News & Views » Going Postal

In disagreement

I appreciated the opportunity to meet with the editorial and news staff at Creative Loafing to discuss the Georgia attorney general's race. I believe it was a vibrant discussion of the vital legal and ethical issues facing Georgia government, and I appreciate your kind words about me.

However, in your lukewarm endorsement of incumbent Thurbert Baker -- which recites a laundry list of things done wrong or not done at all during his tenure in office -- I must object to your characterization of my professional career as a prosecutor. I worked as a prosecutor for nearly eight years, not five. In each position, I was promoted at regular intervals based on job performance reviews.

Baker has attacked me for being a small-business owner, and has suggested that I had personality conflicts with superiors during my nearly eight years as a prosecutor. I wonder how on Earth I could have been promoted in every office I served? And I wonder how the tens of thousands of small-business owners in Atlanta feel about an incumbent attorney general who lampoons small and family business owners? The attorney general's office is the one statewide law enforcement office whose job it is to hold all the others accountable. In his five years in office, Baker has yet to do the job. -- Shannon Goessling,

candidate for attorney general

Editor's note: Creative Loafing regrets understating Goessling's level of experience, which included one year as a student working in prosecutors' offices. Our assessment that she fell into personality conflicts with colleagues is based on interviews with colleagues and supervisors in three prosecutors' offices -- not on any information provided by Baker.

Neither is good
I have been a loyal reader of CL for some time now. As an intern with Buddy Darden's campaign this year, I had the distinct pleasure of picking up an issue of CL and seeing, in your first-ever political endorsements, a resounding approval of the moderation and sensibility we've all seen lacking in our public figures lately (CL's "Primary election circus," Aug. 7). Most importantly, however, I was enthralled to see that at least one media outlet was not afraid to call out Roger Kahn for his tactics and lack of solid initiatives. So, firstly, let me thank you for that.

Working in the 11th Congressional District's Democratic primary race, I saw firsthand how a self-interested rich boy from the Atlanta chapter could walk in and buy an election. In order to ensure victory (in the Aug. 20 Democratic primary) Kahn violated every tenet of decent behavior in primary politics when the district could go either way in November. Kahn blatantly lied about Darden, and tried desperately to convince the electorate that the accusations against him were false. Kahn tarnished the reputation of an honest man, and for that reason alone would be unfit for office.

The problem arises when one considers that Republican nominee Phil Gingrey is not a moderate, either. His anti-abortion, pro-gun stances make him unattractive to an extremely large portion of the 11th. He also seems to put too much emphasis on the issue of the state flag, going so far as to state (and later retract) that he would fly the old state flag outside his office if elected to Congress. Clearly, Gingrey is not a progressive, and is likely to be beholden to congressional Republicans in an attempt to gain better committee assignments in Washington. That would mean more votes to the right in an already tight House. So a problem has appeared. While Gingrey is less malicious than Kahn, he has an "R" after his name, meaning having him in Washington would hurt the progressive agenda. On the other hand, Kahn has shown himself to be deceitful, even a backstabber (think of how often he referred to Darden as his friend at the beginning of the primary season).

These factors, taken together, have convinced me that neither Kahn nor Gingrey deserve an endorsement.

-- JR Lentini, Marietta

Editor's note: While this letter was on its way, Creative Loafing published its endorsements for the upcoming election ("Crown 'em," Oct. 23). CL endorsed neither candidate in the 11th Congressional District.

King of the jokers
It had been awhile since I'd read your paper. I used to read it when I was in college. Anyhow, I found a copy of your latest issue in the bathroom of my company, and started reading your article "Crown 'em" (Oct. 23). What a biased joke of a paper you have! Did you happen to notice that all of the candidates that you were recommending are Democrats? Save the readers a lot of time by just saying, "Vote all Democrat" for the next election! Stop giving the impression that you are providing unbiased, thoughtful information about the candidates. What a joke you are!

-- David Levine, Atlanta

Editor's note: Actually, the scorecard was: nine Democrats, one Republican and one Libertarian.

Add a comment