Was Johnny Bribed?

Johnny Isakson has been over at the White House meeting on the immigration bill. It was well noticed this past week as well that Johnny passed over several senior senators to sit on the Senate Finance Committee.
[UPDATE: Isakson got ethics, not Finance, as Jeff correctly noted]

So, was Johnny bribed to vote for the immigration bill?

UPDATE Again: It looks like Johnny was not only not bribed, but may vote against the bill. The question, however is if he’ll vote for cloture, in which case he’s really voting to pass the bill while claiming he voted against it.


  1. patriot says:


    Senate Finance Committee, AND Ethics Committee, and no re-election to worry about for 3 years, BIG BUSINESS support… how sweet it is !!

    If only he didn’t have to worry about what “we the people” think and say…

    IF ONLY He would listen to US, and be loyal to REPUBLICAN principles, and to upholding the rule of law and our National Sovereignty…

    He is in a position to do great good, OR GREAT HARM.

  2. Ragnar Danneskjöld says:

    Of course he was bribbed. That’s the way the system works up there. I don’t think the issue can even be debated.

    Amen Patriot.

  3. IndyInjun says:

    One supposes that they ALL have cushy, multi-million salaries awaiting in reward for their perfidy.

  4. DMZDave says:

    That damn Johnny, he considered the long term economic interests of his constituents and helped broker a deal that will for the first time not only effectively deal with illegals here now but also make it nearly impossible for future illegals to find employment given the document and employment verification requirements. What’s he thinking?

    Like most of the folks on this blog, I too am upset by how bad all these hard working folks coming into our country make my lazy relatives look. And IndyInjun, Johnny gave up a million dollar salary when he ran for the Senate. Johnny’s “problem” is he actually knows how to build and run a business which makes it very hard to relate to a lot of folks in the “base.”

  5. GoUgaDawgs says:

    Obviously, there has to be a payout for someone to get a seat on one of the most thankless committees in the Senate.

    Just so you know, there are really only so many members that have the committee assignments to be eligible. During a tour of the Senate (and I could butcher this explanation), Republican Senators are limited by their caucus rules to be able to serve on so many plum committees. The Committees are assigned a value (Super A, A, B, and C). The Super A Committees are Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Approps (I think). I am not sure of the rest of the order at all, but I think examples of the “A level” committees are Health, Labor and Pensions andAgriculture. While some of the lower profile committees (Indian Affairs) is either a B or a C. (Again, I could be butchering this.)

    That being said, there are probably only a few options of folks that are able to fit this committee into their committee profile. Not to mention, I would thinkg that Johnny is considered one of the more pragmatic Senators on the Hill, for a committee that could use one.

  6. IndyInjun says:

    Johnny’s problem is that he totally abandoned the principles of his party and conservatism ever since he got to DC.

  7. IndyInjun says:

    Yes, Erick, he got there because his opponent was Majette-stic.

    The same dynamic with the make-up of the Democratic Party may result in Chambliss having a similarly weak opponent in 2008.

    Johnny is in it for the POWER more than the money and it is POWER that seemingly has the party-loyalty-no-matter-what crowd joined at the hips of two incumbents who have done enormous damage to us all in the last 6 years.

  8. rightofcenter says:

    Since this is your blog and you have frontpage privileges, perhaps you would do us all a favor and tell us what the principles of the Republican Party are and specifically what Johnny has done to violate them. Perhaps Johnny’s biggest “sin” is that he is first an American who wants to see issues solved or at least improved, and secondly a Republican. Really, you, Shawn, and Rush should get together and issue position statements on every issue that comes down the pike. Then every “good” Republican can shout “Hiel Hitler” and know exactly what their position is, without actually having to engage the brain or consider different viewpoints on issues.

  9. DMZDave says:

    Johnny abandoned Republican principles? Please. Good summary by GoUgaDawgs with one small nit. The Super A committees include Finance (tax policy); Appropriations; Armed Services and Foreign Relations though why anyone would want to get on and stay on Foreign Relations is beyond me. I’m sure when Johnny has a chance to go to a better committee he will.

    Johnny busted his tail to help Delta because it is so vitally important for our city and state. He has about the best staff on Capitol Hill (I have never worked for him) and he has quickly earned a reputation as someone who is very smart, very capable, hard working and who cares deeply about the state of Georgia and helping the state achieve the greatness that is possible. He built a successful business and has worked in a bipartisan manner and given of his time freely to make the state a better place. Not sure which Republican principles he’s violating but hope he keeps it up. Loyalty to state and country is more important than loyalty to party any day. I hope Johnny comes home and runs for governor because we could use his abundant common sense and ability to make things happen here at home.

  10. Pingback: Save The GOP
  11. Bull Moose says:

    Johnn Isakson got a seat on Ethics because he is known as a hardworking and serious legislator.

    And anyone that has met Johnny Isakson knows that man isn’t for sale!

  12. Know Nothing says:

    People thinking Johnny was bribed with a seat on the thics committee truly don’t understand anything about the Senate and how committees are assigned.

    The ethics committee is not a prestiged super a, and most members don’t actually like to be on it (contrary to what they say publically). Seniority doesn’t mean shit.

  13. Bill Simon says:


    YOu had better get your butt on this thread and give a bit more detailed explanation of how WRONG your original post was with regards to Senator Isakson being “bribed” so he could get a seat on whatever committee it is. He got on there because one of the other senators DIED and the GOP had to find a replacement and they knew that Johnny fits the bill of “if you want to get something done, give it to busy man/woman.”

    All the comments from others on your “bribery supposition” is a complete waste of mindless blog drivel.

    At least I have a tendency to issue “CORRECTIONS” in an attention- getting format so people will know when I’ve made a mistake…you just issue vague “[UPDATES]” without any mea culpa.

  14. IndyInjun says:

    Isakson is a very nice man, BUT….

    He is a traitor to conservatism.

    We need LEADERSHIP, not men who think nothing of funding THEIR MAD SPENDING by borrowing trillions from the Chinese, sit unquestioning while the greatest wave of FRAUD in USA history is perpetrated by others of their party, vote for gargantuan social spending programs supposedly anathema to same party, and cheerlead an idiot of a POTUS into a war they have no inkling how to successfully conclude.

    Johnny might be hard working, but he is hard at work digging the USA into an insurmountable pit.

  15. rightofcenter says:

    “He is a traitor to conservatism.”

    Injun, with that quote, you sum up very nicely the problem I have with conservative ideologues. The “true” conservatives are supposed to put their conservative “principles” above all else, even including the best interests of the country.

    A conservative ideologue first considers what the conservative position on an issue is……A conservative pragmatist first considers what the “best solution” to an issue is, which is usually (but not always) a conservative position. Our best legislators (and presidents) have been conservative pragmatists, not conservative ideologues. Reagan governed as a conservative pragmatist, not an ideologue despite what many on the right and the left think. And thank goodness for that.

  16. IndyInjun says:

    A PARTISAN like Isakson first considers what the “best thing for the party” is, which is usually NOT a conservative position.

    Borrowing $trillions from the Chinese, thereby placing us all hostage to that enemy power, was not only an abandonment of fiscal conservatism, it makes us all far less safe. In doing so, Isakson followed the Cheney dictum that “deficits don’t matter,” like some draft animal being led by a nose ring.

    Your definition of “pragmatist” fits a HACK a whole lot better than anything else.

    Isakson et al have turned the USA into a house of cards by following blind partisan, not good sense or judgements. You can TRY all you want to SPIN IT otherwise.

    The truth hurts and the truth is that Isakson stands only to promote his own interests first(which coincide with how his corporate masters dictate), his party’s second, and America’s dead last.

  17. Bill Simon says:


    It’s funny, but when you first started posting on here, you sounded intelligent. Now you sound like just another Member of The Whiiiiiners.

    Isakson is not the selfish person you paint him to be. He’s not a “traitor” to anything or anyone.

    The bullsh*t that Erick wrote to initiate this thread is just that, bullsh*t and flat-out incorrect lies.

  18. IndyInjun says:


    I prefer to think of my stand as PRINCIPLED.

    Does Johnny have ANY that coincide with conservatism? It seems to me that he fits more comfortably within the Democratic Party.

    I voted for the man and find him likeable, but now wish to like him as a retired senator.

    As much as he would like us to forget his RECORD, I am one who will keep reminding others until the cows come home……..or Johnny.

  19. mondaymorningqb says:


    Funny….according to the American Conservative Union, Johnny’s conservative rating was at 96 in 2006 which was higher than Jeff Sessions, Tom Tancredo, David Vitter, and tied with John Cornyn.

    So to answer your question, I would say that MOST of his stands coincide with conservatism.

    Or is the ACU a bunch of “liberal” sell-outs? For some reason, I don’t think that dog will hunt.

  20. IndyInjun says:


    Those ratings are just inside-the-Beltway BS.

    Voting on the side of the current administration’s proposal’s as reliably as a street walker is why the GOP is doomed and that is what the ratings measure.

    Besides, my criticism are based on his performance in Congress, not just the Senate. In the House he voted for No Child Left Behind and Medicare D.

    Anyone who voted for Medicare D is no conservative IMHO and that is not subject to negotiation.

    Take a look at his Delta bail out. It gave $billions in pension funding relief, put on the backs of tens of million of us who have no pensions at all, in order to bail out a private company that had just paid $10 million in severance to a departing CEO, with said deal allowing for more big pay-outs. (To his credit Grinstein elected to surrender his pension and that is a worthy story, but another story)

    Dems = Isakson = Patsies for corporate manipulators= Poison for You and Me.

  21. rightofcenter says:

    Mr. Erick (who I don’t know personally),
    It appears that your credibility has taken a big hit with your incendiary comments regarding Sen. Isakson. To question someone’ s judgement is one thing, but to question their integrity and/or honesty is a different matter all together. It would appear to a casual, unconnected observer that you have gone “national” and are trying to adopt the (in my opinion bad) habits of Hannity, Limbaugh, and the like by largely dismissing those with whom you disagree by questioning their motives and integrity.

  22. The people of Mexico are beautiful, unfortunately their government’s attention to infrastructure and the well being of it’s people is not. The Mexican Government resembles GDOT in more than a few ways.

    Has anyone considered studying up and shining light on the elected leaders and conditions inside of Mexico that motivate human beings to risk their lives, leave their families and come here to work for peanuts?

    If so, start here:

  23. IndyInjun says:

    No, Bill and I held my nose and voted for him against Majette , but I didn’t want to.

    Since then, he has been a toady for the worst administration in US history as a senator.

    Voters have always had a huge distain for Congress, but a huge inclination to accept that one of their own wallows in the corruption with the rest. We need to change this perception.

    I intend to remind as many folks as possible in Georgia that “our own” have stabbed us in the back relative to the PRINCIPLES that they were supposed to champion.

    Isakson is a nice man. However, just as a wayward child must be sat down as punishment, lest misbehavior be rewarded, so must a wayward politician. Letting their harmful actions pass just encourages more of the same.

    WE have no other leverage upon them.

  24. mondaymorningqb says:


    In your own words:

    “Besides, my criticism are based on his performance in Congress, not just the Senate. In the House he voted for No Child Left Behind and Medicare D.”


    “I voted for the man and find him likeable, but now wish to like him as a retired senator.”

    So, I guess that either his votes for No Child Left Behind and Medicare D had no effect on your voting for him for Senate or you didn’t vote for him for the Senate but did vote for him when he ran in the Sixth District Congressional seat.

    If it was the former, then you wisely took in consideration the whole body of work of the man before voting for him even though you disagreed with some of his positions. Too bad you won’t extend him the same curtesy now.

    Look, I am as wary as most on the whole immigration discussion. Close the borders and fine the companies that hire illegals to start.

    However, I am not going to throw my representatives under the bus until the entire scene is played. And I’m sure as heck not going to lie about their voting records to score points because they won’t engage in rank histrionics during the debate.

    Call the ACU ratings “inside the beltway BS” all you want, but they are based on a wide spectrum of votes that are important to most conservatives. Under that criteria and others, I’ll more than give Johnny the benefit of the doubt.


  25. IndyInjun says:


    As noted in my more recent posting, I did give him the benefit of the doubt – once.

    However, he, with Cornyn and nearly all of the other GOP senators stood silently by whilte this nation was ravaged by the excesses of his party leader.

    THAT is not excusable here.

    If Charlie Norwood had enough backbone to stand against the insane spending, there is no excuse for the rest of them.

    I am more than willing to vote for a Dem at this point than reward a hack.

    The more immediate concern is Chambliss. He must go. Isakson is much, much better than Chambliss.

    Isakson still has time to redeem himself and the immigration entanglement is not a killer IMHO.

    The choice for conservatives should be clear – put up opposition to Chambliss in the sake of reforming the party and bringing it back to principles. Otherwise folks like me will regretfully take the punishment of having a Dem in office for six years just to get an imposter – an OBSTACLE TO CONSERVATISM – out of the dad-gummed way.

    No, Johnny is not resignatio ad infernum – YET – but he is close enough to feel the flames.

  26. Bill Simon says:


    But, really now, isn’t it true that all of these Republicans, including Gee-org Bush, made certain that the ONLY marriage that was going to be allowed to exist in these United States (excluding the Peoples’ Republics of Vermont and California) was heterosexual marriage?

    Shame on you for turning your back on the very conservatives who were willing and able to go to hand-to-hand combat (if necessary) to fight against the most horrid concept in the world…even MORE horrid than illegal immigration? I am talking about, of course, “gay marriage.”

    Frankly, if this is how you show gratitude towards your “conservative leaders,” then I wouldn’t be a BIT surprised to have the whole nation go completely Democrat in 2008. AND, you know what those Godless heathens will do then, don’t you? They’ll legalize gay marriage.

    Better be careful of what you wish for…and, what you cry about.

  27. IndyInjun says:


    That thought occurred to me, but in the END analysis, my rump has been so violated by the GOP feeling it trying to steal my wallet and with their other hand groping my crotch in their quest for my pocket change that I probably won’t notice what the Dems do.

    A Dem blow-out in 2008 is ALMOST the last thing I want to see, but it comes in second to seeing this current corrupt GOP occupy the opposition seats for another term.

    At least the former will FORCE the GOP to reform or die.

  28. Lee Benedict says:

    BOTH of our US Senators have become Washingtonized and need to go. I sincerely hope that (pending Tuesday’s results) Bill Greene, Mark Meyers, Nate Pulliam, or Erik Underwood challenge Saxby next year, and Johnny soon thereafter. These 2 are a disgrace and the reason why we are in this quagmire.

  29. Bill Simon says:


    I’ll give you the same line I gave Indy (albeit package slightly differently): Remember, people like YOU are so more focused on getting people to toe a “pro-life” line that, quite frankly, you get the result you get.

    Saxby’s Mr. Pro-Life all the way. But, he cannot think for himself about anything else related to being a true fiscal conservative.

    The same can be said about the preNovember 2006 leadership in the House: ALL pro-life robots, yet, people like YOU ignored all of their other foibles just so you could chant “pro-life! pro-life!”.

    There were lots of other TRUE FISCAL, LESS-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES who did run for office in the last 10 years. But, because they didn’t toe your line, you didn’t want them.

    I’m actually a lot like Indy, but for different reasons. If the GOP loses all power in 2008, that will demonstrate that the “pro-life” mantra isn’t worth a crap when it comes to TRUE CONSERVATISM and TRUE REPUBLICAN IDEALS.

    Abraham Lincoln got elected due to less government beliefes, not pro-life idiocy.

  30. Lee Benedict says:


    I NEVER said anything about pro-life, so how can you accuse me of being a “pro-life robot”? All I said was that Johnny and Saxby have become Washingtonized…then you rattle off some pro-life versus true conservatism and true republican ideals diatribe. You made a few sweeping generalizations about me that are unfounded and simply not true.

  31. Bill Simon says:


    Have you clicked your own LeeBenedict.com hyper-link lately?

    “Lee has been certified as pro-life by the Georgia Right To Life.”

    Don’t hide from the truth, Lee. You’re a robot…cannot think about any other goal in life but the pro-life issue.

  32. Lee Benedict says:


    Thanks for visiting my site. I hate to disappoint you, but I am not “a robot…cannot think about any other goal in life but the pro-life issue.” Just because one is pro-life, does not mean that s/he lives and breathes it. My opposition to Johnny and Saxby is, as stated before, stemming from their Washingtonization. Since you injected the pro-life piece, I believe that they are BOTH pro-lifers. Again my friend, you are stereotyping and making sweeping generalizations.

  33. Bill Simon says:


    If you had something MORE substantial on your Website about yourself, I’d believe you.

    But, since you do not, one can only presume you wish to be defined by your stance on pro-life.

    My original post (3-4 posts up) concerned the fact that all you pro-life robots cared about was a candidate being pro-life; you didn’t bother to find out if they actually had a brain to work and vote like a conservative.

    Thus, I repeat, we get the government we have: people whose only qualfication to get your vote was that they be pro-life. Other than that, they can be a complete moron…which is why we lost our power in Congress in 2006. Because the leadership couldn’t lead beyond affairs like the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

  34. Lee Benedict says:

    Come on dude…I have 10 pages (plus links) on my website that in detail explain me and my views. The only pro-life piece was what you saw on the homepage. If you look at the ENTIRE site you will see that you might have misjudged me. BTW, The Southern Party of Georgia recommend me, and it is a grassroots conservative organization.

  35. Bill Simon says:

    SPoG used to be THE party calling for another round of an 1860s-vintage civil war and declaring that Georgia should secede from the Union.

    They may have buried their purpose somewhere on their pages (or, deleted those pages), but, Lee, they are not for the “conservative” type of government you think they are for.

Comments are closed.