Chapman Receives Support From Boyd

Received via email.

Senator Jeff Chapman, Republican candidate for Governor, today announced that he had received the support of GA Independent Voters as well as the endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Ray Boyd.

“I’ve never been one to seek endorsements, but I’m pleased to receive the support of Mr. Boyd and the Georgia Independent Voters.” Jeff stated. “Both expressed to me that they believe that, more than anything, we need a return to solid ethics and principles to rise above our economic crisis. I am honored that they consider me the candidate to lead that charge.”

In a letter to his supporters, Ray Boyd explained, “Without any reservation I give my full endorsement to Senator Jeff Chapman. From his record as an elected official and what I see in his character, I know that he will put We the People first. As Governor, he will take a strong stand in seeking to remove ethically challenged office holders and bureaucrats at every level in our state.”

Mr. Boyd continued, “Jeff Chapman recognizes the folly of Governors not asserting state’s rights in the face of the ridiculous policies of the Obama administration, and ANY federal body that oversteps its bounds whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans.”

Georgia Independent Voters issued a statement declaring, “A key impression we had, based on [Jeff’s] history and our conversation, was his willingness to stand for issues of principle while in elected office. In our experience, it is one thing to have principles, and another thing to fight for them when going against the grain. Senator Chapman’s history indicates that he has stood up for honesty and openness and has worked in a bipartisan and non-partisan manner, even when his actions (and sometimes his candidacy) were met with disfavor by the Republican Party establishment.”

134 comments

  1. ZazaPachulia says:

    Wonder how much that endorsement is worth? (not in political capital… I’m talking greenbacks)

    Boyd needs to get his new golden boy on t.v. Chapman trailed Eric Johnson by just 2 points in the last Insider Advantage Poll and that’s with a candidacy that has yet to surface beyond the grass roots.

    Chapman is in the best position to kick to the finish line.

    • Progressive Dem says:

      “Chapman is in the best position to kick to the finish line.”

      What position is that? With two weeks to go, the guy is flat on his back. The political decendants of George Wallace could push Ray McBerry ahead of him.

        • ZazaPachulia says:

          Well, Chapman has jumped from 2 points to 6 points in the polls. In a race where all four of the frontrunners are about as appealing as a week-old plate full of chitlins and gizzards, Chapman is gaining ground without much of an advertising presence.

          We still have 30+ percent of voters undecided and the polls are open! When the undecideds hit the web to learn about the 7 candidates (because obviously lousy t.v. spots and Handel glossy magazines aren’t swaying everybody) Chapman is going to look better and better. I’m not saying he’ll win, but he could very well get as high as 15-20 percent of the vote.

          On a side note, has anyone else seen Karen’s crappy glossy mag show up in their mail box??!?

          • Lady Thinker says:

            I haven’t seen Karen’s crappy glossy mag but I have seen Karen’s professional and polished magazine/brochure that is packed full of information and gives numerous details on why she is the best candidate for governor!

  2. Joshua Morris says:

    I don’t get the logic behind not signing the pledge and then endorsing someone who did.

  3. bwjohnson83 says:

    Chapman will benefit from this endorsment. The question is how much?

    With a growning number of swing voters and non afliated voters this should help. The number of independent voters in Georgia is said to be around a half million. Sure……..not all will got to Chapman but some will.

    34% are still undecided according to recent polls. This means that they’ll begin the vetting process soon. Once the gloves come off on the big boys and dirt starts flying I suspect Chapman will benefit. Who know?

    Oh…….can the big boys be called that with only 18% of the vote?

    I volunteer for Chapman and I can say that he’s seen a growing support over the past month. His campaign is working hard in grassroots efforts. We’ll see what happens!! Georgia doesn’t need a Governor with ethics or moral issues, we’ve already had plenty of that.

    “Principles over poltiics.”

  4. B Balz says:

    Sometimes a pebble is so small it hardly leaves a ripple on the pond…

    Mr. Boyd was a strange sub-chapter in this race.

  5. redrock says:

    Boyd should just write Chapman a $2 million check….or 328 checks if you want to get technical.

    They could consult with Oxendine if they need some pointers on how to work out the logistics of it all.

  6. I don’t support anyone who doesn’t understand the basic concept of why Sunday alcohol sales should be legal. The premise that you can drive to a bar… drink… and drive home yet not be able to drive to a store… buy alcohol… drive home… drink… is absurd to say the least. Sorry Chap, better luck running for Sunday School leader.

    • Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

      What do you do, sober up long enough to make a fool out of yourself? All the problems the state has and mental giants like you are focused on Sunday booze sales and blue laws. We have a senate and an house to worry about that.
      David, until the state can un-F itself, buy your booze on the other six days.

      • “All the problems the state has and mental giants like you are focused on Sunday booze sales and blue laws. We have a senate and an house to worry about that.
        David, until the state can un-F itself, buy your booze on the other six days.”

        Right… us mental giants are having to spend hours upon hours trying to figure out how exactly we can un-do this stupid blue law. It keeps me up at night. (sarcasm)

        Since the bill has already been written and presented multiple years to our Georgia legislators, it seems to me there’s very little actual work to be done on their part. Pass it out of committee, take a vote, pass the bill, let the Governor sign it and just get it over with already. I have an alcoholic drink or two probably once or twice a month… I don’t really run out of alcohol at home all that often. It’s the freedom to choose that I have a problem with. You can make excuses for the nanny state all you want, but I’m sure you also realize that this is a very simple issue. Sure there are plenty of larger issues to deal with as Governor. But if they have time to pass resolutions honoring softball teams and various individuals throughout the state then they have more than enough time to pass this thing. As you said, let’s get to work focusing on real issues.

        • (and yes, I realize it’s not the Governor who passes all those resolutions… but he’s also not the one who will pass the bill… all he has to do is sign the bill… something Perdue, Oxendine and now Chapman are saying they won’t do.)

  7. Bucky Plyler says:

    @ Mr. Staples..is Sunday sales your hill to die on? Surely there must be more important issues to you.

    • Nope, it sure isn’t… however, if someone doesn’t understand an issue as basic as Sunday sales, should we expect them to be able to understand more complicated issues? I’ve already found my candidate in John Monds… other people seem to understand the absurdity of our current laws as well. Apparently not Chapman or Ox.

      • Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

        Oh please. Keep talking, the higher a monkey climbs the tree, the more he shows his ass. That is ridiculous.

    • Fred Smulavich says:

      man that’s what I’m saying. I don’t agree with Jeff’s position on Sunday Sales, but EVERYTHING ELSE is a bit more important to me

      • But see, here’s the thing. The bills that I’ve seen would simply put the issue to the voters of the state. The Governor shouldn’t be able to say “I think I know what’s best for you…”. The Governor should say “Let’s have them vote on the issue. If they want it, great… if not, great. At least we gave them the choice. The *freedom* to decide.”

          • Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

            Really. Then what if the state says that each county can decide? Do you and Einstein target the commissioners then? Like others have said. We have bigger problems. But you and David go out and rearrange the deck chairs while the ship sinks. 🙂

            • Lady Thinker says:

              While I agree that we have tougher problems than Sunday alcohol sales, David has a point when he says the governor should not decide this issue for the state, if should be the voter’s choice.

              The county votes have the most impact on the date-to-day lives of citizens as the counties decide local tax measures, whether the citizen can choose their trash carrier (Gwinnett voters were stripped of this right), local zoning ordinances, where parks, businesses, schools, and residential communities are placed, and millage rates for the areas.

              While the state leaders are important, county issues affect the voters more closely.

              • analogkid says:

                Agreed.

                I’ll also add that when one aspires to be Governor, he or she needs to be prepared to tackle the smaller issues contemporaneously with the bigger ones. Fixing education or any one of Georgia’s other serious woes is important, but this is a no-brainer in terms of generating additional revenue, and, given that the legislation is already written, it will require nothing more than our next Governor’s signature, so time isn’t really an issue either.

                • Lady Thinker says:

                  Good points. You are a smart kid! (Going by your name and not meaning you are a teen).

                  • analogkid says:

                    Thanks LT. I’m glad to see we agree on at least a few things!

                    And for the record, no, I’m not a teen. In fact, I left my twenties a few years ago. [sniff]

                • Exactly. It’s not like I’m spending hours contemplating how to fix this stupid blue law. I’m simply saying sign the damn thing and let’s be done with it… next issue.

                  • Bucky Plyler says:

                    Let’s see….let me think ….what Gov. has ever been for Sunday sales? Talmadge?. nope..Vandiver? nope….Maddox?,nope….
                    Carter?, nope…Joe Frank Harris ?, nope….
                    Barmes? nope Sonny? nope…..

                    Why does the general assembly never go through with the question? is it because of principle?…nope

                    Hmmm.there must be something political about this issue that translates to votes…….

                    • The polls that I’ve seen show an overwhelming support for Sunday sales. Either way, what’s wrong with letting the voters decide on it instead of going all out dictator and telling people they’re just not allowed to and that it’s for their own good? You’ve pointed out seven people in the whole state that were against Sunday sales. I bet I can find that with a few zeros after it at a minimum that are for it.

                    • B Balz says:

                      Mr. Constable,

                      Still convinced that G’d is not part of this and every other election?

  8. ZazaPachulia says:

    The Phenix City convenience store coalition fully supports both Chappy and the Ox (and anyone else who promises to keep Georgia’s imbibers driving over the bridge every Sunday)

  9. ready2rumble says:

    Am I the only one who thinks it’s interesting that Johnson spends $1,000,000 on TV, Chapman spends $0, and Chapman is catching Johnson in the polls?

    • Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

      Well it depends on where Erics $1,000,000 came from and why he got it. It’s kind of like how Sonny got money from the Reynolds family and in return almost got the beach ( Jeff fought that) at Jekyll Island. Oh BTW, Eric has a Reynolds on his campaign committee. Wonder if we may stand a chance to lose another beach?

  10. Mae says:

    Has anyone noticed that Chapman, who has a dearth of funding, trailed frontrunhner Oxendine in the polls by 34 points just 4 months ago, but in the most recent WSB-TV poll the gap had narrowed to a mere 12 points? This guy is making up ground by leaps and bounds, which apparently Ray Boyd has recongized in choosing to endorse Chapman, who may well end up winning the GOP nomination.
    Oddly, the press seems hooked on the notion that the GOP primary race is a contest involving Karen, the Ox, Nathan and, Lord forbid, Eric Johnson, yet Chapman keeps pecking away, making gains week after week. Add to Boyd’s endorsement the nod recently him by Geogia Independent Voters and his popularity with libertairans and with conservative Republicans, and I think we can see that Chapman will be a force to be reckoned with in the closing days of the primary race. I have yet to decide whom I will be voting for come July 20th, but I have to say that Chapman is moving up fast in my ranking of the conservative candidates.
    With regard to Chapman, the expression “diamond in the rough” seems apt for the candidate scenario that is now playing out in GOP gubernatorial politics.
    Am I just whistling Dixie in the dark in thinking as I do, or does anyone out there see things as I do?

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      And Austin Scott is kicking himself for getting bullied out of this race by the party establishment…

      • Lady Thinker says:

        Did Austin Scott TELL you he got bullied out of the governor’s race by the GOP? Or is that your OPINION?

          • polisavvy says:

            I keep hearing the song from “Independence Day” that says something about the “end of the world as we know it.” Y’all never agree.

      • polisavvy says:

        Austin Scott was not bullied out of the race by the party establishment or anyone else. Perhaps you should ask him yourself if you don’t believe me.

        • Lady Thinker says:

          Polisavvy,

          Having met Austin Scott numerous times, I couldn’t believe Zaza’s comment. Scott strikes me as the type who would get his back up in a hurry if anyone tried to bully him after Scott politely asking them to stand down. I can’t see him taking orders from anyone. Well, maybe a starry-eyed baby, or a daddy’s girl, or a tomboy, or some other little kid.

  11. bwjohnson83 says:

    Slow and steady is Chapman. I just hope he doesn’t run out of time. Like I’ve been saying for a month or so now. Eventually the undecided voters will make a decision and vote. Right now they must not like the big four so………..it’s possible they might look at the ballot, do a little research, and chose Chapman.

    Imagine…………if Chapman spent a few hundred thousand in robo calls, t.v. , etc. He might be at 25% by now.

    We’ll see…………I know one thing. His followers are growing but it’s a race against time!!

  12. Fish-on says:

    Me thinks the voters who actually vote are doing their homework and will take notice…Go Jeff you have my vote

  13. Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

    Nothing turns me off more than robo calls and signage to the point of eye pollution. If robo calls and TV ads get you elected with the advent of the Internet laying out there, we are in more trouble than I thought.

    Harvard Icarus has attacked Chapman for not campaigning when this very instrument he uses to demonstrate what a big head he has is ignored by his inability to use Google.

    Ironic that his girl Margret Thatcher Handel’s campaign asks me for money constantly using it.

    Okay Icky, did I misspell anything ?

  14. Fish-on says:

    I agree with LVB about signs and rb calls but when the media giants like AJC don’t EVEN include the options in a simple listing….

    I have seen lot’s of g-root supporters out there over the 4th and I really think this will help the cause. I am keeping my fingers crossed that it is not too little too late. BWJ83 is correct about the growth…

  15. GAPoliticsisfun says:

    Chapman is a very nice man. At current course and speed his campaign will peak in January 2012.

  16. GOPwits says:

    I am one of those who is very impressed with Jeff Chapman’s seriousness of discussion, strength of character, and improving work ethic on the campaign trail.

    I can only hope that there is justice in this world where a man like Jeff Chapman has a place in our political system.

    He started the race too late and only began campaigning heavily as of late, so it’s just too late in the cycle for him to have a chance to win or even be in a run-off, but hopefully he will stay engaged and consider running for something in the future. Our government would truly benefit from his experience and character.

    And yes, I do hope that he finishes above Eric Johnson since he is in essence the anti-Johnson. He stands up for private property rights in the face of special interests, whereas Johnson was all about the special interests.

  17. Doug Grammer says:

    There are things to like and dislike about every candidate. I’ve met all of the ones running on the GOP side except Mr. Putnam. Perhaps the next time I go to Wal-Mart I’ll ask for a character reference?

    I like Sen. Chapman, but will someone let me know when Mr. Boyd’s 15 minutes are up?

    • B Balz says:

      I think that was it, they are up. After this endorsement, what’s left? Perhaps another homey video, complete with laying out a dramatic loogie?

      In my opinion, the best thing to come out of Mr. Boyd’s ill fated campaign is that the Georgia GOP may revisit the wording of loyalty Oath. Maybe call it a pledge or something.

      • Bucky Plyler says:

        BBalz…I don’t think Homey The Clown will be endorsing Chapman…but you never know !

      • GOPwits says:

        I actually talked with someone today who told me they were not going to vote in the Republican Primary because they did not want to sign the “loyalty oath”. They did not believe me when I told them that you don’t have to sign an oath if you vote in the primary.

        This “loyalty oath” is ridiculous. What’s sad is when local parties have tried to implement one, their local Reps and Senators have fought against it, yet fight to keep it on the state level…

        Just another example of some of the hypocrisy in the GOP…

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Any change in the wording of the oath would have to come from the legislature. The oath is taken from O.C.G.A.

      David, I like you, but how are things in the spectator’s seats? 5% won’t get your team onto the field.

      • Yep, but the Republicans have the majority right? I’m sure if they have time to pass all these resolutions honoring softball teams and various individuals throughout the state they can probably find a few minutes in their busy schedules to change such a minor law right?

        The seats out here are great… you can see everything from way up here. Thankfully the tickets are free. Of course it’d be easier to get more of my team on the field if we didn’t have to collect signatures from 5 percent of the spectators.

        Though I’ll admit I don’t have much time for politics other than just hopping on here at the moment… so I’m a spectator / commenter either way.

        How are things in the Grand Ole Divided Party? You know.. the party that can’t make up it’s mind if the term conservative should refer to fiscal or social issues? It’s a shame that so many in your party want to enforce their morals on the citizenry of Georgia through the rule of law… otherwise I might be more attracted to the GOP. Until then I really only have Libertarians or Independents that share my views to choose from.

        Since you brought up the sports analogy, it’s like having two teams in the World Series but neither one of them is yours. I grew up in Atlanta, so just pretending that I give a rats patootie about sports, let’s just say I’m a Braves fan. So the White Sox and the Cardinals are in the World Series. Who do I choose who to cheer for? St. Louis isn’t a bad city but I don’t know that I want to live there. Chicago has some great pizza but I’m not sure I want to live there either. What says you?

        • Doug Grammer says:

          I don’t speak for the entire party, but I can tell you that IMO, the term conservative applies to both fiscal and social issues. We have moral laws that I am sure that you support. You are against killing, assault, theft, kid napping, rape and those types of laws, right? Do you deny they have a moral nature to them?

          What laws do you want repealed that would allow for immoral acts to be legal? Can you get at least 50% +1 of Georgia to agree with you? If not, it’s a pipe dream. (That’s a joke, kind of..lol)

          Your world series analogy is off just a bit. You aren’t a Braves fan. You are a fan of a minor league weekend baseball team that might be semi-pro at best. The LP isn’t ready for the major leagues and it has no chance of ever making it to the world serious in the next decade. The coaching isn’t that good, the players aren’t great, you can’t get more than 5% of the stadium to cheer for you, you haven’t won a game, and you are under funded. I might agree that I like your team’s colors, but maybe that’s because they remind me of what my team’s colors look like.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            ah auto spell check…“series” got changed to “serious.”

            • analogkid says:

              Question: What do killing, assault, theft, kid napping, and rape have in common that sunday beer sales, marijuana use, and gambling do not?

              Answer: A victim.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    DNA is missing the point that some of the items of his list of victimless crimes do have victims. I hope the LP is known for it’s desire to make all drugs legal. Keep it up and your 5% will go down to 3%. Promise to send that out as your main message, and I might do some fundraising for your party.

                    As far as the sugar plant explosion goes, do your own research.

                • analogkid says:

                  Even if I did advocate the legalization of meth (which I plainly did not), that link doesn’t help your case. Presumably, if meth was legal, producing it in one’s home should and would still be illegal.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    The link shows that the man was a victim of his own crime. It’s not plain that you don’t advocate the legalization of meth. You want some drugs legal but not others? Why the discrepancy? Why should producing meth in one’s home be illegal? The LP philosophy is what goes on behind closed doors that does affect other peoples right’s in no one else’s business. If the man can cook meth in his house and not bother anyone, please show me in the LP platform where that is frowned upon. Do you have a list of some drugs you want legalized but others that are too dangerous to legalize? Pot yes, cocaine no? Uppers yes, downers no? Or is that reversed? What about steroids? Why not?

                    • analogkid says:

                      “Why should producing meth in one’s home be illegal? ”

                      Because it infringes on the right of your neighbors to live without fear of their houses being blown up by an amateur chemist. It’s legal to drive, but not legal to drive 200 miles an hour. Why is that? Because you endanger the safety of others at high rates of speed. Just like it’s not legal to drive drunk, it should be (and is) not legal drive while impaired on drugs.

                      “If the man can cook meth in his house and not bother anyone, please show me in the LP platform where that is frowned upon.”

                      First, I’m not a member of the LP. Second, your question contains the false assumption someone can cook meth without serious risk to the lives of their neighbors. Alcohol is legal, yet it is illegal to run a still out of your home for the same reason. I hope we can both agree that that is a reasonable limitation on a person’s right to use alcohol.

                      “Do you have a list of some drugs you want legalized but others that are too dangerous to legalize?”

                      No. I don’t. I’m willing to have those conversations though without mistakenly equating one drug to the next. Again, alcohol is a recreational drug also, yet it is legal. Society has applied (mostly) reasonable limits to its use and government taxes it heavily.

              • Lady Thinker says:

                Analogkid,

                I gotta disagree with you on the nonvictim status. I have seen the hungry and displaced kids of parents who contributed every dollar they could beg, borrow, or steal to buy beer, marijuana, and gamble. You can contact any county social service agency and interview them on cases related to this issue. The problem is larger than some people believe.

                • analogkid says:

                  LT:

                  Are you advocating the prohibition of alcohol? You acknowledge that some people become addicted to alcohol, which is legal, but I think you’d probably agree that most people who use alcohol are not alcoholics, right?

                  The solution is to deal with the sickness when it happens. I should also point out that addiction is not limited to illegal/ narcotic substances. Should we prohibit sex between consenting adults because some people become sex addicts?

                  • Lady Thinker says:

                    No, all I am pointing out is that sunday beer sales, marijuana use, and gambling have victims in response to your earlier question and answer a few lines above. Most all behaviors like these have victims. Some behaviors have more and some have less. It is the nature of the beast.

                    • analogkid says:

                      OK. Do you believe that “Sunday beer sales” itself results in victims or that “addiction to alcohol” results in victims? If it’s the former, then why is alcohol legal to buy on ANY day of the week? If it’s the latter, then why limit its sale to six days of the week when alcoholics are the only people who plan in advance for Sunday? Prohibiting Sunday sales doesn’t even begin to treat the addiction problem.

                    • Lady Thinker says:

                      You are right, allowing Sunday sales does not necessarily add more alcoholics and that is why I am for Sunday sales. But as I recall, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, Chapman is against Sunday sales.

                    • analogkid says:

                      He is not for Sunday sales, and for that reason (and several other far more substantial ones) he won’t get my vote.

                      The issue that you and I (and Mr. Grammer before he quietly exited) were discussing is if there were any victims that would result from Sunday sales, marijuana legalization, and gambling. I still haven’t heard a good argument as to why I’m wrong, but I’m still listening.

                    • Lady Thinker says:

                      Well then if that is your premise, I have to agree with you. I guess I misunderstood your original post.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I have no problems with Sunday Sales.

                      I do have a problem with marijuana because I consider it a gateway drug that leads to other drug use. Even if it did not, there are studies that show long term marijuana use reduces reaction speed, and can stay in your system for days or weeks. If I have to put on my seatbelt and can’t use my phone, then you can’t smoke your joint.

                      http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

                      If you think gambling has no victims, I can’t convince you otherwise, but I disagree with you.

                      I am also not a fan of sin taxes. If it is allowed, then it’s allowed. By taxing some things more than others, it’s like saying that’s allowed, but it shouldn’t be.

                    • analogkid says:

                      On the “gateway effect”: http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html

                      I found other studies if you’d like to see them, but most attributed the primacy of marijuana use to the fact that pot is more readily available to young people.

                      And thanks for the link, btw. I hadn’t given much thought to the idea that marijuana users may suffer continued impairment in the days and weeks after use. However, I have to wonder if a person’s driving skills the day after marijuana use are impaired as much as a person who just consumed two beers and has a blood alcohol content of 0.07, just under the legal limit. It’s hard to say.

                      To me, the primary obstacle to marijuana legalization/ decriminalization is a test that can tell an officer when a person is impaired on marijuana (and thus, not fit to drive an automobile/ fly an airplane/ perform surgery/ etc.). Currently available tests can only tell you if a person has used it in the last 30 days or so.

                      Anyway, I think we’ve pretty well exhausted this topic, so I suspect we’re done here. In any event, I enjoyed the discussion and hopefully we all learned something.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      analog kid,

                      I enjoy posting with you as well. You gave me a link and a study so I’ll give you two links and just one official study.

                      http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol20/vol20_iss10/record2010.24.html

                      http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html

                      Not everyone smokes pot goes for the harder drugs. Most don’t, but it’s very hard to find those on harder drugs that didn’t smoke pot first.

                      If nothing else, you’ve learned that I have no problem with Sunday sales either, so we can at least agree on that. I just don’t think my life is ruined until I can buy on Sunday. There are bigger problems to deal with.

            • Exactly! Someone’s rights were infringed upon!

              If you, Doug, would take the time to understand the basis for liberty you might truly understand it… and wish to protect it more.

              One can still be a social conservative and a libertarian. The line is drawn between one’s morality and another’s rights. At which time one would still have the 1st amendment to get another to voluntarily agree to one’s morality.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                DNA,

                Don’t I remember you blowing a gasket about two consenting adults having an affair? You can’t have it both ways. Make up your mind.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    Remind me, what legislation was passed?

                    And I haven’t heard you comment on why your party sent a felon to represent it as a presidential elector. BTW, he was a felon with a violent crime. A police officer was a victim of assault and he did a year in jail.

                    • wtf
                      I have no idea what you’re talking about… or how your comment has anything to do with what we were discussing… why I even bother with you, geez …

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      DNA,

                      I changed the subject a bit, but it still refers to the failings of the LP. Let me know if you can’t keep up.

                      You haven’t been reading my posts for the past week or so explaining how the LP elected a felon to be a Presidential elector in 2004? If I were you, I wouldn’t want to talk about it either.

            • “What laws do you want repealed that would allow for immoral acts to be legal? Can you get at least 50% +1 of Georgia to agree with you?”

              The first part is easy. The second part not so much.

              Everyone has their own set of morals. Some people get them from the Bible while others don’t need a Bible to tell them what is wrong and right. Call it humanism / humanitarian / nature / whatever. I would think 99.9%(+) of the people in this state would agree that killing, assault, theft, kidnapping and rape are immoral because they directly take away another person’s rights. However, Sunday sales of alcohol, allowing me to gamble with my own money at a casino, allowing me to grow industrial hemp… none of those have a direct victim. I would think you’d be able to find at least 10% of the people in this state at a minimum are okay with legalizing these things. That takes you from a near absolute agreement amongst citizens to having a minority group whose “natural rights” (or whatever you want to call it) are being taken away. Sure there are cases where a parent abuses alcohol (but they do it on more than just Sundays I would bet). Sure some people develop gambling addictions that cost their family hardships and money. But should we then outlaw all addictions?

              Sunday sales – I think a greater percentage of people would vote to allow local communities to decide for themselves than that voted for Saxby Chambliss in 2008.

              Industrial hemp – I don’t have any idea how many people would vote for this – but it’s a federal issue anyways, unless we do like California does with it’s medical marijuana laws. Can’t say I’ve ever heard of anyone getting high on industrial hemp though.

              Casino / horse racing gambling – I would think this would fall in the 40% to 60% range if it were to come up for a vote.

              Prostitution – it happens anyways. See Macon, GA or Craigslist or Creative Loafing. I highly doubt people in our Bible Belt state would vote for this. It’s not something I have any particular interest in (same as I have no interest in marijuana… just industrial hemp). But I really don’t care if Joe Schmoe or Billy Bob decides to pay someone for whatever services they are offering. It’s just none of my business.

              And that’s what it boils down to for me. What someone spends their money on or when or for what reason is none of my business. The exceptions to that would of course be a hired killer or whatever. But that goes back to the 99.9% scenario I posed above. Anything that at least 10% of the state would vote to legalize I think should come up for serious discussion.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                I think all of these things have been dicussed…… and then voted down, or not alllowed to come up for a vote.

                • Voted down by who though – the handful of legislators who think they know best or by the voters of Georgia? The second part of your sentence is my point exactly. “Not allowed”. Sounds an awful lot like the days when we were colonies to the King across the pond…

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    It’s called legislation with representation. You want prostitution discussed? We are discussing it. You want it discussed by legislators, it will be a very short conversation. They will talk with you, but not for long. I imagine they would say “If I vote for that, I won’t be re-elected. It’s not what the majority of my district wants.”

                    What the vast majority of your party fails to understand is that they hold minority opinions on the issues that we are discussing.

                    I agree with freedoms, smaller government and individual responsibility and accountability, but with some common sense limits. I understand that my five neighbors and I aren’t going to pave our publicly traveled road, so that’s a job for government. I’m sorry, but drugs are called controlled substances for a reason. Get used to it. Society thinks that an educated workforce is a good thing to have around, so we have public schools. I will agree that the federal government needs to get out of education, but it’s still a function of state and local government.

                    • I imagine they would say “If I vote for that, I won’t be re-elected. It’s not what the majority of my district wants.”

                      Again Doug you demonstrate that you do not understand liberty. In a “republic,” (you claim to be a “Republican”) you have majority rule, as long as the rights of the minority is not infringed upon. What you and other statist like you in the Republican Party fail to recognize, is that you continue to justify your positions with a majority rule argument… which btw describes a democracy and is most democrat’s position. So, either you’re in the wrong party or there is currently little difference in the two.

                      As for the drug issue, another thing you fail to recognize is that libertarian’s position is based on not advocating for drug use itself but is actually advocating for “self ownership” versus government or State ownership of the individual (up until the revolution, the King of England owned the citizens of America). You can’t give authority to gov to make it criminal to put bad things in you body without also giving them the authority to criminalize what one might think is a good thing… another unintended consequence to giving gov this authority is that they can also “make you” put things you don’t want in your body… that is, now that you’ve abdicated ownership of self.

                      I realize these concepts are difficult for some, especially those that swear allegiance to a political party or country instead of the principles in which they were supposedly founded upon.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      You still haven’t commented on my posts for the past week or so explaining how the LP elected a felon to be a Presidential elector in 2004. If I were you, I wouldn’t want to talk about it either.

                      You demonstrate that you don’t understand politics and reality. Saying I don’t undestand something doesn’t make it so or make you right. Even if by some miracle, the state legislature and Governor were to legalize prostitution, and whatever set of drugs you want legalized, they would all be voted out (regardless of party) and replaced by people who would repeal those agenda items. As far as putting things in your body, didn’t your get shots when you were a child?

                      I understand your position. You live in a fantasy world where everyone should agree with you because you are right. Your opinion is superior to others and your version of dialog is people doing what you say and agreeing with you. You fail to realize that you have a minority opinion and that’s not how the world works. You have a very minority opinion….about 5%, I’d say.

                    • I’d say it’s larger than 5 percent. I think it’s 5 percent who are willing to actually vote the way they believe. The percentage over that believes the crap that voting for a third party is a wasted vote so instead of voting how they really want they vote for the lesser of two evils.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      …..And the ones who vote for the two candidates who have a chance of winning understand how our elections work. If the LP were smart, they would have tried to court Boyd. At least then you would have a candidate with enough money to get his message out. I doubt that many would have agreed with it, but it would be better than Monds.

                      A great candidate, with great ideas means nothing if no one knows about him, and I don’t concede that he’s a great candidate with great ideas. You won’t have a chance of having a great candidate until you get someone who can have at least 5 to 50 people in every county to work for him and/or enough money to deliver a message. Whatever his ideas are, the average person on the street will say Monds who?

                      Walk into a Wal-mart and talk to 100 people. Would they know the name Barns and maybe have an idea of if they like him or not? Do the same with the top GOP candidates, and you might get a little lower name ID, (or maybe not.) They will usually have an opinion based upon party affiliation. Probably. I doubt that 1 person in the store will know the name Monds, and less than 5% will prefer the LP over the two major parties.

                    • Doug,
                      As for your red herring…(still don’t understand what this has to do with anything being sdiscussed here), I wasn’t in leadership in 2004… but if you’re talking about the person I think you’re talking about, last I heard, he went BACK to the GA GOP. Also, granted, we’re not as “big brother” about things that you seem to be, so I doubt anyone knew of his past at the time and he probably met the requirements to be an elector (paid debt to society and had voter registration reinstated and so on…), if not, he would have eventually been replaced, as the law allows, if it had been needed.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      DNA,

                      Would you let me off the hook if the GOP did something foolish before I was in leadership? “I wasn’t in leadership” isn’t an acceptable excuse of why your party sent a felon to represent your party. He’s not a member of my county party, and I think he still owns property here. He talked about running as a Republican and was quickly talked out of it by offering to reveal his life story to the general public. He was on the ballot last representing the LP. He’s not welcome in my party by me as a candidate.

                      As for what it has do with what is being discussed here, it’s just another bad decision by a party with bad ideas. I just want make sure everyone knows you are the party of felons who get to be presidential electors. Own it and own him.

                    • Doug – I don’t think anyone knew at the time about his criminal record. While the GOP may perform background checks on it’s members and presidential electors, the LP does not. I can only hope that if someone knew about his past convictions that he would not have been a presidential elector.

                      Did you bring it to anyone’s attention at that time? Personally, I wasn’t involved in politics at all in 2004 and didn’t care about them other than just listening to the occasional talk radio show while living in South Carolina. I’m taking a bit of a break from actually being active with the LP to focus on our business but I do still keep up with the goings on.

                      And no, I wouldn’t hold you accountable for something leadership did before you were a part of it. I would hold the GOP leaders at the time accountable but not you personally. However, I also don’t expect the GOP to know everything about every candidate or presidential elector either. Once it learns of whatever misdeeds of a certain person’s past though I do expect that they hold that person accountable as well, just as I would expect the LP to hold someone accountable once they learned of their past flaws. As long as I’m involved with the LP at all I don’t believe you’ll be seeing the person in question on any ballot or serving as an elector. We do have plenty of good people whom I can only assume don’t have criminal convictions (though again I haven’t run any background checks) that are involved with the party. Hopefully some of them will run for office in the future and some will be presidential electors. I do want to continue to see the LP gain equal ballot access to the GOP and Democratic party. I don’t think you’ll be seeing the LP die away any time soon.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I’d like to see the LP earn equal access onto the ballot. I didn’t know he was involved in the LP until I saw his name on a ballot as a Presidential Elector for your party. Bringing it to anyone’s attention was a little late at that point. I’m bringing it up now because I want people not to vote for your candidates in this election. We are in a competition for votes. Don’t expect me to be helpful when it could hurt my candidates.

                      As a side note, I love how I make a comment to one LP member and other LP members just jump in and out of the conversation.

  18. Jace Walden says:

    Wow, I’d really like to see that, Doug. Send me a link or a specific section of the O.C.G.A. that states, “Candidates are required to take a party loyalty oath.”

    I’ll be waiting.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      § 21-2-153.

      (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:

      (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.”

      As I stated, the WORDING of the oath is taken directly from O.C.G.A. Candidates are required to take the oath if the party rules require them to do so. The GOP rules require such. There is a key phrase you should note: “in accordance with the procedural rules of their party.” Are you happy now?

      • Sounds reasonable. So the GOP just has to change it’s rules or the GOP members who are elected and currently hold the majority have to change the law. So the GOP can do it if the GOP wants to. The question becomes “Do they want to?”… only time will tell…

      • Jace Walden says:

        Doug,

        I’m not some unreasonable a-hole. Of course I’m happy. And I’m actually really surprised that existed. And I did take the time to look up the GA GOP’s oath, and it does mirror the state law to the letter.

        But the issue of oath’s being anything other than a party requirement is no longer in question. The Republican Party of Georgia requires, despite not being required by state to do so, that its candidates swear an oath of loyalty to the GOP.

        Hail to The Party commrades!

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Well to begin with, the law was put in place when the other major party was in power. Now that’s it’s fashionable to run as a Republican, we try to avoid people who are called a RINO, Republican In Name Only. In Georgia in the early 90’s, it wasn’t that fun to be a Republican.

        You may have differing opinions on how we run our party. Until you decide that you want to be considered a Republican and part of the Republican Party, is it really any of your business? When you decide that is the case, it’s a long climb to get to the point where you can influence the rules of the state GOP party and there is still no guarantee that others will agree with you. Personally, I don’t have a problem with requiring that someone should say that they support the party they want to be the nominee of. I have several rule changes I’ve been trying to get done for several months. Many of the rule changes that are being considered are more important than the oath, IMO. I started working on them last year, if that tells you anything. There are others who have been working on them much longer than I have.

        When members of the GOP start yelling about how the LP party pick’s it’s candidates or nominees, let me know. Right now, I doubt that many people care. I’m willing to bet it’s less than 5%.

    • B Balz says:

      Thanks Jace. To Mr. Grammer’s credit he offered to take the matter up with the Ga GOP. If the Ga GOP chooses not to act, that will not surprise me. I was surprised at the OCGA reference, though.

  19. truth says:

    Jeff Chapman has my vote. He is truly a man among greedy children and followers under the Gold Dome. I know from personal experience that he will take the time to listen to people who come to him with concerns. And, I do not live in his district.

  20. Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

    Saturday morning……NORAD tracking 5 ICBM’s with 5 independently targeting warheads on each missile. The President is airborne. USAF puts everything they got into the air worldwide. Flash messages go out to all Ohio class subs. Cheyenne Mountain locks down. Ground based silos pop their tops. NYC is 10 minutes from being a parking lot. Atlanta targeted, Miami, Charleston, Mickey Mouse, Icarus head, Jacksonville, Kingsbay GA.

    Meanwhile the libertarians camped out in the republican party are putting on their tennis shoes to go protest Georgia’s alcohol sales laws at the capital.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      +1 if there really is a town out there called “Icarus head.” However, I don’t want it nuked.

    • …meanwhile the Republicans and Democrats are passing resolutions such as the below. Glad to see our elected leaders are spending their time so wisely… SR1602 for your reading enjoyment…

      Congratulating and commending Reverend Dr. Lloyd Green, Jr., upon his retirement; and for other purposes.
      WHEREAS, Lloyd Green, Jr., was born on August 24, 1948, in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, to adoring parents Sadie and Lloyd Green, Sr.; and
      WHEREAS, he graduated with honors from McCrorey-Liston High School, and in 1970, he graduated cum laude from Johnson C. Smith University of Charlotte, North Carolina, and he went on to obtain his Masters of Divinity from the Interdenominational Theological Center and his Doctorate of Ministry from McCormick Theological Seminary; and
      WHEREAS, the Reverend Dr. Lloyd Green answered his calling to serve the Lord and was ordained in 1973 by Catawba Presbytery, and becoming the Pastor of St. James Presbyterian Church in Greensboro, North Carolina; and
      WHEREAS, in 1985, Reverend Green was led to become the pastor of Northeastern Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., where he also served as the commissioner to the General Assembly representing the National Capital Presbytery; and
      WHEREAS, he was installed as the pastor of Radcliffe Presbyterian Church of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1990, and he has continued to serve in many vital roles on the Committee on Ministry of Greater Atlanta Presbytery and also represented the Presbytery at the Georgia General Assembly; and
      WHEREAS, he is a devoted husband to his college sweetheart, Bessie Meeks Green, and a loving father to their two sons, Conte Devon Green and Clifford Evan Green, and a proud grandfather to his grandsons, Asiel and Emouri, and granddaughter, Caitlyn Evanna; and
      WHEREAS, Reverend Dr. Lloyd Green, Jr., has lived a life dedicated to others, the church, and his community as demonstrated by his acts of compassion and generosity too numerous to count, and it is only fitting and proper that his extraordinary Christian leadership and service to the citizens of this state be appropriately recognized.
      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that the members of this body congratulate Reverend Dr. Lloyd Green, Jr., upon the occasion of his retirement, commend him for his many years of ministry and long record of community service, and wish him well in his future endeavors.
      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to the Reverend Dr. Lloyd Green, Jr.

      • I’m sure this one was much more important than Sunday alcohol sales or the scenario you postured above. Thank goodness we’ve recognized and commended Old South Restaurant… I don’t know if we’d have made it another year without SR1601…

        Recognizing and commending Old South Restaurant in Rossville, Georgia; and for other purposes.
        WHEREAS, Old South Restaurant in Rossville, Georgia, provides culinary delights in a family-friendly setting; and
        WHEREAS, the owners of Old South Restaurant are committed to offering customers delicious meals using the finest and freshest ingredients available; and
        WHEREAS, a local favorite, Old South Restaurant has earned a well-deserved reputation for excellence in food and consistent quality; and
        WHEREAS, the owners, chef, and staff of Old South Restaurant consistently deliver high-quality food in a friendly, comfortable environment in which diners enjoy hospitable and gracious service; and
        WHEREAS, Old South Restaurant is a wonderful addition to the Rossville community, and the residents and visitors in this area are lucky to have such a fine establishment.
        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that the members of this body commend the owners, chef, and staff of Old South Restaurant for their commitment to supplying heartfelt and delicious meals to be enjoyed in a relaxed atmosphere.
        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to Old South Restaurant in Rossville, Georgia.

        • SR1630 was so important it ran out of space for sponsors…

          Senate Resolution 1630
          By: Senators Buckner of the 44th, Orrock of the 36th, Butler of the 55th, Unterman of the 45th, Tate of the 38th and others

          Commending Georgia’s Legacy; Older Women! (GLOW) and 2010 GLOW honoree Carol Hunstein; and for other purposes.
          WHEREAS, Georgia’s Legacy; Older Women! is an organization which recognizes the many contributions of women who are past the usual age of retirement but who remain actively engaged in business, employment, or volunteering; and
          WHEREAS, this organization and its incredible members promote community service and encourage women to make a difference in the areas of the arts, education, women’s health issues, finance, and safety issues concerning children and senior citizens; and
          WHEREAS, the organization also encourages its members to address global relations and international affairs and to assist other women in becoming economic and business leaders in Georgia and the nation; and
          WHEREAS, GLOW also places special emphasis on women in public service and recognizes the efforts and accomplishments of its fellow members; and
          WHEREAS, Carol Hunstein has been selected as a 2010 GLOW honoree for her outstanding community service and contributions to others; and
          WHEREAS, Carol Hunstein serves as Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court and has been recognized with numerous honors and accolades, including the Leadership Award from the Georgia Women’s Institute and the Possible Woman of the Year Award in 2007; and
          WHEREAS, the citizens of Georgia owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to GLOW and 2010 GLOW honoree Carol Hunstein for their many contributions to their communities and this state and the positive role models they represent for women of all ages.
          NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that the members of this body commend Georgia’s Legacy; Older Women! for promoting generous volunteer service and selfless efforts to improve the quality of life within Georgia communities and extend congratulations to 2010 GLOW honoree Carol Hunstein.
          BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to transmit an appropriate copy of this resolution to 2010 GLOW honoree Carol Hunstein.

          • Need I go on? There’s probably at least 100 more of these things that if I understand your premise correctly are more important than Sunday alcohol sales – a bill that has already been written and simply needs to come out of committee, be voted on and signed by the Governor. But of course that makes too much sense… you’re right, let’s just go back to commending and consoling more people with resolutions……..

            • Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

              The also commended with resolution a 91 year old WW2 Bomber pilot.
              I guess if they would have toasted him with 100 proof grain on a Sunday afternoon instead, you would have had an organism.

              • So I take it that you believe that commending a WW2 bomber pilot is more important than handling the “more important issues” such as education, transportation, etc?

                I have no problem with commending a 91 year old WW2 bomber pilot. But should recognizing that pilot be the job of our legislators or of the press – where he would receive more recognition? I don’t care if they toast him or God or whoever on whatever day of the week that they want. But your argument was that they have more important things to handle while in session than Sunday sales. I’m simply refuting that by saying I think Sunday sales is a more important issue than recognizing the list of people… including the 91 year old WW2 Bomber pilot. Unless they want to make it legal for that 91 year old WW2 Bomber pilot to sell alcohol to Georgia citizens on Sunday. Then… I might be interested.

  21. B Balz says:

    Had lunch with a colleague today, the topic of commendations came up – We decided that commendations ought to take place outside of Session. Time under the Dome is far to valuable to commit to commendations, regardless of how deserved or not.

    Why not have one evening for all commendations, after the Session?

    • I agree with you 100% here. After session is totally fine with me.

      Ideally I’d like for it to take place outside of a government building so we’re not spending tax dollars on the electricity to keep the lights on, audio visual equipment running and air conditioning pumping. But if not, second best is at least taking commendations and the like off the table during session.

  22. Doug Deal says:

    I have been meaning to post this a couple days ago, but have gotten half way through then interupted twice.

    Chapman definitely has a chance, that chance hinges on two things.

    1) One candidate gets a fair amount of the vote
    2) The others are bunched up close together.

    Of the big 4, it is my guy fealing that Handel will take significantly more than the rest. Polls have shown her to have a bit of a late surge, while the Ox is collapsing fairly quickly. If they change places and Handel picks up a bit more of the undecided by standing out from the crowd (only woman running) she could take 30-35%. Add in McBerry’s potential to take in 5% of vote, 40% of the vote could be accounted for.

    That leaves 60% to the rest of the big three plus Chapman. If they clump together, the total for second place could be 15-16%. If Chapman is currently somewhere around 6-7%, a late surge on herclean efforts could put him in. Based on last times figures, the primary should be around 450k to 500k votes. 16% is only around 75k votes. If he already has 30K in his pocket, he needs to pick up 45K votes in 11 days.

    On the other hand, if 2 candidates take a higher number of votes, the math becomes impossible. Say Ox and Handel take 30% each, and Mcberry takes 5%. That leaves 35% to be split among 3. The most that Johnson and Deal could take is 5% or 2.5% each to eliminate Chapman. Johnson and Deal will get more that that.

    So, a single runaway candidate with the pack bunched as close together as possible is Chapman’s best hope.

Comments are closed.