Who will be our Governor

[Coppertop's Pop]

We certainly have not been better off under the Perdue-Richardson rule. I would hope we can return to another 150 years without a Republican in the governor office.

 

 

I agree 100%. Vote Democrat and bring back some common sense to our State!

[xxrsellars]

I agree 100%. Vote Democrat and bring back some common sense to our State!

 

 

 

Yeah, like we have in Washington.......

[NewsJunky]

We certainly have not been better off under the Perdue-Richardson rule. I would hope we can return to another 150 years without a Republican in the governor office.

 

 

I don't care for Sonny but Georgia is far better off than the States who have liberal social policies. Some of them are California, New York, and New Jersey. They are going bankrupt. The President is most likely going to take money from Georgia and other states to bail them out. We are far from being bankrupt at this point. If we can't make a change in the direction in Washington all of the states will be in trouble. We do not need to turn the Gold Dome over to Democrats and help to further the Obama agenda in Georgia. If you don't like the person who is representing you in Paulding go vote in the primaries and make another choice. You will certainly have a choice in the Governor's race!

[Guard dad]

I agree 100%. Vote Democrat and bring back some common sense to our State!

 

Your screen name indicates that you are a Democrat from a time when they were southern conservatives. A time when Democrats stood for the working man and against much of the globalist policies we see so much of today. I can respect that kind of Democrat.

 

Unfortunately, your party bears little resemblance to the memories you hang on to. The Southern Democrat is all but extinct; replaced by the socialist liberal ilk that is in-charge of congress and the White House.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee. As Reagan once said when he was asked why he left the Democratic party; "I didn't leave them, they left me."

 

Sadly, much of the GOP has left me too. But at least there is some hope that they can be pulled back by the conservative wing. I'm afraid there's little hope for your Democrats, the socialist liberals are firmly in control. That's why you see so many of the few remaining moderate Dems quitting.

 

Common sense in the Democratic party? Not any more.

[LPPT]

I am eliminating candidates one by one as I learn more.

Some because they are just status quo left and right.

Many for being too far right for my comfort zone.

 

I am still researching and watching.

I tend to keep an open mind right up until the end because the last week is when you learn the most about a politician true character.

[joemturner]

Speaking of "too far right," which issue and candidate would you use as an example of "too far right" and how would that position have to be modified to be just "conservative" and not "too far right." Basically - what is the difference between "too far right" and "just right enough" on that issue?

[LPPT]

Speaking of "too far right," which issue and candidate would you use as an example of "too far right" and how would that position have to be modified to be just "conservative" and not "too far right." Basically - what is the difference between "too far right" and "just right enough" on that issue?

 

You know I have to stay neutral and won't give an opinion about anyone running.

 

Being conservative to me means getting spending under control.

When someone proposes legislation that serves the ideals of right leaning or left leaning folks and I believe that it will be bureaucratic nightmare that will cost us more tax dollars then I will have an issue with it.

 

I have said before that people really don't mind taxes, they object to what they are spent on.

 

I see this proved over and over again.

[joemturner]

Many for being too far right for my comfort zone.

 

 

The above doesn't sound "neutral" -- I was just asking for what makes someone "too far right" as opposed to "just right enough." You raised the distinction, I didn't.

 

If you wish to leave the specific candidate and issue out of it, that's fine. But when you say you're eliminating someone from consideration for being "too far right" and then won't say what makes it "too far" instead of "just far enough" -- it's hard to know what you actually mean.

 

 

P.S. I don't believe that you have to "stay neutral." You take your position and the chips fall where they fall.

[gpatt0n]

JMT:

 

I suppose that favoring secession from the Union (Ray McBerry) might be a little far right considering that kind of puts a date on how far back he wants to take Georgia and America (1860). Apparently Oxindine, Johnson and Handel, as well as McBerry have said they could go with secession.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPtdxRTNQO8

 

Since we pretty much know that zero percent of the Democrats in the Georgia Senate favor seceding from Union and more than half the state senate is Republican, we can logically deduce that not ALL Georgia's Republican state senators favor secession.

 

Here is a video from David Poythress on this very subject.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHtS9ZEhaKw

 

 

pubby

[AcworthDad]

I don't care for Sonny but Georgia is far better off than the States who have liberal social policies. Some of them are California, New York, and New Jersey. They are going bankrupt. The President is most likely going to take money from Georgia and other states to bail them out. We are far from being bankrupt at this point. If we can't make a change in the direction in Washington all of the states will be in trouble. We do not need to turn the Gold Dome over to Democrats and help to further the Obama agenda in Georgia. If you don't like the person who is representing you in Paulding go vote in the primaries and make another choice. You will certainly have a choice in the Governor's race!

 

New Jersey kicked out their Democrat governor, Jon Corzine, a model of fiscal irresponsibility and corruption and replaced him with common sense, Chris Christie. Good for New Jersey!!

[JohnnyJ]

JMT:

 

I suppose that favoring secession from the Union (Ray McBerry) might be a little far right considering that kind of puts a date on how far back he wants to take Georgia and America (1860). Apparently Oxindine, Johnson and Handel, as well as McBerry have said they could go with secession.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPtdxRTNQO8

 

Since we pretty much know that zero percent of the Democrats in the Georgia Senate favor seceding from Union and more than half the state senate is Republican, we can logically deduce that not ALL Georgia's Republican state senators favor secession.

 

Here is a video from David Poythress on this very subject.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHtS9ZEhaKw

 

 

pubby

 

Thanks, I just removed 4 candidates from consideration.

 

Secession is not an option. United we stand, divided we fall.

[feelip]

I have liked Handel since she was on the Atlanta City Council. I'm just not sure that someone that has no college degree should be running the state. Not that I think she is incapable, I see it as more of an image she is projecting.

 

But then again, we have had too many crooked lawyers running the state.

 

The best thing about the election is that Sonny Perdue is not a candidate.

[joemturner]

JohnnyJ - I don't believe for a second you had any of those candidates in consideration to begin with, so I think you're fibbing if you suggest to us that you have only just now removed them from consideration.

 

I don't approve of secession and think such talk is almost always hyperbole, an expression of frustration with our behemoth federal power-grab and tax monster.

 

As for attributing secession support to all the other candidates, reading the article cited in that ad sheds a bit more light on the "apparently." Handel, for one, didn't even comment on the measure and so Poythress including her photo in that ad is presumptuous if not deceptive. (A 'spokesperson' said they assumed she might support it... good reporting, that?) A previous article by the same opinionist suggested other reasons why it passed. He also cites a poll by the Daily Kos in setting up his arguments... not really striking me as objective, but certainly letting me know that he'll be able to get Pat Hughes to purr like a kitten.

 

Meanwhile, purring Pat has managed to answer a question I didn't ask, or at least he has answered it in a way that is nonsensical. As long as you don't support secession, you're not too far right? That's good news.

 

I do think a day is coming when states and citizens will forcibly throw off some of the constraints that the federal government has imposed, but I think (hope) that the tactics will be legal maneuvering and policy 'revolution' more than actual secession. Notably, this bill also discussed "nullification" and set up the idea that states may have and exercise rights to ignore certain federal laws. I don't know that I approve of that, but seeing as how the fed ignores its own laws (see Arizona immigration), it's hard to see why some states might feel like they want a piece of that action, too.

 

Events like this bill, where state legislative bodies try to flex a muscle or two, are, in my view, more likely indications of disgust with a bloated and oppressive federal structure than they are indicative of a real "secessionist" movement. Is it preparatory toward being ready for future legal concerns? That seems pretty likely.

 

Mcberry is already out in my consideration.

 

 

 

 

P.S. I don't think I had any questions at all on what Pat Hughes thought about politics.

 

But it wasn't his comment that led to my question -- it was Laurie's. Laurie said some were "too far right for her comfort zone." I asked, in response to her raising that distinction, which candidates and which issues she was referring to.

 

We know that anyone to the right of Jimmy Carter makes Pat Hughes antsy.

 

The rest of us... well, I think a lot of people use the term 'far right' and never give a moment's thought to what they are saying or suggesting.

[Sugail]

Is there a place where you can go and read unbiased information on all the candidates, background, experience, etc?

[NewsJunky]

Is there a place where you can go and read unbiased information on all the candidates, background, experience, etc?

Almost all of them have websites with that info. Just type in their names and they should come up.

[Guard dad]

Don't read too much into secession talk. A lot of the states are doing saber rattling with the feds right now, trying to reign in this madness that is the current leadership.

[JohnnyJ]

JohnnyJ - I don't believe for a second you had any of those candidates in consideration to begin with, so I think you're fibbing if you suggest to us that you have only just now removed them from consideration.

 

I don't approve of secession and think such talk is almost always hyperbole, an expression of frustration with our behemoth federal power-grab and tax monster.

 

...

 

 

I had all candidates under consideration because I wanted the best qualified for the position. I have voted against many Democrats and will continue to do so as long as the liberal left is running amuck. It is sad that our choices are limited to the far left or the far right. Where are the moderates? Where are the folks in the middle?

 

Federal power-grab? GWB and company hold the record on power-grabs.

[Guard dad]

 

 

Federal power-grab? GWB and company hold the record on power-grabs.

 

You haven't been watching the news for the last year and a half, have you?

[JohnnyJ]

You haven't been watching the news for the last year and a half, have you?

 

Every day.

[winston1972]

Thanks, I just removed 4 candidates from consideration.

 

Secession is not an option. United we stand, divided we fall.

 

 

I just added 4....

[AcworthDad]

You haven't been watching the news for the last year and a half, have you?

 

Bush - power grab? P-BO and his crew of thieves are specialists whereas GWB is an amateur at power grabbing.

[joemturner]

JJ - thanks for the reply. I don't buy it, but thanks for the reply!

 

 

As for the discussion of "moderates" -- not directed specifically at anyone --

 

I'd like to know the measuring stick for finding a "moderate." It seems to be a very nebulous territory defined by getting between other folks, and not on any actual principle. "Look, I'm between those two." It means your position is based on not being or standing for what other people believe... it is, in plain speaking, the actual party of "NO." "No, I'm neither of those - I'm a moderate. I think for myself... by staking my territory between positions defined by other people, that is."

 

It's popular to say "I wish we had more moderates." But I think it's generally a cop out. What do you believe? Put some words on it so we know, instead of vacillating around like an Arlen Specter "moderate." The thing about moderates is that it seems their opinions depend less on principle and more on the direction of the wind.

 

What is the cause, purpose, principle, or other actual identifiable factor of the "moderates" that some are seeking? What do you write down as the target, other than "not too far." How do you know what is "too far" if you don't actually have any principles you believe?

[JohnnyJ]

JJ - thanks for the reply. I don't buy it, but thanks for the reply!

 

You are welcome.

[mrshoward]

As for attributing secession support to all the other candidates, reading the article cited in that ad sheds a bit more light on the "apparently." Handel, for one, didn't even comment on the measure and so Poythress including her photo in that ad is presumptuous if not deceptive. (A 'spokesperson' said they assumed she might support it... good reporting, that?) A previous article by the same opinionist suggested other reasons why it passed. He also cites a poll by the Daily Kos in setting up his arguments... not really striking me as objective, but certainly letting me know that he'll be able to get Pat Hughes to purr like a kitten.

 

 

Apparently, the unsupported claim that Handel supports secession is misinformation...

 

I think the readers deserve a retraction.

[mrshoward]

JMT:

 

Apparently Oxindine, Johnson and Handel,

as well as McBerry have said they could go with secession.

 

pubby

 

Shall we ask Karen Handel if this claim is true ???

 

http://www.karenhandel.com/site/c.nmL0KhN0LxH/b.5163343/k.29C9/Contact_Us/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp

[gpatt0n]

JohnnyJ - I don't believe for a second you had any of those candidates in consideration to begin with, so I think you're fibbing if you suggest to us that you have only just now removed them from consideration.

 

I don't approve of secession and think such talk is almost always hyperbole, an expression of frustration with our behemoth federal power-grab and tax monster.

 

As for attributing secession support to all the other candidates, reading the article cited in that ad sheds a bit more light on the "apparently." Handel, for one, didn't even comment on the measure and so Poythress including her photo in that ad is presumptuous if not deceptive. (A 'spokesperson' said they assumed she might support it... good reporting, that?) A previous article by the same opinionist suggested other reasons why it passed. He also cites a poll by the Daily Kos in setting up his arguments... not really striking me as objective, but certainly letting me know that he'll be able to get Pat Hughes to purr like a kitten.

 

Meanwhile, purring Pat has managed to answer a question I didn't ask, or at least he has answered it in a way that is nonsensical. As long as you don't support secession, you're not too far right? That's good news.

 

I do think a day is coming when states and citizens will forcibly throw off some of the constraints that the federal government has imposed, but I think (hope) that the tactics will be legal maneuvering and policy 'revolution' more than actual secession. Notably, this bill also discussed "nullification" and set up the idea that states may have and exercise rights to ignore certain federal laws. I don't know that I approve of that, but seeing as how the fed ignores its own laws (see Arizona immigration), it's hard to see why some states might feel like they want a piece of that action, too.

 

Events like this bill, where state legislative bodies try to flex a muscle or two, are, in my view, more likely indications of disgust with a bloated and oppressive federal structure than they are indicative of a real "secessionist" movement. Is it preparatory toward being ready for future legal concerns? That seems pretty likely.

 

Mcberry is already out in my consideration.

 

 

 

 

P.S. I don't think I had any questions at all on what Pat Hughes thought about politics.

 

But it wasn't his comment that led to my question -- it was Laurie's. Laurie said some were "too far right for her comfort zone." I asked, in response to her raising that distinction, which candidates and which issues she was referring to.

 

We know that anyone to the right of Jimmy Carter makes Pat Hughes antsy.

 

The rest of us... well, I think a lot of people use the term 'far right' and never give a moment's thought to what they are saying or suggesting.

 

I do think a day is coming when states and citizens will forcibly throw off some of the constraints that the federal government has imposed, but I think (hope) that the tactics will be legal maneuvering and policy 'revolution' more than actual secession.

 

Forcibly is a rather strong word. Even 'forcibly' is not used in the Tea parties. I would think you would have communicated just fine had you left the term 'forcibly' out of the sentence as it does suggest insurrection.

 

When General David Poythress spoke last week, he pointed out the consequences of this using this kind of hyperbole. Basically, he suggested that companies, whether it is a car manufacturer or even other investors were to consider a place to locate a business, would they choose a place where the leaders are speaking about things like secession, impeachment or rebellion.

 

These things have consequences in terms of economic development, he said ... and he is right.

 

If you're considering investing millions of dollars in a new factory or some such, such talk are you even going to consider a location where the leadership goes on record promoting the idea of secession? Hell no because that kind of talk, particularly by a state's leadership, can feasibly lead to civil war - maybe not this year or next, but five years from now or six.

 

Now, unless you're a complete idiot, you know that the last time we tried secession here we ended up with the bloodiest four years in American history. More men died here in that conflict that have died in all the remainder of America's wars combined.

 

And, given a possible redux of a WT Sherman burning and ravaging a sixty-mile swath from Atlanta to the sea taking out every building, factory, even the remotest prospect of such a war recurring is enough to reject investment here.

 

So, even though most of us recognize this absurd rhetoric it is nothing more than getting the natives scared so you can shake them loose from some more campaign cash for your political agenda - the very idea that you would 'go there' on secession is crossing the line of good sense ... It is well neigh unforgivable that the apparent majority of those Republican candidates for governor are lending support to these outrageous comments even if Ms. Handel is not included. Given the need for economic development in Georgia, it is just irresponsible for someone seeking the highest office in the state to even mention it.

 

I've got a long video from General Poythress that makes those salient points. Let me get it together and I'll post it.

 

pubby

 

PS: Joe, I think a Three-Star General doesn't get to be a Three-Star General (David Poythress) by being a wild-eyed liberal. I would hope you would refrain from suggesting whom I may or may not support for various offices. Unlike most on the ideological right, I have no litmus test and have respected and supported folks from Zell Miller to Bill Fulbright, Sam Nunn and (when he was still a Democrat and I was in LA - Lower Alabama) Richard Shelby.

[NewsJunky]

I do think a day is coming when states and citizens will forcibly throw off some of the constraints that the federal government has imposed, but I think (hope) that the tactics will be legal maneuvering and policy 'revolution' more than actual secession.

 

Tea parties too are communicating 'rebellion'.

 

When General David Poythress spoke last week, he pointed out the consequences of this using this kind of hyperbole. Basically, he suggested that companies, whether it is a car manufacturer or even other investors were to consider a place to locate a business, would they choose a place where the leaders are speaking about things like secession, impeachment or rebellion.

 

These things have consequences in terms of economic development, he said ... and he is right.

 

If you're considering investing millions of dollars in a new factory or some such, such talk are you even going to consider a location where the leadership goes on record promoting the idea of secession? Hell no because that kind of talk, particularly by a state's leadership, can feasibly lead to civil war - maybe not this year or next, but five years from now or six.

 

Now, unless you're a complete idiot, you know that the last time we tried secession here we ended up with the bloodiest four years in American history. More men died here in that conflict that have died in all the remainder of America's wars combined.

 

And, given a possible redux of a WT Sherman burning and ravaging a sixty-mile swath from Atlanta to the sea taking out every building, factory, even the remotest prospect of such a war recurring is enough to reject investment here.

 

So, even though most of us recognize this absurd rhetoric it is nothing more than getting the natives scared so you can shake them loose from some more campaign cash for your political agenda - the very idea that you would 'go there' on secession is crossing the line of good sense ... It is well neigh unforgivable that the apparent majority of those Republican candidates for governor are lending support to these outrageous comments even if Ms. Handel is not included. Given the need for economic development in Georgia, it is just irresponsible for someone seeking the highest office in the state to even mention it.

 

I've got a long video from General Poythress that makes those salient points. Let me get it together and I'll post it.

 

pubby

 

PS: Joe, I think a Three-Star General doesn't get to be a Three-Star General (David Poythress) by being a wild-eyed liberal. I would hope you would refrain from suggesting whom I may or may not support for various offices. Unlike most on the ideological right, I have no litmus test and have respected and supported folks from Zell Miller to Bill Fulbright, Sam Nunn and (when he was still a Democrat and I was in LA - Lower Alabama) Richard Shelby.

 

 

Democrat Party has been Hi-Jacked by the far left. It no longer is a party that these guys were representative of. I think it lost them in the left turn it took. I really think that you can be a three star general and a liberal. I still think that General William Colin Powell is a liberal. He supported Obama I do believe.

[mrshoward]

I do think a day is coming when states and citizens will forcibly throw off some of the constraints that the federal government has imposed, but I think (hope) that the tactics will be legal maneuvering and policy 'revolution' more than actual secession.

 

Forcibly is a rather strong word. Even 'forcibly' is not used in the Tea parties. I would think you would have communicated just fine had you left the term 'forcibly' out of the sentence as it does suggest insurrection.

 

When General David Poythress spoke last week, he pointed out the consequences of this using this kind of hyperbole. Basically, he suggested that companies, whether it is a car manufacturer or even other investors were to consider a place to locate a business, would they choose a place where the leaders are speaking about things like secession, impeachment or rebellion.

 

These things have consequences in terms of economic development, he said ... and he is right.

 

If you're considering investing millions of dollars in a new factory or some such, such talk are you even going to consider a location where the leadership goes on record promoting the idea of secession? Hell no because that kind of talk, particularly by a state's leadership, can feasibly lead to civil war - maybe not this year or next, but five years from now or six.

 

Now, unless you're a complete idiot, you know that the last time we tried secession here we ended up with the bloodiest four years in American history. More men died here in that conflict that have died in all the remainder of America's wars combined.

 

And, given a possible redux of a WT Sherman burning and ravaging a sixty-mile swath from Atlanta to the sea taking out every building, factory, even the remotest prospect of such a war recurring is enough to reject investment here.

 

So, even though most of us recognize this absurd rhetoric it is nothing more than getting the natives scared so you can shake them loose from some more campaign cash for your political agenda - the very idea that you would 'go there' on secession is crossing the line of good sense ... It is well neigh unforgivable that the apparent majority of those Republican candidates for governor are lending support to these outrageous comments even if Ms. Handel is not included. Given the need for economic development in Georgia, it is just irresponsible for someone seeking the highest office in the state to even mention it.

 

I've got a long video from General Poythress that makes those salient points. Let me get it together and I'll post it.

 

pubby

 

PS: Joe, I think a Three-Star General doesn't get to be a Three-Star General (David Poythress) by being a wild-eyed liberal. I would hope you would refrain from suggesting whom I may or may not support for various offices. Unlike most on the ideological right, I have no litmus test and have respected and supported folks from Zell Miller to Bill Fulbright, Sam Nunn and (when he was still a Democrat and I was in LA - Lower Alabama) Richard Shelby.

 

Is Karen Handel "on record" as supporting the idea of secession

as you previously stated or are you now retracting that claim ???

[Cabe]

We have a very large field of choices for Governor. I think it's incorrect to assume they are ALL too far left or right.

[joemturner]

Yes, Pat Hughes, "forcibly" is a strong word, which is why I was careful to put significant context around it, helping the (unbiased?) reader to understand that I was not implying physical violence. I do think purposeful, focused policy change -- even when it requires significant arm-twisting and politically painting people into corners where their options are limited -- is likely to be necessary. Less like Manassas, more like the Republican Congress of the 90s "forcibly" enacting welfare reform and dragging Bill Clinton along for the ride, where he then tried to take credit for it.

 

Edited the rest. Don't have time to get in a pissing contest with a professional.

[mrshoward]

Is Karen Handel "on record" as supporting the idea of secession

as you previously stated or are you now retracting that claim ???

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvoekY44

[JerryLovedLSU]

I have said before that people really don't mind taxes, they object to what they are spent on.

 

I see this proved over and over again.

 

 

Absolutely right.

 

My tax rate hasn't changed since at least 1992.

[mrshoward]

Apparently Oxindine, Johnson and Handel,

as well as McBerry have said they could go with secession.

pubby

 

Still waiting on an answer to my question...

[gpatt0n]

Still waiting on an answer to my question...

 

 

The source of this association is this article in Atlantaunsheltered.com made contemporaneous with the state senate resolution in which a 'spokesperson' said he/she was confident that Mrs. Handel would agree.

 

Indeed, given the amount of press involved and the fact that only one of the GOP candidates for governor at that time spoke against the measure - Austin Scott - and he was run out of that race - I believe her lack of a vigorous response denying her spokesperson's assertion fails to give her plausible deniability.

 

The point is that if her 'spokesperson' made that statement in error, it is incumbent upon her to correct that statement. Personally, having a spokesperson make a mealy-mouthed statement 'assuming' she would support is kind of clever. She can leave the statement on the record - kind of not fully own it but take credit in the primary - and then when the general election comes around, repudiate it.

 

That is what I think she's up to but if you can show me that she specifically repudiated that statement made on her behalf - I've spent the last 40 minutes researching it - I'll give her 100 percent plausible deniability. If not, well, she's earned every bit of the notoriety she deserves on this.

 

BTW: the article does suggest, most of those playing that secession tune were doing so to put them in good standing with the extreme hard right of the GOP. In my research I did see that in a similar context, John Oxindine was proud to report that he painted his son's room "Confederate Gray". Classy

 

Which brings up Newsjunky's post:

 

Democrat Party has been Hi-Jacked by the far left. It no longer is a party that these guys were representative of. I think it lost them in the left turn it took. I really think that you can be a three star general and a liberal. I still think that General William Colin Powell is a liberal. He supported Obama I do believe.

 

Next, I guess you're going to say the Georgia GOP is dominated by a moderate faction led by Ray McBerry.

 

Again, this type of talk - hyperbole or not - has consequences and I question the judgment of any candidate who panders to those who are impressed with this 'bad idea' from the 1860's by suggesting they're for secession.

 

pubby

 

PS: Austin Scott chose not to run for Governor but instead put his sights on the 8th Congressional District where there is no one further to the right and actually, being a ubber-right wing guy would likely get you beat.

[mrshoward]

The source of this association is this article in Atlantaunsheltered.com made contemporaneous with the state senate resolution in which a 'spokesperson' said he/she was confident that Mrs. Handel would agree.

 

Indeed, given the amount of press involved and the fact that only one of the GOP candidates for governor at that time spoke against the measure - Austin Scott - and he was run out of that race - I believe her lack of a vigorous response denying her spokesperson's assertion fails to give her plausible deniability.

 

The point is that if her 'spokesperson' made that statement in error, it is incumbent upon her to correct that statement. Personally, having a spokesperson make a mealy-mouthed statement 'assuming' she would support is kind of clever. She can leave the statement on the record - kind of not fully own it but take credit in the primary - and then when the general election comes around, repudiate it.

 

That is what I think she's up to but if you can show me that she specifically repudiated that statement made on her behalf - I've spent the last 40 minutes researching it - I'll give her 100 percent plausible deniability. If not, well, she's earned every bit of the notoriety she deserves on this.

 

BTW: the article does suggest, most of those playing that secession tune were doing so to put them in good standing with the extreme hard right of the GOP. In my research I did see that in a similar context, John Oxindine was proud to report that he painted his son's room "Confederate Gray". Classy

 

Pubby

 

 

None of this changes the fact that neither Handel nor Oxendine

"have said they could go with secession" which was your original claim.

 

The article you are using as a source clearly says the claim is FALSE :

 

He falsely states that the candidates said they’d

“support secession from the United States of America.”

[gpatt0n]

None of this changes the fact that neither Handel nor Oxendine

"have said they could go with secession" which was your original claim.

 

The article you are using as a source clearly says the claim is FALSE :

 

He falsely states that the candidates said they’d

“support secession from the United States of America.”

 

Basically, the question posed to the candidates was whether they supported Res. 632:

 

Here is a description of the resolution:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/04/16/georgia-senate-threatens-dismantling-of-usa/

 

 

Jay Bookman

 

Georgia Senate threatens dismantling of USA

 

7:02 am April 16, 2009, by Jay

 

It wasn’t quite the firing on Fort Sumter that launched the Civil War. But on April 1, your Georgia Senate did threaten by a vote of 43-1 to secede from and even disband the United States.

 

It was not an April Fool’s joke.

 

In fact, Senate Resolution 632 did a lot more than merely threaten to end this country. It stated that under the Constitution, the only crimes the federal government could prosecute were treason, piracy and slavery.

 

“Therefore, all acts of Congress which assume to create, define or punish [other] crimes … are altogether void, and of no force,” the Georgia Senate declared.

 

In other words, in the infinite, almost unanimous wisdom of the Georgia Senate, Michael Vick is being imprisoned illegally, Bernie Madoff should serve no time for stealing $60 billion and the Unabomber must go free. In fact, the federal penitentiary in Atlanta should be emptied of its inmates.

 

But wait, there’s more.

 

The resolution goes on to endorse the theory that states have the right to abridge constitutional freedoms of religion, press and speech. According to the resolution, it is up to the states to decide “how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged.”

 

The resolution even endorses “nullification,” the legal concept that states have the power to “nullify” or ignore federal laws that they believe exceed the powers granted under the Constitution. That concept has a particularly nasty legacy. It helped precipitate the Civil War, and in the 1950s and early ’60s it was cited by Southern states claiming the right to ignore Supreme Court rulings ordering the end of segregation.

 

Finally, the resolution states that if Congress, the president or federal courts take any action that exceeds their constitutional powers, the Constitution is rendered null and void and the United States of America is officially disbanded. As an example, the resolution specifically states that if the federal government enacts “prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition,” the country is disbanded.

 

In other words, if Congress votes to restore the ban on sale of assault rifles, the United States is deemed to no longer exist.

 

This, your Georgia state Senate voted 43-1 to endorse. ... snip...

 

Here is another report from the Savannah newspaper about her endorsement of the measure passed by the state senate 43-1.

 

Larry Peterson of the Savannah Morning News has advanced the story [of Georgia's pro-secession minority] by polling the six GOP candidates for governor. According to Peterson, four of the six support the resolution, one opposes it and the sixth refused to take a position on whether nullification and secession were are good ideas.

 

These are people running for the highest office in the state, including the three frontrunners for the GOP nomination. The winner of that nomination would in turn be favored to be our next governor.

 

More accurately, if events take a turn, I guess that person could become the first president of Georgia.

 

Yet another blog at the time acknowledged that the vote for the resolution came on the 39th day of the session. What he questioned on blackgowner.com was why the gubernatorial candidates, who had some time to review the resolution, went forward and endorsed it.

 

It was bad enough when the GOP-dominated Georgia Senate passed a resolution on April 1 that, among other outlandish notions, declared that the U.S. Constitution would be rendered null and void and the United States considered disbanded if Congress, the federal courts or the president take any action that exceeds their constitutional authority (as determined, no doubt, by the Georgia General Assembly). The resolution passed by a vote of 43-1.

 

At least they had an excuse for that bit of seditious nonsense. It was, as Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman noted when he criticized the curious exercise, the “39th day of the 40-day legislative session,” and “most [senators] did not have an opportunity to read the six-page resolution,” which its sponsors billed as a resolution endorsing “states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.”

 

But several Republican gubernatorial candidates had the opportunity to run away — or at least backtrack — from that odious resolution later.

 

Instead, when asked about it by Savannah Morning News reporter Larry Peterson, four of them — Eric Johnson, John Oxendine, Karen Handel and Ray McBerry — embraced it. State Rep. Austin Scott had the good sense to oppose the resolution. (U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal didn’t respond to queries.)

 

Considering that they embraced the resolution and the resolution is as Jay Bookman describes, what is your beef? That it wasn't a direct call for secession? That it asserts that the federal constitution is null and void and no longer exists more or less sidesteps the issue of secession, I guess. I mean, how can a state secede from something that doesn't exist?

 

My bad... they're still crazy.

 

BTW, are you trying to take away from the fact that none of the candidates supporting this resolution ever served in the military ... not one day? Is that what you're trying to avoid?

 

pubby

[D-Dawg]

Go back to the link above and re-read this part:

 

 

 

 

Edited because the link does work.

 

 

 

 

Btw, a restraining order was issued.

 

 

Please don't get me wrong, I am not talking up for this guy. But a restaining order is not a criminal charge. I could go get a restaining order on you now if I wanted and we have never met. I use to server R/O's and they are not usually worth the paper they are writen on.

[D-Dawg]

I agree 100%. Vote Democrat and bring back some common sense to our State!

 

Yeah, that worked well at the federal level!

[Guard dad]

Yeah, that worked well at the federal level!

 

Some people would vote Democrat no matter what.

[JohnnyJ]

Some people would vote Democrat no matter what.

 

True, just like some would vote Republican no matter what.