Saxby Chambliss, the Internet and nameless speech
It is painful to admit, because no one likes to trash his own neighborhood.
But when it comes to political discussion, there are times when you have to wonder whether the Internet has become the world’s largest bathroom stall.
At 2:39 p.m. on an otherwise quiet Tuesday last week, Republicans in the Senate turned away an attempt to permit homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military.
U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss/AP
Forty-six minutes and 50 seconds later, on a blog dedicated to gay and lesbian issues and bearing the odd name of “Joe.My.God,” an untoward comment popped up in the middle of a discussion of the vote on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
“All [gays] must die,” wrote the author who called himself “Jimmy.”
The deleted word was a common vulgarity not permitted in most newspapers, but neither the word nor the sentiment was unusual. We have some very angry people sitting at keyboards. Joe Jervis, the New Yorker behind the blog, says he gets dozens of that kind every day.
So Jervis says he can’t explain why he decided to look up the digitized fingerprint left by Jimmy and that particular message. But look it up he did.
The Internet Protocol address, a series of numbers assigned to all devices that link to the Web, indicated that the computer Jimmy used was registered to the U.S. Senate.
Jervis loosed his readers on a kind of treasure hunt. Cross-referencing the IP address with global positioning coordinates, Jervis and his friends linked the offending computer to “the neighborhood” of U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ office, perhaps in Atlanta — but not necessarily.
Though Chambliss can’t be called a friend to gays when it comes to open military service or marriage, he handled the threatening slur with the appropriate degree of urgency.
“This office has not and will not tolerate any activity of the sort alleged,” a Chambliss spokeswoman declared within hours. The next day, Georgia’s senior senator confirmed that the slur originated within his office — and handed the matter over to the Senate sergeant-at-arms, a fellow named Terrance Gainer.
Aside from his duties as the chamber’s official doorkeeper, Gainer is the Senate’s top administrator. And chief law enforcement officer.
What no one is saying is that, by handing the investigation over to the sergeant-at-arms, Chambliss has tacitly admitted that Jimmy probably isn’t some empty-headed intern who can be silently packed off to his red-faced parents.
Jimmy is very likely an empty-headed, full-blown adult who is on Chambliss’ payroll or otherwise under the supervision of the U.S. senator. A person with responsibility.
Through the Internet, we have created a generation of young Americans who equate political speech with anonymity. I say that with the understanding that the Political Insider — and countless other blogs — accept nameless comments online.
Is anonymous speech protected? Of course. Does it have a firm place in American history? Yes. But even Thomas Jefferson was embarrassed when he was caught out.
One of the more discouraging moments in free speech occurred earlier this year, when a young YouTube videographer approached U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., on a Washington sidewalk to ask the congressman whether he supported President Barack Obama’s agenda. It was a fair question — but it was unfairly posed in anonymity.
“Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?” Etheridge demanded before — very wrongly — accosting the young fellow. But a part of me understood Etheridge’s frustration. We were both raised to believe that an honest man put his own name behind his words.
One of the better moments in free speech occurred last year when thousands of Americans turned out to argue about health care reform at town hall meetings across the country. Messages with faces and names behind them will always mean more than anonymous shots in the dark.
Albert L. May, an associate professor of journalism and public affairs at George Washington University, says concerns that the Internet will become a black hole of political libel are overblown. Mine included.
“The new media is more transparent than most people know,” May said. Internet anonymity is shrinking, not growing. Consider Facebook, he said, which has become the largest village on the Internet because it demands accountability from “friends.”
Corrosive speech on the Internet won’t disappear — but it will become more limited as the Jimmys of the world realize that the anonymity of the computer screen is an illusion, May said. Those darned IP addresses.
You can help speed things along. The next time you have the opportunity, resist the temptation to hide. Put your own name behind your own thought.
Personal responsibility can be quite liberating. Try it.
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
153 comments Add your comment
JJ Harper
September 25th, 2010
9:02 pm
Jamie Roberts Said - “Oh, yeah, JJ. You’re the real deal Klan, ain’t ya! You should be so proud of yourself! Because you’re so white and pure and all.”
Who’s changing the subject, now? …finally glad you found somebody that isn’t afraid of showing who they are?
Jamie Roberts
September 25th, 2010
9:03 pm
Because, JJ, Saxby Chambliss is in serious trouble if you are his best and most open defender.
td
September 25th, 2010
9:10 pm
Jamie Roberts, I can guarantee you that this will not hurt Saxby’s chances of re-election 4 years from now. The only way he looses is in the primary to a more conservative candidate.
JJ Harper
September 25th, 2010
9:14 pm
I could really care less about Saxby Chambliss or his crew. He has always been the “lesser of two evils.” Having said that, I think he has handled the situation very well given the provisions of the First Amendment. What would you like for him to do…. denounce his Christian faith? …or should he perform a tap dance for you?
Jamie Roberts
September 25th, 2010
9:22 pm
This has nothing to do with his faith, JJ. This is about his ability to affect public policy while holding these views. There is a separation of church and state in country by virtue of the Establishment Clause, or do you not agree with that part of the Constitution?
JJ Harper
September 25th, 2010
9:35 pm
I agree that “the employee” should never have sent that information to the aforementioned “website.” In fact, that employee should never have visited that website using government, computer equipment and/or government-assigned, internet protocols. All Georgia state employees are forbidded to do so. “The employee” – knowing he/she violated that policy should confess his/her violation of contract – and – said employee should accept appropriate disciplinary actions.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
td
September 25th, 2010
9:37 pm
Are you sure you are a lawyer Jamie? The establishment clause is so the government will not establish or promote one religion over the other, it has nothing to do with an individuals faith. I would never vote for a person that did not carry their religious values with them as guidance into office. This is what JJ was talking about.
JJ Harper
September 25th, 2010
9:42 pm
CORRECTION The statement - “I agree that “the employee” should never have sent that information to the aforementioned “website.” - Should have read - “I agree that “the employee” should never have sent that information to the aforementioned “website” using government-assigned, computer protocols and/or computer equipment.”
Jamie Roberts
September 25th, 2010
9:48 pm
My point, td, is that, contrary to JJ’s assertions, Saxby’s religion has nothing to do with his role to represent all Georgians, not just the white, Christian ones.
JJ, your assertion that the staffer using a government computer to send information to a blog in and of itself was wrong is, I believe, ill-informed. Many times such speech falls perfectly within one’s duties as a government employee to clarify policy positions as part of normal communications of the Office to constituents and to the public. So no, insofar as your statement is inaccurate, that is not what I want to hear.
JJ Harper
September 25th, 2010
10:00 pm
Then, you are not familiar with Georgia’s policies regarding employee “Standards of Conduct.” Believe me, I am very familiar with those policies. Only authorized, state employees using internet protocols and computer equipment owned and/or operated by the state may communicate with public entities, and those options are very limited. Only certain entities are allowed. Certain information is allowed, and certain information is not allowed. So… “no”…. I’m not wrong. In this instance, the “staffer” was clearly wrong.
Jamie Roberts
September 25th, 2010
10:09 pm
JJ, you fail to realize that a staffer for Saxby Chambliss would by definition be an employee of the federal government, not the Georgia government.
Jamie Roberts
September 25th, 2010
10:11 pm
Okay, bored now. All you anonymous trolls an KKK folks can yak away without me.
td
September 25th, 2010
10:12 pm
Jamie Roberts, We disagree again. A representatives or senators set of values (be it religious or secular) has everything to do with the what type of representative they will be in office. Georgia is a conservative state and therefore will elect its representatives that have the same set of values. The majority that elects said representative expects the person to follow those values in making decisions for them and if the voter does not think the rep is following their set of values close enough then they will not vote for the person next time the run for office.
Conservative religious values have always played a part in southern politics, just like secular values have played a part in the northeast. I would never vote for a person that I thought did not carry closely my set conservative christian values with them to office, just like I expect you would never vote for a person that did not carry a secular set of values with them. IF you can convince enough people that your set of values better fit their needs than my set of values then we will elect a secular person as our senator. This is what makes this country great.
JJ Harper
September 25th, 2010
10:15 pm
Oh… and by the way… since you changed the subject with your prejudice, “represent all Georgians, not just the white, Christian ones.”, there are black Christians as well. If you’ll study who I am more diligently, you’ll find that I (as a member of the KKK) led a march with 300 BLACK Christians around the Fulton County Courthouse in support of Proverbs 13:24 a few years ago. Do you remember reading that, or did that simply slip your mind?
JJ Harper
September 25th, 2010
10:22 pm
…just as well Jamie Roberts. Tuck your tail and run. John 8:
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
48Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Then there's this
September 25th, 2010
10:51 pm
On Friday, this liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy said on the air that Liz Cheney should be planning her father’s funeral rather than offering her opinions to the American people. This comes three months after Malloy told his listeners that he hoped former Vice President Dick Cheney would die in the hospital.
Jimmie
September 25th, 2010
11:37 pm
Political Insider readers should ask Jim who is paying his light bill. Don’t you think that Gov. Barnes serving as a character witness at trial for Charles Walker, perhaps the largest political corruption crook in Ga history (convicted of over 130 felony federal counts of political corruption one day after Roy testified in court under oath to what a great guy he is – I guess he conveniently forgot about the little dog on his desk), might be worth a mention? Or the fact that Barnes left only $50 million in the state coffers when he left office (less than one day’s operating budget for the state). The AJC’s coverage is totally one sided and rapidly becoming a joke. I like Roy, but this paper’s coverage is so biased that it is shameful.
JJ Harper
September 26th, 2010
12:29 am
I hope more Christians will come forward professing their faith in the Lord our God regarding this topic. Yes, our Constitution states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It’s a great amendment. I like it. I like it, because our founding fathers realized that “what is moral” would change over time as Christians “back-slide.” It (basically) says that you (a “being” considered as an American citizen by law) have the right to be whatever God has fore-ordained you to be and that Congress shall make no law discriminating against either Christians’ or satans’ souls. I did not capitalize the name “satan” on purpose. After all, who are we to decide who are God’s chosen people or not. We can’t. We are to witness to all according to scripture. Salvation is of God and God (the Trinity) alone.
Having said that, we know that this land was built upon some kind of foundation. That foundation is considered a “moral” foundation. Many today question what is “moral.” There’s no doubt of the origination of the foundation our “founding fathers” based the Constitution upon. Even though there were some atheists among our “founding fathers,” even their “decisions” were based upon what was a good idea at the time. (Yes, I did not capitalize the name “atheists” on purpose.) For example – even atheists believe that “murdering” somebody was wrong. “Murder,” being a good thing did not come from God; it came from satan! Therefore, even atheists believed that murder was wrong. So, even atheists adopted part of God’s moral foundation.
Even those atheists (in those days) did NOT believe that sodomy should be considered “moral.” Yet, today, the Jamie Roberts’ of the world would have you believe that doing your partner up the butt is “morally” acceptable.
Notice I said “of the world.” This is important. The “world” is not of God. “Worldly” ideologies are NOT of God. God is NOT of the world.
As time progresses, satan’s people will challenge the meaning of our First Amendment. Since our judicial system has mis-interpreted the Godly, moral meaning of the First Amendment, we will see more and more violations of it’s true meaning. satan will continue in trying to twist the minds of men. “Christians” allow it to continue to happen.
If you’re a true Christian, stand up. post your REAL name! Tell the Jamie Roberts of this “world” that you aren’t ashamed to admit that you’re a Christian. You can do that without jeopardizing the true meaning of our First Amendment.
Remember! Remember that our First Amendment protects us as Christians first and foremost. There are appropriate ways to witness and inappropriate ways to witness. Remember that God told Peter to put away his sword. He didn’t tell peter to throw it away and never use it again.
Mike
September 26th, 2010
5:27 am
I did not know ole Saxby was a draft dodger. I guess he was not one of the lucky ones who were called and served during those Viet Nam days like so many of us who could not get deferments. I see now he is an authority on who should serve in the military. We all know how the repubs feel about gay people whether in or out the military. So the post was not out of character from his office. And also do you really expect him to really do anything about it.
Lillie B.
September 26th, 2010
5:57 am
Do you never stop blogging, people? It is early in the morning. Jim, I agree with your statements about anonymity but I attend New Birth, work on Saxby’s staff, and head up the Forsyth County Chapter of Bloggers Anonymous (BA). Its a little risky to put my name out there, despite the urgings of The Cracker Squire.
Bobby Anthony
September 26th, 2010
7:20 am
I never post comments under a false name. I wish everyone who wants to comment on problems in our society would have the courage to publicly stand up for what they think is right.
skydog
September 26th, 2010
7:43 am
Hot damn! A real KKK monkey and Christian to boot.
JJ say she led 300 blacks on a KKK march. A reagular Jim Jones ain`tcha JJ.
I`ve been fighting people like JJ since 1962 down in Allbeeny. These people are not that scary once you lift their skirts.
I am in the old, white, male group JJ. I know the secret handshakes and the veiled speak.
Invite td to one of your meetings. He appears ripe for the taking.
JJ, do you get your wisdom from talking burning bushes still?
skydog
September 26th, 2010
8:17 am
Only Pat Boone and the klan wears white after Labor Day.
McAdam
September 26th, 2010
8:31 am
In this piece, is Mr. Galloway applauding the orchestrated and abusive tactics of the Tea Party as a high point in civil discourse? The reported motives of the Tea Party presence at town-hall meetings were to intimidate congressional representatives who supported, or might support health care reform. Their goal was not to reasonably voice their concerns, they were there as bullies.
On the left, we’ve seen members of Code Pink disrupt congressional hearings (usually meetings about the wars). In those settings, there were no appropriate ways to voice one’s concerns. Appropriately, their yelling led to their ouster from those proceedings.
One time I had a face-to-face minute with my congressman, Tom Price. I was faced with the choice, do I yell at him about the wars or do I remain civil and state my case? When my turn came to speak to Mr. Price, I was respectful. If I had yelled, would Mr. Galloway have approved of my actions solely because I did so in person?
Actually, the more I write about this, the more I actually agree with Mr. Galloway. However, there is an important difference between free speech and rude speech, anonymous or not.
twitter/paradisestate
September 26th, 2010
8:41 am
When people are arrested for lawfully protesting under the USConstitution it is anonymity that protects us. When Congress funds a war against a nation it has not USConstitutionally declared war on USCitizens are wisely worried about putting their name where criminals can read them. When a USPresident lies us into war and remains free without even the suggestion of criminal charges USCitizens have good reason to fear putting their names down. When a Government is caught spying on ordinary citizens time & time again, putting your real name down so it can be gathered, collated and stored by the FBI and/or CIA is defensible reason to seek anonymity.
This is Norman Maine
September 26th, 2010
8:56 am
To say that Saxby Chambliss is not a friend of gays is being somewhat diplomatic. As far as I’m concerned, he treats gay people the same way he treats anyone who is not White, Republican, straight and conservative: as an enemy. He only represents one type of Georgian and the rest of us can go to hell as far as he is concerned. His representation in Congress reflects that.
My two cents,
Sharon M. Henderson
Yankee in Gooberville
September 26th, 2010
9:21 am
Dude, the BIG issue is that the idiot in that idiot Chabliss’s office was hunting out gay blogs ON GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS (paid for, in part, by the tax dollars of Gay Americans like me) and writing toothless threats.
If it’s on his own time, his own computer, whatever. He’s a loser and undoubtedly a closet case like the ol’Bishop there sweating it out in the pulpit today.
As a gov’t employee I’m not using gov’t resources to post here, not on gov’t time. This idiot WAS and that’s the big deal.
God, I hate I having to live in this miserable state.
td
September 26th, 2010
9:54 am
This is Norman Maine, And David Scott or John Lewis represents my interest? This is why we have elections to vote for or against the people that do not represent our interest.
None of them will totally represent an individual persons interest totally. You can either find common ground and advocate these points to your elected representative and work to find someone in the next election that comes closer to representing your interest better or you can just turn a blind eye and hate everything the person stands for and not support anything and make yourself feel like a victim. Your choice.
Jeff Pruett
September 26th, 2010
9:56 am
Don’t say anything on-line you wouldn’t say to the persons face…Good manners are good manners (as my Momma says)
skydog
September 26th, 2010
10:33 am
That concept works good ouside the south td.
Open minded or different views get squashed in a sea of red in these parts.
A lot of my fellow Georgians vote based on a lot of stupid stuff rather than issues.
Why?
Look at Georgias` education record for the past 50 years.
Roger
September 26th, 2010
10:39 am
While I agree it is essential to track down the perpetrator and fire him (it’s almost certainly a “him”), what caught my attention when this story first broke was the fact that Chambliss has over forty employees in his Senate office. If every senator employs the same number, we taxpayers are paying the salaries of over 4,000 employees. When these same senators talk about the need to reduce the cost of government, I suggest they start there. Since senators are not accomplishing much anyway, I wouldn’t object to them having to answer their own constituent inquiries and perform the other actual work of Congress.
Homeless Joe
September 26th, 2010
10:44 am
Religions suck. The people that use them to spread their hateful agendas suck even more. Eddie Long just sucks boys.
skydog
September 26th, 2010
10:53 am
Amen.
Goobers
September 26th, 2010
10:56 am
When i was in 7th grade (1966) i realized there was no place for me in Dixie. Yet circumstances kept me many years longer… a failure. Finally escaped and just in time, as the cotton curtain comes down on the prosperous period 1965-2005, and the goobers realize they are headed back down Tobacco Rd (to stay), and the preachers succumb to their sexual desires they demonize for their clueless congregations. Scapegoats and whipping boys will be much in demand. A very dangerous time approaches for any who are different in thought or appearance; time for anonymity and to ‘go to ground’. Or, as the Goobs say,”if your heart aint in Dixie, get your a** out!”
AStroud
September 26th, 2010
10:58 am
RE: What no one is saying is that, by handing the investigation over to the sergeant-at-arms, Chambliss has tacitly admitted that Jimmy probably isn’t some empty-headed intern who can be silently packed off to his red-faced parents.
Jimmy is very likely an empty-headed, full-blown adult who is on Chambliss’ payroll or otherwise under the supervision of the U.S. senator. A person with responsibility.
Yes, and they are not saying it could be a hack job or unauthorized use of Chambliss office computer. What have your IT professionals told you about how believable Jervis’s supposed “track down” efforts were in “idnentifiying” Chambliss’s office as the originator? Could it really have happened the way he says? Or would he have needed to make some big guesses to conclude it was Chambliss’e office. Why did he make the guesses he did?
What are the chances of Joe Jervis, just happening to track down the originator of this “one of many” ugly comments that he gets each day on his web site and, low and below, finding Senator Chambliss’s office on the other end. The odds aren’t good. Jervis can’t explain or won’t explain why he chose to track down that particular one or many ugly comments.
Jim, I am beginning to think you will lap up dog poo if you think it will stick to somebody you don’t like….even when it just makes no sense. Theres more to this story and you seem to want to ignore it.
Willis
September 26th, 2010
11:07 am
If the person in Saxby’s office were a REAL man he/she would step forward and accept responsibility for his taxpayer-supported bigotry.
td
September 26th, 2010
11:44 am
skydog, ” Open minded or different views get squashed in a sea of red in these parts.”
And conservative views are not squashed in many northeastern states? Was it Nancy that said we may have to cut the blue dog dems loose to try to save the libs in this cycle? It is the same no matter where you live. The difference is in one part of the country you agree with the philosophy and in another you do not.
td
September 26th, 2010
11:53 am
Homeless Joe,
Secluar: worldly: characteristic of or devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual world.
Religion: is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
Being secular is a religion in and of itself. So either your religion is one of the many looking at the spiritual meaning of life or you a secular and as such look at the worldly nature of life. You either live for the future or live for your self now?
majii
September 26th, 2010
12:04 pm
I have never understood why some Christians feel that God needs them to do His job. People who think this way are not subjecting themselves to the Word, but are subjecting the Word to their serve their own purposes.
If God made man in His own image, which is what all Christians can agree on, what Christian would seek to discriminate against God’s own children? Gays and lesbians are just as much God’s children as the rest of us.
The Bible instructs Christians to inform someone that he/she is doing the wrong thing, and if the person does not listen, it says to leave them alone. Shake the dust off one’s feet and go on about one’s business. Many Christians have forgotten this, and so continue to beat the drum on abortion and gay rights. The Bible also speaks of personal responsibility in the sense that each of us is responsible before God at judgment for the decisions we make. Many conservatives speak of personal responsibility but seem to have no faith in the ability of people to be responsible for their own behavior. Not all conservatives do this, but those that do are usually the most vocal.
I think the conservatives who rail against gay rights need to be reminded of Ken Mehlman who helped to develop GWB’s 2004 re-election campaign that included a platform that was partly based on using conservative animus toward gays as a means to persuade conservatives to vote for him. Mehlman stated less than 2 months ago that he knew it was wrong, but he did it anyway because it was seen as a way to help GWB win re-election. Mehlman also now admits that he is gay. What this shows is that often some politicians will use any issue to motivate their base. They may not truly endorse the positions they take when they are campaigning, but will do anything to get elected. I don’t believe that many conservative politicians hate gays, but they are willing to use them to win elections. Newt Gingrich has a sister who is gay, even though he speaks against gay persons having their full civil rights. I know Gingrich doesn’t hate his sister, but he is willing to deny her her civil rights in order to become POTUS because he knows that if he doesn’t, the conservative base will vote for someone else in 2012. I believe both gay rights and abortion are being used, and have been used, by some politicians to win elections and drive a wedge between us. Americans need to stop judging their fellow citizens.
When did God abdicate and give His job to anyone? The answer is never.
Leave the judging up to God. The Bible tells us that none of us are qualified to judge anyone else.
Die Ann
September 26th, 2010
12:15 pm
We are all going to die so therefore we are all gay, and thus, marriage is all we have on our minds. While we are talking about our beloved elected officials:
I wish every political candidate had to go to “Real Life School” for a year prior to entering any race as a candidate. Go home with a different person in your home district every single day and find out how we actually live our lives; and eat our not so healthy dinners. Find a job, pay our bills with our incomes, and live on credit cards because the job you may have found pays only a third of what you need; sell your home at half what you paid for it, and buy whatever you absolutely must have to make it through the pay period with credit cards that are maxed out. Hire someone to work for you for a while and pay them with credit cards. Mend our hems, pull our weeds, fix a flat, find a bus route that is still active …. while you are preparing cupcakes for your kid’s ball team. After all that, you may qualify to be as gay as we are. You might even have something to “represent” and have more purpose when you get elected to do something other than squeeze pus out of your vocal cords and figure out whose pocket you are going to empty next.
Thanks for all you do.
A candiate should know all of these things before they try to “fix” anything. Not one single person representing us knows how to do anything but pass the buck.
skydog
September 26th, 2010
5:11 pm
No td, most northern states do not vote the same way for 40 years regardless of the issues.
Only the core southern states do this. I`m not talking about a R or D beside their names. I`m talking about the same stupid mindset of God, gays, guns, and minorities.
skydog
September 26th, 2010
5:17 pm
You can not cover for these bigots td.
Some of us are old and have seen all of ya`lls wicked moves for 50+ years.
e are going to call you out on stupid thinking every step of the way. Oh yeah, we are going to vote too.
chamblee54
September 27th, 2010
1:05 am
I am a bit late for the party here, but I do have a comment or two.
JJ Harper said above “Oh… most definitely! I am very serious. Smith and Wesson(tm) came out with a pink “Lady Smith” ™ a while back. The Army could issue pink-camo m16’s to the newly classified 11 Bunnies. AR 670-1 (Army Clothing Regulation) would have to be modified just for the new 11 Bunnies. They should be allowed to “fight” in drag as long as their clothing is that of the new digital camo pattern. Anything goes, really – for the new division. Couldn’t you just see the faces of their enemy?”
From some of the reports I hear about Afghanistan, the faces of the enemy will be smiling, and inviting the Bunnies to dinner. This might not be a bad way to fight the war.
Gerald West
September 27th, 2010
5:18 am
Perhaps that “Jimmy” character also devised the crude slander of Max Cleland that earned Chambliss his seat in the US Senate.
An interesting fact that surfaced in the media flap is that Chambliss’s office employs 42 people. This is a staff needed to support one useless, do-nothing, no accomplishment politician! Presumably, the staff advises him on how to get re-elected despite his many disqualifications.
Do all members of Congress employ private bureaucracies of 30-50 people at the expense of the public? I’d like to know.
.
Renegade
September 27th, 2010
7:20 am
Why don’t some of the above folks just get on the phone and have a conference call???? But, on the subject of sodomites serving in the military, leave it to the military. Media and politicans shouldn’t be making this call. Media and politicans have already compromised the military with women where women shouldn’t be. Likewise, it should have been left up to the State of South Carolina on who should be admitted to The Citadel. (One note of explanation, women were born women, sodomites were not born sodomites, they made that decision.)
When Hell Freezes Over
September 27th, 2010
7:54 am
I believe this thread has run its’ course. The liberals and the homosexuals criticized Chambliss, which was the goal here when this thread was initiated. Even if Chambliss hauled the offending staffer out of his office and summarily executed him/her, he would not win the support of the liberals and homosexuals.
I do believe some of you could benefit from an anger management course.
Bill Johnson
September 27th, 2010
8:56 am
” It was a fair question — but it was unfairly posed in anonymity. ”
What was unfair about anonymity? Would the lying politician tell a different lie according to the name of the questioner? the race? the gender? The political party? the home state? I think any of the answers biased by those considerations less complete, but more telling, than an answer that must actually stand on it’s own.
Defend your assertion. I see nothing in your piece that does so.
AmVet
September 27th, 2010
9:30 am
One quick observation about that gutless POS, and darling of all Georgia neo-cons, chickenhawks and Bush apologists – he couldn’t carry Max Cleland’s jockstrap.
Yet he said that Cleland lacked the courage to lead.
If only Georgia voters had one one-hundredth of the courage he had, we would not have that serial embarrassment “Blood & Guts” Suxtobeus as our senior senator…
Martha Zoller
September 27th, 2010
9:52 am
Good advice, Jim. Always use your own name. My grandmother used to say, “don’t do anything you wouldn’t be ashamed to see on the front page of the newspaper.” Maybe today, it’s some digital example, “don’t do anything you wouldn’t want to see on the Morning Jolt by Political Insider Jim Galloway!”
np
September 27th, 2010
11:04 am
Although I agree with Jim in principle, the times seems to be becoming more dangerous, and I feel there are good reasons to remain anonymous.. Unfortunately much of what ends up on blogs is mostly empty or noxious blather. But there are also many well-reasoned and sincere comments, and so I feel the blogs serve a very important First Amendment purpose in this age of talking heads and corporate ownership and control of most media outlets.. This is one of the few outlets left for scrutinizing and examining the political process, since the tradition of muck-raking journalism is in steady decline, along with the ideal of journalistic independence and integrity, which apparently are virtues no longer tolerated by monolithic media moguls.