WWTBAM Bored

Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson, whose term does not expire until 2022, has announced he will resign at the end of this year. Although Gov. Brian Kemp will undoubtedly name another Republican to take Isakson's place, there will be a special election for the remaining two years of his term in 2020. Georgia's other Senator, David Perdue, also a Republican, is also up for re-election to a full term in 2020.

Depending on just who Kemp names, there may or may not be other Republicans running to fill out the rest of his term. But there will certainly be a lot of interest among Democrats and potential candidates will have to decide which seat to run for. The biggest question mark is former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who earlier said she was not running for Perdue's seat but may decide to enter one of the races now. Today, an Abrams spokesman said she was not running.

Georgia will utilize the "jungle primary," meaning that all candidates will vie in the election in November, with the top two, regardless of party, moving on to a runoff in January. This may mean a lot of jockeying for position and candidates withdrawing to make sure at least one person from their party makes the runoff. Considering how close Abrams came to winning the governorship in 2018, this upcoming election has just gotten even more heated. In an odd twist, Georgia also requires the winner of the Perdue election to receive at least 50% of the vote or face a January runoff. Although Perdue will be matched one-on-one with a Democrat in November, the Libertarians also run candidates and it's possible that the Libertarian might pull in just enough votes to force a runoff, meaning two January runoffs for possible control of the Senate.

https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/break ... Qu0Pj3cnK/

From Twitter: The Georgia senator has Parkinson's. "My Parkinson’s has been progressing," he said. and has a "growth" on his kidney.

Worth mentioning because I thought this could be a Harvey List issue.

jarnon wrote:From Twitter: The Georgia senator has Parkinson's. "My Parkinson’s has been progressing," he said. and has a "growth" on his kidney.

Worth mentioning because I thought this could be a Harvey List issue.

What does that mean?

Beebs52 wrote:

jarnon wrote:From Twitter: The Georgia senator has Parkinson's. "My Parkinson’s has been progressing," he said. and has a "growth" on his kidney.

Worth mentioning because I thought this could be a Harvey List issue.

What does that mean?

He thought the resignation might be due to impending scandal rather than based on health issues. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

jarnon wrote:From Twitter: The Georgia senator has Parkinson's. "My Parkinson’s has been progressing," he said. and has a "growth" on his kidney.

Worth mentioning because I thought this could be a Harvey List issue.

What does that mean?

He thought the resignation might be due to impending scandal rather than based on health issues. --Bob

I understand that. What is the basis? Not everyone is up on all your man doings.

Isakson has had health problems related to Parkinson's for years, and it's well known here in Georgia. I've never heard anything resembling a scandal about him, moral, financial, or otherwise.

silverscreenselect wrote:Isakson has had health problems related to Parkinson's for years, and it's well known here in Georgia. I've never heard anything resembling a scandal about him, moral, financial, or otherwise.

Thanks for your info. Seriously.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
What does that mean?

He thought the resignation might be due to impending scandal rather than based on health issues. --Bob

I understand that. What is the basis? Not everyone is up on all your man doings.

The original post was silent as to Senator Isakson's reasons for stepping down. It's surprising for a sitting Senator to step down more than two years before the end of his term, so if someone reads this without knowing about Senator Isakson's health issues, it's reasonable to wonder if there was a scandal involved.

I infer that jarnon did not know about Senator Isakson's health history and wondered, so after he did the research to test (and falsify) this potential hypothesis, he posted his findings to save other people the work. --Bob

Sorry if I seemed to doubt Sen. Isakson’s integrity. He’s well respected. But there have been so many surprising revelations lately that I wondered for a moment.

o.m.g.

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:He thought the resignation might be due to impending scandal rather than based on health issues. --Bob

I understand that. What is the basis? Not everyone is up on all your man doings.

The original post was silent as to Senator Isakson's reasons for stepping down. It's surprising for a sitting Senator to step down more than two years before the end of his term, so if someone reads this without knowing about Senator Isakson's health issues, it's reasonable to wonder if there was a scandal involved.

I infer that jarnon did not know about Senator Isakson's health history and wondered, so after he did the research to test (and falsify) this potential hypothesis, he posted his findings to save other people the work. --Bob

The original post was NOT silent. Did you read the link?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
I understand that. What is the basis? Not everyone is up on all your man doings.

The original post was silent as to Senator Isakson's reasons for stepping down. It's surprising for a sitting Senator to step down more than two years before the end of his term, so if someone reads this without knowing about Senator Isakson's health issues, it's reasonable to wonder if there was a scandal involved.

I infer that jarnon did not know about Senator Isakson's health history and wondered, so after he did the research to test (and falsify) this potential hypothesis, he posted his findings to save other people the work. --Bob

The original post was NOT silent. Did you read the link?

The post was silent. I did not follow the link, because I was already aware that health concerns (which I was aware of -- I'm enough of a political junkie to follow this stuff somewhat closely) were the stated reasons for Senator Isakson's intention to resign. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The original post was silent as to Senator Isakson's reasons for stepping down. It's surprising for a sitting Senator to step down more than two years before the end of his term, so if someone reads this without knowing about Senator Isakson's health issues, it's reasonable to wonder if there was a scandal involved.

I infer that jarnon did not know about Senator Isakson's health history and wondered, so after he did the research to test (and falsify) this potential hypothesis, he posted his findings to save other people the work. --Bob

The original post was NOT silent. Did you read the link?

The post was silent. I did not follow the link, because I was already aware that health concerns (which I was aware of -- I'm enough of a political junkie to follow this stuff somewhat closely) were the stated reasons for Senator Isakson's intention to resign. --Bob

Ah. So links aren't part of posts now. Somebody needs to alert the post governors. Next time a lone link is posted it ain't a post. Got it.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: The original post was NOT silent. Did you read the link?

The post was silent. I did not follow the link, because I was already aware that health concerns (which I was aware of -- I'm enough of a political junkie to follow this stuff somewhat closely) were the stated reasons for Senator Isakson's intention to resign. --Bob

Ah. So links aren't part of posts now. Somebody needs to alert the post governors. Next time a lone link is posted it ain't a post. Got it.

I don't understand what your problem is here. You didn't understand why jarnon might have suspected a scandal here. It was because the face of the post was silent as to the reason for Senator Isakson's resignation. And since some people on this Bored (not you) have objected to following links in posts (particularly when they may use up a limited number of free looks), I don't see why you're getting all snarky about this. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The post was silent. I did not follow the link, because I was already aware that health concerns (which I was aware of -- I'm enough of a political junkie to follow this stuff somewhat closely) were the stated reasons for Senator Isakson's intention to resign. --Bob

Ah. So links aren't part of posts now. Somebody needs to alert the post governors. Next time a lone link is posted it ain't a post. Got it.

I don't understand what your problem is here. You didn't understand why jarnon might have suspected a scandal here. It was because the face of the post was silent as to the reason for Senator Isakson's resignation. And since some people on this Bored (not you) have objected to following links in posts (particularly when they may use up a limited number of free looks), I don't see why you're getting all snarky about this. --Bob

Assuming things makes an ass outta...etc. Plus you discounted a supporting link from AJC, which isn't wapo or nyt. I guarantee you had the subject congressman been from somewhere else or of a different political bent no automatic weird assumption would have happened. No snark just calling out both of y'all's bs.

Plus, one could research it on one's own if one is skeered of a link. Before saying something...odd.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Ah. So links aren't part of posts now. Somebody needs to alert the post governors. Next time a lone link is posted it ain't a post. Got it.

I don't understand what your problem is here. You didn't understand why jarnon might have suspected a scandal here. It was because the face of the post was silent as to the reason for Senator Isakson's resignation. And since some people on this Bored (not you) have objected to following links in posts (particularly when they may use up a limited number of free looks), I don't see why you're getting all snarky about this. --Bob

Assuming things makes an ass outta...etc. Plus you discounted a supporting link from AJC, which isn't wapo or nyt. I guarantee you had the subject congressman been from somewhere else or of a different political bent no automatic weird assumption would have happened. No snark just calling out both of y'all's bs.

He (jarnon) provided information refuting the inference, after performing his own research, in the very same post he raised the issue. Nothing to call out. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I don't understand what your problem is here. You didn't understand why jarnon might have suspected a scandal here. It was because the face of the post was silent as to the reason for Senator Isakson's resignation. And since some people on this Bored (not you) have objected to following links in posts (particularly when they may use up a limited number of free looks), I don't see why you're getting all snarky about this. --Bob

Assuming things makes an ass outta...etc. Plus you discounted a supporting link from AJC, which isn't wapo or nyt. I guarantee you had the subject congressman been from somewhere else or of a different political bent no automatic weird assumption would have happened. No snark just calling out both of y'all's bs.

He (jarnon) provided information refuting the inference, after performing his own research, in the very same post he raised the issue. Nothing to call out. --Bob

From twitter, a perfectly substantial fact resource.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Assuming things makes an ass outta...etc. Plus you discounted a supporting link from AJC, which isn't wapo or nyt. I guarantee you had the subject congressman been from somewhere else or of a different political bent no automatic weird assumption would have happened. No snark just calling out both of y'all's bs.

He (jarnon) provided information refuting the inference, after performing his own research, in the very same post he raised the issue. Nothing to call out. --Bob

From twitter, a perfectly substantial fact resource.

When it comes from the Senator's own account, I think it is. Would you rather he discount it and continue to believe the resignation might have been sourced in some scandal? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:He (jarnon) provided information refuting the inference, after performing his own research, in the very same post he raised the issue. Nothing to call out. --Bob

From twitter, a perfectly substantial fact resource.

When it comes from the Senator's own account, I think it is. Would you rather he discount it and continue to believe the resignation might have been sourced in some scandal? --Bob

And why would he assume scandal in the first place based on a straightforward news item?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
From twitter, a perfectly substantial fact resource.

When it comes from the Senator's own account, I think it is. Would you rather he discount it and continue to believe the resignation might have been sourced in some scandal? --Bob

And why would he assume scandal in the first place based on a straightforward news item?

Because it's unusual for a Senator to resign more than two years before his term ends. And he didn't say he assumed it. He said he wondered. Then he checked and found the answer. And presented the facts along with the reason he found the additional facts relevant.

But I will agree with you about one thing. Given the contrast between David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer, and the contrast between the primary electorate's treatment of Roy Moore and the Democratic Party's treatment of Al Franken (not to mention the Republican electorate's willingness to overlook pretty much anything Donny does or says), it would be surprising for a scandal to force a Republican politician out of office. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:When it comes from the Senator's own account, I think it is. Would you rather he discount it and continue to believe the resignation might have been sourced in some scandal? --Bob

And why would he assume scandal in the first place based on a straightforward news item?

Because it's unusual for a Senator to resign more than two years before his term ends. And he didn't say he assumed it. He said he wondered. Then he checked and found the answer. And presented the facts along with the reason he found the additional facts relevant.

But I will agree with you about one thing. Given the contrast between David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer, and the contrast between the primary electorate's treatment of Roy Moore and the Democratic Party's treatment of Al Franken (not to mention the Republican electorate's willingness to overlook pretty much anything Donny does or says), it would be surprising for a scandal to force a Republican politician out of office. --Bob

Gosh, see my previous post. You're so predictable. Amusing as it it were.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
And why would he assume scandal in the first place based on a straightforward news item?

Because it's unusual for a Senator to resign more than two years before his term ends. And he didn't say he assumed it. He said he wondered. Then he checked and found the answer. And presented the facts along with the reason he found the additional facts relevant.

But I will agree with you about one thing. Given the contrast between David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer, and the contrast between the primary electorate's treatment of Roy Moore and the Democratic Party's treatment of Al Franken (not to mention the Republican electorate's willingness to overlook pretty much anything Donny does or says), it would be surprising for a scandal to force a Republican politician out of office. --Bob

Gosh, see my previous post. You're so predictable. Amusing as it it were.

They really just can't help it. Bless their hearts.

tlynn78 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Because it's unusual for a Senator to resign more than two years before his term ends. And he didn't say he assumed it. He said he wondered. Then he checked and found the answer. And presented the facts along with the reason he found the additional facts relevant.

But I will agree with you about one thing. Given the contrast between David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer, and the contrast between the primary electorate's treatment of Roy Moore and the Democratic Party's treatment of Al Franken (not to mention the Republican electorate's willingness to overlook pretty much anything Donny does or says), it would be surprising for a scandal to force a Republican politician out of office. --Bob

Gosh, see my previous post. You're so predictable. Amusing as it it were.

They really just can't help it. Bless their hearts.

Pea pickin hearts, dearie.