Chambliss, Democrats clash on Civil War

[Judi Lynn]

Chambliss, Democrats clash on Civil War

By BOB KEMPER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 09/18/06

Washington – Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia has Democrats sniping at him for a comment he made last week suggesting that if the South had had better intelligence, it would have won the Civil War.

Democrats leaked a story to a Capitol Hill newspaper, published Monday, that Chambliss, a Republican, had said in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday that had the South won, "We'd be quoting Jefferson Davis, not Lincoln."

The newspaper, Roll Call, quoted unnamed Democrats as decrying what they termed Chambliss' inappropriate comparison of the Civil War to the war on terror.

But Chambliss' staff said he never made reference to Davis, the Confederate president. He didn't even raise the subject of the Civil War, they said.
(snip)

What Chambliss said, according to his office, was, "If Gen. J.E.B. Stuart had had better intelligence, we'd all be meeting in Richmond right now." Stuart, a West Point graduate and cavalry officer, was a pioneer in the use of scouts and wartime intelligence.
(snip/...)

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2006/09/18/0919CHAMBLISS.html

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. "If Gen. J.E.B. Stuart had had better intelligence"

They would have surrendered a lot sooner.

[Erika]

3. very astute comment sir n/t

[Demeter]

57. They Wouldn't Have Gotten Started In the First Place, with Intelligence

But all the South had going for it was pride and stubborn foolishness. Same as today.

[Erika]

2. Chambliss is one sick puppy

Trying to keep the war among the states alive? The GOP only want to divide.

[heliarc]

9. I don't know if I understand what he meant from the comment

Seems taken out of context. Not to play devil's advocate, but in all fairness the comment could mean a lot of things.

[Toots]

28. When he said "we'd all be meeting in Richmond right now."

He said he was for the south because as we know the south was succeeding from the North not taking it over to be one country. He is saying he would be a traitor to the USA and a Patriot to the Confederacy and he would be meeting with the traitors. The North would still have it's capital at Washington but the Traitors would not be meeting there..

[coalition_unwilling]

35. We need another Sherman to do another march thru Georgia, imho.

[Toots]

29. When he said "we'd all be meeting in Richmond right now."

He said he was for the south because as we know the south was succeeding from the North not taking it over to be one country. He is saying he would be a traitor to the USA and a Patriot to the Confederacy and he would be meeting with the traitors. The North would still have it's capital at Washington but the Traitors would not be meeting there..

[heliarc]

30. Duh, I think I understood the statement,

but I think he's just using that as a metaphor for his views on the war on terror and our intelligence, but I can't make out that he really PREFERS a condition where Congress would meet in Richmond or that the south might have won the war. Sounds like pure Military strategic history to me. It's possible that he feels that way, and it would certainly be a stupid stance to take, but I can't make that out from the information that was given. Frankly, he's arguing for more intelligence efforts (and I would hope less brute force), but I still think it's taken out of context.

[coalition_unwilling]

34. Whatever it "means," it is wrong on the historical record. (n/t)

[democrank]

4. Chambliss a War Expert?

Now that`s funny.

[SpiralHawk]

11. Chambliss supports Commander AWOL & Dick "Five Deferments" Cheney

So that does make him a military expert in republicon terms, according to republicon "military expert" Rush "Anal Cyst Deferment" Limbaugh

[Charlie Brown]

5. Chambliss has zero military experience

He's another armchair commander who's only experience with the uniform is television, movies, and ridiculous revisionist sentiments such as this asinine statement.

Why the hell is he even on the committee?

[autorank]

6. If we had real elections, Chambliss would not be there now.

He's a slandering attack dog in the Gingreich model.

He's an embarassment to Georgia, which just got rid of another embarassment, the charming
Zell Miller.

I sick of these clowns.

[KeepItReal]

14. Notice a punk like Chambliss wins an "upset" once GA goes 100% PC voting?

What a coincidence, huh?

[autorank]

25. Yep, and it proves "coincidence theory" makes sense.

:sarcasm:

And that software patch the Diebold contractor put on 33% of the voting
machines had nothing to do with it. There was no need to investigate
what happened or find out what the patch contained because that too was
just another "mere" coincidence. And the very popular barnes, getting
tossed along with Cleland, no problem there either. After all, had there
been a problem, the Democratic Secretary of State, Cox, would have been
all over it.

:sarcasm:

[toopers]

20. And don't forget Cynthia McKinney . . .

[autorank]

26. Yeah, but do the voting machines really have to be working for

a polling place to be functional.

Do you have any links writing up her primary and general election experience.

I'd love to see them.

She's a huge loss. I saw 911 Press for Truth on 9/10. There was a Q/A afterwords
and her legislative aid John Judge spoke up and made a good point. I thought what
a huge loss that is. The guy was really on target and has quite a background
investigating 911. Ironically, that's when they went after her, her publicity in
behalf of the surviving families. Sometimes the irony is too much to bear.

[lfairban]

7. Close

If Gen. J.E.B. Stuart had had MORE intelligence, we'd all be meeting in Richmond right now.

Leaving the main body of the Confederate Army and striking out on his own when they needed him most was just plain stupid.

[Hardrada]

8. He had not been swift enough to realize that that the Union

cavalry had finally become the match of CSA squadrons. This should have been proven at Brandy Station but the main effect that debacle had on him was to make him want to relive his glory days of capturing Union trains and livestock when, obviously he should have been looking out for Buford who WAS doing his job.

[modrepub]

18. Gettysburg Revisited???

If he's referring to this campaign I'd have to say Lee and his army finally met his match. Meade got his army to the high ground before Lee, moved troops around to hold the line during the battle and did not flinch. He will always be in my mind never fully recognized for taking command of the Army of the Potomac under incredibly dire circumstances. He took command three days before the battle from a general who did not like him over several corps commanders who were senior in rank. The criticism that he failed to pursue and destroy Lee afterwards has always been unjustified. Given his instructions (protect Washington), heavy rains after the battle and the loss of three of the five corps commanders during the battle it seemed like his critics were too harsh.

[geniph]

23. I wouldn't give Meade the credit for the high ground,

that credit should go to Buford, who tends to be overlooked.

[modrepub]

27. Seminary Ridge

to the west of Gettysburg was occupied by Buford's calvary on the morning of the first day. Meade had taken up position further south along Piney Creek in MD. But, he sent Reynolds with the 1st and 11th corps to see what was going on based on his calvary reports. It was 1st and 11th corps that took over when the confederates began attacking in ernest. Reynolds sent word back to Meade and Meade made the decision to move the rest of his Army up and engage at Gettysburg. Reynolds fell sometime in the morning and the confederates had driven the federal troops east through Gettysburg to Cemetery Ridge. Meade then send Hancock to take over until he arrived late that night. The entire Army of the Potomac was stationed to the east of Gettysburg and dug in before Lee's entire Army of Northern Virginia arrived on the afternoon of the 2nd. I give Meade credit for placing his troops where they needed to be, relying on good generals in the field to correctly assess the situation, getting his army in to a strong position quickly and having the courage to slug it out when he needed to.

"He did his work bravely and is at rest" Meade's grave stone, Laurel Hill Cemetery

[coalition_unwilling]

37. Hear, hear. Meade saved the Union at Gettysburg.

[yellowcanine]

43. Strategically the Union was bound to prevail so I disagree. Even if

Lee had prevailed at Gettysburg it is doubtful he would have captured D.C. Look at a map - still a lot of real estate to traverse, particularly on foot. Meade would have retreated with most of his army intact into Maryland - or perhaps never fully engaged Lee in the first place and Gettysburg would have been a minor skirmish. What is clear in hindsight about Gettysburg is what Lee and the Confederates lost. It is not at all clear what Lee could have accomplished, even had he been victorious. If terms of tactics, Gettysburg may have been the most serious mistake that Lee made in the entire war. Defending Richmond was certainly less appealing than taking the offensive, but from a tactical standpoint it might have been a better choice and kept Lee in the war longer and possibly gotten more favorable terms when the inevitible end came. Strategically the best Lee could hope for was a stalemate. Taking the fight to the North made that outcome less likely in my opinion.

[modrepub]

46. Harrisburg

If Lee won I think it more likely he would have descended on Harrisburg. Looking at the map that seems to be the more likely target. Taking Harrisburg would have been a huge loss for the Union. It would have cut the major east-west railroad link (actually two the PA and Reading lines ran through Harrisburg) and it would have been a major embarrassment to Lincoln. PA was the state with the largest troop contribution to the union war machine; it was a major state in the Union at that time.

Lee's objective was to relieve Vicksburg by peeling troops from Grant's army to fight him in the east. It was a dubious strategy not supported by Longstreet (who wanted to send troops from the Army of Northern Virginia to relieve Vicksburg). In the end the Confederates lost Vicksburg and Gettysburg. While not catastrophic, both victories provided a much needed boost in morale for the Union cause.

[yellowcanine]

49. Taking Harrisburg would have been pyhrric because he could not

have held it. He could have ripped up some rail lines assuming he could have gotten to them which is not a certainty. But he would have risked losing a lot of men (which is the one thing he could not afford and the reason Pickett's charge at Gettysburg was so devastating.) and he might have been cut off and surrounded. It is one thing to slip back into the safety of Virginia from Gettysburg. It is quite another to be deep into enemy territory and run the risk of being sniped at and bushwacked from the woods and hills around Harrisburg. Stuart did do some reconnaisance as far north as Carlisle but it is not clear to me that Lee could have easily marched on Harrisburg.

[modrepub]

54. agree

He couldn't have held it. But he would have scored points and countered their loss at Vicksburg. It would have been hard for Meade to get at Lee in Harrisburg given he would have either had to make his way across the Susquehanna either where Lee was or cross much further south. This was definately a threat the Union considered. Gov Curtain called for 30,000 3-month volunteers to gaurd the capitol whe Lee entered PA. Confederate troops did go through (Gettysburg) and York but were stopped at Columbia by Union troops who burned down the only crossing. If they had seized the bridge there they could have easily taken Lancaster threatening Philly and Harrisburg. South Mountain would have given Lee ample cover to retreat back into VA after sacking the PA capitol (in fact that's what he did after Gettysburg). Meade would have had to scale high terrain and fight through narrow passes. Not something I (and he) would want to do. Meade witness the futility of that at Fredricksburg.

[yellowcanine]

56. I wonder if 1863 was a wet or a dry year prior to July?

I am very familiar with the Susquehanna River as I grew up about 25 miles east of it in Lebanon County PA. Depending on the year, it could be quite shallow in July around Harrisburg and below toward the Maryland border. It is likely there would have been a number of possible crossing points that a good set of scouts on horseback would have found. One of the interesting things about Antietam was that Burnside spent a lot of time and lost a lot of men trying to cross a bridge when it is likely that his men could have waded the creek and been less exposed to enemy fire.

[modrepub]

58. Good 'ol Bumside!

and I thought I was the only one who knew that little tidbit about him having trouble getting his corps across a bridge when they could have waded across the creek!!! It cost McClellan his job unfortunately.

I checked and the earliest met records start in 1870 @ Philly. All we can really do is guess, though if we really wanted to know we could cross reference some of the local records to estimate the river levels. Anyone familiar with the area knows freak downpours are common in the summer. Everything I read says all of the rivers and creeks were swollen during Lee's retreat. A good calvary could have reconnoitered a spot to cross but in my opinion Lee's invasion of PA was generally sloppy. Stewart didn't seem to have any idea what Lee's objectives were and who knows how Lee could have obtained good maps of PA before he started going into unfamiliar territory. While Lee was good at defensive campaigns he did quite poorly when taking the offensive (Gettysburg, Antietam, Peninsula).

Sounds like you're another former PA resident; from the Philly area and work in Harrisburg...

[yellowcanine]

60. I think what Lincoln was most upset about was McClellan's failure to

follow up and keep Lee from escaping across the Potomac. I don't consider it unfortunate that "Little Mac" lost his job. By all accounts McClellan was excellent at drill and getting troops ready for battle but an overcautious field general and weak on imagination when it came to battlefield tactics. He was schooled in the art of seige warfare and had no understanding of how to adapt tactics to match the Confederate generals like Lee who didn't always follow the book. Time and again he overestimated enemy strength and thus chose inaction rather than going on the offensive. Hence Lincoln's famous quip in a letter to McClellan that "If you don't want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while." If Grant had been in command at Sharpsburg that day it is likely that the war would have ended a year sooner, imo.

[modrepub]

61. I like Little Mac

Not the worst. Sure he was over cautious but his plans were generally sound. He would have been much better as a chief of staff and an improvement over Sec of War Stanton who meddled too much. Little Mac did well on the Peninsula inflicting heavy casualties on Lee and winning every battle he had to to change his base of operations. In the end his strategy of using the rivers to supply the Army of the Potomac instead of the north-south railroads would be adopted by Grant to take Richmond. This was one thing he understood well; organizing the army and supplying it. What he didn't do well was reconnoiter the enemy both in person and through scouts. He cost himself a decisive victory at Antietam by sitting in his tent instead of riding out to see what was going on with Burnside. But in his defense Burnside was a close friend of his from his railroad days. Unfortunately for Little Mac and the US Burnside was sorely unqualified to be a commanding General.

[yellowcanine]

65. MacClellan was also something of a racist. and not in favor of abolition.

He viewed slavery as an institution recognized in the Constitution, and entitled to federal protection wherever it existed. His writings after the war were typical of many Northerners: "I confess to a prejudice in favor of my own race, & can't learn to like the odor of either Billy goats or n——s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan


I have trouble ginning up much affection for this guy. He was conceited to boot.

I find myself in a new and strange position here—Presdt, Cabinet, Genl Scott & all deferring to me—by some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the power of the land. ... I almost think that were I to win some small success now I could become Dictator or anything else that might please me—but nothing of that kind would please me—therefore I won't be Dictator. Admirable self-denial!

— George B. McClellan, letter to Ellen, July 26, 1861

[modrepub]

66. So were a lot of other union generals

and politicians. There were riots in NY city after the emancipation proclamation. That was just the mindset of the day. It's not right but I can't fault him for that.

Little Mac was a railroad man and a blue blood. He was not a man of the common people. But then again most easterners thought Lincoln was a "backwoods hick". There were regional prejudices in the civil war as well as today.

[knight_of_the_star]

59. Not quite

Lee didn't have to actually take DC to neutralize it, if he cut off DC by supply from land he would have forced the Union to respond to his actions taking the initiative and control of the war. That could have also pushed at least France into supporting the CSA, Britain post emancipation wouldn't have jumped in unless it was obvious the South was going to win if they didn't.

[coalition_unwilling]

63. Yes, I see your point. From my point of view, Lee should have

engineered the loss of Richmond to McClellan during the Peninsula\7 days campaign. At that point, had the Confederates surrendered, they would have been brought back into the Union (probably) with slavery intact. One of those major ironies of history, I guess.

[SpiralHawk]

10. If the South had nuclear bombs, they would have won real quick

And if wishes were horses then all the beggars would be riding.

[Cobalt-60]

12. The South had NO FACTORIES

They had a lot of skill, but it meant nothing against the Industrial Might of the North.
Maybe they were quoting Jeff Davis - when they lied to get the Iraq War.
The difference is that Jefferson Davis didn't know he was wrong.

[bluestateguy]

13. All I know is that the South got PWN3D!!

nt

[Frances]

15. And if the South had won

we'd still have white men impregnating black female slaves and then selling their own children to other slave owners.

Not to mention slave owners torturing black men by whipping them so fiercely that their backs were permanently scarred.

Please don't romanticize my native South.

[saigon68]

16. slave owners torturing black men by whipping them so fiercely

Ah the good old days

</sarcasm>

[yellowcanine]

36. If the South had won, the Europeans and the North would have eventually

forced the South to give up slavery anyway by the 20th century in my opinion. That is assuming that the South would have survived the inevitable slave insurrection/mass emigration that surely would have followed any Southern victory. The best the South was ever going to get anyway was a stalemate and temporary ceasefire, imo. Eventually they would have been crushed.

[Frances]

45. I wish I shared your optimism

but I don't. I remember great oppression (no voting rights, the murder of a black man who annoyed the sheriff, no books for black students in pitifully constructed separate schools, the threat of lynching of any black who didn't step off the sidewalk when a white person passed by) through the 1950s in my native state of Alabama.

[yellowcanine]

50. Jim Crow was a legacy of Reconstruction and the compromises which

were struck to end it. Had the North (read Republican Party) stuck to its principles and helped the blacks secure and add to the gains made during Reconstruction, particularly the political gains, Jim Crow could have been avoided. But the Republicans sold out the blacks in order to hang unto political power. If the South had remained under military occupation until most of the hard core rebels were dead or at least old and harmless, the story could have been quite different, imo. In particular, the Klan could have been checked if the military had been given a free hand to treat them as terrorists, which is what they were.

[Frances]

55. I think that the Civil War and Reconstruction period are a

fascinating historical time. There is a famous essay that compares and contrasts Grant and Lee. The point the author (Bruce Catton, I think) makes is that Grant's people were fighting for themselves and for their future; they knew that an expanding, changing economy that rewarded their own hard work and skill was in their best interests. Lee's people were fighting for what they perceived was their own best interest--a place on the social and economic ladder that guaranteed they would never be on the bottom rung no matter how smart or how hard the people on that rung worked. Lee promised that slaves would always be beneath them.

I think that the reason the North backed out of Reconstruction was that Northerners had been fighting for their own rights, not the rights of blacks. (I have a friend whose family saved the letters of their upstate New York Yankee soldier ancestor that is anecdotal support of this statement.)

Even today my Southern white relatives have internalized this idea that they are entitled to having a group of people stay below them on the economic and social ladder no matter how much more deserving this group of people may be. I don't know how you would eradicate this concept because it is passed down from parent to very young child.

[xchrom]

17. chambliss is shit on the bottom of bush's

phony cowboy boot.

[nealmhughes]

19. He is loonier than his mushmouth fake genteel appearence betrays.

I have studied the Civil War under Harold Selesky and George Rable, and believe me, after 3 years of graduate seminars with them, I can tell Saxby that he is wrong.

Outmanned, outgunned, outmonied, and surrounded by a maritime and riverine fleet. Exhausted troops, bereft of supplies and even shoes at the end. A ridiculous campaign to keep Richmond at all costs, abandoning the food-producing areas to the Union or else cut off to reach the troops; the descendents of African kidnap victims simply walking away...

Ridiculous, Saxby! The South didn't "really" want to be independent, it was the neocons of their day who brashly ate fire and reaped destruction on the South. Had they "really" wanted to be independent, they would have prepared by laying in arms and manufacturing plants, and fortifying the Tennessee Valley years in advance.

It was brash false pride that was reinforced by phoney philosophy and sermons that led them into war, and Jefferson and Jackson trumped Calhoun and Davis.

[MisterP]

48. Good Ol' Boy aristocrats don't DO industrialization--or cooperation tween

states, for that matter

[Odin2005]

21. The south was condemned to loose at the start.

The North had most of the industrial output and most of the capital.

[coalition_unwilling]

38. Actually, that's poor reasoning from the "post hoc, proptor hoc"

school. IMHO, if a copy of Lee's orders had not been discovered and conveyed to McClellan before Antietam\Sharpsburg, Lee might have been able to achieve a strategic victory in the North, thus compelling Lincoln to negotiate a peace favorable to Southern secession.

McClellan should have whipped Lee's ass at Antietam\Sharpsburg but the battle was a tactical stalemate (although a strategic loss for the South).

[yellowcanine]

41. McClellan also let Lee escape across the Potomac when he had

enough of an army left to stop him had he wanted to. In my opinion, McClellan should have been court martialed for dereliction of duty and possibly treason for his behavior after Antietam. It is not at all clear that McClellan did not intentionally allow Lee to escape because he preferred a stalemate to a Northern victory.

[coalition_unwilling]

64. I actually think Lee out-generaled McClellan during the Battle

of Antietam and not just afterwards, when McClellan refused to commit his reserves to annihilate Lee when he had him on the ropes, before Confederate reinforcements arrived from Harpers Ferry. Instead, McClellan fed his troops into the battle piece-meal, which allowed Confederates to move along interior lines and "defeat" (really just drive off) each Union attack one at a time.

[geniph]

22. And if my aunt had had testicles, she'd have been my uncle

What the hell is your point, Saxby, other than to make it obvious you're a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal moron?

[underpants]

24. I heard a report on NPR just last week about this

according to them you don't pronounce the "th" in neanderthal
you use a "t" sound

[geniph]

31. I learned that in anthropology class, 100 years ago

anyway it seems like it was 100 years ago. And it's an insult to Neanderthals everywhere to conflate them with the likes of slime-mold Chambliss.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. "Balls!" said the Queen. "If I had two, I'd be King." (n/t)

[yellowcanine]

32. Kind of muddled history - first of all, Jeb Stuart WAS the intelligence

apparatus for Lee, so the statement doesn't quite make sense. It would make more sense to say, "If Lee had better intelligence....". But anyhow, it is still lousy history. Any Civil War historian worth his salt will tell you that the South was doomed from the start as a result of the overwhelming advantages the North had in industrial capacity, wealth, and manpower. It was only the tactical genius of the Southern generals (particularly Lee) combined with the ineptitude of the Northern generals (and possibly treason in the case of McClellan), save for Grant, that kept the war going as long as it did. Also it is absurd to suggest that the center of government of the United States would have been Richmond if the South had somehow won the war. There would have been two countries - if anything, the South would likely have moved ITS capitol to Washington, D.C. and demanded that Maryland and the other border states be incorporated into the Confederacy. The capitol of the North would have likely reverted to Philadelphia or New York City. The only reason Washington, D.C was the capitol in the first place was that it was a compromise location between the South and the North.

[coalition_unwilling]

33. J.E.B. Stuart lost the war for the South at Gettysburg when he

failed to provide Lee with timely intelligence regarding the Union Army's movements toward Gettysburg.

[yellowcanine]

40. Actually the capture of Vicksburg by Grant the same day was probably

of more strategic importance than the loss at Gettysburg. Capturing Vicksburg spilt the Confederacy in two and gave the North control of the Mississippi, closing the noose on the naval blockade of the Confederacy. The loss of Gettysburg certainly shortened the war, although not by that much thanks to Meade's failure to pursue and destroy Lee's army, just as McClellan allowed Lee to get away after Antietam.

[coalition_unwilling]

62. Vicksburg was probably lost, since Johnston refused to move to its relief

and break Grant's siege. (Doubtful whether he could have succeeded anyway.) However, that said, had Lee had the benefit of Stuart's intelligence (?) in the day or two leading up to Gettysburg, he could have occupied the heights around town before Meade got troops there and possibly defeated Meade's army before it had a chance to consolidate. Confederates had succeeded on Day 1 in pushing Union Army out of Gettysburg proper, but dilly-dallied around and allowed Union to retreat and consolidate on the hills around the town.

In fairness to Stuart, though, I think a great portion of blame must go to Lee himself. Longstreet advised him not to accept battle at Gettysburg but rather to try maneuvering to outflank Union Army. Lee had his "war on" though and would not be dissuaded from giving battle then and there.

[Strawman]

42. Well my states' represenatives sure wouldn't be in Richmond

and the CSA would be a Third World Country.

[yellowcanine]

44. Doubtful the CSA would have held together if they had won.

Texas for sure would have split off. The Upper South states of Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee would likely have eventually rejoined the Union after abolishing slavery. There likely would have been a slave insurrection possibly joined by some poor whites against the weakened plantation aristocracy, creating mass emigrations of both former slaves and poor whites north.

[karynnj]

47. "We'd be quoting Davis"????

Actually, I think their goal was independence. At least that's what the history books say. So, we might quote Lincoln, in our smaller USA. One benefit for us Yankees, NO GWB. Even if the Bushes stayed in Texas - the Northern states would have voted him out, if they had ever voted him in.

[flaminbats]

68. Jefferson Davis would be a first-class terrorist today.

something tells me Chambliss would have done allot worse than to keep that terrorist in prison for only three years! But never mind, the moral majority wants slavery to be legalized again..after all, isn't state's rights what today's GOP is all about?

[Mz Pip]

51. Yo! Chambliss!

Get over it! The South lost.

Let's not fight that war again. But seriously, if it weren't for the slave thingy I wish y'all had seceded. Y'all have been sucking tax dollars from the North for all too long. :sarcasm:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[agincourt]

52. If Americans had better intelligence,

Chambliss would be trying to sell vacuum cleaners now, not desecrating a seat in Washington with his pilodial cyst encrusted ass.

[fujiyama]

53. His victory over Cleland

really brings down my respect for Georgia as a state.

I know many will claim that it was Diebold that stole it, but I really think there are a LOT of braindead motherfuckers that voted for that shit.

[mitchum]

67. Saith one of the Tarleton twins (I really loath that motherfucker...

even his name is ridiculous)