OK, not trying to beat a dead horse here, but this is an interesting topic, based upon the various postings from folks since the election.
What's curious about this to me is the party dynamics of this. A lot of the pro-McKillip postings previous have accused all of the insinuations and nay-saying to be sour grapes from republicans. But I know personally several "real" democrats who have the same questions/concerns as have cropped up on the blog here.
Personally, the endorsement thing was a slimy manuever. The letter in today's paper defending it is just plain stupid. When I was a kid and my dad caught me doing something I knew I shouldn't do, I would try to wheedle out of punishment by claiming he'd never actually, told me NOT to do it. And he'd smack me upside the head and accuse me of being legalistic.
The endorsement thing reminds me of that, a slick lawyer move. And it turned me off. So I didn't vote for him. And I voted for every other Democrat on the ballot.
My point is, and I want some real, not campaign propaganda responses here if possible, what's the deal with Doug?
None of the other Democrats in these local races were facing criticism from democratic voters like he was/is?
And, does it matter? Or is there a great, uninformed chuck of voters out there who will vote for a ham sandwich as long as there's a "D" by it's name?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blogroll
Labels
- 10th Congressional District
- ACC Commission
- Athens Banner-Herald
- Atlanta Journal-Constitution
- barry fleming
- Bill Shipp
- Blake Aued
- bobby saxon
- Bong Hits 4 Jesus
- David Poythress
- DPG
- Drinkin'
- drought
- Dubose Porter
- education
- Elton
- flounder
- Glenn Richardson
- GlennTax
- Heidi
- jerry keen
- jim marshall
- Jim Thompson
- JMac
- john barrow
- Johnny Isakson
- National Guard
- paul broun
- poverty
- rand knight
- really?
- roundup
- Saxby Chambliss
- SCHIP
- Sonny Perdue
- stache
- the flem
- tondees tavern
- U.S. Senate
- Voter ID
87 comments:
I'm not sure 5 people on this blog count as widespread criticism. And in case you forgot, Doug took responsibility for the ad. When's the last time a politician actually owned up to something like this? Most of the criticism are from people who supported EH or Regina. Clearly the community at large didn't care about the ad. After all, 52% of people voted for Doug.
Or is there a great, uninformed chuck of voters out there who will vote for a ham sandwich as long as there's a "D" by it's name?
Perhaps not a ham sandwich. And not even Mark Taylor. But as long as it's physically able to vote, has somewhat of a brain, and holds the right positions, I'm not sure what's wrong with that.
OK, not trying to beat a dead horse here
Too late.
Once again, McKillip never claimed the endorsement.
ed -
please go away - no one cares
Like most of your analysis, I found it wrong. True, Doug may have lost the vote of at most 10 Democratic bloggers. But the fact is that he kicked ass in the election. Think about it for a second. EH knew and had a very favorable rating from 15% of Democrats. If you discount the possibility that people knew and liked EH but still wouldn't vote for him you are left with the fact that Doug got every Democratic voter that didn't know EH and a shit ton of independents.
they don't now
ed -
you almost lost to a guy who withdrew from the race
Hillary, you share the sentiments of most Athenians who voted for oblivious elitists, such as Girtz.
Perhaps on this issue. But you do remember I was a strong Rusk supporter, do you not?
Also, I'm guessing referring to Girtz as an oblivious elitist is probably an exaggeration. He has a job too.
Also also, going around randomly insulting people who, in fact, share your proletarian views is not a good way to win votes in the future. I don't live in your district, so I had no official say in the race, but neither did I weigh in on it at regular intervals. I defended your candidacy several times.
But it's ridiculous for me to defend myself. If you would like to believe I'm a jackass, you are welcome to.
Ed, with all due respect, what the hell man?
Is this really what you want to do? Come on here and act like a child because you lost the election? Open a personal grudge with someone to the whole world ... and unnecessarily attack someone who shares his views?
Listen, I like some of your ideas, but I don't have a lot of respect for someone who is going to swing by after an Election Day performance so profound poor that you barely got more votes than an absurdly conservative dude with little name recognition who wasn't even on the ballot.
Bravo for touting your 800 votes ... what about the 2,700 that went to Alvin Sheats and 3,000 to Kelly Girtz ... someone who's so elitist that he managed to take the early lead in the race.
it sounds like Ed's threatening Al. Wow... this might get interesting.
Blackfin -
From your recounting of your childhood, it seems like you really don't understand what the ad said.
Once again, the ad said the following:
Novartis said Education is the reason Athens was passed up for their $1 billion vaccine plant.
As the endorsed candidate of the Georgia Association of Educators, Doug McKillip believes we need to address this problem.
In fact, the Athens Banner-Herald's endorsement said "We were impressed by McKillips passion for public service and his committment to education as a key to quality economic developement."
I'm Doug McKillip and I approved this message because I believe Education is the key to a prosperous Athens.
Paid for by... Friends of Doug McKillip
1st- the point of the ad had everything to do with education, not that Doug got the ABH endorsement.
2nd- Doug never claimed the endorsement.
3rd- Doug never lied.
4th- It was wrong for Jim to write an editorial 4 days before an election.
5th- Jim held Doug to a much higher standard than anyone else simply because it dealt with the ABH. Afterall, what Doug got called to task on was ultimately creating a false impression. Pretty lame if you ask me and certainly not worth running 4 days before an election. Maybe EH's $11k to the paper had some influence.
Not bad points, but Jim can write whatever the heck he wants ... and apparently it didn't hurt McKillip too much as he did actually win the election.
And the money had nothing to do with it. Trust me. That's ridiculous to imply.
Jmac -
True, Jim can write what he wants. But that doesn't make it write. As a former journalist, I'm sure you are aware that in the last two weeks of an election, there is a higher burden of proof for a story's newsworthiness.
I agree with McGeezy here. If you're a regular reader of the ABH, too, you'll know that a lot of the political editorials do focus on stylistic issues like this. Fudging the truth a little is worse, in their book, than being on the wrong side of an issue. And to some extent, I can understand that, as the paper can't technically take sides. But considering the stuff that was done campaign-wise statewide, this was peanuts.
write should be "right" - accidental pun - not intentional
Look at Bill and Jane's race -
Bill accused Jane of being against the HOPE scholarship. That's bullshit. She voted against the HOPE amendment because she favored a stronger HOPE amendment. That in my opinion is ten times worse than what Doug did.
Jane's campaign accused Bill of some crazy shit, too.
But this is what made it into the paper four days before an election - very irresponsible journalism if you ask me.
Jmac,
I agree. The money had nothing to do with it. You should write an editorial on your blog about it. Because I just created a false impression. Shit, my false impression actually created a negative impression about the ABH. That deserves an editorial twice as long and twice as blistering.
I don't disagree, but seeing how it was Jim's call, you have to let him do what he does. You can disagree with the article, but it's hard to criticize him for writing it.
But, yes, you and Hillary are both correct in saying that the media focuses way too much on stylistic issues. Just today I commented in the office that for the past few months we kept hearing that national Democrats had no plan, despite the fact they actually did. Now, just two days removed from Election Day, there are tons of stories actually conceding they did indeed have a plan.
It's fun to write the stories about turmoil and controversy (and, just for the record, I thought 'Endorsementgate' was worthy of some news coverage), but it's not relevant. While I was disappointed in McKillip's behavior, I would have much more enjoyed thoughtful analysis of his stance on the issues versus other candidates.
Not saying the ABH did a bad job - quite the opposite actually - but policy stories don't sell.
McKillip lied about the ad; lied about being a developer; and who knows what else. Some don't seem to mind if a politician will lie to them as long as he is a democrat. So you get what you vote for.
This was just plain one-upmanship. Doug's campaing took advantage of a great quote from the ABH. Jim got his panties in a wad and said Doug you better take this ad down or I'm going to write an editorial. Doug took the ad down. Then Jim saw that not only had Doug ran a radio ad, he had put it in Jim's own newspaper. And Jim was pissed. How could Doug do this to me? He took advantage of my lowsy draftmanship. I'll get him back. I'm going to write a blistering editorial and throw caution to the wind. I'll cost him the election. I'll do it four days before an election. Who cares if their is a higher standard four days before an election? Jim didn't.
anonymous 3:23pm -
I want you to explain to me where Doug lied? Please tell me. At most he created a false impression.
Which by saying that Doug lied, you just did the same thing. Better hope Jim doesn't find out. You might not want to read the paper tomorrow.
Blake said something in his blog that Doug was on notice that he was being investigated...What's that all about? Residency? Anyone know.
And while I'm at it...
I just love that people that bloggers want to crucify Doug for being misleading in the same sentence that they say that Doug is a developer.
That's misleading.
Doug's built three houses in Athens in 15 years. He personally lived in all three. Is that a developer? I can certainly see why Doug was astounded at being a developer. I certainly hate developers with the venom of any tree-hugging hippie, but is that a developer? Come on, quit with the bullshit.
Still, to play Devil's Advocate, how is creating a false or misleading impression any better? To be fair, I did hear McKillip flatly deny being a developer in the final debate (perhaps he issued a clarification or a mea culpa down the road that I missed). We can haggle over terminology on the other two, but not so much over the other one.
And, again, you have to understand that Jim was merely using his medium to defend himself. He felt as if his words were being twisted, so he fired back with some tough language. Some folks disagreed with him, others agreed.
The problem, it seems, is the medium. Had he responded on a blog, some folks would have been bothered but not as many as him doing so in the editorial in the print edition of the newspaper.
Didn't McKillip help develop a portion of Oak Grove?
I love this investigation bit. Blake asked Doug about this the other day. It's great. I am personally praying that someone has the balls to say their evidence on this one because it's my personal favorite piece of bullshit being spread about Doug McKillip. Please, please, please, pretty please tell everyone about the residency smear... and put your name to it because you will look like the biggest tool of all. I just wonder if you know how full of shit you are or if you are just plain stupid. (Note: this is not necessarily to anonymous 3:32 pm but to the previous anonymous who said a story was going to be breaking about Doug not living in the district - if y'all are one in the same than this is about you).
I meant then rather than than. lol - than than
Actually ... he was it appears ...
... McKillip was the Plaintiff in a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Equitable Relief which was filed in the Superior Court of Athens-Clarke County on September 21, 2005 in Case Number SU-05-CV-1757SW. These pleadings are about 36 pages.
Mr. McKillip stated under oath the following (which of course is just a small part of these pleadings):
“Plaintiffs Gasparilla Corporation, Paul Lancaster and Douglas McKillip are owners or owners in interest of certain tracts of land comprising a portion of the land to be developed as Oak Grove Subdivision in Athens-Clarke County, Georgia”
“Paul D. Hill, Ashley D. Hill, Paul D. Lancaster and Douglas C. McKillip formed a partnership for the future development of all of the Oak Grove Subdivision, in which each partnership was to have a 25% interest.”
Again, I don't think being a developer is a bad thing. But he had something to do with the development of this subdivision.
In fact, the Athens Banner-Herald's endorsement said "We were impressed by McKillips passion for public service and his committment to education as a key to quality economic developement."
All right, this is clearly misleading. Anyone who didn't know the ABH endorsed EH would read this to mean that Doug got the nod from them.
Technically not lying. But tricky.
Look, I wanted to like Doug, I really did. I wanted to be able to vote for him with a clear conscience. But that, (and the lying about being a developer thing) really turned me off. It was too slick. Especially since he clearly didn't need to be that slick to get elected.
Honest use of the ABH quote? How about this: "and even though they endorsed someone else, the ABH couldn't help but be impressed by...."
Or just not use it at all.
The lying about being a developer? Why not turn it around? Be proud of developing smart-growth, green-friendly conservation subdivisions.
For me, those decisions lacked good judgement, and so I couldn't vote for him. Even though I really wanted to support a democrat.
Now, my reason for "beating this dead horse" with further posting was not to express sour grapes that MY candidate didn't win (For truly, I didn't have a candidate). I was really more interested in the reaction to his win on the blog. We're seeing more "sour grapes" posts about a democrat winning than about Cowsert or hudgins or smith... And we have a generally left-leaning readership, I think.
So the point of my posting, while editorial on some level, was also soliciting info/other opinions.
Which aside from a personal attack or two, it did.
And BTW, I am the FIRST to admit that I got it WAY wrong, prediction-wise, on the 115 race.
Thank you JMAC!!! We will just go ahead and get rid of all of the bullshit out there today. Doug would love to take credit for the most environmentally friendly developement in Athens, unfortunately he cannot. (And we all know how Doug likes to take credit for things he shouldn't take credit for). LOL! The fact is and what the lawsuit says if the professional McKillip hitman would have told you what the rest of the lawsuit said then you would know that they were full of shit. Did you ever think why is there a lawsuit in the first place? The whole lawsuit was about Doug getting out of his involvement with Oak Grove. That's right... the lawsuit that the character assinators use to defame Doug is the same law suit that says that Doug's involvement with Oak Grove was over before any developement took place. Doug didn't do any developing. Seems to me that you would actually have to develope something in order to be a developer... it's kind of the whole assumption behind the word.
Got anymore bullshit we can take care of today?
Also, in fairness to Blake, I took his 'on notice' comment to be a tongue-in-cheek comment about looking into whether or not McKillip was a developer, not about any residency issues (which I think are fairly bogus).
Also, Doug McKillip is currently listed as owning 8 contiguous buiklding lots in the Riverpark subdivision.
You know, like a developer.
This whole thing is really weird to me, quite frankly. For instance, was this point of view actually explained when all of the 'is he or isn't he' developer nonsense popped up? Your explanation seems fairly rational to me, though I still think we're splitting hairs here as he had every intention of being a developer, but got out.
Why not, as Blackfin pointed out, just explain the case and then say how much he favored smart-growth developments (like Oak Grove ... though it's absurdly expensive out there). Because, like I said earlier, 'developer' shouldn't be a dirty word. Why run from it? He's got a perfect opportunity to advocate for smart growth and responsible development, but instead he tried to back away from any mention at all.
anonymous -
You're like 0 for 12 today... you want to try and get your first hit? We can discuss Riverpark if you want to. I have a feeling your batting average is only going to get worse. Whoops... 0 for 12 is the same as 0 for 13. That was misleading for me to imply that you could get worse at this than you already are. Better start the presses.
Jmac, I love the service that you as bloggers do...but really aren't we just thinking a little too much of ourselves. I don't mean that in the jerk way that probably just came off, so please forgive me. And after all, I think I did okay with the political consulting. 28% ain't bad. What did you want me to do...fuel the fire and say Doug's not a developer so the hacks can say yes he is and then we can go back and forth until it ends up on an editorial page. I chose the different route, the route that concedes 7 votes to not have it reach a medium that would reach 7,000. I'm pleased with my decision.
So now Doug is supposed to he is a developer even though he's not a developer. Huh??? According to Jim (Ha ha - TV show), that's a lie and doesn't even have the luxury of being technically correct like Doug's ad.
Anonymous 4:06 p.m., I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. I, in fact, think that I've been rather self-deprecating when it comes to blogger importance.
If you can point me in a better direction, I might be able to answer you better.
To Anonymous at 3:04 up there, you left a line off the ad by McKillip. After the Novartis headline, there is a pull-quote from the ABH. After the quote it says "ABH House District 115 Endorsement" Again, this is a gray area, but why leave this line off of your posting? Anyone who reads that can see that it is disingenuous. What makes it more a slap in the face is that the ad is running in the ABH. If I were the editor and a candidate was bastardizing our endorsement, I would be pissed. The editor had every right to chastise him. Have you ever seen another candidate run a quote from an article endorsing someone else? Come on, you can vote for who you want, but please quit this justification of a slimy move. What is sad about all of this is it makes me question his judgement. Why slide that in? How did it help? Why lie about the developer thing? It makes no sense, we'll see how he does and then let the chips fall in the next election.
Sure...Jmac. And I'm not mad or anything just frustrated that Doug keeps having these hit jobs at him under the cover of anonymous posts. The point I was making was the idea that Doug's campaign should address the "developergate scandal" because it was mentioned by an anonymous posting on a blog. You can see how I might have thought that other things were important. (Obvious slam here but I'm holding back). But you assumed because Doug's campaign was not responding it was true. You didn't call Doug, you didn't send him an e-mail. You assumed the worst and endorsed EH even after you yourself said that Doug had performed better in the debates. It's your loss though. Doug's a great candidate, one of the best I've ever seen and it's too bad he doesn't have higher ambitions because I'd love to see him do well on a higher stage. But no, Doug's comfortable with being a strong progressive voice in the General Assembly for as long as the people of Athens will send him back and he's willing to put $50,000 of his own money to make sure this seat stays progressive. He's been attacked for that too in another long list of the ridiculous attacks. No, Doug's fine with that and if you ever started thinking about this from an unbiased point of view, than you might actually come to the conslusion that Doug's actually a pretty good guy.
What if Doug was a passive financial partner in a development? (This is a pure hypothetical as I have no factual knowledge in this case) He may own a stake in the development but someone else is doing all of the actual development activity. If I was in his shoes, I would consider myself to be an investor rather than a developer. Eventhough the scale is different, financial participation in a development wouldn't make him a developer any more than the fact that my mutual fund owning petroleum shares makes me Big Oil.
Rich
Thank you anonymous 4:31pm - we'll go 0 for 14. The ad that Jim wrote about was the radio ad - you are referring to the newspaper ad. The ad I'm referring to is the radio ad. You are very correct to point that out. You really got me on that one.
Isn't it funny that Anonymous at 4:37 keeps complaining about the "anonymous" hit-jobs. It seems like if you want to carry the water for someone and want to denigrate others for their anonymous posts, you would have the decency to identify YOURSELF. What a joke.
So now Doug is supposed to he is a developer even though he's not a developer.
To be fair, that's not what I'm saying. What I was suggesting was that he had full intention of developing that property before the whole thing went south (or he got out, whatever). My point was that he had the intention and therefore could have advocated for responsible development and land usage. Hopefully he'll do that in Atlanta.
Also, can you explain how the Riverpark thing was debunked? Granted the accusation lacked evidence as well, but so did the explanation.
I, like many others who consider themselves Democrats, wanted to like Doug. I wanted to vote a Democrat into office who I felt could be trusted and who I think might make a difference in the Georgia legislature. He's a good speaker--I'll give him that--but let's be real for about 8 seconds. The guy is going to get nothing done. His slick/slimey approach is going to rub people the wrong way...especially those in the Republican majority. I don't think he can be trusted and I think we'll all see that soon enough. Or, worse yet, we won't see it all because he'll get a bit better at covering his tracks. He won handily and under normal circumstances I'd consider it a win for the Democratic Party. But I don't think he represents any of the good characteristics embodied by the party. I wouldn't be surprised if his own party turns on him before it's all over. Perhaps he'll "conveniently relocate" to the other side in the hopes of getting elected again. Either of the other two candidates in the race would have been better choices and for that I am truly disappointed in my fellow D's for having not done a stitch of research.
ok - anonymouse 4:41 pm. You've been reduced to Doug is a bad guy because an anonymous poster won't identify himself/herself. And I'm the joke?
No, you moron, the joke is that you call out others for posting anonymously while not identifying yourself. No one else has called out people for "hit jobs at him under the cover of anonymous posts" but you. I am just stating that it is funny to not see a login above that kind of post. Are you the one that is "keeping score" in the above posts as well? Also, I'm no genius here, but I don't quite see where I called Doug a bad guy, so, in the spirit of the above posts, you are 0 for 1. Keep trying...
nice - losing faith in the bid "d" - VERY CLEVER!!! That's a great argument, throw out a completely random ass accusation like Doug is going to switch parties. Maybe, just maybe Doug actually is a good guy who actually believes that he can do some good as a progressive in the General Assembly. No way, can't be. I mean is there any evidence that Doug is running just too win and he'll run as a Republican in the hopes of getting elected again. No there can't be because that would mean Doug might actually believe what he says. No evidence of that. Oh wait, but there is the fact that Doug ran against an entrenched Republican in an entrenched Republican district. That entrenched Republican was none other than Ralphie Ralph. I'm sure he ran as Democrat because it was advantageous for him to do so. While this is probably just me and one other person going round with one other person, this is ridiculous.
Faulty parallelsim anonymous 4:41 pm. I'm making anonymous posts, very true. I'm not making attacks on EH or Regina. Though there is ample ground for that. Opposition research was well worth the money on those two. But it doesn't matter the elections over and now we need to be focused on what Doug and the rest of Georgia government is doing. I have a great deal of respect for both of Doug's opponents, you won't here me claim otherwise. I've already said how much I like EH's non-partisan messsage and Regina's ideas about education. Why not focus on the good from their campaigns and try and incorporate that into Doug. Why are we still engaging in hit jobs even after the election. Even on a national scale you don't see that happening - what is it about Doug that makes bloggers foam at the mouth?
I have to agree with Anonymous 4:54 p.m on this one - I don't see McKillip switching parties. There's no evidence of that. He's a pretty progressive fella, and even though the whole misleading facts thing disappointed me, that doesn't change his ideological views.
I can say that I didn't vote for him, yet be content with his presence in the Georgia General Assembly. On the whole, he and I see eye-to-eye on most issues and there's no evidence to suggest he'd abandon his Democratic views for Republican ones.
The party-switching "accusation" as you called was nothing more than pondering based on the fact that he moves physical locations frequently in the hopes of winning an election. Maybe his maneuvers are not limited to physical space. Maybe he leaves himself a bit of ideological wiggle room as well. We know he affords himself a great deal of ethical wiggle room. I'm just sayin', man. Is one not allowed to ponder?
some anonymous wrote: "Blake said something in his blog that Doug was on notice that he was being investigated...What's that all about?"
LOL. Look, not to get all contrarian here, but the Daily Planet isn't exactly the New York Times, nor was their faux "outrage" over McKillip's use of their wording particularly persuasive either. Most people I know snickered when they read the editorial, then threw it in recycling.
Did McKillip act rather shady with the wording? Sure, but it's politics folks. If you want Miss Manners, go to the Debutante Ball or something.
you know jmac - that is very big of you - I appreciate that. You know while it would be unorthodox, you with your safe as houses have as much power as jim has with his ABH. You could decide to change your endorsement. = )
Anonymous said...
anonymous -
You're like 0 for 12 today... you want to try and get your first hit? We can discuss Riverpark if you want to. I have a feeling your batting average is only going to get worse. Whoops... 0 for 12 is the same as 0 for 13. That was misleading for me to imply that you could get worse at this than you already are. Better start the presses.
Actually my post about the riverpark property was the first of the day...
Um, for those who want the source of the info go to
http://qpublic.net/clarke/index-search.html
and search for McKillip.
You know while it would be unorthodox, you with your safe as houses have as much power as jim has with his ABH.
You're either being tongue-in-cheek sarcastic or vastly overhyping my influence ... either way, well-played.
anonymous 5:04 pm - yes Doug owns land. Congratulations!!! Doug's back to being spawn of satan.
Why are we still engaging in hit jobs even after the election. Even on a national scale you don't see that happening - what is it about Doug that makes bloggers foam at the mouth?
This question sums up the original intent of my posting very well, better than I did, actually.
And we still don't have an answer to the question. So let's pick on someone else for awhile.
Seriously, though. I'm going to have to give notice like you do in a poker game that I'm going to be leaving shortly. I have other work to do for the progressive cause. But thanks for playing "How many times we can be wrong about Doug?"
"How many times we can be wrong about Doug?"
Only Doug can answer that question.
And, scene...
Q: Why are we still engaging in hit jobs even after the election. Even on a national scale you don't see that happening - what is it about Doug that makes bloggers foam at the mouth?
A: I think it's because Doug's bringing sexy back and they just don't know how to act.
I don't have a stake in this McKillip thing either way, but the amount of anonymous posting is getting ridiculous. Get a Blogger ID, Ed did.
Yeah, a pseudonym, or just a little tag at the bottom ("Mxyzptlk", "Demodawg", "Doug Supporter #4867", "uknowmedawg", &tc), would be nice. Especially if we're fairly counting how many times anonymous went 0 for x.
The real question to me is whether or not McKillip is a resident of ACC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the law state that you have to be physically present in the district for a year prior to the election and have the intention of remaining in the district?
I have a real problem with a guy whose first response to difficult questions is to lie or "shade the truth" (as some have characterized it), and it appears to me that he's doing the same thing on the residency question.
Why would McKillip in April of 2006 swear under oath that he was borrowing $500,000 for the construction of his primary residence in Oconee County.
Deed records, Oconee Co. Superior Court, Deed Book 866, page 110-131: Paragraph 6 "6. Occupancy. Borrower shall occupy, establish and use the Property as his principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower's principal residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy..." Paragraph 8 "Material misrepresentation include, but are not limited to, representations concerning Borrower's occupancy of the Property as Borrower's principal residence."
So either he "shaded the truth" under oath when he signed this deed in April of 2006 or he is not and never intended to be a resident of ACC.
anonymous 5:04 pm - yes Doug owns land. Congratulations!!! Doug's back to being spawn of satan. - 5:08 PM
You are giving ol' Doug way to much credit. He isn't the spawn of satan. He lies more than satan does...
He isn't the spawn of satan.
Apparently, he's the guy who can build a nice three bedroom, two and a half bath split level for Satan.
Dear Who,
Please stopping pissing in me.
Sincerely,
Ed Vaughan's Cornflakes
What the hell was McKillip thinking? Can't even use the excuse, "well, I didn't really know what they meant by that language". So if he didn't intend to live here, did he meet residency requirements?
This is a question for those who are defending Doug against the accusations (whatever they are perceived to be):
Supposing all of the accusations except the one concerning residency were true, would this be bad or wrong?
It seems, to me, that the avid defense of Doug might benefit from stressing a very ruthless pragmatism: "Yes, yes, Doug was slightly deceptive to outright lying on the question of being a developer, on the endorsement, on &tc, but we need someone with this kind of will to succeed in order to stall and defeat the corrupt and gloating Republicans! No honest person can stand to compromise with them, so if we must deal with them through a dishonest person, then why not the one whom we can count on to have the will to succeed?"
What, in essence, would be so wrong with this?
oh good grief.
10:51 pm, please! lol
look around the country.
it doesn't take any of that crap to win.
as a matter of fact, it looks to me as if the opposite of all of those traits are what it will take to win.
just not in georgia yet.
I keep trying to shift this conversation to the absolute effing wonder that is the national stage right now, and for some reason, we are just squatting in our denial of where ga. stands and insisting on dragging a damn good dem thru the mud for like days now.
please, stop. let's focus on the mayoral race and district 9, and poor david burgess, whoever the hell he is.
and then let's start strategizing about how to show these republican bastards up as the racist elitist pigs and bastards that they are. ooh, bastards twice, no, three times in the same paragraph!
but seriously, how are we going to beat them if we're so damn busy gangin up on the guy that ran and won for us?
please people, move on.
thanks,
aquariusrizing
74 comments = new athpo record.
Now please, for the love of god, stop.
But, "a damn good dem"? Really?
OK, sorry, let's move on.
Inter-partisan bickering certainly contributed to our landslide defeat in the gubernatorial race.
Doug and his staffers could contribute greatly to the mayoral and district 9 race. Let's stop with the friendly fire.
72-plus if you include the comments Doug warranted in the name of the Barrow race.
Well, the facts about McKillip speak for themselves. It's good to have a few more...for what they're now worth.
Ed is just upset. he's a good guy who got beat up at the polls and he's angry. I supported Ed. I think he had good ideas. But seriously, Ed. You have got to not implode on a blog. Also, I agree with gp on the anonymous posts.
I hear Doug only flosses once a day as opposed to the recommended two. Lost my vote.
I'm not sure he masticates his food properly. He's a whole-food-swallower. But if you ask him, he'll say he chews 42 times per bite. Just can't trust anyone anymore.
Who have you heard about?
Come on. You're going to drop that really interesting tidbit and then say nothing!!! Give us a few more hints at least. We all have a stake in who represents us, or might, in two years.
Umm...Bill Overend?
Doug's going to run against himself. I don't know how that would work. If that's the case, I've got money on Doug.
I hear Martin Matheny is considering running.
Well UGA Dem. are either of these names close to the mark? For anyone else, assume one of these two people does run against Doug. Do they have a chance?
I don't think anyone is going to get any traction with the argument that Doug's not a Democrat. If anything I worry about Doug getting beat in a General for being too Democrat.
Who's Matheny? Never heard of him.
Don't worry, I've never heard of me either.
Martin,
If I'm not mistaken, rumor has it that you are blackfin_day - Which would seem to explain your harsh criticism of Representative-Elect McKillip.
Perhaps I'm mistaken...
Post a Comment