This blog has piqued my interest and attention for quite some time, and now I look forward to the opportunity to join in the dialogue and discussion. It seems to almost the full time job for one to avoid being caught up in the fracas over the various and sundry fights and squabbles, so I look forward to the challenge. My analysis will be primarily centered towards the Senate side of politics, and I’ll speak up occasionally on other matters.


  1. Tater Tate says:

    “On the senate side”–Is it true that most Senators are backing CC over RR? Is that true of the leaders too? I bet they have to do a bit of tightrope walking in there. I assume Republicans will take that office, so one of them will be in the Senate and presumably a leader that can make life heaven or hell for the Senators.

  2. SenateAide says:

    Okay, here is what I know. Tommy Williams and about 2/3 of the Caucus is for Casey Cagle. Eric and the other 1/3 is neutral. Most of that 1/3 really is neutral but no one trusts Eric. Eric is for Eric and everyone knows that he is playing a game. Ralph Hugens is for Ralph. Ralph is a nice man but not very effective or well respected. Cecil Stanton is all over the place. His name shows up on a Reed list and then tells people that he has no idea why.

    Of the leaders, in addition to Tommy (Leader), Jeff Mullis (Vice Chairman), Dan Moody (Secretary-Treasurer) and Chip Rogers (Freshman Leader) are for Casey. Almost all the committee chairmen are for Casey, and they are technically leadership too. Chip Pearson is strong for Casey, and his PAC Pecos is the largest contributor to Republicans.

    None of the leaders or senators seem worried about Ralph making their lives hell if he wins. They do not think he will win and are more worried about him hurting Sonny and costing us seats if he is on the ticket.

  3. Anonymous3 says:

    Rumor and conjecture on the political “street” reports that one of the Republican Caucus members in the Senate will withdraw support of CC and endorse RR, possibly during the next legislative session…

    I do think it’s interesting to consider that while may people report that “almost the entire senate” has endorsed Cagle, none of the leadership have expressed support for either candidate…

  4. Booray says:

    One-half of the leadership, Majority Leader Tommie Williams (not Tommy) has clearly endorsed Casey Cagle. Read something about him helping do a fundraiser for him.

    I am already tired of the LG race, but it is not correct to imply Casey is not supported by any leadership in the Senate.

  5. Tater Tate says:

    Funny, I was told today by a good south Georgia source that Tommie Williams is neutural in this race, and leaning toward RR. Two people close to Williams down here are working very hard for RR. I think he is caught between a rock and a hard place as the new leader. While many senators support CC, some senators remember the race Cagle ran against Stephens for majority leader not long ago, and the bruises from that are still sore.

    I also heard that Speaker Richardson attended an event for RR is Paulding County not long ago.

  6. Maverick says:

    I’ll steal Bill’s thunder, and correct SenateAide: it’s Tommie, not Tommy, and Staton, not Stanton. Apparently, you know nothing whereof you speak, because you can’t spell proper names right. Not that I believe that, just thought I’d do Bill a favor and remind you 😀

    I will verify what TaterTate just said and say that Tommie is neutral, though I’m not entirely sure if he’s leaning towards Ralph. We’ve also yet to hear from Bill Stephens (Outgoing Majority Leaader), Don Balfour (Caucus AND Rules Chairman), Mitch Seabaugh (Majority Whip), and Jack Hill (Appropriations Chairman), among others. Tell me if the balance of power rests in the leadership you talked about, SenateAide, or the one’s we know are still neutral. It’s interesting that this group of senators that supposedly supports Casey refused to elect him majority leader a short time ago. Maybe it’s the presence of a number of freshmen legislators that so suddenly changed the “corporate opinion” of the caucus.

    I fail to see how Ralph Hudgens is an unimportant piece of the puzzle, given the fact that he had a little over $92,000 on hand at the end of the last reporting period.

    One note about the Chip Caucus: go back to the discussion about the attempted coup by the “Chip Caucus” several weeks ago, and cross reference that with the attempted take-over of majority leader, prior conflict between Bill Stephens and Casey Cagle over majority leader, etc. What’s the common denominator? It only makes sense that they would endorse Casey Cagle.

  7. SenateAide says:

    Okay, SenateAide is back for Truth Squad duty.

    To Anonymous3 – As I pointed out in my first post, a majority of the leadership is in fact supporting Casey Cagle. Tommie Williams (Majority Leader), Jeff Mullis (Caucus Vice Chairman), Dan Moody (Secretary-Treasurer) and Chip Rogers (Freshman Caucus Leader) are all supporting Casey. None of the leadership has come out for Ralph Reed. If Cecil Staton is for Ralph, he is a reluctant supporter because he spends most of his time acting like he has no idea why his name was listed.

    To Tater Tate – Tommy Williams is backing Casey Cagle. He was listed on the host committee for Casey’s June fundraiser, along with almost all of the caucus, including leadership.

    To Maverick Johnson – Bill Stephens is not the “Outgoing” Majority Leader. He is the ex-Majority Leader — not “outgoing” but “out.” You are correct about Don Balfour and Mitch Seabaugh still being neutral, but Jack Hill is supporting Casey Cagle. Look it up on Casey’s disclosure statement. You are correct that Bill Stephens beat Casey Cagle for Majority Leader two years ago, but it was by a one vote margin. Not everyone who voted for Casey was anti-Bill and not everyone who voted for Bill was anti-Casey, as the endorsements show.

  8. Maverick says:


    Just because Senator William’s name was on an invitation doesn’t mean any sort of endrosement. Senator Williams stuck his head in the door of the event, somewhere around 4 minutes worth of his attention. I don’t think that constitutes an endorsement. His name was accompanied by those of Seabaugh, Johnson, and others you just stated have not endorsed Cagle. Did their names on that invitation mean an endorsement, as well?

    Chip Roger’s support is negligible at best: Senator Rogers is an excellent individual, however, as I stated before, his failed coup for Majority Leader has marked his leadership as substandard. Chip Pearson’s backing will prove to be more weighty, only because of his financial fortitude.

    As I said: consider the positions taken by the “leadership” during the previous couple of sessions: Eric Johnson, Don Balfour, Bill Stephens, and Tommie Williams on one side of the proverbial aisle: Preston Smith, Jeff Mullis, Casey Cagle, the Chip Caucus on the other. When Don Balfour holds a bill in Rules just because it’s sponsored by a member of the opposite “leadership team,” it stands to reason the balance of power rests in his “camp.”

    The proverbial “will of the Senate” still rests very much in question.

  9. Bill Simon says:

    Speaking of names appearing on invitations who are truly not endorsing candidates, there are at least 2 such individuals who have that status whose names have appeared on Ralph Reed’s “steering committee: “Will Hurst” and Gabriel Sterling.” Neither of these guys were asked to have their names associated with Ralph Reed, but, lying has never stopped Ralph Reed before, has it?

Comments are closed.