GOP committee member resigns over Deal’s ethics issues

GA-GOP state committee member Mike Carter resigned his position out of principle yesterday recently because his party has nominated an ethically challenged candidate:

I recently resigned as a GAGOP State Committee Member so that I could say the following without retribution from the GAGOP. This was a very regretful and most difficult thing for me to personally do! I took this position very seriously andfaithfully served the GAGOP and was a very active Member of the State Committee. I attended every meeting and every possible activity and event as a Member of the Committee.

I trust you as well as others can now see that I knew a lot more about Nathan Deal and his unethical, intentional and calculated misconduct when I began to point people to resources to do their own research as good honest Conservatives should do. Nathan Deal’s situation is not simply about helping a family member realize a business dream that failed. His family should be left out of all of this (I mean this from the bottom of my heart) this is about how he has handled everything as a US Congressman and now candidate for Governor of the state of Georgia.

Nathan Deal is a desperate man and we all know that desperate people do desperate things. We do not need a desperate man and the people he surrounds himself with holding and working in the highest office in this state! That is crystal clear!

136 comments

  1. B Balz says:

    I guess we should all wait to see what news , if any, shall be forthcoming. What is crystal clear to me is the depth of uncertainty and ongoing defensive position Rep. Deal is playing against from within the GOP and here on PP.

    The uncertainty and intra-GOP lack of support really surprises me, perhaps there is more to this story. Just about one month, so whatever is out there, ought to be out soon, if it is coming out.

    Interesting development, but without further evidence of ‘desperation’ I am not convinced that this fellow may have left the GA GOP for any number of reasons.

    Can anyone vouch for Mr. Mike Carter’s bona fides?

    • TPNoGa says:

      I would think that Doug should know this guy. Mr. Carter is from Cleveland, which is in the 9th district….I think? Isn’t Doug the Chairman of the GOP there?

  2. B Balz says:

    From SWGA:

    :…You can trust there is a heck of a lot more that will be coming out that further displays that Nathan Deal is not acceptable and incapable of being the Governor of this great state and that is why I was proactive in my actions to informing people of what was to become of Nathan Deal’s true reputation as an elected legislator and public/private officer in any organization. My actions have been supported by the facts that have recently been covered by the media and numerous people on-line.

    I am personally aware that only half of the misconduct has become public and the rest is yet to come (in a timely manner)! Not that what we already know about Nathan Deal’s personal, business and as a candidates conduct is sufficient enough reason for voters to insure that he is held accountable and not electable to any office. …”

  3. TPNoGa says:

    If this Mike Carter is such a lover of Georgia and the GOP, then he needs to tell us everything he knows. This, “I personally know stuff….” is crap. If Deal is so toxic to Georgia and the GOP, then it is his duty to come clean NOW for the good of the party. Otherwise, he just seems bitter.

  4. Joshua Morris says:

    State committee member. Big deal. There are nearly 200 people on that committee. Where has his outrage been about our less-than-stellar US Senators that the state party has worked so hard to protect from primary opposition?

    This guy is apparently some disgruntled malcontent who wants some attention. He got it. Moving along…

    • DoubleDawg3 says:

      You nailed it Josh. You’ll also want to know who he supported in the Congressional campaign — it wasn’t your guy – yet, he didn’t seem to have the same concerns then that he has now? Wonder why…hum, MAYBE, it could be because he has a personal grudge with Nathan Deal because of his perceived slight from Deal in his fight against GA Power’s right to condemn land. That seems to me to be what this is all about folks…Cong. Deal didn’t help him out with his issue, so since he knows the new Governor is no personal friend of his , he’s doing everything he can to keep him out.

      • DoubleDawg3 says:

        But these blogger “journalist” (said very, very jokingly…I mean, anyone can write about a rumor or steal the content from the AJC) can’t be bothered to actually investigate to see what personal agenda the accussing party might have against someone.

  5. Ramblinwreck says:

    Like Mike, I was a GOP State Committee member from the 9th District and I also resigned over a month ago so I would not have to support several of the GOP candidates this November, not just Nathan Deal although he was one of my main objections. The GOP has played a very bad trick on itself in this election cycle with some of the candidates it has selected. Even if we win, we lose, in my opinion.

  6. NoTeabagging says:

    Guess Mr. Carter didn’t drink the GOP Kool-Aid. Good for him. Finally glad to hear from someone who isn’t a windup doll with a “pull the string hear my party line” devotion.

  7. rightofcenter says:

    Ramblinwreck,
    Interesting how you and Mike dislike Nathan so but he is generally loved in his congressional district. How is it that the two of you, who one would think would be somewhat representative of the people in your district, could be so out of touch with the average voter? And while I am not a member and have never been a member of the state committee, I think it was a good thing you resigned if you think that it is relevant whether or not you think the GOP picked the best candidate. You two don’t sound principled as much as self-important. Get over yourselves.

    • Ramblinwreck says:

      I finally put principle over party. I’m not willing to support someone who has severe ethical issues to be an elected representative in and for my state. I no longer support the “my party right or wrong” approach. That’s the same attitude that gave us Sonny Perdue, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. I don’t play that game any longer. When the GOP starts holding candidates to a higher ethical and Constitutional standard I’ll start supporting them again.

      • Lady Thinker says:

        I have said the same about principle over party and I get accused of being upset that Karen lost. While I do wish she had won, I could have also supported Johnson or Chapman, but not deal, Oxendine, or McBerry. Those last three are so unethical and downright scary.

      • rightofcenter says:

        So you group Nathan Deal in with Sonny Perdue, Johnny Isakson, and Saxby Chambliss? I can certainly live with that. It does sound like you need a new party.

    • Rick Day says:

      *cue Deliverance theme*

      Let’s hear it for the “Hillbilly Support Caucus”

      Er…I opine Deal was “loved” in his district which included Ellijay, home of a local KKK group. (they participate in the annual Christmas parade in downtown Ellijay) because

      a. the color of his skin
      b. his most public embracement of Good Christian Family Values™ bloviated hate-spew…
      c. He ran for office relatively unopposed for many cycles.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Rick,

        Deliverance was filmed in the 10th and not in the 9th.

        Just because the Gilmer County Commission put up with 30 idiots in sheets because they respect the right of free speech, that does not make the Ninth District a hotbed of racist activity.

        As much as I want to tell you where you can go, instead I’ll invite you to come up to the Ninth and spend some your money here. Hopefully, you will love it as much I do and move here.

  8. Tricia Pridemore says:

    Somebody here isn’t telling the truth because Michael Carter wrote on my Facebook last week that he quit the GAGOP “over a month ago.”

    And if you’ll read his comments, they are word-for-word identical to his own Facebook note from last evening that went for 2 hours uncommented and un”like”d.

    Considering mostly Libertarian bloggers (Jeff Sexton and Jason Pye) are excited by this tale of nothing, I think the whole thing smells.

    • Doug Deal says:

      You have a lot of gall talking about someone else not “telling the truth”.

      You and your bogus “Tea Party” organization and using your power as the web site developer to turn the Cobb GOP website into campaign headquarters for Sam Olens and Nathan Deal. Then lying about it when called out for it.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            She said someone isn’t telling the truth. READ WHAT SHE SAID, OR ARE YOU REALLY THAT OBTUSE? Jason got it wrong that it was yesterday. That’s the part that wasn’t right.

            • Doug Deal says:

              Yeah, she accused someone of lying. So who is “lying: Doug.

              No wonder the GOP has been driven into the ditch, when we empower people like Ms. Pridemore to represent the party and have blind cheerleaders celebrating the extent of our putrification.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                She said: “Somebody here isn’t telling the truth…”

                We have established that Jason got his facts wrong. I don’t think it was an intentional lie, but it wasn’t 100% accurate.

                Take a chill pill and relax. She and I are factually correct. I am sorry if that bothers you and I will try to be wrong on something just for you in the near future…geeze. (DG mumbles something to himself about DD driving into a ditch)

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    Jason

                    You are correct that in this thread, as far as I know, that you only got one thing wrong. I apologize for saying “facts” when I should have said “fact.”

                    See, now I got something wrong. Is everyone happy now?

    • Jason says:

      Tricia,

      I don’t appreciate you insinuating that I’m lying. That’s beneath you and it’s unfortunate.

      I wasn’t aware that he resigned “over a month ago.” It was posted on his Facebook page on Thursday, as you acknowledge, and since a timing wasn’t given other than “recently,” I assumed it happened that day. You’d would think that if I was so “excited” about it I would have posted it much sooner and with more enthusiasm if that were the case. In fact, I forwarded this to the other contributors to post on Thursday night (you can ask Icarus, if you don’t believe me). No one did, so I took it upon myself to do it.

      With that said, I’m one of the most independent-minded people that you will ever meet. The idea that I’m conspiring, which is essentially what you’ve said, is absurd and shows a lack of reason on your part. I’m a Libertarian out of principle, I’ve worked with Republicans at times to push issues or legislation. However, Republicans have showed me, time and time again, that they are not serious about shrinking government and the never-ending statist crusades on social issues are not something I can go along with.

      We’re in a election year, you’ve cheerleading for your candidate. I get it. I also realize that the only thing I can say or do that is going to make people like you happy is to fall in line with whatever the GA-GOP or Nathan Deal’s campaign says. But don’t lower yourself by making baseless assertions.

  9. Doug Grammer says:

    I have known Mike Carter a few years. He lives in the Ninth and I think it would look very strange if I did not comment on this.

    Before I talk about Mike, I want to say a word or two about (and to) Ben Brandon. Ben and I do not usually see eye to eye. That being said, I understand and respect his opinion. I nominated him to Coverdell Leadership Institute. Ben has not attended that many GOP functions over the past year and a half and he founded the Dade County Tea Party. He is what I call a purest. It has to be perfect for Ben to like it, IMO. Many of our candidates don’t usually measure up to Ben’s standards , IMO. I think it was appropriate for Ben to resign and I wish him well.

    Now for a few corrections and thoughts about Mr. Carter. He did not resign yesterday. The following was dated August 20th:

    “Sue P. Everhart – GAGOP Chairman,

    I would most definitely prefer to continue to serve the GAGOP but after much careful consideration I regretfully feel (know) that I must resign effective immediately. Please let me be clear, my decision was made independently and without the influence of anyone else.

    I have declined to document my reasons for this reluctant action in this written resignation for fear of them being misinterpreted and incorrectly disseminated to others by someone. For the record the reason should be acknowledged as “personal reasons”.

    I wish the GAGOP the best in their future endeavors!

    Sincerely,

    Michael W. Carter”

    You should also know that Mike was elected to state committee last April. When we had an election for the remainder of the term of Chairman, he backed someone else. I had no problems with that. He served well in helping out with our first golf tournament. I even appointed him to the EC of the District Committee by making him Sergeant at Arms.

    Roughly about 8 to 10 months ago, I started hearing about how he was not working and playing well with others in his home county GOP. I considered it a White County GOP problem that they could hopefully sort out on their own.

    On July 23 Mike sent out an e-mail with these exact quotes and punctuations: “The GOP in the 9th is out of control and must be rained in or suffer the consciences and the public humiliation nation wide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This will be provided to the media and will hurt the GOP and open the door for every Liberal Democratic candidate to win in 2010!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ” & “We have been sold down the river!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ”

    I responded by removing him from the EC. He resigned before we could remove him from the state committee. There was no official call to remove him, but it was discussed. I don’t know exactly what his problem is, but I’d call his behavior erratic. If he is taking a scorched earth policy with anyone who is disagreeing with his choice of GOP candidate, I think it’s best that he has parted ways with the GOP. I guess he will just refuse to accept the will of the voters.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Reading IS fundamental. I never said Mike said that he resigned yesterday. I was just trying to clear up any confusion for those who think that it happened that way.

    • rightofcenter says:

      As I suspected, Mike Carter sounds like a nutjob. You would think that someone who purports to be a “journalist” like Galloway would attempt to verify who someone is before they blindly quote him in the AJC. This little exercise has served a purpose with me, however. I now know that Rambling Wreck is an ultra right wing purist and that three jack is as well. That’s fine and well – but it explains why I don’t have much use for their political opinions.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Mike Carter got attention by posting this diatribe repeatedly on many other people’s FB page, including Erick Erickson, Eric Johnson, Chip Rogers, Phil Kent, Martha Zoller, Karen Handel, Jeff Sexton, Justin Tomczak, and several others. He also wrote on the walls of Doug MacGinnette, Chuck Eaton, Melvin Everson, Callista Gingrich (Newt’s wife), a couple of county chairmen, a state senate candidate, a former congressional candidate, and others, all urging them to write in Eric Johnson’s name for Gov. You can judge if he is a nut job or not (you called him that, not me.) I’m just giving the background. You’d think Jim Galloway would do a little research before making this guy a story.

  10. Ramblinwreck says:

    Regarding my being a “purist” that Doug has claimed; Over a year ago Doug and I were having a back-and-forth over something and he tried to dismiss me by saying “well your just a Constitutionalist.” To which I replied, “shouldn’t we all be?” When Doug says I’m a “purist” he means that I expect candidates to do as their oaths of office require that they “uphold and defend the Constitution”. I take that seriously. Unfortunately, he is correct on his statement that not many GOP candidates rise to my standard. If they don’t swear to abide by the Constitution of the United States or defend our rights under the 10th Amendment they don’t meet my standard. Obviously he is more flexible when it comes to GOP candidates. In my opinion, he is part/most of the problem with the GOP as it is viewed by the TEA party which seems to be setting the bar for candidates in this election cycle. We no longer subscribe to the “he-may-be-a-crook-but-he’s-our-crook” philosophy.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Ben loves article 1 section 8, but disagrees with article 3 sections 1 & 2. He knows better than the SCOTUS. I like him anyway.

      As far as me being the problem the with GOP, the job of the GOP and it’s members is to elect our nominees. I try to do my job. If people want to run for office as a Republican, I let the primary system work. I don’t take sides and I respect the will of the voters. Complaining about it after the fact doesn’t accomplish anything. Vote Ross Perot? It may have been a principled vote, but the net result was Bill Clinton. If Perot voters had sucked it up and voted George H. W., Clinton would not have been elected in 1992.

      The same applies with Monds, you can vote for him if you like, but be prepared to live with King Roy.

      • Ramblinwreck says:

        Doug, like many others in the GOP leadership, relies, like the Democrats, on several HIDEOUS SCOTUS decisons (e.g., Wickard vs. Filburn, the commerce clause) to excuse why GOP elected officials, like Johnny Isakson, blatantly ignore the Constitution they are sworn to “uphold and defend.” He is a prime example of why the average voter sees no difference between Democrats and Republican these days. But that’s OK. The TEA party will take up the slack for the middle-of-the-road Republicans like Doug over the next couple of years.

          • MSBassSinger says:

            And SCOTUS gave us Dred Scott. v Sandford. Certainly some SCOTUS rulings find themselves in contradiction to the Constitution. Given some of the rulings the past 60 years, I believe a lot of people know better than SCOTUS.

            • Lady Thinker says:

              But those nine people have the upmost, absolute power over all the citizens of the United States (I don’t know the number of people now), over the entire 535 person Congress, and over the president. NINE PEOPLE!

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  You can’t say you love the constitution if you are just going to love parts of the constitution. Ben is correct that I rely on the SCOTUS to interpret it and set precedent. I don’t do that as a Republican, I certainly don’t do that as an Democrat, I do that as an American.

                  When a decision comes out like Dred Scott, you have to look at the law of the land as it was then. I think SCOTUS got it right under our laws then. The congress and the states fixed that with the passage of the 14th amendment. It’s how the system works. I may not agree with some of the interpretations of the commerce clause, but I am not one of the Nine people on he bench. If someone doesn’t like a SCOTUS ruling, they should lobby congress to change the law. It’s not a perfect system, it can be a self-correcting one if things get too far out of hand.

                  I don’t tilt at windmills if I think SCOTUS got something wrong. Either I can help change it or I can’t, but I’m not going to pretend I am smarter or more important that a Justice of the SCOTUS.

                • Lady Thinker says:

                  That is true Kyle and I do have to say, I like the process the majority of the time, depending on whether it is conservative or liberal. I prefer conservative.

      • Three Jack says:

        dg loves to blame others instead of facing the facts presented by ramblinwreck (you are dead on rw) and others on this site.

        dg blames perot for bush41 losing. he ignores the fact that bush41 said, ‘read my lips, no new taxes’, then proceeded to raise taxes. bush41 was at fault doug…perot took advantage of the situation.

        the same applies to the current situation. blaming monds for a potential runoff is dg’s way to rationalize the gop’s failure yet again to nominate a decent candidate. wake up doug, you and the rest of the gop leaders in ga are really not paying attention to the will of those within your party.

        i don’t know mike carter, but i fully support his decision and wish others would join him.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Three jack,

          Ben didn’t present us with facts, he presented us with his opinion. Please learn the difference.

          Has it ever occurred to you that things happen for more than one reason? I agree that “the read my lips” broken promise was a huge factor in Bush 41 losing. It is probably the main reason many voters left him.

          As a result, they got Bill Clinton, even if they voted for Perot.

          How are your math skills? If we toke half of the votes in 11 states that went to Perot and add them to 41’s totals, Bill Clinton would not have won.

          Georgia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Washington, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maine, Louisiana, Kentucky, Iowa, would have all swapped places. That would have been a swing of 13, 21, 11, 11, 11, 23, 7, 4, 9, 8, 7 = 125 EC votes changing 41’s EC total to 293. We really didn’t need all 11 states, but those are the ones that would have changed.

          However, it’s not really fair to use Perot as an example of a wasted vote. He was 4 times more likely to win the Presidency as Monds is to win Gov. He reached almost 20%.

          If you can live with King Roy, vote for Monds. Monds isn’t going to win and we all know it. The average person on the street doesn’t know who Monds is. They knew who Perot was in 1992. If you don’t want King Roy, vote for Congressman Deal. It’s just the way the math works out.

          BTW, the will of those within my party was to nominate Congressman Deal. You need to understand that. I do.

          • Three Jack says:

            so it comes back to; vote for deal, he’s not as crappy as king roy.

            you really don’t get it doug. if the gop had a decent gubernatorial candidate, the discussion right now would be about how big a defeat the dems would suffer. i’m not supporting isakson, but that race (which includes a libertarian) proves my point. there is no chance of a runoff because the gop nominee at least has a clean personal record.

            i’m an optimist thus believe that eventually the gop will wake up and realize it is time to go in a new direction. in the meantime, i will regrettably watch people like you continue to tarnish the party’s reputation by supporting crooks like deal.

            • TPNoGa says:

              TJ,

              I must agree with Doug, the proper people to blame the disaster that is Deal is the GOP voter. They chose (by 2,500 votes) to nominate a less than stellar candidate. Shame on us.

              I don’t know why GOP voters chose Deal, but they did. Now I kinda wish I had voted for Eric Johnson in the first round. I would still have voted for Karen in the run-off, but I sure regret our choice.

              I am now undecided between Deal and Monds. I considered Barnes for a long time and still could change my mind. But this year, I cannot give my vote to ANY Democrat. I just can’t. I know they are not related, but I feel like a vote for Barnes is a vote for Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the DNC. I just can’t do it.

          • Doug Deal says:

            This is ludacris.

            Perot had an effect on the race because Presidential elections do not require a majority vote. Thus, in a three way race a candidate can win with slightly more than a third of the vote. Which is a good reason to fight the removal of runoff elections here in Georgia, which some short-sighted people have suggested to “save money”.

            In our Governor’s race, you need a simple majority, and that means the only way you can “help Roy Barnes win” is to vote for Roy Barnes. Voting for Monds is a vote against Roy, and also happens to be a vote against Deal.

            Why does it seem that the only thing supporters of Deal can bring to the table is fear, lies and an expectation of stupidity on the part of the electorate?

            • Doug Grammer says:

              DD,

              I am more than ready to discuss jobs (an issue) on behalf of Nathan Deal, and compare that to Barnes’ plan. If you want to chime in on behalf of someone the voters have never heard of, that’s fine too.

              We can talk about taxes, water, transportation, or any other issue.

              Voting for Monds is just a vote that could lead to a run off. It’s not going to be a vote for a winner. If you don’t like that fact, however many people in their secret ritual nominating process, should have nominated someone either rich enough to self fund, or someone good enough to raise money to be competitive. You nominated a guy without a paying job. He’s pathetic. The party praying for stupidity on behalf of the voters was the LP when they decided to go with Monds.

              • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

                ‘Secret ritual nominating process?’ You mean the one that doesn’t involve taxpayer dollars spent on a primary?

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  I mean the process that won’t divulge how many people are in the room when the LP picks it’s nominees. For a party that wants transparency, they fall way short of the mark on that one. I know I have asked the question at least 10 times on here with no reply on what the real number was. I’m not even asking WHO was in the room, so the can keep their robes and hoods on. (I am comparing them to a fraternity not the KKK.)

                  The GOP doesn’t pick it’s nominees in a smoke filled back room. We hold an honest and open primary. Of course the LP tried to do that, they would laughed at even more for lack of statewide participation.

                  • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

                    I’m sure that if the taxpayers funded the LP primaries as they do for D’s and R’s, there’d be more primary participation than the number of people who go to the LP nominating conventions. I’d have to let one of the card carrying members of the LP handle the numbers question, though. I’m sure it’s relatively few who actually go to convention, as compared with the LP as a whole. (just as fewer party members show up to vote on primary days than on general election days).

                    Of course, if the taxpayers funded the LP primaries, then that would make libertarians hypocrites. It’s much easier now to watch the hypocrisy of GOP members who criticize fiscal irresponsibility while they go off to cast their votes on tax-funded ballot machines so tax-funded employees can tally up their primary results and publish them on a tax-funded SOS website. Then when the LP members self-fund their conventions, the only thing left to use against them is to claim that their nominations are done via some ‘smoke-filled back-room.’ I’m sure anyone who pays their dues is welcome to drive to convention and vote, but I’ll grant that the process isn’t as easy as walking to your local fire station and pressing on a touch-screen.

                    Perhaps, though, the LP nominating process must be some evil scheme rather than an attempt to get by in a system that does not offer equality under the law.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Dues are required to vote? You have to buy influence to participate? Did Monds pay for supporters to attend? This is all news to me. Please tell more.

                      Either the LP doesn’t have enough interest to participate in a statewide primary OR they want to control the whole process, start to finish. It doesn’t sound very open and transparent to me.

                    • You must be a member of the Libertarian Party of Georgia to have a vote in the various party matters. One such item in election years is the nomination of candidates. Due to the restrictive ballot access laws, we must nominate candidates by convention in Georgia. I’m sure we’d gladly participate in the primaries should the two major parties decide to let us or if we gain the currently required 20% on November 2nd. If we’re so unelectable, why not just give us full ballot access and let the voters decide who is unelectable and who isn’t? Otherwise, I’d like to see the Republicans and Democrats have to gather the same number of signatures as the LP candidate has to for every office we’re required to gather signatures for.

                      Our convention is open for anyone to attend…. that’s pretty open and transparent if you ask me. How many LP conventions have you been to Doug?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I don’t believe that there is anything on the books preventing the LP from participating in the primary process to select it’s candidates.

                      If any LP statewide candidate in Georgia get 20% on November 2 where there is both an R and a D running, I’ll eat my hat.

                      Instead of me GIVING statewide ballot access, why don’t you EARN it? Get 20%. I’ll make you a deal, you get 20% and I will leave the GOP. If you don’t, you disband the LP. 20% too high? We could make it 10%…. We can call the press, and have a contract signing ceremony, with a notary public. The challenge is out there LP EC. You can have me shut up about the LP FOREVER, or you can shut down the LP FOREVER.

                      When the GOP holds a convention, we advertise all of the info in county newspapers access the state. How many newspapers did the LP advertise it’s call to a convention in? I’ve never been to a LP convention. I haven’t known about them beforehand.

                      For about the 12th time, how many people were in the room when you decided who your candidates were going to be? WHY WON”T YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? IF YOU ARE SO TRANSPARRENT, MAKE THE INFO PUBLIC.

                    • Doug – I don’t have the count of the number of people in the room at the convention. I actually wasn’t even at this one due to a couple of previously scheduled engagements that conflicted with the convention. I’m sure there’s probably a count somewhere in the minutes for the convention, but I’ve got better things to do than track down a meaningless number for you.

                      “I don’t believe that there is anything on the books preventing the LP from participating in the primary process to select it’s candidates.”

                      You’d believe incorrectly. OCGA 21-2-151: “A political party may elect its officials and shall nominate its candidates for public office in a primary.” According to Georgia, the Libertarian Party is technically a political body, not a party. We gain party status if we get 20% in the Gubernatorial or Presidential election.

                      See OCGA 21-2-2 for the definitions:

                      “(24) “Political organization” means an affiliation of electors organized for the purpose of influencing or controlling the policies and conduct of government through the nomination of candidates for public office and, if possible, the election of its candidates to public office, except that the term “political organization” shall not include a “subversive organization” as defined in Part 2 of Article 1 of Chapter 11 of Title 16, the “Sedition and Subversive Activities Act of 1953.”

                      (25) “Political party” or “party” means any political organization which at the preceding:

                      (A) Gubernatorial election nominated a candidate for Governor and whose candidate for Governor at such election polled at least 20 percent of the total vote cast in the state for Governor; or

                      (B) Presidential election nominated a candidate for President of the United States and whose candidates for presidential electors at such election polled at least 20 percent of the total vote cast in the nation for that office.”

                      As far as you leaving the GOP vs disbanding an entire political party, that’s nowhere near an equal outcome. (Me thinks someone has an ego problem.)

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      DS,

                      You just proved via GA election code that the LP is NOT a political party.

                      You are correct that the scales are not equal, but I’ll spot you enough voters to make it equal. We will have more voters from the Ninth Congressional District voting Republican, than the L.O. (Libertarian Organization) will have voting statewide. Barr got 28,731 votes statewide in 2008. Congressman Deal got 218,493 votes in 2008. In 2008, the Ninth voted about 7 times stronger for the GOP, than the LO did statewide. The LO is not as viable as 1/13 of the GOP.

                      If it’s an open and transparent process, the LO would have that number of people in the room available online just as anyone can look to see the number of voters in a GOP primary. If LO members can’t be bothered to look it up, it’s not open or transparent.

                    • Just because the Republicans and Democrats who wrote the OCGA don’t recognize the Libertarian Party as a political party does not make it any less of a political party. Call it a political organization or body all you want… I’ll call it those in power protecting their power. What are they so afraid of? That another party is going to come in and take away “their” votes?

                      Doug – since you say the count of attendees of a convention should be online, where can I look on the GOP’s website to see the official count of attendees at the Georgia GOP convention?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      You may look up online and see how many people were involved in selecting our nominees. Too bad we can’t do that with the L.O.

                    • The only reason you can look it up is because it’s on the Secretary of State’s website. Again – drop the 20% requirement, have the state government recognize the Libertarian Party as a party in Georgia, and our numbers will be right there beside everyone else’s. Your convention numbers aren’t online and you don’t display the number of people voting for the various nominees on your website – it’s the Secretary of State’s website.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      DS,

                      Do you envision me just as powerful as the Gov. and the state legislature? I don’t have the power to drop the 20% requirement. You are to lazy to earn it and want things given to you. You also want to protect your secrets of who paid whom off to get on the ballot. Without telling us details on the selection process, at this point, I feel free to speculate. If you don’t like speculation, tell us the details.

                      Fact, anyone in the state of Georgia can tell how the GOP nominates it’s candidates. It is all on the SOS webpage.

                      Fact, the LO won’t divulge their secret rituals of how they take turns in a smoke filled room to decide who will represent their organization. Perhaps it’s because we will find out how much they like their drugs, gambling ,and prostitution? We know all they are at least discussed because they made it into the LO platform.

                      Between the two political organizations, the LO and the GOP, one is a real party and the other is a vote for a run off. The LO admit they have no chance of winning. The LO don’t have an open process of selecting their candidates.

                    • Doug – if you can’t grasp the simple concept of nominating candidates by convention (as required by state law), then I’m afraid I can’t help you. There’s no smoke filled room… it’s a ballroom at a hotel in April. We send out information about it to all of our members ahead of time and post information about it for the entire world to see on our website. We advertise it in our weekly newsletter that is sent out via e-mail. Anyone with any sort of interest in attending the Libertarian Party of Georgia’s annual convention should have heard about it. You obviously have no interest.

                      Furthermore – for someone who claims that we are so insignificant, you sure do spend a lot of time on Peach Pundit talking about us. Thanks for the publicity! 🙂

                    • If you had used that Hooked on Phonics course, you would have read that I said I wasn’t in the room at the time. I had multiple other previously scheduled plans such as the Atlanta Steeplechase. With the price of Guarantor tickets, I didn’t really want to cancel to go to a political event.

                      Secondly, if you’re that interested in finding out how many people were in the room, you could probably e-mail someone that was there – such as the Secretary for the Libertarian Party of Georgia. (I’d bet the Treasurer probably has a count of the number of attendees as well.) It’s all easily found on the Libertarian Party of Georgia’s website at http://www.lpgeorgia.com/excomm.php

                      Of course, that assumes that you do really want to know and that you’re not just trying to antagonize.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I wouldn’t admit to 15 people in the room either. I’d think you’d have more EC members and candidates than that, but I guess not.

                    • Doug – I can tell you this much even though I wasn’t there. It was more than 15, less than 200. How’s that? Sure, it’s not near the number of people that voted in the primary. But it’s your party who is keeping the Libertarians from participating in the primaries. You get your party to allow us to compete on a level playing field and we’ll happily join the primaries. Until then, your party is nothing more than a bunch of protectionist status quo big GOvernment Party nanny statists.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      David,

                      I called the SOS. It was not more than 15. The number of voting delegates was 15. Until you get more than 15 people deciding on whom your nominees will be, you don’t a have a real party, just a political organization.

                    • Doug – then the SOS gave you incorrect information or misunderstood your request. Perhaps they thought you were talking about electors for the 2008 election? I wasn’t aware the SOS had the number of people voting for our candidates on file… I didn’t think that was part of the required filing. I could be wrong.

                    • Furthermore, since the GOvernment Party holds the majority in Georgia, and since you’re a district chairman, I’m sure you could influence some of the members of our state legislature to allow the Libertarian Party into the primaries, in which case plenty more people will decide our nominee instead of just those attending our conventions (as is currently required by the state law created in part by your party).

                      (Sorry for the run-on sentence… in a hurry…)

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      David,

                      You asked me to e-mail the LO for the information. I did. They told me to contact the SOS as the minutes of the convention were part of Monds filing requirements. The minutes state that there were 15 voting delegates at the convention. You didn’t want to look up the info. They understood what I was asking for and read it back to me.

                      I’m sorry if you can’t DEAL with the number I produced. Yelling about the GOP won’t change that you couldn’t get more than 15 to show up for your statewide convention (including candidates).

                      Want ballot access? Earn it by getting 20%. We both know that’s not happening in this election.

                    • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

                      So Doug, could you tell me when the GOP “earned” their full ballot access? I mean, you seem to have this idea that the GOP and democrats had to fight an uphill battle to get on the ballot, and not that they’re simply the only two choices for decades and yet still felt the need to put restraints on the competition with their stupid 20% requirement.

                      Break a guy’s legs and challenge him to a foot-race, why don’t you?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I belong to a party whose leader gave orders to burn Atlanta and many other Georgia cities to the ground. I think we did not win a statewide race until Mack Mattingly in 1981.

            • CobbGOPer says:

              Meh, what we need to do is make it easier to get on the ballot in this state. The decks are undeniably stacked in favor of the two traditional parties. More choices mean better decisions, by voters and politicians. As well as viable options when we end up with Nathan Deal vs. Roy Barnes.

  11. Tricia Pridemore says:

    I’m sorry Doug Deal, you don’t deserve any answer from me after that unsolicited email you sent me late at night asking about my place of birth.

    • Doug Deal says:

      By the way, for those who are wondering what she is talking about…

      When she was lying about her involvement in the Olens campaign and I busted her on it, I notived that she was from Hamilton, Ohio, which is where I graduated from high school. I put politics aside and asked her where she graduated, since we were born the same year. I got back a hate filled diatribe posted on my facebook wall that I regretted asking anything, and blocked her from contacting me.

      I apologize sincerely for not taking her tack and politicizing everything in my life.

    • John Konop says:

      Tricia Pridemore,

      I know Doug Deal outside of the blog agree or not with him anyone who knows Doug can see that was a cheap shot! At this point I am sure many of us will not trust any of your comments. Doug and I have debated many issues on this blog and neither one of us have resorted to nasty manipulation of facts to personally attack the person.

  12. ACCmoderate says:

    Glad to see the Repubs are willing to throw one of their own under the bus for making a personal decision. NEWS FLASH: People are allowed to have their own thoughts, feelings, preferences and they’re allowed to act on them within the constraints of the law… it’s called America… I thought the GOP was all for that?

    At the end of the day, the kind of behavior from posters and the bloggers that pretend to be big boy journalists is exactly what we should expect from a party that demands a loyalty oath.

    To take a page out of Glenn Beck’s playbook… the Nazi’s had a loyalty oath… so did the Soviets… so did Mao’s army. GASP! What does that say about the GOP?

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Oh get a life. We believe in people having a choice. However, when you accept a position in the GOP, we expect you to support the GOP. It makes no sense for us to allow people to take positions of responsibility on our party and then have them urge people not to vote for our nominees. If people want to campaign against our nominees, that’s fine. Just don’t expect to do it as a representative of our party. To do otherwise is literally self-defeating.

      If you don’t like our rules, don’t accept a position that would ask you to follow them. You may vote for whomever you like. You may campaign for whomever you like. The Soviets, Nazis and others of that ilk wouldn’t say that. They would say you must. Period.

      • Doug Deal says:

        Supporting the GOP goes beyond the win-at-all-cost attitude displayed by way too many party insiders. Long term harm was inflicted on the Illinois and Ohio GOP’s because people didn’t stand up and say the corruption is wrong and that they had enough.

        The people not supporting the party are the ones that support any amount of dirty dealing simply becaue the R after the name.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Fishtail,

        Since you aren’t a Republican, what do you care about how we operate? Do you tell your doctor how he should practice medicine?

        • B Balz says:

          OK. I am A GOP voter, and we have idscussed the oath, it needs to be re-worked or abolished to avoid allowing a candidate like Mr. McBerry and not a candidate like Mr. Boyd from running..

          • Doug Grammer says:

            B Balz,

            You have a standing to address the issue. Fishtail does not. I have been told that there will be a rules committee meeting sometime after the election but before the conventions. If so, we can address issues there.

            I will disagree with you on the party deciding who specifically can run. Rules should not be made for individuals. They should be made for situations. Should Mr. McBerry want to waste his time and run again, if he is following the rules, I say let him run and trust the will of the voters. If Mr. Boyd won’t support the GOP, we shouldn’t let him run. Further screening to avoid convicted felons might be appropriate.

  13. Tricia Pridemore says:

    Jason, “somebody here isn’t telling the truth.” It happened to be you. You said you assumed and were incorrect. I’m not saying you’re knowingly breaking Old Testament Commandments nor am I singing -liar, liar, pants on fire…

    Everyone makes mistakes. I wanted whomever made that one to own it. You did. Thank you.

  14. B Balz says:

    Jim Galloway has a job to do., He sells Cocks Plantation dem politics. Asking him to vet a juicy bit of anti-GOP gossip is like asking a puppet to grow a spine and walk, no strings attached.

    As to the rest of this story, many of y’all offer a passionate display of ideals — In the end, like it or hate it, Mr. Grammer is correct:

    50%+1 = Gov. Deal.

    I unerringly believe believe in principles over Party, yet our system is a two Party team sport. In voting ones conscience, one must vote for the candidate who represents one’s own perception on the direction you wish to see Georgia pursue.

    I hope that continues to remain smaller government, moderation toward any extreme, and a pro-good business strategy. Interests adverse to many people include:

    Faux morality code,
    Intrusion into personal family matters – reproduction or sexuality,
    Corporate welfare.

    The GOP has soul searching to do, but changing the calculus of 50% + 1 won’t come easily, as each one of the above adverse interests represents many votes.

  15. John Konop says:

    Agree or not with Mike Carter it shows no class to personally attack this guy. If he was this terrible nasty person why was he on GA-GOP state committee? You may disagree with him on the facts or call Mike out for not fully disclosing his concerns, but personally attacking him on this issue when before he went public you supported him speaks more of your lack of character!

    • DoubleDawg3 says:

      You mean like how he has a personal grudge against Nathan Deal from years past because of a fight with GA Power / GTC, and that leads to this personal quest to “tarnish” this candidate.

      I saw the same dang thing happen in the Graves/Hawkins race, one person – seeking some press and attention, jumps out with some big statements that the media, unfortunately, decides to publish without checking to see what the hidden agendas are…didn’t matter in Graves/Hawkins, thankfully, won’t matter here.

      • John Konop says:

        DoubleDawg3,

        First I do not think I have ever met Mike. Second if you have real facts about this being about a vote for Georgia power show us the facts. My only point is it should be about facts not a contest who can spew the must hate at Mike because he spoke-out!

  16. Jamie C says:

    Doug Grammer has it right on here over and over again. If you don’t like Nathan Deal, fine…that’s your choice. Does that mean your are going to vote to re-throne the King? Please. You all know that this state will be far better off with Deal as Governor than that pompous, do-nothing, left winger. Additionally, as a friend of Tricia Pridemore, I am, frankly, pissed off by the personal attacks on her. Clearly, you don’t know her very well. To say that she is what is wrong with the GOP shows that, in fact, YOU are what is wrong with the GOP, Doug Deal; that includes the ilk that you run with. Perhaps you all should get back to focusing on the real issues at hand.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      Actually, there are those of us who do not believe that this state will be far better off with shady deal as Governor.

    • kyleinatl says:

      …like ABORTION…and QUEERS GETTIN MARRIED!!!…and and and….QUEERS GETTIN MARRIED…..ILLEGALS>>>ARRGGHHHHHH *rips shirt off*

      • Doug Grammer says:

        I have a big problem with illegals. So does everyone else, even if they don’t realize it. The amount of money we spend on illegals is staggering. The problems we face with illegals are something that our state AND our federal government should continue to address.

        I also have a problem with abortion, but I think legislation should be aimed on things that most rational minds should agree on, such as: parental consent before a minor has surgery.

        Gay marriage, I’m not that worked up over. I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but that’s my opinion.

        • kyleinatl says:

          Thanks for the well thought-out reply.

          I was just trying to raise a point that it always ends up coming back to social issues for many on the far right and that there is a great hypocrisy in the tea party/new conservative/whatever movement. “No Government interventionalism in my daily life until it lines up with my ethical ideals, etc”…that’s a problem.

          For the record, I couldn’t care less about immigration legislation. I appreciate you denoting your opinion on that last point.

          • B Balz says:

            The Dutch felt the same way: “…For the record, I couldn’t care less about immigration legislation…”

            I bet if they could re-work history, they would have resolved their immigration issues to prevent the current status quo. Currently a huge Muslim population inhabits Holland and the Dutch are almost a minority in their own Country.

            Immigration is a big issue as we work through the new HC law,national security, and the drug dilemma. That last issue is hugely important in Atlanta.

            We are seeing increased proof of unbelievably violent gangs setting up logistics (what we are known for) in the Atlanta area. Big pot busts are now very common, but the meth problem is a scourge.

            • kyleinatl says:

              Clarification:
              I’m fine if it passes, and support it if introduced (which assuredly it will be, no matter who is at West Paces). I’m prob one of the few libs that feels that way, but there it is, it just isn’t number one on my list of issues to address.

  17. Dave Bearse says:

    The relatively recent experience is that even a formal ethics complaint was not investigated even when it was broadly “common knowledge” that Richardson was womanizing with a utility company lobbyist while sponsoring legislation favorable to the utility, because no one with first hand knowledge came forward. There may be only a very few people with first hand knowledge about issues about Deal, if indeed there are any yet unpublicized issues, and those people may be either close friends or allies or afraid to cross a guy that may well be the state’s next Governor.

    • B Balz says:

      That’s true, Dave. Let’s just hope it is not factual. Don’t forget the national Dem Party would love to deal a losing deck to Rep. Deal, they have little to lose.

      Using the skulduggery in GA-8, by way of example, if they had anything, and I mean that word quite literally, anything, on Rep. Deal, it will be out before November.

      My guess is that detractors are going to be wrong, there will not be any, last minute, material wrongdoing found on Rep. Deal.

      The Ga Judge is right, a new Deal is on the horizon. Could be good for transportation, finally.

  18. Jane says:

    Loyalty is an important value that is often lacking in people who feel self overly important. When delegates to the GOP state convention in 2009 refused to pay their entrance fees, that was dissloyal. When a Former GOP elected official endorses a Democrat because the GOP is getting too conservative, that is disloyal. When a GOP party official acts in a way to discredit those who elected him into a party possition, it is being disloyal. While some of these disloyal people are more conservative than the average GOP voter and some are more liberal than the average GOP voter, all of these people are RINO’s and cannot be trusted with the faith given to them by the rank and file party members. Thankfully both parties have thier share of weak individuals.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      “When a GOP party official acts in a way to discredit those who elected him into a party possition, it is being disloyal.”

      If that is aimed at me, Mike Carter didn’t vote for me. I am loyal to our platform, rules, and nominees. I don’t discredit Mike Carter. I may have provided information that you may decide to discredit Mike Carter. However, you could mean that Mr. Carter is being disloyal to those who elected him.

      I don’t think I’d call him a RINO, but I’d stand by my statement that I think his behavior is erratic.

  19. saltycracker says:

    Two choices.

    Barnes appears a pro and Deal an amateur when it comes to deep pocket ties to real estate, banks and trial lawyer interests. With only two choices, the odds for restoring order in the economy are better with Deal.

    AJC article on Barnes:

    Total assets: $21,122,414

    Total liabilities: $4,514,127

    Net worth: $16,608,286

    Major holdings and business interests

    ● 48 pieces of real estate

    ● Stock in 20 companies, including 12 banks

    ● Owner, Barnes Law Group

    ● Partner, ARC Properties/Charleston Properties

    ● Owner, Barnes Land & Investments

    ● Partner, Lawyers Realty

    ● Owner, Old Mable Town Properties

    ● Member, Williams Fund Associates*

    For “two or three years” after leaving office, Barnes told an Albany television station this summer, “I wouldn’t try anything before a judge I’d appointed.” But he added, “Remember, these cases are assigned on a random basis,” and he could hardly avoid the dozens of judges he appointed.

    In 2006, lawyers representing a hospital that Barnes’ firm was suing in a malpractice case asked Fulton State Court Judge Myra Dixon to recuse herself because Barnes had appointed her seven years earlier. Barnes’ son-in-law, attorney John Salter, argued in court papers that requiring judges to step aside just because Barnes had placed them on the bench would “effectively bar Mr. Barnes from practicing law in many courts of this state and punish him for being an experienced lawyer and long-time public servant.”

    Another judge dismissed the recusal motion.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/barnes-wealth-built-over-653318.html

  20. 9thdistrictdagny says:

    Hmmm…This is playing out like a poorly written screenplay based on a Halequin novel…However, as a resident of the 9th district and an observer—the psychology of the human mind is a complex adventure. I do not know Mr. Carter, only of him and he does have a right to his opinion. The problem lies within the nature in which he makes his claims…slanderous in nature and erratic at best. Chalk it up to experience folks…let it rest, he did the right thing by stepping down—Move on! Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be the best case scenario, and the best outcome given the circumstances.

  21. andhanni says:

    While I know Mr. Grammer and Mr. Carter. Having seen much of the issues from within over this, I have to agree with 9thdistrictdagny and as the Star Wars movie line goes.

    Obi-Wan: He can go about his business.
    Stormtrooper: You can go about your business.
    Obi-Wan: Move along.
    Stormtrooper: Move along… move along.

    It is not worth our time here when larger real issues, like How to deal with the water rights of Lake Sydney Lanier, and Reapportionment will play out over the next year. Those are the real discussions not this.

  22. GAOTPC says:

    I commend him for standing up for principles…. BUT

    If he knew about Deal’s problems all along, how come someone like HIM in the Georgia GOP didn’t do something to let US know about it?! I’ve been a dues paying member of the GA GOP for years and it is a TOTAL disservice that they would allow something like Deal’s $5 million debt screw up go without any attention in the primary.

    Shame on the GA GOP for not informing their voters. Now we have a CROOK!

  23. Three Jack says:

    according to one georgia legislator, here are the 6 reasons why you should vote for raw deal:

    1. Reapportionment – I don’t want the Democrats drawing the maps to control the power in Georgia and Washington D.C. If you think Hank Johnson and John Lewis are good Congressmen, stop reading here. If you don’t want more socialists representing Georgia, then Barnes and his Democrat buddies should never be allowed near the Georgia governor’s office. (See list of DC socialists here:http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/)

    2. State Budget – Georgia is in a state budget crisis. We’re not as bad off as California, but this next legislative session is critical to managing the budget, implementing zero-based budgeting and getting our spending in line with tax revenues without tax increases. Barnes’ plan is ripe with tax increases and the only “job” program he has is more government jobs, which we cannot afford.

    3. Obamacare – Contrary to Barnes half-hearted flip-flip on Obamacare, he gave thousands of dollars to Barack Obama, Cynthia McKinney, Harry Reid and other Democrats who have pushed nationalized medicine for years. Barnes says one thing, but his actions say something very different.

    4. Judicial Appointments – The Democrat party will stock the bench with liberals. If you ever want to see conservatives like Steve Dillard, Preston Smith and Max Wood get appointed to critical courtrooms, then it’s time to fight against the Democrats.

    5. The lives of the unborn. Period.

    6. Education – Deal is for school choice, local control, and charter schools. The education of our children is not about unions like Barnes is so busy courting. It’s about intelligence, parents, and our future prosperity.

    not exactly a strong endorsement of the gop candidate…instead more of the same, ‘vote deal because he ain’t as bad as that dirty rotten scoundrel barnes’.

    and one that really bugs me, abortion. ga has an anti-choice governor, anti-choice legislature and still abortion is legal. what difference will deal make on this issue (or any other goper for that matter)?

    • Jason says:

      1. This is a red-herring, a very dishonest argument considering the courts will wind up drawing the maps.

      2. Republicans will control the legislature, most, if not all of the points are moot. Divided government is good government.

      3. This is a not an argument as much as it is a chance to say Roy Barnes is a Democrat and so is Barack Obama. The AG is likely to be a Republican, and as we’ve seen is independent in what he can do. Even if Barnes said he didn’t want the state to pursue the lawsuit, the AG could legally continue it.

      4. Barnes may get some judicial appointments as a result of retirements, but judges go up for election in Georgia. These are not lifetime appointments.

      5. Another red-herring.

      6. This may be a legit argument about Barnes, but Deal is not for local control, see his vote on No Child Left Behind.

      • B Balz says:

        6. NCLB After listening to the debate last night, I bet Rep. Deal could re-vote NCLB. It was supposed to be a better solution, it turns out to have some big drawbacks. I would not extrapolate that because Rep. Deal was ‘fer NCLB’ he is ‘agin’ local control.

        5. Big red herring, GRTL/CC/ can try to get another push for ‘personhood’ going, but it will not get far in this budget-centric year. Sadly, the extreme Right uses this idiotic construct as their Big Issue. They will probably get some ‘newbie’ rep. to sponsor some hugely invasive, laughable Bill. It will cause massive faceplants throughout the land.

        4. GR8T point!

        3. The repeal of the current HC law is a rightfully angry, anti-incumbent, big joke. The current HC bill is deeply flawed, but we will have to correct or neuter the effect of the flaws. The Bill is not going to get repealed. Another round of faceplants.

        Can you just see the ’12 bumper stickers, “VOTE GOP: We want our pre-exisiting conditions back”? Don’t be stupid, the GOP doesn’t even have an replacement Bill in the works. After 8 years the GOP did NOTHING to get HC sorted out. I blame them for this. The HC Bill may get Mr. Obama four more years, attempts to repeal it will get the GOP derision.

        2. Meh,

        1. Absolutely correct. And yet thousands of cumulative hours will be wasted because the Leg. feels this is the biggest issue since Reconstruction itself. Whatever, the people lead the politicians, we are not stupid.

        I hope all new legislators take the time to educate themselves on the reality of what is currently taking place in Georgia concerning the biosciences. We have a very established infrastructure that represents some of the best hope for new industry. For both non-controversial and controversial issues.

  24. Doug Grammer says:

    DG v. Mike Carter was on at 6 PM, Monday Oct 4. It might be on again at 11 pm. Channel 2 Atlanta.

  25. debbie0040 says:

    Mike Carter has a right to his opinion and I respect that.

    I would be lying if I said I was not concerned about Nathan Deal and his ethics or lack thereof. We do not have good choices for Governor in the General. We are going to have to choose between the lesser of the evils and that is never a good reason to vote..

  26. Jane says:

    When the GOP take Control of Congress they will not make any serious effort or successful effort to change HC or cut Taxes. They will need these issues for 2012. The GOP will try to cut spending, but Obama will veto any real effort to cut spending. Most of BO’s policies will fall away, though inaction or lack of funding rather than repeal. Look for the next post-election fight to be over redistricting.

Comments are closed.