And...just like that, David Shafer responds to Cynthia Tucker:

Tucker has no objection to the bill on its merits. She actually agrees with me that Grady should be run by a nonpolitical, nonprofit board.
Her objection to my interest in Grady is the fact I am white, male, conservative and Republican.

And, no, I am not paraphrasing.

According to Tucker, my race and gender serve to “increase the racial paranoia of black elected officials who fear losing control of Grady Memorial Hospital.” Keep up my meddling, she warns, and “Grady may be forced to close.” According to Cynthia Tucker, the best thing I can do to help Grady is “keep (my) mouth shut.”
[...]
[S]ubsides are not Grady’s salvation. My constituents in North Fulton have been subsidizing Grady for years, and that has gotten us nowhere.

To survive, Grady must be fundamentally reformed, with a modern operating structure that allows it to offer the broadest range of services and attract a self-sustaining mix of patients.

Grady needs a leadership team that will put Grady’s interests first, above those of its vendors, creditors and competitors.

It needs a new relationship with Emory University that utilizes the vast talents of Emory’s physicians but recognizes that Emory’s Crawford Long Hospital is its biggest competitor.

Cynthia Tucker and I agree that Grady is important and must be saved. But she is wrong to think it can be saved by excluding people from the debate because of their gender, race or political views.

Shafer's op-ed will run in the AJC tomorrow.