offered to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without parole. As they say in court, the People (through the District Attorney) have declined the offer. The fact is that if there was ever a case warranting the imposition of the death penalty, this would be it.

On March 11, 2005, Brian Nichols was standing trial for rape and false imprisonment. Judge Rowland W. Barnes, a well respected jurist, was presiding. Julie Ann Brandau was his court reporter. After having his handcuffs removed, Brian Nichols overpowered a deputy and took her gun. He then made his way to Judge Barnes’ courtroom and shot him in the back of the head. Then, he turned and shot the court reporter. It was calculated and deliberate. As he exited the courthouse, Brian Nichols shot and killed Fulton Deputy Sheriff Hoyt Teasley. There are no real disputes about what happened.

On May 5, 2005, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Brian Nichols for the crimes he committed on March 11, 2005. The Fulton County District Attorney has indicated that he will seek the death penalty. Recognizing the absence of a meaningful defense on the merits, Brian Nichols’ legal defense team has focused on using the problems of the system to avoid an inevitable conviction and probable death penalty. So far, they have been very successful.

Last week, Judge Hilton Fuller indefinitely postponed Brian Nichols’ trial pending resolution of issues unrelated to Brian Nichols guilt or innocence. In reality, “justice” in the Brian Nichols case has been hijacked by a game of chicken between a judge and the legislature. Of course, Brian Nichols’ defense team is content to defer his day in court until someone blinks. After all, each passing day is another day that he serves the sentence Brian Nichols wants -- life without parole.

The crux of the impasse involves the right of a criminal defendant who faces the death penalty to effective legal representation. No one seriously contends that Brian Nichols is not entitled to counsel. On the other hand, no one seriously contends that Brian Nichols is entitled to the best lawyer in America or the most lawyers. In this context, the questions are how expensive a lawyer, and how many lawyers? Logically, the answer lies somewhere between the extremes of no lawyer and the most expensive group of lawyers available.

So far, the defense costs for Brian Nichols easily exceed one million dollars. In a case where there are so few facts in dispute, average Georgians find this a little more than excessive. Moreover, there is an additional complication.

Death penalty opponents now routinely advocate driving up the costs of defending death penalty cases as an effective litigation strategy for avoiding, and eventually repealing, the death penalty. Successes, like the one in the Brian Nichols case, and in other cases around the country, have only increased efforts to artificially inflate defense costs in the hopes that district attorneys, and states, will simply abandon their efforts to enforce the law as it exists. So, the question is how much of Brian Nichols’ defense costs are real, and how much are just tactical attorneys’ fees and costs as part of a litigation strategy to avoid the death penalty.

In the Brian Nichols case, the judge has insisted that Brian Nichols’ defense team be paid more with no end to the attorneys fees in sight and every reason by the legal defense team to claim as much as it takes to break the defense fund bank. The legislature, faced with the prospect of lawyers with an insatiable appetite for more, has refused to allocate more money to the fund which pays for lawyers for criminal defendants. The judge has said - no fees, no trial. The result - stalemate.

Many believe that it is only the defendant that is entitled to justice. They are wrong. It is justice for all. In that way, justice for all is a two way street - for the people and for the defendant. In the Brian Nichols case, stalemate means for the people - justice denied.