When is a Democrat Not a Democrat?

The answer is when that “Democrat” gets a check from a Republican and proceeds to set up a web page attacking another Democrat.

The self-proclaimed “Democrat” (and I say that because no one associated with the Democratic Party of Georgia, the state Democratic committee, the county Democratic committees, or any Democratic affiliates in this state are claiming this guy is a Democrat) in question is a man by the name of David Knox.

Knox, according FEC campaign disclosure reports, received $250 from Republican Deborah Honeycutt for “website maintenance” in February of 2007. On his company’s website, www.dkintermedia.com, Knox touts his work on Honeycutt’s 2006 campaign web page (I remember Honeycutt’s website from 2 years ago and honestly. . .that ain’t nothing to be bragging about).

However, if you let David Knox tell it, he’s a “registered Democrat” although there is no party registration in Georgia. He works part time for the government (I’m sure the feds would love to take a look at that relationship). And finally, David Knox owns and operates two websites, www.democratsforgoodgoverment.com and www.voteoutdavidscott.com, which constantly and consistently savages 13th district Congressman David Scott.

Here is David Knox in his own unedited or proofread words:

Over the past couple of weeks I as the Leader of Democrats For Good Goverment have received several phone calls and emails from people posing to be news reporters and supporters of the Democrats all asking questions about this website (DemocratsForGoodGovernment.com) and the flyers we are passing out.

We are sick and tired of bullies and cowards who hide behind news reporter for the AJC – Ben Smith and Clayton New Daily- Joel Hall who profess that a story is being published but never show up in any paper.

Everyone is making a mad attempt to link this website and this organization to a republican candidate when we clearly state this is “Democrats For Good Government” are they blind or just stupid?

Well let’s see. . . we have a person who lists a Republican congressional candidate’s website in his company’s portfolio. We have a person who had some sort of relationship with that same Republican for at least a year maybe longer. And we have a person who, as recently as February 2007, received funds from that Republican congressional candidate, Deborah Honeycutt, for “website maintenance.”

It’s blatantly obvious that David Knox is not a Democrat just from the facts that are on the table. I know no Democrat who would take money from a Republican then turn around and set up an allegedly pro-Democratic web page that attacks Democrats.

It makes no sense and it’s not logical.


  1. Bill Simon says:


    Are you of the opinion there is something wrong with someone working “part-time” for the government and working on political campaigns?

    OR, are you of the opinion that once you work for the government, your a** is declared owned by Mother Government and you are restricted in your daily activities?

  2. Andre Walker says:


    I don’t think that anyone working for the government should publicly be associated with any campaign.

    Government should stay out of politics.

    On his web page, David Knox says he works part-time for the government and yet he’s leading the charge against David Scott.

    I think there’s something very unsavory about that.

  3. Bill Simon says:


    Where were you on the whole issue of Bill Clinton using the Lincoln bedroom to raise money for his reelection campaign? For, against, or not involved in politics 12 years ago?

  4. drjay says:

    the hatch act makes it pretty clear what you can and can’t do–an army reservist “works part time for the gov’t” can they not e politically active in your book?? i know a dentist who has worked part time for the county health dept–and who is quite involved in political campaigns–i think a lot more info on would be required o declare this “unsavory”…

  5. ACConservative says:

    apparently this guy reads PP. Democratsforgoodcovernment.com didn’t pull up on my browser, so maybe its been taken down. Moreover, his portfolio no longer links to Honeycutt’s page and there’s a nice boldface line that says “there is no support for this candidate”.

    Way to go Andre, you made this guy cave quicker than Barack Obama at AIPAC.

  6. Andre Walker says:


    Apparently David Knox doesn’t read the newspapers he attacks either considering that the Clayton News Daily’s Joel Hall ran an article about his tomfoolery in today’s paper.

    “Incumbent’s character questioned in congressional race”

    The key line in the article is this:

    While Knox said that, “I work for myself,” and have no “financial connection” to either the James or Honeycutt campaigns, Knox worked on Honeycutt’s 2006 campaign as its web page designer. On the Federal Election Commission web site, Honeycutt’s campaign disclosures show a series of payments made to Knox for “web site maintenance,” the last of which was made on Feb. 6, 2007.

    Now why the hell would you lie like that over something that is easily verifiable.

  7. Gag Halfrunt says:

    Take a look at the 1993 amendments to the Hatch Act. It doesn’t appear that there is any violation.

  8. Harry says:

    It’s a violation of the public trust to take campaign money to buy personal investments and a house; and at the same time not make payroll taxes. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of dollars here.

  9. Harry says:

    Yes, the Hatch Act was amended in 1993. That’s part of the reason the Democrats lost congress in 1994.

Comments are closed.