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….”?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.