Saying What Must Be Said

In the interest of my limited time this week, I’m tempted just refer you to Kyle Wingfield’s excellent and “to the point” column today.

If you don’t want to read through the wind up, here’s the money quote regarding Karen Handel’s taking of Nathan Deal’s bait by making “the gays” a nice primary wedge issue, and in doing so, giving a less than comprehensive explanation:

And for a candidate who has emphasized ethics and integrity, Handel’s fumbling efforts to set the record straight are putting her in a bad place.

It was her first major slip up in a campaign that has gone on for well over a year. Most of the other candidates have had them along the way, and as a pattern emerged, have been roundly criticized by me here on these pages for them.

Handel can’t afford for there to be a pattern. It’s go time, and the major media outlets are finally covering this race. Mistakes made today have a much greater effect than those that Deal spent the entire month of October making, or that Ox has used his entire career of self public service making.

I would encourage Handel to make a comprehensive statement on this matter and put it behind her. It’s only an issue because she allowed it to become one. It only goes away with some clear and forthcoming statements, and then the few chips will fall where they may.


      • Ambernappe says:

        Don’t ask, don’t tell. Who in the world makes a practice of constantly discussing his/her preferences and insiating that it be a part of his/her identity !

    • GOPwits says:

      Regardless of the discussion – she ended up VOTING her conservative position…

      Deal likes to make a point about all of his votes, etc… However, Karen has a voting record too… And when rubber met the road, Karen voted like the conservative that she is…

      If you want to look at who stands where on gay issues, it is only fair to look at Deal’s vote against the Ban on Gays in the military. He voted against the ban, meaning he voted the Democratic position. It is very hypocritical of him to be attacking Karen for discussing the issue, when he himself has voted a position in which he is using to trash Karen…

    • MDokes says:

      “What really needs to be said”
      I feel like this is a Joe Wilson moment. “You lie”
      It makes me wonder if I could ever believe Handel again. That is the issue that will plague Handel.

      • bowersville says:

        You never believed her to begin with. You came out trying to convince people supporting Handel to go over and support Chapman. You called on Handel to withdraw.

        Nothing the matter with that. Just don’t try to disguise it now by saying you don’t think you can believe her ever again.

        • MDokes says:

          Not true, I looked closely at Handel and considered her. I was not sure who to believe. She has helped me answer that question with her actions. She would have made my list had she said in the past I believed this but now I believe something else. I detest liars….

    • ready2rumble says:

      As stated above Handel’s record is clear, she voted against domestic partner benefits.

      Deal voted for gays in the military, and voted to allow funds to be used advocating homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle in the classroom.

      • Lady Thinker says:


        You are so right so why can’t they see that? Maybe they choose not to see the truth.

  1. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Is it me or does she have a poorly-run campaign? I’ve often criticized her on here, but I know she’s no Ox or Deal – but she’s definitely coming across like that.

    • ready2rumble says:

      Deal using his congressional office to influence state dept head – ILLEGAL

      Ox laundering money thru Alabama – ILLEGAL

      Johnson forgetting to disclose $300,000 – ILLEGAL

      Handel voting against domestic partner benefits – LEGAL

      • Henry Waxman says:

        How is it possible for a Congressional office to exert ANY influence over the Georgia Revenue Commissioner when they have absolutely ZERO authority over the Georgia Revenue Commissioner???

        Does the Georgia Revenue Commissioner’s office operate using funds appropriated by Congress? No.

        Does any Member of Congress have any executive authority over any federal agency? No.

        Does any Member of Congress have any executive authority over any state agency? No.

        Does any Member of the U.S. House of Representatives have any authority or power beyond voting on a bill during committee consideration or being one of 435 votes on final passage of any piece of legislation? No.

        I just hope Karen Handel reads the above post because it would probably come in handy if she ever enrolls in a night school program at her local community college.

        • GAPoliticsisfun says:

          Deal’s DC insider’s definition of leadership and success.

          Deal offered an amendment to America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 – it FAILED in committee

          Deal sponsored bills 4 bills that would end automitic citizenship for babies born in the US to parents who are illegal – all 4 FAILED

          Deal did work closely with Norwood on the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act – it FAILED

          A DC insiders definition of leadership – FAILURE!

          • Hill Rat says:

            Doing a quick search through the Library of Congress’s THOMAS site, I am finding at least 32 bills under the jurisdiction of his subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Health, that were signed into law by President Bush during his chairmanship. I am also finding an additional 15 bills that came through his subcommittee that passed in the House of Representatives.

            That’s actually really good. Of course, these facts don’t match your spin, and for that I am truly sorry.

            That’s pretty

            • Hill Rat says:

              “That’s pretty” is a remnant from a sentence I meant to delete, but I didn’t. I was going to say “That’s pretty good.”

              Sorry for the confusion.

  2. PoliticalOutsider says:

    Yeah, the timing of this was real bad for her. She needs to put a tourniquet on this wound pretty quick. Coming from behind like she has to, she just can’t afford mistakes like this in the 4th quarter. Especially if she’s short on cash.

    • ReaganRepublican says:

      She is short on a lot more than cash. She has no credibility; she is short on telling the truth. When we look at her real resume rather than her embellished one-she is short on experience. Never went to College-so she is short in education. Ask her a question that she does not have a rehearsed answer for and she falls on her face-she is short on wits and smarts. Being pro-choice and pro-gay makes her real short on conservative values. We could go on and on.

          • Ambernappe says:

            Sorry – “nom de plume” would have been correct.

            Guess I was distracted and disregarded my own best advice to think before posting.

            • Hill Rat says:

              Nom de plume, pen name, screen name, username, avatar, and handle also work.

              However, people seem to be very fond of the term “sock puppet” around here.

  3. Tiberius says:

    The jury is still out on whether she or Johnson have run a good or bad campaign. No one will know that until primary night.

    Oxendine’s slips in the polls must merit him a thumbs down. His support was always a mile long but an inch deep b/c he was the only candidate anyone had heard of back in Nov 2009. His inability to enhance or change that for the better is not promising.

    Deal’s grade will be determined by how he answers the ethics issues. The campaign’s quality shouldn’t be judged by the existence of the issue since it inherited them. The campaign’s response will determine the grade.

  4. Unless Karen Handel can prove to Georgia Republicans voters that she hates gay people as much as Nathan Deal does, she can kiss the GOP gubernatorial nomination goodbye.

      • Hill Rat says:

        Konop, that is simply not true, and you know it. No fundraiser associated with Nathan Deal has ever given one penny to Mark Foley.

        PACs are founded by the campaign of ONE MEMBER of Congress, and according to the official Statement of Organization filed with the Federal Election Commission on September 19, 2006, Physicians to Retain Our Majority was founded by Rep. Clifford B. Stearns. The treasurer was Lisa Lisker and the assistant treasurer was Keith Davis.

        According to the official Termination Report filed wth the Federal Election Commission on October 25, 2006, Physicians to Retain Our Majority NEVER gave ANY money to Mark Foley or his campaign.

        Now, please stop posting things that you know are not true.

            • Hill Rat says:

              And I don’t want to see the same BS cut-and-paste job from the Democratic Underground website that references some Roll Call article that the author admits he hasn’t read because he doesn’t have a subscription to Roll Call.

              • Hill Rat says:

                And the Democratic Underground post never says that Foley was at the event or that he received a dime from the event.

                The official FEC filings clearly show that Physicians to Retain Our Majority never gave a dime to Foley.

                If you have proof to the contrary, then you need to do your civic duty and report it to FEC. Otherwise, please stop spreading lies.

            • John Konop says:

              Did you have fun at the event?

              …..Roll Call today has a report about a new joint fundraising committee created by ex-U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and a number of his former Republican congressional colleagues that goes by the (in light of recent events) unfortunate name of PROM –
              Physicians to Retain Our Majority.

              (Sorry, Roll Call is subscription only, general link is best I could do).

              Members of the committee, include two New Yorkers – John Sweeney (20th CD) and Sue Kelly (19th CD) – as well as Shelley Moore Capito, of West Virginia, who is a member of the House Page Board and was not told of the Foley emails when the issue came up earlier this year.

              Evidently, the committee had an event last month, according to the NRCC Web site:

              Event: You are cordially invited to P.R.O.M. Night: Physicians to Retain our Majority With Honorary Chairman of the Red Rooster Leadership PAC Nathan Deal

              Time: 5 to 6:30 p.m.
              Location: B. Smiths Restaurant 50 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC
              Details: RSVP to Tom Hammond or Jill Pasqualetto Hammond & Associates P. 703-548.6916 F. 703.548.5048……

              Read more: Mark Foley’s PROM Date With Cong. John Sweeney (R-NY) | Answerbag's+PROM+Date+With+Cong.+John+Sweeney+(R-NY)/6937b5a6-2379-b458-bf6d-8cba7577bdea/prom-planning#ixzz0qTJVQGbH

              • Hill Rat says:

                Can you read? That’s the same BS cut-and-paste job you have posted 10 other times.

                Go to the FEC website and see who gave money to Foley. Report back IF and ONLY IF you see Deal’s name listed.

                Otherwise, stop lying.

                I am through with this conversation.

                • John Konop says:

                  First the story was broke by ROLL CALL. Second the story was in many major publications at the time. Third, if he was at the event or not, Deal sponsored it with a known sexual predator. Finally if had any issue sponsoring it with a known sexual predator at the time Nathan Deal could of released a statement.

                  Can you show me a statement from Nathan Deal before the event distancing himself at all with one of his co-sponsors MARK FOLEY the known sexual predator?

                  • John Konop says:

                    Hill Rat,

                    What part of this invite is confusing you?

                    ….Event: You are cordially invited to P.R.O.M. Night: Physicians to Retain our Majority With Honorary Chairman of the Red Rooster Leadership PAC Nathan Deal….

                    … a new joint fundraising committee created by ex-U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and a number of his former Republican congressional colleagues that goes by the (in light of recent events) unfortunate name of PROM –
                    Physicians to Retain Our Majority….

                    • Hill Rat says:

                      You are not pasting from the “invite;” you are pasting from an INACCURATE post on a Left-wing website that falsely claims that Foley “created” the Physicians to Retain Our Majority PAC.

                      If you would actually read the official FEC filings, you would see that the campaign of Rep. Clifford B. Stearns established the Physicians to Retain Our Majority PAC, and you would see that the Physicians to Retain Our Majority PAC never gave one cent to Foley.

                      It’s all there in black-and-white.

                      Of course, if you want to continue to embarrasss yourself, feel free to continue to post things that have been repeatedly shown not to be true.

                    • John Konop says:

                      Hill Rat,

                      No one ever said Foley got a dime. In fact at the time of the event, FOLEY was caught as a sexual predator. THE ISSUE is Nathan Deal was still raising money with FOLEY for a PAC after he got caught as a sexual predator.

                    • John Konop says:

                      HILL RAT,

                      YES OR NO DID THIS HAPPEN?

                      ….Event: You are cordially invited to P.R.O.M. Night: Physicians to Retain our Majority With Honorary Chairman of the Red Rooster Leadership PAC Nathan Deal….
                      … a new joint fundraising committee created by ex-U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and a number of his former Republican congressional colleagues that goes by the (in light of recent events) unfortunate name of PROM –
                      Physicians to Retain Our Majority….

                    • Will Harrison says:

                      John, you keep claiming that Foley was at the event, but you present ZERO evidence of this fact.

                    • Will Harrison says:

                      John, you have a partial invitation to a fundraiser but ZERO evidence that either Deal or Foley were actually there.

                    • John Konop says:


                      I have no idea if Nathan Deal attended the function. The issue at hand is he knowingly raised money with a sexual predator Mark Foley for the PAC. No one ever claimed Foley and or Deal gave each other money; it is only that he had no issue using the connections of a known sexual predator to raise money.

                      Unlike you I do not hate gay people, and in fact I would and have done business with gay people. The difference between us I would not knowingly associate or do business with a sexual predator. The fact that Nathan Deal knowingly associated with the gay Mark Foley demonstrates hypocrisy via his attacks on Karen Handel. But the main ETHICAL issue to me is when he knew he was a sexual predator and maintained the association for raising money.

                    • John Konop says:

                      In a general election how will Nathan Deal explain the fund raising letter with Mark Foley after he got caught sexually harassing minors?

                      The press will be over this story when the general election hits! This story with Karen Handel being attacked by the gay basher Deal will be all over the media!

                      Barnes has stock-pile of cash to promote the story.

                    • Hill Rat says:

                      I heard the Handel campaign has been begging reporters to run with this story, but no reporter will touch it because the facts completely contradict spin from Handel’s Rainbow Warriors.

                      It wasn’t Foley’s organization, Foley wasn’t at the event, and the event happened BEFORE the allegations against Foley were disclosed.

                      Again, John, you are just spreading things that simply are not true.

                    • Hill Rat says:


                      I really think you should apologize to Will for claiming that he “knowingly associate[s]” and “[does] business with a sexual predator.”

                      Unlesss, of course, you have a shred of evidence to support those claims, and I highly doubt you do.

                    • John Konop says:

                      Konop facts 1

                      Deal team all spin!

                      Nathan Deal can clear all this up by releasing a statement he never sent out the invitation to the event.

                    • Hill Rat says:

                      If you would actually read the official FEC filings, you would see that the campaign of Rep. Clifford B. Stearns established the Physicians to Retain Our Majority PAC, and you would see that the Physicians to Retain Our Majority PAC never gave one cent to Foley.

                      Hopefully, you can find a friend or caretaker to read it to you.

                    • ACCmoderate says:

                      Hill Rat, if you would actually read the official invitation, you would see that sexual deviant Mark Foley was among the founders of Physicians to Retain our Majority PAC.

                      Let me repeat this. Mark. Foley. Helped. Found. Physicians. To. Retain. Our. Majority. PAC.

                      Was his the first name on the list? No, but he helped start it and he was associated with it.

                      Now Nathan Deal no doubt knew this, but chose to attend the fundraiser being hosted by a known sexual predator.

                      Of course PROM didn’t give money to Foley… the man had flirted his way out of Congress.

                      However, Foley’s organization DID give money to Nathan Deal.

                      Hopefully, you can find a friend or caretaker to explain this to you. Your brain seems to be operating a step slower than the rest of us.

                    • Hill Rat says:

                      So, the “official invitation” says that Foley founded the Physicians to Retain Our Majority PAC??? Do you have a copy of the “official invitation” that makes this claim or are you confusing the text of the Democratic Underground blog post for the text of the invitation too?

                      If you would read the official FEC filings, then you would see that the campaign of Rep. Clifford B. Stearns established the Physicians to Retain Our Majority PAC. If this is inaccurate, then you should do your civic duty and report this violation to the FEC.

                      I may be “slow,” but I think I am going to believe the official FEC filings that I have read over some invitation that you infer you may have seen.

                      And by the way, didn’t this fundraiser happen BEFORE the allegations came out against Foley? If so, are you claiming we should be upset at Nathan Deal because he and the people who were staffing his Leadership PAC lacked the ability to see into the future???

                    • John Konop says:

                      Hill Rat,

                      Why lie about the story, it is all over the place?

                      ….Days before Fort Lauderdale U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw denounced former House colleague Mark Foley and said he wouldn’t let his grandchildren near him, Shaw, Foley and two other Florida congressmen teamed up to raise money for their campaigns.

                      In all, 13 incumbent Republican House members from seven states are listed as participants in a special fundraising committee that federal election records show was formed on Sept. 18.

                      The name of the committee is Physicians to Retain Our majority, or PROM. The two Florida congressmen are Ric Keller of Orlando and Cliff Stearns of Silver Springs.

                      Shaw campaign treasurer Gregory Wilder said PROM held one joint fundraiser earlier this month, but could not recall the location, the names of those who contributed or how much money was raised. He estimated that less than $50,000 was collected.

                      Wilde said equal shares of the money PROM raised was given to each campaign, including Foley’s. Exactly how much went to Friends of Mark Foley, his campaign for reelection, won’t be
                      known until campaign reports are filed later this month.

                      In its most recent report, filed Aug. 22, Foley’s campaign reported having $2.7‚million cash on hand.

                      Wilder said Shaw received his share of the PROM payout sometime after the Federal Election Commission received the group’s statement of organization on Sept. 18……

                      Read more:

                    • Will Harrison says:

                      John, if this article were accurate, then the FEC filings for PROM would show dispersements to Foley’s campaign. However, the official filings show NO dispersements to Foley’s campaign, and thus, the article is inaccurate.

                    • Will Harrison says:

                      John, you really do have a thing for cutting and pasting factually inaccurate articles. How many times do people have to say that the official FEC filings completely contradict your claims?

                    • John Konop says:

                      Will Harrison,

                      ONCE AGAIN YES OR NO DID THIS HAPPEN?

                      ….Event: You are cordially invited to P.R.O.M. Night: Physicians to Retain our Majority With Honorary Chairman of the Red Rooster Leadership PAC Nathan Deal….

                      … a new joint fundraising committee created by ex-U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and a number of his former Republican congressional colleagues that goes by the (in light of recent events) unfortunate name of PROM –
                      Physicians to Retain Our Majority….

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      John, do you really think that the following was actually on the event invitation?:

                      “… a new joint fundraising committee created by ex-U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and a number of his former Republican congressional colleagues that goes by the (in light of recent events) unfortunate name of PROM –
                      Physicians to Retain Our Majority….”

                    • Henry Waxman says:


                      You really are dead wrong on this. I’ve searched through the FEC filings, and I cannot find any trace of Deal’s campaign or Deal’s leadership PAC has giving any money to Foley. I’ve also searched through the FEC filings of P.R.O.M., and I cannot find where P.R.O.M. has given any money to Foley.

                      Further, P.R.O.M.’s FEC filings clearly state that it was established by Rep. Stearns.

                      Rep. Stearns and Rep. Foley are two different people.

                      There really is nothing there.

                      No matter how many times you beat the horse; it is still going to be dead.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      I’ll repost without the typo:


                      You really are dead wrong on this. I’ve searched through the FEC filings, and I cannot find any trace of Deal’s campaign or Deal’s leadership PAC giving any money to Foley. I’ve also searched through the FEC filings of P.R.O.M., and I cannot find where P.R.O.M. has given any money to Foley.

                      Further, P.R.O.M.’s FEC filings clearly state that it was established by Rep. Cliff Stearns.

                      Rep. Stearns and Rep. Foley are two different people.

                      There really is nothing there.

                      No matter how many times you beat the dead horse; it is still going to be dead.

                    • John Konop says:


                      In all due respect NATAN DEAL dose not dispute that he sent out a joint fund raising letter with Mark Foley’s group after he got caught as a sexual predator. How they booked the money is irrelevant.

                  • Doug Deal says:

                    Were you the drunk one or one of the professional ones pulling their weight at the PP gig?

                    Perhaps you can stick to your race and not sully the reputation of your candidate by dropping his name in an online forum on a topic that doesn’t concern him.

                    • Hill Rat says:

                      I’ve never been to a PP gig, and I’ve never had more than one drink at an official event.

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      Any, whoever you are, I doubt you work for Austin, since no one I know that works for him would drag his name into a discussion about Deal, just to make a petty attack in a blog.

                      Learn some professionalism. When you invoke your position on his staff, you are speaking for him, and to be frank, you aren’t worthy.

                    • Mozart says:

                      “Well then don’t parade around like your (sic) on his staff, if it isn’t true.”

                      English Language = 0
                      Karen Handel Supporters = 2 on Illiteracy in Action

                    • Doug Deal says:


                      Wow, you Deal guys have quite a wit! Did you come up with that on your own, or did you have an all day strategy meeting like you did with that “ghetto grandma” bon mot?

                    • Hill Rat says:

                      Doug, you seem to be getting awfully upset and defaming my professionalism when all I did was infer that you were trying to divert attention away from the topic at hand.

                    • Hill Rat says:

                      I said, “I am helping Austin Scott in GA-8,” which is true. I would like to be clear that I am not on the payroll of his campaign, and I’m sorry if “I am helping” was somehow perceived as “I am a paid member of Austin Scott’s official campaign staff.”

                    • Doug Deal says:


                      The the mistake is mine, but your evocation of his name is certainly awkward, and definitely childish. Running off to “tell mommy” when you are losing a fight is for sissies.

                    • Hill Rat says:

                      It was my bad, Doug. I lost my cool in the Sisyphean challenge having a fact-based discussion with John Konop.

                      I was simply trying to counter your claim that I liked crooks by stating that the fact that I am supporting Austin Scott, who I know you respect. My comment that I would “let Austin know what you think about him” was better suited for a playground argument between 8 year olds, and I regretted it as soon as I clicked “submit.”

              • Ambernappe says:

                Austin Scott should immediately relieve HILL RAT of any connection with his campaign. Mr. Scott has the respect of many on this site.

                  • Hill Rat says:

                    Ambernappe, I just hope that you will increase your efforts on behalf of Mr. Scott to make up for my absence.

                    By the way, how much have you raised for him?

        • Ambernappe says:

          Being relatively new to this particular environment, but having various interesting contacts (whom I trust), my vote goes to JK for honesty and perseverance.


            • Lady Thinker says:

              JK is an honorable man and he can’t be bullied. Not can you DD. You both give as good as you get and are both very rational, something your detractors can’t say.

              • Doug Deal says:

                LT, thanks, I think 😉

                I generally just use tit for tat. I like to let my opponent to select the venue, high ground or the mud and just try to stay on the better side of it, if I can.

                • Lady Thinker says:

                  I really like your posts. I know John is a good man and your posts indicate you have the same qualities, so I was trying to defend you too. I would do the smiley think but it doesn’t seem to work for me.

          • Lady Thinker says:


            You might as well give up the contract angle. Deal isn’t going to post anything to defend himself because he has nothing to defend himself. He’d rather trash Karen to push the spotlight onto her and off of him.

        • Doug Deal says:

          Oh Red, I forgot. You want to stone to death two men who diddle each other but elect one that diddles children to the Governor’s mansion.

          Your all class, Red.

          • Doug Deal says:

            And before Red misses the point entirely (that he worships child molesters and hate the USA) I will correct the spelling error he will be chomping at the bit to focus on.


          • Red Phillips says:

            Doug, I haven’t said word one about the truth or falsity of the allegations against Ray. And I welcome you checking all my post here and elsewhere to confirm that. What I have objected to is your (and others’) attempt to discredit Ray’s message bases on allegation against the messenger. That is neither “classy” nor intellectually honest. But NOBODY is trying to normalize child molestation. A lot of people are trying to normalize homosexuality. As a Christian that should not be OK with you.

            • “A lot of people are trying to normalize homosexuality. As a Christian that should not be OK with you.”

              Maybe not… but as an individual and a human being someone else’s homosexuality should be none of your business… anymore than your heterosexuality should be any of theirs.

            • Doug Deal says:

              I am probably completely wrong again, but I always had the mistaken belief in Jesus’s teaching to love your neighbor as you love yourself. This does not mean casting them out and banishing them to hell.

              Do you really believe anything in those Testiments, or do you scour them for reasons to judge and hate people and label them unworthy of your and God’s love?

              If this is the second greatest of God’s commandments, aren’t you in fact a greater sinner than the homosexuals you criticize so harshly? Where can we pick up a case load of stones to render judgement upon you?

              • Red Phillips says:

                Doug, that is just bad theology. The commandment to love our neighbor does not necessitate being silent about sin. True love would cause one to attempt to lead his gay neighbor out of his wayward lifestyle. To attempt to show him the way to Jesus’ grace whereby He saves us from our sin. Jesus doesn’t ignore our sin. In fact he raised the bar on sin. To look lustfully is to be guilty of doing the deed. To hate is to be guilty of murder. What is the need for grace and forgiveness if we can define away sins the condemnation of which offend our modern sensibilities?

                You certainly have not been slow to judge Ray for his alleged relationship? Why doesn’t your love your neighbor and don’t condemn sin ethic apply there? Does your condemnation constitute hate? Is an inappropriate relationship outside the bonds of matrimony sin but homosexuality isn’t? Is Ray guilty of a sin that cries out for condemnation but to point out the Biblical injunction against homosexuality is improper and unloving? Perhaps you would like to back that up with some verses.

                You are et’ up with liberal PC sensibilities and you don’t even realize it. You sing their tune perfectly. To condemn is to hate. (Besides being PC that is incredibly simple-minded.) The sad part is that you are allowing your leftist PC sensibilities to trump your professed Christianity. What’s more important to you Doug, being Biblically correct or politically correct?

                • Doug Deal says:

                  I just want Ray to drop out of his sham run for governor, and I will not mention his name again. While he is actively harming the state and nation I will be vocal, when he disappears I would hope he would get help for his problems and stop harming young girls. If he is committing crimes, I would hope he gets his time in prison. I do not wish him ill, I just want to prevent him from harming my neighbors.

                  But d0n’t let me stand in the way of turning Christianity into a religion of hate.

                  • Red Phillips says:

                    “But d0n’t let me stand in the way of turning Christianity into a religion of hate.”

                    So to point out the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is hate? Do you really believe that? Have you ever read Jeremiah? Ezekiel? Read those and then get back with me that it is illegitimate to condemn sin.

                    • Lady Thinker says:

                      It is never illegitimate to condemn sin but we don’t live in a world where we can enforce religious principles. We live in a democracy. And which religion would you choose to enforce? Judasim, Christianity, Budda, Catholic, Muslim, Church of Satan? Church of Satan is a recognize religion that was forced onto the militarty to recognize althought personally, I think it is more deplorable that homosexuality.

                      Part of the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion so this is a mute point. Would you like to outlaw that? Regardless of party affiliations, we have to create a government that encompasses everyone.

                      So again, how do these non-issues affect who we are going to elect as governor? We have to focus on the problems facing Georgia and who has the best plan to do so.

  5. Handel is in a tricky position, she needs to sppeal to the Moderate wing of the party if she is going to move in the primary – but she also needs to pickup traditional voters. It’s walking on eggshells for her, and hoping the other alienate and tear each other down. Which is a likely outcome.

    I don’t really see how this is going to help anyone come general election, however. If people attack Karen too hard, they alienate a potential voter base. So as much as she is on eggshells, they are too. They have to find the balance between critical and gay bashing, which sometimes is about as clear as a tub of Georgia red clay.

    Who this really helps is presumptive DPGA nominee Roy Barnes. While Republicans are over here talking about gays, he’s out there apologizing to teachers and talking about more pressing policy matters – like jobs. “If we kick all of the gays out of Georgia, how many jobs have we saved or created?” is not going to cut it for discourse on how to fix our economy. In the playing cards that makes up this elections issues, this issue is a joker.

    This is bad for Karen. This is bad for all the Republican candidates. And I’d really rather not see us plastered accross CNN as ground zero for gay rights demonstrations in the next few weeks, so bad for Georgia as well.

    • ACCmoderate says:

      I wouldn’t say she needs to appeal to the moderate wing of the party if she’s going to move in the primary. If we’ve seen anything this year its that moderate Republicans are losing in huge numbers to more conservative candidates.

      If she moves to the center, she may pick up votes, but she won’t win in a run-off against a candidate that is to her right and plays up the “Tea Party” card.

      However, if she moves to the right, there are already so many candidates over there that she might not get the votes she needs to make the run-off.

      I think she stands the best chance against Barnes, but she’s got the toughest road to get there.

      • ACCmoderate says:

        By the way, the gay vote will be strong in Atlanta if such an outwardly anti-gay candidate nabs the Republican nomination.

        I’m not saying that Karen could win their vote, but if she makes her position known, she might be able to ciphon a few off from the Barnes camp.

        Atlanta was voted the most gay-friendly city in America. That’s the kind of angle we want CNN to cover, the fact that we’re still too busy to hate.

        • Hill Rat says:

          ACCmoderate, in a discussion on homosexuality, it is probably best to avoid phrases such as “ciphon (sic) a few off.”

          By the way, it is “siphon,” genius.

        • Dave Bearse says:

          What position might she make known? That she oppose domestic partnership benefits? All Barnes has to do is keep quiet.

      • She has to get the moderate votes because the extreme right votes are already so spread out amongst a crowded field. She has to tap into every available vote, and that means not making anyone angry.

        Handel doesn’t have to move to the center. She just doesn’t need to move to the right so much as to alienate voters.

              • Will Harrison says:

                The Christian right become a “hate group” against women and children? Is this the official position of Karen Handel???

                • Henry Waxman says:

                  Since John Konop keeps asking for an official release from Nathan Deal on ex-Rep. Foley, I will also waste my time and ask for an official release from Karen Handel that either confirms or denies her belief that the Christian right is a hate group.

            • Ambernappe says:

              I am extreme Christian Right and Karen Handel is my choice.

              See my post re: don’t ask………..

              There may be those whose actions evoke “hate”, my preference is, of course, to pray for them,; then to find some way to rescue their victims. Especially the creeps involved in the trafficking of women and children.

            • bowersville says:

              The Christian Right doesn’t make your bigoted attitude right ReaganRepublican.

              A more appropriate moniker for you is KuKluxKlan.

              I guess doing good in the name of the Lord has no bounds.

  6. ZazaPachulia says:

    No one in this race is running a good campaign. Most of them are terrible candidates.

    John freaking Oxendine is still leading in the polls by a wide margin. That fact, more than anything else, shows us how inept the Handel, Johnson, Deal and Chapman campaigns truly are.

    Although, it’s hard to make a bad candidate look good…

  7. Progressive Dem says:

    After the GOP finishes a thorough discussion on gay rights, perhaps they’ll start advocating for more people to carry guns at Hartsfield Jackson Airport. After discussing that important issue, maybe they can start campaigning on more off shore drilling. Then they can discuss the merits of the Fair Tax and tunnelling a new downtown connector through Atlanta. By all means, keep focusing on losing issues or on issues that nobody but the far right wing of the GOP cares about. Icing on the cake will be a discussion by the Tea Party of repealing the popular election of US Senators. Go Tea Party!

  8. Jace Walden says:


    Unfortunately, this issue will probably be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for me.

    I’m honestly fed-up with gay bashing Republicans. Whether you like it or not, gay people are here to stay. They’ve been here since the beginning of time and they’re not going anywhere. They’re citizens just like me and you, and as such deserve to have their rights protected.

    I realize that Karen didn’t personally engage in the gay-bashing, and I don’t know whether she was for gay rights before she was against them. But the fact is that when she was challenged on the idea whether or not gays deserve equal rights, she ran from the opportunity to set her apart from every other gay-bashing Republican in this race.

    She was the only Republican or Democrat I could have supported in the first place, but now…I don’t think I can vote for her anymore.

    By the way, I don’t mean to offend any Republicans with terms like “gay-bashing”, but I can’t think of a better term to describe it. It happens in every Republican primary, and quite frankly, it’s disgusting.

    • Glen Ross says:

      It’s not “bashing” to campaign against an interest group who is pushing for priviledges they have no right to.

          • Jace Walden says:

            They’re people.

            Then they already have rights, without having to invent them. They’re rights simply haven’t been protected by the government.

        • I Am Jacks Post says:

          Forest from the trees, Jace. As has been said numerous times, this has nothing to do with the gay community, Handel’s pushback notwithstanding. It’s an issue of integrity and honesty. Would it matter if Karen had been dishonest and evasive about school choice or the federal highway trust fund?

          • Jace Walden says:

            This isn’t an issue of integrity and honesty, at least not to me. It’s an issue of whether or not you want to protect the equal rights of citizens, even if you disagree with their lifestyle. Karen had/has a chance to take that stand. So far, she’s ran away from it.

            • Jace Walden says:

              I know I’m coming off as argumentative here, and I’m really trying not to. But looking at the comments on this thread, I’m kind of appalled by all the Handel supporters on here who are defending her on this issue. She’s basically admitting that she doesn’t believe in protecting the rights of all citizens.

            • Glen Ross says:

              The only legal interest the govt has in marriage is for taxation purposes. For all the different relationships between adults (friends, relatives, roommates, etc) the only one that gets special treatment from the state is marriage between a man and a woman? Why? Because it is the only “union” that can create a child. For the purposes of the govt, all other “relationships” are the same.

              I have nothing against gay people. However, their relationships, no matter how romantic they may be, are no different than a relationship between friends, brothers, roommates, co-workers, etc as far as the law is concerned.

              It’s not a matter of bigotry at all. It’s unfortunate this argument always defaults into “you hate gays” I don’t hate anyone. I also don’t believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.

              • Jace Walden says:

                The only legal interest the govt has in marriage is for taxation purposes.

                I couldn’t agree more. I think the government should be out of the marriage “business” as well–completely out of it, for tax purposes too. What we call marriage, should be between two people and their god/overlord/alien master or whatever the heck they want. If people want to be married, that should be their decision should not require the government’s acknowledgement one way or the other.

                • ACCmoderate says:

                  So marraiges exist to produce children? Why did the state allow Karen Handel to get married?

                  Not every heterosexual couple is able to/decides to have children. Should their marraige liscence be taken away because they aren’t procreating.

                  Homosexual couples want the same rights afforded under the law to married heterosexual couples. I don’t see why that’s so wrong.

                  • ReaganRepublican says:

                    Karen Handel could have adopted? Many Children are in need of homes.. It is kind of hard to relate to me when you do not have kids. Kind of like the couple with no kids you use to hang out with before you had kids, after you have kids you have little in common and start spending more time with couples with kids who have more in common with you now. Handel’s LCR supporters will never get what I have just said, but Georgia conservative family primary voter will. State Senator Renee Unterman from Gwinnett could not have kids and she adopted, and conservative Georgian love her immensely. There is never a dry eye when she talks about her love for her kids…

                    • ACCmoderate says:

                      ReaganRepublican, I so agree with you about adoption. I’m curious though, would you support adoption by a homosexual couple?

                      I know 6 or 7 gay couples that have adopted and they’re some of the best parents I’ve ever seen. They have that same for their children as straight couples do.

                      I’m merely responding to the argument that marraiges exist solely to produce children. That light of reasoning is bunk due to the numbers of straight couples that either can’t or choose not to have children. Moreover, there are plenty of unmarried folks making babies in this state as well.

                      If Republicans are going to validate their reason for opposing gay marraige, its going to have to be on a sturdier foundation than “marraige exists to produce children”

                    • ReaganRepublican says:

                      A traditional model of mother-father parenting is empirically more beneficial for children and society. Public policy should support and assist this model that is being undermined rather than contribute further to its demise.
                      While Christians should be politically engaged and attempt to preserve certain important culture-sustaining conditions for the common good, the greater obligation is for the church to be the church. We should live lives of truth and love, depending on the power of God’s Spirit rather than government policies to set the moral tone of our culture.

                  • HowardRoark says:

                    You can’t govern on the margin. Some 16 year olds arent mature enough to drive, but the govt had to set the line somewhere. Not all married couples can/will have children. But most do.

              • benevolus says:

                I don’t get the connection between ‘taxes” and “creating a child”. If creating a child is the criteria, then what does marriage have to do with anything?

                And the government does recognize married or unmarried status for taxes, even without children present.

                And what about adoption? Or foster care? I think the state cares about the well-being of those children whether they or their biological parents are paying taxes or not.

    • Ambernappe says:


      Do not forget which campaign is making the most of this topic – former Representative Nathan (The Real) Deal.

  9. Jace Walden says:

    BUT…and it’s a big but, if she does come out in public and unequivocably state that she supports equal rights for gay people, I will still vote for her.

  10. bowersville says:

    Yes it’s tricky ground for all GOP candidates. I read a news article from 11alive on That’s Just Peachy. I read one line with five words that to me is the meat of the article:

    “Handel was unavailable for comment.”

    My opinion is simple, Handel states bring it on but in this instance she hasn’t stood up. Handel should have boldly walked up to the microphone and stated she doesn’t hate gays, she’s talked to gays, and when called upon to vote on the Fulton Commission she voted against government benefits for domestic partnerships. As for the emails, Handel could have explained that during a campaign, thousands go out but my position is clear, I voted against benefits for domestic partnerships and left it there.

    The article goes on with, McLagan suggests Deal could face a backlash “for attacking Karen for not hating gay people the most.”

    Handel should have been the one that said this election is not about who hates gays the most and redifined the debate. She had an opportunity to remind GOP voters that this issue is not one that will pass the General Assembly and if in the abstract it did pass, she would veto it. Then explain the real issues facing Georgia.

    Another quote in the 11alive article: “When you go back and try to deny and and cover up your first position, I think that’s what make’s people more angry than anything else,” said Deal.

    I don’t read that quote as Deal hates. Deal’s defining the debate not Handel.

      • Mozart says:

        If you “agree” with that so much, then STOP your incessant attempts to muddy Deal and Deal supporters with them being in support of Mark Foley or being closet gays.

        Konop, try some consistency for once. Heck, try it for 8 hours as your first shot at it to start with.

        • ZazaPachulia says:

          ok, so Deal is only a bigot toward black people (aka “ghetto grandmas”), not gays. He just has a problem with Karen’s flip-flopping and fibbing. Fine. I’ll accept that.

          • bowersville says:

            You know if you bigoted bullies want to call every Handel supporter a QUEER just sat it. Mozart did at 5:34pm, but it’s been removed.

            You folk’s are nothing but a bunch of over bearing bullies.

            You think you can intimidate every one with your bigoted thoughts and some how every one except you and your candidate is guilty of having no soul, a liar, a sinner and hell bound.

            That’s the trouble with you members of the cultural Georgia Taliban, if any one doesn’t think or believe the way you do, then trash them, thrash them, and use the government to punish them and make them submit to your narrow minded thoughts or suffer the consequences at the hands of the government.

            You creeps are scary, you have the same ideological philosophy as the Taliban, except you want to hide behind Jesus.

            That’s the trouble with using Jesus’ teachings in such a narrow way and making it a wedge issue. You drag the Lord through your mud. Where is your mercy? You have none, you want to beat everyone over the head with your man made rules and use your bigoted judgements and call it in the name of Jesus.

            • B Balz says:

              Had I tried, I could not have expressed this train of thought any better, with more clarity, or emphasis.

              The silent majority of moderate GOP voters choose not to engage these folks for the reasons you state: Retribution. Screw ’em, then screw ’em again. Take back the GOP in Georgia!

              Can somebody prove me wrong? Doesn’t the GOP in GA consist of a majority of voters who believe fiscally conservative, smaller government voters as the prima mobilia?

              If so, why should the GOP majority suffer the adverse effects of popular marginalization due to the vocal minority of strident, all knowing, polemicists as they goosestep to their version of righteousness?

            • Henry Waxman says:

              Are you suggesting that I am a bigoted bully because I thought the term “Rainbow Warriors” was funny? That’s a pretty low bar.

  11. GOPwits says:

    I agree with Icarus on this issue. For a candidate who has been so forthright and very black and white on most issues, which is refreshing, it was shocking for her to all of a sudden get a little gray on this one…

    The fact of the matter is that disgruntled politicos out there are throwing everything they can find at Karen Handel to stop her rise in the polls. There are two ways it can be handled (no pun intended) and that is, how it’s been handled so far, which is not so good and the damage can continue to linger, or it can be handled in a strong declaration of FACTS similar to the way that Nikki Haley handled rumors and gossip in South Carolina.

    The good thing is Karen has the FACTS on her side and that is, while she may be open to discussing a broad range of issues with all of Georgia’s citizens, let there be no doubt about her strong conservative and life long held positions and the proof is in how she has voted. Period. End of discussion.

    Furthermore, if all the other candidates aren’t careful, they are going to turn the GOP race into a circus.

    Roy Barnes is talking about the real issues that matter and the Republicans are talking about non-sense. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are real problems facing Georgia – rising home foreclosures, jobs, and education. To ignore those three major issues is a huge mistake.

    Finally, people are just plain stupid if they do not think that the issues of Karen’s opponents are not worse than the possibility of Karen’s talking with gay people. Oxendine illegally funneled money through his campaign and has a history of shaking down executives he regulates. Deal has a huge ethical problem with his salvage car business, the investigation that ensued, and the possibility of a Justice Department investigation. Additionally, only Deal has personally offended the largest minority group in Georgia – African Americans – by referring to them as a bunch of “Ghetto Grandmothers”. Eric Johnson has done business with the state and failed to disclose it for years. He turned a blind eye to the corruption in the State House and was the leader while spending escalated out of control in GA, special interests got tax breaks, and property taxes went up.

    Karen isn’t perfect, I’ll give you that, but her negatives are not nearly as bad as her opponents.

    • Mozart says:

      “et there be no doubt about her strong conservative and life long held positions and the proof is in how she has voted. Period. End of discussion.”

      Sorry, kiddo, but the discussion is how much of a panderer she is to any and every group. She is a Pander Bear who told the gay community in 2002 and 2003 that she was favorable to their cause (not their cause is bad) in order to get elected, and then in 2006 and today, she DENIED she ever had those positions.

      If “conservative” to you means lying your a** off to get elected, then I pity you a great deal. You have some warped personal values.

    • ReaganRepublican says:

      Deal never had an ethics problem. Nathan is an honorable man and had never had his ethics called into question in his 30 years of public service. It’s a shame that some GOP candidates and their supporters have stooped to the level of joining the Democrats in blatant attacks of misinformation and false charges in a false attempt to smear a man that has served his country honorably. The state of Georgia has never paid a dime to the company he invested in, Gainesville Salvage & Disposal. There was no contract with the state. There were multiple locations to take your vehicle, it was not like this was the only place. Nathan did the right thing when he thought the safety of citizens were at risk and asked for a meeting for clarification. When the program became more about money than public safety he withdrew from the program. It’s funny that CREW never had a problem with this program for the first twenty years of it’s existence…He served his country in the military with honor, he served as a DA with honor, and he served the people of the 9th district with honor. Come next year, he will serve the people of Georgia with honor… Something Handel knows nothing about.

      • In The Arena says:

        It is funny the name Bart Graham has not come up more in this discussion. He proposed eliminating the safety inspection, but left in the check for stolen parts. I would venture to say that he and Handel would have eliminated the whole inspection process altogether if Bart was not on the State Boards of Registration of Used Motor Vehicle Parts Dealers. Purely looking out for the financial interests of his used auto part dealer friends. Bart should look out for the financial interests of Georgia as a whole. He could do so by quitting playing politics with his commissioner’s title and get to work actually collecting the revenues generated within the state.

      • GOPwits says:

        Okay, I wished I could live in your fantasy land for a few minutes to see how you can gloss over Deal’s ethics problems and see how they aren’t a big deal.


        The man broke the rules of the house by having his staff intervene on personal business matters for starts. Secondly, he used his position as a Congressman and his staff to try and protect the NO BID CONTRACT he had with the state. And no you couldn’t have just gone anywhere to get your car inspected. There were only 5 in the state and Nathan’s was the closest to Atlanta. Plus, he was twice what all the other places where.

        If not for that Sweetheart DEAL with the state, Nathan wouldn’t have become a millionaire.

        Alas, I don’t live in your world, and know that money behind that story and GA will never elect that sleaze. Nathan Deal is just as bad as Charlie Rangal and others who Republicans so often like to beat up on when they need to change the story.

          • In The Arena says:

            Seriously, who types those yellow smiley faces? I thought you made a good point until you winked at me.

              • Henry Waxman says:

                Of course, I realize the error in my strategy; using a cute little winkie emoticon is no way to prove your heterosexuality.

                • B Balz says:

                  And I am a 45 year old, second generation American who is often mistaken for being a member of the Lost Tribe. So what?

                  “outing’ folks on Peach Pundit is frowned upon, like anywhere else in the blog-o-sphere. Get with the program MDokes.

                  If you represent Sen. Chapman’s ace pol blogger, he needs to recalibrate his deployment of strategic campaign assets..

                  And I like the guy.

                • Lady Thinker says:

                  I am definately a woman, not a man. Some of the posters have met me so you are spreading a lie.

              • John Konop says:

                I was am only pointing out that GREAT HIGHER LEARNING institution like the University of Georgia studies show gay-bashers 80% of the time are angry gay people in the closet.

                The irony that Deal was raising money with Mark Foley!

                • Hill Rat says:

                  Again, Konop, quit spreading lies. People have repeatedly presented evidence that you claims are completely false, and unlike your posts, our posts were fully supported by the official FEC documents.

                  Again, IF the official FEC documents are inaccurate as you seem to be implying they are, then you need to do your civic duty and report this information to the FEC. However, since you seem to be without a shred of evidence, you really need to stop embarrassing yourelf with libelous claims.

                    • Three Jack says:

                      konop, why do you persist in this line of thought? deal has bigger ethics issues than some unproven fundraising effort years ago. why don’t you spend a little time studying deal’s deal with the state of ga if you want to really have your feathers ruffled?

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      black and white on the issues? Are you kidding me? Have you seen her speak? She’s a pandering machine. You want black and white on the issues, you’ll have to go down to Austin’s new Macon office.

      He was the only truth-teller in that field

    • Dave Bearse says:

      “…but her negatives are not nearly as bad as her opponents” because she’s never stayed in office to finish the job.

  12. Some of the more “reasonable” GOP partisan bloggers sound intelligent and reasonable, and hit all the right notes during the off-season. However, as soon as the campaign cycle ramps up into its serious stage… the players huddle up and always pull something bigoted out of the playbook. It just happens to have been gays for the past few cycles.

    Handel’s being attacked for not hating homosexuals enough. Her supporters feel that the best defense is to insist, “Yes she does too!”. Your entire political party makes me sick, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Your grandkids will be.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Steve, I support her, but I am not say what you claim. I am against “partner benefits” too, but it is because I think it is a much greater inequality than already exists.

      Why should gays have a right not granted to straight and Platonic unmarried couples? This is patently unjust and is not mitigated by the compelling state interest of perpetuation of the species.

      • If you take the libertarian position that government should get out of the marriage business altogether, then that’s fine (albeit naive).

        However, human beings fundamentally organize their lives around monogamous (more or less!) relationships. Government’s involvement in marriage is therefore about the legal system establishing default rules that are in-line with reality… rights and responsibilities concordant with this fundamental human tendency.

        We want our significant other to not only have access to our hospital room when we’re incapacitated, but also to make medical decisions on our behalf even when they conflict with the wishes of our blood relatives. We want our significant other to be treated as a single unit with ourselves, for purposes of enrollment in each other’s medical insurance or being a default beneficiary under each other’s retirement plan. In criminal law, we impose upon spouses a special duty of rescue that is not typical of any other type of relationship.

        To be blunt about it… this doesn’t describe the sort of legal relationship I would want with any college fling or platonic drinking buddy that I’ve ever had. How about you?

        That “perpetuation of the species” is complete disingenuous bunk. You’re hinting at a “strict scrutiny” Constitutional test, while conveniently leaving out the other two parts of that test. First the government action must serve the compelling state interest. Are you seriously arguing that homosexuals will make the “lifestyle choice” to become straight if the legal system denies them equal rights? Secondly, there must be no other reasonable way to serve that compelling state interest. Are you seriously arguing that giving equal rights to the single-digit percentage of gay Americans would cause the 90+% of straight Americans to cease perpetuation of the species?

        • Doug Deal says:

          Why do you assume an unmarried couple is neccessarily a fling and why do you assume a Platonic relationship is a drinking buddy?

          I had a couple of great-aunts that lived together for 30 years after their husbands died. So, is that what you had in mind as a drinking buddy.

          I also had a co-worker who lived with a woman for 20 years and had several kids with her, yet they must be the fluing that you are referring to?

          Yes it is hip to scream from the rafters hysterically shouting in favor of spousal benefits for gays, but you are even more hypocritical than those your criticize.

          As for your straw man arguments that do not apply to a word I have said, I won’t bother to reply. Find someone else who has made those claims to argue with.

    • Mozart says:

      Steve, you go from from true brilliance to lazy thinking, all in the time span of a 2 posts.

      Handel is being primarily attacked for lying about her positions she took. That is what the Bookman article says, that is what Wingfield says, that is what anyone with any sense of character would say. She took a position to win an office, then denied she ever took the position to win another office.

      How can anyone believe she will do anything she says she will do when the only consistent thing she does do is lie and deny?

      • Oh please. If the primary attack was about opportunism, or rapid flip-flopping… then then criticism about her abandoning her most recent elected position would have gotten more serious traction than it did. The primary attack is that Karen Handel is sympathetic to gays. The primary defense has been that she really is not.

        People can discuss how that defense should have been better handled tactically… more quickly, more decisively, whatever. But my point is simply that it’s a really pathetic defense even if tactically executed to perfection.

        Regardless, it sounds like we’re both bashing the same candidate, just from different angles. There’s no reason why she can’t be an opportunist AND a panderer to bigots!

  13. BuckheadConservative says:

    Karen was just getting some good traction when this hit. She needs to get a handle on it fast. I agree, w/ Icarus. Get a statement out ASAP. It’s worse to be wishy washy than wrong.

  14. Ambernappe says:

    I immediately went to the Wingfield column. Did not take long to see the name of former Representative (Real) Deal. Did not pay much attention after that.

    The former Representative learned nothing, if not how to “clear the field” of opponents. This slander of Karen Handel has nothing to do with ANYTHING.

    Where is the PROOF that she has lied and what are the purposes of those who level these nefarious charges ?????

    I have suggested, several times, that the former Representative provide a copy of his contract with the State of Georgia, which will provide some evidence of his honesty, and the name/s of the State official who signed the document.

    Karen Handel does not evade questioning, she did reveal her two favorite profanities to me (rarely used), and she has far more to offer as potential solutions to major problems faced by Georgians (Karen than ANY other Republican candidate for Governor !
    Did I mention her lack of real ethical BAGGAGE ?

    • Mozart says:

      Lying is unethical and immoral. She has committed the sin of lying over and over and over again.

  15. ReaganRepublican says:

    Are you kidding? YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!! Are you going to make me rehash all her lies again.

  16. Sandy Brothers says:

    Bottom line is this is not that big of an issue for most people. This is typical of trash politics. the GA GOP would do well to look at what happened around the country Tuesday. Karen Handle is our best bet to beat King Roy and keep GA red for another 8 years! Bring it on! I’m with Karen.

  17. Game Fan says:

    Folks on TV didn’t help matters by calling everything “marriage”. But IMHO Karen Handel shoulda stayed away from this “bring it on” quote. It didn’t help in Iraq either.

  18. bowersville says:

    Bottom line is this is not that big of an issue for most people.

    Then why is it being talked about?

    Answer…..Deal brought it up. Team Handel is allowing the issue to linger.

  19. Mayonnaise says:

    “I am also a member of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans [Gay Activists] and participated in this year’s [Gay] Pride Weekend activities…” Karen Handel 2003

      • Mayonnaise says:

        John Oxendine – Democrat who after 8 years of Ronald Reagan, decided to be a DNC delegate for Michael Dukakis

        Nathan Deal – Democrat who after 8 years of Ronald Reagan supported Michael Dukakis for President and later voted against Newt Gingrich for speaker, instead supporting liberal Dick Gephardt.

        Karen Handel – Log Cabin Republican

        Eric Johnson: A lifelong Republican, Eric got deeply involved in the Party after attending a Chatham County Young Republican meeting with his good friend Jack Kingston in the late 1970’s. He was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution and helped elect Mack Mattingly to the United States Senate. Eric continued his service as a precinct chairman and a county party chairman. He licked envelopes and put up yard signs for Republican candidates across the state. In 1992, Eric transitioned from volunteer to candidate and was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. He was then elected to the State Senate in 1994.

        Inspired by the new conservative ideas of a re-emerging national Republican Party, he was elected Senate Minority Leader after just two terms. Eric spent the next four years battling with the Barnes Administration and presenting Republican alternatives to the administration’s top-down, heavy-handed style. In 2002, Eric’s dedication paid off as he helped topple the Barnes political machine and elect the first Republican Governor and Republican Majority in the State Senate since Reconstruction.

        • B Balz says:

          Attention All Political Operatives “polyps”.

          This is not a retail outlet for voters, and your brilliance is being wasted on a group of cynical, pol savvy (miss ya), ornery folks that know the score.

  20. Go Dawgs! says:

    Boink!………..Boink!…….Plunk!…….Bink!…..(still feel like I’m watching the old game of Pong….)

Comments are closed.