Something For Republican Candidates To Think About

From Rich Galen’s Mullings

# For most people, voting is not an intellectual exercise; it is an emotional expression.

# The Wall Street Journal poll release yesterday shows Congress with an approval rating (if you can call it that) of 21-72 and 60 percent rate Congress’ performance as “below average” or “one of the worst.”

# You would think, what with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid running the side show on Capitol Hill, that the electorate would be giddy with the prospect of the GOP taking control.

# Not so fast. 33 percent of the respondents of the WSJ poll hold a “very” or “somewhat” positive view of Democrats; but only 24 percent have those same feelings about Republicans.

# What does that tell us? The Dems have done about as much damage to themselves as they can do. The GOP doesn’t have to prove that the Democrats have failed.

# What Republicans have to do between now and November 2 is to give people a reason to feel good about voting for the Republican candidate for Governor, Senator, Congress, State Legislature, or Mayor. (emphasis mine)

# Republican candidates for Congress have to win a huge percentage of the seats in play for the GOP to take control of the House. If they don’t come up with a coherent message, voters may well decide to punish Republican incumbents as well as Democrats.


  1. Chris says:

    Well, Nominating someone who called people “Ghetto Grandmothers”, questions Obama’s citizenship, and possibly violated congressional ethics laws is the first step in making voters feel good about voting for them.

      • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

        He obviously struck a nerve. Do you not have a response for Chris other whining about his post? He brought up a good point, how could any civilized person feel good about voting for someone like that?

        • Doug Grammer says:

          I will give a response. He wasn’t alleged to have violated congressional ethics laws. He was alleged to have violated house rules. There is a big difference between laws and house rules. Violating house rules carries penalties from censure to, at most, removal from office. Breaking an actual law could include fines and jail time.

          I would feel good about voting for Congressman Deal by voting for Congressman Deal. It requires me to touch a screen. That’s how it’s done. I am civilized on occasion.

          • DonfromSnellville says:

            Regardless of whether he broke “laws” or “rules” does anyone question the complete lack of ethics in using your political power to personally benefit yourself financially at taxpayer expense (no bid means high bid) while in office? Just wondering as both prior to and since the primary I am amazed to read people trying somehow to justify voting for this man. Parse all you want. The facts are not in dispute.

            • Doug Grammer says:


              It wasn’t at taxpayer expense. Congressman Deal received no monies from the state or from monies collected as taxes. That is a fact in dispute if you think it’s a fact.

              If you want to promote a new law saying that no elected official can have any business with the state, that’s fine. If you want state reps., state senators, and any other elected officials from working in any other level of government, lobby, or own business that have contracts with the state, the county or municipal governments, that’s fine.

              Let’s discuss if he used his political power to personally benefit himself. Did he do anything to gain the bid that others couldn’t do if they were not in office? No. There were (I think) 5 other salvage inspection station across the state whose owners were not in the state senate. Fast forward to the three meetings he held with Bart Graham. Was the subject of changing the way the inspections were done even the purpose of the first two meetings? No. At the third meeting, it was explained by Graham that the inspectors should not have the focus of the safety of vehicles as a concern. Graham wanted to focus on making sure the titles were clean and that was it. Congressman Deal could have kept the inspection aspect of his company going under the new proposed guidelines and continue to make money from the venture. Did he use his power to benefit himself? He choose to stop being in that line of business when safety was no longer a concern of the government.

    • B Balz says:

      Someone who called people “Ghetto Grandmothers”
      Cased closed. He said what others think.

      Questions Obama’s citizenship

      As I recall, the point Rep. Deal was asking how he should answer his constituents questions regarding POTUS COLB.

      Possibly violated congressional ethics laws
      Politically driven from the get-go (CREW) and now going to be driven from a politically appointed US Attorney. At worst, Rep. Deal may have violated a House rule, but unless something new surfaces, no laws were broken, and YOU know it.

      If the discussion is one of which candidates plan will work better for the challenges GA faces, great. If we goto retail rhetoric from the get go, it doesn’t matter who we pick. And no, Mr. Monds is not where I would goto.

      • bowersville says:

        Balz connect four dots.

        1st. Ghetto grandmother
        2nd. No bid contract with the state
        3rd. Michael Thurmond, Kaseem Reed, Hank Johnson, Andrew Young, Shirley Franklin, etc. with their counterparts in Savannah, Albany, Macon, Augusta, Columbus,Athens…
        4th. Go back and look at the picture and see what you see.

        Can’t happen at the polls ’cause the numbers aren’t there? Jim Whitehead thought the same thing and Paul Broun was elected to Congress in the special election run-off by the numbers turned out in lib’ral Athens Clark County by the DEMOCRATS.

        Perceptions and words matter. Between Whitehead and his spokes person ACC was told they’d(Whitehead) be coming to Athens and h3ll was coming with them, coupled with an old out of context statement that as far as Whitehead was concerned all of UGA could be bombed except the athletic department.

        Now before you want to close the case and tell us what we are thinking, I’ll give you a clue. If Deal plays the race card…go back and look at the photo in your ajc link and imagine instead that the people are headed to the polls.

        • B Balz says:

          Fair enough., somebody is going to pull the race card and Roy wins on that, plus the ethics issues? It very well could happen.

          I think the anti-WDC sentiment outweighs, but …some of y’all have a lot more experience and knowledge.

          In any case, making the GG remark was intemperate and that won’t go away, completely. I just hope it isn’t what we hear all summer long.

  2. John Konop says:

    Great post Buzz!!!!!

    When I talked to people that is what I hear. People around the BBQ on the weekends are pissed-off at both parties. The GOP was for limited government with better management not no-government and or a blind eyed approach to managing issues.

    With the economy in the toilet the GOP should wipe out the Dems. But many see gut politics on both sides with no real solutions.

    I had a conversation with a fellow business owner who told me, I do not need a tax break and I would rather see the bills paid and credit market fixed so I can expand.

  3. House Republicans are competing in 430 of the 435 seats up for reelection. They will soon announce a “Contract” or platform of ideas that they will run on together for the General Elections. Many of the moderate GOP Members have been purged during the last two cycles, including their squishy leadership that often forced them to vote on Bush Era government-expanding programs. I know Boehner is still there, but he has “gotten the memo” and will follow the script or be overtaken by Pence or Cantor.

    If we take over the House, there could be almost 80 new Congressmen taking seats next year. I believe these guys are a “new breed” and along with the good guys that are still there, this will not be your older brother’s “1994 Republican Revolution.”

  4. Bvu says:

    Thanks Buzz. We Republicans ought to be concerned. Our country has serious issues and we won’t be a governing majority if we continue to wipe out Ronald Reagan’s “Big Tent” philosophy. While 50.2% of those who voted in the GOP runoff voted for our nominee, it in no way means that a majority of Georgia’s voters are going to vote for someone who voiced concerns over POTUS’s citizenship status, publicly used the term “ghetto grandmother” and perhaps overstepped his boundaries in preserving self-interest. Nationally, we have to deal with much bigger issues such as a potential brain-drain (this time it works against us) and huge unfunded liabilities, both of which i don;t know how we’ll solve anytime soon, not unless we get transformational leadership.

    • Gerald says:

      Deal apologized for the “ghetto grandmother” remark, plus Barnes has put his foot in his mouth a million times. The “birther” issue, however, will hurt Deal.

      • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

        All I remember is that he said that it was taken out of context. In what context is “Ghetto Grandmother” appropriate?

        • Gerald says:

          In the same context that makes Shirley Sherrod saying “their own kind” in reference to whites appropriate: a common but politically incorrect term that is used insensitively and awkwardly but without hatred or malice. I read Deal’s comments in context. Trust me, had a liberal Democrat said the same, it wouldn’t have even made the 5 o’clock news.

          • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

            LOL, you’re delusional.

            So in what context was it used in? Enlighten us. Unless he was referring to the latest, hottest, punk rock group, how can Ghetto Grandmother be used in a proper context?

  5. polisavvy says:

    Excellent post, Buzz. Republicans who are running for Congress should just hammer home the issues. There are many of the Democrats who are not going to be talking about the issues or the votes they have cast in hopes that the voters will “forget” the actions they have taken. They are, according to Dick Morris, going to be going more on a personal attack basis, provided they can find anything. “Just stick to the facts, man.” If the Republicans do that, they should do okay in November.

  6. Will there be a “Contract With America” gimmick rolled out at the last minute, or ANY indication of a positive plan whatsoever? All of the angry energy is directed toward voting against Democrats, but GOP’s deliberate strategy has been to remain quite and offer no reason to vote for them. The standard stump speech is simply “Standing up to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid ‘regime’!”… and the platform is simply “No”.

    My natural inclinations are (or were?) toward smaller government. But I haven’t heard the GOP’s leadership even try to put forth ideas since Newt left. You started campaigning on Clinton’s BJ instead, and it’s gone further downhill with each campaign season since.

    I eventually got on board with the Dems’ health care reform, not because I think the bill was perfect… but because the current system is broken, and I was hearing ZERO credible alternatives from the GOP (other than your Presidential 1st runner-up Romney, who “voted-for-Obamacare-before-he-voted-against-it”).

    I don’t have the foggiest idea what, if anything, the Republican Party stands for or what it means to be “Republican”… other than opposing Democrats. That’s it. You guys used to be the Party of Ideas back in the early-90’s, but since then have handed over the steering wheel and accepted a role as bitchy backseat drivers. You now require some “boogeyman” to scare people with at all times, and are empty suits without one. You guys make me sad these days.

    While I agree with Buzz that the GOP needs some kind of message to vote “for” rather than “against”, I’m not holding my breath… because it’s been since 1994 that they last bothered to try.

  7. Gerald says:

    “What does that tell us? The Dems have done about as much damage to themselves as they can do. The GOP doesn’t have to prove that the Democrats have failed.”

    Wrong. The Democrats were elected in 2006 and 2008 because of massive GOP failures that paved the way for the gigantic mess that we are still in right now. If Republicans can’t prove that they are A) better than the current Democrats and B) better than the Republicans that were swept out of office just a couple of years ago then 1) they won’t win as many seats in 2010 as they hope and 2) they won’t retain or build on those gains in 2012 and beyond, especially if the economy improves.

    The GOP would love to pretend that this is 1994, and that they have 50 years of Democratic failure to run against. It isn’t. Just because the public is angrier at Obama and Pelosi at the moment doesn’t mean that they haven’t forgotten the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, TARP, No Child Left Behind, prescription drugs, and all the scandals and corruption. The GOP got elected from 1994-2006 on a smaller government/lower less spending platform that they never delivered even when they controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. If they don’t actually deliver starting in 2010, they won’t be given anywhere near as long to campaign one way and govern another next time.

    • polisavvy says:

      Gerald, perhaps you should ask yourself why the Democrats did not do anything productive since taking over control of Congress? I think that’s a pretty good place to start. Both parties are just as responsible as the other. Neither are without problems and neither are without issues. Both sides played a part in the housing problems and banking problems. They are both guilty PERIOD.

  8. John Konop says:

    This is a classic example why most rational people are frustrated. Both sides would rather play kick the can and use this as a political issues rather than solve the problem! The truth is we need to increase eligibility based on life expectancy, increase what people pay via co-fees and or taxes and focus on end of life cost via directives. Yet the above rational adult conversation cannot be had by either side in the HOUSE! The truth is in less than 20 years on a state and federal level the retirement system will blow out if we do not deal with this issue.

    It is voodoo economics if you think privatizing this will fix medical cost rising faster than wages at a double digit rate. And both sides refusal to take a rational look at government paid benefits without screaming death panels and no cuts while people live longer is irrational and irresponsible.

    Unless we fix the cost curve on medical cost increasing faster than wages it will destroy the economy. I hope new leadership like Buzz will have the guts to tackle this issue before it is too late.

    Obama claims GOP trying to destroy Social Security

    USA…..Some Republican leaders in Congress are “pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall,” Obama said.
    He contended that such privatization was “an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market.”

    Most Republicans, in fact, are wary of touching that idea, because Social Security is virtually sacrosanct to voters, particularly seniors.
    Nonetheless, Democrats have been able to seize on the issue because of a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, that would allow younger people to put Social Security money into personal accounts.

    Ryan’s idea is similar to a proposal pushed unsuccessfully by former President George W. Bush. It’s not been endorsed by party leaders and has attracted only a small number of GOP co-sponsors.
    With Social Security’s finances strained, policymakers talk frequently about the need to address the solvency of the entitlement program. How to do so is less clear, as Obama’s comments Saturday underscored.

    Obama said he’s “committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security.” But he proposed no ideas for doing that.

    Many Democrats adamantly oppose any cut in benefits to reduce costs and some won’t accept a gradual increase in the retirement age, something that was done in the last overhaul in 1983. Republicans say an increase in Social Security taxes is out of the question, even for the wealthy.

    Unless Congress acts, Social Security’s combined retirement and disability trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037. At that point, Social Security will collect enough in payroll taxes to cover about three-fourths of the benefits…….

Comments are closed.