37 comments

      • bgsmallz says:

        Homer got the name Max Power off the hair dryer…I assume we don’t want to explore the analogy further to figure out where Mr. Wood might have found his name…oh well, I digress.

        (Also, sorry about the humor…I just like the idea of an AG that also sounds like a medication for ED.)

  1. TPNoGa says:

    OK, so Erick supports Wood and Tyler supports Smith. I have also seen quite a few Olens bumper stickers. What’s the difference between them and who would be a truly conservative (less government, pro-10th amendment) candidate. Suggestions?

    I hate voting for a person unless I know who I am voting for.

    • Jason says:

      Well, since Wood advocates using his religion and faith on how he’ll make opinions and not necessarily the law itself, I’d say it’s between Smith and Olens.

      • Ron Daniels says:

        What if God says “Thou shall best pro Tenth Amendment, against the Government of Federal, and thou knowest to smite Lib’rals.” 😛

        TP, really the best advice I can offer you is to go back and read the posts made last Friday by myself – they are statements from the candidates themselves in this race.

      • Doug Deal says:

        Jason, I think you are wrong there and I am about as anti-theocrac as they come.

        Wood has said repeatedly that his personal feelings will not affect his judgement in discharging his duties. This is what I want in a judge or an attorney general, someone who can look past personal bias and render a decesion based on law. It is why I have such a high opinion of Clarence Thomas and it is why I have a high opinion of Max.

        I would much rather have someone who professes his beliefs honestly, who you can hold accountable if it seems he is falling prey to their biases than someone who pretend he is someone else entriely and denies bias.

        The fact is, the job of attorney general should mean a fair amount of disappointment in being forced to do something that is unpopular or hard because the law strictly forces one’s hand.

        I respect your opinion a lot, but I think you are looking for a “theocrat nail” because you favor your “theorcrat hammer”.

        • Jason says:

          “As a Christian and as an American, I am insulted that Olens would allow a man without faith to stand up at a public meeting and encourage others to give up their religion…he should be thinking about these issues as a person of faith, and not like a lawyer.”

          Those are Max Wood’s own words. I’m no Jeff Sexton, but it seems pretty clear to me how he feels.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Jason, not his most finally crafted statement, but you have extended and stretched its meaning well beyond the context.

            I don’t think invocations beyond a generic call for guidance by a generic creator should be allowed at an official government event. Really it would be better if it was a moment of silence. However, this atheist idiot wanted to use the time to disrupt the meeting and spout off at the people who believe in God.

            If anything it was highly inflamatory and a breach of the peace. There is, and for good reason rules of decorum, in our society, and no one’s freedom of religion or speech is harmed by reserving time for a traditional invocation at a meeting.

            If he wanted to stand up at any time during the citizen commentary portion and bash religion, he would have be free to do so.

            To extend this very specific event into a means of justifying calling him a theocrat is unwarranted.

            Why is it you close your ears when he says the AG’s job is to follow the law? Isn’t that what you say you want?

            • Jason says:

              I didn’t call him a theocrat, I’m simply pointing out that this comments give me cause for concern as someone that believe that religion and political beliefs are better left separate.

              Why is it you close your ears when he says the AG’s job is to follow the law? Isn’t that what you say you want?

              Because of his comments to the AJC, which are hardly out of context.

              You like the guy, Doug, you’re voting for him. So, you’re going to defend him. I think he is a nice guy, but I’m going to call it as I see it.

              • Doug Deal says:

                I respect your opinion, Jason, I just think there is more to a man than his greatest flaw (from our perspective). Looking at his competitors, I hope you look with the same degree of criticism when it comes to how Olens wants to use the power of the state to enact laws to prevent you from using your land in a way he does not deem appropriate. As for Preston, I find it hard to criticize him too much beyond his lack of legal practice experience, but that is a daunting hole to cover.

                Sorry for the misattribution of “theocrat”. I think I have been talking to Jeff a little to often lately.

    • Provocateur says:

      What does “less government” mean when it comes to enforcing the law? Does that mean you think an AG should seek to ignore the prosecution of lawbreakers?

  2. Kate Myers says:

    Max Wood has the most relevant experience of all three candidates which qualifies him to be Attorney General. Preston Smith exposed Sam Olens’ roots as a Democrat with the 1992 article discussing Sam’s involvement with Bill Clinton’s campaign and then Sam Olens had the arrogance to lie about it on statewide tv. That is good reason for me not to want someone like Sam serving at the helm of Georgia’s Department of Law.

  3. I still have no idea how I’m going to vote in this race.

    I don’t see it as a selling point that Wood has decades of experience in prosecution and zero in defense… does he have ANY perspective on the other side of courtroom?

    I like that Preston Smith publicly thumbed his nose at some party bigwigs, but I didn’t completely understand what that whole deal was about… and got the impression that he was just making a stink after the fact rather than taking a stand before the fact (correct me if I’m mistaken).

    I COULDN’T CARE LESS that Olens or anyone else was a Democrat back in 1992. Looking at the current roster of Republican elected officials and their historical backgrounds, the people pointing to this “smoking gun” look like idiots to me. That said, I don’t know any particular reasons to vote for Olens either.

    Basically, I’m looking for whoever most closely fits this profile:

    (1) Not going to waste time suing the Federal government over every bill that ticks off the Tea Party freaks.

    (2) Not going to push discretionary appeals in a situation like Genarlow Wilson, to make himself look “tough” with no regard for human decency.

    (3) Will basically just shut the **** up about social wedge issues and do a boring job once elected.

    Is there anyone who is even within that ballpark?

    • Ron Daniels says:

      Actually Steve, and I’m not answering your posed questions but rather one earlier in your post -Max did do some defense work for a couple of years before he was appointed US Attorney.

      And the Preston vote thing went along the lines of: Voted against the caucus, got stripped of chair, made speech. To my understanding – to be honest that whole hoopla is confusing to me as well.

    • Muselaw says:

      “I don’t see it as a selling point that Wood has decades of experience in prosecution and zero in defense… does he have ANY perspective on the other side of courtroom?”

      As far as a candidate for Attorney General goes, I think having experience as a prosecutor is the ultimate selling point. Having courtroom experience invariably gives an attorney a perspective on both sides of the courtroom. One does not need to prosecute criminals and defend criminals to qualify to be an Attorney General.

      Also, with all due respect, I’m not sure that’s an entirely accurate statement – JAGs in the military usually get a broad range of experience in practice. They will litigate courts martial one day and then work with their troops on powers of attorney and healthcare proxies the next. JAGs also play both roles in military courtrooms – a defendant in a court martial is represented by a JAG, not by a civilian attorney. Therefore, without evidence to the contrary (and admittedly, I haven’t looked into every case Max Wood worked as a JAG, so I could also be wrong) I wouldn’t necessarily say that he does not have experience on both sides of the courtroom.

    • Thanks for all the responses, everyone. I also went and checked out the websites for the three names I know on the GOP side. Unfortunately, I think my earlier question boils down to: “Okay, who is the least serious about what they’re saying, and mostly likely to renege on it once elected?”. Haha… no wonder none of these supporters are eager to point at their guy!

      I’ll probably just leave this race blank on the ballot. Sheesh, looking across the aisle at Hodges and Teilhet… I may wind up leaving it blank in the general, too. What a weak race for an open office with no incumbent.

      • Muselaw says:

        Hey, not trying to poach this thread or get banned/blocked, but looking at your previous post re: “publicly thumbed his nose at some party bigwigs,” I’m curious who you’re supporting for Governor.

        Also, after clicking the link on your name, I’d like to congratulate you on your recent J.D. Shall I see you at the GA Bar in a couple weeks?

        • The Governor’s race is a touchy subject. On one hand, I know who my preference is for the primary. On the other hand, her front-page supporters on Peach Pundit are so over the top in their bias, and so disingenuous in the attacks on Oxendine… I don’t like to discuss how we’re probably voting the same.

  4. I know, like, and respect Sam, but I see him as more of an administrator or manager (Chairman, Mayor, Secretary of State, Sec. of Labor, Lt. Gov, and some day Gov., etc.). In my opinion, he picked the wrong race. I hate that for him and for us.

    Preston, forget it. He’s arrogant, and far from being “courageous.”

    I had a chance to sit in on a small meeting with Max and have to say he is the man for the job. Unfortunately, he got out to a late start and even though he is the most qualified for the position, he is just not enough of a politician to raise the kind of money he needed for this race. Although I think he is a good man, and obviously his religion is important to him, I think he is a professional prosecutor who will effectively defend our laws.

    • mondaymorningqb says:

      Actually, your response is why Sam probably should get the job. The AG’s office is almost entirely an administrative or managerial legal position which is an Olens strength. Regardless of who you support, it burns me that the campaigns feel the need to turn the position into a glorified District Attorney or Judicial post.

      Not that it matters for it seems as if the only way to get attention for down ballot races this year is to be more over the top than your opponent.

      • Doug Deal says:

        You expect us to believe that the experienced gained managing a team of lawyer in a medical malpractice and person injury practice is better than that gained from managing a US Attorney’s office?

        Beyond that, what does being one vote in 5 of a county commission have to do with running a legal office? If this type of experience was sufficient, perhaps we should require an MBA instead of a JD.

        • polisavvy says:

          Good post, Doug. Something tells me that the experience gained from work in the U.S. Attorney’s office gives you the edge. Of course, that’s just my two cents worth.

        • mondaymorningqb says:

          Thank you for proving my last point. Fortunately, if Olens doesn’t win the race straight out, Smith is the one to make the runoff. The signal to noise ratio for a good proportion of the online Wood supporters (here and Facebook) is woefully minuscule.

          Not much choice when the candidate doesn’t have the resources to compete, but still tiresome.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Good luck with that outcome, we really don’t need to Dems going at it for the AG race in November.

            Maybe Olens can point out what has changed from Clinton Care to Obama Care that the first one was something he supported to the second being something he did not?

            The chances of getting elected?

  5. TPNoGa says:

    Dang, I have read the statements, looked at the websites and read the comments and I still have no idea who to support. I am not used to having choices in primaries. I am used to seeing a single sacrificial lamb on the ballot.

Comments are closed.