Beacon Explains “Big 5” Participants

After the number of questions raised in this post about the participants of the Beacon “Big 5” Debate, I contacted John Fredericks, Publisher of The Beacon for a comment:

The Beacon Gubernatorial GOP Debate format is designed to allow the candidates to engage each other in substantial policy debate.
Debate participants were chosen based on financial viability. Candidates who had raised more than $250,000 since launching their campaign have been included.

As mentioned before, PeachPundit will be there liveblogging the debate.


    • anewday says:

      Can you look at the disclosures and tell me any lobbyist or special interest that have given to Austin Scott’s campaign. If you can I accept your statement, if not you ought to retract that statement.

      • polisavvy says:

        Exactly! I have been over his (and others) disclosure statements, and I know for a fact that no one will find where anyone has bought and paid for him. He should be commended. I just wish I could start figuring out to get behind. I think I’m getting closer.

    • Lawful Money says:


      Thank you for obtaining and publishing the latest version of the criteria for the Beacon debate invitees, as Mr. Fredericks would have us believe.

      Do you or does anyone else know when the Beacon invitations went out to the “Big-5” …..or when they secured the room, created the advertising, and distributed the banners & emails….how about when they planned and printed the tickets and settled on the 10.00 fee?

      • polisavvy says:

        I have just found out that the money for the debate is going to The Beacon (having financial trouble). Not the candidates.

    • Truthteller says:

      John Fredricks is joke locally. He’s quite literally an idiot.

      But idiots with ink … do make ink dots.

      Read the ‘paper’ once. It’s painful.

      • Lawful Money says:

        Can’t argue with that Truthteller…..

        But surely his handlers would not allow him to juggle a deck of absurd rationalizations all weekend, searching for one that was suitable to formerly free men in the dark…..

        …..only to come up with this ex post facto confession that money alone is how they judge “viability”…..while blatantly suggesting that the criteria they now claim to have used, was not even known when they planned the event?

        Whoever is buying this idiot’s ink, is getting far less than he or she paid for.

        • Lawful Money says:

          Apologies – that should read:

          “….that was suitable to keep formerly free men in the dark….”

        • Mozart says:

          Fredericks is all in for Karen Handel. It’ll be interesting to watch him lob her the easy questions and seek to decimate the other 4 candidates’ with tougher questions.

      • Bluedog says:

        Absolutely a FACT!
        It is incredible to me that anyone would even acknowledge this idiot…much less attend a debate sponsored by him. The guy is broke, disgusted and can’t be trusted. A DUI and a divorce, a business whose advertisers must pay his creditors, not a city in his market will do business with him and every elected official and public servant in N Fulton knows what a sleaze-bag he is…and yet somehow he is legitimized by Shawn and Fulton GOP.

    • Glen Ross says:

      Personally, I’m probably going to choose between one of the 5 candidates invited to the debate. Although it’s unfortunate for Jeff and Ray, I’m glad I’ll get the opportunity to hear more out of the 5 leading candidates. Having all 7 really makes it hard to learn anything substantial about each of them

  1. TheRightSide says:

    Finally, someone gets this right. Neither McBerry nor Chapman are a factor in this race and so its time to get the viable candidates engaged in a debate of substance. McBerry didn’t even bother to file a financial disclosure statement and Chapman raised a mere $14,000. So regardless of their positions, as of today, they are not serious contenders. I am glad the Beacon had the guts to not be intimidated by candidates who cannot possibly get in this run-off.

    • StephenLocustGrove says:

      I think you should change your name to The Wrong Side. The 5 candidates in this so called debate are all establishment career politicians. If your ok with that you need to think again.

          • StephenLocustGrove says:

            Hey Icarus. Out of the so called “Big 5” how many years of “public service” do they have put together? If you need me to add it up for you please let me know. These “Big 5” are what you call career politician.

          • ByteMe says:

            Because, y’know, what this state really needs is a governor who has limited experience at other levels of government.

          • Ken in Eastman says:


            I agree completely. With this budget crisis I think we need someone without any experience at all to run the state’s executive branch. It would certainly be . . . entertaining.

            BTW, how low can a state’s bond rating go, anyway?

          • StephenLocustGrove says:

            byteme and ken… That really makes sense. Lets elect someone that has been in gov’t the past 10 years. I would hate for us to elect a governor that actually has a lot of experience in the private sector. What was i thinking? These post yall are putting are laughable. I will nickname yall “scratch and sniff”

          • ByteMe says:

            Perdue claimed he was going to run the government like a business. That turned out well, yes?

            Government IS NOT A BUSINESS. The incentives are totally different as are the ways you measure success and the extent of your power to make changes. Only fools think that what’s needed in government is someone who was successful at something entirely unrelated. Do you really want someone experienced at driving a taxi to be your brain surgeon?

            But, hey, the name-calling fits you perfectly. Don’t change.

          • StephenLocustGrove says:

            Don’t take it personally. Perdue is a bafoon. He is far away from a conservative. That word gets thrown around way to much to me. The point I’m trying to make is Gov’t needs to be run like a business. I know a lot of ppl that own business and if they ran them like the gov’t runs the state and country we would be in trouble. Oh wait a minute… We are in TROUBLE. Get it

          • ByteMe says:

            Stephen, the point you’re making is wrong, though. If you’ve ever run a business, then you know that the incentives, the power structure, and the way “success” is measured — three critical factors to running a successful enterprise — are completely different between government and business. And unless you want to turn government into a dictatorship, the power structure isn’t going to ever change to match the way a business is run.

  2. polisavvy says:

    That’s probably not a very fair assessment. The invited candidates did not organize this event. They were only asked to participate. The Beacon decided who would participate and what the criteria was, not the candidates.

  3. StephenLocustGrove says:

    Just seems very fishy when they will not allow all 7 candidates to debate. I guess Ray and Jeff did themselves no favor by doing well at the Athens debate.

    • polisavvy says:

      Stephen, I have been saying that since last Friday. I do believe that all candidates should have been invited, except McBerry who has yet to file his campaign disclosure (which as of this coming Friday will be 21 days late). Where you and I apparently don’t agree is that you seem to want to criticize or find fault with the candidates who are participating for some criteria established by The Beacon and something that they had absolutely no control.

  4. StephenLocustGrove says:

    The point I’m trying to make is that all 7 candidates should be there. Oxi-clean is on record saying that he will NOT debate any candidate that polls under 5%. If these 2 candidates are pulling under 5%, why is Oxi so afraid to debate them.

    • polisavvy says:

      I wonder why he has this “holier than thou” attitude. I hope he realizes that the Rasmussen poll was just based on name recognition and not the consensus of the voters’ opinions. We are in total agreement about all or none (with the exceptional of the one who won’t/refuses to follow the rules). Mr. Chapman most certainly should have been invited, in my opinion. I said last Friday that I felt sorry for him and his supporters. One day I’ll tell you a little secret as we get closer to July.

      • anewday says:

        I’d like to feel sorry for him to because I have a lot of respect for Chapman, but it’s not like he has been actively campaigning like all of the other candidates. This isn’t the first thing that he hasn’t attended. My friends throughout the GOP have told me that he has been invited to events, but have declined the invitations. It’s like he is only running to prove a point….what that point is I have no idea.

        • polisavvy says:

          I agree and stand corrected. I was unaware that he was invited to events and declined the invitations.

        • Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

          Speaking of points that you have no idea of, he wasn’t invited to this. THAT was the point.

          You have friends throughout the GOP? I am impressed. 🙂
          Just about every local forum I have attended had people absent that were invited or sent a stand in. You are talking about this planet , right?

          • polisavvy says:

            I am aware that he was not invited to THIS. I was commenting on the information shared by another poster that he (Chapman) had declined other events. I made no mention of the debate specifically. I have said it a million times that I thought he should have been invited. All of the ones that follow the rules (file their disclosure statements) should have been invited. FYI, I do live on the same planet as you.

    • anewday says:

      Why do you McBerry fans not answer the question about him not filing a disclosure. It’s like y’all just ignore this MAJOR fact. You are the ones that talk about doing the political thing right, but unfortunately McBerry is the only one who can be without a doubt connected to breaking a law.

      • polisavvy says:

        Wait a minute, please. I am most definitely not a McBerry fan. Please don’t think I am. I am as appalled as you that he has not filed yet. To me there is no excuse. The Ethics Commission should have enough authority granted to them that someone has to suspend their campaign in the event they fail to make a deadline in filing AND there should be a hefty file. Once again, I think you and I agree on a lot of things; but, I am NOT a McBerry fan.

        • Republican Lady says:

          Amendment X

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

          This Amendment gives the states the right to require disclosures just as it gives states the right to invest police powers and decide how police officers are trained and what they can and can’t do. For example, city police have no powers outside their jurdiction but the Georgia State Patrol has power statewide.

          • polisavvy says:

            Great reply! I was looking that exact Amendment up when I was alerted to a new post. Once again, great job! Can’t wait for the responses you are going to get.

          • Republican Lady says:

            Oxiclean? No way as he has shown a clear inability to lead. You must not have read my previous posts in which I clearly and strongly support Karen Handel all the way.

          • StephenLocustGrove says:

            Republican Lady…Well that sure is heck isn’t any better. You need to ask her why some of her support is coming from the people that produced the voting machines we currently have that she said she woouldn’t allow as SOS.

      • Red Phillips says:

        I have an idea. Why don’t you ask Ray about the disclosure if you care so much. No one cares about the disclosure (its a 25 dollar fine. Whoopee! That rebel law breaker) except the people on here who just want to use it as a bludgeon, but consistently refuse to debate the basic premise of Ray’s Constitutionalism. (The bandwagon jumping on that issue on here is palpable.) Come up with a coherent, historically valid argument against Constitutionalism or keep quiet.

        • When he answers the question of whether or not he will effectively put the State at war with the United States, I’ll concede someone needs to debate his basic premises. But his premises lead somewhere, and that is a state of rebellion when he refuses to comply.

          The sooner he owns up to that, the sooner I’ll take him seriously.

          • Red Phillips says:

            Ronald, did the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions put VA and KY in a state of war with the Feds? When several Northern States nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, did that put them at war with the Feds? When several states recently refused to comply with the National ID, were they in a state of war with the Feds? In a healthy functioning Republic with DIVIDED SOVEREIGNTY, such things could easily be considered the healthy and rather common place working out of State vs. Federal tensions. Moderns, who are all Hobbesians of one sort or another whether they know it are not, are horrified at the thought of divided sovereignty.

            Now it may well be true that Ray is a man ahead of his times (and simultaneously behind them). That he is advocating political remedies that the majority of the populace is not yet willing to embrace. Maybe so. But that is an entirely separate question from whether, historically speaking, what he is advocating is constitutionally legitimate. No one has made a coherent historical case that they are not despite repeated requests, but Ray’s supporters have consistently been willing to make the case that they are. Why is that? Does that not suggest whose side history is on?

      • a4s4 says:

        Mcberry has not filed yet because Jon Hodges (Jenny’s husband) was in charge of filing this report. He has had a hard time getting all the info together since he let Jenny go. The report is about 90% done and will be completed shortly. He will pay a small fine and hopefully we can move on to some real discussion of issues that actually matter.

          • polisavvy says:

            No, but the candidate is the one who will, unfortunately in his case, take the heat. I just have wondered if there is not some legal remedy by which he can actually get whatever whoever has in order to file his disclosure, and then be able to get back to campaigning without the distractions. He’s not my choice for candidate; however, if he’s unable because some other person has his information, then I feel for him. If there’s a legal remedy (in the event someone is refusing to give him his information), then he should pursue it.

        • Red Phillips says:

          I don’t know if Jon was so much in charge of filing the report as that he was the keeper of the records, which then Ray didn’t have access to and had to recreate from scratch.

          But this is all a distraction so people can bang away on Ray. Their time would be better spent studying history and coming up with a coherent historically accurate attempt to refute Ray’s Constitutionalism, but I’m not holding my breath. The silence is deafening.

          • GOPGeorgia says:


            If Ray can’t let Jenny go and still be able to file his disclosure statements, doesn’t that show a bit of poor planning on his part? That’s assuming that letting Jenny go is the reason he hasn’t filed.

            What people are talking about is his inability to file his report. You may want to break it into a history debate with McBerry being a history professor, but people are much more concerned about their present and future than the past.

          • Red Phillips says:

            GOPGeorgia, the debate about Constitutionalism is a debate about the past, it’s called original intent. That is what conservatives do. They attempt to preserve the legacy left them by their forefathers.

          • polisavvy says:

            I fear GOPGeorgia that you are just wasting your breath. Nice try, though. You obviously aren’t going to get anywhere with this one — unfortunately. And the debate goes on . . .

          • GOPGeorgia says:


            I’m not so sure you want to go with just original intent as your prevailing view of why things should be constitutional. The constitution is a very important document and it is a firm building block of our nation. However, it is not the only thing that shapes our nation and amendments have been added that change the original intent of our forefathers. The views of the country have changed in some areas. Many constitutionalists want to harp on article one section eight of the constitution as far as powers granted to congress to control the scope of their actions. They almost never bring up article three section one. The SCOTUS has made rulings that I don’t agree with, but I recognize their authority to set precedent and judicial review. Judicial review was not set into the constitution, but it was discussed in the convention.

            The original intent of our forefathers was that men who owned land could vote, women couldn’t, and it was OK to own slaves. The number of representatives in the house was one per thirty thousand. U.S. Senators would be elected by the state legislature of each state and by the people. The original intent was to have the Vice President as the first runner up to the President. The original intent was that one could serve as President as many terms as the people elected them (via the electoral college.)

            As our society changes and grows, so will cases that come before the SCOTUS and we may have amendments offered up that get passed. Those rulings and amendments will have just as much scope in determining how of our nation functions as the original intent as our founding fathers. You could still hold the attitude that you are right and the other 99% of us are wrong. And that is your constitutional right to do so.

            I believe that we should follow the constitution, not because the original intent of many things contained therein were perfect, but because we all need to play by the same rules and not make things up as we go along.

          • Red Phillips says:

            GOPGeorgia, thanks for at least trying to make an argument. I agree that the Constitution is not the only thing that shapes a nation. No conservative would deny that religion, culture, heritage, history, geography, etc. also shape a nation.

            Your argument is a common one. Since there was slavery, property ownership requirements to vote, etc. at the time of ratification then we no longer want what was originally intended. But many of the things you mention were changed by Amendment. (For the record, as a conservative who is not a democrat [small d], but a republican [small r] a strong case can be made for restricting as opposed to expanding the franchise. This has historically been the conservative position. It is why we opposed Motor Voter for example. The 17th Amendment that enacted the direct election of Senators was a huge mistake. But I digress.) But that is just the point. They bothered to actually amend the Constitution. They didn’t just ignore it.

            The point is not to recreate perfectly society as it was in the late 18th Century. Such is neither posible nor desirable. The point is that for the Constitution to mean anything, it has to be interpreted in light of the intent when it was enacted. (Just as, for example, the Bible must be interpreted in the manner in which it was intended, not by having modern mores and values read into it in hindsight.) If instead the Constitution is interpreted by whim of the Judicuiary for example we have lawlessness. It amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game.

            One of those original intents was clearly the doctrine of “enumerated powers.” The historical evidence for this is abundantly clear. I could provide qoute after quote, source after source, to prove this. If people want the government to do more, they should focus on the local and state level. If they feel it must be done at the federal level then they should at least be intellectually honest enough to first seek to amend the Constitution, not pretend that enumerated powers doesn’t exist or explain it away with hand waving and voodo language.

            If someone would like to make the historical case against enumerated powers (or states rights as a means of enforcement) as the original intent then I would be more than happy to hear it. But “Run away! Run away! There be extremists!” or “Na na-na na-na. Look at the evil extrenmist” is not an argument.

          • GOPGeorgia says:


            I wasn’t making an argument, I was just pointing out facts on you should not rely on “original intent.” The original intent of our founding fathers was laid out in the articles of confederation. It established the name of the confederation as “The United States of America,” but also preappoved the provinces of Canada as states into the confederation. The continental congress changed the rules of the game by scrapping the articles and adopting the constitution.

            The system that you champion, that I agree with for the most part, allows the federal government to conduct it’s business and the states to conduct their business. States may enact whatever laws they see fit pertaining to running for the office of Governor of that state. According to the Constitutions of the United States and of Georgia, we have at least one candidate who appears to be making up the rules as he goes.

            I’m not saying it’s always wrong to change the rules of the game. I prefer the constitution to the articles of confederation. We would just like a good explanation on why it’s OK to change them in this case.

            Now that I have indulged your whim to discuss history, can you please explain why Ray has not filed his disclosures yet?

            I don’t need definitions of conservatives, republicans, or others. I have my own, thank you. I don’t need complaints about motor voter or the seventeenth amendment. I’d like to discuss the topic at hand, if you can. So far the silence has been deafening.

          • Red Phillips says:

            GOPGeorgia, the reason he hasn’t filed is discussed above. You saw it because you responded to it.

            I wish he could have gotten the disclosure in on time, but no one really cares about his disclosure. It is just a convenient excuse to beat up on him, by people who are unwilling to address the larger issues he is raising. But primarily they care because they anticipate that he hasn’t raised as much as the “Big 5” and they want to be able to point that out as if how much money you raise is some indication of how right you are on the issues. (The inverse relationship is more likely true.) Sorry if I’m not buying following the letter of the law protestations from people who ridicule following the Constitution.

          • Red Phillips says:

            BTW, GOPGeorgia, we would have been much better off sticking with the Articles of Confederation. It is ironic how anti-Federalist are actually the most dogmatic Constitutionalists.

          • GOPGeorgia says:


            I thought blaming it on Jenny was a theory. I didn’t realize it was the real reason. Thanks for clarifying. Not filing is not an excuse for me to beat up on him. I had not mentioned his campaign either positively or negatively until I wanted to know why the campaign wasn’t following the law.

            Maybe if he hired Jenny back, he would be able to comply, and get a few more votes?

          • polisavvy says:

            Call me crazy (not literally), but, since his problems seem to be because someone is no longer in his employ, that perhaps there are legal remedies in which to get any information that she and/or anyone else has that is preventing him from being able to file his disclosure. All the information they have is HIS property, not their property. They should be/should have been forced to give him any and all information needed ASAP. If they have given it back, he should file. If they have not given it back, he should force them. They did/should have filed confidentiality agreements with him. If they did and have not returned his information, they have violated said confidentiality agreements.

    • polisavvy says:

      I am so glad you are laughing. Glad I can amuse you as much as The Ox stories amuse me. I am now laughing at you. 🙂

    • polisavvy says:

      Come on now. You base this on what? First of all, he’s not now nor has he ever been a community organizer. Second, he actually has a business that he runs. I don’t believe he believes in socialism. I don’t believe he believes that people should be co-dependent on the government. Please explain why you think he’s anything close to an Obama. I’d love to hear this. Who knows, you might help me make up my mind as to what candidate I will get behind?

      • StephenLocustGrove says:

        polisavvy… He said at the Athens debate that the biggest contributor to the State of GA is the Federal Gov’t. He said we don’t like but we have to deal with it. I have a problem with that.. He also said the answer to our water problem is we should conserve. Not very good answers to me.

        • anewday says:

          As for McBerry his answer to the water problem would be to round up all those illegals who are using up our water and ship them out of here.

          If I can remember directly from the debate conservation was just a part of his answer. And yes the Federal government does give a good percentage of money to our State. You want to kick them out and not take their money Stephen? Which would you prefer to cut out of the budget, education or everything else?

          • StephenLocustGrove says:

            We are a gimmie state now anewday, if you know what I’m talking about. Ray wants the surrounding states to deal with the water problems not the Fed Gov’t. It is up to the Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and GA Governors to deal with it. Name one Fed Gov’t program that is operated right…

          • anewday says:

            I can’t. But that doesn’t mean that the money that they give the state can’t be put to good use by the people who create the state budget. I understand where you are coming from. Trust me if I thought we could be completely independent from the federal government I would be all for it, but unfortunately not taking their money for education, healthcare, transportation, and everything else is not logical. I believe that most of our Founding Fathers would be considered a conservative today, but more then anything I think they would have wanted to be considered logical and what Ray McBerry proposes is far from logical.

          • polisavvy says:

            anewday, some people just don’t get it that we do have to rely on the federal government to a large degree because we began relying on them many years ago. You can’t just stop it all of a sudden and there not be repercussions. Without federal money how would Georgia’s roads be? Without federal money how worse could education be? Him saying he would respect the President and agree with him when he thinks he’s right and disagree with him when he thinks he’s wrong was not out of line. You don’t have to like the person, but you need to respect the office (even if Obama is sitting there).

          • polisavvy says:

            Give it up “anewday.” Unfortunately, we both are fighting a losing battle with some people. Nothing either of us can say will be understood. I’d like for there not to be federal government interference in Georgia; however, it is what it is, and we both know that with the current economic condition of the state that we have to have some assistance from the federal government. I just others would look at the broader picture. Great posts this evening! Enjoyed them.

          • BillinSuwanee says:

            anewday. That is deceptive. He never made that statement. He said; ‘I acknowledge the holes in the ground belong to the Federal guv’mint. But, every drop of water in those reservoirs belong to the people of Georgia.’ He never linked rounding up illegals to the water problem.

            If you’re going to be critical be critical in an honest manner.

          • a4s4 says:

            Georgia’s budget is right at $30billion and the Federal Government provides about $10 billion of that. Many of the programs we fund with that money are programs that help conform to federal regulation. Lets work on doing away with these unconstitutional programs put forth by the Federal Government. Is that not the way its supposed to work? “Principles of 98”

          • ByteMe says:

            You made up the part about “many of the programs we fund with that money are programs that help conform to federal regulation.” No way does 1/3 of the Education budget fund programs that the Feds demand that the State would not want to fund at all.

          • Icarus says:

            I’m kind of curious as to where the $30 Billion figure came from as well, given that the State Budget is a little more than half that amount.

            But I guess facts and numbers don’t seem to matter when you know so much to be true.

          • a4s4 says:

            I got the numbers form the Georgia budget policy institute. (think tank) Talked to them this morning to make sure I had the numbers correct. And perhaps I should have checked my numbers a little better but the actual point remains. If you think the Federal Government does not use funding to control the states to some degree you are blind.

  5. StephenLocustGrove says:

    Jeff Chapman is running to take away votes from Eric Johnson. Somebody, don’t know who yet, wants Jeff in this race to take away votes from Eric. Just think about it.

    • StephenLocustGrove says:

      anewday…… ALL of our FOUNDING FATHERS were better than Conservatives. That is why they put State Rights in the Constitution. Some people on this blog claim to be for the Constitution except for the 10th Admendment.

  6. StephenLocustGrove says:

    I like real conservatives. I’m sorry I forgot real conservatives were not liked around here.

  7. StephenLocustGrove says:

    anewday… I understand what Scott was saying. I will agree with President and disagree with him when he is wrong. WOW!! what guts he has. A real Governor would say if it’s not in the Constitution get it out of my State.

  8. Republican Lady says:

    The Fourteenth Admendment gave the Constitution to the states.

    Amendment XIV

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

    Section 3.
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4.
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section 5.
    The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

  9. Republican Lady says:

    Does anyone know why the Beacon is charging $10 to attend the debate? Does the money go to the Beacon or to the candidates? Anybody?

    • polisavvy says:

      I have wondered this same thing. I really don’t think that the candidates are getting any money from it. Some can’t accept money at the present time.

    • Mozart says:

      Takes money to rent a facility to hold a debate? Insurance to cover inadvertent injuries? Security costs?

      Or, do you think everything should be “free,” RL?

  10. Tireless says:

    If you guys don’t like paying $10 to watch a debate, don’t go. I fail to see the purpose of whining about this matter.

  11. Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

    This thread has it all, exaggerated claims, out and out lies and bad figures.

    Lies would pretty much sum it up.

    Chapman raised $14,000 That is just plain BS.

    Running to take votes away from Eric Fat Cat in the pockets of the Reynolds family looked the other way on the ethics committee Johnson ?

    “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”

  12. scott2121 says:

    Just for the record–Guess what will get my vote, or go a long way toward it: someone being outraged by the legislator’s new plan to RAISE CELL PHONE TAXES. Maybe they got confused and think a recession is when everyone has too much money floating around and needs to get rid of it. I don’t really know what they’re thinking, but please show me a Governor whose going to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen

    • Ken in Eastman says:

      A cell phone is no longer a luxury. In a small business or for a salesman or anyone in public relations, it is a necessity. Raising cell phone usage taxes are a bad idea.

  13. Red Phillips says:

    The money figure is just a convenient excuse to exclude the people (really person, Chapman doesn’t threaten their nice little centrist consensus) they intended to exclude.

  14. Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

    Senator Jeff Chapman continued the job the voters elected him to do in the Senate and he did that at the risk of not being able to raise money. By doing the job the voters elected him to do it created scheduling conflicts in other parts of the state.
    Ethical? You make up your mind.

    What will the Beacon Debate have?

    The Beacon debate will have two candidates who were elected to office and are quitters.

    One quitter in particular who is held up here by people with the ink as the person that should lead Georgia.

    My recommendation
    *Buy advertising under the Beacon and Scott on the right hand side of this page .
    *Quit office and brain storm with the Reynolds family.
    *Quit office so that you don’t have to do the job you were elected to do during one of the most challenging times in our state government. (this will inspire god like bloggers to write that you made a big sacrifice )
    *Clone yourself so that you can be on the Senate floor one minuet and in Columbus Ga. an hour later.
    * Dont say no to a bad idea. Go along with the Governor and his Lieutenants in the house and senate, even when you know their screwing us good, along with the lobbyist.

  15. BillinSuwanee says:

    Folks keep in mind that the Federal guv’mint is now self-aware. Bureaucrats published 250 pages of rules and regulation in the Federal Registry on average every day so far in 2010. Social Security is $17,500,000,000,000 in the RED; Medicare is $61,600,000,000,000 with the Medicare Prescription alone $16,100,000,000,000 in the RED. The Federal guv’mint is going to super-nova and meltdown. The only thing that can protect you, me, our families is the State of Georgia telling the Federal guv’mint to bugger off. With that said think …

    Nathan Deal voted YEA for No Child Left Behind, Homeland Security Act, and the Medicare Prescription Act. What is it about Socialism that Nathan Deal does NOT like.

    Austin Scott wants to work with the Federal guv’mint with Nationalized Healthcare instead of weening our state off the $7.0B of bribe money given to us.

    Karen Handel wants to create Task Forces to determine what is the best tax policy and committees to brainstorm the creation of jobs.

    Folks … if we don’t have a Governor that is willing to tell the Federal guv’mint to bugger-off, we are all impoverish and those not yet born are impoverished at the Federal level.


  16. Romegaguy says:

    I heard they didnt invite McBerry because of questions arising over his citizenship. Have you ever seen his birth certificate? I havent.

    • polisavvy says:

      Absolutely hysterical! Sounds kind of ridiculous, doesn’t it (asking for a birth certificate, I mean)?

  17. TangoMikeMike says:

    A response to several posts: 1) John Fredericks may indeed be an idiot, 2) The Beacon is sponsoring, alone, as far as i can tell (maybe with some help from Metro Club.) That means no financial help from the state GOP (as i think helped in the Athens debate), 3) Putting on this kind of event costs money. If the reports are right (or even if they aren’t’) that the The Beacon is in financial trouble, i hope they at least get enough income from the event to break even. 4) Several people have posted about what someone else should do. I say call seven candidates, coordinate their schedules, identify a place, and sponsor the event yourself, if you feel that strongly. 5) Oxendine may indeed be “ducking” the candidates at the tail of the line, but why should he debate them? They can’t reasonably win, and about the only thing they can do is take shots at him. That seems sensible, if the goal is to win. Not comely exactly, but it’s tough to fault the guy for it. 6) The Metro Club has limited seating, so, 7) It seems to me like ten bucks is a reasonable restriction to make sure the place isn’t overrun. 7) The front runner in his first debate is interesting 8) Other news outlets have (apparently) been invited to cover the event.

    Okay, these didn’t instantly come to mind, but took a little noodling. I’m no apologist for Fredericks, even though it really is the only newspaper in North Fulton. On the other hand, for a bunch of ostensibly freedom loving people to start demanding that someone else do something with their own time and money, seem a bit anachronistic.

    • Mozart says:

      “On the other hand, for a bunch of ostensibly freedom loving people to start demanding that someone else do something with their own time and money, seem a bit anachronistic.”

      Apparently, you’re new here. Because, anachronism precisely explains the PP genre of front page posters.

Comments are closed.