Site Promotion

Peach Pundit is pleased to announce that we have invited GA Wire to start posting to the front. His comments have been excellent and his background is helpful to giving thoughtful analysis.

Like with Silence and others, all I beg is that GA Wire refrain from even mentioning the Lt. Gov’s race, but I leave that in his discretion.

I am soooo freaking tired of that race. July can’t get here fast enough.

So, now, we know from the comments that GA Wire and Bull Moose decidedly lean toward Cagle. If you’re a Ralph fan and want to write, I’m willing to consider it. Email me.

More importantly, if you are a Democrat, Clayton and I really do want to keep the site bi or nonpartisan. Feel free to email me. DecaturGuy is doing the Lord’s work in pulling up that end, but I’m sure he wouldn’t mind some help.

20 comments

  1. GAWire says:

    Thanks for the welcome.

    As I said before, I completely support staying away from the Lt. Gov race as much as possible, even though I know there will be more discussion in the future.

    Sometimes you wouldn’t know it, but there are other races in GA right now. And, soon we will be looking forward to mid-term Congressional races next year!

    More to come . . .

  2. landman says:

    The Lt.Gov. race should be talked about and debated as it may prove to be the ranking Republican office after November.I hope not ,but it’s certainly a possibilty and whoever holds this office needs to be someone we can all be proud of at the end of the day.Regardless who wins I think its good for the party that we have these heated primary races,rather than “annointed” candidates.We will have something else to talk about when Pappy Taylor starts helping Jr.go after Cox.

  3. Rob Butler says:

    I fear I am seeing a trend at Peach State Pundit that does not bode well for the future. This blog seems to be tilting decidedly toward Mr. Cagle and unfortunately toward censorship as well. I hope that I am wrong and that all voices can be heard here. If this becomes only a place to extol Mr. Cagle and bash Mr. Reed, then I, for one, will probably tune out.

    Frank discussions are helpful. It occurs to me that the threads that get the most attention are those that discuss the Reed/Cagle race. Emotions run high, but I hope both sides can have their say. Otherwise simply replace this with a link to the atrocious ReadaboutReed site that Mr. Cagle has launched in his misguided attempt to destroy Mr. Reed and harm the Republican movement.

  4. Silence says:

    I likewise agree to being sick and tired of discussion on the Lt. Governor’s race. Contrary to popular opinion, I am NOT in favor of one candidate or the other. I am forced, however, to argue Ralph’s side, because it seems that no one else will, except Rebel and Mr. Butler. Landman, Bill Simon, RomeGaGuy, GaWire, etc, all seem to have a one track mind dominated by one thing: Casey Cagle. If I saw any measure of objectivity, or impartiality, or rational thought about the issue, I’d be thrilled to keep with my name, and say nothing. As it stands, however, all the contributors on this site, with the exception of one, or two, are rabidly against Ralph. I’m not even convinced that some of ya’ll are so much supporters of CC’s as you are just flat out haters of Ralph. News for you: that’s no place to stand politically.

    My point is this: as Erick stated, this is supposed to be an impartial forum. As an experiment, I had several friends of mine, who are completely impartial, undecided, and unfamiliar with Georgia politics read the site, with no prior knowledge, no explanation, and no briefing. They all something to the tune of Casey Cagle paying to have this site started. Sorry, but that’s not impartiality.

    Another thing to keep in mind is this: while I may think that RR is the candidate to beat, I’m not necessarily a supporter. In 2002, when I was on the ground working for Sonny, though I was a sold out Sonny guy, and worked 16 hour days for him, I still thought King Roy was the man to beat.

    Conclusion: I DO think Ralph Reed is the candidate to beat. If you want explanation, just ask, and I’ll delineate, from a scientific perspective, why I say that. Otherwise, in deference to our honorable host, I’ll save you the heartache.

    That does NOT mean I’m working for Ralph, or even supporting him.

    In keeping with these things, with Erick’s permission, I now lay down the gauntlet: I’ll debate, in a format to be determined, any one of Casey’s advocates on here, from the perspective of someone who is voting for Reed. I’ll then debate, also in a format to be determined, any Ralph Reed supporter, from the perspective of an individual voting for Casey Cagle.

    Any takers?

  5. Bill Simon says:

    Rob Butler apparently has a problem with facts about Ralph Reed.

    He defines as “atrocious” a Website that merely presents Ralph saying one thing when it was for God and Country, and, when he is getting paid some money, he takes the oppiste view.

    These are facts. Butler doesn’t like facts, so he ignores facts, and seeks to just reduce his arguments down to Cagle sucks, vote for Ralph.

  6. Romegaguy says:

    Just in case you are wondering: I originally did not like Casey Cagle. That was several years ago but as I have gotten to know him more and more, I have developed tons of respect for him and what he has accomplished in the Senate. I am glad he has chosen to run for Lt. Governor and think he is the best candidate of the 4 announced candidates for Lt Gov. I have no problems about switching my discourse on what Casey has accomplished instead of little Ralphie poo’s mistakes (as I see them) if that is the pleasure of the posters and moderators herein.

    As far as Rob’s comments of “Harm the Republican movement?” Which is more harmful, voting in the Republican primary for a businessman with a proven record that can win in November of next year or voting for someone that could bring down the whole Republican ticket similar to his former client Mitch Skandalakis did in 98? (sorry couldnt resist)

    If people are tired of the Cagle/Reed bickering here give us another topic and I will be happy to contribute to it … If you want I can start off one on Uber-liberal but nice guy Jim Martin or Greg Hecht (Do we really want to see the “Big Guy/Little Guy” tv commercials that would air if he and Taylor are the nominees?).

  7. Silence says:

    Dr. Evil and Mini Me 😀

    I will hasten to say that I very much like Casey Cagle on a personal level, probably much more than I like Ralph Reed on a personal level.

  8. Romegaguy says:

    Here’s a different topic… Why hasnt Chris invited us all to the Hillary Clinton event here in Atlanta in a few weeks? There should be a special bloggers’ seating section, too.

  9. landman says:

    Silence,I beg to differ with your statement concerning whether Im a supporter of Cagle or just disdain RR.Im very much a supporter of Cagle and believe strongly that he is the man our party needs for this office.At the same time I have no personal disdain for RR,and would not be concerned with the personal problems he is embroiled in if he were not running for a public office. RR is good at what he does but I do not feel he is the most qualified to do this job.

    I also believe that our party in this state is beyond the time when we had “annointed” candidates,and thats a good thing,it means our tent has grown past any special group being able to call the shots.When one decides to enter the public arena he should expect to have to answer some tough questions.No candidate at any level is more important than the Party,some of us fought for a long time to have a seat at the table,so we have the right to call it like we see it.

  10. landman says:

    Silence,I would like to know what value is a impartial forum in politics.Are you suggesting that everyone should just agree on every issue,I guess we could all then join hands and sing Cum ba ya and the world would be all groovy.I would be glad to debate you on the merits of the candidates in this race.

  11. MT says:

    I usually don’t post on sites because I am not the articulate. That said I’ll be brief. I enjoy reading all sides of the issue and do not like to have posted comments edited or deleted due to the host not agreeing on the subject matter. It seems this site is starting to censor to promote the host beliefs about candidates. . I am uncertain if this is true but these last few post lead me to think so.

    As long as there is no profanity or rudeness in the post why bother to do such?

    It sounds as if this site may be for hire or a tool for lobbyist. If it is please let your readers know so we are not confused to why this site is here.

  12. Erick says:

    MT,
    That’s silly. We have deleted on three comments on this site — all of them were for rampant profanity. We have edited two others to delete the profanity.

    We have prevented one person from posting comments here that explicitely state that certain elected and unelected individuals who are named have been going to whorehouses and engaging in other activity. I personally did not think that information — particularly about the unelected individuals — was worth putting up and because unelected individuals outside of government were also implicated, could be considered libelous.

  13. Clayton says:

    MT,

    Additionally you can read the story here how Peach Pundit came to be.

    Erick is a lawyer in Macon with a wide variety of clients, and is also a political consultant with many different campaigns. His background is well known to most of our readers and is readily available.

    I work in the private sector for a California based technology company. I’m in technical marketing, and have never worked in politics professionally.

  14. Chris says:

    The Cagle and Reed bashing wouldn’t be so bad if people kept their bashing to the people running for office and refrained from attacks on those making the arguements. I don’t have to vote for any of you in July so these personal attacks are tiring.

  15. Bill Simon says:

    Hey, Chris…just a suggestion to your Website: Try not to use words that don’t exist to describe your philosophy.

    For instance, there is a word and a meaning for “incrementalism.” There is a root word of “incrementalism” and that is “incremental.”

    There is a noun for someone who believes in “incrementalism” and they are called “incrementalists.”

    There is NO SUCH WORD such as what you have plastered all over your Website as “Incrementalating.”

    By the way, I looked as much as I felt like looking (until I got a headache from running into the word “incrementalating”) for your “Statement of Purpose.” If you have a “Statement of Purpose,” perhaps that should be on a page by itself with a link all by itself on your list of links.

    Just a recommendation.

Comments are closed.