PhotoDude.com

Tue. Aug 13, 2002

Creative Loafing on McKinney vs. Majette

Creative Loafing on McKinney vs. Majette – This week, our local ”alternative” paper, Creative Loafing, digs into McKinney’s biggest campaign charge: "By now, most everyone has listened to Cynthia McKinney accuse Denise Majette, a former state court judge, of hiding the transcripts from a 1997 trial. McKinney’s commercials inflate the episode to a ranking right up there with Watergate or Iran-Contra. Majette had denied that she withheld the material.

Here’s the truth: According to the state appeals court ruling that overturned Majette’s decision in the speeding case, there was no transcript of the two-day trial. The defendant, Linda Hamilton, who represented herself, didn’t ask for one. There were, however, transcripts of two subsequent hearings in the case, and it did indeed take a court order to convince Majette to release the documents. The appeals court judge overturned the guilty verdict in the case because he determined that Hamilton was not made fully aware of the consequences of representing herself.

That said, high crimes and misdemeanors this case does not make. Many, if not most, judges have the occasional defendant that irritates or provokes them. The Hamilton case—a two-day jury trial for a relatively minor speeding offense—seems like just such an instance."

It should also be noted that the McKinney camp searched a publicly documented career of ten years as a judge, thousands of cases, and this was all they could find.

Last week, for the first time in their history, Creative Loafing endorsed primary candidates. It wasn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of Majette, but they made it clear she was by far ”The better of two lessers”:

"The problem with McKinney is that her comments always come in reaction to an event. And she does it so often and so brashly that it amounts to grandstanding. The effect is that it has burned her political capital, so that now when she speaks, her voice doesn’t have the resonance of someone who is respected—John Lewis, for example. Oftentimes, what she says actually seems to rally people to her target—the prime case being Bush.

The district deserves someone who can effectively advocate solutions. One measure of a member of Congress is whether she’s done right by the people of her district. After 10 years in the House, McKinney has, at best, a mixed report card. She says she’s brought $350 million in federal grants to her district, but that contention largely depends on who’s doing the counting.

How do you count the grants that didn’t arrive in DeKalb because McKinney lacked the clout or competence to secure the money? Take a $1 million education grant available to the district that would have helped track DeKalb students as they made their way to school on county buses. DeKalb schools tried to interest McKinney, but she didn’t respond. So education officials had to appeal to senators Max Cleland and Zell Miller.

Where is the outspoken McKinney when it comes to defending her record? She has yet to face her opponent in a debate. Local media have had a hard time corralling her for a simple sit-down. Maybe she’s doing the smart thing politically; an appearance elevates the challenger to the incumbent’s level. Such calculation is contemptuous of democracy, however.

Obviously, this was written before McKinney finally stepped up to debate, but the point stands: McKinney has never been responsive. Most every story about her features one form or another of ”no comment.” It is indeed a contemptuous attitude.

In the end, Creative Loafing concludes: "We don’t like Majette’s pandering on some issues and her lack of knowledge on others. But, forced to pick, we believe she could grow—something McKinney is determined not to do. If she wins and advocates positions that work against her district’s interests, it won’t be that hard for another candidate to unseat her in two years."