I smell fear . . .

Or at least, I smell something pungent. I'm imagining the thin sheen of sweat on the furrowed brows, the small veins popping out on the necks of those who are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The "Friends of Jack Conway" are desperately circling the wagons right now; they're becoming more nervous than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs; they're - wait . . . maybe I should stop the cheesy examples and cut to the chase.

The latest defender of the indefensible is Jeff Anderson, who falls into the same trap his cohort Jerry Bowman did - never pick a fight with someone who owns his own website, and if you do, make sure you tell the whole story. Neither Jerry nor Jeff has heeded either maxim.

Once again, Jeff tries the misdirection tactic, by accusing CummingHome.com as having a bias in the Conway / Harrell campaign, while at the same time praising it as a "great site". In this business, we call that a left-handed compliment.

His second point is almost laughable, as he points out that I didn't support the SPLOST vote and that my position lost badly. My question is this: What does that have to do with the lack of honesty in the Jack Conway ad printed last week? The obvious answer is: Nothing. Once again, when you can't defend, changing the debate is the only thing on which you have to hang your hat.

Once again, Jeff misses the point about claiming credit for road improvement initiatives. There are varying estimates of between 11,000 and 33,000 homes already re-zoned but not yet built. When the consistent policies of your candidate are responsible for adding most of those homes onto our infrastructure, it doesn't matter if you have been the leading champion of adding new roads that will not be built for the next 10-15 years, because YOU CAUSED THE PROBLEM! Adding road and lane additions that will move 20,000 extra cars when your actions are responsible for adding another 50,000 cars on our roads doesn't suddenly make you the King of Transportation. Which simply proves my point that the ad in question never told the whole story, and that taking credit for one thing while causing another problem is less than honest.

Jeff points out that in his (and Jerry's) opinion, I am taking this personally. He is once again wrong. He claims that it is because I am on "the wrong end of votes". I can't disagree more. I am on the LOSING side of many re-zoning votes, but am not on the wrong side of votes according to my campaign promises, which, by the way, I actually keep. I will also point out once again that Jack's ad simply had the misfortune to be the first real political ad of the season, and had numerous and glaring discrepancies from the truth. Any ads that other candidates happen to try to put over on the voters that take credit where credit is not due will get the same scrutiny from me.

Jeff's fifth point is embarrassing, and shows the level of deception these people are willing to go to in order to maintain their base of power. Jeff's group (the Northern Area Task Force) did indeed endorse me for commissioner, and I was grateful for their support at the time, and still am. But understand this: Jeff Anderson and Jerry Bowman have never contributed one thin dime to my campaign. Their efforts on behalf of the NATF were largely designed to elect their chosen candidate in District 2, Brian Tam. The truth is they would have spent the money they did solely on electing Brian anyway. I, and the others they supported, were merely footnotes on the campaign flyer. And let's be honest; in my race, who else were they going to support? The guy who didn't bother to campaign?

Finally, Jeff Anderson finishes his article by again attacking the messenger, and not the message. Maybe if Jeff spent a little more time seeing what is actually going on in this county, and not just listening to the voices of only those he supports, he would know how fair, balanced, and open CummingHome.com has been in the political process. And he would know how wrong it was to sign on to that ad last week.

I can't wait for the next rebuttal. Who will it be from next time? The development community that has become enriched by their candidate's policies? The real estate community that fights for "property rights" while suggesting changes in our laws that favor them? Or will we hear from the Planning Commission side of the argument? I love it when the powerful begin to feel their power base crumble.