Ray Boyd and the GA-GOP

This cracks me up:

Raymond Boyd, the self-funded newcomer to the Republican gubernatorial race, is in a major dispute with state GOP officials over the party’s insistence that he sign an oath pledging allegiance to the party.
[…]
State GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart said Monday that the oath is spelled out in both party rules and state law.

“We’ve never had anybody who ran as a Republican yet object to it,” Everhart said.

But Boyd said he won’t sign the one-sentence oath, which reads: “I do hereby swear or affirm my allegiance to the Republican Party.”

Instead, Boyd said he offered a compromise. He’d sign an oath that included that sentence but that goes on to say he “will not be bound by any position of the Georgia Republican Party that I do not feel would represent the core principles of that faction of the Republican Party which is referred to by many as ‘Ronald Reagan Republicans.’ I am running as a Republican — a Ronald Reagan Republican. I hereby reaffirm my pledge to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I offer my life in defense thereof.”

Boyd’s version was rejected, however.

It doesn’t end there:

Boyd said he got into a shouting match with Everhart, during which he accused her of behaving like U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “She didn’t like that,” Boyd said.

Boyd said Everhart accused him of being a Republican in name only, or “RINO,” and suggested he run as an independent.

But Everhart said that’s not true. She said she has no doubt that Boyd is a Republican.

In their defense this isn’t unusual, the LP has an oath as well. There have been attempts to change it at conventions, but it takes 7/8s of the body to approve a change.

187 comments

  1. ByteMe says:

    If an allegiance literally means absolutely anything you want it to mean — and the above allegiance is so vague as to be meaningless — why sign it or not sign it?

    • hannah says:

      Because the first commandment is obedience and this is a test. Following a sensible directive does not demonstrate obedience.

  2. Ramblinwreck says:

    I’d have to go with Boyd on this one. Seems to me that promising to uphold and defend the Constitution would be enough. Of course, since there are so few elected Republicans who actually do that maybe Sue views the Constitution to be a subset of Republican core principles instead of the other way around. I’d just be happy with some elected official who actually took the oath of office seriously no matter what party they’re in.

  3. Chris says:

    I’d think if this guy was so lawyer-esque about that oath, he probably isn’t cheating on his spouse.

    • Ramblinwreck says:

      Seriously, how dumb is this “oath.” Johnny Isakson who I’m sure signs the oath but has no regard for the Constitution is acceptable but Mr. Boyd who promises to obey the Constitution but not sign the oath as written is not? This is the GOP leadership going on record stating that the party is more important than the principles it’s supposed to be based upon, and I do mean supposed.

    • Me thinks it is quite legitimate. The Party is an entity from which a person can allign him/herself to for electoral purposes. It looks like it could make an independent be an independent. Hardly, after seeing the game playing that goes on, does this create moral and ethical candidates. But, if someone has a problem with the Party and the platform, they either ought to get involved to change it, or seek a forum from a Party that they feel alligned to.

      At least the fellow is intellectually honest to question it. If he wants to run and win, sign the darn form and move on. There are far bigger fights to pick than to nitpick over an oath.

      • ByteMe says:

        Maybe it’s all in an effort to build “street cred” with the base he wants to capture….? Why else make this a public stink?

  4. Ambernappe says:

    Any speculation regarding the views of Mr. Boyd remain purely speculative at this time. Based on news reports at the time of his entry into the race, he feels that no current candidate meets his standards. Please, Mr. Boyd, provide a comprehensive list of your standards.
    I reveal my support for Karen Handel, but am always interested in the standards of others. You may find on-line , in her filings for office, that Mrs. Handel is not in any way a muti-millionaire, nor has she been enriched by her service to Fulton County or Georgia.
    former service to the citizens of Georgia or Fulton County.

    • AnyoneElse2010 says:

      She hasn’t been enriched by her services to Fulton County or Georgia because she hasn’t held any position long enough to get to that point.

  5. This is another thing that makes the LP such a good home for the politically homeless. One can “hate our Party’s guts”, but we’ll let you join and run for office as a member, as long as you promise to remain true to one of the basic principled tenants of Liberty, not to initiate force (or coercion) for personal or political gain.

    Having to swear an allegiance to a Party, as opposed to some principles, to me, seems a little cultish…. and very alienating.

    • Ambernappe says:

      Daniel,

      I am confused. Swearing allegiance to a party is usually a concise statement of one’s political belief. It helps people understand you. In this day and time, there is precious little time to research every candidate, so stated beliefs are a standard from which to begin the research.

      By the way, my first campaign was for the Presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater, so my observations are not those of a nascent participant in a major campaign.

  6. sethweathers says:

    I think it’s pretty simple. If you want to run as a Republican in the State of Georgia, you sign it. If this doesn’t suit you, run under a party that you agree with.

    Ronald Reagan would have never caused any such nonsense over this – its a waste of everyone’s time. Including my own, so I should get back to work! 😀

    • I believe if the GOP would have stuck to the “Principles of Reagan”, Boyd probably wouldn’t have any problem with the oath either… but that’s the point that I think “confused” Ambernappe; parties might change their principles, but principles themselves are fixed.

      • sethweathers says:

        I think when Reagan pulled in Ollie North, it wasn’t for missions to change the Republican Oath, as a matter of a fact, I doubt Reagan really spent much time worrying over such things.

        Reagan is the guy who pushed the “11th Commandment” SOOOOO… Boyd is wanting this changed because he’s a Reagan Republican? He should think that one over 🙂

  7. Rick Day says:

    *shrugs* every politician regularly violates their oath of office.

    It’s just the ones that believe in The One True God™ are going to a place they know as Hell™ because, like, that is what they believe, yo!

  8. joe says:

    If Boyd wins, the argument could be made that he was the leader of the Georgia Republican Party, and what he wanted, the party wanted.

    I would much rather have a Governor who swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the State of Georgia.

  9. roneal says:

    What about all the currently elected politicians with an “R” next to their name who voted for the latest tax increase known as the Hospital Bed Tax?

    I thought if you had an “R” next to your name, you weren’t supposed to raise taxes? Do those elected Republicans represent the true values of the Republican party?

    • Mozart says:

      What are those “true values?” Vote to spend every dollar there is, borrow more, never look at reducing the size of government, stuff your own pockets before you leave office, but don’t ever think about raising taxes?

    • B Balz says:

      I would gather from your brilliant statement that if the GA GOP suggested you could prevent inflation by attaching yourself to the ceiling, you’d be buying duct tape….

  10. seekingtounderstand says:

    Wish Everhart would sign a pledge….
    We will not support corrupt Republican canidates for anything, oh wait a minute, they let in anyone who will pay them a fee…
    But don’t dare to have standards of conduct like Mr. Boyd, Republicans won’t stand for it… no we want only the corrupt, self serving, go alongs

  11. Hank Reardan says:

    Hey if you want to run under their banner then you have to have to go by thier rules. People forget the primaries are about the parties picking thier candidate if you dont like it run as a Ronald Regan candidate but now you have to go out and get the signatures to get on the ballot and that sucks.I like the way we do it in the Libertarian party we dont ask the tax payers to pay for our primaries we do it at convention the we get on the statewide ballot and run against the other two parties who had thier primaries paid for by tax payers

  12. macho says:

    I pretty sure Reagan had no problem pledging his allegiance to the Republican Party when he ran for CA Governor. It’s hard for me to imagine Reagan getting so worked up over such a ridiculous issue.

  13. B Balz says:

    ~grumbling as I get up to turn on a light to tap out a response to the vast, unhearing Tanalach following~

    y’all have probably seen the viral ‘net funny goin’ ’round: Vote ‘Em Out! There only 435 of them, plus 100, etc.

    GOOGLE:”Vote them out 435″ Results in 106K hits in 0.26 secnds.

    So tell me again how important your GOP Party pledge is to the poor ol’ taxpayer? This is gonnna be a GR8T! race, I simply cannot wait.

  14. Three Jack says:

    where was sue when the gop controlled state legislature passed a tax increase last week which was supported by many who signed a pledge (oath) against ever voting for a tax increase?

    where was sue when the gop failed to present a challenger to oppose saxby?

    where was sue when the entire gop leadership gang was screwing around on their respective spouses?

    sue everhart is as insignificant as a ‘republican oath’ of allegiance.

  15. GOPGeorgia says:

    The Republican Party primary is for Republicans to determine whom will be the Republican nominee. It’s not for independents, libertarians, or other parties.

    O.C.G.A. § 21-2-153 (b) (4) If party rules so require, affirms his or her allegiance to his or her party by signing the following oath:
    “I do hereby swear or affirm my allegiance to the (name of party) Party.”

    The GOP gets to use the primary system to determine our nominee because people think it’s more honest than a convention picking the nominee and the number of people who vote in our primaries is quite large.

    It’s a law. If the man can’t say he will support the platform of the Georgia GOP, why does he want to run as a member of the GOP? Let’s look at the word allegiance in that sentence. A dictionary will call that devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause.

    If Sue polls the EC on this, I know how I stand. Mr. Boyd will too. In all fairness, I have never met or spoken to Mr. Boyd. I called to invite him to our picnic, but I didn’t get a return call.

    • CadeThacker says:

      GOPGeorgia, thanks for the reference. But three quick points,

      1) It is the law but only because the party makes it so. I know it is semantic, but critical point. “If party rules so require”. I come from a family of sharks um I mean lawyers. The GOP has every right to remove this “oath” and replace it with a better one, like “support and defend the consitution”.

      2) “If the man can’t say he will support the platform.” Serious question, please point me to the platform so that I can read it and decided if I can “make the cut” as well.

      3) Finally on a raw political point do we really want somebody with $2 million and hard tea party bend running as an independent? Can anybody else say Perot? Please not 4 more years of Gov Barnes.

      • GOPGeorgia says:

        Cade,

        I’m sorry but you are mistaken.

        It (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-153 (b) (4)) is a law because the Georgia state legislature and Governor made it so….and it been around for a very long time.

        The party had the right to use that phrase (and law) or not. We decided to do so. We do not have the right under (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-153 (b) (4) to come up with a phrase on our own that has the same weight as “I do hereby swear or affirm my allegiance to the (name of party) Party.” By that I mean we could come up with a new phrase, but it could not keep someone from qualifying as a Republican. This phrase can. If they won’t affirm that they support the party or it’s principals, that doesn’t make them much of a party member does it?

        Raw political reality point, we can’t stop him from running as an independent. Another raw political reality point, even if we could change our rules between now and qualifying, why would we? Should we be perceived as the party who will changes it’s rules to accommodate a candidate who won’t follow state law?

        http://www.gop.com/2008platform/

        I may not agree 100% with every plank in the platform, but I agree with it enough to say I support the party.

        • CadeThacker says:

          No wonder people are confused what the GOP stand for. That link is to a small novel. 😀

          The Dems are just as bad: 57 pages: http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf

          At least the LP’s Platform is easy to read: http://www.lp.org/platform

          My point on the pledge is simple. It is silly. It may be law, but it is silly. If it said, “I pledge allegiance to the platform of the Republican Party” that might be ok, but just the generic “I do hereby swear or affirm my allegiance to the Republican Party” is a bit Orwellian. This a bit of stretch but what if I wanted to challenge a sitting Republican Governor. Lets say Sue and the Rep Gov have a strong hold on the EC (executive committee for those not up on the GOP lingo), could they vote to hold me “out of Alligence” and kick me out? Not a great example but you get the point. It is vague and mostly useless with no teeth after being uttered with fingers crossed just to checkbox for a candidate.

          • GOPGeorgia says:

            It may be silly for you have to have car insurance or wear a seatbelt, but it’s the law. If you want to drive a car on Georgia roads, no matter how silly you think it is, you have to follow the law.

            If Boyd wants to run in the GOP primary, no matter how silly he or anyone else thinks it is, he will have to sign the pledge.

            • Three Jack says:

              what if he crosses his fingers behind his back when signing?? with every puerile post gopga, i become more interested in the candidacy of ray boyd.

              the republican party failed to adhere to its own principles…and continues to do so while those like yourself defend the hypocrisy.

              to your credit and that of many other arrogant gop representatives, an independent movement is slowly but surely gaining traction. keep on antagonizing these folks and see just how irrelevant you and your party will become.

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                Three jack,

                You can become interested all you want. I won’t be supporting breaking the law to allow someone come in at the last minute with a little pocket change to try to bully the party and get us to change the rules just for them.

                If you think it’s arrogant to try to enforce election law within your own party for people trying to run for the nomination of your party, that’s your opinion. If there’s an independent group of people who want ignore laws and do whatever they want whenever they want, I haven’t seen it, or at least not above 5%.

                The GOP Primary is for Republicans. Mr. Boyd needs to decide if he’s one or not. Sue has told me that he is a Republican. I’m not convinced. I think he is starting off his race as badly as Comm. Thurmond. IMO, Mr. Boyd is antagonizing the GOP and not vise versa.

                • B Balz says:

                  I heartily agree Doug: “… Mr. Boyd is antagonizing the GOP and not vise versa. …”

                  And frankly, it is about time.

                • dj says:

                  And this would be the Republican Platform as chaired by Michael Steele, correct? A person like Ray Boyd comes around and no one can handle it because of what we are used to accepting…he is going to raise the bar, and this is a good start…

                  • GOPGeorgia says:

                    Dj

                    I think you are mixing your terms a bit. The platform is rewritten every 4 years. It is adopted by the national convention, but there is rarely any debate on it. The platform committee communicates with the Presidential nominee to make sure that potential policy and party goals are in the same direction. If the platform committee tried to change something that most of the delegates disagree with, the platform committee would not win that change.

                    Steele was elected RNC Chairman after the platform was written. Steele doesn’t chair the platform, he chairs the party. I don’t think that has the authority to change the platform. He runs the day to day operations of the GOP following the platform. Think of the platform as a guideline of what your party wants to accomplish.

                    I think Mr. Boyd is tripping himself at the start. He won’t win this disagreement. Unless there is a lawsuit, he’ll either sign the pledge or he won’t run as a Republican.

                    • dj says:

                      GOP Georgia…I wonder if Michael Steele’s “meeting” at the bondage club is part of the platform? “He runs the day to day operations of the GOP following the platform”…

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      dj,

                      Master of spin. (that’s a joke, get it?)

                      Steele wasn’t there and the flunky that approved those charges has been fired. Those charges were NOT (finally) paid for by the GOP.

                • dj says:

                  I think GOPgeorgia is waiting on offers from the tabloids befoe he decides which flag he fliess, those oath GOP fella’s nned to stick together, becuase that is the way it works….just a thought…

                    • dj says:

                      GOP Georgia…it was contacts with no reading glasses…not the bottle…but thank you anyway for the suggestion. You noted that you have “information” that you are withholding and will disclose if two candidates move forth with their respective runs. I wonder if those two will sign the oath? I’m thinking that they would, which makes it meaningless…

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I know where lots of bodies are buried concerning more than just two potential candidates, but that also means I’m pretty good at keeping secrets as well. I won’t personally disclose anything, but I might give someone else an idea of where to look for things that they might find on their own. I won’t publicly endorse anyone, but that doesn’t mean I can’t make up my mind on who I would support and on who I think has absolutely zero business running.

            • dj says:

              GOP Georgia…so…to clarify your point/analogy…both Republicans & Democrats have to buy car insurance and wear seatbelts, or only the Republicans (LOL)!

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                Both parties have to follow the law. If the law allows for the party to make a rule that is spelled out, it will have the full weight of the law behind it. If one party decides to do that and the other doesn’t, well that’s up to both parties to decide how they want to conduct their primary elections. We don’t tell them what to do and they don’t tell us what to do.

    • dj says:

      GOP Georgia…what are your thoughts about Preston Smith and his removal from the judiciary chair because he chose to honor his commitment to his constituents as opposed to the “GOP position”? …just curious…

      • GOPGeorgia says:

        I don’t think I have all of the info I need to make an informed opinion. I think there is more to this story that what we have heard so far.

        That being said, I like Sen. Smith personally. I don’t care for removal of positions because people don’t fall into line. It may be common to use the stick to get others to fall into line, but I think if you are going to realign chairmanships and other things, that should be done at the beginning of each session and not changed until the end. I think changing positions in a session slows down the peoples business. Then again, I’m not running for Lt. Gov. and I haven’t walked a mile in his shoes. Let’s let some more time pass and see what facts come to light.

            • dj says:

              That’s just it, we don’t have 90 days to obtain the full story, so we have to go on what we do know as being reported. I believe that he broke a leadership code and was retaliated against. And for the GOP, it’s like toothpaste out of the tube now, no putting it back in. I also believe that he put his “allegiance” to his constituents above his “party”, the constituents voted him in…that’s what he should do…If the GOP had dirt on this fella, I think we would have heard the “whole story”…don’t you?

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                You use the word GOP like we are all on the same page all of the time. Obviously, we are not. There is also a separation between the county, district and state parties and from the elected members of our party. Sometimes they do what we like, and sometimes they don’t.

                I’m not so sure broke a “leadership code” is accurate, but he definitely went against the wishes of the Lt. Gov.

                People hold dirt on other people for years waiting on the right time to release it. I’ve got dirt on a potential candidate (or two) right now, and some of that info is about 14 years old. If I released it, it would crush that candidate, but we will see if that candidate chooses to qualify. If they don’t, I see no need to publicly humiliate someone who isn’t trying to overturn my applecart.

                • dj says:

                  GOP Georgia…so which oath of allegiance is Ray Boyd supposed to sign in light of your comments…”There is also a separation between the county, district and state parties and from the elected members of our party. Sometimes they do what we like, and sometimes they don’t”?

                • Three Jack says:

                  gopga,

                  we as americans of our own free will “pledge allegiance” to this country, and it’s not even a law. i find it humorous that you must rely upon a ga statute in order to gain allegiance to your cause/party.

                  does it not make you stop and think that maybe your party should prove itself before you force people to swear allegiance to it. the arrogance of your position makes my case.

                  • GOPGeorgia says:

                    If Nancy Pelosi moved to Georgia and wanted to run for Gov., if she signed the oath we would have to let her run as a Republican, barring a lawsuit. (I am fairly certain there would be a lawsuit.)

                    The Georgia GOP did keep David Duke off the ballot for President when he ran, but Presidential candidates are dealt with a bit differently.

                    We aren’t forcing anyone to swear allegiance to the party. Now if someone wants to say that they are a member of our party and wants to run for the Republican nominee for Governor, then they have to play by our rules.

                    I’m not being arrogant. I’m telling you facts. There is a difference.

                • dj says:

                  One more…I can’t help myself…”You use the word GOP like we are all on the same page all of the time. Obviously, we are not”…I think that is Ray Boyd’s point exactly…

                  • GOPGeorgia says:

                    Mr. Boyd isn’t the Chairman of the party. He’s not the rules committee and he’s not the state committee. It takes a vote of the state committee to change the rules and there isn’t time to do that between now and qualifying. If he doesn’t understand that, then maybe he’s not ready to run.

                    • Jeff says:

                      Doug:

                      You may want to change your screen name to allow a clear distinction between yourself and your Party, as I once did. Just a suggestion, obviously you can choose to listen or not.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      Jeff,

                      I never tried to do that. If you could shoot me an e-mail telling how, I would appreciate it.

                      Thanks.

  16. drjay says:

    whatever, seems like a bit of grandstanding, if you want to run as a gop jump through the gop hoops, this is the gop primary to determine the gop nominee–strictly speaking a party can choose the nominee however they please, like the libertarians use a convention, you can always run independent if you do not like they gop’s rules…

      • drjay says:

        that may be the specific case in ga, for the dems and gop, i’m not sure, but i was speaking in more general terms (some states parties have convention, some have primaries, some have petition requirements everyone has different qualifying dates, fees, etc…), and mainly getting to the point that if you want to run as a gop you generally have to jump through the gop’s hoops–if this cat does’t like that he is certainly welcome to either sue for a spot on the ballot or run in another party or as an independent….he could even run as an independent and still campaign as a “gop” if he so hose i would imagine…

  17. Mayonnaise says:

    If the GOP can’t control who runs on their ticket then how in the world can you hold the GOP responsible for the quality and actions of its candidates?!?!?!? Mr. Boyd needs to shut his hole and go polish the dragon in his back yard. We don’t need to back-fill the void being left by McBerry’s demise.

  18. John Andrew says:

    Yes, the Libertarian Party does have an oath. But it reads as follows:

    “I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

    Completely different from swearing allegiance to a political party.
    But, swearing allegiance to the Republican Party merely means swearing allegiance to Republicans … right?

    • GOPGeorgia says:

      “I do hereby swear or affirm my allegiance to the (name of party) Party.”

      This may getting a bit philosophical, but I take that phrase as supporting the platform of the party. You could say the aims and purposes of the party. Some could interpret that as supporting the candidates of that party. The goal of a political party is to elect people to office. The platform of the party should highlight specific things, philosophies or values that they would like to see enacted or promoted, should their candidates get elected. That could mean drill in Anwar, and it could mean that we hold life as sacred.

      “I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

      I could interpret your phrase as a police officer asking a criminal to get in the back of the police car nicely. If he refuses to cooperate, then you can’t use force to achieve a social goal of locking up people who do bad things.

      • Joshua Morris says:

        Really, the ‘Party’ is made up of people–not really a platform or just candidates. I never realized before that a candidate has to sign this pledge to run on the R ticket.

        This might present a good opportunity to change this pledge to say, “I do hereby swear or affirm my allegiance to [the principles of/the platform of/the values of] the Republican Party.” I think one of these phrases could solve the current disagreement and avoid unnecessary commotions like this in the future.

        In my view, our principles are more valuable than our organization.

        • ByteMe says:

          Joshua, I think the problem with the Party is that too many people think the organization is more important than its principles.

              • Republican Lady says:

                I agree with many things you say. Perhaps I should tell you more often, in fact, I will tell you more often.

                • B Balz says:

                  Sympatico.

                  If only Rep. Scott was your choice for Gov. (;>)

                  Be sure to mention where you don’t agree, that is important, as well.

                  • Republican Lady says:

                    Okay, it’s a deal. If Scott decides to run for LG, I promise you, I will be a strong supporter for him. I just can’t give up on my girl.

                    • B Balz says:

                      Candidates like Rep. Scott, Ms. Handel and some others eliminate the oft heard saying “It’s the choice between the lesser of two evils” in this race.

                      I am convinced this is the best GOP slate we have seen in years. Some candidates have peccadillo’s, to be sure, but all of them are leaders.

                    • Republican Lady says:

                      I love that “peccadillo” word. You are right, there are some good candidates in several of the races this time. Were you at the Hart County GOP Saturday night? Several impressive speeches from people I met for the first time. In some of the races, it is going to be hard to decide which one to vote for office.

          • BuckheadConservative says:

            Wait, Byte. You made an error

            “Joshua, I think the problem with the *parties*…”

            There, fixed it

      • GOPGeorgia says:

        (national)
        Bylaws of the Libertarian Party
        ARTICLE 5: MEMBERSHIP
        1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

        Next question?

      • Jason,

        Even though you have made a valid point that both the LP and the GOP have requird oath’s and that you would like the LP to get rid of theirs, Mr. Boyd didn’t have a problem with “an oath”, just “the oath” as written… to a “Party over Principle.”

        He’d sign an oath that included that sentence but that goes on to say he “will not be bound by any position of the Georgia Republican Party that I do not feel would represent the core principles ….”

        I have to say, I sincerely respect that.

        Even the “Pledge of Allegiance” that most recited in school (and even some have a problem with) doesn’t stop at pledging just to a flag or a nation, leaving the principles that they stand for as a variable… but includes that what we pledged to was a “Republic” that is to promote/provide “Liberty and Justice for all.”

        Being required to be a Party-ist can lead to having to be a Nationalist… ask the good folks in Germany how that worked out for them… As I said, principles are fixed, parties (as well as states) aren’t.

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          I don’t see it as party over principles. I see it as our party representing principles. One of those principles
          is following the law and playing by the rules.

          I think you see it as man challenging a law he doesn’t like. I see it as a man refusing to follow a law to try put himself in a position to make laws.

          • ByteMe says:

            It’s NOT a law! Jeez. You read the OCGA statute. IF there’s an oath — and there’s nothing in the law that says what the oath needs to include — it has to be used. Fine. The issue isn’t THE LAW, it’s THE OATH. Stop trying to distract in too obvious of a way.

            • GOPGeorgia says:

              Byte,

              Go back and look up the law I cited. Of course I’ve read it. I looked it up for you. It spells out the exact same oath we use, except for name of the party. The oath we use is in the law.

              I don’t think that we could make up an oath on our own that would have the same weight of law.

              I’m not distracting, I am shining a light on the actual language of the law and the oath. The law allows us to use an oath, and we do.

              O.C.G.A. § 21-2-153 (b) (4) If party rules so require, affirms his or her allegiance to his or her party by signing the following oath:
              “I do hereby swear or affirm my allegiance to the (name of party) Party.”

              Key words: “the following oath.”

              If there’s any distracting going on it’s by you and others who don’t like the fact we decided to use that oath. If you want us to make up oaths just for him, I don’t see it happening. It’s as easy as ABC.
              a.) There’s not enough time to do that between now and qualifying.
              b.) I’m not scared of people who don’t want to follow the law as written.
              c.) He could sign it, and then if he got elected Governor, the he could propose a new law.

              Just so I know, please point out anything else in OCGA that you don’t think is a law. That’s otherwise known as the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated.

              • GOPGA,
                Speaking of “the law”, it’s people like you with your unrelenting blind loyalty to an entity or person rather than the principles that you think it/they stand for, whether it/they behaves rightly or WRONGLY is what leads people like me to fall back on “Godwin’s Law” to try to get through to you. The problem is not an oath, it’s the oath that is the problem:

                Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen. … was once “the law” of a land.

                Mr. Boyd, if they, the GOP, won’t let you run for an office, please get in touch with me.

                • GOPGeorgia says:

                  DNA,

                  The oath your party uses is not cited in OCGA and could be challenged in court. Your national party bylaws do not trump Georgia laws. Don’t talk to me about following things WRONGLY until you get your own house (party) in order.

                  • Jeff says:

                    Doug:

                    I can personally attest to the fact that if Libertarians have a problem with the stance of one of their candidates, they WILL speak up.

                    GOP, not so much. They’ll fall in lockstep with the guy with the (R) after his name, even if they have to hold their nose so hard they’re dang near squeezing it off when they do so.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      On one hand you might be right to do so, one the other, we have people elected. They aren’t perfect but they were best we have at the time and they were better than the alternative. I can hear the purists screaming now. “We deserve better than that’s the best we could do!” Well, find someone and back them or qualify yourselves. Odds are good that if the person you back or yourself gets elected, you (or they) will eventually make a mistake in someone’s eyes.

            • ByteMe says:

              Well, I did look it up and you are correct that an oath is spelled out in the law.

              For those of you who can’t find it online so easily (and it’s NOT easy):

              (b) Unless otherwise provided by law, all candidates for party nomination in a state or county primary shall qualify as such candidates in accordance with the procedural rules of their party; provided, however, that no person shall be prohibited from qualifying for such office if he or she:

              (1) Meets the requirements of such procedural rules;

              (2) Is eligible to hold the office which he or she seeks;

              (3) Is not prohibited from being nominated or elected by provisions of Code Section 21-2-7 or 21-2-8; and

              (4) If party rules so require, affirms his or her allegiance to his or her party by signing the following oath:
              “I do hereby swear or affirm my allegiance to the (name of party) Party.”

              So the oath is in the law.

              But the oath is not required by law unless the Party decides it is. So in this case, you’re hiding behind Party rules by claiming “it’s the law” and that’s at best disingenuous.

              • B Balz says:

                Byte,

                You need to give up playing on computers and become an attorney. You are wasting your time, computers are a fad.

              • Lawton Sack says:

                ByteMe: You are correct. It is the Party Rules that enable or disable this law to be used.

                The Bulloch County GOP cannot require an oath to be signed to qualify as a Republican in Bulloch County, as the County Party Rules do not call for an oath. This only applies to Bulloch County offices (Commissioner, Sheriff, etc.) in partisan races.

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                Byte,

                Thanks for looking that up. You get a point or two for doing so. The problem is not the law, it’s not the oath, IMO it is the man who want to be the nominee of a party that he won’t pledge to support. If he doesn’t want to run in the GOP primary, he doesn’t have to do so.

                I think the rule has been in the GOP state rules for well over 16 years. Every statewide candidate who has ran in the GOP primary for any office has signed it. I don’t believe in making special rules for different people. It’s not disingenuous for us to keep the same rules in place for a decade or two.

                • B Balz says:

                  I think most GOP candidates, using Dr. J’s words, “jump thru this hoop” b/c it is required. Perhaps if the GOP was adamantly sticking to its’ core principles, there would not be any issue.

                  That one person, in all those years, takes exception to it, b/c they see some positions our GOP takes as poor policy, is hardly a defense.

                  In the end, it really won’t matter, the Party won’t soften, nor should it without due process, and Mr. Boyd will either cave or sign.

                  • Lawton Sack says:

                    Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with the oath, the truth of the matter is that the GA GOP cannot soften, change, or modify its Rules before qualifying, because there is a minimum period of 14 days to call for a Rule change. Not to mention that the Rules Committee would have to meet prior to the call.

                    I only see two choices:

                    1. Try and get both the House and Senate to change the law and have it signed and enacted by the Governor prior to qualifying. That is not going to happen.

                    2. File a lawsuit stating that the law is unconstitutional and hope that there is a ruling or temporary injunction before qualifying.

                • ByteMe says:

                  I agree that if he won’t follow party rules, then he shouldn’t be allowed to run under the party banner.

                  On the other hand, if ballot access weren’t set up to favor the two big parties, this wouldn’t be an issue at all, because he could easily run as an independent.

                  The disingenuous part was where you kept citing “it’s the law” when in fact it’s a Party rule with the law to back it up if the Party decided to include that rule.

                  • Doug Deal says:

                    Byte is right, it is party rule, and it is an ugly side of the Republican party, just as this kind of thing is an ugly side of the Dem party.

                    If you are going to rig elections to favor just you two at the expense of everyone else, at least don’t require people to put party over country/state/voter etc.

                    Loyalty oaths are for groups who expect themselves to do something distatesteful and don’t want criticism from their own members.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      No one is requiring that he put the party OVER country, state, voter, etc. We just want him to say in writing that he at least SUPPORTS our party. If he’s wanting to play on OUR primary, I don’t think it’s too much to ask.

                      Loyalty oaths are to keep the people who don’t even like our party from participating. He can lie if he likes. If he doesn’t like us, then why does he want to run as one of us?

                    • Ramblinwreck says:

                      All this if-you-don’t-like-what’s-going-on-then-run-for-office-yourself is great if the rules restricting ballot access weren’t in place. I had a conversation with a GOP officer recently where I said that there should be no restriction on running from any party. He said “there would be dozens of idiots running” to which I replied “so what?” You’re already having an election. What difference does it make how many people are on the ballot? Ballot access restrictions are simply a control to limit elected office to one of two parties, neither of which you may believe in. Either do away with oaths, to anything but the Constitution, or do away with ballot access restrictions.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      Ramblin,

                      You are a voting member of the Dade County GOP. Did or will you show up for your meeting this month and suggest that there be a non-binding referendum of the GOP primary concerning ballot access?

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      GAGOP,

                      As a long time member of the GOP, I can tell you that the only thing the party leadership works to do from about January to qualifying is knocking people out of the various competitive races, drying up the fundraising of competition to their favorite son candidates with unsubstantiated rumors and in general being unfriendly to any form of primary challenge or candidacy of anyone not in their clique.

                      Personally, I think every sitting member of the GOP needs a primary challenger every election, and preferably 2 or more. We go on and on about how competition is good in every other endeavor of life, but someone in politics, it’s bad.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Hi Doug,

                      I’ve been involved with the GOP for about 22 years. What you describe is not how we do things up here. It might be true in your area, but it’s not in mine, and I don’t think it applies statewide.

                      Will I be seeing you at the Republican round up may 14-15 in Cobb with Rove and Steele, and training on how to run for office and how to support those who are running for office? I know it doesn’t fit in your definition of what the party does, but it fits in with mine.

                      I have no problem with primaries and incumbents don’t get a pass from me. If things are really that bad where you live, call me off line and let’s discuss how to make changes.

                    • Joshua Morris says:

                      Doug, I remember Sue Everhart saying at a meeting in Gainesville in April 2007 that we must re-elect Saxby. I cringed at that, because it told me where the Party’s loyalties were before anyone else had a chance to make a serious primary challenge. I can’t help but imagine that this same type of philosophy is keeping serious conservatives from challenging Johnny.

                      I think Doug D. has a point about incumbent protection, and I believe this does a disservice to the will of the People.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Josh,

                      You didn’t really think that there was going to be a serious primary challenge for Saxby, did you? And if so, do you think Sue would have scared them? If Jack Kingston, any other congressman, or state wide office holder wanted to challenge Saxby, do you really think that Sue would scare them off? Furthermore, if it were someone who might beat Saxby in a primary, I think she would back off supporting him until after the primary was over. To end, I think she was probably talking about that 2008 Fall’s election.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I was just commenting on your rant that started with:

                      “only thing the party leadership works to do from about January to qualifying is knocking people out of the various competitive races”

                      I have been to several trainings for County GOP chairmen and a few other events sponsored by the state GOP between Jan and qualifying. I was just trying to show that the state GOP isn’t as bad as what you think and putting in a plug while I was at it.

                    • macho says:

                      How many elected Republicans do you think have ever taken their signed GOP loyalty oath into consideration, for better or for worse, before they made a vote?

                      This is an idiotic non-issue.

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      As demonstrated by your behavior here, Doug, its easy to see you are a major part of the problem with the state GOP. Learn to communicate without insults or debasing yourself with pudding contests and you will be a lot more effective at winning people over to your side.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Doug D.

                      You said “I can tell you that the only thing the party leadership works to do from about January to qualifying is knocking people out of the various competitive races, drying up the fundraising of competition to their favorite son candidates with unsubstantiated rumors and in general being unfriendly to any form of primary challenge or candidacy of anyone not in their clique.”

                      I said: “I have no problem with primaries and incumbents don’t get a pass from me. If things are really that bad where you live, call me off line and let’s discuss how to make changes.”

                      Please explain to me why it’s easy to see that I am a major part of the problem with the state GOP? I offered to listen, advise, and maybe if necessary, intervene if people (GOP in your area) aren’t being fair with you (or others in your area.). Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t stick my nose out of north Georgia? I fail to see how I insulted you in this thread except for pointing out the that GOP is not a clique and they do more than just protect incumbents.

                      If Mr. Boyd or his supporters are insulted by my comments, maybe I’m insulted by his actions. I don’t back down from a disagreement if I think my position has greater merit. It may not be politically popular, but that’s just the way I am wired.

                    • Joshua Morris says:

                      Doug G., I really don’t know if there was a possible primary challenger for Saxby, but I believe the issue goes far deeper than just Sue’s words. She was referring to the 2008 elections, whose primary elections were 15 months away. This was long before some possible Republican challengers would have made a decision on running.

                      The issue to me is that this type of re-election support by the Party organization encourages donations and ground support for the incumbent and helps enlarge the momentum for the incumbent to more easily stay in office. Anyone who may have been considering a primary challenge most likely did not want to take on that mountain that the Party helped build. I say that this is a disservice to the will of the People because it limits their choices.

                      In my view, the chairman’s words should have been, “We need to be sure Georgia continues to be represented by a Republican in this Senate seat,” until after the primary.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Josh

                      I will agree that I like your phrasing of what should have been said better. I like Sue. Personally. A lot, but I don’t always agree with what she says or how she says it. Then again, I don’t agree with anyone 100% of the time.

  19. B Balz says:

    The oath is poorly written, designed to enforce Party rule, and in my opinion is a good measure of why our Republic is becoming more like the British Crown. Two sides that cannot ever agree. It will be the ruination of America, divided we fall, etc.

    We have a recipe for complete and utter polemic disagreement in the US, the recent HC Bill is a perfect example. Both sides agree that cancellations, rescission’s, and MAYBE pre-existing conditions ought to be eliminated. And what do we get?

    A flawed Bill few really like, that is like adding a few boxcars to the freight train already going off the cliff. If this is how we will solve our greatest problems, the future appears pretty bleak to me.

    • Doug Deal says:

      I agree. Also, it is likely another angle for a Constitutional challenge to ballot access for third parties and independents. If a loyalty oath is required to run as a candidate of one of the two major parties, then it is exclusionary and may not satisfy the law under equal protection, since only those loyal to one of the parties are capable of running and the ballot access rules are so onerous.

      Plus, such a requirement is unconstitutional for any Federal office as the Supreme Court has already ruled that no further qualifications than those listed in the Constitution may be added by the states when the states tried to enforce term limits on Congress.

  20. dj says:

    I believe Ray Boyd’s character and integrity are intimidating to the existing GOP “network”…, I don’t think that they know how to deal with someone that is not in bed with anyone…this fella is straight up, and not afraid to tell it like it is…

  21. macho says:

    Boyd is starting to seem like McBerry with money. The only difference is if McBerry had all that money, there would be a lot of high school cheerleaders handing-out McBerry cards at GA GOP barbeques.

  22. Lawton Sack says:

    Phil Boyum of the Statesboro Herald did a radio interview with Mr. Boyd this morning, Tuesday, April 20. Not only did Mr. Boyd talk at length about not signing the pledge, but he also spoke about changing the State legislature to unicameral (one house) with 50 total reps.

    The link: http://www.statesboroherald.com/multimedia/1223/
    (The interview with Mr. Boyd starts at 38:38 — He cusses at least once, just for info)

    Just to give a quick plug, though I am not involved in any way: Phil Boyum has done a great job of interviewing a lot of the Statewide and GA-12 candidates on his show. Link to archives: http://www.borolive.com/unphiltered-archive.html

  23. Jane says:

    The party oaths are to discourage party switchers and people with hidden ulterior motives. The Dems have problems with the LaRouche folks and the Republicans have problems with Flaggers and Southern Party activists. The oath also is to discourage RINO’s. Does it work, NO, but it is better than nothing.

    • B Balz says:

      “…oaths are to discourage party switchers and people with hidden ulterior motives. …” How about allowing the voters to do that? If somebody has a hidden ulterior motive, say, like Ralph Reed, then a law to take an oath probably won’t sort it out.

      I am listening to Mr. Boyd’s radio interview (http://www.statesboroherald.com/multimedia/1223/) Thank you, Mr. Sack.

      Mr. Boyd’s point may be esoteric, or perhaps even grandstanding, but I can agree, oaths ought not be entered into lightly. Using law to insure compliance to a Party, and not to a Principle just doesn’t sit well with this Republican.

      Mr. Boyd is a hoot, that much is for sure.

      • dj says:

        I just listened to radio interview as well, thank you Mr. Sack. Ray Boyd is the only one making any sense in this race. I’m telling you, this man has integrity and character in spades!!! And he is funny, too…a winning combo!

    • B Balz says:

      To me the term “Ronald Reagan” Republican conjures a negative image in only one way. Specifically, one could effectively argue the use of debt, and lots of it, to stimulate growth began our current historical and uncomfortable economic debtor status.

      Agreed, we enjoyed great prosperity running up the financial markets, but the mid-game result was the bursting bubble of our real estate markets. Housing is the backbone of our economy. Unchecked, the end game will make the Great Recession seem tame.

      While Dem artifices such as ACORN are easy to blame, an honest observer knows larger defaults occurred on vacation homes financed with ‘interest only, balloon notes”.

      Having listened to Mr. Boyd, several times now, I find him a confusing, unfocused, colloquial, and not in a charming manner speaker, with no clear solutions.

      That said, Mr. Boyd can ask a lot of really important, “squirming in your britches” type questions, and I encourage him to do so.

      • Republican Lady says:

        BB,

        Don’t get the Reagan Astrology angle. Or was that just his wife? Reagan did cut some college education programs, one being “LEEP”, the Law Enforcement Education Program.

        • B Balz says:

          I don’t get the angle of an intellectually honest pol saying they are a RR Republican. President Reagan was not really a fiscal conservative.

          • ByteMe says:

            It’s the “Myth of Reagan” as propagated by certain political heavyweight lobbying firms to influence Republican candidates and get them to embrace certain political positions that might actually be 100% contrary to what Reagan did while in office but is totally in line with what certain corporations and well-connected people want to see happen.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I’m not 100% sure that Sue’s going to run for relection, but let’s get past November before we start that conversation.

    • oompaloompa says:

      At the GOP President’s Dinner, Sue stated, “There will be NO challenge to Johnny Isakson” from the podium. Who in samh-e-double hockey sticks does she think she is?

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Sue Everhart is a bumbling idiot. And yes, PLEASE, someone run AGAINST her!!

      • B Balz says:

        I read in the AJC today that State campaign finance laws do not allow more than $250K to be reomoved from a candidate fund. If Mr. Boyd just bails, would he lose $1,750K? That doesn’t sound correct.

  24. dj says:

    Doug,
    I guess that is why Sam Fox resigned, because he felt so comfortable with Michael Steele’s management of this matter and others…

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Yes, you can find at least one person who doesn’t agree with Steele. Now the Dems have a split called PUMA. Do you know what that stands for?

  25. dj says:

    Doug Grammer,
    I am still awaiting a response regarding the “smoking guns” that you have regarding two of the gubernatorial candidates…presumably your ammo is so good that it will force them to retreat back under what ever rock they emerged from…but they will still sign the oath, right?
    DJ No Spin Zone (LOL)!

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I answered your comment. Occasionally, I take time off of here and work for 8 to 12 hours and let things sit for a day or two. I am fairly certain that one of them will not qualify, so there will be no oath signing for that one. The other, we will see.

  26. dj says:

    Doug Grammer,
    One more…Nathan Deal…he resigns to avoid the investigation, no, wait…to focus on his campaign…but choses to pay his attorney legal fees to the “tune” of 40K…Randy Evans…with his campaign funds, not his salary, not from his salvage business that “allegedly” profited to the “tune” (get it…lol) of 1.3 million dollars recently, (hence the investigation and attorney’s fees)…this may be “legal” but is it ethical…
    This race is going to be a roller coaster ride, check out Randy Evans’ latest editorial…so I’ll play “dj” and spin a tune…
    Red Hot Chili Peppers – Love Roller Coaster (lol)er

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I’ll let the Deal campaign address that, and then we will let the voters decide how to react. I’m not going to take time out to check right now, but I think you may be off on your numbers.

  27. dj says:

    Doug,
    I was making a correlation between your inquiry to me re my knowledge of the PUMA and the GOP Oath and how you stated that you had smoking guns on two candidates,…initially, although now you have upped the ante…”I know where lots of bodies are buried concerning more than just two potential candidates, but that also means I’m pretty good at keeping secrets as well”…and you did state above that you would release that information should those two candidates qualify. ..and would “point others” to obtain information regarding the “other” candidates…My point, again, is that if you, in your role, know the character deficits of these two candidates, (as well as others), how does it make you feel that these candidates would sign the GOP Oath? Does it not minimize the significance thereof? We can be “legal” all day long, but I believe that the point is ethics…I hope that I have made that clear.
    Additionally, that “one guy” that did not like Michael Steele was Sam Fox, who was a co-chairman of the Republican Regents, the RNC’s top fundraising board. It was an unpaid position…

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I am in an unpaid position as far as the GOP is concerned. So? All the PUMA members are unpaid, as far as I know. There are a lot of PUMA members.

      Some people like to attack candidates loudly and in public on the this blog. I prefer to do most of my work that may make GOP candidates look unflattering in a quiet way. If I know that a person is a child molester (no real candidate being implied) and I am one of the few people who know about said FACT, I will make sure that person knows that if they qualify, that FACT will come out so the public can make an informed opinion. That has ZERO to do if that person will sign an oath that they support the GOP. If I knew & could prove Tonya Harding had Nancy K hit with a tire iron, and I am the only who know it willing to say something about it, and Tonya was thinking of running for Mayor of Savannah, that info would reach Tonya before she qualified.

      • dj says:

        Doug Grammer,
        Try and step back from this a bit and have a bigger perspective, for lack of a better word…my point is…an oath is only as good as the “character and integrity” of the person entering into it…what part of this is so difficult to understand???

        DJ “spin zone”…Promises Promises – Naked Eyes (LOL)!

          • dj says:

            Doug Grammer,
            Seriously, you think Ray Boyd doesn’t understand the significance and obligations incurred in entering into an oath? That is his whole point!!! The oath should have been included in his original packet…because it is the way things have always been done in no way lends weight to not making changes…Preston Smith…

            • Doug Grammer says:

              Yes, I think he didn’t do his homework and didn’t know he would have to sign the oath. That means I don’t think he’s ready to be Governor. Next question?

      • dj says:

        Doug Grammer,
        Sam Fox has had enough of the ridiculousness and corruption…we need to fix this…agreed?

        • Doug Grammer says:

          The only “ridiculousness and corruption” listed in your link was the night club funds, and that’s already been solved.

          Sorry DJ, but you are spinning a story that’s old news.

          • dj says:

            Doug Grammer,
            Not so fast…”already been resolved” resulted in Sam Fox’s resignation, in an UNPAID advisory positition…such a waste! And I would like a response from the Nathan Deal camp (as you refuse to) regarding alleged steering of “deals” to his auto salvage business. And I would also like to know more about the proposed changes to tax laws as pertaining to 1031 tax exchanges…it’s just getting ready to bust wide open…

            • Doug Grammer says:

              Well, go ask the Nathan Deal camp…that’s not me. Did you ever say what grade you are in?

  28. macho says:

    I think it’s hilarious how some of these guys refer to themselves as Reagan Republicans and “the party left me I didn’t leave the party,” etc… I’m a huge Reagan fan, but the myth of Reagan and reality of Reagan parted ways a long time ago. Ray Boyd needs to look at Reagan’s record as CA Governor, it makes Sonny Perdue look like a member of the Tea Party.

Comments are closed.