WANTED

December 2, 2009 22:27 pm

by Buzz Brockway · 52 comments

WANTED: A Republican who hasn’t cheated on his wife and wont use his office to procure women. Several leadership positions opening soon in both Chambers. Apply now at the State Capitol.

Consider this a pre-apocalypse open thread.

AubieTurtle December 2, 2009 at 10:29 pm

What about a Republican woman?

LoyaltyIsMyHonor December 3, 2009 at 12:39 am

Kind of Oxymornish…don’t you think?

AubieTurtle December 3, 2009 at 1:02 am

Stop picking on The Ox!

Rick Day December 3, 2009 at 10:24 am

What about something other than a Republican or Democrat?

*flipping through planner*

hmm..I’ve got Winter open. And my cirrhosis is an asset! I don’t drink and I could care less about sex, except with my wife.

Top two self-serving agendas:

1. fund and expand the current medical marijuana legislation in the OCGA

2. Put convention centers on the list of places where alcohol can be sold on Sunday.

I will sell favors for one Dogzilla™ from Manuel’s with-onion-rings-and-sweettea. I will take my oath of office upon an autographed copy of Christopher Moore’s Fool and appropriate all cops 20% across the board raises (except executives, which I will cut their pay 25% for being impotent massagers of statistics), from the tax revenue generated from the above 2 pieces of legislation critical to our survival as a species, etc…yadda…

Rick Day December 3, 2009 at 10:25 am

Where is Zell when we need him?

Wait…

YossarianLives December 2, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Paging David Ralston….

AthensRepublican December 2, 2009 at 11:09 pm

Mark Burkhalter was part of the Daufuskie Five scandal over a decade ago. I have not heard of any scandal since and he comes across well in his manner. Should he become Speaker, I would hope he would give some reassurance that his past activities would not be allowed in today’s political climate.

Jerry Keen was highly tolerant of Richardson and his behavior for so long. Keen seems fairly even tempered and seems like a decent guy, but I don’t know him. Because of his close relationship with Richardson, he would need to reassure folks he would lead as a statesman and not a tyrant.

David Ralston would be too good to be true. I would think Ralston should be in the leadership (great if he was Speaker) The Republican caucus needs to remember that 25% of their own group wanted change from Richardson’s style of leadership when they voted last time. Ralston was the man leading this change. If the caucus had the courage to make the right decision then, perhaps this scandal would have been minimized today.

Time will tell who steps up to the plate and how successfully our leaders move us past this ugly chapter and on to the business of the people of Georgia.

USA1 December 2, 2009 at 10:35 pm

Let’s make sure to see how each of these men voted on prohibiting gay marriage in the state constitution.

NorthGeorgiaGirl December 2, 2009 at 10:39 pm

I am re-posting this from another thread since it seems more appropriate here:

Someone mentioned on the other thread about wanting a new speaker who is a back-bencher…and I wondered about any possible 216 members (again, not Bobby Franklin) that aren’t running for other offices that might be a good speaker…I heard a little rumor that there is a little interest in Rep. Loudermilk running for the position. He is a solid conservative, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet.

Bill Greene December 3, 2009 at 10:37 am

Loudermilk would be great. Another champion of the Constitution.

Jawgadude December 3, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Loudermilk is as clean as they come.

AubieTurtle December 2, 2009 at 10:40 pm

And since this is an open thread…

What affect will the gradual decriminalization of marijuana by the Democrats have on the Libertarian Party? On one hand, it would take much of the wind of the Libertarian sails. On the other, it could rid the LP of a whole bunch of members who really only give lip service to non-pot related issues.

Members like Loretta Nall get the party attention but not the kind that causes anyone to take them seriously. While I’m sure those in the party who aren’t pot smokers (but do want it legalized) don’t recognize how much of the party’s face is marijuana related, from my experience, a very large percentage of those who loudly proclaim LP membership are also the types who want to do nothing in life except get stoned. I know these people don’t make up the whole party but they do seem to define it, whether those with an LP view on more than drugs care to admit it or not.

Would decriminalization (and possibly eventual legalization) allow the Libertarian Party to gain more mainstream acceptance?

(I’m talking about the “big L” Libertarian Party and not libertarianism in general… I know that’s a sore point for some.)

Jason Pye December 2, 2009 at 11:34 pm

I’m talking about the “big L” Libertarian Party and not libertarianism in general… I know that’s a sore point for some.

God bless you for making that important distinction.

Rick Day December 3, 2009 at 10:33 am

Loretta ran as a Lib only because it was the only semi-organized party that provided any promise of logistical support, as well as the only party that agreed with her on the issues of prison reform and yes, the re-legalization of cannabis, and industrial hemp.

But your point is well taken. Imagine being a fly on the wall the day I suggested to our fellow Executive committee members that the LPGA get behind Nader as an all-around third party candidate with a chance to siphon enough votes to insure a Bush defeat on ’04.

I think Farris was there and on subsequent emails. They found it amusing, yet out of the question. After all, it was Darth Vader Ralph Nader.

Mike Hauncho December 2, 2009 at 10:52 pm

Ed Lindsey for Speaker. While he is a strong conservative he never throws his values in your face nor does he push away Democrats by saying he is a Republican. He is politically savvy and would be a great choice for Speaker.

griftdrift December 2, 2009 at 11:15 pm

The Daufuskie Five. Wow. Let’s rip it all open. It’s the only way.

Silent Outrage December 2, 2009 at 11:30 pm

Can we just start calling this out – if cheating on your wife is a disqualifying factor (or the rumor of it), than we’re going to need to find a new Speaker, Speaker Pro Tem, House Majority Leader, House Appropriations Chairman, Lt. Governor, Senate Majority Leader, and a 4th place candidate for Governor from the coast, not to mention whoever else we don’t know about yet… ENOUGH ALREADY.

AND this is not to mention the fact that the entire Ethics Process down at the ol’ Gold Dome is completely broken with so many of these folks playing gotcha games against one another. There was overwhelming evidence against Richardson had the Ethics Committee at least held ONE – yes – ONE – hearing.

Unless you’re a hot blonde lobbyist, you get nothing from the folks at the Gold Dome and like it.

The fact that it has taken this amount of time and for it to have been a “discussion” over whether the Speaker should or should not resign just indicates how horribly broken things are down at the Gold Dome. Dubose Porter is right, there is a culture of corruption that exists – the culture of corruption that you find in any sleazy whore house – yet this one is run by the taxpayers of Georgia.

The man cheated on his wife with a lobbyist and then used his position to benefit her company. Furthermore, he has stalked and harrassed his ex-wife to the point of being a stalker. Any other person who did this would be in jail and certainly not receiving a $99K salary from taxpayers.

Part-Time Atlanta December 3, 2009 at 12:12 am

Well said.

IndyInjun December 2, 2009 at 11:34 pm

WARNING – If they don’t support the platform or Republican creed, they probably are not Republicans.

If they endorse or support what George W. Bush did, give me the philanderer instead, as long as the other woman is not a lobbyist using MY MONEY as lubricant.

I don’t care if every Republican in the General Assembly is bedding harlots from Peachtree City to Cumming, just as long as they are not trysting with lobbyist-supplied whores and shafting all Georgians in the process.

Bill Greene December 3, 2009 at 10:40 am

Good to see you again, Indy. :)

Game Fan December 4, 2009 at 12:47 am

Indy
I agree, and I’ve always said I’m a fan of Barney Frank’s openness for example. And of course for some of us outsiders and average Joes this isn’t sour grapes from the left, it’s “Where the hell is real fiscal conservatism?”

appachtrail70 December 2, 2009 at 11:38 pm

Jan Jones.

Jane December 2, 2009 at 11:55 pm

As Chef says “No, you don’t pay her to stay; you pay her to leave afterwards.”

RobNhood December 3, 2009 at 12:09 am

Does anyone know the status of the relationship between he and his wife? I wonder if she’ll chase him out with a golf club and force him into a minor but obsessed about car accident with a tree? That’d save us the lengthy ethics trial.

Actually, I really like Casey. Good man. But he’s gotta be a good father to those boys, and running around with a special friend ain’t the way to do it

LoyaltyIsMyHonor December 3, 2009 at 12:42 am

Ben Harbin for Speaker…The guy is straight as an arrow..ask any female lobbyist.

Actually, just ask one particular female lobbyist.

Howard Roark December 3, 2009 at 6:34 am

Ralston is the guy for the job for now.

Ken in Eastman December 3, 2009 at 11:29 am

That’s a wonderful suggestion.

Mid Georgia Retiree December 3, 2009 at 6:47 am

Let’s don’t limit the ad to just Republicans. Let’s include ALL politicians. Democrats have had their ethical issues, too.

Rick Day December 3, 2009 at 10:51 am

then why do you keep voting for them?

NorthGAGOP December 3, 2009 at 7:58 am

Ed Lindsey is a great idea

NorthGeorgiaGirl December 3, 2009 at 7:59 am

Melvin Everson?

drjay December 3, 2009 at 9:02 am

i like that–i wonder if he’d be interested since is was going to run against thurmond…how about millar?

Rick Day December 3, 2009 at 10:15 am

*crickets*

hmm…

um…

Jill Chambers?

B Balz December 3, 2009 at 11:36 am

Dadgummit, Man, what do you mean by this !

Joshua Morris December 3, 2009 at 10:44 am

It’s amazing to me how folks keep harping on these guys’ infidelity issues as if they are not common issues in society altogether. To cheat on one’s spouse is wrong, and I don’t support the behavior, but let’s just deal with it like adults and move on.

Is there a dictum somewhere stating that elected officials are of a special class that should be immune to the temptations that we all face? If someone openly supports traditional family values, do we really assume that he is incapable of violating those values in a weak moment? Are these guys human or not?

These questions demonstrate why legislating morality merely for morality’s sake is fallacy–it puts a legislator in the position that his personal life is under added scrutiny. Government cannot create moral society, but moral society can create good government. This is why the US Constitution is such a good document. It was created by a moral society to engender freedom.

These questions also demonstrate this society’s appetite for blood when anyone commits a publicly unacceptable sin. The guys who stay straight get no press. How about a story on the legislator who has been married to the same spouse for the longest time without infidelity? I know… boring.

It appears very clear that Speaker Richardson has violated the public trust in his behavior, and assuming the information we have seen is correct, he should be removed from leadership. He and the people of his district are the only ones who can decide if he stays in the State House. Any other leadership figure whose behavior has done the some should be dealt with the same way. Then we should close the book on that event and move on.

I see this the same for public icons like Tiger Woods and local figures like pastors, priests, etc. Deal with it, move on, and focus on what matters.

Oh, and btw, this has nothing to do with the misnomer called ‘gay marriage.’ That is a totally separate issue.

USA1 December 4, 2009 at 1:04 am

Yes, of course, this has nothing to do with gay marriage . A politician says he won’t allows gays to marry because of his religious beliefs, even if those gay people don’t share the politician’s religious beliefs. Yet when the same politician cheats on his wife and violates some of the commandments he supposedly holds so dear, we’re all supposed to let it be a “private matter.” How interesting that when two gay people want to get married, politicians think it’s not a private matter and needs to be politically prohibited, yet when politicians cheat on their spouses it should be treated as a private matter with little to no politicial ramifications. And let’s not forget these politicians are aided by supporters who cover for them.

Joshua Morris December 4, 2009 at 11:02 am

It comes down to the definition of marriage. That definition was not written by our government, nor is it government’s property to change. Marriage is an institution of the church that has merely been recognized by government and embellished with a related government contract.

Funny I never hear debate on separation of church and state regarding this issue.

USA1 December 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm

So are you opposed to gay people being allowed to have a civil marriage?

IndyInjun December 3, 2009 at 11:00 am

“Is there a dictum”

IndyInjun December 3, 2009 at 11:02 am

“Is there a dictum”

(Good Indy)WHOA, Indy…….do……not…type it…..(sounds of internal conflict)

(Bad Indy)……go ………ahead (sounds of Bad rendering Good temporarily unconscious)

There are too many DictUms and THAT is the problem.

Funny how the “ums” are U and Me.

Rick Day December 3, 2009 at 11:03 am

If someone openly supports traditional family values, do we really assume that he is incapable of violating those values in a weak moment? Are these guys human or not?

Of course we do. Their policies and legislation holds us all to the same impossible standard.

This person used a biblical based set of ‘christian moral values’ (already impossible to uphold as written) as a basis for pandering to same christian voters. There is a special stink on the hypocrisy of one who uses “Family Values” to pass oppressive minority legislation (anti-gay marriage, drug prohibition, under 21 legal drinking, etc), while toe-tapping in toilet stalls, or screwing around and emotionally manipulating the “Family you Value”.

When politicians stand up and do what is right, instead of what is re-electable, only then can we end the charade that infidelity is “not a Georgia Family Value”.

I detest that phrase as much as I detest “War on Drugs” because of the oppressive legislation it was an apologist for.

No. No free pass. ESPECIALLY to those who are the worse of the worse hypocrites, the cheating ‘religious’ politician. Burn in your Hell™

ByteMe December 4, 2009 at 6:31 am

As I wrote earlier: it’s the wedge issue that’s guaranteed to keep giving them wedgies.

Joshua Morris December 4, 2009 at 11:19 am

Rick, I agree that there should be no free pass. I just get so tired of the constant sensationalism from all types of media outlets that relish the juicy rumors and beat these stories to death. Then everybody who’s anybody wants to jump in and say his or her piece, as if personal demons don’t exist for each of them.

I’d much rather just hear the facts of the situation, hear the reaction of those who actually have jurisdiction in the matter, and once the offender is removed from his position and has faced any other deserved penalties, forget about it. That would be some kind of fantasy, wouldn’t it?

True Grit December 3, 2009 at 11:53 am

Allen Peake should be the next Speaker.

Doug Deal December 3, 2009 at 12:33 pm

I concur. I have been impressed with Allen, and think he would be an ethical and impressive speaker.

B Balz December 3, 2009 at 12:00 pm

To me one major issue at hand involves the ‘Ethics Commission’, which is a huge oxymoron, and their dismissal of the appearance of impropriety between the Speaker and a lobbyist whose employer is germane to a live Bill.

Power is a virtually irresistible aphrodisiac, and I suspect it takes a stronger than average person to avoid an embarrassing tryst. Yet, I feel it only takes person of average principles to avoid even the hint of impropriety in government service.

It is not my place to judge the man for straying from his wife. I was mighty upset with the thought of undue influence [sex] affecting the $300MM AGL pipeline deal we almost got stuck with paying for.

AGL got us with deregulation once. The whole ‘deregulation’ bit cost us plenty.

drjay December 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm

anyone else kinda wishing graves wasn’t running for congress right about now?

B Balz December 3, 2009 at 3:58 pm

To: GA GOP Leadership
From: Just a GOP taxpayer
RE: Your worst nightmare

Hat Tip to Sara @ http://sarawaraclara.blogspot.com/

Written by Sara:

So, Georgia Democrats, you have 3 tasks:

1. Make sure every single member of the Democratic caucus is clean as a whistle on professional ethics and keeping it in your pants. NO SLIP UPS, and if they do happen, punish swiftly from within. Set the example.

2. Bang the drum of the dirty cadre of Republicans running this state constantly, loudly, and brutally, for the next year. I want to hear it in every debate, I want to see it in TV commercials and in the paper. I want you to force every candidate to take a stand on whether what these guys have done is wrong, and if they waffle then I want you to use that to make them look weak in the face of clear wrongdoing. You have been handed a massive gift–USE IT.

3. Remember, it’s not the boinking of a woman other than their wives that is the problem, it’s when that woman is a lobbyist pushing legislation at the same time. It’s not the cheating on his wife, it’s making criminal threats against her after she leaves him. It’s not the blowjobs from women he isn’t married to, it’s the fact that they work for him and could constitute sexual harassment. FOCUS ON THE DIRTY PART, NOT THE SEXY PART. That is what ties it all together and makes it politically relevant, even if the other stuff is what makes people watch the TV and read the news. And one of the huge benefits of being out of power is that you have no real power to abuse–so emphasize that dramatic difference between Rs and Ds to your advantage.

I’m warning you guys now, if you don’t come away with more seats in 2010 and at least one new statewide office, then you’re more inept than I thought and I will not be giving the party another red cent of my money to waste wandering in the wilderness. Opportunities like this don’t come along very often.

ByteMe December 4, 2009 at 6:34 am

I give up, why is this written to GA GOP Leadership??

And as much as I’d like to see some horse races here, I don’t have faith that the DPofGA will recruit well enough to make this work.

Georgia Politico December 4, 2009 at 1:27 am

Still, one has to wonder if the state Democratic Party will be able to capitalize on the Georgia GOP’s current struggles.

After the do-nothing 2008 legislative session, the Democrats had a litany of issues to pound the Republicans on — from the lack of a statewide water plan to the complete breakdown of transportation talks on sine die day.

Yet, the Democrats failed to field candidates in 101 legislative races (twenty in the state Senate & eighty-one in the state House).

It’s hard to compete when your team doesn’t even show up.

Quite honestly, it would be safe to assume that Democrats will leave a large number of House and Senate seats uncontested in 2010, leaving the party’s chances of re-claiming the majority standing upon the edge of a knife.

B Balz December 4, 2009 at 7:52 am

Thanks GA Politico! One can only hope.

@byte I was curious to see how viable others might perceive Ms. Sara’s ‘war plan’. The lady is a pugilist, that’s for sure.

ByteMe December 4, 2009 at 8:14 am

The plan is right out of the 2005-2006 Democratic plan, except that Howard Dean spent the year laying the groundwork across the country for recruiting strong candidates and helping to fund their races. My view matches GA Politico’s on this: I don’t see the same effort to in GA to recruit strong competitors for every office. The current officeholders are “safe” as long as the Democrats don’t offer viable challengers.

Comments on this entry are closed.