Clint Holland sticks to Peachtree City issues, while Crane campaign delivers insults


The runoff election for December 6 has come down to two Republican candidates, Clint Holland and Phil Crane. I guess you could describe this race as “not all Republicans are alike.”

Phil Crane and his supporters began an insult campaign in an effort to tarnish the image of the top vote getter Clint Holland. Holland keeps going back to the issues and the actual replies both candidates gave to the candidate questions issued by the Citizen. I appreciate Clint Holland taking the high road.

There really is a significant difference between the two candidates. Clint Holland offered a summary of those differences in his letter to the editor. It is well worth reading.

As for the Crane campaign team, they are incredibly lacking in substance. Phil Crane hides from the issue of the traffic congestion at the 54 and 74 Highways intersection and his supporter Jason Aldrich wrote a letter to the editor mocking Clint Holland for offering a solution for the traffic and how to make it a reality.

Crane supporter Paul Schultz wrote a letter to the editor saying Clint Holland was a smart man but that he was too old — being retired somehow invalidates his candidacy. It is laughable that the only excuse they can come up with to not vote for a well-qualified Clint Holland is he has lots of time to work on city issues because he is retired. They must go that route because their candidate Crane does not have as much time to work on city issues as a self-employed businessman.

When the campaign of the second-place vote getter has to stoop to personal attacks against Clint Holland and avoid the important election issues, the choice on the ballot is clear!

There is a huge difference between the two candidates. You will see that Clint Holland is head and shoulders above when it comes to addressing the big issues. Please do your homework before you vote on Tuesday.

Sally Odle

Peachtree City, Ga.


  1. I disagree 100% with this LTE. I havent seen anything out of the Crane campaign that I would classify as negative. On the contrary, Holland has been directly attacking Crane. Holland was also the one beating his chest in a post on where he said “it was I, Clint Holland, who…….” (I forget the exact verbiage so I’m not going to continue, but he was taking credit for something in regards to the voting precinct errors). Personally, I prefer Crane’s humble approach instead of Holland’s self-aggrandizing nature. Holland also has the support of past election loser Imker and of Brown – two other abrasive, divisive politicians who love to stir the pot and don’t offer solutions. Crane’s from here, is a business owner, and has long-term vested interest in what’s best for our city. We had a newcomer in Caola…..that didn’t work out very well. It’s Crane for me and for most of the folks I talk to.

  2. I’d say the Holland camp is waging a campaign of insults, not Dr. Crane. Holland and supporters continue to try and falsely paint Crane as a liberal – because of his age or because some who support him are not Republicans? There is not a non-conservative candidate in this run-off, both are conservative Republicans. Let’s remember that Council seats are non-partisan, and those elected are to represent all residents. Dr. Crane agreed to the debate that Mr. Holland stated that he wanted in his remarks at the Rotary forum; Holland continued to stall and drag his feet until there was not time left to schedule a debate. Have Holland’s mentors encouraged him to hide behind a keyboard instead of participating in a debate streamed and recorded (the only conditions put forth by Dr. Crane) that might expose his lack of local knowledge? To your false point regarding time to serve the city, Dr. Crane has made time to serve as a volunteer and will continue to do so as an elected member of Council. Mr. Prebor, a current Council member is also a small business owner, so there is no need to pretend Dr. Crane could not manage his time.