Denis O’Hayer is a pretty smart guy, certainly alot smarter than me.
For one thing, he would know that "alot" is actually two words and that the correct comparative is “smarter than I.”
He’s the kind of guy I used to sit next to in school and bum his notes after I had cut class for the third straight day.No questions asked, just a friendly, “Here you go.Just give me one second to properly annotate the notes so they make sense.”He’s the same way with his pocket rolodex of sources.“The cousin of the secretary of the Sergeant at Arms?I’m sure I’ve got that somewhere here.Oh, yes, here we go.First or second cousin?”
I’m going to miss Denis.He’s moving on to the verdant pastures of journalistic erudition.NPR. (They’re the ones who actually use words like those.)
It will be a perfect match.Indeed, a hand couldn’t find a better glove.
From his decades in radio, to his political talk shows, to his all-access pass at the Gold Dome, Denis and his trademark black wool gentleman’s coat will be missed.He was wearing that coat the first time I worked with him not long after he had arrived at 11Alive.
A freezing rain was falling, glazing the streets and cars, making it very difficult to walk.We had just finished covering some sort of political rally downtown and were helping the crew break down the live shot.With much ado and remonstrative shaking of the head, I lugged a small microphone the size of a Twinkie to the truck and was about to call it a night, until I looked up.
On top of the live truck in his black wool coat and patent leather shoes, Denis was crouching like Spiderman attending to whatever one would attend to on top of a live truck.In a freezing rain.I scolded him for this and proceeded to teach him the fine art of remonstrative head-shaking while carrying a small microphone the size of a Twinkie.
But Denis never did get it.A few days later I caught him rewinding a 300-foot spool of video cable.
Despite the minor flaw of always doing too much, Denis is a reporter’s reporter, who never met a task too great or a person too small.
The name jumped at me from the newspaper this morning. "Mike Kavanagh," the headline read in bold print; then: "57, TV, radio veteran."
It seemed like a full minute before I realized I was reading the obituary page. I still can't believe it.
There are folks in this business that their viewers, listeners or readers never really know. They become someone else when they're "on." Mike was the exact opposite. Even if you didn't know Mike Kavanagh, you knew him just by listening. You knew a kind, selfless, hard-working, intelligent, generous man; who just happened to be a journalist who possessed what I sometimes call "look, Ma; no hands" kind of talent.
Mike could do anything his profession demanded; but what he did best was the most important thing: He cared about everyone in his audience. I never heard him talk down to anyone; I never heard him discourage anyone. He was your ally; he was your friend; he was the real deal.
When he talked about money management, we all learned something new, and feared a little less. I'd catch him on the car radio every Sunday morning, on my run to the coffee shop. Only a few minutes at a time; but I always came away with something I could use in my life. I suspect all of Mike's friends experienced that.
But his talent and dedication stretched well beyond financial reporting. He and Lisa Campbell hosted the afternoon news broadcast on AM-750 for years. You have to be able to handle anything on a show like that. Both of them could; and did. I know--I competed against them on WGST for much of that time. I always admired Mike's relentless preparation and seemingly limitless knowledge.
Mike was one of the first people I sought out in the late '90s, when I began hosting "Atlanta This Week," a reporters' roundtable on WPBA-TV. He became one of our more frequent panelists--with insights that gave viewers a better understanding of what was going on around here. We had a lot of fun on that show. When he was with us, Mike made it even more fun off-camera.
Mike Kavanagh wasn't just a terrific journalist who was a great person, too. He was a terrific journalist because he was such a good man. He's one who didn't just leave us a fantastic story or two. He left an entire 40-year body of work that, in its consistency and quality, made both his audience and his profession better for it, every day.
It's one of the most sobering stories I've done in a long time. It occupied me for much of the week. It's the story of how long the deepening recession will occupy all of us. State Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond agreed with economists from the University of Georgia, who predicted the recovery will begin--slowly--in the summer of next year. But Thurmond warned they may have underestimated how bad things will get in the meantime.
"All of the previous projections and prognostications are kind of out of the picture," Thurmond told me. "These are very, very difficult economic times; and as a state and a nation, we are actually in uncharted waters."
Earlier this week, UGA economists predicted the state's jobless rate will peak at around 9% this summer. Thurmond thinks it might get worse than that.
"We are seeing an ever-increasing number of layoff notices, and even more people are being placed in the unemployment line," Thurmond said.
Thurmond also agreed with the UGA forecasters who said the state's economy is diverse enough to avoid a complete collapse. But, he added, "There will be no short-term, quick rebound to replace the jobs that we're losing every day."
Between October, 2007 and October, 2008, the state lost 61,300 payroll jobs, according to Labor Department figures--44,800 in metro Atlanta alone.
And the structural economic reasons for this aren't easy to isolate, according to Thurmond. When I asked the Commissioner what factors were behind the job losses--and why those jobs won't come back, he replied, "Well, that's the $64,000 question. No one really knows."
Thurmond said everyone can point to some of the pieces of the puzzle: the bursting of the housing bubble; bad loans; the credit crisis--even the drought. But, he added, "No one has any definitive answers as to how to solve it."
In Thurmond's analysis, a big part of the problem is the gap between the skills of job seekers and the demands of the job market. He said President-elect Obama has to fund job training programs as part of his economic stimulus plan, which is still in the works.
Earlier in the day, I met two people who agree that there's a training gap, which keeps unemployment higher than it needs to be. Josh Axton and Jessica Jones founded Webbifi around a dining room table in October, 2002. Today, their web design and IT firm has 8 employees and revenue of $1 million. They're looking to expand; but they're having a hard time finding qualified workers, Axton said.
"If I'm going to pay somebody $80,000 a year, they better be really good," he told me. "But 90% of the people I interview are not."
Axton said this means that workers who are used to making very nice incomes will have to adjust their expectations--because their skills haven't kept up with the demands of many fields.
"They were used to making that ($80,000) in the past," he said. "What I found: the majority of these guys have a very substandard skillset, and that salary's not called for. They're a $40,000-a-year guy; not an $80,000-a-year guy."
But for those whose skills can meet the demand, Axton said, "I have enough work to last a couple of years right now."
In short, the new economy is already becoming what Axton called "judgemental."
How long will it stay that way? Some of the folks who earn those paychecks are even more pessimistic than the professional economy-waters. Anthony Daniel is a retired Air Force officer; but he has to keep a job to bolster his military pension.
"Do you think we'll be able to get out of it soon?" I asked him.
--They may or may not have intended this. But, by scheduling Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's visit for Saxby Chambliss on Monday, Georgia Republicans may have ended the little remaining chance that President-elect Barack Obama would hit town for Democratic challenger Jim Martin. Suppose for a moment that Obama did make a sudden visit. If he did, the national media would turn the Chambliss-Martin race into a contest between Obama's voter turnout magic, and Palin's. If Chambliss were to win, Obama would not only lose political capital--he'd lose an early one-on-one with Palin, who is a possible White House candidate in 2012. Obama is very unlikely to risk that. So the Palin visit may have sealed off an Obama foray--and that's good news for Chambliss.
--Some more good signs for Chambliss; and another reason for Obama not to risk his political capital with a visit here: early voting totals from the Secretary of State's office show African-American voters are not quite the force--at least, so far--that they were in the general election. African-American voters made up 35% of the total number of early and advance voters in the general election. In this runoff, only about 23% of the advance voters are African-American. Democrat Jim Martin can't win without a better turnout from the Democratic Party's most consistent supporters. If you're the President-elect, and you're looking for signs to tell you whether this race is worth risking a visit, that's one reason to stay in Washington.
--But, not every sign is a good one for the incumbent Senator. Despite the slump in African-American turnout, and all that help from G.O.P. stars, polls seem to show Chambliss can't put Martin away. The newest InsiderAdvantage/Politico survey gives Chambliss a lead of 50%-47%, with 3% undecided. If the poll is accurate, it's a sign that Martin is not the only one with a problem in getting November 4th supporters to come back on December 2nd. Throughout the campaign, we've heard some Republican rank-and-file voters complain that they're not entirely enthusiastic about Chambliss--because of his initial support of an immigration reform bill; his work with the "Gang of Ten" on energy policy reform; and his support of the financial industry bailout plan.
--A problem for both candidates: runoffs are very, very tough to poll accurately; which says all of the above may not mean much. So, for staffers and volunteers in both campaigns, the holiday weekend will be short--and the phone-banking hours will be long. And the parties will pour whatever money they can into ad buys on TV and radio--reason for those financially-beleaguered businesses to give thanks.
--Back to Palin: if Chambliss wins a close race, expect some of the wise heads in the parties and on the networks to credit her for turning out the winning margin. That can't hurt her if she's starting to jockey with other recent visitors (Romney, for one) for an early advantage in the Republican field for 2012. If Chambliss loses, she won't get much of the blame. He will.
--Now, a word from my Mom: From the time we were little kids, my mother told us--and showed us--that voting was important, every time an election came around. She told us it didn't matter to her which candidate we favored; in fact, she and my dad often cancelled each other out for years. What mattered was that we learned the issues, studied the candidates, and got ourselves off the couch and into the polls. For many years, she was a pollworker, helping people make their votes count--whatever they were. So, I'm passing her advice on to you. Get out there. And Happy Thanksgiving, Mom and Dad--and all of y'all.
During Georgia's U.S. Senate runoff battle, much has been made of the number 60. Today, former New York mayor (and 2008 presidential contender) Rudy Giuliani used it as part of his rallying speech for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia).
If Democratic challenger Jim Martin defeats Chambliss here, and if Democrat Al Franken wins the recount in Minnesota, the Democrats would have 60 seats in the Senate. 60 is the number of votes it takes to end a filibuster in the 100-member Senate. The minority party (whichever one it is) often uses filibusters (marathon talking) to stall votes on bills--or judges--it doesn't like.
Giuliani told a Woodstock rally that a Martin victory would go a long way toward giving Democrats what he called a dangerous free hand in the Senate; he called on Republican voters to get out and vote to prevent that.
"The people of Georgia are going to get to decide," Guiliani said. "Do we want to give (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi, (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid, the Democrat Party...a blank check?"
"Noooo!!" the audience cried.
A few minutes later, Chambliss re-stated the argument by talking about the judicial branch, among other things.
"We have the opportunity to make sure that we are that firewall--that 41st vote--that makes sure...that we have the right kind of judges going to the bench; not liberal, activist judges," Chambliss said, to more cheers from the crowd.
At that moment, I happened to be looking at Georgia's other U.S. Senator: Republican Johnny Isakson. And some little grey memory cells fired up in my underused brain.
I remembered some interviews I did with Isakson three years ago; shortly after he had won the election that took him from the House to the Senate.
Back in 2005, Republicans controlled the Senate. But they were frustrated by Democratic filibusters that blocked votes on President Bush's judicial nominees. So, Isakson, Chambliss and others actually argued for a weaker firewall. They wanted judges approved by a simple majority (51 votes)--and they wanted to reduce the number of votes they needed to cut off Democratic talkathons. In the end, negotiations produced a deal that kept the cutoff requirements more or less where they were.
But, in a May 24, 2005 op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Isakson and Chambliss had written:
"We believe it is time to end this obstructionism and fulfill our constitutional duty. That's why we are supporting Majority Leader Bill Frist in his effort to restore a 214-year Senate tradition whereby judicial nominees are confirmed by a simple majority."
Well........., that was then. Now, that control of the Senate has flipped to the Democrats--and Republicans want to block what they fear will be a flood of liberal judges--I wondered if Isakson still liked the simple majority idea as much as he did in 2005. So, I asked him.
"If the Democrats tried to change the rules now to something along the lines of what you were talking about then, would you vote for it?"
"No. Times have changed," Isakson replied, with a big smile.
I predicted the Democrats will likely do a 180-degree flip in their own stance on simple Senate majorities, and added, "A cynic might say, 'Folks in politics just want to change the rules when it benefits them.'"
"Well, you know, that's probably a fair statement," Isakson answered. "Both the political parties would like to have as easy a road as possible, because of the circumstances; and that's why they're gonna favor lessening it if they're in the minority, and raising it if they're in the majority." (Another smile.)
It was an honest answer from a man who's watched--and participated in--political maneuvering in both houses at the State Capitol--and both houses at the U.S. Capitol.
When a new President Obama submits his first judicial nominees to the Senate, it should be very interesting to see if Senators on both sides of the aisle pull any muscles while changing positions.
