Ray McBerry Threatens Young (Female) Republicans

The following email was forwarded a couple of times and made its way to our tip line:


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 5:03 PM
To: (redacted)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Saturday’s Columbia County YR Gubernatorial Debate

Megan,

I have now contacted you twice regarding your violation of the Georgia YR’s rules in not inviting all qualified Republican candidates for the gubernatorial debate in Evans this Saturday. I expressed to you yesterday that I was calling for the purpose of trying to remedy the matter and make sure that you were aware that you are in violation of both the YR and GOP rules and principles; and you acted both unprofessional and discourteous by hanging up on me both times. Your assistant reported to my staff that you were not inviting me because of Ms. Handel’s decision to not appear at your debate if I did so.

Since you have heretofore not contacted my Campaign to let us know that you are extending an invitation to my Campaign to participate, as you are required to do per the Georgia YR constitution cited below, I am sending this email to you to instruct you what you are to do to remedy this problem immediately. I am no longer asking politely; I am giving you instructions. If you do not follow them, I will instruct our Campaign to file the necessary charges against you to have you removed from office and/or censured.

Contact my Campaign scheduling assistant, Jennie Jones, either via email at [email protected] or via telephone at 404.916.9252 not later than 5:00pm on Friday 7 May 2010 to invite me to participate in the Evans debate on Saturday. If you call and get no answer, leave a voicemail inviting me to participate and providing whatever information the other candidates have received who are participating. Nothing less will be acceptable.

It is my hope that you will do that which both honours our rules and our principles as fellow Republicans. This is your last opportunity to respond correctly.

Sincerely,

Ray McBerry
Republican for Governor 2010

207 comments

  1. RealityChic says:

    Anyone interested in putting together a group of volunteers to protest at every event this bully shows up to?

    • Tiberius says:

      If the state GOP wants to get past its “zipper” problem, an offical denunciation of McBerry would have some value.

        • Provocateur says:

          Sue Everhart is bound by the law here. B Balz, you are being quite unfair to paint the image that if she does not “denounce” him, then that must mean the state party supports child molestors.

          But, if you and Karen Handel want the party to face revocation of its charter (or whatever it has to do to maintain its existence within the confines of OCGA), then continue in your path of whining about why the GOP chairman won’t say or do something.

          I say again, the Rule of Law sucks sometimes. We should just be able to go back to the days when you could hang people without a trial.

          • B Balz says:

            @provocatuer. Don’t put me in the Handel camp by any stretch. My choice in the Gov. primary is running for Congress, and frankly I am ABO*.

            What law prevents the Chair of the GA GOP from making a statement, here or anywhere, that clarifies and supports our Party position? Tiberious makes a good point.

            You really misread my comment; I am concerned that we will lose the Governor’s race due to the perceptions being generated by AJC, Boortz, and others.

            The Rule of Law is what separates us from the rabble.

            *Anybody But Ox

            • apacheangel says:

              B Balz: thanks for adding some sanity to the mix. I am really wondering what person with all of their faculties would think it is a good idea to just hang someone without a trial. I guess according to provocateur it would be a good idea of we had hung Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill made accusations against him.

            • Provocateur says:

              What is our “Party position,” B Balz? Do we have it stated in a platform that can be referred to?

              Before you jump all over me, let’s think about this:

              He has been accused, but not charged. And, he denies if all. Liar though that may make him, lying is nothing new from any politician.

              He has written a letter that admits to doing quite weird things, but are any of them illegal?

              What is the wording of this “position statement” you wish for Sue to speak-out on?

              AND, in a slightly different vein, would this party also be against what Nathan Deal has been accused of doing that he has also deinied doing?

              Because if you want Sue to denounce McBerry for being accused of being a child molestor (something horrid and something none of us are in favor of)…should she also denounce Deal because Deal has also been accused of doing something illegal that, if true, none of us would not be in favor of either?

              And, then of course, there’s the Ox and what he has been accused of doing.

              Does the Party merely make a stand on the disgusting child predator type of crimes someone is accused of, and give a dismissive wave to others who are accused of lining their pockets with special state contracts and the like, as if, perhaps, those are just everyday “white-collar” type of crimes?

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  I disagree that the vetting process is broken. It’s going on now. The people who vote in the GOP primary will be selecting a nominee. I conceder this one big transparent vetting committee composed of anyone who is watching across the state.

                  • B Balz says:

                    Hey Doug,

                    I read your comments on another thread and certainly respect your viewpoint, knowledge of Party rules, etc. Certainly the voter ought to be the judge.

                    My observation is that the Party ought to vet candidates in such a manner so that they do not embarrass the GOP or worse, threaten the whole race.

                    If everything is done legally and according to procedure, AND we get the situation we are in now, I believe the process is not serving conservative voters as best as it could.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      This is sort of like making sausage or laws. It’s not fun to watch, but as long as it’s done correctly, the outcome is what is meant to be. Primaries can damage the nominee or make the party look bad. If you can tell me specifically how to avoid that and still be open to new people in the party and not look exclusionary, I am all ears.

                  • B Balz says:

                    This is the standard that a REALTOR must meet in order to do business in GA. Courtesy GA Real Estate Commission:

                    (1) In Georgia, or any other state, jurisdiction, or country, have you ever been convicted of, pled nolo contendere to, or been granted first offender treatment upon being charged with (1) any criminal offense other than a traffic violation or (2) any traffic violation that involved driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, homicide or feticide by vehicle, fleeing the scene of an accident, attempting to elude a police officer, or impersonating a law enforcement officer?

                    You must answer YES to this question even if:(a) you have been pardoned for a criminal offense;(b) anyone (lawyer, teacher, broker, government official, etc.) has told you that: (1) the offense is not, or is no longer ‘on record’, (2) the offense has been expunged from your record, or (3) you do not have to disclose the offense, (4) your civil and political rights have been restored, or (5) any similar statement that appears to suggest your ‘record’ has been cleared; or(c) the conviction is not reported by the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) or the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).

                    Now please tell me why ‘noodling’ this language to be a part of the vetting process for any politician in any Party does not serve the people?

                    Do other States follow the GA sausage making paradigm?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I’d have to ask the General Council to be sure, but I think we can ask the questions as above. However, there would be nothing compelling them to answer, or answer truthfully. I don’t think these questions could be used to keep someone from qualifying for office as the law is currently written. That’s a good idea for next session, but some of our legislators from both parties might object.

                      I’m not sure what other states do. That would involve looking up state code and GOP bylaws for each state.

                    • B Balz says:

                      Thank you, Doug. I think that is an excellent response, would look forward to tracking that. If you still have my number, feel free to call, or have Ick get in touch.

                • Provocateur says:

                  B (can I call you by your first initial?), the “vetting” process is via the ballot box. You want to take a shortcut now for this one case.

                  Unfortunately, the word “qualify” doesn’t mean what you think it should mean with regards to a candidate being “qualified” to run for office in Georgia. If you want that word changed, talk to a legislator and see if they can change it.

                  The challenge you will have is trying to identify exactly what it should be in the case of someone who has not been convicted of anything.

                  • B Balz says:

                    Understood. It seems to me that in order to be vetted by either Party, a candidate ought to be required to answer a question, such as:

                    “Have you ever been accused of a crime or moral turpitude, financial impropriety, etc. and not convicted?”

                    Prior to taking the Bar, applicants must disclose all sins, same with many other regulated professions and trades.

                    This is not rocket science.

                    • Provocateur says:

                      “Accused” is a pretty broad-based thing. Lots of people are accused, falsely and otherwise, over the course of their lives.

                    • Ambernappe says:

                      Not only that, but when you sign an application for insurance, there is usually permission granted to question your neighbors regarding your reputation.

                • Ambernappe says:

                  I have commented on the Deal situation. Simple solution: publication of the contract between Rep. Deal’s company and the State of Georgia.

                  Speaking of documents, there is one suspending Mr. McBerry’s license to teach.

                  • Lady Thinker says:

                    The publication of the Deal contract isn’t a bad idea and should be available under the Open Records Act. Is anyone at the Capitol on a daily basis who is willing to do this?

                    How did you hear about the suspension of McBerry’s license to teach?

  2. Tiberius says:

    I hope she tells him to go to Hell. Instructions?? The gall. A YR debate is a private function. No one has a right to appear. The Columbia County YRs would have a helluva time “censuring” her. The man is delusional.

    Why do I see a scene similar to Alan Keyes trying to get into the Prez debate—McBerry being held back by security.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      Do you think McBerry is going to sue the Beacon because he wasn’t included in the debate when, last January? Chapman wasn’t included either. As I recall, didn’t Oxendine say (at the Athens GOP debate?) that he wouldn’t debate or share a stage with anyone polling below 5%? No lawsuit was threaten then but Oxendine isn’t a young female either. Was McBerry at the Georgia Tech College Republicans debate? He is such a small blimp on the radar screen that I just can’t recall. McBerry’s character flaws weren’t widely known at the time of these non-invitations so why didn’t he threaten to sue for those missed opportunities? I don’t remember him getting so upset then, is he upset now because he was turned down by a possibe teen-age girl or a young woman? Now Handel calls him out and McBerry wants to sue women deciding not to invite him. Has he threatened any male organizers?

      • polisavvy says:

        I have wondered the same. The only thing I recall about the Beacon and McBerry is that his supporters were going to protest the event; however, they did not obtain a permit and were therefore not allowed to be outside the event. As for as him threatening any males, I have not heard of that. I guess it’s easier to badger women than men.

        • B Balz says:

          “I guess it’s easier to badger women than men.” Perhaps, but I don’t think either Polisavvy or Lady Thinker would put up with any off it!

          A Vietnam Vet once mentioned to me that the American fighting woman is our Nation’s best secret weapon. His divorce was rather ugly come to think of it….

          I’d love to see a few women ask a some ‘butt-squirmy’ type questions.

          • polisavvy says:

            You are absolutely correct, B Balz. I have zero tolerance for B.S. PERIOD (just ask my husband and sons). I can say that Lady Thinker feels the same as I. However, having said that, not all women will stand up to men (or anyone else). Those are the women who could be easily badgered.

            No, Mr. McBerry could not pull that crap on me (or LT). It wouldn’t work. I agree with you, the “butt-squirmy” questions need to be asked of him. I’d love to see his face if someone in the audience where to ever put him on the spot — his head would probably explode! (Wait, I just had a great visual of that!) LOL!! 🙂

          • Lady Thinker says:

            There is no way I would accept any type of abuse from anyone, male or female, and I taught my son the same thing – don’t give it out, and don’t accept it. Learning
            Aikido, a defensive form of Martial Arts makes one confident and I urge all women to take either kick boxing and/or Aikido. Dads, push the women and girls in your life to learn self-defense both physically and emotionally. It is the best present you will ever give them.

            • polisavvy says:

              I felt sure I could speak for you in this one. See, we are so much alike. I think all men should be pushing the women in their lives to learn self-defense. Great suggestion!

  3. AubieTurtle says:

    McBerry needs his own (un)reality tv show. I get the feeling that if he continues to not get his way, he’s going to end up threatening to report everyone to the Intergalactic Confederation Council’s Executive Committee for Deception, Despites, and Duels. Hope Megan is experienced with using a XR14 Laser Inversion Pistol (with pearl handle)… or just ignores him completely.

    • B Balz says:

      See Above:

      Clearly, AubieTurtle knows both the venue and governing authority that can administer punishment.

  4. swgolde says:

    I’m not convinced there is any legal recourse he can take. A Constitution is just a guiding document for an organization, and if the organization so chooses, it does not need to extend an invitation to a single person, no matter what they’ve diddled.

    I may be a Democrat, but I say to the YRs that they should just go ahead and tell Ray McBerry where to shove it.

    • Provocateur says:

      Except that the YR organization is just an extended finger of the state GOP. It could be a winnable challenge because if the state GOP (or any of its auxiliaries) do not adhere to their rules, then perhaps the party can face invalidation by a court, and lose its right to exist in this state. Even if McBerry were to be charged, found guilty, and sent to prison for life, he does not lose his right to sue…and he’s just crazy enough to sue.

      The rule of law sucks sometimes.

      • swgolde says:

        Is that the case? I mean I’m seriously wondering. Young Democrats is not officially associated with the DPG, as we are an official wing of YDA, so we can do what we choose. If McBerry claimed to be a Democrat, we wouldn’t have to invite him to squat.

        • Andre says:

          Actually, the Young Democrats of Georgia is an affiliate organization of the Democratic Party of Georgia.

          Georgia YDs get seats on the state Democratic committee as well as the state Democratic executive committee based upon that affiliation.

          However, there are no provisions governing candidate debates within the Democratic Party of Georgia. So conceivably, the YDs –or any organization affiliated with the state Democratic Party– could legally exclude a candidate from a debate.

          • swgolde says:

            Affiliate organization is different. DPG can’t tell us what to do. And we only get one seat, which belongs to Jane 🙂

        • Provocateur says:

          Good point, and I’m not sure at all. I thought the state YR chairman sits on the state GOP executive committee, but maybe not.

      • Tiberius says:

        Clarence Darrow couldn’t win that legal argument. Any court would this a “political question” and move on.

    • Red Phillips says:

      “A Constitution is just a guiding document for an organization”

      Spoken like a true Democrat (or non-constitutionalist “conservative”). That Constitution must be “living and breathing” as well.

  5. BigEL2010 says:

    This guy is a creep and a disgrace to the GOP. He was a fringe candidate to start with and now he is just plain sad. Get out of my party!

  6. Junius says:

    My only advice to Ms. Megan is to make sure she has Columbia County Sherriff’s Dept. lined up when this nut tries to steal the spotlight. I can’t imagine there is something in any constitution that requires her to invite every kook who can front the registration fee to a debate.

  7. HollyJ says:

    I like how this guy spells honours. I wish he would write everything in the Queen’s English. What’s even better is that when you type honour the spell check squiggly line thing pops up underneath it. As far as the YRs are concerned. I would think that you would have to be a member of the YRs to actually file a complaint. What a jackass. I do think that this could start to become a burden for GAGOP.

    • analogkid says:

      “What’s even better is that when you type honour the spell check squiggly line thing pops up underneath it.”

      I had that problem also before I upgraded to Windows 7 Confederate Edition.

  8. Bugs Dooley says:

    Since when is not inviting a candidate to your event equivalent to opposing their candidacy? Wouldn’t that be more like ignoring his candidacy?

  9. Sarah Scott says:

    I will include the reference from the GYR Constitution that was attached to his letter. The Columbia County Young Republicans is affiliated with the Georgia Young Republicans, which does not report to the GAGOP, but to the Young Republican National Federation.

    Article VII
    Candidate Endorsement
    Section 1: Endorsement
    Neither the GYR, nor the Board of Directors, nor any YR club officers in their official capacities shall, in any way, publicly endorse or oppose the candidacy of any Republican in the primary election while acting as such an officer.
    Section 2: Penalty
    Violation of this article shall constitute grounds for a vote of censure and/or removal from office by the GYR Board of Directors.

    • swgolde says:

      See, that’s what I thought, Sarah. And @Bugs, not inviting someone is simply ignoring a candidacy, not opposing it. And if the GYR doesn’t want to censure or remove Megan, then they don’t have to. Hooray for politics!

    • ByteMe says:

      So if not inviting him to a debate is considered “opposing” his candidacy, why wouldn’t inviting the rest of them seem like “endorsing” their candidacies, subject to the same penalty?

      The BoD is smart enough to refuse to act.

    • Provocateur says:

      Slam dunk on McBerry! Good info, and thanks for clearing-up the question I had above.

      • B Balz says:

        1 Point for Confidence
        0 Point for Facts.

        Better bring your ‘A’ game to match that schnazzy handle.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      As a former Chairman of the Georgia Federation of Young Republicans, (now the Georgia YR’s), I take interest in this post. The Columbia County YR’s do not have to answer to the Columbia County GOP, the Georgia GOP or the RNC. If the Columbia County YR’s wish to limit invitations to people running for office who are at 3 to 5% in polling, that is their decision. It’s not an endorsement, and it’s not opposing a candidacy. It’s limiting the stage to those who are polling higher than others.

      I will not be able to attend this Saturday, but I urge all PP readers to send a check, no matter how small to the Columbia County YR’s. The Georgia YR’s should be holding their convention in June, and assuming there are no censures (or other similar actions), I would urge everyone to write them a check as well. Dems, Libertarians, this is one of the few times in your life you can write a check to the GOP (or it’s affiliated organizations) and feel good about it.

      http://www.columbiacountyyoungrepublicans.org/donate

      and

      Georgia Young Republicans
      c/o Chairman Cameron Fash
      2854 Ridgemore Rd
      Atlanta, GA 30318

  10. ZazaPachulia says:

    I think I’m going to start a website posting pictures of houses and cars that are still displaying McBerry signs and bumper stickers…

  11. NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

    Paging Margarita for a quick defense of this latest episode…

    We haven’t heard anything from Jenny lately. She could probably tell us whether she believes any of these things or not, since she used to be with his campaign.

    Of course, without the scandals, no one would be talking about him at all. Maybe it will bump him up to 2.5% in July:)

    • polisavvy says:

      She is probably laying low on this one. Of course, she may be trying to get in touch with all 2,300 of those supporters — you know the ones that are going to assure him victory.

  12. keepthechange2012 says:

    I say we all bombard McBerry’s personal email account ([email protected]) telling him to drop out. I guarantee there would be more than 2,300 emails to outnumber his supporters if we all did this…

      • keepthechange2012 says:

        or better yet, just set up a petition for the GAGOP to ban his candidacy for governor. This is really embarrassing for our party.

      • Pine Knot says:

        Interesting idea. Not that he would listen to our emails. Is there anything wrong with doing that?

        • Jeff says:

          I seriously think there is. I’m not sure if encouraging spam is illegal or not, but it just sounds wrong.

          Of course, who am I to force my morals on anyone?

          • keepthechange2012 says:

            I agree, now that I’ve thought it – it does seem wrong. However, my rationale was that it would be like asking people to contact a senator or representative and after enough contacts, it would be effective. In this case, I think in order for it to be the best interest of Georgians and the Republican Party, then somehow a message needs to be sent that more people disapprove of McBerry’s candidacy than those that do approve. Emailing him would not be the best option anyway, but an open petition asking him to withdraw would be more effective in my opinion.

            • polisavvy says:

              I think your idea of an open petition is marvelous. I’d be more than happy to sign it and know a whole bunch of others who would do the same.

    • One time somebody put my email address in a bunch of websites that sent porn and viagra spam for years. We should do this and he will be pissed…. oh, wait, nevermind.

  13. sethweathers says:

    “I am no longer asking politely; I am giving you instructions.”

    The guy has some absolutely hilarious control issues.

    I hope nobody else includes him in a debate. It’s pointless and takes away from the adults in the race.

    But, again, he has been GREAT entertainment! 🙂

    • Lady Thinker says:

      His email gives a glimpse into his behavior over this and “giving instructions” goes back to the types of people expressing a narcissist personality disorder. Now I am not diagnosing him by any means, because I am not a doctor but I am just saying that in researching his behavior, the things he writes versus the things he says in addition to comments from the victim and her family, it seems to fit to me. That bullying behavior may work with innocent teens or his previous wives, but not with people who know better and have a strong ego and sense of self-worth. I say we send letters of support to the organizators as well as checks for this act of courage.

  14. I am still baffled why they allowed him to qualify as a candidate. First and foremost, the things he is doing sounds very familiar – except unlike Oxendine, McBerry doesn’t try and shakedown congressmen – he goes for Young Republicans. The thing he has been accussed of should disqualify him outright, regardless if he is guilty of them. We don’t need that sort of dark cloud hanging above the State of Georgia – which it would should he be elected Governor.

    McBerry won’t be Governor of Georgia, ever. I can assure you of that. Not before all of this and certainly not after.

    Let me say also, I wouldn’t vote for someone who still uses an @AOL email address – under any circumstances.

    • Pine Knot says:

      Also, It must be the OATH. He signed the party’s pledge apparently. Would have rather had Mcberry have been denied the (R) , than Chap.

      • mitchmartin says:

        Speaking of the oath, can a case be made that McBerry has violated the oath that he signed? I dont remember the exact wording, but doesnt it say something like uphold the Party’s values?

            • polisavvy says:

              That’s it? So, in a word, the answer is no to anything relative to Party values. Thanks Doug! I appreciate your prompt response.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                That’s the phrase that’s in the O. C. G. A. The party might be able to make a new one up, but it would have to be added into the O. C. G. A. to have the same weight of law. I don’t like making up rules for one person. I think I am OK with it as it is, but I’d entertain ideas to change it. BTW, it’s not up to just me. I think there are about 17 people on the state GOP rules committee and whatever we decide still has to be passed by the entire state committee.

  15. ByteMe says:

    Icarus, what’s with the weird bear pic? Wouldn’t puppies have been more appropriate?

  16. apacheangel says:

    Firstly, read this, as much as I hate trusting anything from the AJC or Galloway:
    http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/05/04/karen-handel-gets-a-ray-mcberry-less-debate/
    Secondly, go look at the YRs constitution, an officer CANNOT endorse or oppose the candidacy of any GOP candidate. Doing so can result in removal from office. Read the stated reason for not inviting McBerry. Whether or not you think he’s guilty, he hasn’t been PROVEN guilty which means these are unsubstantiated allegations. The YRs have no right to exclude him. I know that no one likes to pay attention to the facts and prefers to judge based on personal feelings, but seriously, if this was about Nathan Deal’s ethics charges, no one would find this acceptable.

    • Pine Knot says:

      I think that this is much more serious and a lot different than the ethics charges against OX and Deal….

      • apacheangel says:

        One key difference though: McBerry has been cleared of all charges by both the courts and the GPSC. Ox and Deal haven’t been cleared by anyone.

    • Sarah Scott says:

      When reading the GYR constitution, it says “officers in their official capacity may not endorse or oppose” An invitation to speak at a meeting or participate in a debate is not an endorsement or opposition by one officer, we invite candidates as an organization. But with that logic, it would seem that each time we invite a candidate to speak at a meeting we are giving our implied endorsement and those that were ‘excluded’ or not invited were being opposed? That rational will not work.

      • apacheangel says:

        The fact that he was excluded in and of itself is not reason, I agree. Read the AJC link I posted. They are excluding him because of a) unsubstantiated allegations and b) another candidate’s cowardly stance that she won’t appear in debate with him. That IS opposing a candidacy because they are bowing to one candidate’s petty cry for press.

        • Sarah Scott says:

          I am the Vice Chair of the Columbia County Young Republicans. We never invited him to participate. He was excluded due to the inappropriate relationship that is not an allegation, but supported with court documents and a statement from the victim. Handel’s announcement that she would not be attending debates with Mr. McBerry as a participant was announced AFTER the invitations had been sent to other candidates. In fact, if you read the article you are referring to, Handel was actually NOT attending our debate until we announced that McBerry was not invited.

          • swgolde says:

            @apacheangel & every0ne else

            I rarely to never jump to the defense of anything GOP related, but I feel like I need to now. Sarah– good for you! Stand up for what you believe in, and don’t let anyone say anything else. Hell, if McBerry tries to sue, I can try to convince one of the YDs in law to represent y’all.

            YR’s constitution (just like YDG’s) has no legal bearing, whatsoever. AT ALL. It is a governing document of an organization which is independent of any government entity or officially sanctioned political party. It’s a club, more or less. That’s it.

            If YRG or YDG or whatever does not want to extend an invitation to someone, ANYONE, they have that right. It is a private and privately-funded organization, and I could care the hell less about anything involving “allegations” or “substantiation.” If they wanted to exclude Ray McBerry because he had a beard, they could do that, too! It’s their right as a private organization.

            YRs have done nothing wrong. Personally, I support them in their efforts to remove accused paedophiles from any semblance of public life.

          • apacheangel says:

            By “supported by court documents” I assume you mean “cleared of any wrongdoing by both the courts and GPSC.” If he is guilty WHERE IS THE CRIMINAL SUIT?! People are innocent until proven guilty in this country, and you and your organization are CLEARLY opposing McBerry’s candidacy, which is in direct opposition to your organization’s constitution. It may not be “legally binding” as some say, but it is binding on your organization, and it is CERTAINLY enough to have people removed from their YR offices.

            • ByteMe says:

              Good luck with that. As we’ve pointed out already: not inviting him is to opposing as inviting is to supporting, which is also in direct opposition to the organization’s constitution, but the only way to get an action is to get the board to do something and in this case, they’re going to sit on their hands, since holding a debate amongst the leading politicians is not going to be something the board says they can’t do.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I’ve talked to a few Georgia YR leaders. I don’t see anything bad happeneing for the Columbia YR’s or for Megan. As a matter of fact, I think it gives her standing to run for state YR office.

                • Doug and I wrote most of the current GYR constitution. I am sure Doug will back me up on this, but the endorsement clause requires an affirmative act, not a passive one. The club or the officer has to make an affirmative statement of endorsement or opposition to one’s candidacy. If Megan, Sarah or any member of the CCYR in their official capacity as an officer said that based on the allegations Ray McBerry should drop out or be defeated at the polls, they would have violated the Constitution of the GYRs.

                  apacheangel’s reading of the rule is overly broad and amounts to the same kind of judicial activism that finds never thought of rights in law.

                  The AJC quote suggests the CCYRs had to make a decision between Handel and McBerry as to who would be a bigger draw for their event. They chose Handel. Other GOP organizations, including other YR organizations, may choose McBerry.

            • polisavvy says:

              Do you people only drink grape Kool-Aid or do you mix it up, on occasions, and drink orange?

                • polisavvy says:

                  Sorry B Balz. I thought I was responding to ‘apacheangel.’ Did I post in the wrong spot? If so, I apologize. 🙂

                    • polisavvy says:

                      Come on, B Balz, be nice. 😉 Just think, if you were confused, imagine how confused apacheangel will be!! This could be fun!! 🙂

    • Ambernappe says:

      I would find it acceptable. The people who discovered this person and the young woman out on a lonely dirt road (each having arrived in a separate car) have not been shown to be untrustworthy.

  17. Tireless says:

    Note to self: Never hire McBerry to write an important letter…..what a dork.

    BTW – shouldn’t the State GOP Chair, whatever his name is, be resolving this issue in private.

    • Provocateur says:

      How would you suggest it be handled “privately?” Pay-offs? Threats? Oh yeah, that’ll make the party look great.

  18. BigEL2010 says:

    To quote an old friend of mine from college “We look ridiculous.” We as a party do look ridiculous because of Ray McBerry. I think this guy is a crank, a phony and a charlatan. He has NEVER had a chance to be elected dog catcher, say nothing about being elected Governor. With all this said, let this idiot debate, he will only show the voters why he has NO business being elected to anything. I am sorry Secretary Handel isn’t comfortable with him on the debate stage, but if she is elected Governor, she is going to have to make some uncomfortable decisions and meet with some people she doesn’t like and trust me Ray Mcberry will pale in comparison. We have more important things to debate as Republicans than this crap. We need to focus on how to create jobs, fix transportation and how to defeat democrats in 6 months instead of this.

  19. Three Jack says:

    i say invite mcberry to the debate, put him center stage.

    also invite rachel gandee and let her pose the first question.

    end of story.

  20. smitty says:

    +99 points for @aol email address comment

    ‘ray mcberry is the guy who is sitting around a campfire, drinking beer with his militiamen talking about overthrowing the govt, who declares that he’s going to run for guvernur and take back the state!!!!!!’

    that’s where his candidacy came from.

  21. debbie0040 says:

    If McBerry demands to participate in debates, then give Rachel and her parents and his first ex wife and former students time to address the crowd. I say put a copy of the letter McBerry wrote in every seat at the debate.

    Also, his threats of legal action is getting really boring. The bottom line is that public figures have to prove a higher standard of libel and slander. See Falwell vs. Flynt decision

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46

  22. Rambler1414 says:

    We need to lock McBerry and Blagojevich in a steel cage.

    Two slimeballs enter, 1 slimeball leaves.

  23. GAPoliticsisfun says:

    Thank you Karen Handel for standing up for what is right. It surprises me that the rest of the candidates are not standing with you.

  24. drjay says:

    ok i have actually grown tired of this–good for the columbia yr’s for standing up to this yahoo–can the rest of us just ignore him now…

  25. John Konop says:

    This is a very toxic problem for the GOP. If the party does nothing it will be tainted. And you know Barnes will use this issue in the general. And like in the Rothenberger situation most in the public know right from wrong. And this is a PR nightmare for the GOP! The party should listen to Sarah Scott!

    And if you remember when the Foley situation hit I warned that people with this issue almost always have numerous victims.

    • Provocateur says:

      As I said up this thread to B Balz, why stop at McBerry? Deal and Ox have been accused of various forms of wrong doing, but not yet charged, prosecuted, or convicted. As far as I’m concerned, if they are found to have broken laws, then they committed crimes against this state, just like McBerry is accused of doing.

      Should this party call them all out, John? Kick them all off the ballot?

      • B Balz says:

        You make a strong point, provocateur. I have been chatting up a fw of my pol friends about this. IMHO, doing nothing is worse. I don’t know the answer and that is why I was calling for a GA GOP statement.

        • Provocateur says:

          Pretty sure they’re hunkered-down reading and analyzing the law every single day trying to locate a loophole that won’t put the party in jeopardy. You and others keep “calling for a statement” simply doesn’t help the party’s image when they are bound by law and cannot just revoke McBerry’s qualification.

          Oh, and am I living-up to my “schnazzy handle” now?

          • B Balz says:

            @Provocateur

            You are a valuable addition to the PP community. Please take no offense to my snappish comments. My blog persona imitates an obnoxiously braying jackass, but never a tool.

            My Dad used to say, “Words can hurt like fists,” apologies if I was too personal. I like to think none of this is real, just pixels on a screen. Others get more involved.

            Actually, you and Doug Grammer did a good job of educating me, perhaps others, on the conundrum with the situation regarding the man-with-no-shame.

            And, I believe a statement by top GOP leadership explaining the conundrum would help educate voters.

            And I look forward to seeing if some sort of ‘vetting’ affirmation can be added for candidates running under the GOP banner.

            If the person who sold you your house must make such an affirmation, potential lawmakers should be required disclose.

            Disclosure should be required, disqualification should be done by the voter. That seems elementary, but then I am not a learned lawyer.

            • Provocateur says:

              No offense taken, no apologies needed, B Balz. We’re all just pixels arranged as randomly as a million monkeys could put together after a million years of trying. 🙂

              • B Balz says:

                Some of us are tools. Others, crying bears. The world became more got weird after they landed on the moon.

      • John Konop says:

        Provocateur,

        Depending on the strength of the case, yes I do think a party should have a standard above the NFL.

        No different than the Barney Frank situation. I could careless that he is gay, but he did abuse his power by running a brothel out of his apartment. He should not be supported, indorsed or his behavior blindly ignored by any party.

        You can make the same point about Richardson, Charley Rangal, John Ensign…… Is the job of the party to support candidates no matter what?

  26. bella says:

    You have been “instructed” to comply, you silly woman! Know your place!

    OMG – a never-ending barrel of laughs, that Ray!

  27. NorthGAGOP says:

    From Megan’s facebook page. The latest McBerry stunt:

    Megan Seda “apparently, Ray McBerry has emailed my personal cell phone # to his entire distribution list. I think it’s time file a restraining order.”

    • polisavvy says:

      That was very nice of McBerry — NOT!! I think she should file a restraining order. McBerry should have known better than to divulge her personal cell number. That’s awful; but, should we really expect any better of him?

      • ByteMe says:

        I doubt it was McBerry and more likely a stupid “supporter” working on his campaign. Not to defend him at all, but given the quality of “true believers” around him, I’d bet it wasn’t necessary for him to do his own dirty work or even to bother suggesting it.

        • polisavvy says:

          I would ordinarily agree with you; but, didn’t he write the email to Megan? (I don’t know why but for some reason was under the impression that he wrote that tacky letter himself). Plus, regardless of whoever did this most stupid thing, I am also concerned for her safety now. This whole thing has gotten way out of hand, in my opinion.

          • ByteMe says:

            He wrote a letter demanding an invite and was condescending in that letter. *shrug* That’s a far cry from doing what amounts to putting a giant bag of poo on your porch and setting fire to it. I really think that it’s more negative attention if she retaliates and he’s trying to figure out how to reduce the negative attention — hence the long-winded letters trying to explain everything away. So… given the calculus of the actions and reactions, I’d say that it’s less likely he did this himself.

            As for getting way out of hand, well, yes, that’s what happens when a cult is attacked.

            • polisavvy says:

              Agreed! Loved your “poo” analogy, too. And, loved your “when a cult is attacked.”

    • Lady Thinker says:

      Open letter to Megan:

      You did a courageous thing to make the decision about not inviting McBerry and to publish you decision. Now McVerry bad man and/or his supporters are using his same time worn but successful tactics to “put you in your place.” The ball is in your court and you have us to support you.

      ByteMe says to not retaliates and I understand his point but I would urge you to contact an attorney, either through your organization or on your own, and have he/she file a restraining order on contacting you on any personal medium like your home address or personal cell phone.

      Then contact your local law enforcement organization, introduce yourself, and make them aware immediately if you get any type abusive phone calls or letters. The most effective way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him or her.

      • ByteMe says:

        Whoa. I didn’t say not to retaliate. I just pointed out that I doubt that Ray personally sent out her cell number, because it wasn’t a good way to get his campaign back on track and that appears to be what all his other actions indicate.

        I think a restraining order is likely not going to work unless it encompasses his acolytes.

        • NorthGAGOP says:

          Byte,
          Here is the email that he sent out today. I changed the phone number and email.

          Come support Ray this Friday at the Debate in Statesboro!

          Coming off a huge victory in the debate in LaGrange just a week ago in which he won 57% of nearly 300 votes in the post-debate straw poll – more than all of the other Republican candidates combined – Ray will be participating this Friday night in the gubernatorial debate in Statesboro! Come out and support our candidate and bring someone with you! Show our enemies that we will NOT retreat!

          Oh, and by the way, you won’t have to listen to Sonny’s handpicked neo-con candidate Karen Handel since she’s too afraid to debate Ray anymore after the embarrassing defeats she’s had in every other debate!
          Date:

          Friday, May 7, 2010
          Time:
          5:00pm – 9:00pm (Actual debate begins promptly at 7:00pm)
          Location:
          Statesboro High School Auditorium
          Street:
          10 Lester Road
          City/Town:
          Statesboro, GA

          Monday’s Press Conference at the Capitol

          Monday on the steps of the state Capitol, Ray held a press conference to denounce the lies and personal attacks that have been waged against both him and our Campaign by some of the media, most notably the super-liberal Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Our enemies were expecting Ray to drop out of the race after their unethical smear campaign, so the last thing that they were expecting was to hear Ray announce that not only is he not dropping out of the race but that we have had a record number of new volunteers join our Campaign in the last week!
          Ray also announced libel suits that will be served on at least three different individuals after this year’s elections.
          The clear message that was sent to both our detractors in the liberal media, as well as the moderates attacking us from within the GOP establishment, is that we are NOT going anywhere! Kudos to Ray for taking the battle to the enemy! Show your support for our candidate by doing your own part to spread the message that we have the only constitutionalist and States’ Rights candidate in the race! Georgia has a REAL choice in 2010!

          Columbia County Young Republicans Attempting to Exclude Ray from Saturday’s Debate

          At the request of Karen Handel, the Columbia County YR president Megan Seda has agreed to not invite Ray to this Saturday’s gubernatorial debate just outside Augusta in Evans, Georgia. Our Campaign has notified her that this is a violation of both Georgia YR and Georgia GOP rules, and that we will be filing the necessary charges to have her removed from office if she does not extend an invitation to our candidate by 5:00 pm this Friday.
          We think it would be a good idea if you called Ms. Seda and encouraged her to do the right thing until she does! Her contact information is:
          Megan Seda
          [email protected], [email protected]
          xxx-yyy-zzzz

          New Campaign T-shirts!
          We now have brand new eye-catching blue campaign t-shirts with the McBerry for Governor and “Truth is Electable” logos on both the front and back! Show your spirit by ordering yours online at http://www.georgiafirst.org/candidate/tshirt.shtml (the new ones are not yet pictured on the website).
          Not Atlanta… Not Washington… but GEORGIA FIRST!!! http://www.GeorgiaFirst.org

          If you received this update notice in error, want to discontinue receiving notices or need to update your name, email address or frequency of receiving messages please use the following link: http://www.ecampaignhq.com/remove.php?RID=g517368a222b12

          If you do not trust remove links, just insert REMOVE in the Subject and forward this entire message to the moderator at: [email protected]

          Georgia First: P.O. Box 1263; McDonough, Georgia 30253; Phone: 706.374.4509

      • polisavvy says:

        I worry about Megan because McBerry and/or his staff have access to voter records (voter vault). These records contain addresses. I just hope that Megan is being careful and not putting herself in a situation that she can’t handle. Sometimes desperate people do desperate things, in my opinion.

  28. NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

    I think it would be much more fun to invite McScary to debates, then to have everyone (other candidates included) either turn their backs to him every time he speaks or just loudly boo him every time he opens his mouth.

    Seriously, apacheangel, the admission of trying to entice a girl he was supposed to stay away from with a poster offering puppies doesn’t bother you? You show a devotion to this man that I find completely sickening. You can’t say he was “cleared” of all of this because it never was allowed to be prosecuted. I know you have a lot of time and emotion invested in Ray, but it’s time to admit that you are a poor judge of character and find some other cause to fill your time. That is, unless you really want an independent Southern Republic and to restore the “historic” 1956 flag.

    The McBerry campaign is full of delusional bullies. Someone in our local GOP expressed a desire to have an event just so he can be excluded…or invite him so we can ask him questions about puppies and things…but that would give him more press than he deserves.

    • AthensRepublican says:

      Well said North Georgia Girl. Though McScary seems like the kind of guy that would go on a murderous rampage and shoot everyone at a forum. I don’t think I would even be comfortable in the audience. The man is a disturbed lunatic. Yes, and I still believe he is Georgia’s modern day version of J.B. Stoner.

  29. Doug Deal says:

    You know, having read the party rules several times, they only state that an individual cannot act using their official title to support or endorse a candidate. Like all poorly written org documents, it stands mute on the opposite, opposing and also on the state committee as a whole acting against a candidate.

    Perhaps rules should be written by strategy gamers who have experience exploiting rules rather that lawyers who seem adept at ambiguity to wracked up billable hours interpreting the mess.

    Where does it say a candidacy cannot be opposed at least by the committee as a whole?

    • Doug Grammer says:

      I could be wrong, but I don’t think our general council bills us. The committee as a whole meets on May 14. I’m not sure if the party will want to get sued because it actually has some money and may not want to get it all tied up in court.

      • Doug Deal says:

        You always personalize things. I was speaking generally about lawyers writing poor rules. Rules should be written by people who care about and will be using them. Lawyers can translate that into legalize and advise on legal issues, but most lawyers I know lack in logical thinking.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          I’m sorry. I thought you were discussing the GA GOP rules. I guess I was wrong to think you were talking about the GA GOP general council or to at least apply the general council to your remarks. Not everyone who wrote the rules are lawyers. I have had the privilege of helping tweak them before I was a voting member of the state EC. And yes, I play strategy games, if that’s not personalizing it too much for you.

          • Doug Deal says:

            My comment had two parts you, which should be obvious to you, but of course you prefer to take a tack in any discussion that is more likely to lead to conflict. Maybe you will file an FEC complaint against me too and pretend it’s a joke. I liked you a lot better when Erick had summarily thrown you off.

            Part one of my comment was discussing what appears to be capable under the rules, the other part was discussing the problem with letting lawyers write rules in general.

            Our rules stink to high heaven, but all organization’s rules stink because no one cares until it is too late. It is because people use lawyers who understand little about how they will be used to write them. Notice how lawyers do not write computer code or engineering documents?

            Rules should be written by those that care about the process or will be impacted by them or expected to use them. Lawyers are good for checking into the legality and converting the rules in a legal form, but the intent and usage should be developed by people who know what they are doing in regard to the organization.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              Doug,

              I am happy with the way our rules are written, but in the spirit of openness, if you wish to modify some of the language or rewrite it from scratch, I will present whatever you or anyone else who claims to be a Republican to the rules committee on your behalf. I don’t know how I can be any more accommodating to your expressed disappointment. If you have any suggestions on how I can make you more happy with the end product or the process, I am willing to listen.

              Our rules WERE written by those that care about the process or will be impacted by them or expected to use them.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                FYI, we do have several changes there were presented to the state committee, but failed by 2 or 3 votes. There are more changes planed. To be more accurate, I am happy with the way that our rules have been written, but the rules themselves need some changes (most of them have already been made, and we are waiting to adopt them.)

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  Doug,

                  I waited until I saw you post in another thread to ask this, but is there some rule that you want rewritten and do you have any suggestions on how you would like it phrased? I’m trying to offer to help address your concerns.

                  • Doug Deal says:

                    Doug,

                    There are a number of them that I discovered when trying to re-write the Bibb County rules. Many are just completely unworkable and assume you live in a county where everyone is a GOP activist. If I find time to enumerate them, I will let you know.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Would it help if I sent you the proposed state changes and a few county gop rules?

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      Sure.

                      This following list are some rules that I think are poorly written. I have left out typos where things like “personal” have been substituted for the word “person” and bad subject-verb agreements. I have also left off things that are impractical or impossible to carry out, which I can tough on later.

                      2.17
                      2.20A
                      3.6
                      3.7B

                      To this, add the section on supporting candidates.

                      2.22 RESTRICTIONS ON ENDORSEMENTS BY GRP OFFICIALS
                      Members of the State Executive Committee, the State Committee, GRP employees, appointed GRP Officials, County Chairmen, members of any County Committee and members of any District Committee shall not use their official title in any manner in connection with their support of, any candidate for the Republican nomination for any public office in the State of Georgia in primaries where there is at least one other Republican candidate.

                      Does anyone think this is well written? Who writes this stuff?

                    • Lady Thinker says:

                      Doug Deal has a good idea. Maybe we should be discussing solutions to the McBerry problem and email and snail mail them to our representatives and suggest that this be addressed after jobs, health care, transportation, taxes……geesh, when will they have time to address this issue?

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      I don’t think McBerry should be dropped from the ballot, but I think forum organizers should be able to limit who attends. I also think people in the party should be able to freely express their opinion about this monster, but the voters should be the one deciding who gets out nomination.

                      Unless and until ballot access is opened up to all parties, they should not be able to easily eliminate candidates from the ballot.

                      What Sue E did to Boyd, for example, should be illegal.

                    • Doug Deal,

                      Are you aware that state law requires the oath that Boyd refused to sign and Sue would actually be in violation of state law and GAGOP rules if she allowed him to use his own oath? Boyd was explained that and it was not like there was time to change the law or the rules to accommodate one person.

                      The rules limit the power of party chairs to get involved in races so we don’t have party bosses making the decisions about who will run for what in back rooms. Why many people might feel the McBerry situation is unpleasant or embarrassing, he does have many supporters. Let the process play itself out. If we are going to be what we claim to be and that is a grassroots party, you have to accept the fact that it will be the grassroots on July 20 who makes the decision and not party bosses.

                      You can’t keep changing the rules to fit whatever situation pops up at the time.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      The question asked was who writes this stuff. The Congressional District Chairmen compose 13 of the 17 (I think it’s 17) members of the rules committee.

                      Rules 2.22 was written exactly as they wanted it to be written. The only thing that is lacking has claification that elected officials are not subject to 2.22.

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      Jason, the state law, if I remember correctly, use MAY, not SHALL, which means it is a choice. As per usual, I am on my Android phone, so looking up to confirm is problematic, so I am relying on memory and may (not shall) be wrong.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      DD: you are correct. If the party decides they want an oath, the text of the oath is described by law. Otherwise, the law is silent on the oath or its meaning.

              • B Balz says:

                @Doug Grammer,

                I look forward to hearing how the GOP in GA will address disclosure for potential candidates. As well, I would not mind if Mr. Boyd’s point about ‘pledging allegiance’ to the GOP is addressed either.

                Words do, in fact, matter where signatures are concerned.

                In the words or the man-who-has-no-shame:

                “I am no longer asking politely; I am giving you instructions.” LOL

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  My guess is, and this is purely a guess, is that it will be talked about in the Rules Committee, and then shelved because it will give the appearance that all GOP candidates have had problems with the law. That’s just my speculation. I’ll bring it up and we will see. I assume you are talking about the same disclosures used for realtors.

                  • B Balz says:

                    Thanks Doug, knowing you said this is strong. Yes, a ‘disclosure’ statement ought to be part of the process.

                    Potential candidates, who wear the GOP pin ought to be open and transparent though a disclosure that is no more than the standard required of other trades or professions.

                    We can talk off-line about this, at the appropriate time. I think the Rules Committee should weigh the known positives of open transparency against the
                    unknowns of ‘appearances’.

                    But then I am not on that Committee.

                  • Provocateur says:

                    “Shelved because it will give the appearance that all GOP candidates have had problems with the law.”

                    No, more like “shelved” because if you are a person who has not been charged, prosecuted, indicted or convicted (as McBerry has not up until now) then how would you write such a requirement?

                    There is no way to provide a basis for someone to be prohibited from running for office based on the claim that they may have violated a law. “May have” is not a barrier to anything.

                    Those who are running around on this thread and others clamoring for the GOP to “do something” are acting just plain silly.

                    Rule of law. Rule of law. Due Process. Any of these phrases sound remotely familiar to any of you? B Balz? Doug Deal?

                    The forum holders can not invite him, I don’t have a problem with that. But, the state GOP (as its own incorporated entity) cannot issue one word on this issue. Not a one, because that will open the party up for a lawsuit that McBerry would likely win in a court.

                    Judges tend to operate on the law, not the “emotional breakdown of the moment” type of analysis for their deliberation.

                    • John Konop says:

                      Provocateur,

                      I do not think any jury would rule in the favor of a Richardson, Frank…….I also think the party that did stand up and said enough is enough would gain great PR beyond any cost associated.

                      I am not talking about stopping the person from running for office, but like the NFL the party can be clear it does not in anyway sanction not blindly accepts the behavior. A party should have a higher standard than just not being convicted. I am for free speech, but this is about a party giving a platform to a person that violated basic decency. If that person wants his or her name on a ballet so be it, but that does not mean the party needs to give them a platform.

  30. Sarah Scott says:

    The Columbia County Young Republicans Gubernatorial Debate
    I would like to invite all PP readers to come to our debate. We will be having a straw poll as well, so I will report results as soon as possible.

    Saturday, May 8, 2010
    Doors Open at 4pm
    Debate begins at 5pm

    Jabez Hardin Auditorium
    Columbia County Library
    720 North Belair Road
    Evans, GA 30809

  31. I have not read all of the above comments regarding this situation, but as the immediate past State Chairman of the Georgia Young Republicans and a member of the State YR Executive Committee and current YRNF Committee Chairman, let me say a couple of things:

    1. Legally, the YRs do not answer to the State Party nor is the State GOP responsible for the Georgia YRs. The YRs are an organization allied with the GAGOP, but is not an auxiliary of the GAGOP.

    2. The YR constitution says an officer or a club cannot support or oppose a candidate in a contested primary in an official capacity. Not being invited to participate in a debate does not constitute official opposition, regardless of what McBerry says.

    3. Tonight I will be offering to our board a resolution commending the actions of the Columbia County YRs and the strength of character of the club’s leaders.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      Thank-you for clearing up some of the legal issues for me. I agree with you that Megan should be commended and fully supported for her courageous actions. She is a remarkable lady.

    • Lawful Money says:

      Close call perhaps, but it looks like none of the other 4 candidates became self-paralyzed with emotional cowardice or turned into pumpkins due to their proximity to the accused & embattled Mr. McBerry on stage last night:

      http://www.statesboroherald.com/section/1/article/22717/

      Another worthless straw poll conducted afterwards shows the accused to be the winner again.

      The other candidate missing from the official debate, demonstrated her “strength of character” by dis-inviting herself from that debate, but did attend the pre-debate “meet & greet”:

      http://www.statesboroherald.com/section/1/article/22716/

      Mr. Shepherd, during your board meeting last night did you confirm whether the accused had actually been invited previously, and then later dis-invited specifically & solely on the basis of: “…. recent allegations, and the refusal by former secretary of state Handel to appear alongside Ray McBerry….”?

Comments are closed.