race to probate court

Fri, 07/18/2008 - 3:50pm
By: pcleslie

I have read several blogs about the race for probate court. I'm a little confused about how a person can run on a particular party ticket but not be a member of that party. Are you sure Ann Jackson is not a member of the republican party? I would think there would be some type of rule for this. Has anyone checked with the local republicans to see if she is a member or is this just a nasty rumor going around.

login to post comments | next forum topic

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by helpful lawyer on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 12:26pm.

Our Georgia law makes it practically impossible for anyone to run as an independent. Thus people who are truly independent are forced to run in either the Republican or the Democratic primary. In a county like Fayette, at present, it would not be practical to run as a Democrat, so people with a nonpartisan attitude will run as Republican. (There is nothing sinister about that.)

Submitted by Teilnehmer on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 1:04pm.

So you think it is OK for someone who always votes Democrat to run as a Republican just to get elected? I would submit that anyone in this county who always votes Democrat is a dyed in the wool Democrat. Many of the Democrats vote in the GOP primary so they can have a say on local issues. But, if you always vote Democrat, then you are a strong Democrat. So why is she not strong enough to just run as a Democrat? Also, we have a couple on the County Commission who are really Democrats. They were even endorsed by the Chair of the Democrat party. Go figure.

Tug13's picture
Submitted by Tug13 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 12:50pm.

You are exactly right!! I wanted to vote for a couple of Democrats in the last election, but the Sheriff candidates were all Republicans! So,I had to vote Republican.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 12:34pm.

We have a number of people in this county who have sought public office that eschew labels. A large number of them, I suspect, are retired military who have generally voted for the best candidate, as opposed to the best party candidate.

Sadly, even though these good people may vote Republican 50 to 60% of the time, they are condemned by the frothing partisans who regard anything less than 100% loyalty as a sign of "weakness". So much for the "big tent".

Submitted by CJPackard on Sun, 07/20/2008 - 11:36pm.

I don't know who you ask at the Republican party to get that answer, but it would be good to know before the runoff.
I did read an article from another interview where she stated.

I consider myself a lawyer and a jurist--not a politician who relies on party affiliation. I’d like to think that my credentials and experience will give me the advantage in the runoff.

Well I can understand that, however if you sign up to run as a Republican then your a politician. Furthermore, if you're not a Republican, then I think the voting public deserves to know that you're not a Republican. And, if not, why did she run as a Republican? Sounds to me like she is both a politician and is relying on party affiliation to get elected. Although, I don't really believe she is a Republican.

Submitted by Teilnehmer on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 4:33pm.

Ann Jackson usually votes Democrat. So I would call her a Democrat. She is falsely running as a Republican just to get elected. Is that honest? She has been a clerk - not a practicing lawyer. Do we want a Fulton County Democrat running our Probate Court? I think not.

Submitted by Old Simon on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 5:03pm.

I heard that some Feminazis (with short hair) for Ann Jackson showed up at Jim Whitlock's press conference today and showed their behinds. I am sorry I was not there to see the show. They were extermely rude according to some attendees. They must really be dumb to not know what a "press" conference is. It is for the Press - not the opponents workers to hurl stupid questions and harrass. Really low class women. "Birds of a feather flock together" is the old saying.

Submitted by LauraP77 on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 10:47am.

To Old Simon:
I would like you to know that you just characterized a breast cancer survivor as a "feminazi" because she has short hair. As a breast cancer survivor myself, I am deeply offended. Note to you, and to all those who have spread groundless, nasty rumors and inappropriate comments, I think you need to get a mint flavored foot.

Submitted by Old Simon on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 1:44pm.

I called them feminazis because of their actions, not the length of their hair. They were extremely rude and loud. They disrupted the "press" conference. They were not the press. They jumped all over the man who called the press conference waving their arms and getting in his face. They would not shut up. They looked like screaming banshees. They both appeared to be pretty healthy. They were sent there to cause trouble. If this is how Ann Jackson will act, we really don't need her or her kind in the Probate Court. My comments are not groundless and are not nasty rumors. They are FACTS.

Submitted by Love2Teach on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 9:15pm.

First - you were not at the "press conference" - correct? So what makes you the most credible witness? Where are the comments from those who were there? Not seeing any. Hummmmm..

Second - FACTS on Whitlock - at GOP forum he said he never voted in a Democratic primary. ANOTHER FACT on Whitlock - he said in article that he ran as a Democrat and voted for himself in a primary. FINAL FACT on Whitlock - he has contradicted himself in public and been caught in this contradiction; not being truthful is a lot worse for a potential judge than supporters being assertive and calling attention to a candidate for judge not being consistent and truthful. He brought this on himself. And unless you have met Ann Jackson you don't what "her kind" is. Have you met her?

Submitted by Old Simon on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 11:28pm.

I saw the video of the press conference so that was as good as being there. It showed these two women in all their ugliness. I have talked to several who were there and were disgusted at the no class women who disrupted the event. Whitlock did not say he had never voted Democrat. The question at the forum was "Who are you supporting for President in Nov. and have you voted Democrat since 2000? He answered truthfully. Unlike Ms Jackson who votes Democrat and is running as a Republican. She is dishonest. Why didn't she just run as a Democrat. She is one. And yes I have met her. Don't like what I see. She is the contradiction. Maybe you are one of the feminazis. Sounds like it. Maybe you should change your screen name to "Love2Whine".

Submitted by Teilnehmer on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 1:11pm.

The feminazis just cannot face the facts. Jackson is a Democrat, plain and simple. That is all I need to know. Just where has she been all the years. Oh, yea, Fulton County. Old Simon, you really got those old gals stirred up. I say, "the hit dog always hollers". And hollers, hollers, hollers, and hollers.

Submitted by Fayette Publius on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 3:40pm.

......"the Broads for Ann" are raising more heck than a mule in a tin barn LOL. All of this to try and obscure the fact that Ann Jackson is a liberal running in a conservative county. Jackson cut her teeth in Fulton County, the site of probably the most dysfunctional county government and court system in this state, with Clayton County being a very close second. As a voter of this county, I do not want Ann Jackson's brand of "experience" turning what is arguably the best Probate Court in the state into a mini version of the incompetent, wasteful Fulton County courts. Add to that the belligerent attitude of some of Ann's supporters and it makes my choice all the more apparent. Whitlock all the way!

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 12:28pm.

Simon, count me among those who would be interested in hearing any FACTS you might have that would make Whitlock a better candidate than Jackson. If all you have is "but...but...she's a DEMOCRAT!!" then you have NUTHIN', friend.

I'd also be interested in learning which of the Ten Commandmants that former Baptist preacher Whitlock violated so egregiously that Whitlock's daughter refused to let him attend her own wedding. (This was a blind item in Free Speech a few weeks back). If true, this says more about Whitlock's lack of character than anything you can dig up on Jackson.

Submitted by LauraP77 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:51pm.

To Sniffles5: Did you just use Jim Whitlock's family to attack him? That is completely out-of-line and totally unexceptable. To Jim Whitlock, if you read these blogs, please know that I am very sorry for the pain this blogger must have given you. There are many of us "on the other side of the road" who are appalled by this lack of sensitivity. To Cal Beverly, I think everyone who posts comments should be given automatic signature lines with their true names when they register. I'll bet a good bit of this sniping would be eliminated if people knew their posts would be signed with their true names. This forum looks to me to primarily be entertainment for the public. People can sign on to see who can lob the next biggest insult at the opposing camp. This is certainly NOT a forum fitting for a race for a judgeship. -- I am most disappointed.

Submitted by Fayette Publius on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 3:08pm.

Just a word of advice. If I were you, I wouldn't respond to sniffles. It would just give some validation to the poor sap, this board's resident bedwetter/assasin. Just remember the admontion "dont feed the (internet) trolls".

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 3:42pm.

Of course YOU wouldn't respond to me, Publius. You lack the courage.

For those that came late, Publius has a tremendous man-crush on Jack Smith, so anyone saying anything in support of one of Smith's opponents gets a whiny broadside from Fayette Publius (do a search if you don't believe me).

Publius is a bi-partisan troll, flaming the entire political spectrum of those who don't support his boy Smith 100%.

Submitted by Fayette Publius on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 4:20pm.

My goodness, Sniffles! It seems you've been in the sauce aka Obama Juice quite early this evening. I say that because any clear headed reader of this board would know that I am NOT a fan of King Jack. I opposed him two years ago when he was running, because I had this feeling of dread that he would be a nightmare in office. Sad to say, he's almost making Greg Dunn look humble and yes, I can jazz Greg some, since I voted for him 2 weeks ago over the empty suit Horgan.

Obviously, you didn't do the search that you invite everyone else to do, since if you had, you would have found my posting from 2 weeks ago, where I called everyone (except Pfeifer) on the current Board a RINO (Republican in Name Only). That would include Jack, sniffy.

By the way, nice try at creating a diversion from the true topic of this discussion, the runoff for Probate Judge. You tried your best but we all do know how limited you are. Eye-wink

TTYL Troll

Submitted by Old Simon on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 3:39pm.

You are right. I answered with the facts about the press conference and the fool comes back with something different. She is a current Democrat and he has been Republican since 1984. See the difference?

Submitted by Love2Teach on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 3:56am.

Old Simon, "keep it simple" Simon - Jackson has explained herself, probably to the satisfaction of all except you and the rest of the JLW supporters, which includes certain people at the GOP. Maybe she is having that "epiphany" Whitlock had in 1984. Touching. Nothing short of miraculous. Lets face it, Whitlock can't hold a candle to Jackson credential-wise, and is just a good old boy looking for a local job because he is tired of practicing - he has told people that. And sounds like he doesn't have anything else to campaign on - he certainly does not appear to know the job. People also know that question at the GOP forum was concocted just to nail Jackson, and as close as JLW is to the powers that be there, he probably knew about it. And the choice of the year 2000 was not random - it was designed to protect Whitlock. Jackson knows the job and probably will win because she will best serve the county. And all that party affiliation stuff takes a back seat when a judge gets seated. I wonder if Whitlock will be able to do that. Sounds like you guys just don't have anything else to put out there so you keep beating the same dead horse. For the sake of the county I hope both candidates know about those special judicial ethical rules - they apply to candidates and sitting judges. Lets see what happens. I hope she runs over him. If she loses it will be because he is the better politician, but that does not mean he will be the best judge. Sad for Fayette County. Oh yes - Whitlock's speech writers might want to use grammar check in his next letter to editor - the grammar seriously needs some work - not good for a judge.

Submitted by LauraP77 on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 9:57am.

To Love2Teach: I've asked for some substance - not bad.
I had read your first entry late last night before Old Simon had answered you. It made me shake my head and say "I know what's coming." I was 100% certain that Old Simon would answer in the manner he did, because I know Old Simon, not personally, just people like him. He is the classic playground bully that thrives on besting others. I also know he will respond to your entry or my entry, because of his need to have the last word. I also knew he would reply that he met Ann Jackson and didn't like her. How predictable was that. His answer about her was a tip-off to me into what he is. This is because I have also met Ann Jackson. I found her to be intelligent, dignified, and vastly knowledgeable about probate law. I also liked her answers about how she treats families that she has seen in probate court. (oh, side note to Teilnehmer's earlier comments - you need to check your facts. You referred to Ann Jackson as just a clerk for a probate court. Actually, she has spent the last 6 years of her entire adult career working on the bench as a hearing officer and has heard over 500 probate cases.)

I agree with you, Love2Teach, trying to make the voters believe that Ann Jackson is a Democrat; and thereby dishonest, really is the only way the other camp can hope to win undecided votes. My understanding is that she had said she had voted once for a Democrat, and this has been blown up into the big propeganda it has become. I also did some checking on the women at the press conference, yes they were pretty righteously indignant, This was because they had recently found out that Jim Whitlock had run in the past as a Democrat, and had changed to Republican after he could not win in this county as a Democrat (sounds kind of the same to me as the image he and his camp are trying to paint of Ann Jackson) I have no question that Mr. Whitlock ran as Democrat because I have personally seen a copy of the certified ballot.

And for the record Old Simon, since your style seems to be to name- call and label those that do not agree with you -- I am not related to Ann Jackson, I am not an attorney, and I would not benefit in any way shape or form from her election. I am; however, someone who is interested in what is right, and the attacks on Ann Jackson are not even a little bit right. I have looked extensively into the issues. I am also a never-been-any-other party Republican, and she absolutely has my vote, because she is, quite simply, the better candidate.

Submitted by susieq on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 10:09am.

Ditto what you just said. I have nothing against Jim Whitlock. I am voting for Ann Jackson because I believe she is better qualified than Jim. This should be a nonpartisan candidate, so I don't care if she is Democrat or Republican.

Submitted by LauraP77 on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 6:51pm.

uh-huh, right.
I think I speak for many in that we would like to see a lot more substance and are really tired of politics as usual with labeling and name calling.

Submitted by Fayette Publius on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 3:27pm.

Labeling and name calling Laura? People like you gals in the Jackson camp shouldn't throw rocks if you live in glass houses. I find it very interesting that you and the gals are perfectly content to remain silent when your fellow liberal Sniffles alludes to some falsehood about Whitlock metioned in the Free Speech column. I'm willing to bet that your camp had something to do with it being put there anyway. Seems to me you are quite able in practicing "politics as usual" when it unfairly smears your opponent. So spare us the lecture, ok?

Submitted by LauraP77 on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 12:07am.

I probably should not address you at all, but it's only right that I do. I was out campaigning all day today, and was out for the evening. I signed on around 11:30 PM. But yes, I did read that blog today somewhere around 3:45 to 3:50 in the afternoon. I know that because I had a 4:00 meeting to get to. And yes, it bothered me a good deal and I gave a lot of thought to what I wanted to say. I did post a reply when I returned home. It's irrelevant to me if you believe I posted my reply because of your message. I had not even seen your message at that point. I'm just sorry that because of your posting, Jim Whitlock will now never really know that my message to him was sincere. And no, I don't believe that sniping from either side is acceptable. If you want to call that lecturing, that's fine with me. I just would have liked to have had some real substance in this forum. Instead of focusing on hurling insults, I would like to see someone from each camp elect someone to talk about things like why their candidate is running, what their candidate can do for the community, how they would like to see the probate court run, etc. I think the public would like to hear these things, and I think it is long overdue, at least in this forum.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.