To the Deal supporters: No Thanks

I’m a big fan of property rights and free speech, and like many of us I use my vehicle to express opinions, whether it be for candidates, causes or whatever. But what I don’t like are people who think it is perfectly reasonable to remove yard signs off of someone’s private property (yes, I’m looking at you, Ester Fleming) or a supporter of some corrupt candidate that puts a bumper sticker on my vehicle (for the second time) without my permission while I’m sitting inside the Truett’s in McDonough. I know, I know, a campaign can’t control their supporters, but I’m a little tired of it.

You know, there are reasons I don’t like Nathan Deal. He used the power of his office to secure no bid contracts with the state, he believes sin taxes are perfectly fine, he isn’t particularly fond of brown people (even using a BS study by a group founded by this guy for his rhetoric) and “ghetto grandmothers” and TEH GAYZ™…OMG TEH GAYZ™ ARE EVIL!1!!

And ironically, they put the sticker right between my (and we know Deal loves him some war) and Mark Twain stickers, with the latter having the author’s famous quote: “Suppose you are an idiot. And suppose you are a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

Well, Deal isn’t a member of Congress anymore, but it certainly rings true in his case.

And by the way, Georgia Republicans, congrats to you for substituting one corrupt candidate for another. You guys keep picking real winners. If these are the sort of people you want to represent your party, you should get used to saying Governor Roy Barnes.

Don’t take this me encouraging you on how to vote on July 20th, because to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t care. The top three in this race have been nothing short of disappointing.

[Addition] I forgot to mention that Deal also voted for Medicare Part D (an expansion of an already massive entitlement) and all of Bush’s bloated budgets (what good is a tax cut if you’re spending like Lyndon Johnson?). And let’s not forget his embarrassing pursuit of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.


  1. B Balz says:

    his is not an angry rant, it is a blunt and pragmatic assessment.

    This Fall, Ox will prolly go against Barnes, and the folks that predicted the Donnybrook such a match up would incur may see their worst fears materialize.

    Will there be enough staunch GOP’ers to prevail over Roy, given the number of moderates will X-Over?

    • If OX is the nominee, I will be joining Jason in support John Monds. I will not stand side-by-side with corruption in the race for Governor as long as I have the choice not to.

      • B Balz says:

        So you will cross over, just not to the Dem side. I admire your principled position. A lot of people agreed, early-on, the Lib Party would benefit from this race.

  2. You tell ’em, Jason!

    I’m sick and tired of the antics of OX, Handel, and Deal. The three of them are rolling around in the dirt throwing mud at each other like children. They need to step aside and let a real leader and the only “adult” in contention for this nomination, Eric Johnson, win this to defeat Roy Barnes in November. That way, we won’t have to “get used to saying Governor Roy Barnes.”

      • Hmm. I don’t know if I’d go as far as saying that. But if OX or Deal win the nomination, you can expect a lot of Republicans to go over to both the Barnes and Monds campaigns. John Monds might actually stand a chance in November if OX can pull this off.

        • Chris says:

          hahahaha Monds. hahahaha.

          If the anti-OX/Deal vote splits, at best Monds polls into the double digits. I doubt he’ll make the 20% to graduate the LP to the big-kids table.

          Barnes, like McCain, has to walk a tight rope between appealing to the middle and disaffected Republicans while still getting his parties base out to the polls.

          Should be an interesting General.

          • Chris,
            You continue to discount John Monds. However, if others wonder what it would be like under a Monds administration, there is an example out there. Just do a little research on who most consider was the best Governor New Mexico ever had in recent years, Gary Johnson. John Monds would govern in a very similar fashion.

      • Chris says:

        While I do not believe Handel will make it out of the run-off, she is still the best positioned to beat Barnes in the General.

      • You’re probably right. No one the GOP primary is really exciting enough to vote that way in the general.

        However, at least my choice for the primary got a little easier yesterday. I received a hit piece mailer about Karen Handel’s support for the “gay agenda” and abortionists and all that jazz. I spent a few minutes trying to figure out who mailed it, and finally realized that Oxendine printed his endorsement using grey text in an area of the flyer that was also colored grey. You have squint to notice that it’s there.

        I had been toying with the idea of voting Ox just for the Peach Pundit giggle-value (and to help out a certain Cobb poster’s employment prospects), but I guess I have to vote Handel now to avoid endorsing the usual GOP last-minute bigot play. I’d feel a lot better about it though if Handel would actually stand on her record of not being a knuckle-dragger, rather than run from it.

        • Chris says:

          I’ve had a few democrats ask me about the race, and I told them if they really wanted to see Barnes win, vote for the Ox. However I told them they were still better off voting in their own primary for Porter in the LG race.

        • Lady Thinker says:


          I got the same piece of crap mailer and it just makes me dig my heels in deeper in support of Karen. Even the check on the flyer wasn’t the original because the original check does not have the term “membership” in the lower left corner.

          Maybe Karen should have addressed the gay thing, maybe not, I am not a campaign manager so I can’t make that call, but for Ox, Deal, and Johnson to make an issue of this non-issue is wrong and in my opinion, a sin. The issues are jobs, water, transportation, immigration, the economy, education, obamacare, you know, the important stuff, not who does or does not like gays or supports them. They pay taxes, they have rights, just like some of the cultist Christians who post on here.

            • Lady Thinker says:


              I read that piece but Johnson is also calling for the Georgia version of detainment camps and I just can’t agree to that. Many people are talking about Hispanics when they talk about illegal immigrants because that is probably the largest group of illegals here, but they aren’t the only group. There are illegals here of most all the nationalities, however, more people address the Mexicans than the others.

              I do have sympathy for the children of illegals and I do believe those born here should be given citizenship by birth. It is not the childrens fault. That being said, I feel we have to address the reasons they come. Are they being persecuted for religious beliefs? Are they caught between warring factions? Are they escaping oppression like those coming from Cuba and other countries?

              My questions are not in support of illegals but we have to treat the root cause in addition to the symptoms or we get nowhere. There was a time when America was an isolationist country, we can’t be now.

              The world seems to come to us to solve their problems, so we must find a way to say, “no, no more” but give them tools to figure out their solutions instead of throwing money at them. It goes back to that “teach a man to fish” theory.

              • Jason says:

                And the fact that the Northern border has more illegals coming through it then the Southern border. But..they look like us.

                • Lady Thinker says:


                  You are correct about the Northern border but some people aren’t seeing or believing that because it is easier to look south for some people. There are also illegals coming in boats on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as the Gulf of Mexico, but again, some people aren’t worried about those illegals, just the ones walking over from Mexico.

                  What worries me is that the terrorists won’t be coming in from Mexico, they will come some other route that has less security.

                • Chris says:

                  They just want our health care.

                  Pretty soon, they’ll just be passing through to the southern border for their health care.

              • He wasn’t calling for those prison camps. He said that if it came down to it, he would do it. Essentially, he was saying that he would go the extra mile for the state. Here’s the quote:

                “If we have to set up a Guantanamo Bay of Georgia, I would do it”

                    • Lady Thinker says:

                      I have a Master’s in Public Administration with a Concentration in Criminal Justice so I know what is involved and I am concerned.

                      Japanese-Americans were placed in internment camps during WWII.
                      Hitler took a sane country like Germany and made Jews the problem. Look what happened there.

                      Some Americans are trying to make illegals the root of our jobs and economics problem. I’d like to say that would never happen here but never say never.

                      With all the problems concerning illegal immigrants, it wouldn’t take much to try to convince some lawmakers that Johns0n’s camp is the way to go.

                      I disagree about Johnson’s agenda so that is why I already voted for Karen. You make some good arguments, but my research leads me to Karen every time.

                    • I doubt that it will come to that. Even if he tries, the federal government will shut him down. It’s not something to be concerned about.

                      In the final days of your typical GOP primary, there’s a lot of ugly pandering that probably wouldn’t survive the Feds or courts stepping in. However, the fact that a politician is willing to stoop to the level of campaigning on it is still very much “something to be concerned about” in evaluating his or her character.

                    • AthensRepublican says:

                      I had the opportunity to speak with Eric Johnson today. I agree with you Lady Thinker…even talk of that is not acceptable. I am for much stronger laws and enforcement but not in a way that is inhumane. I will have to say Eric realized he screwed this up.

                    • Here’s my question to you three: will it do him any good in your eyes for him to come out and say “I screwed up,” or should he just move on from it and not bring it up again?

                    • will it do him any good in your eyes for him to come out and say “I screwed up,” or should he just move on

                      Ehh… 48 hours before polls open… a big “mea culpa” speech would look insincere and calculating to those bothered by it, and it would also turn off the knuckle-draggers who agreed with the earlier sentiment in the first place. No, for this election cycle I think he’s made his bed and can only move forward to lie in it.

                      On the other hand, if I were ever to support Johnson in any future race… I would first have to hear some kind of public “I reconsidered all that stuff and realized it was wrong” type remarks. He’d also have to stick with them and no backpedal when his audience is the hardcore type.

                    • Chris says:

                      Then why say it?

                      Calling for internment camps for illegal aliens when you don’t really mean it, is no better than the anti-gay pandering Handel has done that she doesn’t mean either.

                    • AthensRepublican says:

                      Kyle, best to do the same thing Handel did with that 11 Alive interview. Ignore it for now. If the media brings it back up after the primary (I am sure they will) if either makes it-then he needs to clarify. No need to call anymore attention than necessary to a bone-headed comment.

        • TPNoGa says:

          I have tpo agree with you. I am sickened by the “gay” talk. MY GOSH PEOPLE! It is beyond disgusting.

          Deal lost me when he decided to use the same line of attack as Ox has on Karen. He is OFF my list.

          I like EJ, but I am voting for Karen, if for no other reason than show the world that there are normal, non-hateful Republicans in Georgia, and WE VOTE!

          Let’s take back our party from the people who have nothing in their soul except hate.

  3. Jason says:

    Like Lassie v. a pit bull, like Tyson v. Me, like Hannah v. simple sentence structure, like, ya know?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The last two parts of that are hilarious.

  4. I Am Jacks Post says:

    ZOMG, a sticker on your car!! Don’t people know that’s where the enlightened share their soundbite opinions, like “Buck Fush” and other bits of wisdom?

    There was this time, maybe 11 years ago–I was parked in the Home Depot parking lot. Some jerk left a Chinese food menu on my windshield while I was in the store. I’ve never eaten Chinese food since then.

      • I Am Jacks Post says:

        “I suggest you find some rainbow flags and put them on every Deal car you see?”

        That would be hilarious. I’ll write a $75 sponsorship check for that project.

        Matt Montgomery

    • Jason says:

      It’s the principle of the thing. I know that may not mean much to you, but it means something to me. And, the second bumper sticker is what set me off…and the stolen yard signs. It was a culmination of everything.

      • B Balz says:

        My theory is that people who took your stuff, know you as a pol junkie with a short fuse. They are just messin’ with you, personally. They know who you are and where you live.

        But don’t worry, it will be over shortly…


        • Jason says:

          The first instance was in Cobb County, the second in Henry. The signs being stolen out of my yard happened at my home in Newton County.

          Bottomline: “Don’t f*** with someone that has a platform.”

      • Lady Thinker says:


        I know what you mean. Someone pulled my Handel sign out of my yard, destroyed it, and left it laying by the trashcan. Fortunately, I had an0ther one to replace the destroyed one. They didn’t touch Max Wood’s or Gary Purcell’s, just Karen’s.

    • “ZOMG, a sticker on your car!!

      There was this time, maybe 11 years ago–I was parked in the Home Depot parking lot. Some jerk left a Chinese food menu on my windshield while I was in the store. I’ve never eaten Chinese food since then.”

      Putting a bumper sticker on someone’s car which requires peeling it off and possibly scraping off glue residue is a bit different than a flyer which might become dislodged by simply driving down the road. Where do you park your car on a regular basis? I’ll be happy to arrange a demonstration. 😉

    • TPNoGa says:

      In LA back in 2000, a very popular bumpersticker was:

      Bush + Dick = Screwed

      It made me crack up a little even though I was offended.

  5. I Am Jacks Post says:


    Ok, Jason . . . sigh . . . show me where you’ve seen or heard anyone–from either the Ox or Deal campaign–use that terminology.

      • Lady Thinker says:

        Well, although Reagan Republican, SFrazier, and Karidee have not used those EXACT words, their posts have been very similar. Haven’t seen them in a while and glad of it.

        • ReaganRepublican says:

          Because we are out working to get our man elected. In the last 3 days I have have had 5 hours of sleep. We will not stop until Nathan gets elected.

          • Lady Thinker says:

            He lost any chance of getting elected when he got on that gay bashing tirade against Karen.

            On one of Deal’s ads, he said he is a man of his word. Which word, his Democrat word, his Republican word, his illegal contracts word, his Medicare Part-D word, his ghetto grandmother’s word, his years of lack of immigration words, or his words to Mark Foley? Which word should we listen to because he has spent so much time bashing gays that he has missed his opportunity to tell us what he can do for Georgia?

            Deal needs to retire, take his Alzheimer’s and high blood meds, and get out of the way of the only one who can bring Georgia out of this morass of problems, Karen Handel. IF you haven’t noticed, many posters have turned against the rabid wolf in sheep’s clothing called Nathan Deal.

  6. chefdavid says:

    I had signed on to the Deal camp early on. The birther letter was the last straw for me. I then looked long and hard and was prepared to vote for Austin Scott. This was after he was in the committee meetings I was watching last year. So then I was trying to find another candidate to vote for. I was leaning towards Johnson. I decided not to vote early on in order to vote for the candidate that was the least stupid on Tuesday. Then the announcement came from the Johnson camaign asking for the other republican canidates to grow up. I was smiling inside with pride thinking my insticnts were right only to be punched in the gut with talks of having Georgia open Guantanamo Bay(Gestapo) camps for illegals in the afternoon. Now I am feeling like GriftDrift and leaving the ballot blank. Or I might study the Chapmand ticket and most likely vote Monds, Porter, or The General in November.

    • AthensRepublican says:

      I had to laugh at this because I have gone through some of this exact same frustration.

      • Lady Thinker says:

        The Georgia camps are a horrible idea as is repealing the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. How can Johnson possibly believe this is a good idea?

        • analogkid says:

          While I definitely don’t think we should repeal the 14th Amendment (if that is what Johnson is proposing), I would certainly like the Supreme Court to rule on whether the citizenship clause applies to children of illegal immigrants. There was a piece on NPR several months back about how California was denying food stamps to children of illegal immigrants in order to set up a constitutional challenge.

          It’s an interesting issue. See below for some additional info from Wikipedia:

          The clause’s meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Court ruled that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants possessed national citizenship by being born in United States.[11]

          The difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[12] Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases did not explicitly decide whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[13] but such birthright is generally assumed to be the case.[14] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), and INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985).[15][16][17]

  7. Henry Waxman says:


    I would argue with the points in your post, but I was dissuaded by your Mark Twain reference, which reminded me of his sage advice.

    “Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

  8. flyonthewall says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how freely people judge candidates from the sidelines. It reminds me of the fringe UGA fan who insists that Coach Richt is on the hot seat because of one bad year; and of course, such fan has the expertise to make such statement.

    Don’t get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That’s the beauty of that 1st Amendment thingy, but what bothers me is the absoluteness with which an opinion such as this post is made.

    Nathan Deal has served his district honorably for nearly two decades. So well, in fact, that his constituency has consistently sent him back to Washington by overwhelming margins. His conservative record has been solid. So solid in fact, that National Journal has consistently ranked him among the most conservatives members of Congress throughout his career. Corrupt? What action has he taken relating to his business that has been outside the law or even the ethics rules of Congress? The biggest misconception- and one that has been furthered by some on this board- has been that Congressman Deal’s role in the business itself was either illegal or unethical. That is simply not the case. Even his meeting with the Lt.Gov was not itself an ethics or legal violation. It was the use by his Chief of Staff of his office’s email to set up the meeting that rose to level of the rules of Congress. That’s what we are talking about people. Further, has anyone ever taken the time to look into who filed such complaint? CREW….an organization created by George Soros. The Democratic created support agency responsible for such complaints did not even take up the complaint until Congressman Deal announced his candidacy for Governor. Does anyone think that such an organizatioin or agency may have ulterior motives?

    There are those on this board and in other places that would like to stain a career of that spans 3 decades based on these accusations. I simply ask that people look beyond the first layer of this onion prior to making these absolute statements and opinions regarding Congressman Deal.

    This is a man whose opinion and guidance has been respected by some revered and by many on this board (ie Congressmen Westmoreland, Gingrey, Kingston, Linder, Gingrich)…He has been the dean of this delegation and the mentor of many.

    People need to stray away from “bumper sticker” politics. So many need their information to fit into a small sized box, so that it’s easy to attack or understand.

    Any deep investigation of Congressman Deal’s qualification swill leave any reasonable person with the conclusion that he is more than qualified and capable of leading Georgia as its’ Governor.

    I am not saying that he’s the only one capable, but the arguement made by the post to which this is in response too easily dismiss him; further, it is not are not only inaccurate, but ridiculous.

    As a matter of full disclosure, I do not, nor have I, had any affiliation with Congressman Deal’s campaign. I am simply a citizen who has had a front row seat to our states governing and has little doubt that Nathan Deal would fine governor.

    • Jason says:

      It would be nice if someone, you know, actually address the OCE report instead of screaming “GEORGE [email protected]!!” It doesn’t make the accusations have any less merit.

      Conservative doesn’t mean much to me after the Bush years.

          • Henry Waxman says:

            Guilty of what?

            By the way, don’t you teach college-level criminal justice classes? If so, I’m sure you realize how difficult it is to determine anyone’s guilt or innocence by reading a non-conclusive report that contains only one counsel’s summary of the witness interviews.

            • Henry Waxman says:

              And the only possible violation of the House Rules was that a staffer (not Deal himself) sent a email from his email account instead of his or email account. That is very minor.

              I guess that’s why the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct chose NOT to take up the complaint against Deal.

                • Henry Waxman says:

                  Reallly? Did Chairman Lofgren (D-CA) tell you that? Or was it one of his committee counsels that risked his or her legal career to leak you this confidential information???

                  Of course, you could just admit that you are making up or your claim.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      Actually, what you appear to have is a propensity to make up and post your own set of facts. You claim that the “ethics committee…did not take up the matter because [Deal] resigned,” but unless Chairwoman Lofgren or one of the other members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct told you that Deal’s resignation is why they never brought up the case, then you are masquerading your assumption as a fact.

                      CREW filed their complaint on April 26, 2009, but Mr. Deal didn’t resign until March 22, 2010. If the Committee on Standards of Official Conducted wanted to pursue the case, they had more than sufficient time to do so. To me, it appears the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct did not pursue the case because it was a minor, grey-area staff violation that didn’t merit pursuing.

                      Of course, if one of the members or staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct have leaked you confidential information to back up your claims, then I would love to know so we can get them removed from their position and disbarred.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      And my perception is that you are masquerading your assumptions as facts in order to help influence the perceptions of others.

                  • Jason says:

                    So the fact that the OCE report didn’t come out until March 2010, the same month that he resigned means nothing to you?

                    It is normal procedure for OCE to finish it’s investigation, present the findings to the committee who then decides what steps to take.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      You are incorrect again.

                      1. The OCE transmitted their report to the Office of Congressional Ethics on January 28, 2010. They voted to publicly release the report on March 26, 2010, the week following Deal’s resignation to run for governor.

                      2. The OCE is just a Congressional support agency that simply makes recommendations to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. They are NOT a grand jury, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is free to take up a case with or without an OCE recommendation.

                    • Henry Waxman says:

                      Correcting a typo:

                      The OCE transmitted their report/recommendations to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on January 28, 2010. They voted to publicly release the report on March 26, 2010, the week following Mr. Deal’s resignation to run for governor.

                    • Jason says:

                      Every media report noted that Deal’s resignation saved him from taking it further.

                      Congress works slow, you should know that.

              • Lady Thinker says:

                I see you are using the excuse that a Deal staffer sent an email from Deal’s account. You guys hung Karen out to dry when a similar thing happened to her. The “a staffer sent the email” is okay for Deal and not for Karen?

                • Henry Waxman says:

                  The emails were from the staffer’s account; the OCE report makes this very clear. Did you even scan the OCE report before claiming he was “guilty”?

      • Dave Bearse says:

        “There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism.” Henry George

    • Ambernappe says:

      Why do you feel that a monopolistic arrangement with the state is honorable and acceptable under any circumstances. The question should not be difficult to answer.

      • Henry Waxman says:

        Being an investor in one of the NINE small businesses that were participating in the vehicle inspection program is not a “monopolistic arrangement.” Also, it is important to keep in mind that the Revenue Commissioner set up the vehicle inspection program, not Nathan Deal.

        • Henry Waxman says:

          I’m sure almost all of us are invested in at least one company that does a significant amount of business under at least one contract with a government entity.

  9. rightofcenter says:

    You will get no where on this blog if you insist on reasoned, thoughtful comments that are not derogatory to anyone.

    Cheers from me, however, for acting like an adult. It’s a small club on Peach Pundit.

    As I have stated, any of the top three candidates (other than Ox) would probably end up being good governors. I think all three are honorable people, and all are demonstrably better than the tyrant Roy Barnes. I happen to think Deal is the best candidate, and I hope he wins, but I will be just as supportive of Handel or Johnson if they are our nominee. Anyone who disagrees really needs to get away from the computer and get out in the real world a bit more.

  10. Lady Thinker says:

    Deal made the comment that real women support him. Well, I am a real woman and I DO NOT support that wolf in sheep’s clothing for dog catcher, much less governor.

    In my opinion, Deal is rabid in his ad when he says, “I am a man of my word.” Does he mean his word as a Democrat or his word as a Republican, or his word on the state contracts, or his word on ghetto grandmothers, or his word on so many things that he had done wrong. Maybe he should consider Alzheimer’s medication because he seems to be heading that way. He could take it with his blood pressure meds.

    • flyonthewall says:

      This exactly what I mean. Simplistic justifications put together nicely enough to put into a simple little box. “Former DEMOCRAT”…”He’s not a REAL Republican!”…..I am 34 and I am as conservative as any rational conservative I know. I was raised on Reagan and cheered the day that Newt won us the house; however, I grew up in southeast Georgia. Supporting Republicans for state and local races wasn’t an option. We had no local Republican party; we had no young Republicans. Supporting a Republican or being a Republican really hasn’t been a real option outside the state’s metropolitan areas until the last 10-15 years. The reasons for this reality and one could take a graduate level history course to discuss them, but simply put, Southerners can hold a grudge.

      Nathan Deal was born and raised in south Georgia. He eventually settled in north Georgia where the same circumstances existed. My point is being a Democrat in Georgia throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s doesn’t disqualify someone from being a conservative. Sure, there is a spectrum of how conservative southern Democrats were, but Nathan Deal’s record as an elected official both as a Democrat and Republican very much supports the fact that he is and always has been a conservative.

      Seriously folks, be substantive enough to do more than to point to someone and go, “look, former Democrat…he can’t be conservative….” Arguen against his record….demonstrate his “liberal” tendencies….good luck with that by the way.

      I think if we ever have a chance to truly reintroduce rational conservative thinking into government we need to seperate from our simplistic, partisan, judgements. I nearly didn’t vote in our last presidential election because I was convinced that the “R” next to McCain’s name did not make him a conservative. Ultimately, I voted; but only because I was so scared by the socialist, that I voted for the liberal on the ticket.

      • Jason says:

        That last paragraph is the most contradictory thing I’ve ever read in my life.

        I think if we ever have a chance to truly reintroduce rational conservative thinking into government we need to seperate from our simplistic, partisan, judgements.
        Ultimately, I voted; but only because I was so scared by the socialist, that I voted for the liberal on the ticket.

        Obama is no more a “socialist” than Bush was. They are really corporatists, more than anything else.

        • flyonthewall says:

          According to Webster’s “contradictory” as: a proposition so related so related to another that if either of the two is true, then the other is false and if either is false the other must true. So Jason, I ask you, how was anything I said “contradictory.” Did I use hyperbole by describing President Obama as a socialist? Maybe (but I doubt it), but that is besides the point.

          More to the point, I maintained that Sen. McCain was a liberal, but even as a liberal, he was a better alternative than the Democratic candidate that I described as a “socialist” (my way of saying “more liberal”). The only way this is a contradictory statement is if by McCain being liberal, it is impossible for Obama to be a socialist (or in this case, “more liberal”); or vice-versa. Which is clearly not the case.

          In fact, you make less sense by stating “Obama is no more a “socialist” than Bush was.” For you to cite this and then claim I am being “contradictory” you would have to know how I felt about President Bush and his opponents (ie Gore and Kerry)and whether I voted for him. I very well could have thought Bush to also be a liberal (as I stated McCain was) and still maintained that both Gore and Kerry were just subtantially more liberal than Bush, thus, I voted for Bush.

          The only way my statement was contradictory is if I declared that I voted for McCain because I thought he was a conservative, when in fact he is a liberal. For the record, the same rational would work Bush vs Gore/Kerry.

          I for one am disappointed of the quality of conservative candidates that our national party has produced, but I also feel that such a fact is irrelevant when discussing both Congressman Deal and this gubanatorial candidate.

          By the way, I would love you to direct me to where is objective lithmus test for conservatism exists. While I feel that Congressman Deal and Senator Johnson are the two best alternatives for governor of this state, I don’t purport to declare them perfect or imperfect conservatives. But there never has been, nor will ever be, some objective test for conservative thinking.

          • Jason says:

            I would love you to direct me to where is objective [lithmus] test for conservatism exists.

            Well, we could start with the Constitution. It seems to be a solid basis for limited government.

            So Jason, I ask you, how was anything I said “contradictory.” Did I use hyperbole by describing President Obama as a socialist? Maybe (but I doubt it), but that is besides the point.

            No, that’s exactly the point. You wrote, “I think if we ever have a chance to truly reintroduce rational conservative thinking into government we need to seperate from our simplistic, partisan, judgements.”

            By this claim, you are making a plea for reason, which I would agree with. However, you then proceed to spout off with a simplistic, partisan judgment about Barack Obama by stating: “Ultimately, I voted; but only because I was so scaredby the socialist, that I voted for the liberal on the ticket.”

            Basing a vote off of fear is hardly reasonable. It’s a reactive, emotional response, not something grounded in fact, logic or reason. So, yes, your statements are contradictions (a direct opposition between things compared).

            Obama is a statist, McCain is a statist, Bush was a statist (or a “liberal”), but so is Deal since he largely supported the Bush agenda when he was in Congress. Do you dispute that?

            • flyonthewall says:

              I think did the best he could under the circumstances. The reality of being one member of any legislature is a challenge. You can take absolute stances, but if you do, ultimately you accomplish nothing.

              There is no question that he broke away from both the President and his own leadership to take firm stances on his own conservative beliefs. Nathan Deal was at the foundation of restricting federal health benefits to illegal aliens. He joined C0ngressman Linder as a co-sponser of the flat tax bill. Are these not what most would consider conservative beliefs?

              Look, maybe we are both saying similar things, just differently. Although we do have some fundamental differences. I believe that candidates beliefs relative to the political spectrum are relative and elasitc. That there is no absolute or obejctive conservative or liberal. When one attempts to connect either the conservative or liberal label to one of parties, I believe things get muddy and less coherent.

              Having said that, I have been disappointed in how President Bush governed. I believe he thought he needed to salvage his “legacy” by running to the middle/left during his last term. I don’t believe that his last term reflected what I personally would describe as “conservative” governing.

              While I saw McCain as an extension of those quasi-liberal policies, I concluded that Obama, in fact, represented even more radical and extreme liberal thinking. Thus, I chose the better of two evils. In no way does that make my thinking or my actions “contradictory.” While thinking that neither were truly conservative, I voted for the “most” conservative of the two.

              I believe in Nathan’s experience; his intellect; and nothwithstanding your own opinion of him, his integrity. There is not a single person who truly knows him or has served with him that would describe Nathan as anything less than a very ethical person.

              Sure, I think that Karen and Eric could both satisfactorily govern this state, but I think that neither could do so as well as Nathan.

              For what it’s worth, I do hope you take none of this personally. This has been a fun way to spend an insomnic Saturday night/Sunday morning.

              • Jason says:

                I think did the best he could under the circumstances.

                The best he did was kowtowing to the Administration at every turn. Some conservative.

                There is no question that he broke away from both the President and his own leadership to take firm stances on his own conservative beliefs. Nathan Deal was at the foundation of restricting federal health benefits to illegal aliens.

                I’m don’t believe in giving anyone health benefits, but if it was something against brown people, I’m sure Nathan Deal supported it.

                He joined C0ngressman Linder as a co-sponser of the flat tax bill. Are these not what most would consider conservative beliefs?

                Actually, it was the Fair Tax Act, which I don’t support. I’m a flat tax’er.

                For what it’s worth, I do hope you take none of this personally.

                Nope, I didn’t. I was drinking the entire time.

                    • Lady Thinker says:

                      See KariDee, Deal said that “Real women are voting for me.” Well that leaves me out because I don’t have to ask a husband, boyfriend, son, brother, father, or uncle how I am supposed to think or vote. I guess by Deal’s definition, I am an unreal or a fake woman because I can think for myself!

                      Deal has had many screw-ups in his campaign but in talking with many friends and relatives over the week-end, all of us/them, male and female, are not voting for Deal and we all feel he needs to retire and take his Alzheimer’s and high blood meds.

            • Well, we could start with the Constitution. It seems to be a solid basis for limited government.

              You know, the more Constitutional law I study, the less this really holds up. Assuming that you do apply a very narrow or “originalist” interpretation to the Constitution, that only really matters to the Feds.

              The Constitution grants enumerated powers to the Federal government… yet only limits state powers with certain enumerated restrictions. That may be a formula for “state’s rights” formula, but it certainly isn’t any magic formula for “limited government”.

  11. Jackster says:

    I need to learn how to pick ’em better. First I was thinking Handel because she had a good 96.1 interview, then I got to reading. Now, I’m thinking Porter. I checked out Dubose Porter’s website yesterday – I LOVE the county to county tour. That’s what I’m talking about.

    And his campaign messages and what not are small changes that can make a big difference. Not something unrealistic like EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE.

Comments are closed.