A Different View Of Ray Boyd.

As chance would have it I was at the Capitol watching Josh Clark qualify for the State House when Ray Boyd showed up with press in tow to confront the forces of oppression and conformity that control the Georgia GOP. Here’s a short video of the confrontation.

You can knock the GOP for having a loyalty oath if you want but should the rules be ignored because one person doesn’t like them? I don’t think so. The oath (shown above) is a pretty simply statement that shouldn’t cause anyone any problems. The fact that Boyd has a problem with it makes me think he’s more than a little “out there.”

Someone suggested to me that more might be at work here: Maybe Boyd is having second thoughts and needs a “noble” way out of the race. He won’t be able to collect the signatures he needs to run as an independent, thus refusing to sign the pledge essentially ends his campaign. Better to get kicked out “standing on principle” than blow $2 million on a race you no longer want to be in.

Sure that theory might be loony, but no more loony that Ray Boyd’s refusal to sign a benign statement of loyalty to the Republican Party.

74 comments

  1. Republican Lady says:

    I really don’t understand the oath controversity at this point in the game. It is one of the requirements and if people are so against it, they should work through the proper channels to change the process. If a police officer refuses to carry a gun, he/she would not be hired. In some states, Muslim women refusing to remove their veil for the driver’s license photo have been refused a license.

    Maybe you have a point Buzz, maybe this is his “noble” way out to save face and money and give have name recognition for some future office.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      or PARTY OF PRINCIPLES. We won’t change our rules just because one candidate didn’t like them. If you can’t say you support the GOP, you shouldn’t run as GOP.

      • Jeff says:

        Doug:

        So it is a “principle” of your Party to increase taxes and the size of government, as well as enforce thought and speech codes? Good to know. 😉

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Nope, but it’s part of the state constitution that we have to balance the budget. I think I heard that our budget is now 20% smaller than it was two years ago. There’s probably more to cut, but most of the obvious stuff is gone, such as the museums.

          Let me know when your party gets to the point where they can try to govern on anything in Georgia. 8*)

          • Jeff says:

            Had your party not increased the size of government every year leading up to the recession, you wouldn’t be having to make such hard choices now…

            We know how to limit the size and scope of government. The “conservative” half of the Big Government Party has shown that it either a) is inept at doing this or b) flat out doesn’t know how.

          • “Let me know when your party gets to the point where they can try to govern on anything in Georgia. 8*)”

            Perhaps if your party would pass a few ballot access laws so that Georgia’s laws weren’t some of the most restrictive in the country, you’d see a few more L’s in office. Until then, your party is using it’s power to limit peoples’ choices.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              David,

              I have actually spoken to a few GOP state legislators. They are open to my idea of giving ballot access to a third party with no signatures required the election cycle after someone from that same party (who has collected the required amount of signatures) has ran and received at least 20% of the vote.

              • Which still limits peoples’ choices. We live in an age of technology. Even an old IBM XT could handle a basic voting program to allow more than 2 to 4 choices on a ballot and count them at the end of the day. As a web developer, I could easily write a program to handle hundreds, thousands or millions of candidates.

                Adding another candidate shouldn’t be any more work than just adding another row to a database somewhere. I don’t want ballot access just for the Libertarian Party. I want it for the Green Party, the Constution Party, and any independent that wants to pay the filing fee to run. (After all, let’s face it.. how many people do you think are going to pay the filing fee for each elected office? Do you really think we’re going to see a hundred people file to run for Governor? If so, I have some ocean front property in Utah I’d like to sell to you.)

                I want people to be able to run for public office regardless of whether or not they choose to affiliate with a political party. After all, if political parties were so useful, why do so many politicians completely ignore what the party says it believes in – fiscal conservatism for instance?

                The other thing that we need is Instant Runoff Voting. I understand that you’re against it, but why wouldn’t you be… you’ve probably signed an oath to protect the GOP from any form of takeover by another party or something to that effect. 🙂

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  Ah, you are referring to the secret GOP oath, with the secret GOP handshake, and the secret GOP dance. (j/k)

                  Don’t worry; no one will have to watch me dance.

                  In the California recall election of 2003, organizers had 160 days to collect signatures. Specifically, they had to collect at least 897,158 valid signatures from registered voters. They did the work. Voters had to choose one candidate from a long list of 135 candidates.

                  Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) got 48%, Cruz Bustamante (D) got 31%, Tom McClintock (R) got 13% Peter Camejo (G) got 2.8% and Arianna Huffington got .5 %.

                  130 candidates got less than .5%. I don’t think the voters of Georgia want to wade through that long of a list. I’ll go a step further. I’d be willing to support a non-binding referendum on ballot access. If it fails, we can stop talking about it for a decade or so.

              • Jeff says:

                Doug:

                Actually, that was one of the ideas I proposed back in January. Basically remove the Governor/POTUS requirement on the 20% and open it up to ANY statewide race.

                At that point, I won’t have changed the requirements for political “body” – you’ll still have your draconian 5% of total registered voters in the State there – but it WOULD open up political “party” status to a degree.

                3 yard plays every play, and eventually I win the ball game. 😀

  2. John Konop says:

    Why should anyone have to pledge allegiance to a party? Many of you complain about the going along get along politics in both parties yet you support an allegiance?

    • Tireless says:

      Why should a political party allow a candidate to run under its banner if that candidate doesn’t support the party? If said candidate dislikes both parties, he/she can run as an independent. Why is this confusing to you?

        • John Konop says:

          Let’s get real the two party system sets up the rules making it difficult for anyone to challenge. Help me understand how No Child Left Behind, Highway Bill, Energy Bill, Farm Bill……..was part of the GOP platform?

          As I said I know very little about Boyd via issues. But for the GOP to turn away a guy like this because he will not sign a pledge that he will support a hypocritical platform is why our country is in the mess we are in. We need more voices not less from both sides, not beholden to party insiders and special interest!

          When I ran for office I was clear that my family, country, community, state came first and party was not even close! Call me what you want, but it will always be country before party in my book!

          • drjay says:

            did you sign the pledge? i have been involved in party politics for only a few years, but i have seen this come up from time to time–i don’t think anyone would confuse this pledge w/ offering up your first born to the party chair or anthing like that–it’s more will you support our slate of candidates (or at least not support their opponents) if you are in a legislative body will you vote for x as speaker or pro tem, or chairman, or whatever…clearly people within parties have disagreements over policy, that is not the issue…basically it’s asking: are you a gop? as opposed to some other party…

            • John Konop says:

              Drjay,

              I did sign the pledge and as I said on another thread I regret it now. The two party system has created a lack of voices. If the system was more open than it would not be an issue in my opinion.

              My main point is calling Boyd a “nutcase” over this issue is shameful. I respect your opinion on this issue and even if we do not agree it does need to get personal.

              And for party leaders like Doug Grammer to lead the charge of personally attacking Boyd reflects poorly on the GOP!

              • Doug Grammer says:

                John,

                You are misconstruing the truth…chuckle. I’ve not personally attacked Mr. Boyd and I haven’t called him any names such as “nutcase.” (I know you were refereeing to DJ, just making a point.) I’ve pointed out he didn’t want to follow the law, the GOP rules, and that maybe he wasn’t ready to Governor if he couldn’t understand the process of how to qualify as a Republican.

                The first two items are facts, and I admit the third is my opinion. I think the real-estate market is still low and he has people going to his website and looking at his properties. He may be doing some great advertising.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                You asked a question: “Help me understand how No Child Left Behind, Highway Bill, Energy Bill, Farm Bill……..was part of the GOP platform?”

                I merely pointed out where NCLB was in the platform. If you don’t like the answers, perhaps you should not ask the questions.

              • Chris says:

                Knock it off both of you!

                We’re sick and tired of your sh–. Keep it up and you will both be banned.

                From here on out, do not address each other. Violate that rule and you’ll go into the moderation queue.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      If anything the pledge should help end “go along to get along.” It shows support for the platform, not just whichever party maybe in power.

  3. NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

    The pledge of allegiance to the party is a pledge to the party platform. I guess the reason for the oath is that you are running to represent the party. I get weary of all of the Democrats around here coming in to qualify as a Republican just because we are a red county.

    I feel that if you want to run on the ticket to represent a certain party, you should have to prove to said party why you should be their representative in an election. If you don’t agree with the platform, you have to wonder why run on that party’s ticket…

    • Minimally, a pledge like this says the GOP is the “party of exclusion” and that Reagan’s “11th commandment”, that no republican will speak ill of another republican, comes before our constitution and the Bill of Rights and the principles of Liberty that this country was founded upon.

      The LP has an oath that I would like to be changed to something that is more easily understandable… however, it is literally a basic tenant of liberty, a principle that I wish all of the potential candidates for any office in America would have no problems signing.

      As I’m sure you’ve seen, there is a growing populist out there that agrees that principles matter. If a party is going to be a “protectionist” of something, they’d prefer it be of freedom, liberty, justice and limited government, the principles this country was founded upon and not to a political party. It’s that simple.

      • macho says:

        Do you think Reagan would have cared about the Pledge when he was running for Governor? That would be a big NO, because Reagan was a viable candidate for Governor.

  4. btpull says:

    We need ballot access reform so independents and third party candidates do not have to pretend to be true Democrats or Republicans to run for office.

  5. macho says:

    So this is the blood oath that Konop regrets signing. The oath that held John back from being everything he could have been. Unable to break his pledge to the GOP, he was eventually defeated by incumbent Tom Price. To this day, bound by his pledge, John is an indentured servant to the Republican Party of GA. He prays every day, that a State GOP chairman will grant John his freedom; but at what cost to his soul?

    • B Balz says:

      Pretty funny, Macho, though at the expense of another. As well, Buzz makes a very clever supposition.

      Frankly, I’d wager Mr. Boyd is having himself a pretty good chuckle at this point. He has gotten a ton of earned media over this matter. Crackpot or stickler for detail, you cannot buy the press this gentleman earned. The commercial real estate marketplace quickly relegates crackpots to obscurity, so perhaps Buzz is onto something here. A real life John Galt?

      By design or sheer beginners luck, Mr. Boyd further fosters his “Dragonslayer” image by depicting himself as ‘everyman’ against his Party of first choice. Lot’s of folks love the underdog, taking on “The Man”.

      Philosophically, I understand the man’s point, an oath ought not be entered into lightly. These words, seemingly innocuous, bind one’s allegiance to both the good and the not so good our GOP represents. I wonder if Mr. Boyd have any problem with the oath if our ’09 GOP track record was impeccable?

      I support the Party decision not to bend the rules without due process. Whether the oath is right, wrong, or needs to be changed, the process to change it must be followed. Perhaps a reworking the oath would be a win for our GOP. As it stands now, the allegation of Party over Principle is both ugly and divisive.

      This seemingly minor technical point resonates with any voter who believes ‘word is bond’.

      • macho says:

        “bind one’s allegiance to both the good and the not so good our GOP represents.” Isn’t that what happens what you qualify under one party or another, you get labeled with the good and bad. A “D” by your name pretty much guarantees that a black woman in south Fulton will vote for you and a white guy in North Fulton will vote against you. For better and for worse, it’s kind of the point.

    • John Konop says:

      M,acho,

      If you have an issue with on Boyd via policy than make it! But for you to support attacking personally Boyd on anther thread while posting not in your own name shows your lack of character!

      You can say whatever you want but at the end of the day Boyd is successful businessman putting forward his opinion. As I said if you guys think he is a “nutcase” what does that say about you that he is way more successful than you?

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Money can’t buy being right on any issue, such as dictating how the GOP works.

        You signed the pledge, but now you state you don’t support the GOP. Was it the fact that you lost that caused you to break your pledge?

        • John Konop says:

          Doug Grammer,

          What I did not support is the hypocrisy of party leaders like you that will defend anything to protect office holders in your party! Party junkies!

          • Doug Grammer says:

            As opposed to calling names, why don’t you answer the question? Why did you decide to break your pledge? I’ll ask a new question. When did you decide to break your pledge?

    • B Balz says:

      Mr. Plyer, one can earn media by outrageous, wrongful, or criminal acts or one can earn media based on arguing principle over power.

      Mr. Boyd’s actions mean something, for voters like myself, who gravitate toward the GOP based on their desire for a smaller, fiscally conservative government. Voters like myself are concerned, almost exclusively with stable, long term economic growth based on conservative fiscal policy.

      Would you sign an oath to a GOP whose fiscal policies are not conservative? I would not.

      • Bucky Plyler says:

        I’ve had this concept of earned media explained to me in various ways B Balz..to date, I’m convinced that the media determines what is earned media!

        I think that Mr. Boyd can do whatever he wants to about signing the oath. His choice now makes it harder for him to run. What would I do? That would probably depend on what the state leadership had told me about the process. Personally, I’m not sure that I could be elected as a dogcatcher, but I do like dogs & they like me.

        I think the state GOP leadership has forgotten what it was like to be in the minority.

        • B Balz says:

          Of course the media determines who gets free press, its’ their media. And if the AJC can make the GOP look bad, while writing about Mr. Boyd, well, heck, that’s just peachy. The underlying theme of the AJC article was to miscast the GOP as Party over Principle.

          +10 points for the dog remarks, if a dog likes a person, they usually have a good heart. You’d have my vote. Plus, your campaign just some earned media…

          Your last comment is the best reminder to every incumbent of how very quickly circumstances change.

  6. Progressive Dem says:

    Acquiring 51,000 signatures from registered voters is a tall order, but he has the money to mount the effort. Unlike other candidates who must spend time raising money, he has the luxury of devoting more time to actually campaigning. He’ll also get plenty of free media along the way… “the Boyd camapign announced today they were ahead of schedule in gaining the 51,000 signatures to be placed on the ballot for governor…” Being denied ballot access in the GOP primary is not an insurmoutable problem.

    If he stays in the race, he probably won’t be participating in debates until the general election. However, the primaries for statewide office usually attract a small number of voters. I think voter turnout is about 20-25% in most statewide primaries, but maybe this will be better turnout year in Georgia. It’s hard to find a comparable election to predict turnout.

  7. HowardRoark says:

    That picture only tells half the story. On the back of that sheet is an absentee ballot with Karen Handel already marked and ready to ship. That’s what Ray Boyd told me, anyway.

    Seriously, though. The oath is dumb. But since we have it, can the party members start bringing official actions toward elected officials who have signed it but not upheld the platform? That would be fun.

  8. That’s the thing about short-and-simple text… it seldom stands on its own without further detailed interpretation.

    If “allegiance” means “willingness to carry your party’s banner into the next general election and be personally linked to your identity”… then this sort of pledge is fine (albeit pretty meaningless).

    If “allegiance” means “willingness to be called a traitor or oath-breaker if I ever get into a political dispute with the clique in power at any given moment, or if I use money to influence another party’s primary”… then these sorts of pledges are pretty f***ed up.

    Then again, Buzz and I apply different interpretations to the short-and-simple word “loony”. For me that word describes checking one’s brain at the door and blindly supporting a major political party on an ideological/kool-aid basis. That only makes any sense if there’s a job in it for you, or some kind of Machiavellian considerations like that. And for that kind of person, such pledges are once again pretty meaningless.

  9. Mozart says:

    Note that the pledge says the “GEORGIA REPUBLICAN PARTY”, not “THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.”

    Hmmm….

  10. John Konop says:

    The best example on the how the pledge can get misused is the recent attacks on Erick on this blog. I have had disagreements with Erick on issues, but to somehow betray him as a traitor to the GOP because he made some independent choices is wrong.

  11. Republican Lady says:

    Regardless of how each side feels about the oath, the time to challange it is beore or after the election process, not during the middle. Boyd’s actions appear to be grandstanding or maybe he does need a “noble” way out of David standing up to Goliath.

    You don’t spend years becoming a doctor then reused to sign the Hippocratic Oath, or go through the police academy, then refuse to sign that oath or become a police officer and refuse to carry a gun.

    Maybe Boyd reached a point in his lie where he just needed the attention. Even bad attention is better than none at all.

    • B Balz says:

      There is no such thing as bad publicity, huh?

      Correct, expectations would be misplaced if one thought they could change the process while engaged in the process. So what happened in the curious case of Mr. Ray “Dragonslayer” Boyd? We may never know…

      1.) Did Mr. Boyd not know about the oath beforehand?
      Due diligence is really important in his line of work, but possible.

      2.) Was he clever enough, as Buzz postulates, to use the oath as a ruse to backpaddle out of the race?
      Mr. Boyd seems too plainspoken for a Machiavellian maneuver like this, but who knows.

      3.) Did he expect to wave a big wad of dough and change the Oath?
      Just doesn’t seem like that would be how to do it, too much chance for really bad press.

      My pick is #1, unbeknownst to Mr. Boyd he saw the oath and did not like it, and there you have it. Not my first primary vote choice, and not for anything having to do with the oath imbroglio .

  12. Seems like I read somewhere that he’d only be able to recoup $250k of the $2M he’s put up. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t think he’s backing out… might as well spend the $1.75M that he can’t get back somehow…

  13. Three Jack says:

    somebody point out the platform page on georgia’s gop website. the webpage where a potential candidate could easily read the platform then decide if he wants to swear allegiance to a particular political party. unfortunately the gop does not publish it’s platform on it’s newly redesigned website.

    here is the link to the dems — http://democraticpartyofgeorgia.org/resources

    georgia libertarians — http://www.ga.lp.org/platform.php

    let me check the gop site once more….nope, still not there.

    nice job gop.

  14. seekingtounderstand says:

    This is too contrived with Boyd, is he a spoiler put up by the dems to pull of republican votes, this year it could work. Folks are not happy with the Repbulican canidates.
    Something smells here.

Comments are closed.