Figuring Out The Georgia Senate Race

Amico, Perdue, Tomlinson, Ossoff

There are something like 10 Democrats competing for the nomination to take on weak Trumpist incumbent David Perdue this year. Of the 10, just 3 are raising the kind of money needed to run a credible campaign. None of them are going to match Perdue's corporate onslaught (already $8,791,345 raised) but they don't really need to; all they need to do is to raise enough to get out their messages and right now they only three who have are:

Jon Ossoff- $1,343,249
Teresa Tomlinson- $928,408
Sarah Riggs Amico- $710,770

And yes, I said something about getting out their messages. For some Democrats that means telling voters what policies they be backing, working on and prioritizing. But not for all Democrats. The Democratic establishment committees-- the DSCC, DCCC and DNC-- are so unenthusiastic about Democratic values and principles that they recommend-- sometimes demand-- that their status quo establishment candidates avoid talking about issues and policies as much as possible. No candidate ever says, "hey vote for me, I'm an establishment shill." So how do you know who is? One way is to look at their official campaign website. Find the issues page. If there is no issues page... you found the establishment shill.

In the Georgia race, these are the three candidates websites:

Jon Ossoff- no agenda beyond his own careerism
Sarah Riggs Amico- no agenda beyond her own careerism
Teresa Tomlinson- detailed policy agenda covering every issue Georgia voters want to hear about

So, for the last several months, we've been working with Georgia voters who have gone to meet the candidates and listen to them speak and try to discern where they stand on the issues. Since Ossoff and Amico tend to change what they say depending on who the audience is, this was a daunting task, but here's a compare and contrast between the 3 top primary candidates on several issues they are talking about.

Let's start with healthcare. Ossoff is purposefully unclear about where he stands, although it is generally in the territory between Status Quo Joe and Mayo Pete. Nothing on the website, of course, but in an interview he said "I believe that we can achieve [universal health insurance] with a public health insurance plan that is affordable for all and free if you can’t afford it. A plan that is comprehensive and gives people more choices, that allows both private insurers and the federal government to compete for folks’ trust." If that sounds like gobbledygook to you, don't worry; it is. And he's offered no clarification or details of any kind. He hopes everyone will be hoodwinked into think he supports whatever they support. That's typical of Jon Ossoff.

Teresa Tomlinson's website makes clear she supports universal healthcare and she wrote a lengthy policy paper on it explaining how she hopes to get to it.

The Preamble of our Constitution declares that promoting the “general welfare” of Americans is a bedrock priority for this country. Yet, we allow millions of Americans to suffer without basic healthcare, to die of preventable disease, and to be forced into debt because of staggering healthcare and prescription costs. Healthcare is an economic necessity and a moral imperative. Thus, I support universal healthcare for all Americans.

The current healthcare system is not a free market. There’s no bargaining power when your life or your child’s health is on the line. It’s not an equitable market because a person’s health is largely determined by their wealth and where they live. Ensuring that every American has full and meaningful access to healthcare reduces suffering, reduces our costs, increases the middle-class, adds stability to our families, improves stagnant wages, and bolsters the U.S. economy. Our federal government must be a partner in the solution.

As your next U.S. Senator from Georgia

• I will lead the effort to achieve universal healthcare coverage.
• I will move to protect and strengthen the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because it has

• 1) provided protections for 130 million Americans living with pre-existing conditions;
• 2) required insurance companies to cover essential health benefits such as maternity and newborn care, preventative care, and mental health services;
• 3) enabled young adults to stay on their parent’s insurance; and
• 4) provided coverage for millions of Americans who live in states which chose to expand Medicaid.

• I will work to encourage all states to expand Medicaid coverage for those earning up to 138% of the poverty level, including some 500,000 Georgians, thereby reducing maternal mortality and ending rural hospital closures.
• I will work to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55 and offer a public option for people to buy-in to Medicare insurance coverage through the ACA healthcare exchanges. This will also drive down the cost of private insurance premiums for the 160 million Americans who have coverage through employer-based plans.

Sarah Riggs Amico, a Republican masquerading as a Democrat claims to have converted to the Democratic Party following the passage of the ACA. However, the facts belie that assertion. The ACA passed in 2010, Amico generously supported Mitt Romney in his 2012 challenge to Obama’s re-election effort, despite the fact that Romney vehemently opposed the ACA during his campaign. Amico refuses to get pinned down on any healthcare specifics and is even less forthcoming than Ossoff.

How about Choice? Again Ossoff and Amico are squirrelly about their positions and make it difficult to figure out where they stand. Amico has a long and public history of holding anti-choice positions. She was a longtime supporter of Congressman John Mica (R-FL) who was notoriously anti-choice and a chief architect of efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. She contributed $2,500 to Mica in his last (losing) campaign in 2016. She will never admit to planning to take anti-Choice positions if elected to the Senate.

Ossoff has carefully refrained from boxing himself in with any public positions, again hoping to please both anti-Choice and pro-Choice voters. Recently, in response to a question about how he would address reproductive justice on his campaign, Ossoff said, "My wife, Alisha, is an OB/GYN physician. Many of her young colleagues don’t want to practice in Georgia because Senator David Perdue and his Republican] colleagues in our state legislature are trying to overturn Roe v. Wade by passing this extremist, unpopular abortion ban. One of the things that got me over the top in the decision to run was the discussions that my wife and I had about Georgia as ground zero in the battle for Roe v. Wade, and in the battle for choice." So presumably tat means he's going to be pro-Choice. Right?

No guessing with Tomlinson, the only elected official among the 3. She's been at the forefront of women’s reproductive health for over thirty years and says she believes that women’s reproductive rights are basic human rights. She's been vocal about her belief that "bodily autonomy is an essential component of freedom and equality guaranteed by the US Constitution." Again, her campaign site make where she stands very, very clear: "As a U.S. Senator, I will be a stalwart supporter of women's reproductive freedom."

• I believe that women’s reproductive rights are basic human rights.
• I believe that bodily autonomy is an essential component of the freedom and equality guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
• I believe that politicians should stay out of the private and highly individualized medical considerations of a woman’s reproductive health.
• I reject the notion that a pregnancy creates an independent “person” under the law. Indeed, a woman is the sole fiduciary of her body and any pregnancy she carries.
• I support the fundamental right to abortion enshrined by Roe v. Wade and will only vote for the confirmation of federal judges who commit to adhere to the bedrock judicial principle of stare decisis.
• I support the repeal of policies, including the Hyde Amendment, which prohibit abortion coverage for women who get their reproductive care through government-administered healthcare programs.

Tomlinson and Ossoff both say they support legalization of marijuana and Amico has carefully avoided taking a position on it at all. Ossoff has no serious plan for accomplishing it, while Tomlinson's policy paper is detailed and specific, explaining exactly what Georgia voters can expect of her if they send her to DC:

• I support removing marijuana from the Controlled Substance Act schedule, so it can be regulated, and taxed appropriately.
• I support regulating marijuana under the appropriate federal agency which can work with states to provide market and interstate commerce continuity, thereby preventing black markets, criminal law disparities, and other market anomalies or unintended effects.
• I support amending the IRS tax code and banking regulations to fully accommodate this new industry.
• I believe the federal government must address the decades of racial disparity and harsh criminal sentences for minor marijuana offenses through expungement and commutation programs.
• I support exploring how marijuana can expand Georgia’s agricultural economy and provide another cash crop opportunity for our farmers.
• I believe the federal government should ensure the participation of minority participants in any legalized marijuana market and help facilitate sources of start-up capital and other funding needed to make this participation a reality.

Early in the campaign, Tomlinson called for impeaching Trump and has written about why Trump needed to be removed from office. Amico has also written-- albeit just on Twitter-- that she favors impeachment. Ossoff has taken a more nuanced approach, saying he supports a formal inquiry only if the allegations prove true that Trump "pressured a foreign power to smear his political opponent" in exchange for security assistance... He's disgracing the office and he needs to lose, and he needs to lose badly. But it’s deeper than that. It’s about the dysfunction of our political system, the corruption of our political system." OK, so he'd likely for for removing Trump too... I guess.

There's no doubt that Tomlinson is the best of these three candidates and that she would make a far better addition to the Senate than any of the handpicked Schumer candidates running in other states. If you'd like to help her with a contribution, please use the 2020 Congress Needs More Progressive Women thermometer above.