Is Casey Cagle calling it quits? I see no evidence of it, but in addition to several emails from people to the tip line, there are rumblings in the Senate Republican Caucus that Cagle just may announce he is not going to run again.
Now, I don’t buy it and think it is a product of wishful thinking. Many people still are unnerved that there is stuff out there that will hurt him. The AJC hagiographic puff piece from a few weeks ago didn’t do anything to settle anyone, only hinting at the vague rumors that have swirled around Cagle since he dropped out of the Governor’s race.
So if I don’t think it’s going to happen, why blog it? Well, we’ve seen an uptick in the rumor circulating and several of his colleagues in the Senate that you’d generally think he is close to are whispering about it.
If nothing else, there is clearly an undercurrent of desire for people to get him gone on the grounds that whatever was bad enough to stop him from running for Governor was bad enough to keep him from running for Lt. Governor.
Right now he benefits from a lack of strong opposition from the Democrats. That will change soon.
And if I were a betting man, I’d say forces are conspiring behind the scenes in significant ways to force Cagle out of office.
{ 119 comments }
Shafer needs to jump back in asap.
I honestly think he is about to. Haven’t talked to him about it, but there has been a sudden uptick in movement statewide that is pro-Shafer over the past few weeks. Mostly from TRs and similar, but definitely there.
Oh yeah, and there is the fact that as of a couple of weeks ago, Shafer was the ONLY 2010 Lt Gov candidate with paperwork on file with the SEC – and there was no paperwork saying he had withdrawn, at least none that I had seen.
I’ve been less enthusiastic after Shafer cowered in the face of Cagle’s last switcheroo, as well trying to please all sides on the Sunday Sales issue. Shafer may be the “smartest politician” in Georgia today, but that isn’t necessarily a ringing compliment.
Still, he remains probably the best major-party option out there.
Also to consider is his involvement in the Deal scandal. SOMEONE put that money back in the budget this year from the Senate side, and Hill and Seabaugh seem to be having trouble with their memories, but Cagle flat out refused to discuss any of it.
“Right now he benefits from a lack of strong opposition from the Democrats. That will change soon”.
how–none of the potential dem ltguv candidates i’ve heard should strike fear–is something brewing on that side?
Yes
I thought his health stopped him from running for Governor. God bless Peach Pundit – Temple of Truth and Scourge of Rumor Mongers.
In my humble opinion, Cagle should either ignore rumors or deny them. He’s been in the murky middle… hinting at the rumors in media comments, but merely saying that he’s upset with unaccountable bloggers. That was pretty much John Edwards’ playbook for a year, too.
of course, if there are/were some secret behind the scene machinations going on i am reminded of the story of lbj wanting to fire hoover, but the info getting leaked and instead hoover was reappointed the the lbj quote about how he’d rather have hoover him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in was born.
*I* first heard these rumors back in March/April when virtually NO ONE had heard of me from a non-political source.
Not saying THAT many people know of me now, but certainly more than did back then!
Like Steve says below, Cagle needs to ignore them completely or deny them thoroughly.
make that above… :/
grift – all Erick has done is say what’s been whispered at every GOP breakfast and BBQ since March.
Sometimes it has even been softly spoken.
Even with Casey no longer a threat to his beloved Karen, Erick still finds time to spread rumors about Georgia’s second ranking executive. Why am I not suprised?
Well then, God bless the GOP, party of rumor and innuendo. Who needs things like confirmation and evidence, when you can simply pile the kindling of hearsay around the stake of purification.
Yeah because the GOP is the only party with rumors or the only one that spreads them.
Never said that.
So what’s your point?
Rumors have always existed in politics on both sides and will continue forever. And they routinely get picked up by the media.
That this is being reported when it is nothing more than the “whispers at GOP breakfasts”. And as has been pointed out to me recently, Peach Pundit do not pretend to be “journalists”. So I’m just trying to determine where the line is? At what point would Erick not publish something? It’s obvious that his standards do not weigh ability to verify against personal consequences for someone and their family.
Like I said, this ain’t Erick’s first time at the rodeo.
He doesn’t seem to be a big believer in Reagan’s 11th commandment (and sometimes fudges the other 10 as well).
Ah, I see.
And I guess I could have scrolled down prior to responding.
In Erick’s defense he didn’t really say anything against Casey just that there might be something. Not really the same as saying there are rumors he did X.
Just like he did against Charlie Crist saying he had “personal issues” without ever saying what they were. Because everybody “knows” what Crist “personal issue is.
And by the way, when I asked Erick what “personal issues” he was referring to? No answer.
I have heard fragments that collected together could be a completel story, but every time this issue has been posted, I asked “So what are these rumors?” and I have heard the same sound of crickets in an empty room in reply.
Perhaps someone would be so kind to drop a narrative on what exactly the official rumor is?
Depends on your standards, Doug. Or whether you have any.
Here ya’ go grift.
Re: Charlie Christ being a hypocrite.
You can always add him as a friend, James: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=5218947
The new rating system is TEH AWSOME!LOL!!!!!
I feel like I’m back in Jr. High.
I’m a little tired of political coverage (even among the policy wonk crowds like this one) being salacious in nature. Presidents and other politicians have been notorious p****-hounds since the dawn of time, and for the most part it wasn’t talked about much. It wasn’t until Gary Hart in the 1980’s that the issue became media sport.
I kinda take it for granted that anyone running for elected office is a borderline-sociopath narcissist, otherwise they wouldn’t be running for elected office. I don’t look to officials for role models, just results. If Sonny Perdue wants to snort cocaine off a prostitute’s butt-crack on Lake Lanier, then more power to him… just stop praying for rain and pushing for Go Fish nonsense.
I think I just threw up a little bit.
here’s a hearty AMEN! to that!
Spot on Farris.
Anyone who would cheat on their spouse is not a good person and frankly cannot be trusted to act with integrity to strangers, if they cannot act with integrity toward those they supposedly love.
The problem is not that we care too much about such things. It is that we do not care enough. We care more about timbre of voice than moral character. We care more about someone looking like a “winner” than if they have bankrupt personal code.
If we do not demand ethical behavior from our elected representatives, or when we excuse it because it is our own party, we do not deserve good governance.
This was in reply to Chris’s post below. Lousy, good for nothing, buggy, new format.
Love the new format.
I must admit, it is growing on me. Much like a fungus or tumorous lump.
Well said.
If a man will break his vow before God to be faithful to his wife, how much do you think he’s going to follow the “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states so help me God”.
The GOP does not need any more Mark Sanfords, Newt Gingrichs or Mark Foleys.
If a man takes seriously his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution… his followers will be mocked on Peach Pundit and banned from RedState. Putting aside the ridiculousness of the suddenly newfound GOP soul searching… history shows a pretty weak or nonexistent correlation between effectiveness in office and morality in personal affairs. I’m simply interested in the former.
Steve,
Prove it, then, without using mere anecdotes. You can’t.
From my own personal experience, people who willingly cheat on their wives or do any number of immoral acts more often than not do a large number of things that are also considered immoral. This does not prove the converse of your point, but as a legal scholar, you should at least understand the concept of “moral turpitude”. In fact, you can be barred from practicing law if found to having committed an act of moral turpitude.
Murder has no direct functional relationship to how you practice law, yet society in general has no problem in seeing a connection in the morality of the individual, and has enacted policies to address it. But, once again, it’s World v Steve Perkins.
Another Steve Perkins post, another Doug Deal response out of left field about law school. Sheesh, the next LSAT date is a month from today… just sign up and get on with it already.
I’ll put aside the most classic examples (JFK, LBJ)… because they’re Democrats and therefore you never would have liked them regardless. However, discussing only unfaithful Republicans, please name one whose conduct in office you publicly questioned prior to a personal scandal breaking. Sanford was a Presidential contender, Ensign was chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Vitter is a mainstay in the Tea Party scene and is running for reelection unopposed. I’m just curious as to which of these officials you opposed or found political fault with prior to learning of their sex scandals.
If you see no misdealings in office among those three names, then perhaps you can find a name that works while searching this abbreviated list:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals
Unlike you, I criticize the behavior of politicians on both sides, and think that 75% + of them are overt crooks.
Lack of evidence of wrongdoing is not proof of the lack of wrongdoing. You don’t know until some evidence comes out. These are not minor transgressions that we are talking about. This is something that is often devastating to families and destroys people’s faith and trust. Major moral flaws are like finding cockroaches. No matter how much you might hope there is only the one, if you have one, you are infested, and it is just a matter of digging.
Just think about how deep the orchestrated deception has to be to pull off an affair in a highly visible position. Do you really think telling that number of lies and performing that many acts of deception has no impact on moral character? If you do not think so, I guess I expect you to end up chasing ambulances when you pass the bar.
Seriously, I still have my Kaplan test prep book… you’re welcome to borrow it. The most difficult part of the LSAT is the Logic Games section, but you can double your score there by taking enough practice tests under timed conditions.
I think the only area in which we disagree is in your implication that you can find a politician WITHOUT cockroaches. My premise is that the presence of the cockroaches is what drives people to be politicians in the first place.
That is a good point Steve. And I admit it is difficult. For that, though, I blame the voter, not the politician. The politician is just the end product of what the selection criteria used by voters creates.
Unfortunately, voters do not value the things that are likely to give them decent people in office, but instead value those things that are more likely to find the narcissistic, privileged and sociopathic.
I only went to bringing up law again because I know a bit about your profession, being married to one, and I thought it would help make my point about the connection between major moral flaws in one area of life and the assumption by the government and the Bar that it effects one’s professional life as well.
I agree wholeheartedly. Even the Democrats have a President who is faithful to his wife. Not to the Constitution, but at least to his wife.
Sad, but true. If he was faithful to the constitution, many high-level people in the previous administration would be out on bail awaiting trial.
Well, it’s at least nice to see you moving to the center. You know, admitting that they should probably at least qualify for bail and get a trial and all…
White collar criminals have better attorneys. They’d likely have to give up their passports, though.
Name some instances of where Bush administration officials violated the law. And you must name the law or the section of the Constitution they violated, and what they did to violate it.
The Bush administration is guilty of some bad decisions, and helping the Rockefeller Republican Congress from 2005-2006 and the Democrat Congress from 2007-2008 start and aggravate this recession, but I don’t know of any real violations of the Constitution.
Please enlighten us.
So you think Scooter Libby lied under oath because he had another appointment and didn’t have time to tell the truth?
Name some instances of where Bush administration officials violated the law
Warrantless wiretaps of US citizens. The constitution is very clear that you really can’t do that legally. Congress passed laws that said you cannot do that legally.
But I’m willing to give them due process. Let’s hear about who specifically gave approval to do it and which lawyer in DoJ reviewed its legality and decided that the law didn’t matter.
And that’s fealty to the constitution instead of to a political party.
You’re right Grift. We should wait till he goes on to “Hike the Applicanian” and can serve out the remainder of his term getting nothing done for the people of Georgia, or resigns in disgrace throwing the Senate into upheaval.
The time for house cleaning is now. I personally hope the rumors are false. Cagle’s leadership in the Senate his first year helped change the porking-as-usual with regard to the supplemental budget. Instead of arguing which unnecessary state hall-of-fame should get the left over money the debate changed to should we pay down debt or return it to the tax payers.
Hey. I just want to know what Peach Pundit’s threshold is. Is rumor and hearsay without any thought of consequences the bottom line? Or does it go lower?
Well, the college football season starts in a few weeks. Stay tuned…
A story that is as widespread as this one is, by purely word of mouth is news whether one chooses to ignore it or not. It would be to Cagle’s benefit for someone to actually levy charges so he can either deny them or attempt to move on or to mitigate their significance.
When it is an amorphous blob of whispered rumors, there is not defense, and it is even more toxic.
“When it is an amorphous blob of whispered rumors, there is not defense, and it is even more toxic.”
Yes, Doug. That is kind of the point. But then again, it’s not Erick’s first time at the rodeo is it?
And despite the crowing of some, I think most have heard this particular piece of backwoods trash – partisans, independents, heck even the professional journalist crowd. It’s telling that the one place that continues to publish it is in Cagle’s own back yard.
It’s not a happy state to be in, but I think politicians as a class have earned every bit of distrust heaped upon them. It is unfortunate for the few truly decent people in politics, but I think that it is the duty of every American to have a healthy bit of distrust for their government and anyone who serves in it.
I wish people would quit hemming and hawing and mention the women/girls by name and the locations, times, and witnesses……that keeps being bandied around. Are there children involved like Edwards? No guts no glory.
Where’s the proof?…………….Oh the gentle South. Only he who doesn’t have a few extra mistakes running around can cast the first stone.
This has nothing to do with Cagle but a good place to put it
At least Gov Barnes did one thing right:
http://www.paternityfraud.com/2002-georgia-paternity-fraud-bill-hb369ap.html
“Access to such testing is restricted in some jurisdictions as it is held to not be in the best interestsBest interests
Best interests or best interests of the child is the doctrine used by most courts to determine a wide range of issues relating to the well-being of children….
of the child for such information to become available. A man finding out that the child is not his biological child contrary to information supplied by the mother may result in his rejection of the child or mother.
Statistics from the United States, Australia and other countries suggest that approximately 30% of all paternity tests exclude the putative father as biological father. These numbers do not reflect the overall incidence of non-paternity eventNon-paternity event
Non-paternity event is a term in genetic genealogy and clinical genetics to describe the case where the biological father of a child is someone other than who it is presumed to be….
s in the general population, because the numbers are based on tests performed in cases in which the alleged fathers suspected they were not the biological fathers of the subject child. For example, see the AABB statistics for 2001.
According to Steve Scherer, a senior scientist in the department of genetics at the Hospital for Sick Children (TorontoToronto
Toronto is the List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population in Canada and the Provinces and territories of Canada Provincial and territorial capitals of Canada of Ontario….
), 10% of babies born in Canada are victims of paternity fraud. A 10% paternity fraud rate was also cited during a science seminar for Canadian judges in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada in November, 2002 by a panel of medical experts.
Dr. Jeanette Papp, director of genotyping and sequencing in the University of California at Los Angeles department of human genetics is of the opinion that 15% of children born in the Western world are victims of paternity fraud.
Paternity fraud statistics for Australia provided on a TV show aired by the Australian Broadcasting Company stated that for the year 2003 more than 3,000 DNA paternity tests were ordered by men in Australian, and in almost a 25% of those cases, the paternity test revealed that the children they thought were theirs were actually sired by another man. The Canadian Children’s Rights Council’s commonly uses a paternity fraud rate of 15%.
Between 30 and 50 per cent of women cheat on their partners, compared with 50 to 80 per cent of men, according to Dr. Judith Eve Lipton, a psychiatrist with the Swedish Medical Center in Washington D.C. who, in 2001, co-wrote The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People with her husband, David P. Barash Ph.DDavid P. Barash
David P. Barash born in 1946, is Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington, and is notable for several books on human aggression, peace studies, and sexual behavior of animals and people….
. Other statistics place this number at approximately equal for the two sexes, at approximately 60%.
Child identity rights are stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the most ratified human rights convention in the world. It represents the rights of those under eighteen years of age, which comprise about 25% of the world population. UNCRC Articles seven, eight, and nine specifically provide for a child’s right to be raised by both biological parents, to be identified properly at birth, and require that the government birth registry contain an accurate record of the identity information of both biological and social parents. Examples of “social parents” include, but are not limited to, adoptive parents, kin parents, couples, or single women who have no direct biological connection with the child because of their use of donor sperm and eggs.
A self-reporting national poll of 5,000 women in ScotlandScotland
conventional_long_name = ScotlandAlba|common_name= Scotland|image_flag = Flag of Scotland.svg|flag_width = 130px…
conducted in 2004 concluded that half of the women said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father.”
I do not trust polls about sex related statistics. One reason is that they all too often defy the laws of physics.
One example is in the average number of sex partners that each sex claims on average. Men claim 7, women claim 4. This is an impossibility, unless homosexuality is a lot more prevalent than even it’s most strident supports suggest.
If each man averaged 7, then that would means the total number of sexual pairings would be 7 * [# of men]. This means the total number of pairings with women would be 7 * [# of men]. The average number of pairings for each female would then be 7 * [# of men] / [# of women].
Since [# of women] ~= [# of men] then the average for women has to be 7.
Yet, every sex survey in the world has men being reporting significantly higher numbers. There is little real science in self reporting surveys.
Not necessarily. This is an average, not the total for everyone. Also, there are more women than men in the world. It’s not 50-50.
Average is not independent of the total, they are deterministic since the population count is known. Total pairings will always be known if the average per sex is known.
The numbers are not 50-50, but it is insignificantly different in comparison to a nearly 2-1 difference in reported numbers. For the numbers to be as reported, adult males would have to be outnumbered by adult females 7 to 4. It is more like 51-49.
You could argue that the numbers are median values, but the mean values are nearly the same.
Sheesh, Doug… next you’re going to try and tell us that the average penis size isn’t 11 inches. Polls are SCIENTIFIC!
Wow, how puny.
I don’t believe in using these new “plus” and “minus” arrows just because you agree or disagree with a post. I do, however, believe in using them when people post 3 pages worth of cut-n-paste text that clog the screen and which nobody will actually read.
A simple hyperlink works fine.
We can agree on that Steve.
i continue to believe the up and down votes are best utilized by doling them out in a random fashion without regard to how you feel about (or whether you have even read) a particular post–and i like to vote down doug deal’s comments.
As a governor candidate is apt to say “Bring it on”.
Trust but verify or risk spending $250,000.
Is that how much a circumcision is now? Yikes.
Didn’t you realize I did that so the moderator would auto- default my first paragraph about Cagle. Making it so only the dedicated would read it!
Not something democratic or republican children should read.
[Threadjack deleted by Erick]
Nope. Threadjack into never never land. Not going to happen.
Answers to this question will be deleted.
(Part of our new, unannounced, (and unapproved) quality control initiative).
Oops. apologies, O Winged Leader.
what if our answers tie it directly back to the rumors about cagle dropping out?
It was enough to slander The Ox.
You have to start slandering God too.
So sad.
define “moral law” or “God”. Different people have different views on each.
Threadjack deleted by Erick
so both are religious terms. Problem is, not everyone shares a common religion – and that is perfectly OK.
Whereas, continuing this discussion on this thread is not O.K.
Is this a just decision or an unjust decision?
It’s just a decision. Nothing more, nothing less.
Don’t speak ill of the dead hijack attempt.
Yeah, I was about 95% sure of exactly the next thing MSBass was going to bring up, and I was going to cut it at that point myself.
Again, apologies, O Winged One.
A just law is one that is necessary to promote a peaceful and prosperous community. An unjust law is one that intrudes into areas in which only God should judge.
Threadjack deleted by Erick
I don’t think you quite understand the concept.
Let me put it this way,
Do you wish to continue to be able to post here at Peach Pundit?
Pull the trigger Ic, or no one will ever fear you.
I don’t know about that. That point system he uses his god-like might to dole out is pretty fearful.
Pulling that trigger is an absolute last resort around here. So far as I know, there have only been two people to receive permanent bans, with a few others given cooling off periods.
We will have a comment policy in place soon. If everyone knows the rules, everyone can abide by them. Or if not, everyone can face equal consequences.
Until then, the rules as stated thus far are pretty simple.
1) Stay on topic
2) Be Civil
3) Profanity isn’t generally accepted
4) If a front page poster asks you to cease the threadjack you just started, it’s generally best not to pretend you didn’t see the warning and just plow ahead. (That’s where the testiness may originate, Dr. Jay).
Thanks. Those 4 simple rules help. I know I didn’t violate the first 3, but I did make my final post explaining the Cagle angle that I originally intended after you mentioned you didn’t want this to continue, in hopes that it would make clear I was trying to be on point. Now I know what to look for to know as to when to cease and desist.
I’d still like to know specifically what it was that was the problem. Given the acceptable posts in this thread on penis size and sex surveys, I hope you can understand why I am not clear on where I transgressed. This is your blog, and I am willing to follow the rules. Telling us what specifically crossed the line would help towards that end.
You started your post with a question that paraphrased essentially said, “I’m sorry, but if I may I’m about to threadjack this topic”, and then began to ask about moral philosophy, which isn’t the topic here.
We try to have open threads every few days, and if you want to ask that question, either go back to the last one, or wait until the next one.
None of us here are trying to go out of our way to get on a power trip, or have any desire to edit comments or remove posters.
We are very interested, however, in trying to make sure that our primary focus is to maintain a blog about Georgia “politics”. Sure, we stray, but we ultimately have the responsiblity in determining if it is what the Peach Pundit wants or not.
And frankly, your question was another trap door into another variation of “are we a Christian nation or not”. That discussion isn’t germane, and generally results in no actual discussion, but about 4 or 5 of our regulars having a cut & paste duel.
You started your post with a question that paraphrased essentially said, “I’m sorry, but if I may I’m about to threadjack this topic”, and then began to ask about moral philosophy, which isn’t the topic here.
We try to have open threads every few days, and if you want to ask that question, either go back to the last one, or wait until the next one.
None of us here are trying to go out of our way to get on a power trip, or have any desire to edit comments or remove posters.
We are very interested, however, in trying to make sure that our primary focus is to maintain a blog about Georgia “politics”. Sure, we stray, but we ultimately have the responsiblity in determining if it is what the Peach Pundit wants or not.
And frankly, your question was another trap door into another variation of “are we a Christian nation or not”. That discussion isn’t germane, and generally results in no actual discussion, but about 4 or 5 of our regulars having a cut & paste duel.
Thanks. I see where I went wrong. I should have been upfront that I was asking the question in order to make a point about Cagle, within the context of what I had already posted agreeing with Doug Deal and Chris, who wrote about God and morality in relation to this thread (hence the issue of moral philosophy was already on the table). I think had I referenced that context in the original post, it would have been allowable, or at least would have drawn a warning earlier. No?
I prefaced my post with what you refer to as a “threadjack” only to mean I had a reason for a momentary deviation. I failed to include that the deviation was in order to come directly back to the topic from a different perspective, not to “threadjack” (new term for me to learn).
If I understand correctly, back-and-forth discussion specifically on whether this is a Christian nation is not allowable unless the front page poster has made the thread open to that subject, mostly due to the lack of civility in the past (of which I was not aware).
I would appreciate knowing exactly how posting this, which I directly related to the Casey Cagle issue of this thread, broke some rule of posting at PP. It would certainly help me know not to cross some line in the future.
Pretty easy — while you made a valiant attempt to relate it to Cagle, it really wasn’t and this is not the place for that discussion.
Since before I posted the quote, I intended to come to the Cagle point, how is that “it really wasn’t”? Isn’t it more accurate to say that you don’t see the relation between what I posted and Cagle, rather than try to tell me I didn’t when I did?
Is there a URL with posting rules that I can review? I still don’t understand what I did that crossed the line.
your testiness really sems disproportionate–he even managed to wiggle a cagle reference into that comment–it is worth noting that the guv of the state across the river had a “morality” issue over the summer that has spun into impeachment talk and questions as to whether he misused state funds and resources to facilitate his tryst–which gives him the worst of both worlds–b/c he now can’t separate his private life from his public duties–i wonder if that scenarion is more rule than exception…
[Thread Jack deleted because I'm a rat-bastard (and because it was a threadjack) - Rat Bastard ]
You know, Cobb really only needs 1 front page poster.
And what about Tech? Also referense Col. Shep’s comment on Cagle.
I did it for the children.
So did I. Good parents don’t let their children grow up to the Georgia Grads.
You’re right, only GREAT parents do!
Summary:
Cagle is a lightweight who has tanked his once promising political career over a not very discreet inappropriate relationship.
And he’s so weak that when he had back surgery to most common response was – he actually has a spine?
The biggest loser here? Ralph Reed. How did Ralphie lose to this dishrag?
aarrrggghh!!!
Interesting. Didn’t see anyone mention it, but Lt. Gov Cagle was at the Georgia Chamber of Commerce’s annual Congressional Luncheon at the Perry fairgrounds last week.
He delivered a great tribute to Georgia’s military. This was the first time I have seen him in person since his back surgery, and he seemed to move around well and he gave a great speech. He did stumble a bit in his speech a time or two but nothing major.
Some points of interest (though I’m not sure if this really matters)
1. I did not see him working the room before his speech. (Poythress, Porter, Deal, Hodges, Purcell, Isakson, and probably a few more I did not see were working the room)
2. I did not see any of his supporters (people wearing t-shirts or stickers) (I saw a few people in Deal’s t-shirts walking around and some of the other candidates had volunteers wearing stickers)
3. No campaign material was available.
Gerry Purcell was the only candidate there who actually had any campaign material, and he passed it out right outside the building, so maybe candidates could not pass out campaign materials.
Sure, he has no announced opponent but on his website he’s got pictures of volunteers wearing Cagle shirts at different events.
Suggestion, why don’t you post the rules for PP under the tab “about peachpundit?” That way, new people can find the rules without seaching this thread.
And back to topic, anyone other than David S. showing interest in LG, if Casey drops out?
No Doug you can’t run for LG!
I bet I could! I just wouldn’t do that well against many others who would run. However, depending who got in, I might not come in last. I’m not thinking about running for congress next year either.
Can I run?
Shep, pick a race and stay there.
Better check with the Black Leadership Forum first.
Once again a pathetic commentary based on nothing more than pure speculation, rumor mongering and innuend,period.Give it up Erick,as much as you would like for your desires to become reality,its not going to happen.Cagle is running and if there is someone who wants to primary him there is a process to do it,and its rather simple.
While blind speculation seems to be permitted I can guess who you are getting your Senate intel from and you may want to expand your contact base.
Just out of curiosity when the Gov race heats up and the knives come out against your chosen candidate are you going to allow this kind of garbage?I bet not.
Casey Cagle will be re-elected Lt.Gov,and this is based on a uptick of rumors Im hearing……..
Pirate -
Cagle is a lightweight who has tanked his once promising political career over a not very discreet inappropriate relationship.
Now I haven’t been around Georgia politics forever, (and yes I have heard of these rumors), but I don’t understand the claims some folks are making on here. I heard of these rumors about 6 months ago – and there hasn’t been any evidence yet. Time to move on. I voted for Cagle in 2006 and (since I doubt he will drop out) will vote for him again in 2010.
I agree. All I’ve ever heard about this is conjecture.
I’ve heard both conjecture and speculation.
Don’t forget innuendo and rumor. They like to be heard as well.
Now why’d you have to go and attack The Ox?
Habit.
I tried pouring sugar on it, but the truth still hurts.
Comments on this entry are closed.