I was glad to see that Chuck Morley of the Fayette Daily News kept his editorial on the editorial page rather than on the front page, as has been the case in the weeks leading up to the SPLOST vote. However, I would like to take issue with his ad hominem arguments/accusations.

First, is the issue of fliers being handed out in opposition to the SPLOST (which I was not involved with, though the press has credited to me). Is handing out fliers at school open houses and other school functions somehow a more noble endeavor than general pamphleteering?

Second is the issue of yard signs (not involved with that personally, either). It appeared to me that most of the signs placed in support of the SPLOST were illegally placed in the rights of way. Does that make them more legitimate in their message than opposition signs placed legally in peoples' yards?

The third point I would like to address is his accusation that the phone campaign had false statements. As an aspiring wordsmith, Mr. Morley should know that words have meaning. The message was carefully constructed to ensure that no one could rightfully claim the message had any falsehood. (If you want an exact transcript, I'll provide you with one.)

And finally, Mr. Morley claims that the people who were opposed to the SPLOST hoped for a low voter turnout at the polls. That claim couldn't be further from the truth. We were hoping for a large turnout; that was the whole point of the phone bank, to turn out the vote.

One last question: if the SPLOST had won by 435 votes (or, for that matter, one vote), would that have been a “mandate from the voters” or the imposition of their wills on the general population by the “authoritarian elitists”?

Carl Avrit
Fayetteville

Back to Opinion Page | Back to the top of the page