The guy is a joke. Only good for a laugh.

I prefer to stick with the guy who has proven his honesty and character day in and day out as our Senator. He is pro business, pro 2nd Amendment, and a fiscal conservative.

Why would anyone vote for a pro me, pro me and pro me Senator Crotts.

Thank you John Douglas for a job well done, I look forward to helping you get re-elected.

Word is that the NRA has targeted Sen. Douglas for defeat because he supported real gun law reform, not the NRA's useless parking lot bill that protected no-one except the NRA's national agenda.

First time posting here. Me too Publius. No point in changing teams when you are with a winner. Especially considering the other team has such a losing record.

The only thing John Douglas has done was stand up & oppose honoring Jane Fonda.

Aside from that, words like "integrity" and "character" are hardly an accurate description of that guy.

He's a typical AOL user. He likes the pictures but doesn't read the content. He likes to take cheap shots at people & then take offense when he's called on it...if he even responds.

Whether it's using his title to try & intimidate local police departments, or calling individuals names because their opinions differ on an issue, his smugness becomes evident to those who have issues with which they disagree.

Danny,

I think you have the candidates confused. Your description fits the candidate who thinks the district and seat are his personal domain, even though that big house he lives in still isnt even in the district.

Whether it's using his title to try & intimidate local police departments...

I think you're thinking of the right guy, Danny. He also uses his title to intimidate soldiers wives who forget to invite him to ceremonies at the armory here in Covington.

Plane Driver,

Hopefully we'll get some rain so it can fill up Crotts' little pond that it sits on.

Regarding the incument, I've described only documented events that I can prove. And they aren't disputable.

SSA,
That's interesting. I'd like to learn more if you have it.

After reading here, I decided to check the facts (or their records). It's easy enough to check online the 12 year service record of Senator Mike Crotts (from 1992-2004) and the 5 1/2 years of Senator John Douglas (not completing this year yet). I found an exemplary tenure of outstanding, even 'cutting edge' legislation offered by Senator Crotts on behalf of the people of Georgia. He was truly ahead of his time in some of the visionary bills he authored, at a time when the majority in both houses were Democrat, he was still able to get his bills through. I'm impressed. On the other hand, all I've been able to find on Senator Douglas, that he personally sponsored, is a few car tags and veterans fishing/drivers license bills, a bill restricting people from using blue flashing lights on their vehicles (didn't we already have this?), 75-80 senate resolutions recognizing people (I remember the pictures in the papers), numerous bills authored by others or co-sponsored by Douglas with him always taking credit, the greatest one being the opposing of your second ammendment rights to carry a gun to work IN YOUR CAR and claiming that he (Douglas) is protecting employers property rights!! What about MY rights to protect myself? But, he was recognized by the Chamber of Commmerce for DEFENDING PROPERTY RIGHTS.....what a spin!! But wait.....I also found that last week he voted on House Bill 267 to allow us to take guns into restaurants and state parks!!! So, let's get this straight, according to Douglas, I can't take my gun with me to work and leave it in my car, but I can take it into a restaurant or state park? Hmmmm.... sounds like a trade-off in principles to get recognition egualing 'Legislator of the Year.' Talk about your double standards. Who of you called this honesty and integrity? The choice is clear to me, I'm voting for Mike Crotts!

Susan, take a powder before you faint. I did some checking too, HB 267 is titled: St. Marys, City of; Redevelopment Powers Law; authorize.

You must have run out of breath before you could explain how your candidate got thrown out of the race two years ago for lying about residency and how he got fined $40,000 by the feds for campaign violations when he ran for congress and how he managed in his "cutting edge legislation" to name a road after Bishop Earl Paulk who recently found out his nephew was his son...

Try again.

South Henry,
Ok, excuse me for not having the correct bill number. I was looking at something else and made the mistake. HB 89 is the bill, but if not, I'm sure you will let me know. Anyway, whatever the bill number, it doesn't change the fact that Douglas believes its ok to take a gun into a restaurant, however, I cannot protect myself going to work. Also, since you are correcting me about bill numbers I think you may need to check out who named a road for Bishop Paulk....it wasn't Senator Crotts. If what I read is correct, it was Senator Emanual Jones from Henry County. Now, I admitted my error of the Bill number maybe you should admit your error about who named the road.

Senator Jones was not in the Senate during the 2000 session.

South Henry,

Sorry,to inform you but Crotts did not pass that legislation in 2000 or any other time...Maybe you should look up SR429 introduced in the 2006 session. It's my understanding that back when the controversey started about Paulk that Crotts backed away from the Legislation. He did not pass that Resolution as you stated. I will still accept your "I stand corrected for my error."

1. Resolution creating the Bishop Earl Paulk,
Parkway, 2001 session,
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2001_02/fulltext/sr279.htm (Looks like Connie Stokes and Mike Crotts worked together to get this done)

2. Frist of two commendations for Earl Paulk in the 2000 session by Mike Crotts:

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1999_00/leg/fulltext/sr599.htm "...WHEREAS, Bishop Paulk is married to the lovely and devoted
Norma Davis Paulk and together they have two daughters, eight grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren." Well, make that one less nephew and one more son...

3. http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1999_00/leg/fulltext/sr673.htm Paulk got promoted to Arch Bishop on this resolution so another commendation was in order.

4. Here we go again: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2001_02/fulltext/sr585.htm

Your understanding is off a bit. But thats ok, it happens.

South Henry,
You really have a hard time seeing the truth. I know you want to blame Crotts for the Road naming, but he did not do it. I looked at your sited resolutions in 2000 and 2001 session. First I will address Number 2 and 3 as you stated above. Numbers 2 and 3 were introduced in the 2000 legislative session. Number 2 was SR599 introduced by Crotts commending Paulk. #3 was SR673 also introduced by Crotts commending Paulk (at that time there was no negative news about Paulk). Number 1 and 4 were introduced in the 2001 legislative session. Number 1 and 4 SR 279 and SR585 were authored and introduced by Senator Stokes.(still nothing negative out there about Paulk). Crotts was a co-sponsor on that resolution, again making my point that your statement that Crotts introduced legisltaion naming the road for Paulk is not true. HE NEVER AUTHORED OR INTRODUCED A BILL OR RESOLUTION THAT RENAMED A ROAD FOR PAULK. Neither of Stokes resolutions passed in the 2001 session. The name change was then authored and reintroduced in the 2006 session, by Senator Miles, co-sponsored by Senator Emanuel Jones as SR429 was adopted and passed by the Senate. So, your statement that Senator Crotts named the Road for Paulk is NOT TRUE. If you believe in truth you should admit your error.

SR 279 passed the Senate in 2001, but didn't make it through the House.

SR 429 was actually withdrawn from consideration by the Senate.

The fact of the matter is that Crotts put his name on the resolution(s).

Number 2 was SR599 introduced by Crotts commending Paulk. #3 was SR673 also introduced by Crotts commending Paulk (at that time there was no negative news about Paulk).

That is not accurate. There had been allegations previously:

In 1992, six women accused Paulk, his brother and two nephews, all ministers, of sexual manipulation. In seducing them, the women said, the men had talked about "special" or "kingdom" relationships not bound by earthly interpretations of morality.

Really? SR 828 from the 2004 session has Crotts listed as the primary sponsor.

If you believe in truth you should admit your error.

Well, we're waiting.

Here is the truth about Mike Crotts: Mike Crotts is not responsible for the sins of Earl Paulk. The difference between Mike Crotts and B. Hussein Obama is that Obama chose to sit in a church for 20 years and listen to his pastor, a "so-called man of God" spew out hate. Mike Crotts left the church when he found out, along with everyone else in Georgia, that Earl Paulk was engaged in sexual sins. Explain to me how Mike Crotts is going to have to answer for the sins of Earl Paulk. How can anyone know with who or whom one's pastor is having sinful sexual relations? As for the gentleman who said he knew about the big mansion with the pond; you need to do your homework because Mike Crotts hasn't lived in that house for quite some time. Your bud, Senator Douglas knows this truth better than anyone. Mike Crotts was a registered voter in Rockdale County. I know him to be a fine, Christian man and he will be the next state senator for the 17th district. Your website should be shut down if you can't deal in truth. Has anyone asked Lt. Gov. Cagle why he didn't introduce Senator Crotts? Why don't you let Lt. Gov. Cagle speak for himself or are you afraid of the truth there also? The truth is that Senator Crotts had to leave at lunch and furthermore, he doesn't have to beg for contributions. They are comiing in quite well, including mine. Are you so liberal that you hate the marriage bill that Senator Crotts passed? Is that the real reason for your personal attacks? I for one am a conservative who believes that marriage IS between a man and woman, as God ordained it. If the only thing you have to say about Senator Crotts is that he should be blamed for the sins of Earl Paulk, you really had to scrape the bottom of that pond in McDonough! Please tell the truth and quit causing grief for a good, Christian family who doesn't deserve to be labeled by persons who wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit them square in the face.

Mike Crotts is not responsible for the sins of Earl Paulk.

Never said he was, but he did sponsor and co-sponsor resolutions in favor of a man with questionable character. That is what is being discussed here.

Mike Crotts was a registered voter in Rockdale County.

The court determined that he wasn't a resident of the 17th District. You can read the opinion of the court's decision here.

Are you so liberal that you hate the marriage bill that Senator Crotts passed? Is that the real reason for your personal attacks? I for one am a conservative who believes that marriage IS between a man and woman, as God ordained it.

I am a libertarian that believes marriage is for lovers, not for government.

Anyway, Douglas supported and voted for the marriage amendment, as did John Lunsford. Both are individuals that I disagree with from time to time, but still support.

If this is the case for my opposition to Crotts, why am I not opposed to Douglas and Lunsford as well?

1. Was this before or after Paulk was indicted? What has Mike Crotts done for Paulk since he was proven guilty? When was the last year that Mike Crotts was in the senate? Why aren't you attacking Emanuel Jones and Connie Stokes for their part in sponsoring and co-sponsoring resolutions for Earl Paulk? Why did you single out Mike Crotts?
2. The election board in Rockdale County determined that he was a registered voter in Rockdale County. Check the voting records there. He and his wife both voted 3 times there and he also served on jury duty there. How do you suppose he managed to pull this off?
3. Name me the republicans who voted agaist the marriage amendment. I'm not asking you what Douglas thinks about it, my question was directed to you the liberal. If I want to know Douglas' opinion I'll ask him.
4. The reason you're not opposing Douglas is because you are supporting him. He pays you money to advertise on your website and Crotts does not. Or is his advertisement an in-kind contribution from you?

Put your money up or shut up. What's the matter, Catfish? Can't you scrape anything else off the bottom of the pond? I can prove Mike Crotts voted in Rockdale County. Can you prove that he didn't? His picture was on the front of the Daily Herald when he voted. Did you not see it? I guess you didn't.I will be sending you a copy of his voting record in Rockdale County. Soon. This man was totally denied his constitutional rights to seek office. If you are such a proponent of constitutional rights, why do you believe that Mike Crotts shouldn't have any? Are your rights only reserved for those you support. Stop dropping John Lunsford's name as he isn't involved in any of this. I know John Lunsford to be a fine Christian man. I would expect nothing less than his support for the marriage amendment.Don't put him in the same class as Douglas. Catch you later,Dude.

State law says that a candidate must live in the district for at least a year to be eligible to run. He may have voted in Rockdale, but the court said he was ineligible to be a candidate because he failed to meet the criteria.

Why aren't you attacking Emanuel Jones and Connie Stokes for their part in sponsoring and co-sponsoring resolutions for Earl Paulk?

The resolution Jones co-sponsored was withdrawn from consideration. That I am aware of, Connie Stokes isn't actively seeking election to a public office.

Name me the republicans who voted agaist the marriage amendment.

Jill Chambers is the only Republican I know of to vote against it.

I'm not asking you what Douglas thinks about it, my question was directed to you the liberal.

You implied that I didn't support Crotts because of the marriage amendment. I brought up Douglas and Lunsford of examples of politicians I support despite their vote for the amendment.

This man was totally denied his constitutional rights to seek office. If you are such a proponent of constitutional rights, why do you believe that Mike Crotts shouldn't have any?

According to the court, Crotts did not meet the proper criteria to be a candidate. If you refuse to recognize the court's ruling, then you are nothing short of irrational.

Isn't it true that Crotts didn't properly register to vote in Rockdale until almost the end of June in 2006? Please refer to pages 4 and 10-12 of the court's opinion.

The reason you're not opposing Douglas is because you are supporting him.

You are a genius.

He pays you money to advertise on your website and Crotts does not.

It is true that Douglas' campaign paid for an ad, but I supported him in 2006 and he didn't pay for an ad.

Stop dropping John Lunsford's name as he isn't involved in any of this. I know John Lunsford to be a fine Christian man. I would expect nothing less than his support for the marriage amendment.Don't put him in the same class as Douglas.

You do know that Lunsford endorsed Douglas.

I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. You are welcome to vote your beliefs, but the courts ruled Crotts ineligible in 2006, whether you like it or not and the court's opinion was very strong on the matter.

I also think it is wholly inappropriate to call someone a "fine Christian man" but assert that John Douglas isn't "in the same class," essentially judging the man (not very Christian of you to do so). And please don't deny it because that is exactly what you are doing.

Well, Jason Just what is your problem with Crotts?Has he done anything to you?Have you ever taken time to really know him or are you basing your opinion of him on what you hear. Hearsay is a damgerous thing, it causes people including you to judge people wrongfully.

Don't put him in the same class as Douglas.

But Crotts and Douglas belong in the same class. Both are anti-gay bigots. Both have had virtually no legislative accomplishments. Both use their "position" to bully others around. In Douglas' case, it's local police departments and military wives. In Crotts' case it's the staff at Outback Steakhouse when he doesn't want to wait for a seat.

A vote for Douglas or Crotts is a vote for more of the same. Nothing but grandstanding, license plates, and anti-gay rhetoric.

Is there a third choice on the ballot?

You never answered my questioned about legislation that Mike Crotts had endorsed or co-authored since Paulk was indicted. It was a liberal judge in Atlanta that made the decision. An administrative law judge who exercised authority beyond the scope of what she could decide as an administrative law judge. Mike Bowers, who was the former Ga. attorney general represented Crotts and he knows a heck of a lot more about this than you do.It was a terrible injustice to constitutional rights and Crotts himself when the court of appeals refused to hear Crotts' case. Furthermore, Crotts did have a constitutional lawsuit. He did NOT pursue it because it takes 4 or 5 years to settle a case of this nature and thousands of dollars. It was time for Crotts to run for the seat 2 years later and he chose the better option. Jason, for your information every time a judge makes a decision does not mean that it's always the right decision. Mike Crotts had rent receipts, witnesses and everything else he needed to prove that he was a resident of Rockdale County. He did everything he needed to do just like Mac Collins did when he rented the apartment at Meadowlark in McDonough. Mike Crotts met all of the criteria to run for that that seat. I am still that Christian who believes marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by GOD and you can continue to feel the way you believe about marriage. As for your friend Douglas, he didn't have the guts enough to vote against the marriage amendment just as he didn't have the guts enough to support the true property rights protection amendment put forth by Sen. Jeff Chapman which was far better than the amendment the governor had proposed. And you know that. As a matter of fact, Douglas' "no" vote on Sen. Chapman's amendment was the swing-vote that caused property owners in Ga to lose real protection against eminent domain abuse. And you know this too. The other swing-vote was that of Sen. Emanuel Jones, who had his picture in the paper with the governor several days later. Your friend Douglas voted to appease the governor rather than property owners all over Ga. Further, he went against gun rights in the beginning to appease the Ga Chamber of Commerce, an organization that would do away with gun rights altogether if they had their way. Also, your bud, Douglas received "legislator of the year" compliments of the Chamber. Now when Douglas heard that the NRA was headed his way, he said to heck with the Chamber and jumped on the bandwagon for gun rights, going to the extreme of not wanting me to have a gun in my car parked in any parking lot in Ga to the extreme of my being able to put it right beside my appetizer on my plate in a restaurant just in case my steak is not cooked properly.
Here is the TRUE picture of John Douglas...CHAMELEON!!!
Case closed.

[**yawn**]

Are you done yet? Please learn how to write in paragraphs.

Black Dahlia,

I'm going to throw something out there that is going to rock your world:

Conservatives don't want the government involved in the personal affairs between two people (i.e. Marriage).

Theocratic Jesus-pimps do. Wake up. All you're doing is scaring people away from Christianity. Jesus is pretty mad at you right now.

I don't know what you would do if you didn't have his forgiveness to fall back on.

Jason,

I don't think Sen. Crotts lied (as you said) about his residence status at all. I checked this out and found that he was going exactly by the book or the residency requirements under the Georgia Statutes to the best of his knowledge. When he was challenged in an Administrative Hearing, he defended himself and, in my opinion, showed that he was NOT trying to do anything illegal or unethical, he genuinely thought he was doing right. Therefore, just because the judge ruled against him, doesn't mean that Sen. Crotts lied or did anything wrong. He just had to re-group and try again.

Personally, I like this man and his past record as a public servant is super!