Gingrich on Deal

For anyone who can’t remember, Nathan Deal has not always been as he is now. In fact he use to be a Democrat State Senator, serving alongside the likes of Governor Roy Barnes. Many candidates often throw around the phrase “life-long conservative/liberal/Democrat/Republican” as campaign rhetoric – I’m not sure how well it resonates. But specifically in this year, we have seen now two party switchers lose reelection bids elsewhere in the country.

Deal switched over in the 90s, when the Republicans were taking control of the House for the first time in several decades. His campaign put out a video earlier today featuring former Speaker Newt Gingrich – a man who many conservatives consider to be iconic. This video was touted by an email from the Deal campaign.

In a video released Wednesday by the Deal for Governor campaign, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich fondly remembered the day in 1995 when Nathan joined the Republican majority in the U.S. House.

“I was thrilled that day,” said Gingrich, “because I knew with Nathan joining us, we had an even better chance to keep our majority. Remember, we had not been a majority re-elected since 1928 and now we had a chance to put together a team that could really get the job done.”

He called Deal, who rose to become chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, “a real expert on health care.”

Gingrich said that Deal found a home in the Republican party and he enjoyed working with him on conservative issues.

“(Nathan) has consistently fought for smaller government, lower taxes, more prosperity in Georgia, keeping power out of Washington and keeping freedom back home,” Gingrich said.

While this helps to shore up Deal’s credentials with those who might question his Republican status, I find it interesting that Gingrich does not formally endorse Congressman Deal. He dances around the issue, but never hits the nail on the head. At any rate, this video certainly is a good thing for the Deal campaign.


  1. ACConservative says:

    So deal switched parties when the tide started to turn against the Democrats? Sounds like someone who exudes the qualities of steadfastness and loyalty.

    Do I become a Republican or stay a Democrat?
    Do I quit Congress or stay?
    Do I violate House ethics rules or cover up my ethics violations?

    This man is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry. I’m willing to say that Nathan Deal was probably a Phillies fan two weeks ago.

  2. SFrazier says:

    Everything is lining up for Deal. At the end of the day the GOP voters of Georgia realize that Nathan Deal is the only candidate with the breadth and depth of experience to defeat Barnes and to protect our state from the federal government’s intrusions on our freedoms.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      I can’t vote for anyone who hasn’t been a lifelong Republican conservative and Deal hasn’t as well as his ethics baggage. Looks like Karen Handel gets my vote.

        • Lady Thinker says:

          He/she prefers to attack rather that debate issues and I don’t care what he/she thinks of me or you, or anyone else on here.

          He/she post as reaganrepublican and is a Dealist when Deal was a Democrat during Reagan’s reign. Reagan also supported gays. So I guess that makes RR a Democrat at heart with a longing for gays, like most closet gays.

          • Mayonnaise says:

            Lady Stinker, please don’t slander Reagan’s memory in order to justify Karen Handel’s support of the radical gay activists in Fulton County.

            “My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.” Ronald Reagan

            • Lady Thinker says:

              Site please? Your immaturity is showing with your name calling but then what can one expect from an intern or a Sonny ex-staffer, whichever one you are. You are a discredit to your candidate and your behavior will bring more votes to Karen. And I am not slandering Reagan, he did support gays as do a number of Hollywood celebrities.

              • Doug Grammer says:


                LGBT Rights
                No civil rights legislation for LGBT individuals passed during Reagan’s tenure. On the 1980 campaign trail, he spoke of the gay civil rights movement:

                “My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.”

                • Lady Thinker says:

                  I don’t allow my college students to use Wikipedia nor do other higher education professionals because anyone can go in and change the contents.

                  Reagan had homosexual friends regardless of what someone put on Wilipedia.

                  • Lady Thinker says:


                    Doug, the information on your Wikipedia site is wrong, which again, is why I refuse to let my students use Wikipedia as a site for the papers they write for me.

                    Here is an excerpt from this site regarding a book about President Reagan.

                    “Did Reagan hate homosexuals? No. He had worked with them throughout his Hollywood career. As Governor of California, he did bow to pressure from his aides when he dismissed his chief of staff, who was an alleged homosexual. But he didn’t understand what the big deal was. “Let me tell you something about homosexuals,” Reagan said. “There are a lot of them.” In 1978, Reagan opposed a ballot measure that would have barred homosexual teachers from public schools. “Whatever it is, homosexuality was not a contagious disease, like the measles,” he argued. “Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.””

                    The book goes on to talk about Daddy Bush having the same attitude as Reagan.

                    To offer support for Byte’s comment, another part of the book says, “Back to Reagan and AIDS. In 1984, Reagan thought that AIDS was like the measles and would go away. When his good friend Rock Hudson got sick and died from it, however, Reagan became convinced that it was much more than that. But the Reagan administration spent money for AIDS research starting in 1983. According to the Cannons, “In fiscal year 1983, the Reagan administration…spent $44 million fighting AIDS, a number that essentially doubled each year of Reagan’s presidency and reached $2.3 billion in the fiscal year ending in 1989.””

                  • Lady Thinker says:

                    Whatever Doug, I don’t have time to help you through your temper tantrum so I am placing you in Ignore. Bye!

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      “Whatever” twice in a row. You really need to increase your vocabulary. Let me know when you are capable answering a question. For someone who teaches, you have a hard time answering questions.

                    • dj says:

                      question…seriously? Mr. Go Into Hiding for 2 days…answer the question already! Remember, it’s a win win situation…

                    • Doug Grammer says:


                      I didn’t answer your question because you asked it about eight times in two hours and were annoying in the way that you asked it.

                      I’ll teach you to fish. Go to this fairly unknown website: and type the words “Georgia human life amendment” and enter the enter button. That should help answer your questions on the HLA. I didn’t say or imply that the HLA didn’t exist. Now that I have given this “Lady Thinker” proof that President Reagan said this quote, I am waiting on her to respond and tell us that President Reagan didn’t say it.

                      BTW, I wasn’t in hiding. I was in Atlanta and at work. I do that some times.

                    • Lady Thinker says:


                      Thanks for your comments. What you said sounds logical and I will take your advice both for now and the future.

                    • Doug Grammer says:


                      LT cited a book on President Reagan’s views on a subject which I don’t disagree with. She questioned weather President Reagan made a quote by asking for a source. I provided four links, one of which was to a book as well, that confirm that he said it.

                      Just because I found them on the internet does not make them less valid than other sources because books and newspapers can be wrong as well. Like you, I don’t care enough to search for a 30 year old video clip to prove 100% that the sources I found are correct.

                      LT’s arrogance to dismiss anything that she doesn’t automatically agree with amazes me. Her ability to talk down to people and say they couldn’t pass her class because of attitude, (not facts) is near breath taking.

                      I admit when I know I am (or have been) wrong on a subject. I have done so many times, and I imagine will do so again. If she wants to yell “whatever” and walk away knowing (or at least reasonably sure) that the quote was accurate, that’s fine by me. We will measure her by her words and by her deeds.

            • ByteMe says:

              One of Reagan’s closest friends was Rock Hudson and you can’t tell me that Reagan was somehow unaware of Hudson’s boy toys.

              • bowersville says:

                Yes Reagan was friends with the Rockette Hudson but Reagan wasn’t running for Governor of Georgia either.

                Had Reagan run for the GOP nomination in Georgia he would have had two choices.

                Throw Rock under the largest buse possible or stand by his friend Rock and never make it out of the GOP primary. I mean good grief, look at all this homo rhetoric and guilt by association. You’ve got Handel who actually spoke to a HOMO, heavan forbid, and you’ve got poor ole Lee Hawkins that attended an event in Dawson County that featured Joe Biden.

                Yet you get a pass for alledged fraud. I don’t get it. I just hope there ain’t no HOMOs on that Graves jury.

        • Capt. Jack Sparrow says:

          Jimmy Carter says he’s voting for Nathan. Deal earned his vote because of his hard work to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and continue ruining this country.

  3. hannah says:

    It makes sense for people, who believe that to represent means to rule, to be in favor of small (local) government because the people close to home are easier to direct. Besides, being a public servant is decidedly un-cool, if you’ve been destined to rule.
    While some voters definitely prefer being told what to do, the consensus among democrats and conservatives seems to be that people who don’t know which end is up won’t do. DINOs and RINOs are equally likely to be sent packing.

    • GFW13 says:

      You learned exactly the wrong lesson. While it is true that people closer to home are easier to direct, you misunderstand the direction of the direction. We want citizens to be close to their representative to allow citizens to direct their representatives. A representative would like nothing more than to be unknown by and distant from his constituents.

  4. Tiberius says:

    Such an old topic…can you ever trust an ex-Democrat…even 16 years later? Think about that. 16 years. Today’s sophomores in high school were born when Deal switched.

    Let’s move on from this.

  5. I Am Jacks Post says:

    So Deal switched parties back around the time Karen Handel was not going to college? Big effing deal.

    Welcome aboard the U.S.S. Icarus, Ronald.

    • Did you read the whole thing? I’d call Gingrich standing up for someone a darn good thing for that campaign. In fact, I did say that. How in the world are you going to attack me for basically posting a campaign email?

      Welcome aboard the Sock Puppet Train, I Am Jacks Post. You should take note that I’m one of a limited minority here that has not made up his mind about who to vote for, and you aren’t doing your candidate any favors for digging into me when I post something positive for your candidate.

      • Mozart says:


        You claim that Deal served as a “Democratic State Senator” beside “Governor Roy Barnes.”

        This is what you claim in your 2nd sentence: “In fact he use to be a Democrat State Senator, serving alongside the likes of Governor Roy Barnes.”

        That is an unmitigated lie. Roy Barnes was “Governor” only during the time of 1999 through 2002. Nathan Deal was then a Congressman serving his district in North Georgia.

        You state that you only cite “facts.” You were likely still in diapers when Nathan Deal was a democrat state senator, and Roy Barnes was not the Governor then.

        If you think that starting a “positive post” with a blatant lie is a “positive action,” then I thank you for demonstrating, yet again, exactly why Georgia is near the bottom in education.

        • GOPwits says:

          Roy and Nathan were in the State Senate together and Nathan was actually Roy’s leader…

          Get your facts straight…

        • Explain to me what Roy Barnes and Nathan Deal were doing from 1981-1990. Because if they were not both State Senators, serving in the Georgia State Senate – then I have in fact told an unmitigated lie. But you are going to need to prove that. And here’s a hint, they both were Democrats in the Georgia State Senate at that time.

          I understand your confusion. Titles like Governor, Congressman, President, Judge – are sometimes given to people after they leave office. If I had said “then Governor” indicating Barnes was the Governor at the time, you would be correct. I did not say that, however. I said Governor. That is his title, sometimes we call him King Roy – but that does not change what offices he has held.

          Now half of ya’ll are jumping down my back because I wrote something anti-Deal, half because I wrote something Pro-Deal. I reckon I’m doing something right then. But you sir are not going to sit here and call me a liar over something that is blatantly not a lie.

          The sort of revisionist history you are peddling is simply absurd.

          • Mozart says:

            Okay, Ronald Hussein Daniels, I will accept your slanted viewpoint that you innocently meant when both of them were not in their most recent positions, they worked in the legislature at the same time as Democrats.

            • That’s still wrong. What I said was they served alongside of each other. The only point in time that could have occured is when they were both State Senators. That would be from 81-90. I call Deal, Congressman Deal and Barnes, Governor Barnes. I call Jimmy, President Carter. Until he died, I called Judge Bell – Judge Bell. Stop being so uptight.

              • Mozart says:


                How do you know they “worked side-by-side?”

                Maybe they vehemently despised each other. I realize that you are very well-versed in how everyone in the GOP operates, and how much love and kindness is always shared amongst the members of the Republican Party everywhere, but how do you know Democrats work “side-by-side?” Have you looked-up any significant votes from the era of when they were both in the state senate to see how they may have voted on the issues of the day?

                Yeah, yeah, I know, I know…all of the Republicans in this state’s house and senate all vote in unison on every single issue and leave every session day hugging each other and tweeting their sorrowful goodbyes to everyone they worked “side-by-side” with for each session….but how do you know the Democrats work that very same way?

                Unless, of course, you have also been a Democrat, working side-by-side with them…? Have you? Are you a “reformed” Democrat yourself, Ronald?

                • “Served alongside” does not mean “worked side-by-side”

                  I’ve never been a Democrat. I’ve never been elected. And I really do not think how long someone has been a Democrat or Republican, so long as their ideology has remained consistently conservative, is a big issue for who I vote for. Others disagree. If I can see a record of a candidate holding similar viewpoints as my own, then I have sufficient cause to support them. There are Republicans who have been Republicans all their lives, but I wouldn’t vote for them.

                  But all of that is ancillary – because I really do not get the point you are trying to make anymore. Governor Perdue was in the State Senate as a Democrat when Congressman Deal was a Democrat in the State Senate – does that also make you angry?

  6. Romegaguy says:

    Gee, the guy that talked Deal into switching is saying that Deal is a good Republican. What a shocker

    • Henry Waxman says:

      Gingrich didn’t talk Deal into becoming a Republican. Deal called Gingrich to inform him that he would be switching; Gingrich even mentions the call in the video.

      I’ve independently heard this story from Gingrich and Deal directly, and they both said the same thing – Deal decided to switch on his own. Trust me, if Gingrich would have switched Deal, then he would have been bragging about how he switched him.

  7. Pine Knot says:

    Newt is a smart man. He has seen the polling, and he realizes that Nathan is the true Conservative in the race. He realizes that Nathan is the only canidate who can defeat Roy Barnes. He realizes that Nathan Deal is tough on immigration, and is pro gun, anti gay marriage (unlike the chosen one(Karen)), and is an honerable man that liberals are scared of running against. He throws himself out here for Nathan because he believes he is the best canidate. It is a risky thing to do, because he will probably run for president in 2012, and this could alienate some possible supportors. He realizes what is best for the Country, and Georgia.

    • dj says:

      Pine Knot,
      Any thoughts on where Nathan Deal and/or Newt Gingrich would respond to my question posed earilier to Doug Grammer re the HLA, and, should it be integrated, how it would affect the legality of birth control pills and IUDs as “legal” birth control options for women?

      • Pine Knot says:

        Nathan is very much pro life, as you can see in his record. As for HLA, you ought to contact his office about that.

    • GOPwits says:

      So let’s just throw ethics and integrity out the door? With so much corruption in politics today, how are we supposed to trust a man who got rich off of a government contract to serve as a true conservative? It’s an illogical argument.

      Granted, the whole, “life long conservative republican” thing is getting old and it’s time for a new line from the lady in the race, especially since almost more than half of all Georgians used to be Democrats…

      The bigger point is that now is not the time for a do nothing Congressman from Washington with all the scandal and taint of corruption on him that Nathan has to come home and try and be Governor.

  8. Executive Decider says:

    Newt is a smart man, and he does recognize that the only candidate that actually has momentum is Deal. Rep. Deal is a candidate that is just hitting his stride in this race, while the other candidates are either enthralled in scandal (Ox), or simply spinning their tires (Handel, Johnson). Look for Deal’s momentum to only continue to grow as we head into the decisive month of July.

    • B Balz says:

      I said this after the Beacon debate. And I remain undecided. Notwithstanding, Rep. Deal is smooth, prepared, experienced, and very comfortable under the hot lights.

      Just like Roy.

    • ByteMe says:

      You forgot to throw Hillary into the mix, since he was working on health care and national security issues with her back in the mid 2000’s.

    • I Am Jacks Post says:

      . . . and Erick Johnson gave money to Democrats running against Republicans. Has Newt donated to Democrats?

      • Mayonnaise says:

        Eric gave money to individuals who supported school choice legislation to fend off the teachers’ unions. Or maybe he gave them money because they were pro-choice liberals. You figure out which one is more plausible.

        • Henry Waxman says:

          The “Erick” Johnson reference would be much funnier and appropriate if Erick Erickson would have endorsed Johnson instead of Handel.

      • Capt. Jack Sparrow says:

        Yes. He donated this video to Democrat Nathan Deal. But I think it’s a donation in kind.

    • GOPwits says:

      Mayo for once you are so so so right on the money! Go Mayo – I’ll let you join Mustard for a sandwich!

  9. Pine Knot says:

    Has anyone noticed that when a Pro-Handel front page post is up that it stays at the top, but when a positive post about anyone else, it gets bounced?

      • I Am Jacks Post says:

        Dude, you’re within driving distance of insane if you think this was a fair-minded, straight forward post.

        Here you are, Ronald, being fair-minded:

        “In fact he use to be a Democrat State Senator, serving alongside the likes of Governor Roy Barnes.” (This is relevant, how?)

        “While this helps to shore up Deal’s credentials with those who might question his Republican status” (Who is questioning Deal’s Republican credentials? Icarus? Tyler? Deal’s conservative street cred makes Handel look even squishier than she probably is. Just another stupid detour when you should’ve just said, “Let’s go to the tape.”).

        “I find it interesting that Gingrich does not formally endorse Congressman Deal. He dances around the issue, but never hits the nail on the head.” (Again, could’ve just let the video speak for itself, but nah . . .)

        “At any rate, this video certainly is a good thing for the Deal campaign.” (So yes, Ronald, after 4 graphs of BS narrative, you close with the money shot. And with such conviction! Kudos indeed for a “just the facts, ma’am” post).

        • I have stated nothing but facts, and I really do not see how any of them are particularly negative.

          I learned the whole “Just the facts, ma’am” routine from the movie Dragnet rather than the TV show. So I’m afraid you are going nowhere with me and these wild accusations. I hope this isn’t your method of persuading me to vote for your candidate – it’s not working. And believe me, I really am an unspoken for voter here. My candidate is running for Congress now.

          • Mozart says:

            Daniels, you have no idea what “facts” are. When Roy was governor of this state, Deal was serving in Congress as a Republican, so let us know how “Democrat Nathan Deal” could have been serving with “Governor Roy Barnes?”

              • State Senate from 81-90. The sentence says they served together, meaning they were in the same body. Outside of Hoke Smith, we haven’t had a Governor for a long time to hold two offices.

                I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about both men’s careers as State Senators.

                    • Oh I got it. =)

                      It’s easy to be confused with Barnes, he served as Senator from the late 70s until 90 when he made his first pass at Governor. He lost of course to Zell, and then became a Rep in the House until 98 when he finally did become Governor. On a side note, which I did not mention originally – there was another Democrat State Senator that served with Deal during his time in the State Legislature. His name? Sonny Perdue. I think there would be a very endearing story for the old media this fall if Deal and Barnes are both the nominees. Two men clashing over the same post – they use to be associates, but now are opposing forces.

                      Readers of this blog will find in time, that if there is anything I am well versed in – it’s Georgia political history.

            • B Balz says:

              I’ve been here awhile Mozart and Mr. Daniels does know what facts are. Plus, he’s telling and not selling, unlike PP’s burgeoning crop of pol posters bludgeoning us with their transparency challenged views.

        • Ryan says:

          I find myself in the same boat as Mr. Daniels, having not made up my mind about this election. After reading this I do find it very interesting that Deal was aligned with Barnes, however, given that Newt has found favor with Deal in the past I also think that this too gives credit to his campaign, yet after reading such aggressive postings from a Deal loyalist, I find myself wondering just what kind of kool-aid i have to drink if i choose to support Deal. Ron’s article while somewhat aggressively written does not paint Deal in a bad picture sir, but rather you paint the bad picture about your candidate.

        • TheEiger says:

          “In fact he use to be a Democrat State Senator, serving alongside the likes of Governor Roy Barnes.” (This is relevant, how?)

          This is relevant because Deal was helping to elect Walter Mondale while true conservatives were working to elect Ronald Reagan. There is your relevance!

  10. Mayonnaise says:

    After 8 years of Ronald Reagan, Nathan Deal (age 47) decided it was a good time for a “lifelong conservative” to support Michael Dukakis.

    I wonder if Deal and Ox hung out together at the 1988 DNC convention?

    • GOPwits says:

      There’s gotta be a picture somewhere of them high fiving each other and talking about how America really needed to raise taxes, reduce the military, alleviate command of our military to the UN, allow the government to fund abortions… I could go on for weeks about the Democrats positions that Deal and Ox supported…

      • rightofcenter says:

        Oh really? I would like to see your research that shows Deal supported any of the positions you assign to him. For those who actually have a memory of the times, they will note that he was certainly one of the half-dozen most conservative Democrats in the House. Since the switch, he has been one of the most conservative Republicans in the House. You purists truly won’t be happy until the GOP consists of a small but pure group who were born into the GOP. Heckuva way to run a party…….

        • Ambernappe says:

          The best way for the GOP to become “large and pure” is for all Republicans to decide their individual standards BEFORE entering any race. May be difficult at first, but just think how relieved you will feel every time you hear of an “ethics” investigation and know that your ethics pervade your service in every way. Ethics are not a matter of opinion. You do, or do not, own every financial report, every oath (including marital), and your public comportment (not composure- which can be adopted by any practiced scoundrel and/or his associates). The comfort is that your integrity keeps you from losing any sleep and worrying about which lie to tell next.

  11. Mozart says:

    It was likely a lot more fun than hanging out with Pat Robertson at the GOP’s 1988 convention.

  12. GOPwits says:

    It’s time for a little FACT about good ol’e boy Nathan Deal…

    Nathan’s record in Congress is quite a peak into the mind of the “Convenient Politician”.

    I don’t know how you can call yourself pro-life and have voted against the 1993 Bliley Amendment which mandated written parental notification and a 48 hour waiting period for minors seeking to have an abortion. However, in March of 1993 Nathan cast a vote against this amendment.

    Nathan has a long history of fighting AGAINST wasteful spending for the National Endowment for the Arts.

    Deal’s camp runs around spreading stupid gay rumors about Karen Handel yet their own candidate voted against the ban when Republican Duncan Hunter introduced it.

    And don’t get Eric Johnson started, but Deal also voted against School Choice when it came up in Congress.

    Hillary Care? Nathan voted to keep that off the budget. How conservative is that?

    Oh, you’ll say, Nathan was a Democrat then and he had to vote that way, but as the tide turned going into 1994 and 1995, Nathan kept it up…

    By a vote of 207-211, Nathan voted against spending cuts in the federal budget. He towed the line when the Clinton 95 Budget came along. That was sure a joy ride of excess and pork barrel!

    I was just stunned when I say that Nathan voted to allow US Troops to serve under the command of the UN. And again, those cuts to the National Endowment of the Arts — Nathan said, don’t cut $171 million dollars — let’s spend that money we don’t have! Heck, he was just training for his REAL big spending days in Congress of late when Republicans ran up the debt faster than a drunk at an open bar.

    Want more? How about Nathan’s 1995 vote against the Strategic Missile Defense System? Or better yet, the 1996 Budget Resolution that would have balanced the budget by 2000 instead of 2002. Nathan says he always voted for a balanced budget – not true! He voted against the resolution.

    Don’t believe me? Do your homework and knock yourself out at

    • Henry Waxman says:

      GOPwits, in the few areas where your post is specific enough to actually be checked for I can say that your post is full of errors.

      For example, Nathan Deal was the leader of the Fiscal Caucus, which had 20 Democrats, and from this position, he led the fight against the irresponsible spending in the Clinton-proposed budgets. He helped lead the fight against (and voted against) the 1995 Clinton budget and HillaryCare.

      As just one example of his commitment to a balanced budget, he joined with Rep. Schaefer in authoring and introducing H.Res. 1, a Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced budget back in the 105th Congress.

      I would add site posts to the Library of Congress’s THOMAS legislative research site, but the last three times I attempted to do so, my comments wouldn’t post.

  13. GOPwits says:

    CORRECTION: Nathan has a long history of fighting AGAINST wasteful spending for the National Endowment for the Arts.

    Should have read:

    Nathan has a long history of fighting AGAINST CUTTING wasteful spending for the National Endowment for the Arts.

  14. Georgia Judge says:

    Typical post from Handel Pundit,at some point you guys are going to have to disclose this blog as an inkind donation to the Handel campaign.

  15. kcordell says:

    When Nathan ran for Congress in ’92 he gave us his word that he would limit himself to 6 terms (12 years). When that time came he refused to bow out. I asked him why he lied to us and his response was “I voted to fund the Afghanistan War so I decided to stay and support that vote.”

    • Henry Waxman says:

      I’ve heard that rumor before, but I can’t find any quotes from Nathan Deal where he said he would limit himself to only six terms. If you can find a quote, then I could agree with your premise that “he gave us his word.”

      • Mozart says:

        “The Regular Guys” and “Regular Guy for Governor” are two distinct and unrelated entities in which there would be little to no confusion in the marketplace of ideas were one to associate Otis Putnam with being a “regular guy.”

        Carry on, Mr. Putnam…and ignore that admonition of bloggers who think they know best how you should campaign for office.

Comments are closed.