By Request: “No Comment”

So a few of you think I’m being a bit hard on Nathan Deal.

After all, he’s assured us he’s done nothing wrong. He looked forward to proving his innocence in his ethics inquiry, though he now refused to comment on the process.

Starting approximately here in a post where I asked for Deal to acknowledge whether there is a preliminary finding, and if so, release it, I’ve had a few of his loyal defenders ask why I hadn’t called to ask him.

So now I have.

I called Deal’s campaign office and his spokesperson Harris Blackwood answered the phone. When asked when Congressman Deal planned to comment on the above, he replied “I’m going to tell you the same thing I tell everyone else. You need to ask the House Committee On Standards of Official Conduct.”

I responded that he was well aware that their rules prohibit comment, and he again replied that I needed to speak to them.

I reminded him that when the ethics charges were originally filed, Deal stated that he looked forward to clearing his name, and asked him what changed in the mean time. “No Comment”

After a few more iterations of the same, I got a “that’s all I’ve got”.

So, we’re still at “No Comment”. I frankly have no idea how the Deal campaign thinks this issue is going to go away with “no comment”. As such, I intend on asking this question to be resolved any opportunity I have. I encourage you to do the same.

I don’t believe I’m the one in a corner here. I’m hoping Deal has a plan to get himself out of the one he’s painted himself in.

37 comments

  1. Doug Deal says:

    You misunderstand him, Icarus. He said that he looks forward to clearing his name. He never said that he would. Lottery players look forward to big jackpots, young kids look forward to winning the MVP award playing for their favorite team, and Natahan Deal looks forward to clearing his name, all with the same success rate.

  2. polisavvy says:

    Keep up the good work, Icarus. Once again, as I have said here before, his silence is deafening.

  3. B Balz says:

    Ick, this issue is a non-starter.

    Without any formal ethics charges, what’s the beef? Is their a hint of impropriety? Maybe si, maybe no, but asking the man to self incriminate is unrealistic.

    The allegation is not proven, so there is no culpability.

    I fully understand you want campaign folks to start making statements, but that isn’t happening. Any misstatement of fact could have legal consequences, so having an attorney handle calls keeps the information consistent and makes sense.

    If your claim PP is not a ‘retail’ political outlet holds true, then you ought not use PP to ‘create’ sensational ‘news’. It surely seems like you are stumpin’ for your candidate by impugning another.

    I’m just saying.

    • macho says:

      The problem for Deal is it would be a non-starter if he came out and said, “I don’t have an ethics report and have never seen any ethics report regarding me.” But, when you have to refer such simple questions, and answers, to your attorney, it becomes a real “starter.”

      He obviously does not want to go on record as saying he’s never seen the ethics report.

    • Capt. Jack Sparrow says:

      Harris,
      I was confused when you called this issue a “non-starter.” Is that a car that won’t start? Does the Nathan Deal Inspection Team allow those cars back on the roads? What is the fee to assess if it’s a “non-starter?” Or is a “non-starter” a government employee/legislator that won’t help a friend get a no bid contract?

  4. Technocrat says:

    Going back in history we never got a satisfactory answer to the reroute of High Tension Power lines AROUND the Deal Compound. Sure Ga Power stated when pressed ” it was in their best interest” to make a series of right angle turns around the property but what does that actually mean?

    What ever happened to the Cagle ethics investigation concerning setting up the Deal meeting in the first place which Cagle attended?

    After all, if Handel is to be in the run off she must drive every point home – FREQUENTLY.

    • kcordell says:

      It started with Nathan getting his son appointed to the judicicary bench so he could run as an imcumbent.

  5. Republican Lady says:

    Deal is shooting himself in the foot. Leave him alone so he can continue to do so. The voters can read between the lines and will respond at the polls.

  6. Sadly for the Deal campaign, this will not go away.

    At the GOP Gubernatorial Candidate debate in Warner Robins Karen Handel asked Nathan Deal about his no-bid contract with the state during the portion when candidates were allowed to ask direct questions to other candidates. It felt like the air went out of the room because everyone drew in their breath. Deal denied the existence of such a contract stating that Handel and the AJC needed to get their facts straight.

    Handel followed up by wondering what the Congressional Ethics folks were investigating if there is not a contract contract. The question needed to be asked, but more importantly it needed to be answered. It wasn’t.

  7. AlanR says:

    Just a suggestion — call the icky people at CREW and ask for background about how this stuff works before you call the campaign again or the ethics committee. They filed the complaint, or a complaint against Deal, and they file these for a living. I think they are partisan hacks and icky, but they’re good at this one thing. And they have more ethics than the ethics committee, that doesn’t have any.

    Handel’s approach, at least as reported by Ken in Eastman, is more effective politics anyway.

    • ByteMe says:

      Yep, ask him at the next debate whether he has received the results of the ethics committee investigation. Make him go into “no comment” mode in front of people who are looking for answers to determine who gets their vote. End of candidacy.

      • polisavvy says:

        I feel pretty confident that that very question will be asked and it rightfully should be asked. It will be interesting to hear the reply, that’s for sure.

        • B Balz says:

          Like I mentioned earlier, Mr. Deal is both tough and polished, I doubt you will see him walk into a public Waterloo. I predict Mr. Deal will not say, “no comment or talk to my attorney”, instead he will have an intelligent, rehearsed and prepared statement.

          To think otherwise would be to underestimate. Again, he is not my first choice for the gubernatorial nomination.

          That said, I think that several GOP candidates are going to have to carefully craft their language to answer questions meant to diminish them in front of the public. That is the nature of a race.

          Interesting to be sure.
          Y’all ought to focus your collective lens of inquiry on the current poll leader.

          • His comments at the Warner Robins debate boiled down to You can’t produce a contract, so there must not be one.

            The follow up should be, “Are you or your business receiving money from the state of Georgia or one of its agencies? If so, why do you not have a contract like everyone else?”

            • ByteMe says:

              Tense is important. “Were you…” since it was reported that the contract was terminated. Why isn’t the contract an open records request?

              • B Balz says:

                I doubt anyone disbelieves a sweetheart deal was out there. I just think that fact alone is worth the price of admission.

                The hollering about an ethics charge is a non-starter, since there is little doubt about the salvaging deal.

                • ByteMe says:

                  You’d be surprised how many people don’t know about it yet. Just the same as you’d be surprised at the number of people who don’t know that Ox is a slime. Just the same as you’d probably not be surprised at the number of people who have no (or a faulty) idea about what’s the the HCR bills.

                  People aren’t generally very tuned into the reality beyond American Idol.

                    • AlanR says:

                      alternative explanation — those not tuned to AI are too busy getting the kids to school, taking their parents to the doctor, going to work, figuring out dinner, getting the kids to baseball, and then if they get a chance they can catch up, and maybe find out what a slime Ox is.

                      By the way, I think the Adventures of Oxenhoffer would be an excellent reality show. And maybe you guys should blog the next debate in the style of American Idol.

  8. Jim Bob says:

    The politics of destruction never ceases to amaze me. Rather than wait and hear the facts. Y’all choose to base your comments on an organization who bases THEIR facts on some other unsubstantiated version of the “truth”.

    • Icarus says:

      Funny thing about this scenario, Jim Bob.

      When these politicians are asked, they always say “wait until the truth comes out.” Or even better in this case, “I look forward to clearing my name”.

      Yet, when the questions keep getting asked, we’re told to wait. And wait, and wait.

      We’re still waiting for Tim Bearden to explain why he has $100K of taxpayers money with no record of work product or a contract. We’re still waiting for John Oxendine to tell us how $120K was illegally laundered thru 10 Alabama PACS via his good friend who he’s never heard of. And we’re still waiting for Congressman Nathan Deal to tell us how he’s going to clear his good name when he now won’t even acknowledge an ethics investigation that we have proof was ongoing.

      I’m tired of waiting, and it’s not my job to enable Republicans to hide ethicals issues for fear that Democrats may benefit.

      The time to vet is now. Actually, it’s past time.

      I’ll have a lot more to say about this particular issue over the coming days. Republicans seem to only be serious about ethics reform when we’re in the minority. My guess is we’ll be very interested in it again come late November. I’d prefer we address the issue now.

      • Republican Lady says:

        I agree with your post. It makes sense and you are right, we need to address it now and not have the Dems throw it up to us in November.

  9. Jim Bob says:

    “I’m tired of waiting, and it’s not my job to enable Republicans to hide ethicals issues…’

    I suppose your job IS to impugn politicians integrity without knowing the full set of facts.

    I can’t wait to see what “more” you and your informed opinion have to say on this issue….

    • Icarus says:

      I’ll try not to keep you waiting much longer.

      In the mean time, I will continue to question why those who do have the “full set” of facts continue to answer “no comment” when the voters would also like to be so informed.

      • AlanR says:

        I’m not trying to discourage your efforts, but we don’t know for a fact anything but what was leaked through roll call. By all means, keep asking. The salvage contract should be a big issue.

        Look, as far as the ethics committee goes, its a coin flip. Its just as likely they would exonerate Deal and give him a medal as not. They really don’t give a rats backside about ethics.

  10. AlanR says:

    Better yet, if there is a report, and the committee pulled a Rangel and says Deal’s a prince, you gonna give up on the salvage yard?

    Sorry, I really don’t like the ethics committee

Comments are closed.