Former President Clinton in Atlanta to Support Jim Martin

ATLANTA (MyFOX ATLANTA) – The Georgia Senate race could have major implications on the national political scene. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss with 47 percent, just a two point lead over Democratic challenger Jim Martin who sits at 45 percent. Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley has one percent of the vote according to the poll.

The outcome in Georgia could play a big part in determining whether the Democrats are able to win a 60 vote majority in the Senate.

A majority of that size would be able to overcome Republican efforts to block legislation though filibuster.

Earlier this year, most political observers said Chambliss would easily win re-election and polling in the spring and summer backed those observations.

A FOX 5/Rasmussen Reports Poll taken in May showed Sen. Chambliss with a 21 point lead over Martin.

In September, Chambliss' lead was down to seven points and the latest poll released Thursday showed Chambliss with just a narrow edge. The latest poll showed Chambliss with 47 percent and Martin on his heels with 45 percent. Those figures are within the poll's 4.5 percent margin of error.

Former President Bill Clinton is expected to make a stop in Atlanta to show his support for Martin.

Former President Bill Clinton will be in Georgia Saturday to appear at a fundraiser for Martin.

Clinton has also written an email asking for support for several Democratic Senate candidates nationwide, including Martin.

In part, the email reads, "I do want to tell you one thing that will make a tremendous difference for Barack Obama, a filibuster proof Democratic Senate majority. Jim Martin is running a race in Georgia that everyone thought was a long shot, but recent polls show the race is neck and neck. If you help him keep his momentum going, we can add this one to the Democratic column too."

"This is an important moment for Georgia and our country and I'm proud to have the support of President Clinton. Under his leadership we achieved balanced budgets and economic prosperity. In the Senate, I'll work to put our economy back on track and stand up for the middle class, just as he did," said Martin.

Rom's got a good point. I'm surpised the Dims would try to use President Clinton's endorsement to put Jim Martin over the top when Georgia voted against Clinton. His endorsement might make the difference in a Dim primary but he's unlikely to sway Georgia voters in a general election.

They should probably get someone with a track record of winning the state to campaign for Martin, like Sam Nunn. Hell, Nunn comes from a long line of phony "conservative" Georgia Democrats that even conned many freepers into believing he's a "true conservative" and "better on the issues than most Republicans" (you know, aside from the fact he's for abortion, gun control, tree-hugging, affirmative action, more immigration, declared Gulf War I would be a disaster in 1991 and actually voted against it... minor stuff like that) Some freepers were "disappointed" that Nunn eagerly endorsed Obama for President and "lost some respect" they had for him. I didn't, due the fact I never drank the "Nunn is a real conservative and our buddy in Washington" kool-aid in the first place.

I still wouldn't count out a Martin victory though, even with the boneheaded move to bring Clinton into the state. This race is way too close for comfort and you can never underestimate RAT voter fraud. If we lose deep southern states like Georgia and South Carolina, it would almost inevitably lead to a 60 seat veto proof majority for the RATS.

The main reason why the RAT candidate is unlikely to win in South Carolina is simply due to the money issue. He's dead in the water if he's being outspent 20-to-1 or whatever it is. However, he has done a good job of conning conservatives into supporting him over the Republican (some freepers apparently believe his kooky Ron Paulite foreign policy views and blame America first/surrender the WOT beliefs s are the "more conservative" policy than McCain's staunch pro-troop, pro-surge, and victory over Islamofacism agenda) so we can't just assume the GOP will win by default in S.C. Many on this very board are rooting to give Harry Reid an additional vote from S.C. If the surrender monkey Dem is attracting support on a board like this, that's dangerous.

Mississippi is an extreme uphill climb for Dems giving the recent trends of the state, although I suppose a victory is possible for the Dems due to the huge backlash of appointing Roger Wicker to the seat. Ronnie Musgrove also does a good job of making himself sound conservative and has done pretty well in the state in the past. Thad Cochran should win pretty easily over his token opponent for MS's other seat though.

Georgia... you're right that Zig Zag Zell would likely be a big boost to either candidate if he came out and endorsed them. However there's probably only about a 2% chance Zell would get involved in this race. Zell loves boosting anyone who's in power, ahead at that given time in history and likely to further Zell's career. Therefore, endorsing George W. Bush in 2004 was a no-lose scenario for him. Zell was retiring so he could talk conservative without actually having to vote that way and risk his future in the RAT caucus (by his own admission, Zell loyally voted the party line and did not speak out against abortion until he was safely retired from office) By giving a pro-Bush speech at the RNC convention, Zell was able to sell a ton of books and make a big profit talking about how his party "left him" with the Dems behind in the polls. He got a similar career enhancer in 1992 when he stumped for Clinton and Slick Willie became the first Dem since Jimmy Carter to win nationally and take a good chuck of the south. When the Senate was tied 50-50 and the "conservative" Zell voted for Daschle, he again furthered his career with his party controlling the Senate agenda and giving him more power. There would be no similar boost for him this year. If he endorses Saxby and Sax wins but the Dems end up with 57 seats anyway, Zell looks foolish with his "national party no more" argument and won't get more money for books and speeches. If he endorses Jim Martin and Martin wins, he'll lose support from the Republicans who promoted Zig Zag in the past, and the Dems won't have use for Zell after they attain a veto proof majority. Zell endorsed Mike Gravel in the Dem primary earlier this year and nobody noticed, I think he realizes his clout is gone. He could probably get some Republicans from the useful idiot wing of the party to run out and hail Jim Martin as a "true conservative" if Zell endorsed the guy, but again, this would be of little use to furthering Zell's career. So my guess is that Zell will remain neutral in the race no matter how many requests he gets.

>> Because Conley is not an amnesty supporter like Lindsey Graham. <<

Yeah, being soft on islamofacists out to destroy western civilization is much better than being soft on illegal mexican criminals working for 5 cents an hour.

So, what happened to ALL those freepers who spent the ENTIRE 2006 election proclaiming that the war on terror was "THE most important issue" and "we cannot afford to allow ANYONE soft on terrorism to win"?

::crickets chirp::

Guess they changed their minds, eh? Terrorist sympatherizers are now not only acceptable in Congressman but "true conservatives" if they happen to hold the correct position on Mexican immigration.

Maybe all the freepers who feel this way should start a donation drive to re-elect Walter Jones. He'd get our troops killed in Iraq and gut our millitary to the point where another 9/11 occurs, but that's OKAY, because at least he votes the right on deporting illegal mexicans.

Says more about their idea of "conservativism" than it says about Lindsey Graham.

I just thank God every day these "true conservatives" aren't the ones running our government.

Seems we have alot of these types of "true conservatives" signing up on FR lately. I hope you're not one of them, given your recent sign up date:

The founder of this forum is right. Ron Paul may very well be a staunch across the board "conservative" on most domestic issues, but the fact this loon doesn't "get it" and sympathizes with the ENEMY during a time of WAR should instantly disqualify him (and ANYONE who endorses his views and runs on his platform, i.e. Bob Conley) from being seriously considered for ANY federal office. Such a person is utterly unfit to be given authority over our military. Conservatives used to understand this during World War II. "Republican" Jeannette Rankin voted no on war against Japanese imperialists trying to wipe us off the map and that was the end of her career. Not ONE Republican said "but hey, Jeannette's got a better record on opposing handouts for welfare than so-and-so national security candidate, so that makes her the REAL Conservative in this race"

But I guess SOME of you guys wouldn't mind the U.S.A getting nuked and thousands of Americans dying, as long as Ron Paul is able to deport a couple illegal Mexicans leaching off American taxpayers in the meantime, eh?

I'm no McCain fan, but I can certainly breath a little easier knowing the party nominees are John McCain-Sarah Palin and NOT Ron Paul-Walter Jones, even the latter duo is "better" on the immigration issue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.