Robert Patillo Announces Bid For State House

Press Release from the campaign of Robert Patillo

Democrat Robert Patillo Enters Georgia's State House District 44 Race


Atlanta, GA – As the 2012 Georgia Legislative Session opens and just days before the nation celebrates the Dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., former democratic operative and attorney Robert Hillard Patillo, II has filed his campaign committee paperwork, Patillo for Georgia, with the State Democratic Party. Patillo told supporters, “This election is about working towards an agenda to restore Jobs, Justice and the American Dream in Georgia. It is time we put our dreams into action with new ideas and fresh leadership. Voters want to see leaders who will fight for their best interest. They realize candidates in the Democratic Party went to the Capitol and voted to cut programs like the HOPE Scholarship fund should be disqualified from representing this party and the needs of our community.”

Patillo's committee Treasurer Janice Mathis currently serves as the Executive Director of RainbowPUSH Coalition Atlanta Bureau as well as the RainbowPUSH Coalition National Vice President. Mathis noted, “I've worked with Robert on several legal issues. I know no one better to serve the citizens of Georgia. “Dwayne Brown will be serving as Campaign Chairman for Patillo's state house bid. “It is an honor to help elect a democrat that won't forget our shared ideals when he gets to the capitol. The top issues in this state are to restore jobs and support education and we need Democrats who won’t compromise in our pursuit of the American dream.”

Robert Patillo is a graduate of Clark-Atlanta University and Chicago-Kent College of Law in 2009 where he served as President of the Black Law Students Association. Previously, Patillo served as a Field Manager for Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. in fundraising for the Democratic National Committee in 2004, lead workers’ rights campaigns during the Student Labor Week of Action in 2005 and assisted Rainbow/PUSH in the 2005 initiative to re-authorize the Voters Rights Act in addition to working on issues of corporate diversity and minority representation in Fortune 500 companies. He recently served as the Statewide Field Director for Ken Hodges Campaign for Attorney General and currently works as a practicing attorney in Atlanta at The Patillo Law Group, LLC.

Prisons as Economic Development: Boom or Bust for Rural Georgia?

In Georgia today there are more prisoners than farmers. And while most prisoners in Georgia are from urban communities, most prisons are now in rural areas with high levels of poverty & a unskilled, uneducated workforce. During the last two decades, the large-scale use of incarceration to solve social problems has combined with the fall-out of globalization to produce an ominous trend: prisons have become a "growth industry" in rural Georgia, in fact Rural America.

Communities in isolated regions of the state began suffering from declines in farming, mining, timber-work and manufacturing are now begging for prisons to be built in their backyards. The economic restructuring that began in the troubled decade of the 1980s has had dramatic social and economic consequences for rural communities and small towns. Together the farm crises, factory closings, corporate downsizing, shift to service sector employment and the substitution of major regional and national chains for local, main-street businesses have triggered profound change in these areas.

The acquisition of prisons as a conscious economic development strategy for depressed rural communities and small towns in Georgia has become widespread. Many small rural towns have become dependent on an industry which itself is dependent on the continuation of crime-producing conditions.

Ironically, while rural areas pursue prisons as a growth strategy, whether this is a wise or effective strategy is far from clear. Increasing evidence suggests that by many measures prisons do not produce economic growth for local economies and can, over the long term, have detrimental effects on the social fabric and environment of rural communities. Moreover, this massive penetration of prisons into rural Georgia portends dramatic consequences for the entire state as huge numbers of inmates from urban areas of the state become rural residents for the purposes of Census-based formulas used to allocate government dollars and political representation.

Despite a lack of studies documenting the effects of prisons on rural areas and small towns over time, prisons are now heralded by economic development professionals and politicians of all stripes as beneficial economic engines for depressed rural economies like the one up in Baldwin County which was hyped by then governor Sonny Perdue, & State Senator Johnny Grant in 2010. Along with gambling casinos and huge animal confinement units for raising or processing hogs and poultry, prisons have become one of the three leading rural economic enterprises as Georgia and localities seek industries which provide large scale and quick opportunities.

The competition for prison "development projects" has become fierce and political. In order to be considered competitive in the bidding wars for public prisons, rural counties and small towns give up a lot to gain what they hope will be more: offering financial assistance and concessions such as donated land, upgraded sewer and water systems, housing subsidies, and, in the case of private prisons, property and other tax abatements.

A significant development in rural incarceration is the advent of private prisons. While private prisons do fill most jobs with new recruits when they open, and they sometimes give a hiring preference to local residents, they fail to provide a stable employment base in their host communities because they suffer extremely high rates of job turnover -- three times higher than the rate for public prisons. Correctional officer turnover rates in for-profit facilities are due mostly to poor training and low wages. This rapid turnover can create staffing problems that play out in understaffed shifts, low morale, and a sense of instability in the facility and the surrounding community.

While the growth in prisoner population and new prisons have increased dramatically, without other interventions such as changes in mandatory sentencing laws and parole policies, or more extensive use of alternatives to incarceration, prisoner populations and prison-building may climb upward again.

As well, the use of prisons as money-makers for struggling rural communities has become a major force driving criminal justice policy toward mass incarceration of the urban poor regardless of policy rationales like rising crime and prison overcrowding. In my opinion, When legislators cry 'Lock 'em up!,' they often mean 'Lock 'em up in my district!.'" LOL!! Indeed, the rural prison boom occurred at a time of falling crime rates and experience shows that the federal and state governments are reluctant to pull the plug on the many interests that now lobby for and feed off prisons. Allowed to continue, this cycle will have catastrophic consequences for the health and welfare of individuals, families, and communities in urban and rural areas, and indeed for the nation.

The Tea Party will re-elect Barack Obama in 2012?

And here's why:

If Barack Obama is somehow able to win reelection, the Tea Party should be on his list for a thank you note. President Obama’s prospects for reelection are decidedly mixed, but better than we’d expect given all else in the environment.

The economy is terrible, unemployment is high, and President Obama’s approval rating is extremely low. Normally, this bodes badly for a president seeking reelection, although in this case, Obama’s approval rating is still much higher than the ratings for Congress or the Republican Party. The Tea Party deserves some of the credit.

At least two Tea Party achievements are now helping the president: By invigorating the Republican Party’s base and helping it make huge gains in the 2010 elections, activists have been able to pressure members of Congress to work on their agenda....an agenda that isn’t very popular with the rest of the country.

The Republican Party in Congress is now comprised of people elected with Tea Party support, others who fear being challenged in primaries by Tea Partiers. The House passed Rep. Paul Ryan’s model budget, which would slash both taxes and government and turn Medicare into a voucher program. Policy merits (or de-merits) aside, it’s awful politics. Republicans turned the debt ceiling debate into a debacle, and are now blocking an extension of the reduced payroll tax on working Americans to protect low rates on–really–millionaires.

Tea Party enthusiasts are still disappointed. Others are scared. And the Republicans need a presidential candidate to beat Barack Obama. Without discussing intelligence and integrity at this point, candidates for the Republican nomination have created the weakest field of hopefuls in my opinion in either party for generations.

The party out of power wants to nominate a presidential candidate who can win elections, and has demonstrated that ability in the past, preferably by winning big elections. Practically, this means governors and senators, preferably from large and/or swing states. Among the top tier of candidates, only Mitt Romney (Massachusetts) and........ Rick Perry (Texas), yes Rick Perry qualify on this front, and Governor Perry has disappointed as a campaigner so you can almost stick a fork in him. Ex-Governor & Ex--U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman (Utah) have generated minimal support, but he out of all the GOP candidates is the most well-positioned to take on President Obama & win because he doesn't come off as a scary, or a loon or too hardcore for voters who are independent/moderate.

Meanwhile, the rest of the field has included Herman Cain, a radio host who could have surprised political pols had not been for the various women who came out against him who alleged he had either sexual harassed them or affairs with them, former Senator Rick Santorum, who had been at the bottom of the barrel has found new life in a new polls showing him surging with the Iowa Caucuses only 5 days away, & two sitting members of the House, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul), and a former Speaker of the House Newton "Newt" Gingrich who was forced to resign in disgrace by his own party more than a decade ago & someone who I said could give Obama a run for his money if he somehow makes it to the general election.

The Tea Party mobilization within the Republican Party scared off or silenced many establishment Republicans, and nourished several weak and improbable candidates. It has also moved the entire debate far to the right, with candidates trying to cultivate the enthusiasm demonstrated by Tea Partiers.

Because he started organizing and fundraising early, and because he has been willing to pander to the Tea Party, Governor Romney has survived all of this, but left little space and money for anyone else from the party establishment. Romney has been unable to increase his support, and thus far, no one else has been able to topple him.

While journalists and political junkies may fantasize about the excitement of a brokered convention, it’s likely that one of the candidates still in the field will win the nomination through the primary process. If it’s Governor Romney, he will be a less than inspiring choice for the Tea Partiers and some evangelicals at the Republican base, but he will have made enough pandering statements to them to fill the ads of his Democratic opponents.

Any of the other Republican candidates would be substantially weaker in a general election. Either way, the Tea Party has had the perverse effect of helping the electoral prospects of its prime target.

The Peach State's "Affirmative Action" Racial Redistricting

Racial Gerrymandering is no longer needed if you ask me. I'm a strong believer that majority-minority districts are no longer needed because blacks have made vast improvements in American society. The strides blacks have made in American society are greater than any other minority group in this country. But I will admit that black had the furthest to go & blacks still occupy a lower socioeconomic position in society, but chooses to focus on the improvements blacks have made.

Those arguing for majority-minority districts believe that because of continued racism whites will not vote for black candidates, which is not true. Look at former Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond, former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder as examples of Black(Moderate) candidates who won contest in their perspective states.

Now those candidates with drastically liberal views, be if they're black or white, will rarely be elected to office in the south. Blacks constitute an ideological minority and this explains their inability to be elected in the south. When blacks are elected in the south it is often because they are conservative.

One thing is certain, that the creation of majority-minority districts unfairly stigmatizes black voters. It gives the perception that blacks are relegated to a position of helplessness in our society. They can get no where in society unless they are given special favors. Further, underlying the creation of majority-minority districts is the premise that race is the most important factor when choosing representatives. Creating districts categorizes people in terms of race that is a dangerous practice. The entire goal of the civil rights movement was to stop viewing people in terms of race and to start viewing people in terms of individuals and the majority-minority districting system does just that.

Despite the fact that blacks are in general more liberal on some issues, majority-minority districts are not necessary for blacks to win elections. Those supporting racial gerrymandering commonly believe that 65 percent of a district must be black to ensure a black representative will be elected. However, a number of blacks have been elected in districts in which less that 50 percent of the districts’ population was black. (Sanford Bishop, Floyd Griffin, State Senate in 1992, Michael Thurmond, State House in 1986)

Also interests are not linked to race. In other words, a white person can represent the interest of blacks just as a black can represent the interests of whites. This is because interests can not be identified solely on the basis of race. Substantive representation is more important that descriptive representation. Descriptive representation has no bearing on substantive representation. there is no guarantee that a black official will support the same policies as most blacks do. Gerrymandering is becoming an ineffective method of ensuring minority representation. When majority-minority districts are created, first a pocket of blacks must be target. We are running out of areas to target and create majority-minority districts. 10 years from now, we can expect severe limitations on what can be achieved by relying on the creation of black districts to ensure the election of black politicians.

Yesterday, the Department of Justice approved the new maps redrawn by Georgia Republicans & as a result the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus has threatened to fight the DOJ over the "Affirmative Action" Racial Gerrymandering Maps.

How to best draw representational lines raises a fundamental philosophical and practical issue for African-Americans--the problem of duality. The problem takes many forms: integration versus separation, inclusion versus communal obligation, and as we can see in the reapportionment battle, direct representation by blacks versus black influence over mostly white officeholders. Strong arguments can be made on both sides. 10 years ago, Many African-American political leaders, including many members of the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, felt that having direct representation is more important than preserving or "saving" white Democratic seats. So they, along with the-then minority Republicans came together to create more black districts, which in effect hung white rural democrats out to dry. As a result of those actions, you now have a democratic legislature that is 98% Black. Now they're saying the new maps discriminate against African Americans. Black Dems suck as Rep Tyrone Brooks (R-Atlanta) who led the effort to maximize black representation now have to lay in the bed they made themselves.

"Affirmative Action Racial Gerrymandering," as I call it, creates more division within the state and may not be in the best long-term self-interest of the African-American community. Drawing districts--whether they be school districts, city or county council districts, legislative districts, or U.S. House districts--with a first priority of maximizing the number of majority-minority districts re segregates communities, causes representatives to see issues mainly in terms of black and white, divides communities into multiple districts so that they lose a clear single voice devoted to them, and has a general negative impact on race relations. Creating majority African American districts tends to pack districts with African-American voters so that representatives from neighboring nearly all-white districts pay little attention to the needs of blacks.

Concentrating black voters in districts to elect black representatives dilute support among other representatives for bills favored by blacks. Spreading black voters across more districts resulted in the election of representatives who were more sensitive to black interests. Its a waste of time & effort for democrats to go to court over the maps. Just Let it be! With 63 democrats in the house, 20 in the senate, this map will force democrats to compete in areas that they had written off in the past. The "Big Tent Party" now has to live up to that monikor & re-open it arms for conservative-minded democrats in its ranks. If not, then they better get comfortable being in the wilderness for the next 10, 20, 30 years.

We'll Be Back After New Year's 2012

Peanut Politics will be back roaring & ready to go in January 2012. Have a very Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year!!

Businessman Thomas Coogle II to run for Georgia State House in 2012

Yesterday at the Macon County Courthouse, BlueDog Democrat Thomas L "Tom" Coogle II (D-Montezuma) announced his candidacy for State Representative HD 135 (139 under new proposed map) which includes Dooly, Macon, Taylor & southern Peach County. Incumbent Lynmore James (D-Montezuma) will step down after the 2012 legislative session due to various health issues he's been dealing with over that last few years.

Coogle, a 33 year old Businessman & Vice-President of Reynolds Foodliner hopes to succeed James as representative to bring about more jobs to the district which includes Macon County, the third poorest county in the state of Georgia. This will be Coogle's first time running for elected office

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs is the key issue for Coogle, who business background gives him an advantage over other potential candidates, which includes Taylor County Commissioner Patty Bentley who announced her candidacy back in October.

Coogle says he's running as a Democrat, but hopes to bridge the gap between the two political parties under the Gold Dome in Atlanta.

A father of three, Coogle is a Lutheran, member of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Macon County Chamber of Commerce & the Georgia Food industry Association & a graduate of Georgia Southwestern State University. His wife Jill Tatum-Coogle is a elementary school teacher for the Macon County School System

Coogle's grandfather T.L. Coogle a Conservative Democrat served as State Representative from 1948-56.

2012 a Litmus Test for Georgia Dems?

With the 2011 season coming to a end, now is the time to start talking about the 2012 political season.

With all of the attention being to paid to happenings up on Capitol Hill & rightfully so, down here in Georgia, 2012 will be sort of a litmus test for the future of the Georgia Democratic Party.

Now if you want to talk about a party that's at a serious crossroads look no further than the State Democratic Party here in the Peach State & 2012 will be the year that sets the tone for the party going forward

Operatives at the State Party have to decide what direction the party should take....do they want to continue to take it to the murky waters of the left, which will never gain a strong foothold here in the empire state of the south....OR...do they want to reposition it to what it was when they had its most successes of the 1990s all the way up to 2001......back to the center?

There are some who think that taking the party to the left will eventually appeal to everyday mainstream Georgians who mostly are centrist/conservative in nature. NO IT WILL NO'T!

There are those who think that the Latino population will rescue the party from its doldrums, but you're talking about 10-15 years down the line. And there's no guarantee that the Latino population will continue to increase here in Georgia over the next few years & who's to say that they will be a monolithic voting bloc for the party like African-American have been for over 45 years? Do you really want to put all of your eggs in that basket?

I remember attending a democratic party meeting down in South Georgia last year where a white liberal burst out saying..."Hey let's forget about the white working class vote, we don't need then anymore" & let's focus on increasing our minority strength here in Georgia. Now that's where the "Let's wait for the population to shift" theory comes in. That kind of attitude will absolutely hurt the party even more in its attempt to appeal to Whites.

There will be some Conservative Democrats running for office next year for the state legislature & it will present the democrats with another opportunity to show that they are really a BIG TENT PARTY because right now that moniker doesn't apply to them. Its not healthy for the party in the long run....hell RIGHT NOW to be a party basically made up of only majority Black Georgians, sprinkled with Latinos, Gays, Lesbians & a handful of Urban/Suburban White Liberals.

2012 will the litmus test for the party. Will they show a openness for helping elect Moderate/Conservative Democrats, black or white? Or will they continue to support one track minded, out of touch, weak candidates who can only appeal to one demographic & have the inability to appeal to those who doesn't share the same views as they do?

The key person to keep an eye on is Miguel Camacho who was elected to recruit candidates for the party. This is a whole different ballgame, this isn't Chatham County where you can look around the corner to find a candidate with a snap of a finger, you're talking about statewide, especially Rural Georgia where he's got to find democratic candidates that has the ability to appeal, to connect to every person no matter of race, religion or background. That's going to be the hard part for Camacho who probably has never ventured to isolated areas of rural central 7 South Georgia