What they really meant

Larry Peterson's commentary regarding the accusations made against former Sen. Eric Johnson is one of the odder things I've come across in some time, and is part Peterson playing 'Karnac The Great' and part confused hit job on the Democratic Party of Georgia.

Let's leave aside some of the accusations levied at the web site, recognize that it's a piece of a larger political strategy and concede that Peterson did what any good journalist is supposed to do, which is try to weed through the spin to find the truth.

And to be fair, when it came to Johnson, Peterson started out by doing some fact-checking. He caught a few discrepencies, did the appropriate investigative work and published his results. At this point, he opted to call Matt Weyrandt, the executive director of the DPG, and the latter clarified the company line.

Then the wheels fell off ...

Two things are noteworthy about that response.

First: He tacitly conceded the evidence on the Web site isn't good enough: "You have to look beyond Johnson's role on the (authority)."

Second: He demoted Johnson from spearhead to "cheerleader."

Peterson takes off the objective, fact-checking hat and replaces it with the 'OK-I-really-don't-care-what-your-response-is-I've-already-got-a-predetermined-point-to-make' hat. And, as a result, he flagrantly inserts words into Weyrandt's mouth, suggesting that the latter thinks his own message is flawed.

In actuality, it seems as if Weyrandt is merely trying to connect the dots - that Johnson was the President Pro Tem in the State Senate who shephered legislation through that chamber while also serving as a leader on the Jekyll Island Authority - and Peterson simply can't do that on his own.

Second, I don't think it's fair to say that Johnson has to be either a 'spearhead' or a 'cheerleader.' The terms don't appear to be interchangeable to me, nor does the statement seem to suggest that. It seems to me that you can be a leader on something as well as encouraging to other folks to follow that vision. Peterson is simply projecting what Weyrandt 'really' means when he's speaking, thus assuming he's more knowledgeable about what's being said than, you know, who's actually saying it.

In doing so, Peterson's no better than Weyrandt based on the former's own criticism. Because - trying to follow his logic - the DPG put up a bad web site that needed clarifications from Weyrandt's clarifications ... and, when you read through the tea leaves, you can see he 'really' meant something else ... and, fortunately for us, only Peterson can decode this weird, secret language, so he'll gladly share his special talent with the rest of us.

It's like Peterson is Roddy Piper's character in They Live.