Tea Party Gains Momentum At Ballot Box, But Not All Are Anti-Incumbent

Candidates who have embraced the Tea Party are doing well in Republican primaries. Rand Paul won handily last night in Kentucky’s Senate primary. Tom Graves finished in a strong first place in the Georgia 9th Congressional District last week, and is the heavy favorite to be the victor in an early June runoff contest against a candidate that at one time sought to distance himself from the Tea Parties.

Listening to the paid pundits on TV last night (people really get paid for this?), I was struck by the universally accepted known-fact that all Tea Partiers are anti-incumbent, angry, and just want to throw all the bums out.

To be fair, there is clearly a lot of that sentiment within the Tea Party. Many incumbents have ducked the groups altogether, some going so far as to change parties rather than have to actually listen to the constituents they are supposed to be actually representing. (See: Specter, Arlen; Soon to be former Senator from PA)

In Georgia, however, we have a U.S. Senator who has not run from the Tea Party, but has sought out their meetings, spoken to them, and – more importantly – listened. Isakson has attended local Tea Party meetings in Marietta, Roswell, and Calhoun. He’s attended numerous D.C. Tea Party events as well. The Polk County Tea Party has officially extended an endorsement to Isakson, and other groups who choose not to endorse have officers who are actively working and supporting Isakson’s re-election.

Isakson is keenly aware of the mood that is demanding change in our Federal Government. He is also aware that he has a record, and is willing to stand on it, and defend it. Rather than run from the questions, and pretend that there are no critics, he has instead sought to seek them out, discuss, and seek common ground.

This process is not unlike the skills used to save Delta’s employee pension plan over the objections of the Bush Whitehouse at no cost to the taxpayer, or to grant and extend housing tax credits as a member of the minority party. He knows how to work with people who are not pre-disposed to see things his way. But he’s willing to talk, and he’s willing to listen. And he’s always ready to work. And he’s working for re-election, one vote at the time.

He has mine. I hope you’ll let him earn yours.


  1. Chris says:

    I want Isakson’s head on a pike for TARP, medicare part-d, and voting for Bush’s bloated budgets.

    But you make good points.

    Politics is about compromise. I say we put Johnny’s head on a pike and send it back to DC.

    • DMZDave says:

      I think Newt said it best on TARP. When the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Fed and the President tell you that our nation risks a full out economic depression if we don’t pass TARP immediately, it would be irresponsible for someone to risk the ec0nomic destruction of the country and substitute their judgment. Today, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and no way to prove what might have happened absent TARP it is easy to throw rocks but Johnny took a tough vote and based on the dangers we faced, the right vote. Paulson and Bernanke let him and us all down in the implementation and oversight.

      • acoalson says:


        Johnny doesn’t work for the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Fed, or the President; he works for the people of Georgia, and is ultamitely there to do their will. Tarp was not the will of the people.

        • ByteMe says:

          he will of the people

          Same people who went out and were spending (according to published stats) 102% of their savings each month? Sounds like TARP was exactly the will of the people.

  2. Tyler says:

    Johnny lent me his ear on several questions. I had questions and he gave me straight answers in return and knows what must be done in Washington. He’s got my vote and my support.

  3. HowardRoark says:

    I went when Johnny spoke to my local county GOP meeting and there were several self identified members of the Tea Party there. He fielded a lot of very pointed questions. He was direct and didn’t mince words. In Jim Cramer terms, that day Johnny went from a “Don’t Buy” to a “Hold” in my book. Still not my favorite Senator, but serviceable.

  4. Justin Tomczak says:

    I’ll admit that Herman Cain received my vote in the primary, but since then I have gained a lot of respect for Senator Isakson.

    In my humble opinion, he has served this state well. And while I do not agree with all of his votes/positions, overall he has been an effective representative and is deserving of another term.

    I will do what I can to help ensure that he wins over the Democrat, Mike Thurmond.

  5. John Konop says:

    Rand Paul ran on getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq ASAP to save money. How does this play in the GOP?

    How do the Democrats explain to their base Obama following the Bush war strategy in the Middle East?

    And in the GOP lost Murtha seat that went for McCain in a special election, how did this happen?

    And Specter got beat in the Dem primary by a former military guy who sounds like Rand Paul on foreign policy.

    The American people want out of the nation building strategy we cannot afford and is not working.

          • Bucky Plyler says:

            His aid won on pro-life, opposing Obama care, & fiscal conservatism in a Dem. primary .

              • Bucky Plyler says:

                No John, Critz doesn’t look like Rand Paul at all. Rand looks like his father, Ron to me. Th point is that Critz had to distance himself from the policies of Obama & the current Congress in order to win a Dem. primary.

                • benevolus says:

                  “Paul shared the limelight with his dad on election night, but the newly minted Senate nominee carefully distanced himself from some of his father’s views Wednesday. ”

                  ” Rand Paul took a more moderate tone on Wednesday ”
                  “A year ago, Paul was calling (Medicare) “socialized medicine” . Less than 24 hours after his primary win..Paul was still saying… he would not change the rules for retirees or Americans nearing retirement.”


                • benevolus says:

                  Critz was nominated by the Dem Party to be their candidate in this special election. No primary. He beat a Tea Party Republican.
                  Obama lost the district in 08.

                  The other guy was further away from “Obama and the current Congress” but they chose Critz anyway.

      • Harry says:

        It’s said the GOP base in PA had no paramount reason to turn out, such as the Democrats had with their senate primary. It means the GOP still has a good shot at the seat in November, if they run a strong candidate.

        • John Konop says:

          People are angry about the budget and the truth is the burn rate of money in the Middle East would solve some short term issue at home. And many on both sides realize we cannot afford our current foreign policy.

          • Mayonnaise says:

            Wishful thinking. Last night’s elections had nothing to do with the Middle East.

            • John Konop says:

              Like it or not it is what it is!

              Kentucky primary reveals GOP rift on Afghan war

              …The other difference is on national defense.

              Paul says invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, and while he supported the attack on Afghanistan, he expresses reservations about President Obama’s mission for U.S. forces there and speaks about the need to scale back overseas commitments.

              Grayson, meanwhile, defends the Iraq invasion and argues for a long-term commitment to Afghanistan as part of “keeping America on the offensive” in the war on terrorism.

              Grayson hammered Paul on the difference with some nasty ads, suggesting that Paul had blamed America for the Sept. 11 attacks because he had argued that previous American policies had helped galvanize Islamists.

              The Grayson strategy was to tie Paul to the “truther” movement that holds that Sept. 11 was an act of mass murder perpetrated by the Bush administration.

              That’s how Grayson won the backing of former Vice President Cheney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who bashed Paul just as he had derided Paul’s father in the 2008 Republican primaries.

              Pundits expected Paul’s insurgent candidacy to fizzle

              But Paul hit back hard. His response ad used images from the Sept. 11 attacks and said “fighting back was the right thing to do.” He then spoke directly to Grayson, saying “your shameful TV ad is a lie, and it dishonors you.”

              His message on the stump was that he wanted America have the most powerful military in the world as a deterrent to our enemies, not to be a policeman or a community organizer to failed nations…..


            • Game Fan says:

              “Last night’s elections had nothing to do with the Middle East”.

              Are you serious? Nothing? As in a non-factor? HA. Supposedly Tea Partiers are somewhat neutral on the war, especially if you talk to the “leaders”, But I’m skeptical. What’s interesting is the seeming lack of turnout from the pro-war crowd in doing their “duty” and rallying against an anti-war Republican.

              • Game Fan says:

                FULL DISCLOSURE:
                I have to admit it’s been a little “odd” and unnerving (and not very fun) being a Republican who’s with the “anti-war” crowd. After all, being “anti-war” ain’t necessarily the best “message” this country should send abroad, when you want to convey an image of strength. But nevertheless, it’s actually been very rewarding in checking out some of the “gripes” from the “left”, retaining my own conservative values, and adopting some of the phraseology ect… It’s actually a no-brainer when you look at the issues and the polls and decide what might be considered “dead weight” and then ask, “why was I defending that in the first place”? No, Game Fan is often found in the “middle” rather than the “far right” on the issues. Despite the “conspiracy” to turn all the Republican outcasts into racist hatemongers, Game Fan has become…


                dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun


                dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun

                More sensitive.

                dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun

      • Three Jack says:

        truth is konop, rand paul did not run on a quick exit from afghanistan. from american spectator 5-19-10 — Paul emphasized he was “strong on defense,” opposing civilian trials for terror detainees, and said he was not yet ready to pull out of Afghanistan or close Guantanamo Bay. rand paul ran on the simple platform that government is too big and needs to cut back growth and spending. he ran on a fiscally conservative platform konop. for further proof, check his website and let me know where in the issues section he announces the he is “running to pull out of afghanistan”.

        murtha district is home to over 100k union members and has a 2-1 dem v. gop registered voter base. mccain appealed to this base because his opposition ran as a liberal…the dem who won last night ran as a conservative.

          • Three Jack says:

            come on konop, no where in the video does paul call for immediate retreat from afghanistan (in fact, he says we should have gone in sooner, that we wasted a month and a half).

            you wrote, “Rand Paul ran on getting out of Afghanistan…” prove it or admit you “misspoke” in the same manner as that lying candidate for senator from connecticut, richard blumenthal.

            rand paul ran as an anti-establishment conservative, maybe even leaning to objectivism befitting his first name. many more candidates are going to find success using the same philosophy.

            • John Konop says:

              Read the post at May 19, 2010 at 2:01 pm . It is clear the key issue was NEOCONS vs. ANTI-NEOCONS.

              Spin it anyway you want but it is what it is.

  6. Jeremy Jones says:

    In November, J.I. will get my vote. However, to go out of one’s way to talk about how great he is made me double check the date looking for an April Fool’s post.

    Had this come post come from most anyone else, I would have jumped on this board giving example after example of how J.I. is not a man rooted in Republican principles and how his attitude and actions ARE the reason Republicans are having a hard time differentiating themselves from Democrats. However, because of my respect for the OP, I will do some further research to see if my examples are simply the only instances and maybe he is not all that bad.

    Do not get me wrong, there is no chance I will not vote for him November, a majority of the time he does vote for a more conservative line than would a Democrat. However, his baggage of attempting to expand the government with social give away’s is simply too much for me to believe he is a TEA party patriot. Any TEA party advocate who thinks Isakson is a TEA party poster child is a lost individual.

    • KingWulfgar says:

      So, if you’re going to continue to vote for him because he’s slightly better than a Democrat (and let’s face it GA Democrats are nothing like the Northeastern Liberals like Barney Frank), how do you propose we get rid of him? I ask this honestly.

      My opinion is that the only way GA will be able to get rid of Isakson is for him to lose the seat in the general election. Until conservatives are willing to lose a relatively short battle to win the war, he will keep being elected and keep being another big-government, social-program-loving Republican.

      • benevolus says:

        “GA Democrats are nothing like the Northeastern Liberals”
        And Northeast Republicans would be Democrats down here!

      • Jeremy Jones says:

        This election will be the most consequential that I have seriously considered voting Libertarian. As we all know, the chance of the split vote would benefit the Democrat, and Judicial appointments are simply too imperative to take the chance to not give the GOP a “no” vote.

        However, your point of the run-off is a valid one, if I believed a strong Libertarian showing in November would change the behavior of Isakson for the next six years. Maybe it would.

        • KingWulfgar says:

          One more or less “no” vote isn’t going to matter. Scott Brown (among other RINOs) will have no problems voting to confirm whoever Obama appoints. This logic has not worked for Republicans for the last 20 years–why do we still hear it?

      • John Konop says:


        I read the link and Chuck is flat out wrong about GM. They did pay back their loan. The other part of the deal is equity. You can argue all day long that you did not like that the government made the investment and or the government should have gotten more stock for the investment in GM but equity is not debt.

        When you buy a stock it is equity not debt. And it is very common for an investment house to provide equity and debt in a deal. And they are listed differently on a balance sheet.

        • KingWulfgar says:

          They paid off their loan with the money the government gave them. Shady at best, outright lie is what I call it.

          • John Konop says:


            You can argue you do not like the government getting involved. But this is fairly common in a deal with debt and equity involved in a deal. And it is not shady at all it is basic finance 101.

            And if I follow your logic if I take equity dollars as a back stop until I have positive cash flow are saying it is shady that I used the money to pay-off my debt? This is done for various reasons all the time. Usually to demonstrate health of a company to go public and sell stock, raise money….., and this is good news if you want our money back.

            • I agree with John on this one. I see no problem with them giving money back to the government that the government gave them in the first place. That to me simply says they either borrowed too much or didn’t really need it in the first place. I do have an issue with the government making the loan in the first place, but that’s another issue altogether.

  7. KingWulfgar says:

    Frankly, Icarus, I’m disappointed in you. I figured you’d see through Isakson’s slick politician “I’m listening” facade. Isakson will listen, but it doesn’t go any further than that. He regularly defends his votes on expanding the federal government and taking away more personal liberties. He’s a big-government Republican, but he’s really good at making you feel like he’s really listening.

    Don’t look at just what he’s voted for (although, it’s been awful), look at some of the crap he’s SPONSORED (kickbacks to his real estate buddies in the form of the renewing the real estate tax credit, for example).

    Isakson is a lousy Republican and a lousy Senator, but he’s popular with the GAGOP, so nobody who could beat him will run against him in a primary. The only way to get rid of him is going to be to elect someone else in the general election.

    Chuck Donovan has my vote in November, and if it comes to an Isakson/Democrat face-off in a run-off, I’ll gladly vote against Isakson.

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      Right on, King…
      You hit the nail on the head. Icarus likes to act like a maverick on here — slamming The Ox, pounding Deal — but when the dust settles, he’s still a GaGOP party establishment mouthpiece who is unwilling to support much of anything or anyone outside of the party’s status quo.
      This Johnny lovefest is what you can expect from someone who is ‘doing everything in his power’ to get Karen Handel elected governor. Icarus is too attached to the GOP label to see the forest for the trees.
      If the Tea Party movement tells us anything, it is that the establishment is not meeting our needs.

      I’ll be voting against Johnny in November and again in the runoff — if we get that far. Thurmond is actually a pretty good candidate and he’s a conservative Democrat. I’d be interested to see what he could do in Washington. Our Republican leaders in Atlanta and Washington are the ones who should be coming up with simple pro-business, pro-jobs solutions like Thurmond’s highly successful and often duplicated Georgia Works program… but the Republicans aren’t doing it (they’re too busy chasing school vouchers, giving MARTA riders guns, chasing lobbyist skirts and praying for rain). We have a chance to send the GaGOP establishment a message by axing Johnny. The sad fact is, the party is failing the citizens of this state. Try harder! Come up with some solutions! Give us some better candidates! Remember, a vote for Johnny is an endorsement of his voting record and what his party has done in this state over the past decade.

      I voted for Johnny in ’04, but what’s that famous saying? Fool me once… shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        “he’s still a GaGOP party establishment mouthpiece who is unwilling to support much of anything or anyone outside of the party’s status quo.”

        I thought that was me? Just kidding, but some won’t see it that way. If you think Thurmond best represents you, vote for him. If you think Donovan best represent you, vote for him. And if Donovan get’s his 5% and there is a run off, vote for whomever that is left that best represents you.

        I will be voting for Sen Isakson, but that’s no newsbreaker. I agree with what AnyoneElse2010 said.

    • AnyoneElse2010 says:

      King I am sorry but your logic is horrible at best. Let me get this right. You are not going to vote for Isakson because he is not conservative enough for you, but you will vote for Thurmond in a runoff even though Thurmond is more liberal then Isakson. I know that the argument is that Thurmond is a conservative democrat, but I hate to tell you that a conservative democrat in this day and age is more liberal then a moderate republican. You can look at Sanford Bishop for a classic example of a blue dog, conservative dem. He vote for Healthcare, he voted for Cap and Trade, and he votes for Nancy Pelosi. He is also probably as conservative if not more conservative then Thurmond. I understand a dislike for Isakson, but it sounds to me that you are just shooting yourself in the foot just to try to make a point. Unfortunately the only point that you are making is that you don’t fully understand what is up for grabs in the 2010 election.

      • Personally, I’m kind of tired of hearing the “You don’t understand what is up for grabs in the 2010 election.” It’s kind of like that Apple commercial…

        “You don’t understand what is up for grabs in the 2008 election.”

        “You don’t understand what is up for grabs in the 2006 election.”

        “You don’t understand what is up for grabs in the 2004 election.”

        “You don’t understand what is up for grabs in the 2002 election.”

        …and it goes on and on.. every year… until people finally get that things aren’t getting better by voting D or R out of fear…

        • AnyoneElse2010 says:

          I hear what you are saying David, but notice how I did not say “Do not vote for the Libertarian.” I consider myself as a sort of Republitarian. By all means vote for a libertarian if that is who you believe is the best, but don’t vote for a democrat after voting libertarian. They are on polar opposites of the political spectrum on many issues whereas republicans are at least closer to libertarians when it comes to the issues.

          Also just because you have heard something many times over the years does not make it any less true. This truly is a big election and has a lot up for grabs.

          • I did notice that. But I disagree that Libertarians are closer to the Republican party than the Democrats. The Republicans want to legislate marriage. Republicans want to outlaw even medicinal use of marijuana. Republicans won’t even let hemp (grown for it’s oils, fibers, etc.) be grown in the United States – something legal in Canada, England, France and other industrialized nations across the world. Republicans want to tell me I can’t go to the store on Sunday to purchase alcohol because that’s the lord’s day that they go to church on. Republicans are typically against casino gambling – though they’ll hold their own poker tournaments.

            So… besides fiscally, how do libertarians so closely align with the Republican party?

            • AnyoneElse2010 says:

              That’s fine if you disagree. That’s why I say I am more of a republitarian. Just one question, if there is a great divide between libertarians and republicans then why does any political pundit that you talk to know that a vote for a libertarian is a vote taking away from the republican party? I’ve never seen a democrat candidate be too afraid of a libertarian candidate.

              • benevolus says:

                The “smaller government” concept seems to trump everything else. The problem is, Republicans pay lip service to it but rarely act on it.

  8. Does Isakson even have a primary challenger? Lots of virtual ink being spilled for no serious reason… it’s not as if any of the Tea Party wingnuts are seriously going to vote Democratic in the general.

  9. MSBassSinger says:

    I am not so sure voters are anti-incumbent. Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans, both groups being big government and big spenders, are the target.

    I suspect:
    1/3rd of the voters want Obamacrat/European-style socialism and courts who adapt the Constitution to the 21st century and international standards, everchanging with the fleeting fads of the infantile.

    1/3rd want a serious and drastic reduction in government size, regulation, spending, and taxation, and courts that interpret the Constitution by original intent, believing the concepts it holds are immutable.

    1/3rd tends to be clueless about what they want, except they want a lot of government intrusion into others’ lives (but not theirs), government spending money on them (but not others they don’t like), and government taxing others (but not them so much).

    When I contemplate American voters, I am truly tempted to get 40 acres in south Georgia, dig a well, raise my own crops and livestock, and get ready for the next great depression.

    • I think that’s a pretty good analysis.

      As for the 40 acres, that’s practically what we’re doing right now in Powder Springs. We run a horse farm and are moving as soon as we can close on the place. Just bought some chickens the other day and will probably buy a couple of beef cows as well when we move. But we’re not doing it in preparedness for a great depression… though I suppose if that ever happens we should be able to survive.

    • Holly says:

      This doesn’t even account for the half of Americans who are too lazy to care… ugh. That hurts my heart.

      I also think your breakdown is a little off. I think that last third is closer to half – and includes many of the self-proclaimed tea partiers who are really there because they dislike Obama. I’d say the first third is really a third, and the last third is really closer to a sixth of the voters. If it weren’t, Ron Paul would’ve done much better in his run for President, and he’d be taken a lot more seriously now.

    • benevolus says:

      I’m not so sure about the anti-incumbency that the pundits are proclaiming either. Let’s just recap:

      1. In Pennsylvania, in a Democratic primary, Dem voters picked a Dem over a guy who was a Republican at about this time last year.

      2. In Arkansas, the establishment Dem did win the primary, but not by enough to avoid a runoff. This is a Dem primary with the incumbent being THE most conservative Dem in the Senate.

      3. In Kentucky, it was an open seat primary, and Republicans picked the guy that didn’t used to be a Democrat.

      There may be some anti-incumbency sentiment out there, but as usual, I think people are opposed to someone else’s representative, not their own.

    • kyleinatl says:

      Bingo! That latter one third is what most of the “Tea Party” is nowadays. They’ll scream and shout for free market and limited government but are okay with governmental intrusion that lines up with their ethics.

  10. Three Jack says:

    my vote will go to the libertarian. ji is a nice guy, but his time has passed. it is a damn shame he does not have serious primary opposition, but that is the state of the ga gop, stick with what brung ya as long as they sign the oath of allegiance.

  11. I’d be surprised if Thurmond wasn’t running just to make sure a Republican did not appoint the next Labor Commissioner, leaving someone like Terry Coleman with a decent shot of winning the seat while leaving

    JI doesn’t always vote the way the party sees fit. I’m sure many around the state would prefer him to vote more consistently conservative, and I am sure he has received that message. Let’s be honest though, this seat is likely to stay his.

    • joe says:

      “JI doesn’t always vote the way the party sees fit. I’m sure many around the state would prefer him to vote more consistently conservative, and I am sure he has received that message. Let’s be honest though, this seat is likely to stay his.”

      If/when he is re-elected, the only message that he will recieve is that he can vote however he wants and still get re-elected. The only way he will ever understand what conservatives want is if he is unemployed.

      • analogkid says:


        Here are some words from another “changed man” who has also “received the message.” Let’s re-elect this guy too:

        “I did some things wrong, there’s no question about that,” (Roy) Barnes said. “I didn’t listen or slow down enough to explain why I had to make some difficult decisions.”

  12. StephenLocustGrove says:

    Dear Establishment GOPers,

    Johnny Isakson is the one of the worst Senators we have ever had.
    ICARUS, I’m calling you out. Please tell me 5 things Johnny has accomplished in the last 6 years to promote freedom, less gov’t, and the Constitution……I’m waiting

  13. galiberal says:

    You are kidding right? Isakson works for Washington and big business, exactly what the Tea Party fights against.

    Big Government Bailouts, protection for the Oil Company, Holding up the TSA nominee for citizen security.

    Isakson is the epitome of what the Tea Party is against.

  14. Red Phillips says:

    Isakson voted for the TARP bailout when the PTB didn’t even need his vote. So why didn’t he instead pacify the angry masses back at home who were ringing his phone off the hook demanding a no vote? It would have been an easy throw away vote. The monstrosity was passing the Senate by a large margin anyway. Perhaps Isakson cares more about what his centrist Establishment Rockefeller Country Club Republican friends think than he does the angry masses.

    And John Konop is on to something. I didn’t support the GM bailout because I think all bailouts are unconstitutional, but I do think it is very telling that Isakson and several others of his ilk could find the money to bail out fat cat bankers, but couldn’t spare a mere pittance by comparison for a venerable US company and the blue collar workers that depend on it. I guess the line worker at the Doraville GM Plant (Oh wait, that closed.) doesn’t belong to his country club.

    Anyone who voted for the TARP and then went around babbling about free enterprise and government takeovers of the economy in opposition to the GM bailout should be publically tarred and feathered. Have they no shame?

    I’ll be casting a protest vote for Chuck Donovan.

      • Red Phillips says:

        “What can you tell us about Chuck Donavan?”

        To be honest, not much. I know he is a pilot and the LP nominee. I hope he is a right libertarian and not a left libertarian. In particular I hope he is pro-life and against open borders. I wouldn’t vote for a pro-choice candidate if I thought they could win, but I have no problem casting a protest vote for the only third party candidate that will be available on the ballot for me. That isn’t necessarily an endorsement of everything Donovan and the LP stand for, but it will be a repudiation of centrist Johnny.

    • one n done says:

      Haha can we expect PP to show up on Graves next disclosure?

      But all in all, a well written article…

        • Lady Thinker says:

          Who are you supporting, no ethics Deal or the Reynolds family friend Eric Johnson, or the alleged pervert McBerry, or the anybody but Oxendine?

          • Jim Bob says:

            Nice attitude there LT.

            Not sure yet. But it is certainly not Karen Handel. But I guess you figured that out, huh. 🙂

            • LadyThinker – Jim Bob likes to keep his wimmin like he keeps his coffee… locked up and in the kitchen. You can’t expect him to think reasonably. 😛

              (This is not to say I’m a Handel Supporter… I’m voting for John Monds. But Jim Bob’s roots are showing in a variety of threads he’s posted here recently.)

    • Icarus says:

      The money is flowing the other way Jim Bob.

      I’ve written Senator Isakson a check, and have been on the host committee for a fundraiser.

    • Lawful Money says:

      Get comfortable Stephen…..

      “We will vomit no double-talk….. before its time….”
      -The Baraxby McIsakson Team

    • Red Phillips says:

      Stephen, Isakson did vote for the Vitter (Paulian) version of the Audit the Fed Bill. I say that not so much to defend Isakson, but more to needle Ick. Defending the Fed is the epitome of shilling for the Establishment, so I’m sure it must have hurt Ick a little when his favorite Establishment shill had to vote with us yahoos in an election year.

    • Icarus says:

      Sorry Stephen, I left my beeper back in 1986. I’m sure it would have let me know you needed a response in less than 3 hours.

      I’ve written about Isakson’s accomplishments in the past. Red mentions below his co-sponsorship of the Audit the Fed bill.

      I’ve also written extensively about Isakson’s change of the accounting rules to allow Delta to maintain its pension program rather than dump the burden on the taxpayers via the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. Had Isakson just listened to the Bush White House, he could have played a lot of golf while Delta’s employees and retirees lost pension benefits and the taxpayers picked up the tab for the reduced benefits that remained. Instead, he went to work, ended up with 70 co-sponsors, and saved the program – and us taxpayers.

      He’s voted against the Stimulus Bill, TARP II, and against the nomination of Tim Geithner.

      That’s five. We’re done here.

  15. Pine Knot says:

    This front page article is completely a joke. I get called an idiot by this poster by sticking up for Nathan Deal against the daily bashings by his and some others on here, and here he is, holding the king of all RINOS up in the spotlight like they are actually are a true Conservative. Isakson has voted for all of the big Bush Government.
    ACU ratings:
    Isakson : 2009:%96 2008:%76 LIFETIME:%89.09
    Deal:2009:%100 200:8%100 LIFETIME:%90.00

    Isakson has learned? 2008 wasn’t that long ago.
    Who did you call an Idiot?

      • Red Phillips says:

        I do not believe Isakson has ever renounced being pro-choice. He has voted with pro-lifers on issues around the margin, such as partial birth. He may even have said he thinks Roe was a bad decision. I’m not sure. But has he ever said he opposes an individual right to an abortion? I don’t believe so. I will be happy to be wrong.

      • Ambernappe says:

        Who are you calling a “political opportunist”????

        I suppose it was his multi-tasking skill that allowed Representative Deal to cast some acceptable votes while planning his strategy to negotiate SPECIAL “deal” with Georgia that pays him and his business associate twice as much for their state contract as all others in Georgia who hold contracts for the same kind of business.

    • Icarus says:

      You. But I did apologize. No matter how true, shouldn’t have done it.

      As for the establishment charge, I think your post helps.

      Isakson hasn’t used his office to personally enrich himself.

      Deal has.

      See the difference?

      I’m not blindly going to support anyone who put an “R” next to their name when it was politically expedient. Especially if his record is one of shady ethics and non-performance.

      I’m also not going to be anti-establishment/maverick against someone who has consistently worked to solve problems using conservative solutions with regard to protecting the taxpayer.

      Isakson gets my vote.

      Deal gets much deserved scorn.

      • ZazaPachulia says:

        “I’m also not going to be anti-establishment/maverick against someone who has consistently worked to solve problems using conservative solutions with regard to protecting the taxpayer.”

        ‘Scuse me, Icarus, but when exactly have you ever been anti-establishment/maverick? Being anti-Ox, anti-Deal, anti-Cagle and anti-Richardson does not count. Those characters are uniformly bad for Georgia AND the Georgia GOP.

        Being pro-Handel and pro-Isakson simply exposes you as who you are: a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the GaGOP establishment.

        Re-electing Isakson or sending Sonny’s hand-picked successor to the big house on West Paces Ferry tells the party establishment (which you so adore) that we’re pleased with how they’re governing our state.

        Like most everyone on this web site, I have voted Republican more often than not. However, I’m not pleased with what the GOP has delivered for Georgians. That is why I supported a reform candidate for governor — Austin Scott. And that’s why I was so frustrated when Scott bowed to party establishment and switched to the Congressional race.

        Not only do we need to send a clear message that we’re not happy with the status quo (by voting against Isakson), we also need to show the GaGOP that we support good conservative pro-jobs solutions that actually work (like Thurmond’s Georgia Works program).

        Supporting Isakson only makes sense to the pro-Handel camp that finds little wrong with the status quo.

        If you don’t mind me asking, Icarus, how much exactly have you sent to Isakson? I want to make sure I provide equal donations to his opponents.

  16. John Konop says:

    On many issue I agree with Libertarians/Tea Party candidate Rand Paul, but this is an example when they go to far!

    Rand Paul On ‘Maddow’ Defends Criticism Of Civil Rights Act, Says He Would Have Worked To Change Bill

    …Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?’

    Paul: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.

    But I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that

    we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…

    Paul argued that Maddow’s questions weren’t practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:

    Maddow:… Howabout desegregating lunch counters?

    Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says ‘well no, we don’t want to have guns in here’ the bar says ‘we don’t want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.’ Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion..

    Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen’s lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul……

    • ByteMe says:

      The media narrative starting to form about him is that he’s better off not speaking for more than a few seconds to anyone. After that, the crazy starts to take over his body. His November victory is not going to be a slam-dunk.

    • Three Jack says:

      paul also said he abhors racism, would never frequent a business that restricts people based on race and that he would have marched with mlk. in other words, he was advocating free market ability to weed out failed concepts without need of government interference/regulation (imagine a private business posting a sign today that says ‘colored folks not welcome’…it wouldn’t survive).

      if you watched the entire interview instead of pulling one small portion of the transcript put out by the far left vagitarian rachel maddow, you would understand paul was having a philosophical discussion about a gotcha topic. probably not the best thing for a politician to do, but it beats the usual go along to get along talking heads who put zero thought into their positions.

      • ByteMe says:

        in other words, he was advocating free market ability to weed out failed concepts without need of government interference/regulation

        Yep, because right up until that point, businesses in the south were failing left and right because they didn’t allow “colored” people in them.

        Oh, wait, no they weren’t. In fact, the only people having trouble because of “the free market” — backed by the full force of the law, including attack dogs, water hoses, government-sanctioned beatings — were “the coloreds”.

        You failed history.

        • Three Jack says:

          bm, did you watch the interview in its entirety? obviously not or you would know that paul said he absolutely agreed with the majority of the civil rights act because it put an end to institutional racism. thus if your scenario played out after its passage, the federal govt would step in and prosecute those who inflicted violence upon another citizen.

          in fact, paul said he would have voted for the legislation, but only after having a discussion about government’s role in the private sector.

          • ByteMe says:

            I wasn’t commenting on the interview. I was commenting on your interpretation of his position and how failed that was relative to the way life really was at the moment the Civil Rights laws were put in place.

          • benevolus says:

            My understanding is that the sequence went something like this:
            1. Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination.
            2. Discrimination occurred anyway.
            3. Oppressed groups protested the discrimination.
            4. “Authorities” used violence to suppress the demonstrations.

            Therefore, the violence would not have occurred if discrimination was legal, which is what R. Paul is advocating, so no excuse for the Feds to step in. “People” who tried to assert their equality in some states, in some places, would just be arrested because they would not actually have those equal rights.

    • Red Phillips says:

      John, a person can’t be a part-time constitutionalist only when it is convenient to be. One is either a constitutionalist or they aren’t. The Civil Rights Act was blatantly unconstitutional. A constitutionalist has to oppose it or he ceases to be a constitutionalist.

      • John Konop says:

        Red Phillips,

        What I respect about you do not twist words and are honest about the debate even when I disagree on issues like this.

        Rand Paul and you think that a business should have the right to refuse service….based on race. I really do not think you are being racist or Rand Paul, you just think it is unconstitutional. And I do not think you or Rand Paul is advocating the practice of racism.

        And I think that a business deciding to practice racism is different than forbidding gun use in your business. A gun is an object, racism is about a person. And the Constitution protects a person not an object.

        • John – what about making businesses modify their premises to be accessible to the disabled? There’s cases of various historic districts that have had to add ramps to accomodate wheelchairs going up the one step into their store. Should businesses also not be able to discriminate based on gender? Look at Hooters. Should they really have to allow male waiters? Should Curves for Women be sued to allow Men as well? Why should the government be able to tell these businesses how to operate?

          • John Konop says:


            You bring up valid points and if Rand Paul argued that more instead of comparing it to an object. I would agree, like most laws modifications are needed. But no legislation is usually perfect. And most do need some modifications if needed at all ie state drug prescription bill….

            But to say you would not sign the Civil Rights Act at that time is very insensitive. Rand could of just pointed out mortifications he supported.

  17. Joshua Morris says:

    From an article entitled, “Middle ground puts Isakson in pivotal position” on Johnny’s own Senate website:

    “Former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes recalls Isakson wielding influence in the General Assembly even when Democrats held so many of the seats they rarely paid attention to Republicans.

    “‘He could have passed a bill as easily as a Democrat because everyone liked him and he’d reciprocate,’ Barnes said. ‘He reaches across the aisle. He’s — he’ll hate this word — but he’s very moderate. I’m very high on Johnny Isakson. I know that’s crazy for a Democrat to say,’ Barnes said. ‘If every Republican were like Johnny Isakson, I’d be one.'”

    It seems to me that Isakson is more interested in bipartisanship than conservative principle. Just getting something done does not cut it. I’d rather have someone who will fight 100% of the time for genuine conservative ideals. There are enough progressive liberals out there fighting to the end for socialism/communitarianism, but there aren’t enough conservatives standing firm on freedom and personal responsibility.

    • kyleinatl says:

      Right, unfortunately…most people who call themselves conservatives are really more like theocrats whose idea of freedom really only applies to white, hetero christians.

      • MSBassSinger says:

        Would you be kind enough to go into more detail? When I look at the definition of theocrat:
        “a person who rules, governs as a representative of god or a deity, or is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a high priest.”, it kind of sounds like how Obama and his sycophants see him.

        If you mean someone who advocates a theocracy:
        “a form of government in which god or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities “, I really don’t know any conservatives like that – so, could you give some concrete examples? Besides Nancy Pelosi telling Catholic bishops to preach her political dogma from the pulpits.

        Also, I’d appreciate some examples of any conservatives that believe “freedom really only applies to white, hetero christians”. I have not seen anyone like that since the early 1960s (and I saw them in the South and the North).

Comments are closed.