Remember those lawsuits that were filed during the course of the Democratic Primary for Governor? Media reports indicated that the Taylor Campaign filed a lawsuit alleging that Cox had violated the Open Records law, and then Ben Cawthorn, a former Blakely city councilman, sued Peter Jackson, press secretary to Ms. Cox's campaign.
Many assumed that in a spirit of unifying the Party, these suits would be dropped post-primary. Does anybody know whether that has happened or the current status of this litigation? I hope they've been dropped. If not, after a bitter primary battle, there's a lot of healing that needs to occur so that Democrats can move forward, together, focused on the November elections. Seems like this would be a good place to begin, a gesture becoming a Governor.
Monday, July 24, 2006
What Happened to the Taylor Lawsuit?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Many different people did offer the opinion that the lawsuits would disappear post primary. I was doing some checking to find out whether they were right. Lyman, you may be right about that Open Records litigation. I could not find any recent information in media reports on the status of either of the actions. And, stnmntnron, I'm not a lawyer and am not making any judgement about the merits of the Cawthorn suit, but, yes, I do think that these suits, born in the context of the campaign, will not make healing for the Party any easier. I do understand that the Taylor Campaign did not file the Cawthorn suit, and whether or not it goes forward is up to Mr. Cawthorn. Whether or not the lawsuit has merit, if it is moving forward during the Governor's race, I think that it will serve as a reminder of all the mud that was slung- from both sides- during the primary. I'm not sure that helps Taylor.
I agree that Cathy has some responsibility when it comes to unifying the party, but so does Mark, doesn't he? Let me ask this: what constructive steps would you like to see him take to speed healing?
By the way, I'm supporting Taylor. I want him to win. Perhaps I should've made that clear.
Just because Jackson is associated with the Cox campaign and Taylor won means nothing. Jackson slanderized an innocent man, a civil right's leader at that!
This is nothing about "healing". Taylor passed one step, and he is on to the next. I don't think he needs to "heal". His victory was all he needed.
In conclusion, Jackson, a fledgling spokesguy, has to learn that just because an election can heat up and get ugly, there is no room for defamation.
How 'bout we all get together and try to take back the capitol and the legislature? The energy being misspent on primary post-mortems could be better used on working to get out the vote on August 8 and in the general election in November. There's no question that there was a lot of verbal scratching, biting, kicking and gouging going on during the primary, and it was not all restricted to the gubernatorial candidates or to the Democrats. I am old enough to remember bitter, mean, racist campaigns that would make this past primary look like a tea party. So my comment is: GET OVER IT! Let's elect Democrats in 2006 and 2008.
illegal activities?
Since when was 1st Amendment express (even if it is libel) a crime?
Do you really think a former city councilman who interjects himself into a statewide political campaign is going to be able to have a sucessful libel suit against the spokesman of a campaign for something he said in the middle of a heated political campaign?
Good luck. You must be on crack.
Good lord people, the primary has been over with for a whole week now. It's history and it can't be changed.
Yeah I think that the Taylor lawsuit should be dropped and may have been already. As for the Jackson lawsuit, in my opinion it's a personal matter that just so happens to be tied to a campaign, which is a hazzard that you venture when you interject yourself into a campaign. Nevertheless, I have to be responsible for everything that I say and do in my job. I expect that Peter Jackson must do the same. I think if I were Peter, I would've already made a private and public apology to the man in Blakely and then put the ball in his court - no pun intended.
Now on to this crap about Cathy not "endorsing" Mark Taylor. I've seen this 3 or 4 times and it's utterly ridiculous. The only difference between Cathy "endorsing" Mark and supporting Mark is that she didn't use the word "endorse" in an official manner. She pledged personal support to help Mark and all other Democratic candidates. Mark acknowledged this once in his victory speech on Tuesday night and in two different interviews (at least) on Wed. Not only that, but she's asked people who helped and supported her to "unite" and do the same. What more do you want?
Maybe this reveals a little bit of showboating on Cathy's part about not "endorsing" candidates as part of her ethics reform. But will the word "endorse" really do any more for Mark than what she's already said and plans to do?
There's lots to be done. Mark Taylor's the only horse we have. If we're gonna spare Georgia 4 more years of Sonny Perdue, I suggest we put aside the semantics and ride him as far as we can take him.
Neither lawsuit has been dropped. Unfortunately. I can't think of a worse waste of time, energy or money, especially now.
Thank you!
Post a Comment