Bookman On Boyd On Ethics

Read Jay Bookman today.

I know, to the hard core Republicans on here, that’s heresy. Get over yourselves.

I haven’t had the time to put my $.02 in yet on Ray Boyd’s entry into the Governor’s race. That will probably be written this weekend.

But the best thing about it is that $2 Million is about to be spent shining a spotlight on ethics in Georgia Government.

This can, and should, have a great impact on the remaining days at the legislature, the ethics bill(s) that will ultimately pass, and the outcome of the Republican primary.

Welcome to the race Mr. Boyd. I doubt you will be elected governor, but for all the reasons Mr. Bookman lists and more, I certainly hope you will have an impact on who will be elected.

35 comments

  1. Technocrat says:

    Given the usual ethics in the real estate business. Not sure which is better politics or realty. 5% commisions or graft which is usually higher……………check kickback criminal cases usually 5% OR LESS.
    Interesting court decission that agents had zero duty to warn summer or short term renters of serious hazards in/on property.
    Tell me about previous recent collusion between appraisers and agents to inflate housing and commercial values.

  2. B Balz says:

    @technocrat

    Every industry has its’ flaws, liars, scoundrels, cheats, thieves, and ne’er do wells. Mr. Boyd is a commercial real estate man, as such any reference to residential real estate is really inconsistent with the man’s core business.

    While the run up in commercial real estate values has some component of collusion between appraisers and developers, brokers are not usually part of that. Both appraisers and brokers are regulated by an extremely strict GA Real Estate Commission GREC, whereas most businesses are unregulated. Each quarter, GREC posts violators and anyone can check any agent or broker to see if they have been sanctioned.

    Yesterday I stated Mr. Boyd could force many butt-shifting conversations and now Mr. Bookman confirms same. Who says MSM does pay attention to us?

  3. macho says:

    You have a new candidate, in the GOP Primary, that plans on spending $2 million dollars, hounding on ethics and bashing lifetime politicians. I wonder which two GOP candidates are going to be hurt by this?

        • macho says:

          Possibly more, but two of the candidates are no-brainers. Especially when you are talking about the two elements that Boyd will be hitting on: get rid of lifetime politicians and ethics.

          Ox has spent his whole career on the tit of the Georgian taxpayers, and his career has been riddled with ethics violations.

          Boyd will force Ox to expose himself to the Tea Party movement. The Tea Partiers will see the naked truth, that Ox is not the man he portrays himself to be.

          • polisavvy says:

            You are absolutely right about the two no-brainers. And, you are equally correct about the Ox. I think his layers are going to start peeling away very shortly. Mr. Boyd and some of the other candidates are just waiting for the right opportunity to arise and then BOOM! Direct hit!

            • Mozart says:

              So, here’s a question to ponder: Normally, the “non-well-known candidates” get little to no attention paid to them, even when they bring their own money to the table (e.g., Clifford Oxford, John Konop, etc.).

              Why are you all thinking that the media and/or the voters is going to pay attention to Boyd now?

              Credibility still counts for the message to be absorbed by the recipient. I will be interested to see how and where Boyd spends his budget.

              • polisavvy says:

                You are aware of the fact that I am an Austin Scott supporter, right? Just checking. Anyway, I will be curious about Mr. Boyd and how he gets his message out there. I will also be waiting to hear him say that Representative Scott has done anything unethical (as he alleged when he announced his candidacy that he was going to run because he indicated that all the candidates that were running had ethical issues).

        • Will Harrison says:

          Since Karen Handel was a senior staffer for Governor Perdue during the time of his ethically questionable land deals, how confident can we be that she had no knowledge or no participation in these deals?

          • Mozart says:

            Maybe because Karen Handel doesn’t know a thing about land deals?

            Maybe when she becomes governor, she will learn all about investing in stocks, bonds, bank loans, and land deals.

            She’ll be kinda like Martha Stewart.

          • SFrazier says:

            You must be talking about the $10,000 Handel received from Fourth Quarter Properties, the real estate company involved in the infamous shady land deal with Karen Handel’s good buddy Uncle Sonny.

            • ReaganRepublican says:

              Looks like Icarus needs to do some investigating. Icarus, you have some explaining to do…..

              • SFrazier says:

                Well, where is the Handel response? I have many more instances of inappropriate dealings of the Handel regime…. So much for ” bring it on”.

              • benevolus says:

                I don’t want to defend Handel, but in a general sense, I don’t think this sort of thing should be a problem. Candidates can’t control who gives them money, and even if their enemy gave them money, why should they return it? They should encourage their enemies to give them MORE!

                I’m pretty cynical, but I’m not cynical enough to believe that every contribution = bought legislator. Just because there’s a quid, doesn’t mean there is a pro quo.

  4. MSBassSinger says:

    The way the Republican Party (nationally and in Georgia) have handled ethics problems , IMHO, underscores why conservatism is not complete without social conservatives (the real kind, not the faux “get me some votes” kind).

    Without an underlying, immutable sense of right and wrong, ethics shift like the sands. From where does one get that immutable sense of right and wrong? Again, IMHO, from the JudeoChristian tradition. It is from that tradition that we get the interpretation of justice that it be tempered with mercy. That we do not tolerate public evil and call it good. That taking advantage of the poor, weak, and powerless is wrong. That using the government to forcibly take from one person to give to one who has not earned it is wrong. And a host of other things that will always be right or wrong, regardless of what people choose for themselves.

    The Republican Party is the only one who holds up morality as being important. The Democrat party can spend thousands on strippers and the like, and it doesn’t make the news. But then, the Democrat Party doesn’t profess that such things are wrong. No one holds them to a high ethical standard on such issues.

    The Republican Party, because it has been run since 2000 by Rockefeller Republican’ts (again, nationally and in Georgia), lack the integration of social conservatism that gives the party the backbone to stand for what is right, to remove unethical people from office, even if it costs elections. I see Democrats standing for what they believe with Obamacare, even if they lose their next elections (and many will). Where are the Republicans who will take out the garbage in their ranks when they first get wind of it, and not wait until it becomes public? It is far better for any political party to spot true unethical behavior in a politician, quietly get them out of a position of leadership, and stand by them if they are repentant and willing to be rehabilitated out of office.

    • Icarus says:

      Your thesis is good, except for the fact that most of the ones caught in the moral scandals aren’t the fiscal conservatives, but the ones who have been playing the “holier than thou at all costs” games.

      • MSBassSinger says:

        Hence what I said about “the faux “get me some votes” kind”.

        Fiscal “conservatives” have given us more taxes, and failed to take action on those they knew to be ethically and/or morally a problem. The reason they don’t is because their ethical compass has no true north. Complete conservatives would not make that error, and those are the kind we need.

        • Icarus says:

          Well, until the social conservatives get better at determining who is “faux” prior to their election, and more importantly, prior to their ethics scandal, then I’m not terribly interested in loading up with them.

    • Doug Deal says:

      You are confusing social conservatives (knowing what’s best for everyone else’s life) with ethics (knowing what’s best for your own).

      Perhaps if the answers provided by socoms was a “smidgeon” less force other people and a tad more watch your own behavior, they would have more support among non socoms.

  5. macho says:

    Boyd is going to be Ox and Deal’s worst nightmare. Roy Barnes is going to mourn the day Boyd jumped into the GOP Primary.

Comments are closed.