Given the Implications

Given the implications of the Democrats’ push for nationalized health care, the Deal resignation is serious. In a situation when every vote counts, it means the Democrats have to count one less vote.

If health care passes by one vote in the House, Nathan Deal owns the vote.

But there is something else the AJC article hints at.

The House Ethics Committee just found Charlie Rangel to be in breach of House ethics rules. Rarely does the House do something like this without also finding a Republican in breach. Deal has a pending and serious ethics investigation going on in the House over his contracts with the state government.

His resignation from Congress means the ethics investigation goes away. Why would he resign with health care on the line unless he suspects the House is going to smack him as the Republican to go down with Charlie Rangel?

He could, in fact, stick around, vote no on health care, then resign after that vote, which will be up in several weeks. But he is instead giving up the game now — or in a couple of weeks. That makes it suspicious.


  1. Bucky Plyler says:

    I’m not a Deal supporter. The R’s don’t have the numbers to defeat healthcare in the House, so I don’t understand that arguement.

    • The Dems (aka Madame Pelosi) will have a tremendously difficult time finding people to vote for this bill. This time, NO Republican will vote for it and it passed before by (I believe) two votes. With even more people against the bill now than before, Deal’s absence may mean a lot.

  2. inlimine says:

    I just wonder if he will still find out about that pesky birth certificate for his constituents.

  3. Mike Hauncho says:

    Whether or not he would be found guilty of ethics violations, he will always have that cloud over his campaign because he never stuck around to clear his name. Now, Deal will not get into a runoff because of the special election, his possible ethics violation, and bailing before the health care vote. He may save face but it will cost him the election.

    Four of the House members who voted for the Health Care bill have since resigned or publically changed their mind. That means there is a one vote difference. One vote could make all the difference, one way or the other.

  4. Mozart says:

    He took the time to quote the Bible in his resignation, and you accuse him of not being on the up and up? Shameful, Erick, just shameful.

    “The Bible teaches us that “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”

  5. Progressive Dem says:

    “the Democrats’ push for nationalized health care” …that’s a gross overstatement.

      • Progressive Dem says:

        Apparently anytime the federal government regulates an industry, it “nationalizes”.

        • Mozart says:

          Ummm, yup. What would you call it if not “nationalizing” it?

          I’ll bet on “progressivizing” it, just to make sure your cup runneth over with more re-hashed propaganda.

          • benevolus says:

            Picture Don Adams (agent 86):
            OK, would you believe “temporarily” nationalizing it?

            • Progressive Dem says:

              When you purchase insurance, pay a doctor or hospital bill, you are not going to write the check to the United States of America. If we had a single-payer system as they have in many countries, you might. To call it “nationalization” is a complete mischaracterization, and that is properly called propaganda.

              This bill, just like the ‘radical’ law Rominey passed in Massachusetts, requires individuals to purchase PRIVATE medical insurance (kinda like we have to purchase auto insurance).

              After the Senate version passed, the stock value of insurance companies jumped. Funny, the stock market didn’t see it as a government take-over either.

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                Getting closer to the truth. Fed. governement requiring citizens to puchace a service.

                • ByteMe says:

                  Just like the state does with auto insurance. No biggie, since the money is being spent on health care one way or the other.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Exactly! Not sure why others don’t get that health insurance is more important than auto insurance.

                      I hope your health insurance is working for you now in case your flu gets worse.

                    • IndyInjun says:

                      Not sure why others don’t get that health insurance is more important than auto insurance.

                      For some it is a choice between literal cost of living and paying insurance premiums.

                      Increasing exclusions in policies also have made some question whether they really have any health insurance at all. If they do, it may only be for the interim between a major illness and the next premium setting date.

                    • IndyInjun says:


                      It is an unconstitutional usurpation of states rights by the Federal government.

                      It matters not to me whether they pass it or not, because it is 1) no workable in any event and 2) the people won’t comply with it.

                      Plus, I am sure you will be delighted at what it does to the Dems. I will too, but will be casting a wary eye on the “republicans” especially if they are the DC denizens we have now.

                      Chalk this up as one we agree on.

                  • GOPGeorgia says:

                    The federal government doesn’t make me purchase auto insurance. The state of Georgia does. It gets down to what is the (legal/constitutional) roll of the government. Is this something the federal government should be doing, or should it be addressed by the states? Is congress relying on the commerce clause to call this a constitutional law?

  6. Silent Outrage says:

    Deal has to resign almost immediately to make the ethics investigation, of which he was going to be found guilty, go away. He had no other choice.

    This makes it go away. However, what Deal can and should do, if he truly believes he’s innocent, is ask the House Ethics Committee to release the findings of its investigation. It’s been done before and could be done again if Deal so requests.

    One thing is for sure, it really is time for GA and other states to stop electing self serving politicians to Congress. This goes for Republicans and Democrats. Self serving politicians from both parties are the problem in Washington, DC. We certainly don’t need anymore and we don’t need one of them coming home to be Governor of Georgia.

    Thanks, but no thanks I’ll pass on this Deal…

  7. MouthoftheSouth says:

    “Given the implications of the Democrats’ push for nationalized health care, the Deal resignation is serious. In a situation when every vote counts, it means the Democrats have to count one less vote.

    If health care passes by one vote in the House, Nathan Deal owns the vote.”

    This shows a complete misunderstanding of how the House of Representatives works. In fact, it shows a lack of knowledge of how any legislature works. Wasn’t Erick Legislative Counsel a few years ago? Was it just an excuse to get in a dig at Health Care? Nice. The combination of lack of comprehension of government combined with over the top rhetoric really helps democracy in our country. Well done.

  8. MouthoftheSouth says:

    I was informed that Erick is referring to only the majority rule, without any of the actual workings of the legislature, so there are 431 current reps (without Deal) and thus 216 are required for a majority; with Deal, 216 is a tie.

    • GOPGeorgia says:

      FYI, 435 minus 3 dems and then minus Deal = 431. The math shows that Deal resigning, with all things staying constant, does not reduce the GOP’s chance of blocking Obomacare. Take into consideration that a certain portion of Dems won’t support it without a single payer option, another portion won’t support it without funding for abortions, another potion won’t support with funding for abortions, and it all means that it’s not very likely to pass.

      A bipartisan bill is not likely either based upon refusal to consider about 70 suggestions from GOP lawmakers. Then we could have the whole “it is constitutional or not” debate.

Comments are closed.