My purpose in this post is to address in a very direct way the tone that this site has taken in the last several weeks. Having spoken with the sponsors of this site, I think I can communicate clearly that our purpose in hosting this forum was NOT for it to become a pissing match over Casey Cagle and Ralph Reed. In other words, we digress. The world of politics in Georgia is much broader in scope than a Lt. Governor’s race. We have two congressional seats up for grabs, several Senate seats at risk, several constitutional offices being sought, and yet we are getting caught up in this race in very personal ways. Objectively, it seems that an onslaught of Cagle supporters have been posting. In response, the few Reed supporters try to respond to the accusations, and end up throwing accusations themselves. It turns into a vicious cycle often referred to in politics as mudslinging. In a primary, all it does is divide Republicans, divide conservatives, and distract from the real issues at hand. We’re falling prey to that trap right now. Those of you who are blatantly antagonistic (you know who you are), back off. Those of you who can’t talk about anything but Cagle (or Reed), broaden your vision and expand your horizons. Good, quality discussion happened when we talked about Mac Collins. Honest opinions were exchanged without it seeming like a school yard fight. There are several of you that are incapable of forming honest, strategic analysis unless you have a personal vendetta involved. Try something different for a change.
Republicans are notorious for being polarized and divided, especially in primaries, and it weakens us to the point that we’re able to be defeated. We’re walking that path, again. It’s dangerous, considering the fact that we have a Governor considered at high risk. You should follow the example of Bull Moose…I admit, he and I are polar opposites on this race. I disagree most strenuously with him. But, he’s backed off, and the only Cagle/Reed post he’s brought to the table in the last week or so was largely centered on good, solid issues. It’s a good example for the rest of you.
My point is this: we’re supposed to be objective, thorough, accurate, factual, strategic, analytical, and multi-faceted. Is that the standard we’re achieving?