Are We Headed For A Party Split?

We Republicans have a long proud history of taking our ball and going home when we don’t get our way in the Primary. Moderates refused to support Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson won in a landslide in 1964. In 2001 New Jersey moderates refused to support Bret Schundler for Governor and got Jim McGreevey. Two years ago conservatives didn’t like John McCain and we have Barack Obama. Will we refuse to unite after tomorrow’s results in the GOP Governor runoff and get Roy Barnes in November? I’m worried about that possibility.

A few weeks ago State Rep. Allen Peake urged Republicans to come together post-primary and took a beating from many commenters. Over the weekend Cong. Nathan Deal said he’s hesitant to support Handel should she win the nomination:

Handel, who has called Deal a “corrupt relic of Washington,” said she’d support Deal if he won the runoff.

Deal, who has said Handel’s campaign lacks substance, wouldn’t commit to backing her if she won.

“It’s going to take some time for us to heal the wounds that have been inflicted here,” Deal said.

I understand the hurt feelings. Harsh things have been said by a lot of candidates, their supporters and single-issue groups (remember GRTL?). The Governor’s race has become particularly rough. I don’t care which candidate you’re supporting, taking your ball and going home on Wednesday is simply not an option. Rather than seeking retribution or nursing hurt feelings we need to roll up our sleeves and get back to work.

For those Republicans who say “Roy Barnes won’t be so bad” let me remind you that the Georgia’s Governor is one of the most powerful executives in the nation. A GOP controlled House and Senate will not be able to fully block Roy’s agenda.

With the budget crisis continuing and redistricting to be done next year, now is not the time to see if Roy Barnes really is sorry for the way he governed 8 years ago. Vote for the candidate of your choice tomorrow but then accept the results and let’s move forward.

118 comments

  1. zigmaster says:

    Karen should of thought about this before she called every male in the state a whore-mongering good ole boy.

  2. In The Arena says:

    We are not headed for a party split. The Republican party has united behind Nathan Deal.

    -24 out of 34 Republican state senators.

    -73 out of 99 Republican representatives.

    -Everyone at my local GOP meeting.

    -All of Georgia’s representatives in congress.

    -County chairmen for her campaign who recognize her campaign for what it is, and have the “cojones” to endure her vocal attacks and hate mail for supporting the consistent, honest , qualified conservative.

    Karen would not be squealing about a divided party if it was her that had the consensus of support that Nathan Deal has behind him.

    • Bugs Dooley says:

      Conspicuously missing from this list is Eric Johnson — he could easily have endorsed in his robo-call and did not.
      This speaks volumes to me. Since he will no longer be in the General Assembly, he could afford to burn bridges with the other candidate if he really felt strongly enough.

      • In The Arena says:

        Eric cannot afford to burn any bridges since he is in charge of securing state contracts for Hussey, Gay, DeBell and Young.

    • TPNoGa says:

      Tom Price endorsed Karen Handel, so no, not all of Georgia’s Reps. in congress.

      Man, you Deal supporters are not doing your candidate any good by bashing Handel so much. I have stated that I would support Deal if he won. But, reading his supporters comments on this site gives me pause. Maybe I will vote for Barnes.

      • Monica says:

        you always have John Monds to vote for, if Deal wins, I’ll vote for Monds. Deal is in politics to benefits himself, that has always been the case, changing parties according to who’s in power, now talking about running as an independent, which surely will give governor’s mansion to Roy Barns, Deal doesn’t care about the state or anyone else, but his own best interests. It would be much easier for him to fight the criminal allegations as a Governor than as an ex-politician. He’s disgusting.

  3. I agree with zigmaster, she has been brutal in her comments and accusations. I don’t believe her quick response last night was genuine.

    If I were Nathan, I don’t even know if I would want to share a stage with her again after this is over. Perhaps a one-way ticket back to Maryland would suffice.

  4. zigmaster says:

    Voting for Karen Handel is voting to split the Republican Party and elect Roy Barnes. Mark it down.

  5. By all means, unite and remove what little doubt is left, that for the goP, “Party” is everything… and seal the belief that “Hypocrisy” is its #1 binding and unbreakable principle it rules by. Either the candidates, and their supporters, believe what they’re saying or they’re merely pandering for votes… they can’t have it both ways… and that goes for the DNC candidates and supporters as well.

    Tomorrow, vote for the Candidate that you think is BEST for GA and the USA… then in November, repeat. This is the ONLY way to break the cycle and get us back on the correct path that a Free State and Free Country should be traveling upon.

  6. saltycracker says:

    Doesn’t matter – the real problem will be motivating Republicans to vote –
    If his/her focus is channeled to gay/abortion issues – turn out the lights at HQ.
    Nothing is going to stablize until uncertainty is abated and we hear specific plans (x-more $$/employees) to address critical issues.

  7. Monica says:

    Party split is not new, in Georgia you have a bunch of narrow minded homophobes who want the government to tell people how to live their lives on social level. And they call themselves Republicans, even though the original party platform called for gov’t getting out of peoples lives all together, socially and economically. Then you have more modern group of Georgia Republicans who don’t care how people are living their lives as long as they don’t negatively affect others and believe in minimal gov’t intervention into economy. They have always been split, it’s nothing new. Deal represents the first group, Handel the second. And on another board someone says Deal will run as an independent if he loses the runoff, that’s why he says he won’t support Handel. He knows that after this gubernatorial thing his career is effectively over. So he will fight until the last moment. And then he’ll end up behind bars because he’s a crook and a criminal and has a federal grand jury investigation hanging over his corrupted head.

  8. GaConservative23 says:

    Deal’s comments where a little disappointing.

    I’m a strong supporter of Deal’s, but I wouldn’t think twice about supporting Karen Handel against Roy Barnes.

    This has been a pretty rough primary, but we need to put it behind us after tomorrow.

    • Rick Day says:

      perhaps, then you should consider the character of your candidate and re-evaluate your support come voting time.

      It’s the prudent thing to do…

    • polisavvy says:

      I think that sometimes too harsh of words are used which makes it almost impossible to get over it very easily. This race has been so contentious and nasty that I doubt that the wounds will heal quickly. Insults and total lack of respect has been the norm. For the good of the Party, I hope it does; however, some supporters of either of these two are not going to get behind the other no matter what.

      • Provocateur says:

        Look, when a female candidate addresses her male opponent by telling him “Put on your Big-Boy pants”, that constitutes a total lack of respect for any civility in the political arena.

        Calling her opponent a “relic” also doesn’t sit very well with people.

        • John Konop says:

          Provocateur,

          I will say whatever Nathan Deal pays you he is getting his bang for the buck (not sure if it helps). I just wonder how you sleep at night.

          • Actually, I agree with Provocateur here. Handel could have chosen different words (And I don’t support either candidate. At this point I’m seriously considering just not voting in that race in the runoff. I don’t like either choice.)

            • KingWulfgar says:

              If you don’t like either choice, then that is exactly what you should do! I, for one, am tired of this garbage of supporting a lousy candidate because (s)he’s not as bad as the other guy.

              I honestly think Deal would do a decent job of governing GA. Is he perfect? Far from it. In fact, I’ll have a tough choice in November because I really like Monds, too. So, between Deal and Monds, I’m undecided at this point.

              I’ve met Karen and heard her speak and I think she’s completely incompetent and she’s run a terrible campaign. I will be happily voting for Monds in November if she’s the Republican nominee. No indecisiveness there.

              The sooner Republicans stand up and stop voting AGAINST the Democrat in the race and instead vote FOR the best candidate (no matter the party), the sooner the Republican leadership will get a clue and stop trying to crown these horrible candidates.

              • Oh, I’m already going to be voting for Monds in November. There’s no question about that. (Disclosure: I worked on his PSC campaign and now the Governor’s campaign.) But I also know that the Republican nominee has a chance of winning too. So in the Primary, where there’s not a Libertarian candidate, I try and figure out who’s the lesser of the evils. I’m having a tough time distinguishing that at the moment. One appears to have a no-bid deal going on with the government, hates gays and abortion and the other has been less than truthful about her past while hating gays (sometimes?) and abortion. If John wasn’t in the race, I’d probably vote for Barnes.

          • Provocateur says:

            I blog on my own thoughts. Nice to see you do not as the only thing this blog tries to keep accomplishing is to use it to boast their candidates and silence any of their opponents as being “paid” by someone else.

            In short, John Konop, all you can apparently engage in is pathologically lying and adding nothing to the discussion except false claims and innuendo.

            As far as “sleeping” at night, you should be worrying more about that than I will as your path is a straight path to Hell.

            • John Konop says:

              Provocateur,

              I will pray for you. You should channel all your anger and hate spewing to loving your neighbors gay or straight. Hating people that do not exactly agree with you I am sure has been very counter productive in your life. Take deep breath and let it all go and I am sure you will feel better about yourself.

              Stop hating and try loving and it will set you free.

              • Provocateur says:

                John: You live in an alternative universe where you apparently believe anyone who doesn’t vote for your candidate “hates” them.

                Go back to your world, John.

          • Doctor Death says:

            JK,
            What does sleeping at night have to do with exact quotes from Handel?

            What if Deal had called her derogatory names? Can anyone imagine the fury that would be unleashed from the Handel camp??

            “Misogynist, woman hater, homophobe”

            Oh, I forgot, Deal has already been called all these names here on PP, never once having referred to Handel in a derogatory fashion.

            So, How do you sleep at night is the question?

        • polisavvy says:

          I concur with you about the “relic” and “big boy pants” comments. I found it to be disrespectful. Besides that, I despise the phrase “big girl” or “big boy” pants. Very tacky thing to say, regardless of who says it. Having said that, Deal has had his share of jabs, too. Like I said, both sides have been nasty and the race very contentious. These are, of course, my opinions.

          • John Konop says:

            polisavvy,

            I do agree I did not like the tone of the campaign. But I do think it is tough for woman to demonstrate strength without coming across harsh. Yet as I said in the past I like the fact that Karen has a tough side in the tough times we face. I know she has rubbed some people the wrong way, but as you know running a business in crisis mode you will offend people if you are doing your job. Nathan Deal “going along to get along” Washington style leadership scares me with the tough calls that need to be made ASAP!

            • polisavvy says:

              You may be right, John; however, I think that women are capable of running without using certain rhetoric and being disrespectful. I’d like to see a woman run for office who runs because she is a strong, capable, accomplished woman and one who does not use the gender card to advance her cause. (You know how offended I am with the good ole boy slogan — accuses even the good, decent men of being just as corrupt).

              I voted for Karen (twice now). I am not a Deal fan and will never be a Deal fan; however, even though I am not a fan of his, I could never be disrespectful of him. I was always brought up that even if you don’t respect a person, you must respect the accomplishments and positions held by that person. Deal has accomplishments a great deal in his lifetime. I think that sometimes when you show disrespect it can come back and bite you in the rear. You know what they say about karma. I hope this hasn’t hurt Karen with the voters.

              • Provocateur says:

                Like + 100 points for Poli’s

                “I think that women are capable of running without using certain rhetoric and being disrespectful. I’d like to see a woman run for office who runs because she is a strong, capable, accomplished woman and one who does not use the gender card to advance her cause.”

  9. BuckheadConservative says:

    I’ve always had this crazy idea that given the opportunity, the best and brightest among us should be selected to lead. If we fail to do that, jumping behind whoever the nominee is just makes you an enabler of bad primary decisions. It just sends a bad message to all that may desire higher office that:
    1.) Your record, or lack thereof, does not matter. If you can get the money you can win an office despite never actually demonstrating a capacity to get things done.
    2.) The party is more important than principles and people
    3.) Your behavior during the primary does not matter.

    I think all 3 of those are dangerous to the long term strength of our party and by extension the welfare of our state. You’re not accomplishing anything by voting to maintain the “default position” so why bother?

    • Doug Grammer says:

      Buckhead,

      While I don’t agree with they way some things have been done during in the primary by either remaining candidate, I really have two alternatives that are realistic to me. 1.) I can vote for and push the GOP nominee as hard as I can because Gov. Barnes is unacceptable to me, or. 2.) I can not vote and not work and let Gov. Barnes back in. Voting for someone named John something isn’t realistic.

      I may be rewarding behavior that I don’t like, and one candidate has made less mistakes than the other, but I’ll be choosing option 1. Options 2 and 3 (that leads back to 2) don’t work for me.

      • BuckheadConservative says:

        1.) I’m referring more than just the Gov. race
        2.) I know that’s your thought process. Everyone knows that’s your thought process. That’s the problem. At some point you just have to say to hell with them. I don’t care what the Democrats have. I’m tired of promoting the bad politicians in our party.

      • Jeff says:

        Doug:

        Ga is a runoff state. There is ZERO problem voting your conscience in the General followed by your fear in the runoff. Hell, if everyone voted their consciences in the General, there is a decent shot that their fear wouldn’t even MAKE it to the runoff.

        Also, recently runoffs have tended to favor Republicans, so I would *think* that a strong Republican like yourself should ENCOURAGE people to vote for the third Party, to force a runoff that tends to make electing your own guy that much easier.

        Going back to that “their fear may not even MAKE the runoff” bit:

        On the political spectrum, you basically have the social and fiscal liberals (Democrats), the fiscal conservatives (Libertarians), and the social conservative and fiscal liberals (Republicans). When all three are represented on the ballot, the two ends are GOING to vote their Party, with VERY little crossover in those areas.

        The Libertarian crowd, with its emphasis on fiscal conservatism and social tolerance, draws from BOTH ends of the spectrum. Depending on exactly how much it draws – and how far to the ends of the spectrum the other candidates push themselves – it is entirely possible that the Libertarian could be in the runoff rather than either of the poles. In such a scenario, BOTH crowds will have some core belief in common with at least one of the candidates in the runoff, and their outright fear can be avoided or at least its impact minimized.

        Thus, the Libertarian does not “lead back to the other option”, but instead gives those people who truly have little in common with either extreme – and let’s face it, both Ds and Rs are VERY much on their extremities these days, nearing the fringe more and more – a voice that is at least somewhat similar to their own beliefs.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Republicans encourage others to vote Republican. We don’t ask people to vote for another party. That is literally, self-defeating. The main job of a political party is to elect members of that political party. The primary is where we decide who we want to represent our party in November. I hope you have enjoyed these simple, small concepts.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            The main job of a political party is to elect members of that political party.

            What? “Fixing the country” didn’t make the cut? No wonder the parties are all messed up. Their priorities are all out of order.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                If a candidate’s primary focus is “fixing the country,” and they aren’t elected, how effective can they be? A candidate’s/office holder’s job is to solve problems. The party’s job is to help get them elected. You must first have power in order to be able to use it.

                • BuckheadConservative says:

                  That’s the problem, Doug. We don’t have any candidate/office holders who are interested in fixing problems.

                • seenbetrdayz says:

                  So, give them power first, and then hope they use their power for good, but getting them the power is the first and utmost priority and we’ll deal with the consequences of our bad choices later.

                  Since both major parties use this line of thinking, does it really matter who wins in November?

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    If GOP candidates follow the GOP platform, then you should know they will govern most of the time. The same holds true for the other parties’ candidates, platforms, and style of government.

                    • So governing that way most of the time and then really screwing it up on the big things like NCLB, farm subsidies, oil company subsidies, Medicare Part D, etc… that’s okay, right Doug?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I happen to agree with NCLB. It was right for the time, but it needs to be replaced by something better. As I recall, NCLB WAS part of the platform in 2000. Farm subsidies, I have mixed feelings on. In general I don’t like any government subsidies, but I don’t want to pay $5 a gallon for milk either. Oil company subsides, which ones, where? Medicare Part D has it’s pros and cons. The bigger problem is Social Security.

                    • I partially agree with the Republican Party. It was right for a while, but needs to be replaced by something better.

                      Farm subsidies mostly go to the corporate farms. Sure, some small family farms get them, but the large percentage goes to the really large farms. I don’t think milk is on the subsidized list, though I could be wrong. I’m pretty sure rice, cotton and corn are. I’d have to go look up the rest. Paying farmers not to grow something doesn’t sit well with me.

                      Oil company subsidies… Google them… http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/nation/la-na-oil-spill-subsidies-20100525

                      I agree, Social Security is a big problem. I’d love to get what I’ve donated to it back and put it in my 401k or other investments. It’s not like it’s real likely that I’ll ever see a penny of it by the time I’m old enough to retire.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      “I partially agree with the Republican Party. It was right for a while, but needs to be replaced by something better.”

                      Cute counter. Do you have a party that does not have most of it’s members wanting to legalize drugs in mind?

                      There is a difference between a subsidy and a tax break. Tax breaks to bring oil that will be converted to gas kind of makes sense in a “priming the pump” sort of way. They pass on some taxable income to get sales tax when gas is sold….a lot of it….and yes, milk is subsidized.

                    • “Do you have a party that does not have most of it’s members wanting to legalize drugs in mind?”

                      Yes – the Libertarian Party. Of course that means you have to look at your question a little differently than you asked it. How many Libertarians make legalizing drugs their top issue? Very few. How many Libertarians realize that it’s just plain dumb that industrial hemp is illegal, let alone marijuana? Probably most of us. It’s all a matter of how active one is in promoting certain causes. I think most Libertarians consider other issues a bit more pressing than the drug issue. But just look at the percentage of people in the US that use marijuana anyways. Prohibition is working rather well, don’t you think?

                      You want to talk about harder drugs, fine… we can debate the ones that have to be manufactured, chemically enhanced, etc. But I find it very ironic that a plant that will grow naturally without any help has been outlawed by the “we know better than thou” nanny statists.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      If we legalized pot, what drug would the LP want next? There used to be opium dens in the 1700’s and cocaine was used as well. What would be next?

                      Until legalizing drugs is dropped from your platform, your party will NEVER break 10% in a statewide race in Georgia with both an R and a D running unless you have a candidate willing to spend millions.

                    • “If we legalized pot, what drug would the LP want next? There used to be opium dens in the 1700′s and cocaine was used as well. What would be next?”

                      You’re falling back on that tired old argument? Let’s reverse it, shall we? Say we’re back in the early 1900’s when marijuana was legal. That statement, turned around, then becomes – if we outlaw marijuana, what’s next? Pine trees? Irises? Marigolds?

                      It’s the same argument you guys use against gay marriage. If we legalize gay marriage, what’s next? Allowing judges to marry a goat that they’re already having intimate relations with? (Per Erick Erickson anyways.)

                      How about this… if we legalize carrying guns in churches, what’s next? Allowing people to carry into government buildings? There’s going to be shootouts on every corner I tell ya’! (/sarcasm)

                      Get real Doug… like I said, let’s legalize this naturally occurring plant that many people in the US already use. If you want to debate *manufactured* drugs, that’s another story altogether.

                    • “- a bunch of hemp for not answering the question.”

                      What drug would the LP want legalized next? How about alcohol on Sundays from retail establishments? Is that an acceptable answer?

                      You should have been able to understand from my answers above that drug legalization isn’t quite at the top of my list. The only drug that I think is ridiculous for it to be illegal is marijuana. The rest, we can discuss the pros and cons and probably agree that some should be illegal. But marijuana? Come on… how many of the last Presidents smoked it? At least Obama, Bush and Clinton… probably Bush I and Reagan as well. Prohibition isn’t working and we’re spending way too much money keeping it illegal. I would think the big GOvernment Party would have understood that by now.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Acceptable answers are:

                      1.) NONE, we only want our pot.
                      2.) Name of drug that is currently illegal.
                      3.) Sunday Sales is not an answer.

                      Please pick option 1 or option 2. Otherwise, you are just refusing to answer the question.

                    • Doug – it may come as a surprise to you, but there’s not an official list of drugs in order of which the LP would like to have legalized. Personally, I don’t do any drugs. Take it as refusing to answer the question if you want, but I don’t have an opinion on which one should be legalized next. I don’t consider marijuana and manufactured drugs in the same league. What more do I have to say to get that point across?

                      Ignoring the drug point altogether, what about hemp? If we’re going to outlaw hemp, shouldn’t we also outlaw cotton and other fibers?

  10. brettbittner says:

    The longstanding saying has been and remains:

    “Democrats fall in love, and Republicans fall in line.” I don’t think you have much to worry about, Buzz.

  11. Doug Deal says:

    If the party selects a crook as its nominee, it is in the party’s interest to split.

    If the judgement of the rank and file of the state GOP is so flawed, perhaps it is not the party you think it is.

    I am tolerant of small policy differences. If it was just a matter of something like the Fair Tax standing between me and a candidate, I would tow the line, but I draw the line at using one’s powers as an elected official to arrange for “perks” in law.

    This should have been Johnson v Handel and all of us could have voted or conscience, but with Deal in the race, it is paramount the party keeops such an ethically compromised individual out of one of the most powerful governor’s office in the nation.

  12. UGADawg says:

    Absolutely correct, Buzz. Didn’t Ronald Reagan say, “My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy.”?

  13. The chances of you guys “splitting” next week are about as likely as you “walking out of the state convention during Saxby’s speech” two years ago. People say all sorts of bold things during the primary season. It means nothing.

    • zigmaster says:

      It’s not about splitting, it’s about energy. And Karen Handel will not have the energy and time of a whole bunch of folks. Yes, we’ll vote for her over Barnes. However, my time, money, and energy will be spent helping Austin Scott or the state house race closest to me that is competitive.

      • TPNoGa says:

        I wish I could help Austin Scott out. I really hope he cleans Marshall’s clock. Does Austin have a shot? Do you think he will win? I don’t know much about his district, except that it always seems to be pretty close. If we managed to keep it close in 2006, we should be able to flip it this year.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          Congressman Marshall has a war chest but Representative Scott is out working him, IMO. I think it’s winnable.

        • polisavvy says:

          Austin is polling ahead of where Collins was in ’06 when the first poll was done. Collins lost 50.5% to 49.5%. This thing is not over by any means. Very winnable and doable. Austin is out working Marshall in the 8th — there is no doubt about that. He, his staff and volunteers are everywhere.

          As a matter of fact, about a week ago, Marshall had not updated his web page from the last campaign. Plus, Austin raised more money than Marshall at the time of the last reporting.

  14. Goldwater Conservative says:

    The question Buzz is not asking, and the one that is by far the most important for the survival of democratic confidence in Georgia, is whether the party SHOULD “unite.”

    Why reunite? Honestly.

    I understand the aggregative model of democracy quite literally demands that some level of cohesion exist to ensure a party’s political survival, but the fate of any party ultimately depends on the People. You, the people, are in charge of everything…even the private sector. After all, how many countless billions in advertising and public relations are spent every year to give you what you want.

    If the “tea party” is serious about not being a 2010 midterm fad, it needs to become a party independent from the GOP and Democratic party. Until then they are just going to be a bunch of whackos that only secure GOP nominations and lose general elections.

    The GOP has no united message because of it’s “philosophy.” The GOP, and the right-wing in general, has a tendency to make itself very exclusive. For the next 20 years, first generation Americans are going to remember the GOP as the party that does not like or want non-whites in their party. It is the party of bitter middle class-men that believe in an American dream that exists only for those born of privilege. The economic interests of the country club republicans and the rest of you (many of which are too destitute to get out of the trailer park) are incompatible. Low wages, no benefits, zero job security and Bush tax cuts that save my company money if I outsource work to companies over seas only help me. I do not like it and do not support it, but those policies save and make me money at your (the middle class) expense.

    Fact of the matter is, on the conservative side of the political spectrum, it is politically untenable to have a big tent party. The democratic party figured this out a long time ago. The only thing that holds the democrats and the left together is their belief that diversity breeds innovation and educates democracy. It is a philosophy of inclusiveness. It is a philosophy that embraces innovation of any origin so long as the outcome is just. Unfortunately, for conservatism, the right wing of the political spectrum is extraordinarily intolerant.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      GC. Thank you! The GOP wants small gov so Big Biz can do what it wants at the expense of the people.

      • NoTeabagging says:

        I can’t understand why the GOP wants to run away the cheap immigrant labor for all their fat cat biz cronies.

  15. In The Arena says:

    Congrats to Karen Handel and Sarah Palin today on further alienating 73% of Republican state legislators, the people elected by their local communities to be a trusted voice in Atlanta for the citizens in the community. These insults directed at all lawmakers are exactly how not to bring a party together.

    It all started with the Glenn Richardson scandal. Handel never said one word about ethical reform before that news broke. Too bad for her Ralston, Jones, and Lindsey cleaned up shop.

    Are there any other legislators with ethics problems now? No. None. Handel’s central message has already been addressed and fixed. No wonder her rhetoric is so empty and her attacks on Nathan Deal so nasty and disjointed.

    • Provocateur says:

      And then of course, there are HER ethical issues with following state laws on what one cannot do with money from one campaign to help out on another of her campaigns.

    • joe says:

      73% of the GOP elitists want Deal, and only about 50% of the electorate want him. Sounds like there is already a split.

      • In The Arena says:

        And by your logic the other 27% of elitists want Karen Handel, elitists such as Cecil Staton and John Douglas. How are these senators any more or less “good ole boy” elitists than Dan Weber or Chip Rogers?

        • joe says:

          There is a 73-27 split among those in office. There is a 50-50 split among the electorate. The elected of the GOP are out of touch with with the electors. How much of a split do you want?

  16. griftdrift says:

    A party split? Not likely.

    Continued trouble due to the fact that independents and, more importantly, the next generation consider these culture wars, at best, a severe waste of time? Absolutely.

  17. I respectfully disagree that conservatives stayed home in 2008.

    McCain got just shy of 60 million votes. In 2004 Bush got 62.
    Kerry got 59 and Obama got 69. Maybe 5 million people nationally switched from Bush to Obama and then both McCain and Obama more or less split the new voters due to population increase.

    In Georgia, where there are more conservatives percentage wise than the country as a whole, McCain actually got more votes than Bush got, and Obama got more than Kerry. White voters turned out in Georgia at almost the exact same overall rate they turned out in 2004.

    Maybe 2% of conservatives stayed home, but I seem to remember that despite initial disappointment with McCain, they liked Obama even less and got pretty amped up towards the end of the election. In fact I’d say some of the tea party people were already out and about back then (remember he’s a Muslim and he’s a terrorist being shouted out at rallies).

    You guys can pretend it’s all about the base but really it’s all about the middle and that was the real story in 2008.

  18. TPNoGa says:

    Talk about splits: GRTL endorsed Deal and the President of the Georgia Christian Coalition endorsed Handel. Now that is quite the split.

  19. NoTeabagging says:

    Buzz, McCain was doing just fine until he opted for nutjob Palin as a running mate. I can’t believe ‘conservatives’ (or anyone for that matter) would take her drivel seriously. I am glad she found her calling as a motivational speaker and media whore. we’ll see if Handel’s last bit of campaign money was well spent.

  20. center5 says:

    Buzz, John McCain did not loose in 2008 because he lost the conservative vote. McCain performed basically on par (jogs here and there) with George W. Bush in every political demographic category except one: whereas Bush consistently got more than 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 2004, McCain free-fell and got only 30% of that vote in 2008. That is the largest single reason why McCain lost. And that is why Republicans will find it hard (if not impossible) to win the White House again until a Republican candidate can get back to Bush-level Hispanic support. Right now a generic Republican is probably looking at 20% of the Hispanic vote. So while this anti-immigrant stuff can get Deal elected in Georgia, there probably won’t be another Republican president for the next cycle or two or more.

  21. Scott65 says:

    I will be voting for Barnes because when I look at it objectively without party favoritism…Barnes is just the best candidate. He is no liberal, he has experience, he actually put his assets in a blind trust his first term (unlike Sonny who will stand to benefit from state projects that benefit…him), and will actually push some solutions for some of metro ATL’s problems ignored the last 8 years. He doesn’t have an ‘R’ after his name but after the last session of our legislature…R doesn’t seem to mean as much as it used to

  22. Three Jack says:

    handel wins, easy to continue supporting her.

    deal wins, john monds will see a significant overnight increase in support for his campaign including me.

    simply put, the gop cannot withstand a gubernatorial candidate facing a federal grand jury investigation. a vote for deal is a vote for barnes…bet on it.

    • I was trying to reply with a +Like here, but apparently there’s a new duplicate comment feature that says I’ve replied with that somewhere else. Ah well… 🙂

Comments are closed.