McLeod wrongly slighted

  • Follow Letters

I have never written a letter to the editor before, because I feel opinions are like dirty shoes – we all have them; they all stink; and they are best kept to themselves. But I feel strongly about this subject.

We had the opportunity to be represented in Congress by a rare man – as well as his family, because one doesn’t serve alone – and missed it narrowly.

Wright McLeod is one of the rare men, similar to Charlie Norwood, who was running for all the right reasons. He truly wanted to serve his district and this country again.

He and his wife made the commitment and stuck by it to run a clean and mud-free campaign. Every person I talked to has said they like that, and would vote for someone like that. But as it turned out, Mr. McLeod got blindsided by two of the three candidates who tried to sling made-up mud that had absolutely nothing to do with him representing you or his ability to represent the 12th District in an honest and honorable manner.

Well, I guess I was wrong. People really do want dirty politics and mudslinging. I guess the people of the 12th District don’t want someone who will go to Washington and represent this district as I have always known the people of this district to be – for the most part, honest and full of integrity.

I am afraid the people of the 12th District don’t want someone who can actually go head-to-head against Rep. John Barrow in the November election and win intelligently, or someone refreshingly clean and with no baggage for Barrow’s people to throw at him. Instead, this district has chosen to go on with politics as usual.

Shame on you, 12th District!

Comments (14) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Insider Information
4009
Points
Insider Information 08/07/12 - 11:20 pm
2
5
Are there two Wright McLeods?

You must not know the Wright McLeod that I know.

avidreader
2947
Points
avidreader 08/08/12 - 07:05 am
4
1
Mudslinging!

Mr. Kloman,
If one of my students had written this letter, he would have received a failing grade. Your thesis is MUDSLINGING, yet you (and other McLeod supporters before you) fail to expand and defend your thesis. Why do all McLeod supporters choose not to publicly defend accusations of illegal campaign donations? Give us the truth! Did two women donate money to the campaign from their PERSONAL funds? Just say it -- yes or no -- and defend it. The elephant in the room must be dealt with at some point if a man seeking political office wants to gain the respect of a community. I pay close attention to the Augusta Chronicle, and I have not noticed any of McLeod's supporters do anything except provide rhetorical language to enhance his honesty and family values.

My support for McLeod waned after these questionable donations were reported. And yes, I do believe that many politicians fudge a bit when it comes to money, but once the mud hits the face, it must be dealt with.

Tell us something we don't know. Maybe I'll support the man two years from now.

Little Lamb
43803
Points
Little Lamb 08/08/12 - 07:49 am
3
1
Similarly

I was thinking the same thing as AvidReader. I followed the campaign closely. I read the articles and comments in the Chronicle, I read the articles in the Metro Spirit, I heard the banter on the Austin Rhodes radio program, and I watched one of the televised debates. In all of those encounters I never heard anything I considered mudslinging.

I hope Mr. Kloman sets up an All Access account and posts here what indeed he considers to be mudslinging from the two other candidates. Then, perhaps, we can have a discussion.

What was said, and what evidence is there to prove it untrue?

john
886
Points
john 08/08/12 - 08:44 am
4
0
dont know

about mudslinging, I started paying attention too late. It sounds like there was an issue with donations that got fixed. I can say from watching debate, that McLeod seemed like the only one that could answer a question instead of regurgitate talking points. I think Lee Anderson owes Scott Peeples a couple cases of beer.

southern2
5286
Points
southern2 08/08/12 - 10:17 am
3
0
I agree with you John...I was

I agree with you John...I was shocked at the outcome. I thought it was going to be a McLeod and Allen runoff. I think it was the cross-over for the sheriff's race that did him in. Of course, he was the biggest vote getter in Richmond County.

soapy_725
43551
Points
soapy_725 08/08/12 - 11:12 am
1
0
Politics as usual
Unpublished

"Taxation without representation". Did we not start a revolution about this issue of freedom. We have digressed 236 years. It is time for a revival. Ignorance and Apathy keeps the king and princes in power. There are more of us than them,you know.

Riverman1
79032
Points
Riverman1 08/08/12 - 11:47 am
2
2
I got on McLeod's bandwagon

I got on McLeod's bandwagon early and was nothing but pleased by his superior performances at the debates. He displayed superior qualities. However, the primary is over and I'm going to completely get behind his bitter primary foe, Rick Allen. He's our best shot to unseat the Democrat, John Barrow. It's time to end this embarrassment.

omnomnom
3964
Points
omnomnom 08/08/12 - 11:49 am
3
0
good luck with the recount,

good luck with the recount, McLeod

Laughingatchu007
89
Points
Laughingatchu007 08/08/12 - 12:31 pm
3
0
I agree

McLeod would have been a much better choice between Allen and Anderson. River I'm with you on this, I don't think Lee Anderson has a chance in any debate against Barrow. For the record I don't think Allen will fair to well either but he is the lesser of the two evils that I have to choose from. Barrow just has a habit of absolutely destroying his opponents in the debates and I don't believe that Anderson could put up much of a fight against him.

Insider Information
4009
Points
Insider Information 08/08/12 - 01:15 pm
1
3
Two words:

Good riddance.

Little Lamb
43803
Points
Little Lamb 08/08/12 - 03:05 pm
2
1
Mudslinging

RM, or anybody else on here, what is the mudslinging charge about? Does anybody know?

Or perhaps is Mr. Kloman so thin-skinned that he thinks that any negative ad is mudslinging? If so, he needs to come into the real world.

Willow Bailey
20579
Points
Willow Bailey 08/08/12 - 03:39 pm
1
3
I was for him up until the

I was for him up until the problems with dishonesty arose.
Asking for the recount is really a shame.

Riverman1
79032
Points
Riverman1 08/08/12 - 04:03 pm
2
1
LL, well, they did get

LL, well, they did get nitpicky with McLeod. Minor things ended up as huge stories in the AC. Allen's campaign made at least one big mistake and not much was written about it. But I want to move on and support Allen. I agree that the recount just wastes energy and time, Willow.

Little Lamb
43803
Points
Little Lamb 08/08/12 - 04:10 pm
3
0
Campaign Finance Law

If the complaint to the FEC about improper filing of quarterly financial reports is what Mr. Kloman is talking about, that does not rise to the level of "mudslinging," because the FEC found the complaint to be valid, and McLeod had to re-file with the correct information.

If it's true, it ain't mudslinging.

Riverman1
79032
Points
Riverman1 08/08/12 - 05:20 pm
2
0
Well, there have been lots of

Well, there have been lots of ethics violations by various candidates in the past, at least one that ended up with the person having to go to court that the Chronicle didn't do a story about.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Election Updates

ATLANTA -- David Perdue squeaked to the lead in the Republican Senate runoff Tuesday over Jack Kingston in one of the most closely watched contests in the country.
Loading...