Deal Stands Up For Local Control.

GOP Nominee Nathan Deal stands up for the rights of local elected officials to decide local issues:

Georgia’s two gubernatorial candidates have taken differing stances on the national controversy over building a mosque in Lower Manhattan, close to where Islamic terrorists murdered thousands on Sept. 11, 2001.

Democratic candidate Roy Barnes said he opposes a mosque at the site.

“I believe the 9/11 site is hallowed ground and it is too painful and divisive to build a mosque there,” Barnes said.

The Journal also asked Republican candidate Nathan Deal if he thought a mosque should be built near ground zero. Deal said Wednesday it wasn’t his place to say.

“As governor, I don’t want New Yorkers telling Georgians what to do with our land. I’ll return the favor by staying out of their business,” Deal said in an e-mail.

The proposed $100 million, 13-story mosque and Islamic center, which would be located two blocks from where the World Trade Center stood, has set off an uproar.

President Barack Obama has said Muslims have the right to build the mosque.

In the race for Georgia’s junior senator, Republican incumbent Johnny Isakson of east Cobb sided with Barnes.

“I believe it is insensitive and inappropriate to build a mosque near the ground zero site,” Isakson said.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Gov candidates differ on mosque near 9 11 site

We don’t have to like it (personally I don’t) but local officials in New York are well within their authority to allow this Mosque to be built. I predict in the end it won’t be built. Local citizens are speaking out and demanding a reversal of this decision. Nevertheless, it’s a local matter and we don’t need Governors telling local officials how to zone property.

I hope you Deal haters out there will give him credit for getting in right on this one. 🙂


  1. Jason Heyward for President says:

    If this question was asked during the republican primary, do you think he would have given the same answer? Umm, no.

    • macho says:

      Yes, he would have answered it the same way. Even if you examind his response in a cynical, who would he be reaching out to in the General election, that he wouldn’t reach out to in the Primary – liberals and Muslims?

      He gave a great response, that plays just as well in the Primary as the General – “we’ll stay out of your business and you stay out of ours.” Barnes is the one who comes across as pandering.

      • Jason Heyward for President says:

        I agree that Barnes is pandering on this issue. I guess he thinks it will help him keep from getting his butt kicked in the rural counties this time. Not sure I agree with that, but whatever.

        However I do think that if asked during the Republican primary Deal would not have answered this way. Oxendine would have the first to release a statement saying he would chain himself to the site to keep them from building a mosque, then Deal and all the others would have had to chime in.

        It’s not like Deal is above pandering. When did he become a birther? Oh yea, in the republican primary when he needed conservative votes.

        • macho says:

          I’m no apologist for Deal. I would have rather had Handel or Johnson, but on this issue, I think he would have answered it the same way in the Primary.

  2. MSBassSinger says:

    A wise Deal would have said something like “If Georgia soil had been attacked on 9/11, I believe it would be morally wrong, though legally allowed, to build a mosque on or near that Georgia site. It is not my place to tell New Yorkers how to handle their affairs that do not directly affect Georgians.”

    That said, here is my 2 cents (since I am not running for anything):
    Obviously, it is morally wrong and a direct insult to America for Muslims to build a mosque (Cordoba House) that near Ground Zero that celebrates what the Muslims see as an “Islamic victory”. The very name is in honor of an Islamic victory over Christians in Cordoba, Spain in 711 A.D.

    What I don’t get is the misplaced rage. You expect a dog to act like a dog, a cat to act like a cat, and a Muslim to act like a Muslim. One rightfully expects these 7th century barbarians to do exactly what they did in building a mosque at Ground Zero as a celebration of the heinous crime.

    Why, then, is our anger (and media/blog coverage) not directed at the person and company who sold the land to them, the architect designing the buildings, and the subcontractors and suppliers? They knew what they wanted it for, and had every right not to lease or sell it to them.

    The land was owned by Steven Pomerantz (who died in 2006) and leased by Burlington Coat Factory (the building they had at 45 Park Place was destroyed on 9/11). Pomerantz’s widow, Kukiko Mitani, sold the property to Soho Properties (a real estate investment firm who is also the general contractor for the mosque), who told Ms. Mitani it was for condos (but she now supports building a mosque there) in July 2009 who then sold it to the Cordoba Initiative. In addition, half of the property (47 Park Place) is owned by Consolidated Edison (ConEd), who is trying to sell the property to the Muslims.

    Soho Properties’ Chairman & CEO is real estate developer Sharif El-Gamal. His partner is Nour Mousa, the nephew of Amr Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League.

    Why aren’t conservatives asking people to write Kukiko Mitani, ConEd, and Soho Properties in protest? Who is the architect for building the mosque? Who are their subcontractors and suppliers? Why are they not being publicly named, and blacklisted?

    Folks, that is how conservatives do things. We find the people responsible for legalized wrongdoing, make the facts known, and ostracize them.

    Listen to the so-called conservatives who express outrage, but never mention those who knowingly allowed this to happen. You have to wonder if those so-called conservatives are just stirring up the issue for their own selfish fund raising and ratings.

    • ACCmoderate says:

      “You expect a dog to act like a dog, a cat to act like a cat, and a Muslim to act like a Muslim.”

      So by that logic we can expect Christians to persecute Jews, we can expect white people to lynch blacks, and we can expect Georgians to enslave an entire race.

      Don’t lump in the actions of extreme individuals to characterize an entire faith. Bin Laden and the terrorists that committed those attacks on 9/11 have more in common with Eric Robert Rudolph or the Westboro Baptist Church than they do with mainstream Islam.

      Then again, I don’t expect your ignorance to understand that concept.

      • MSBassSinger says:

        There is nothing in Christianity that justifies persecuting Jews – just the opposite. The vast majority of white people were never supportive of lynching. The vast majority of Georgians during the time of slavery never owned slaves.

        However, the attacks of 9/11 (and others) are perfectly in keeping with Islam.

        Thus your argument fails in all respects.

        • ACCmoderate says:


          Thanks for re-affirming my whole point. I made a large number of stereotypical conclusions about Christians/Whites/Georgians and you informed me that those assumptions were inappropriately incorrect.

          I lose all respect for your reasoning capabilities when you continue to perpetrate the very stereotypes against Muslims that you’re so willing to dismiss against Christians.

          The vast majority of Muslims (especially Muslim-Americans) were not supportive of the 9/11 attacks. There is nothing in Islam that justifies the killing of innocent people.

          My argument still stands. You’re lumping in the actions of others as the embodiment of an entire faith.

          Saying that ALL Muslims support 9/11 and the destruction of America (which you said), is the same type of logic that allows me to say:

          – All white people support the lynching of blacks.
          – All Christians want to massively exterminate Jews.

          Let’s tone down the ignorance and quit embarrassing yourself. Bring your “A” game next time.

          • ZazaPachulia says:

            What’s the worst thing about telling people you’re a Republican? Once you’ve let your affiliation be known, the bigots like MSBass try to associate with you.

    • Ambernappe says:

      Do not forget, William (Bill AYERS) father was head of ConEd for many years and helped his son hide from justice.

    • B Balz says:

      This was an interesting read, as were the responses, counter-responses. I want to touch on the idea of tolerance for a moment. The analogy that I see between Muslims/Extremists and say, for example the GOP/Birthers, is oddly relevant to this real estate deal.

      “Birthers” identified with, and were tolerated by the GOP until their claims were generally discredited in 2008. Many within the Islamic community feel that more must be done to call out extremists within their ranks. Implication: Mainstream Islam
      while publicly condemning extremism, has not purged itself of extremists. Tolerance of this sort is common in history; the Vatican apologized for turning a ‘blind eye’ to the Holocaust.

      Having read the ‘who’s who’ behind the real estate transaction, I am more inclined to agree with MS, this building ‘need not be built’ and signifies victory [Cordoba] for all of Islam over Christianity.

      The Jews and Christians reached an accord in the mid-1400’s to stop their un-holy war. There has never been such an accord with Islam.

      Look at Dearborn, MI, home to a traditionally large Lebonese muslim population, now morphing into a middle eastern muslim population. The video on this link portrays a nasty story of how one local journalist blogger was threatened with violence for asking questions at a public information booth:

      I think the unions, City permit offices, will keep this project mired for many, many years. Or as John Stewart suggests, open a pork shoppe or a gay, Islamic bar nearby.

  3. NoTeabagging says:

    It always happens, some timely event coincides with a local elections and the media asks, or the candidates offer, their opinion. It does make a difference to some folks how the candidates feel about these issues even if they are out of jurisdiction. Can we just get back to real issues and keep the candidates from their lame, lying attack ads?

  4. John Konop says:

    The Olympic bomber killed people claiming to do it in the name of Christianity. As well as the killer in Kansas that killed the doctor performing abortions. If you respect the freedom of religion and do not hate people for practicing the Muslim religion you should agree with Joe. It is an irrational position to think we are at war with the Muslim world.

    Most Muslim people I know only want what most of us want for our families. Bin Laden wants this to be a holy war between Christians and Muslim people. People who promote not excepting Muslim people in our country are doing the dirty work for Bin Laden like it or not.

    Joe Scarborough Takes On Newt Gingrich Mosque Comments: ‘It’s Deplorable, It Is Sick Politics

    HP-”Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough has devoted much of his program’s airtime so far this week to criticizing Newt Gingrich over the former House Speaker’s recent comments regarding the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero.

    On Saturday Gingrich called the proposed center a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and compared the construction of such a building to “putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” He repeated the Nazi analogy in an interview Monday morning on Fox News and referred to the project’s organizers as “radical Islamists,” a characterization that is demonstrably false.

    The “Morning Joe” crew didn’t take too kindly to Gingrich’s words, and let him know in no uncertain terms. “This is madness,” remarked Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida. “There are elements of our party that are marching through the fevered swamps of ideology.”

    We’ve put together a highlight reel of Scarborough, along with frequent “Morning Joe” guests Mike Barnicle, Richard Haass, and Pat Buchanan (yes, even Pat Buchanan), sounding off against Gingrich over the course of the past three mornings.

    • MSBassSinger says:

      Huge difference. Just because I say “I am a car” doesn’t mean I have wheels, tires, and axles.

      Your examples of murderers calling themselves Christians fails. Nothing about their beliefs or actions is under-girded by Scripture (the sole authority on what is Christian or not), nor does any mainstream Christian denomination or organization claim them.

      What the Muslim murderers did on 9/11 (and numerous other attacks on the US prior to that) are completely in harmony with the Koran, and from teh dancing in the streets on 9/11, I’d say they were in the mainstream of the Islamic revival going on worldwide. The few moderate Muslims that denounce what happened on 9/11 must deviate from the Koran to establish their moderate sects.

      If the intent of the Cordoba House was not to emphasize Islam’s victory at Ground Zero, then why pick the inflammatory name “Cordoba”, and why allow to go unchallenged the portrayal of the mosque in Moslem countries as a victory? Why offend the other “people of the Book” with such intensity?

      Islam has been at war with western civilization since the 7th century. Once the Soviet boot was removed from their necks in the late 80s, their search for a single Caliphate to rule the world has done nothing but grow. I fail to see how you or anyone could miss that.

      • John Konop says:


        If you really believe what you wrote than we have no hope. The world has around 1.7 billion Muslim people and about 5 million in America. If the majority of the 1.7 billion are terrorist enemies of our country than we would of lost already.

        The INMAN in charge has a higher security clearance than Newt FROM THE FBI. And has done more than him to fight terrorism and help America in the Muslim world. He has been a hero to the FBI from the Bush and Obama administration.

        • John Konop says:

          More Facts!

          He was key person in helping us fight terrorism and set up alliances with the moderate parts of the Muslim world. He has a very high clearance in the FBI and his been a hero to the FBI for his effort against terrorism with both administrations.

          New York – ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts

          ……In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with “a clear picture,” said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI’s New York office.

          Brought in to speak that morning—at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero—was one of the city’s most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. “Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron,” he said. “It is a fundamental contradiction in terms.”…….

          …..“Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance,” Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. “He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative. I liked his book, and I participated in some of the meetings in 2004 or so. This is why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He is the type of leader we should be celebrating in America, not undermining.”…..

        • MSBassSinger says:

          You mean the two administrations that tell us Islam is a religion of peace?

          Since Newt hasn’t really done much of anything useful in a long time, why would he even have a FBI clearance?

          Are you completely unaware of how Muslims like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speak one way for Westerners, and another way for Muslims?

          Are you willing to say Hamas is a terrorist organization? Rauf won’t. Do you think the US can have Sharia law? Rauf does (“The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of sharia that are required to govern” Do you think the US was at least partly to blame for 9/11? Rauf does (same source as previous). His book’s title in Arabic is “A Call to Prayer from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Dawah from the Heart of America Post 911”, and the same exact book in western languages is “What’s Right with Islam is What’s Right with America”. No dualism there, huh?

          The ignorance on Islam with the American left and the Rockefeller Republicans is astounding. Talk about not wanting to be confused with the facts.

          • John Konop says:


            Your western narrow minded understanding of the Muslim world is how we got into this no win NATION BUILDING strategy. Your plan is what with 1.7 billion people? What should we do with the 5 million Muslim people in the U.S.?

            You guys will bankrupt our country! The real conservatives were for a humble foreign policy not Nation Building. I was against when Democrats wanted to militarily solve Africa and I am against Republican who want to militarily solve the Middle East.

            • ACCmoderate says:

              John, I believe that MSBass would be in favor of the internment camp approach we used towards Japanese-Americans in World War II.

              Then again, MSBass might endorse the decision to buy a plot of land roughly the size of Oklahoma and march all of the Muslims there on foot.

              Since I’m not an ignorant redneck, I can’t think of any more ideas.

              • acoalson says:

                Rightly or wrongly, Korematsu has never been overturned by the SCOTUS.

                Islam is a violent religion. Not all Muslims are violent, but that doesn’t mean the religion isn’t one of violence.

                Do they have a right to build a mosque and practice their religion? Absolutely. I don’t know anyone serious who says otherwise.

                The thing I disagree with is this call for “tolerance” for the Muslim community from the far left. To which …I ask why should I be tolerant? Since when does a constitutional right demand tolerance and respect? People are free to say what they want, it doesn’t mean I have to be tolerant of or respect what they say. Muslims have a right to worship, it doesn’t mean New Yorkers have to be tolerant and respect their choices. And it doesn’t mean they have to roll over and accept it.

                With a religion like Islam who consider nonMuslims, feces (najis); that won’t allow nonmuslims to step foot into Mecca or Medina upon penalty of death; that refuses to let women drive a car and make them adhere to a dress code that makes a Mary Knoll nun look like Malibu Barbie; and that frequently beat and stone women for the audacious crime of getting raped; I think it is perfectly acceptable to be intolerant.

                • John Konop says:


                  If you are going to make this irrational argument for nation building you should at least understand the roots of your very liberal position. The roots of the BIG government policemen of the world foreign policy come from the Democratic Party ie William Krystal senior and (D WA) Senator Henry M. Jackson.

                  The Powel doctrine which argued against this policy was rooted after the failed episode in Lebanon during the Reagan administration. In fact Ron Paul actually pointed this during the GOP debate.

                  But please do not let facts get in the way you feel about the issue. The irony is you are calling a policy rooted from the Reagan administration liberal and are arguing for the traditional old liberal Democrat policy that was for changing the world at the point of a gun!

                  THE IRONY!!!!!

                  • John Konop says:


                    You are missing the point that the Inman in charge has been helping us fight radical Muslims. Why would you want to alienate the guy helping us?

                    • John Konop says:

                      THE FACTS!

                      ….The F.B.I. said Imam Feisal had helped agents reach out to the Muslim population after Sept. 11. “We’ve had positive interactions with him in the past,” said an agency spokesman, Richard Kolk. Alice Hoagland of Las Gatos, Calif., whose son, Mark Bingham, was killed in the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, said, “It’s quite a bold step buying a piece of land adjacent to ground zero,” but she said she considered plans for the site “a noble effort………”

                    • acoalson says:

                      First off, I’m not for nation building. I’m more of an “entangling alliances with none” kind of guy. I don’t think we should be the world’s policemen, and I’m not sure how you got that out of my comment.

                      Secondly, the Shah of Iran was helping us, Bin Laden was helping us; we’ve got a pretty bad track record when it comes to getting people to help us in the Muslim world.

                      Third, why would the Imam want to alienate the people he purportedly wants to help and bring together?

                      My ultimate point was that Islam is a religion built on intolerance, and we shouldn’t be demonized for being intolerant of their views and choices. And it is insensitive to the majority of the 9/11 victims and their families. This isn’t about 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide, or 5 million muslims in the US, it’s about common sense and common courtesy.

                    • John Konop says:


                      How can you compare a ruthless leader like Shah of Iran to the Inman?

                      The FBI, State Department, President Bush, President Obama, Bush advisor Karen Hughes……are all wrong about this Inman and you are right?

                      Your solution is to insult 1.7 billion Muslim people and 5 million in America who we need help in fighting terrorism because you do not like their religion?

                    • acoalson says:

                      How is it insulting to say “don’t build here, it is insensitive” ?

                      My point about the Imam was that we shouldn’t put all our eggs in the Imam basket.

                      The 1.7 billion Muslims who don’t live here should mind their own business, and the 5 million in this country should understand that all politics is local, especially with all the details involved (the Imam’s view on Sharia, America’s role in 9/11, Cordoba, etc), and see how it could be viewed as insensitive.

                • John Konop says:


                  …..State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley responded to the accusations Tuesday:

                  “His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well-known and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it’s like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said Tuesday. He added that the department’s public-diplomacy offices “have a long-term relationship with” Rauf – including during the past Bush administration, when the religious leader undertook a similar speaking tour.

                  If one were to hearken back to the halcyon days of the Bush Administration, one would remember that, when Bush adviser Karen Hughes was appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, the Bush Administration saw improving America’s standing among Muslims abroad as a part of its national security strategy. And, as such, Hughes set up listening tours, attended meetings and worked with interfaith groups that — shocking, by today’s Republican standards — included actual Muslims.

                  One of those people was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf……


              • Romegaguy says:

                Violent religions… Hmmmm

                “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

                1st Sam 15:2-3

                • Rick Day says:

                  Amen. I’ve been munching popcorn waiting for someone rational to post.

                  YOUR GOD IS MEAN MY GOD IS GOOD when they are supposed to BOTH be the “one True God” of Abraham.

                  I say confiscate all church/temple/mosque property and turn them in to Schools of Tolerance.

                  Screw your gods, if your gods are the ‘source’ of your ‘outrage’ over the ‘others’.

            • MSBassSinger says:

              I have posted on here numerous times I oppose nation building. I stand for obliterating our enemies when they pose a real and present danger, then leaving and letting civilian services handle any nation-building. Helping the enemy rebuild only make sense after the enemy unconditionally surrenders. Until then, they make their bed, and what happens is their responsibility.

              It is your Rockefeller Republicans who have primed the bankruptcy pump for Obama to use to open the floodgates – the same Rockefeller Republicans who still contend Islam is a religion of peace.

              It is not the job of the US to militarily solve anyone’s problem.

              • John Konop says:


                Answer the question, if you really think Muslim people are the enemy what do we do with the 1.7 billion of them and the 5 million in the U.S.?

                I am a fan of the Powel doctrine that we make friends with moderates muslims and kick axx on the radicals and get out quickly.

                • MSBassSinger says:

                  Any group of people who want to change the US by force is the enemy. I won’t bite at your simplistic statement “Muslim people are the enemy “. Treating all Muslims as some monolithic entity, all of one single mind, is just plain ignorant. But, liberals do that all the time – Southerners, blacks, Latinos, etc.

                  Keep in mind that Powell almost lost the first Iraqi War. His plan for the war was so useless, that Schwarzkopf had to threaten to resign. Schwarzkopf’s plan was adopted, and Powell’s rejected. Powell followed the political track, while Schwarzkopf followed the combat track, and thus was far better equipped to develop the right strategy. In fact, the so-called Powell Doctrine is another of the media-created entities and is a copy of the doctrine established by Caspar Weinberger.

                  I have clearly stated where I stand, and lacking any substantive rebuttal from you, I do not know more I can say than this:

                  Islam is a philosophy that is wholly incompatible with how the US is designed and with traditional American culture. There is no problem with individuals practicing the religion within the laws of the US. There is a HUGE problem when the practice of that religion begins to demand changes to the US such as compliance with Sharia law and to use the force of government to require submission to Islam. And have no doubt – that is the primary focus of such two-faced people like your Imam.

                  • B Balz says:

                    The reason that the Powell Doctrine failed has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with Arabs.

                    Westerners will fail, if they fail to understand the Arab mindset, how agreements work, and what is at stake.

                    Simply put, Arabs as MS describes are wholly incompatible with the West on a number of levels. Agreements are meant to be temporary, are always shifting with alliances, and are not to be trusted. What is at stake is the objective of Islam: One world, one G’d.


                    The demographics of their population is so much younger than ours, they have a huge advantage over us.

                    • B Balz says:

                      Powell Doctrine:

                      1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
                      2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?
                      3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
                      4. Have all non-violent policy means been exhausted?
                      5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
                      6. Have all the consequences of our action been fully considered?
                      7. Is the action supported by the American people?
                      8. Do we have broad international support?

                      How can one answer any of these questions, certain, when dealing with gov’ts that are barely in control, of any Countries listed below?

                      That is why the Powell Doctrine fails, the Gov’t of these countries are simply not on the same page as the West.

                      Arab States:

                      Saudi Arabia
                      United Arab Emirates UAE Oman

                      None of these Countries have gov’ts that are sympathetic to US interests.

                      They do however, understand ‘shock and awe’ if not from their own leaders, than others.

                    • B Balz says:


                      I did not offer any solution, simply stated that dealing with the Nations listed above using Western values of fair play [Powell Doctrine] is naive.

                      If you are asking for my solution, be glad to share it, without a threadjack.

                  • Rick Day says:

                    then…your issue really is with but a few Muslims; the ones who just use their religion to justify their murderous ways. Kind of like Timothy McVey?
                    Oh wait, those aren’t Christians, according to you.
                    You DO understand that the ‘religion’ thing is just a cover to manipulate the masses, right? You do realize there are good people and bad people in all walks of life? And you DO realize there are a very few who would do anything to control us all because power is a drug?

                    Most importantly, I do hope you realize that in country, the biggest threat by religion is The GOP Far Right?

                    ProTip: murderous humans come in all colors, ethnicities and sexes. Just admit you are Islami-phobic and accept it.

                    We have.

    • Provocateur says:

      Takes one to know one, CobbGOPer. Where did you serve your time? And, when did you get off probation?

        • Provocateur says:

          But if I hadn’t said anything, Konop, you would not have admonished CobbGOPer, would you have?

        • B Balz says:

          John, In my humble opinion, I think calling a gubernatorial candidate a b**t*rd* is the paradigm of out of line by which other comments should be judged.

          • John Konop says:


            I was one of the first to speak-out after I saw the comment about someone wishing Deal to be dead a few days ago and said it should be taken down.

            • CobbGOPer says:

              That was me, by the way. And I’ll edit the comment to say that I don’t hope he dies, I hope he gets a scorching case of hemorrhoids while he’s in prison.


                • CobbGOPer says:

                  Come on, John. You ever read some of the things politicians said about each other in the 1770’s? Or the 1800’s? Personal invective in politics is as American as apple pie, Sir. Ask Andrew Jackson, or Abraham Lincoln. At least they don’t beat each other with canes on the Senate floor anymore. Though that would certainly make C-SPAN more fun to watch…

                • CobbGOPer says:

                  In fact, here’s one from our very own Sam Nunn:

                  “I appreciate Representative Frank trying to enhance my dull image, but in terms of obsession with sex, I’m not in Barney’s league.” – Nunn in 1993, responding to Frank’s insistence that the senator is “obsessed with sex and involved in an anti-gay witch hunt.”

                  How bout B-1 Bob?

                  “If he wants to get into veterinarian metaphors he should have been spayed, fixed when he was a young man and maybe he’d get a second term as president.” – Rep. Bob Dornan in 1995, after President Clinton said that Dornan needs an anti-rabies shot. Dornan had also labeled Clinton a “draft-dodging adulterer” and called him a “sleazeball who can’t keep his pants on.”

                  How bout this from the Illinois State Register newspaper:

                  “The craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an office in America.” – This was their opinion of Illinois native son Abraham Lincoln.

                  One more for the road, John:

                  “Joe, you’ve got a little baby boy. Well, you take his little building blocks and go up and explain to Jerry Ford what we’re trying to do.” – Lyndon Johnson to one of his assistants, referring to then GOP House leader and future President Gerald Ford. Ford’s problem, as LBJ saw it, was that he had “played football too long without a helmet” and, as a result, was “so dumb he can’t walk and fart at the same time.”

                  Good night folks, I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waitress.

    • MSBassSinger says:

      OK, convince me. A “crook” is a person who has committed felony crimes. Please list for me the felonies that Deal has been convicted of, or even felonies that he is currently on trial for.

      • CobbGOPer says:

        Take a look at his tax returns and get back to me. Oh that’s right, he won’t release them. Until they’re subpoenaed by the grand jury, that is.

      • CobbGOPer says:

        And your definition of “crook” is wrong:

        Crook – a dishonest person, esp. a sharper, swindler, or thief.

        From the OCE report on Deal. Real. Corrupt:

        “1. In 2008 and 2009, Representative Deal sought to preserve a state vehicle inspection program that had generated significant personal financial benefit for him and a business partner. Representative Deal attended meetings on the state inspection program with Georgia officials and told the OCE he attended the meetings, not as a private citizen, but rather as a “public servant” acting in some official capacity. Changes to the vehicle
        inspection program concerned a purely state issue and according to state officials, no other Member of Congress from Georgia involved themselves in it. Thus, the Board concludes
        that there is a substantial reason to believe that Representative Deal may have violated House Rule 23, clause 3 and Rule 5 of the Code of Government Service.

        [Under House Rule 23, clause 3, Members ‘‘may not permit compensation to accrue to the beneficial interest of such individual from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position of such individual in Congress.’’ Rule 5 of the Code of Ethics for US Government Service states “Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.”]

        2. In addition, Representative Deal was accompanied by his Chief of Staff at meetings on the vehicle inspection program and directed the Chief of Staff to use a House email account to send emails related to the meetings. Thus, there is substantial reason to believe Representative Deal violated the House Ethics Manual’s prohibition on using House equipment and resources for personal business purposes.

        3. Representative Deal disclosed $50,001 to $100,000 in unearned “Dividends” income (and unearned “Partnership Income” on an amended form) from GSD on his 2009 Financial
        Disclosure Statement (covering calendar year 2008). However, the same income was described as earned wages on his 2008 personal income tax forms. Specifically, Representative Deal’s 2008 tax documents show $75,000 in GSD wages; in addition,
        Representative Deal received a W-2 from GSD in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Thus, there is a substantial reason to believe Representative Deal violated the House Ethics Manual’s
        directive to disclose all earned income.

        4. Further, Representative Deal rendered some degree of service to GSD in 2008 and 2009 and his 2008 taxes show $75,000 in GSD wages. Thus, there is substantial reason to
        believe Representative Deal violated the earned income limitation, House Rule 25, Clause 1.

        5. Representative Deal is the GSD corporate secretary. His 2008 taxes show $75,000 in GSD wages. Thus, there is substantial reason to believe Representative Deal violated the
        prohibition on receiving compensation as a corporate officer, House Rule 25, Clause 2.

        6. Representative Deal also failed to disclose his status as the GSD corporate secretary on his financial disclosure forms. Thus, there is substantial reason to believe Representative
        Deal violated the House Ethics Manual’s directive to disclose all nongovernmental positions held.”

      • CobbGOPer says:

        If a Democrat had these kinds of charges levelled at him/her by the Office of Congressional Ethics, we’d be in their face about it. Deal gets a pass? Why?

        • MSBassSinger says:

          Because Deal hasn’t done anything demonstrably wrong. So far, all I see is innuendo, the legal equivalent of jaywalking, and the sore-loser crowd trying to portray accusations as actual criminal wrongdoing. Deal wasn’t my first choice, but I haven’t seen anything of substance yet about his supposed wrongdoing.

          • CobbGOPer says:

            OK. We’ll just pretend that Office of Congressional Ethics report I POSTED A LINK TO just doesn’t exist. Obviously it’s too complicated for your intellectual capacities. You think a Congressman using his office for personal financial gain is the legal equivalent of “jaywalking?” You need to run for office, good sir, your ethical values are right where they need to be to ensure a long and prosperous career. It’s people like you that give Republicans a bad name.

          • CobbGOPer says:

            And you should remember that a panel of 6 congressmen, 3 D and 3 R, voted UNANIMOUSLY to refer Deal for a full investigation. It didn’t happen because he resigned to “run for governor.”

            • MSBassSinger says:

              First of all, there is very little that is “too complicated for [my] intellectual capacities”. Second, these kind of ethics charges are common tools for Democrats to punish Republican conservatives. Third, Republicans, unlike Democrats, don’t sweep ethics charges under the rug – of course they refer them for investigation. Fourth, the OCE report is a prime example of innuendo and blowing things far out of proportion.

              Finally, when and if any real, official criminal charges of substance are made, then Deal should resign.

            • Lady Thinker says:

              Cobb, he resigned twice remember? He resigned, took it back about two days later, then resigned AGAIN!

  5. RuralDem says:

    Yep, Buzz, Nathan Deal is a champion of local control, especially with his support of NCLB.

    Also, as a State Rep-Elect, you’re now a public official, and you’ve just chimed in that you do not like the mosque idea. As a soon to be State Rep, why are you chiming in on an issue that is not related to Georgia?

      • RuralDem says:

        You’re right, Deal is a strong proponent of local control, what was I thinking?

        Oh, you mean the other comment? It was meant somewhat as a joke. I’d recommend laughing once in awhile, especially if you’re reading on here.

        I just think this thread is hilarious. I know Buzz has to support Deal, and I doubt anyone expected anything different, but to tout Deal as a champion of local control is a joke.

    • You know what’s funny? Roy Barnes served on the Commission On No Child Left Behind (remember his education reform here in Georgia was very similar to NCLB). In 2007 Barnes had this to say:

      But the commission emphasized it thinks the day for national standards has come. “The debate that has been raging since the time of Lyndon B. Johnson was settled by No Child Left Behind,” says Roy Barnes, the former Georgia governor and the commission’s cochair, arguing there is now widespread agreement that education is primarily a federal responsibility. “The sky did not fall. I think they’re ready for it. It’s the next logical step.” Indeed, Sen. Edward Kennedy already has introduced legislation recommending voluntary national standards.

      • RuralDem says:

        Thanks, but what does that have to do with Deal and local control? Absolutely nothing. Instead of discussing the issue, you simply choose to find something about Barnes so you can say

        “Oh hey, he did it too”.

        Great job.

        • As usual you miss the point.

          Barnes crafted a NCLB like bill and rammed it through the Dem controlled legislature. If you’re going to criticize Deal for voting for it in Congress, criticize Barnes for writing a similiar bill and you’re beloved Dems for voting for it.

          • RuralDem says:


            You are the one missing the point.

            Here you are praising Deal for being in favor of local control, while bashing Barnes. Yet, as I mentioned, Deal has not exactly been a friend of local control in the past.

            But hey, after that previous post about Deal being better than Barnes, you’ve got to try to find some way to justify supporting Deal other than simply him being a Republican.

            Keep trying.

  6. I hope you Deal haters out there will give him credit for getting in right on this one.

    Well as long as he keeps following the libertarian lead, he’ll continue “getting it right”… well, at least rhetorically, he will… but he has no record of “getting it right” after getting elected and there in lies the catch.

    • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

      Daniel, you don’t get it! Whatever they actually do in office doesn’t matter at all! It’s only about who is capable of getting in office and staying in office for the honor of The Party™. By “honor,” I don’t mean principled voting records, of course. I’m talking about Winning, Glory, typically destructive policies oops, ahem, Viability, “Experience”, etc.

        • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

          Well, the Ph.D. thing is just a running joke that will persist until Nov. It has less to do with ‘common sense’ than it does to deal with the question as to ‘whether or not the people living in their district know more about the political climate of that district, than someone who has a degree in political science doing a mathematical-theory case study from thousands of miles away.’ If Sanford Bishop wins U.S. GA-2, I’ll take the “Ph.D.” part back off of my anonymous handle.

          As for Doug, I’m going to agree with Jace’s post, in that at least he’s openly honest about being a strong partisan, despite any other factors involved—such as trivial things called voting records. I think it would be a waste of both’s time to schedule any night classes. However, I had hoped that the 2008 presidential election would have served as a wake-up call for (R)epublicans who think it wise to run a washed-up has-been for The Party™’s nominee on the prospect of who was most likely to win (that ‘win’ never came, if I recall correctly), but my only hope now is that those who insist on repeating their past, eventually learn from it. Many (r)epublicans figured it out, thankfully, and I’m guessing they won’t be voting for Deal in November.

          Lastly, I acknowledge that “washed-up, has-been” could be a label applied to Roy as well, so for those on the ‘outside-looking-in,’ this will be a rather uninspiring race between two teams fighting to claim the right to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

          Ours is truly a political system like no other.

  7. dusty ride says:

    I know Roys opinion, he stated it clearly. Now Deal, uh well, he doesn’t think Georgia is part of the USA and it was NYC which was attacked and he’s going to stay out of it. Dodge Ball anyone?

  8. griftdrift says:

    It was never a controversy until that lunatic Pamela Geller started screaming.

    And you can all thank the liberal press you hate so much for continuing to enable the “controversy”.

    • I tend to agree that the “libr’al” (D) bias isn’t as great as the CON (R)s say… but I do believe there is definitely an “Establishment” to slightly socialist bias… curious on what you think.

      (not to threadjack, you can just pick the last open thread to reply, and I’ll further comment there.)

      • griftdrift says:

        I think it’s a red herring, b.s., lacking any real evidence and the same myth I’ve heard since nattering nabobs was first uttered.

        Clear enough?

        • Really? A wordsmith yourself, actually believes that word choice in the media has no real power, that the art of rhetoric doesn’t exist there and our MSM news is completely propaganda free… again, really? You believe that?

          I never thought myself paranoid and especially you gullable… for both our sakes I hope the truth lies somewhere in the middle… or even better yet, you didn’t understand my question and/or I didn’t understand your answer.

  9. Monica says:

    I don’t like Nathan Deal and no, I don’t think he got it right. I think he’s a politician and instead of taking a side he figured why alienate people. By answering what his OPINION was on this issue, he would not be telling New Yorkers what to do – no one can tell New Yorkers what to do – DUH. He would simply be telling us how he feels about this issue. But Deal is always a conniving politician, always was, always will be.

    • Harry says:

      Since Deal received the nomination, every effort he has made to pander to various interest groups has been met with a negative spin from the AJC and rightfully so. In attempting to pander, he ends up alienating more people. On the mosque issue he really had a tin ear to public opinion – said he would have nothing to say because it’s a New York matter? How DC of him. The guy has been living in DC for 20 years and probably was already twisted to begin with.

    • macho says:

      Who in Georgia is he really going to “alienate,” that wasn’t going to vote against him anyway, if he had spoken out against the mosque?

  10. Three Jack says:

    title of thread, ‘deal stands up for local control’…hmmm, like when he voted for nclb?

    deal stands only for himself and whatever political position will best serve him at a given moment in time. he epitomizes the relic politican trying so desperately to get one more shot at fixing what he has helped destroy after years of government service.

    john monds for governor! chuck donovan for u.s. senate!

    • RuralDem says:

      Three Jack,

      “title of thread, ‘deal stands up for local control’…hmmm, like when he voted for nclb? ”

      That has no bearing on anything because Barnes was on the NCLB Commission or whatever.

      Sure, you did not mention Barnes, but still, it’s fine that Deal did that! We all know that Deal is a champion of local control on the issues where he’s sided with locals! Votes like NCLB do not matter!

      Apparently, using Buzz’s logic, if a Republican has a flaw, it’s fine to ignore it if there is a Democrat who did something similar.

      This was simply Buzz’s attempt to justify his support for Deal in some way other than the obvious partisan endorsement.

  11. Doug Grammer says:

    Congressman Deal is doing something I said all GOP candidates should be doing, following the platform, in this case. Local control is a great concept. The government that is closest to the people governs best.

    I would have liked it if he had said something along the lines of “It’s none of our business, but personally I think it’s a bad idea.” However, he was probably right in not expressing his personal opinion.

    • “Congressman Deal is doing something I said all GOP candidates should be doing, following the platform”

      Yes, I’m surprised too! But then again, he could be doing what you said Karen Handel was doing previously… just saying what he’s got to say to win. 😉

        • I’d rather lose and stay ethical than win by being unethical. (Pandering, saying what you need to say to win and then do what you damn well please once you get in office, etc.) You know… it would be nice if more “Christians” would practice what they preach.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            After he is elected, we can judge and see what type of job he does. In the mean time, I’m still waiting on you to list Monds qualifications in the thread where you had me do the same for two CA Gov.s.

          • Rick Day says:

            I hope your “ethics” keeps you nice and warm at night.

            That is the line I used to use when my pickup lines failed.

            Just sayin’….

            • In a way I guess you could say that they do. I have a comfortable bed, blankets, a wife and a miniature dachshund to keep me warm at night. My ethics allow me to keep my job which pays for those blankets and the dog food. My ethics also don’t include cheating on my wife… something some Republican legislators could learn from.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                Only Republican legislators cheat on their wives? Or are you saying all that Republican legislators cheat on thier wives?

                • I didn’t say either. I said “some Republican legislators”.

                  Basic logic teaches that “some” is a subset of “all”. Some Republican legislators cheat on their wives.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    Then how about saying “some people,” “some Democrats,” or “some LP party members?”

                    I could say your comments remind me of some neo Nazi’s I have met, but then I’d have to apply for membership and appointed position in the LP.

                    And no I don’t hang out with them, but I have been to Germany and met a few while I was there. After I knew their politics, I ceased to associate with them.

                    • “Then how about saying “some people,” “some Democrats,” or “some LP party members?””

                      Because Republican legislators are the ones consistently preaching morality and the need for Christianity within our government. I don’t hear many Democrats or Libertarians preaching that. Has cheating on one’s wife become a Christ-like act now or would you like to discuss more hypocrisies of the GOP?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      Well, for starters, Christ didn’t have a wife….and I have seen plenty of LP members proclaim that their ethics are superior to those in the GOP. Dems, not so much.

                      But before I start another conversation with you, how about you finishing one first? I’m still waiting on you to list Monds qualifications in the thread where you had me do the same for two CA Gov.s.

          • Lady Thinker says:

            I have found many times that numerous “non-christians” express more “Christian behavior” than the self-professed “Christians” and that some “Christians” use a heavy stick to beat those they have deemed “non-christian” because they hold a different view. Being ethical and moral does not always identify one as a “Christian” as many so called “non-christians” are very moral and ethical.

  12. bgsmallz says:

    Did anyone notice that Deal couldn’t stay out of it?

    Uhhh…I believe we shouldn’t tell them what to do, but if I was telling them, I’d tell them they were keeping the wounds of 9/11 alive. But, you know, I’m not saying that. I’m staying out of it. 9/11.


    From the AP Feed…

    “I don’t think government officials from one place should be telling government officials from someplace else what they ought to be doing,” the Republican from Gainesville said.

    “But as an American, I am absolutely opposed,” Deal said. He called construction of the mosque two blocks from where The World Trade Center once stood “an insult.”

    “It keeps the wounds of 9-11 alive,” Deal said.

    Seriously…this guy is a jabroni.

      • analogkid says:

        I did as well, and then I came across this site:, which states the following:


        Jabroni is a registered international trademark.

        Any unauthorised use of the word Jabroni or its Trademarks will result in SERIOUS LEGAL ACTION to the full extent of any international law protecting the rights of the word JABRONI and its Trademarks.”

        Their “warning” reminds me of McBerry and his threats to sue bloggers that called him a pedo.

        McBerry is a jabroni.

        (Oh, and to avoid threadjacking, I’ll state that Deal got this one right.)

  13. dusty ride says:

    It can also be said that the government closest to the people steals the most because they have the power and are too big to fail. We know why Chip Pearson wanted local control before he decided not to run again. We know why Deal wanted local control before he resigned. Richardson had local control. Now the Ox had local control….well, you get the gist. Local control is not always best because (all, many, most, some, a few) are crooked and lack morals and ethics.

    • Doug Grammer says:


      Give Hannah back her stash! j/k…kinda

      Local control refers to the smallest government entity require to perform a valid function of government. Local county School boards are better than the state superintendent of schools, IMO. I’m not sure what your rant meant.

      • dusty ride says:

        Thanks. I see, you are right of course. My rant was more of a whine and cheese event. I’m tired of political corruption here, there and everywhere. It dominates all discussions. Here we are in a sinking ship and the damn drunken fools keep peeing in the boat. I am dismayed by what is happening. Perhaps it would be betterI should go to confession instead.

        • Doug Grammer says:


          My advice is to jump in and smack ’em around a bit. That’s what I do. Pick the party that most lines up with your personal philosophies, get active and try to fix it as best you can. No party is perfect.

          As far as confession goes, are you an elected official, a lobbyist or an intern?

  14. saltycracker says:

    Giuliani summed up the Mosque location debate of it might be legal but a healer would not put it near ground zero while a warrior would.

    • Rick Day says:

      isn’t he the guy who is in charge of putting up some sort of marker or memorial near Ground Zero?

      What’s the difference? We all know he is a warrior, based on his stance on the Middle East.

      Takes one to know one.

  15. Lady Thinker says:

    “Deal Stands Up For Local Control.”

    Karen was the first one to make that statement. Looks like Deal stole that thought from her.

Comments are closed.