CLARIFICATION #1

In our December 2 issue concerning the antics of Cobb County Republican Anthony-Scott Hobbs, we made a statement regarding the Sons of Confederate Veterans that was misleading.

The item discussed stated that the SCV had hopped onboard Hobbs' wagon because he was going to take-up their issue of the state flag. This statement left readers with the impression that the entire Georgia organization of SCV had taken a shine to Hobbs. This is an incorrect conclusion that we regret leaving with the reader.

The members of SCV who appear to have sided with Hobbs are those SCV members who reside in Cobb County, and, therefore, have a direct effect on the Cobb County Chairmanship. It is these folks, who also happen to be the same folks who worship current Cobb GOP Chair Marilyn Gilhuly, who have pledged their allegiance to Hobbs.

For point of reference to all concerned, there are only two individuals who have been designated to be official spokesmen for the Georgia SCV: Dan Coleman and Jack Bridwell. Any comments made by or on behalf of other members of the SCV who are not Mr. Coleman or Mr. Bridwell, may likely be the speaker's own opinion and not reflect the official position of the SCV.

In the future, we will go great lengths to more clearly identify which geographic area the particular members of SCV are from that we are concerned with, or just mention them by name, with the hope that our political paint splattering does not insult the entire organization. Because, based on an e-mail exchange with Division Commander Bridwell, individual members of the Georgia SCV such as himself are concerned with issues like education, redistricting, the Northern Arc and a list of other issues.

So, we now know that the entire organization of SCV is not represented by the actions of their breathren in Cobb County. And, we appreciate the education from those of you in e-mail.

CLARIFICATION #2

With regard to Mr. Anthony-Scott Hobbs' fundraising tactics discussed in the December 2 issue, we want to make it clear that his actions and methods are his and his alone. We know for a fact that Governor-Elect Sonny Perdue is against using the type of tactics that Hobbs reportedly has engaged in (e.g., telling business owners that they can get "right with the Governor" if they contribute $1000 to Hobbs' fundraising kitty). Governor-Elect Perdue isn't Roy Barnes and a significant part of his change for "A New Georgia" is fair treatment to all entities regardless of the past.

CLARIFICATION #3

We have heard from several sources that Mr. Hobbs does not like being named in our publication and thinks that anyone expressing a less-than-positive opinion of him should be sued. In fact, apparently, he is in the process of drawing-up a lawsuit that is supposedly headed directly to the doorsteps of the Political Vine.

The fact is, we've been threatened with such action before. Apparently, there are people (like Mr. Hobbs) involved in politics who object to other people disagreeing with them, and publicizing their disagreements.

Mr. Hobbs, as a so-often stated party officer (of whatever position he claims at the time) is not the "private citizen" he thinks he is. In fact, one has to only go back over the year's worth of Marietta Daily Journals to identify all of the times Hobbs' name has been mentioned in Bill Kinney's Around Town section in connection with the Cobb GOP to conclude that Mr. Hobbs is, indeed, quite a "public figure" and therefore not protected by the "private citizen" theory of law. (And, if we are sued, we will do that research, Anthony.)

Recently, Mr. Hobbs was interviewed and quoted in a Washington Times article dated November 7, 2002. He then represented himself as "Chairman of The Georgia Grassroots Republican Action Committee" (bear in mind that we have no idea if such an organization actually exists). That also makes him a public figure not subject to the same protections as a "private figure" would be protected by.

Finally, there was a very interesting libel suit that recently had a decision handed down by the Georgia Supreme Court. The case concerned a farmer, Bruce Mathis of Crisp County, Georgia, who was sued for blasting his frustrations against an Albany waste-managment executive, Thomas C. Cannon, on an Internet website.

Mathis, using a pseudonym, logged onto the message board and typed a message calling Cannon a "thief" and a "crook."

Cannon called the comments false and without foundation, and sued Mathis seeking $1 million in punitive damages.

In a 4-3 decision, the State Supreme Court held that the free speech principles that protected newspapers and broadcast media also apply to individual postings on the Internet. The Court determined that Cannon was a "limited purpose public figure" and therefore this required Cannon to prove Mathis published the accusatory statements knowing they were false.

To the potential case of Hobbs vs. Political Vine, we can safely say that we've never even gone so far as to publish anything calling Mr. Hobbs a "crook" or a "liar" as Mathis did Cannon. We predict it's going to be darned difficult for a court to determine that the things PV finds distasteful with Mr. Hobbs (and publishing them) will constitute a winnable action either for Mr. Hobbs. (But, if we are sued, we will counter-sue for all legal costs...and we bet we win, Anthony.)

SO, the conclusion here is, if you have made yourself out to be a "public figure," you've opened yourself up to meeting a lower bar for "privacy" concerns. And, if you are involved in politics, and don't like the criticism either the PV or anyone else dishes out, we seriously advise you to learn to be a tougher...nut, so to speak. Because, to the majority of people outside of politics, we politically-connected folks are ALL nuts to some degree. :-)