Georgia Politics

It’s been quite a while since I made a post about something as generic as “Georgia Politics”, but I think the time has come.

Looking across the spectrum, both in Georgia and in some of the races across the country, it certainly defies logic as to some of the candidates nominated by the parties for certain races.  Some people are just not qualified to serve in the office they seek, plain and simple.  They do not have the intellectual capacity for the job, they seek only partisan gain and not the improvement of the general public, or they are so grossly ethically challenged that it would be a disservice to elect or reelect them to the office in which they seek.  I will let you debate as to which candidates I am referring.  Cases could be made on both sides of the aisle.

As a party, (and I consider myself a loyal member of the Republican Party) I am worried that we are promoting candidates, that in normal situations, we would never support because of ethical and legal issues they may carry, simply because of the letter that comes after their name.  In normal, less partisan times, wouldn’t we seek a higher standard for those seeking public office?  If we truly are dissatisfied with politics as usual, shouldn’t we demand a higher ethical standard from those seeking office?  Shouldn’t we really seek to change the culture of politics by elevating the standards of the people we elect?

I’m not casting aspirations towards anyone seeking office, I have learned, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones; but rather, I am trying to open an intellectual debate, albeit here on Peach Pundit, as to the upcoming General Election.

Consider this your “Thursday” open thread and my official return to the political debate which occurs on Peach Pundit.


  1. DoubleDawg3 says:

    Clint, I think your post has merit (obviously the Deal candidacy is part of the reason you posted it). I view it this way…when a candidate has serious, serious flaws, like Ray McBerry, the GOP should not support him/her.

    Some of you out there want to suggest that Deal has “serious” flaws…was the “no bid” contract a great move – obviously not, but it was established in 1992, with no issues until now, so why would he think it was a problem? Was his and his COS direct involvement with Cagle and Graham – yeah, that’s more concerning – but none of that would have been an issue if he’d just sent his business partner (and the same message would have been conveyed). I think you also have to look at Bart Graham and see what political incentives he had for making such a public topic of that situation and making himself out to be a “victim”…I know a lot of legislators at the CAP that will be glad when he’s gone, so that Dept. can be run better.

    Those points aside, do they speak to his quality to lead/govern? No, they don’t. If you take a true, objective look at the situation – Deal is the most qualified candidate. Look at DC, one of the reasons that Obama has been such a miserable failure is that he wasn’t prepared, he wasn’t experienced…Deal’s experience, local/state/federal is unrivaled by anyone in Georgia.

    His ability to communicate and work with others is clear…look at how eager his DC colleagues were to support him…look at how eager General Assembly members were to support him. They KNOW that in Nathan Deal they’ve got a leader who will listen to them and will work with them – not try to shove what he wants down their throats.

    Look at how crucial communication and being a team player is to the success of our state gov’t…this past legislative session more was accomplished than in any number of years before combined. All because of the fact that Cagle, Ralston and Perdue worked together, communicated, compromised, to do what was best for GA.

    Nathan Deal is a good candidate… once he’s Governor, you’ll see how great of a leader he’ll be.

    In regards to the national picture…I’m a little torn. I am a supporter of the push to elect new, more “conservative” members to the Republican Party…the Tom Graves’ and Ron Paul’s of the world, who don’t care that they’ll take heat over a stupid vote that they shouldn’t be voting on in the first place because it’s not under Congress’ constitutional power.

    However, it’s gone too far in some cases. Take Delaware last night, for example. I don’t care if O’donnell is the most intelligent candidate in the world (which she obviously is not), it HURTS our GOP to have nominated her…b/c that was a race that we could have won with the moderate Republican, but now, we will not. I would rather have a moderate Rep. that helps us get a 50/50 split or majority in the Senate, than a candidate that’s going to lose to the Dem and keep us in the minority. Besides, some candidates, like O’donnell, are extremely unqualified for that position.

    You can’t “clean house” just for the sake of “cleaning house” – you’ve got to have a plan that can actually be effective if you truly want to turn the nation around. Some folks in the Republican party don’t realize that.

    • Bull Moose says:

      This is an example of a great response to my post for those wondering what kind of conversation I was hoping to start.

    • CobbGOPer says:

      I agree you need a plan, but if you can’t “clean house” then your plan is useless, whatever it may be and whatever merits it may possess.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      Bull Moose,

      Here is a technical question to which I believe I know the answer but want another opinion. Since Karen was less than half a point from winning the run-off, does she qualify as a General Election write-in candidate for loyal Republicans who will vote for Barnes rather than Deal but would rather write in Karen Handel?

  2. DoubleDawg3 says:

    I guess my point might be summed up in a question…if Newt Gingrich came out with another 10 point plan, that was truly brilliant and was likely the key to turning our country around and helping Republicans get back on course, would you support him in 2012 – knowing that he’s had some personal/moral shortcomings, but factoring in that he might be the most qualified person for the job? I think the answer to that kind of touches on your point – ethics can ALWAYS be questionable, it’s in the eye of the beholder (some have a higher standard than others), but at what point do you let minor flaws exclude the person most capable of doing the job?

    • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

      People in Georgian totally overestimate Newt’s significance. He’s a non-entity to the rest of the country. And yes, his moral bankruptcy would ultimately doom a presidential bid once it’s understood by more people. Although I supported the Contract with America, Newt has sadly become the Brett Favre of politics. He seems to crave attention and just won’t go away.

    • CobbGOPer says:

      Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see utilizing your position as a public official for personal financial gain for you or your associates as a “minor flaw.” Brushing aside questions of ethics simply because someone may be the “most qualified” is not a logical course of action. We put a public trust in these people to act responsibly, because they have power over the rest of us. Ethics should be the top priority in selecting a candidate, for the exact reason that we don’t have qualification standards for public office. The whole point is that anyone can be elected, regardless of race, creed, economic standing, or other background. You’re not required to have gone to law school first, or to have served in the military, or to have had previous experience in government. Therefore, what we most need are ETHICAL people. We get too caught up in the “qualification” game. If you want qualified, well Barnes has already been governor, the position he seeks once more. Therefore, HE is more qualified than Nathan Deal, because he’s actually HELD the position before. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is who will serve with honor, respect for the citizens they represent and serve, and with a sense of ethics and adherence to PUBLIC service, not service of the self. It is service of the self that preoccupies most politicians, and that is the problem at the heart of the matter.

      • ZazaPachulia says:

        “Therefore, what we most need are ETHICAL people”

        I couldn’t agree more, which is why I was an early and avid supported of Austin Scott’s campaign for governor. It’s also why I voted for Chapman in the primary and Handel in the runoff.

        People on this Web site remember me as being angry and sharp-tongued when Austin Scott dropped out of the governor’s race to run for Congress. My frustrations stemmed not so much from Scott’s personal decision, but from the lack of support he received in his gubernatorial campaign. After Lynn Westmoreland decided not to run for governor, he threw his weight behind Deal. Westmoreland carries more clout with Republicans under the Gold Dome than just about any other member of the Ga. GOP Congressional Delegation. It didn’t take a whole lot of arm-twisting to get the General Assembly to line up behind Deal… Besides, why anger Westmoreland to support a colleague who wasn’t afraid to occasionally step away from the party line on certain issues (Scott)? So here we are… We can choose the party’s candidate or we can send the party a message. I prefer the latter option, not only for the future of Georgia, but for the future of the Ga. GOP.

          • I dunno, I can certainly see a possible scenario of people who haven’t heard about John Monds but get to the ballot and say to themselves “I just can’t bring myself to vote for Barnes or Deal… I’ll take the one I don’t know over either of them.”

            Or is that just wishful thinking?

            • Doug Grammer says:

              It’s very wishful thinking. Polls are a better predictor than wishful thinking. They show Congressman Deal up by 11 and almost able to avoid a run-off.

  3. Jessica J says:

    This new revelation about Deal has me re-thinking my support. First off, he is already the subject of an ethics review. While I agree that we support our children because we love them and want to see them succeed, a man with ethics charges and now over a million dollars in debt seems like a “sign” that he is not ready to lead Georgia. My major concern is the “desperate people do desperate things” mentality that might creep in during his administration should he win. For me this issue is disheartening. I believe change on the local level will be seen long before we will see any significant change on the national level. I’m alot more concerned about decision that are made in my county and state than I am in D.C. I feel bad about his financial situation but I’m more concerned about the financial health of the State of Georgia. Deal or No Deal? I’m just not “feeling him” right now.

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      At least now we know why Deal came out against the idea of putting his assets in a blind trust during the primary debates…

      • polisavvy says:

        Have you wondered why none of his opponents found out anything about this? Some of what is being revealed has been on the docket in the county where he lives or in the county where he owns property or the county where the business was located. I just wonder how he was able to keep this a secret since it did not have to remain a secret. How could Handel’s team not have discovered this? Or Johnson’s?

        • ZazaPachulia says:

          They didn’t try very hard. Johnson may have known, but he never went negative (which was refreshing).

          If Karen’s people knew, she would have used that for sure.

  4. Georgia Judge says:


    You are a loyal republican when it fits your agenda and not so much when it doesnt.Putting your habit of personal attacks against your non chosen candidates aside I would say to you the most qualified candidate is Deal and he will prove to be a good Governor.

    • I think we all are loyal Republican to the extend it fits our agenda. For instance, I’m a Republican to the extent that it fits my agenda of competent leadership and smaller government.

      I don’t believe anyone should comprimise their personal values for a political party.

    • Bull Moose says:

      Try making your point without a personal attack. I chose not to and did not “attack” anyone, I will leave it to others to further that agenda. It’s no secret that in the past, I have gone on the war path for my chosen candidate, however, like most, we all learn from our past mistakes and try not to make them again. There will be no rhetorical battle fought by me for anyone anymore.

      • Bull Moose says:

        I’ll add that competent and efficient leadership is hopefully a personal agenda item for most people, however, I’m a realist and we do not live in a utopia.

        There are people who run for office, manipulate the public, and use their position for the personal enrichment of their self, family, and friends. That’s happened in our democracy pretty much since it’s inception and I don’t think it will stop anytime soon, regardless of the protest of the public or the risk of exposure by the media.

  5. B Balz says:

    “… You can’t “clean house” just for the sake of “cleaning house” – you’ve got to have a plan that can actually be effective if you truly want to turn the nation around. Some folks in the Republican party don’t realize that. ”

    That statement summarizes the race between ‘bright star’ Rep. Austin Scott and a moderate Dem the GOP could work with . Sure, it would be great to win GA-8 for the GOP, but IMHO, bumping a Dem we can work with is poor overall strategy.

    Of course, that presupposes statesmanship and that anyone would actually ‘reach across the aisle’ for the good of the Nation. If the GOP gains majority in November, will they be have the vision to make the tough decisions needed to prevent predictable financial woes that may make the Great Recession look like the ‘good ol’ days?’

    I am not hopeful.

  6. I am not hopeful either, although a thread like this could help get us on the right track politically. So much of politics is simply an exercise in ‘Personality Worship.’ Ok….many of our folks don’t pass the smell test….no doubt. With that said, it would be helpful to all of us to force them to actually get more specific on how they are going to make this economy start to work for all Georgians.

    Considering how globalization is impacting our major industries, the amount of people out of work, the need to increase our ability to compete across the globe, and the perpetual failures of one of our primary mechanisms for economic development (education), it would seem logical that our ethically challenged nominees should be forced to articulate something beyond the sound bites that feed the ‘Personality Worshipers.’

    Barnes, Deal….hell, Yosemite Sam, can we actually get a plan?

  7. Bull Moose, you’re confused. Ya see, GOP victory is not a means to an end. It’s an end in and of itself. When you accept that, you can just put your name down right behind whatever Republican wins the nomination no matter how broke, unethical, dumb, and self-serving they may be.

  8. Jessica J says:

    Honestly, I am so getting past what “party” someone is affiliated with. I want the BEST possible candidate to win. I don’t want Nathan Deal taking the same chances with our tax dollars that he has his own personal finances. We cannot afford that especially right now. Nope. This is a sign. He’s not ready!

    • AlanR says:


      You seem to have missed the point. Deal did not make the bad business decisions that led to this debt. His daughter did. Deal did not run up a huge debt by living beyond his means, his daughter and son in law made some very bad business decisions.

      I would ask you to consider the honor and responsibility Deal is displaying by standing by his family’s bad decisions, and making good at considerable cost to himself and his wife. You will not hear Deal blaming someone else, using legal technicalities or someone else’s money to get out of this.

      Consider what those qualities will bring to the Governor’s office. Honor and responsibility.

      As to the quality of candidates generally, there is a dramatic shift going on within republican politics everywhere, and as more people enter politics we all have a collective responsibility to “recruit” the best candidates. And when someone you ddidn’t support wins the nomination, we have to ask ourselves can we believe them when they say they will support less government and lower taxes. If the answer is yes, then I don’t care about their past, the future is too important. If the answer is they’re lying or will likely be corrupted by Washington or the Capital, vote against them. The stakes are too high this year.

      To bring it back to Deal and Barnes, both have significant records of past performance that we can use to predict future actions. In my mind, Deal is the far better choice.

      • CobbGOPer says:

        So it was “honorable and responsible” for Nathan to resign from Congress to avoid further investigation by the OCE? It was “honorable and responsible” to try and use his position as a sitting member of Congress to influence a state official’s decision on a program that benefitted Deal and his associates financially? It was “honorable and responsible” to distort Karen Handel’s positions on abortion and domestic partnerships for his political gain?

        Nathan Deal is not “honorable and responsible.” He’s a politician seeking office. Your salt shaker should be firmly in hand when listening to him speak. He will say and do what he thinks will gain him votes, like any politician.

        • B Balz says:

          The resignation is a calculated pol risk that the ensuing publicity over what would amount to either a dropped case, or at worst a ‘technical foul’ was not worth the price of sticking around. A lousy break after 30 years of service, frankly.

          Do you have any clue what the worst case the charge would have been? Doug Grammer pointed it out, several million times, NOTHING ILLEGAL.

          Some have the audacity to mention the clown that is Charley Rangel in the same sentence as Gov. Deal.

          CobbGOPher, it’s called ‘play-to-win’. Losers don’t legislate.

          • CobbGOPer says:

            It doesn’t have to be illegal to be wrong. It speaks to his character as an individual. Rather than defend his actions, he retired so he wouldn’t have to do so. But I’m talking to brick walls anyway, there is nothing we can say that will change your mind or make you think differently. You’ll overlook anything as long as it gets you what you want, I guess.

            • No offense CobbGOPer, but the leaving congress to evade an ethics investigation is pure bogus convenient political spin. If ANYONE actually read the OCE report Randy Evans pointed out the failed investment in his daughter’s business. This really is not new or hidden information. The fact is, Deal left congress to CAMPAIGN. Please, pray tell, how does one run for a statewide seat while in Washington?

              These same sanctimonious folks who constantly embellish a perceived issue as fact is purely political pimping. Additionally, these same folks give a pass to a former governor who cashed in on his connections and started an engineering firm that collected $19,000,000 from the state. Hmmm,

            • debbie0040 says:

              I agree with this statement, “It doesn’t have to be illegal to be wrong. ”

              Deal’s ethics is one reason Atlanta Tea Party will not make an endorsement in the Governor’s race.

              He is better than Roy Barnes so I will personally vote for him. We don’t need Roy Barnes helping draw new Congressional maps…

              • Debbie – yet the Atlanta Tea Party could certainly endorse John Monds if it so chose. He’s the ethical candidate that supports the same small government principles that the tea party so often espouses. What do you have against endorsing him?

                • DoubleDawg3 says:

                  That’s all we need, John Monds, as Ross Perot, and Nathan Deal, as George H.W. Bush, reenacting the 1992 Presidential race, and letting Roy Barnes, as a less handsome but similiarly smooth talking version of Slick Willy, slide back into office. No thanks.

                  • If people would vote for the person they think would do the best job without regard to the letter beside the candidate’s name, Ross Perot might have won. Perhaps people just need to quit voting based on fear.

                    • B Balz says:

                      If pigs could fly I would be selling umbrellas…if is a big little word.

                      The ‘great game’ is a team sport. I don’t like it, but that is how it is.

                    • In other words, you don’t believe voters will ever see the error in their ways of voting for someone based on the letter beside the person’s name, no matter how unethical they are or or how poor their choices have been…

                    • polisavvy says:

                      David, I agree with B Balz. People just don’t seem to think things out when casting their ballots. If they did, things might be different now.

                    • polisavvy – I totally see that point of view. I guess I just haven’t totally lost my faith in humanity yet. I’ll keep pushing the libertarian option whether it wins out or not. 🙂

                    • If people would vote for the person they think would do the best job without regard to the letter beside the candidate’s name, Ross Perot might have won


                      Honestly – using Ross Perot as an example is not a good idea. A lot of what he proposed was unconstitutional and would have increased the power of the executive branch at the expense of the individuals and the legislative branch. In addition, I think the man was a certifiable nut. Read Ed Rollins Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms for a portrait of Perot that is less than flattering.

                      Other than that, your argument has some merit.

                    • ZazaPachulia says:

                      H. Ross wasn’t that bad. Did you know he has a hallway named after him at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis? And not because he forked over some huge donation after he struck it rich. Perot actually wrote the Academy’s famed ‘Honor Concept’ while he was a Midshipman and the Class President of the Class of 53.

                      And now you know…

        • Jessica J says:

          With all due respect, no I did not miss the point. Trust me, I understand family loyalty and that’s what frightens me about politicians. How many politicians are we reading about right now who awarded scholarships to family members? As far as I’m concerned, the handwriting is on the wall. I don’t want Nathan Deal making financial decisions concerning my tax dollars. I wish he and his wife the best getting from under the burden caused by his daughter and son-in-law’s bad investment. But somehow, I believe if he’s elected, the taxpayers of Georgia will somehow (unknowingly) suffer for this decision.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      I agree with you Jessica. Also, as for helping his daughter and son-in-law out finanically, maybe deal should have used the tough love approach and made them do adult things on their own rather than running for mommy and daddy’s checkbook to help them out. I can understand helping children out with college, but not married adult children who want to get on the fast track before they are finanically ready.

  9. GAPolitico says:

    The problem we have here is that we have no interest in good governance, we have an interest in good politics. The election cycles start earlier and earlier, leaving less time for actual policy and administrative duties.

    As far as nominating bad candidates, I have to give this to more the Republican side this year.

    The best bet for Republicans would have been to nominate Austin Scott or Karen Handel for Governor. Scott dropped out, and Handel didn’t win. While I am not a Handel fan, she was not plagued by ethics complaints and fiscal insolvency. I am not sure how a person with fiscal insolvency runs in a party that brags of “fiscal responsibility.” There is more to being fiscally responsible that decreasing government.

    Then, you have a Lt. Governor candidate who is known to have ethics problems. I think most of us know what Casey Cagle has used his dorm room/office for, and I don’t think it would fall under the “family values” platform of the Republican party. Also, his back room deals are not part of an open, honest government. He did not even garner a primary challenge.

    However, Republicans have put up some good candidates as well. Austin Scott is a great guy, despite the fact that I disagree with him. Brian Kemp seems to be a good guy without major character flaws. Sam Olens beat out affair-plauged Preston Smith, so there is hope for the future.

    The real test will be to see who Republicans nominate for President in 2012. Will it be someone respectable, like Romney or someone who advocates the fringe, like Palin, or will it be someone who has ethical, “anti-family values” problems like Newt.

    2012 will be a year Republican can redefine themselves – will it be SSDD, or something new.

    • Baker says:

      One quick thing as I don’t really have time to post, but you’re hitting on it here. However, I think you make a mistake if you think people on the right consider Palin’s views to be on the fringe. More-Libertarian minded folks might think so because of her social views, but I’m telling ya, plenty of folks agree totally with her. I think her biggest problem is she’s too hot (for an office that high I mean, she can certainly get people motivated for the cause) and her eloquence and polish look terrible coming off of the W. Era.
      “Am I wrong?”
      “But Walter”
      “Am I wrong?” -your requisite Lebowski quote for the day

    • I agree on Austin, he (at least my experience with him) seems to be a good guy. We do have some good nominees for Congress (Graves, Woodall, Scott) but we’re are really lacking in Constitutional offices, places where we need real leadership.

      I spent the better part of an entire year volunteering across the state during the primary. It was largely the same crowd at every event and as a result of that you get to know folks pretty well. You interact with them, you see how they address different groups, you watch them interact with other people. It’s informative. And largely there were two types of candidates in the primary. Smart, successful people who were running b/c they believed in the principles of conservatism and thought they had something to offer. Then there were the guys who were running solely to climb the ladder. Very little track record in the area they were seeking to govern, and no real purpose for running besides winning. They could have chosen any office on the ballot. They picked one based on their chances of winning, not necessarily their bonafides for the job. Sadly on primary night, the first group didn’t win. The second group had a good night. This was disheartening to me. Still is.

  10. Steve says:

    Well, if it’s an open thread and all… where is the weekly recap front-page post, about which owner DOMINATED the Peach Pundit Fantasy Football league last week? Someone email my 108.82 points to the Tip Line. 🙂

  11. David says:

    Since this thread is open, did you all see the strong armed attempt by dem socialist DC delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton to intimidate funds from a lobbyist?? She made it perfectly clear to some lobbyist that she’s a SENIOR member of some powerful committee and he better pony up some funds!! This should just about do it as far as illustrating the political corruption of the democratic party. It’s all on tape, too. It’s great listening! This clip should be played on every republican campaign commercial from now until the day before the election.

  12. chefdavid says:

    So let me ask the question. A utility getting the money before it does a project=bad. Question on the ballot GDOT going into projects before it has the money=good. ?

  13. James Fannin says:

    Everyone keeps noting that Tom Graves as an example of a good candidate. I supported him and was a significant donor but I found his whole financial situation to be very troublesome. It appears pretty clear that he borrowed money for a very bad investment in a nasty motel, used his home for collateral and then transfered that home to a trust to avoid losing it when he failed to pay back his loan. Now here’s the thing, he was going to go up to Washington to teach the Democrats a thing or two about fiscal responsibility. Isn’t spending money you don’t have on a bad investment and expecting others (bank shareholders/investors/taxpayers) to pay your debts pretty much the kind of behavior he was supposedly going to Washington to fix. I know he’s a nice guy and a good R and our good R but I’d like some truth in advertising when these guys say they were successful small businessmen. Graves and Deal and a host of others weren’t apparently all that successful.

    • Similarly, Brian Kemp kept calling himself a successful small businessman, and I kept asking “What evidence do we have of that?” I couldn’t even find a website so show if it was real or not.

      Now the bar is pretty low, it seems. Solvent = successful.

      Graves, to me, seemed more like a business deal gone bad. Deal looks like he repeatedly threw good money after bad. At some point before calling in another favor for another loan, Nathan should have looked at a balance sheet and income statements and said “Son, this is a goat. Shut her down” Provided he can read an income statement and balance sheet, which I am convinced most politicians cannot.

  14. Georgia Judge says:

    The reality is you have a choice to make and the choice is Deal or Barnes,and in my opinion its a no brainer.Barnes had his shot and it was a miserable failure by any standard.Deal like it or not survived the process(including the baseless and over the top character assasination byHandel)and is the Republican nominee.Deal will beat Barnes and in my opinion be a good Governor for our state.

  15. TPNoGa says:

    Just read that Deal failed to report over $2 million in business loans in his required disclosures. The AP found it and reported it. Deal says it was an “oversight”.

    This is bad.

  16. hugoblacksupreme says:

    Ok. Now the AJC is reporting that Deal is even further in debt than he let on and he will be amending his disclosure report again.

    • bowersville says:

      I guess if you bash that hornet’s nest of trial lawyers with baseball bats long enough, they’ll tell everything they know that’s public record.

    • polisavvy says:

      I have a question Three Jack — what would the Republican Party do if he were to drop? Do you know? Does anyone? Just curious.

      • Iwould think they would be allowed to substitute another candidate, though I’m not sure what the procedure would be. Doug Grammer could probably answer that better than I.

        • polisavvy says:

          Well, if that’s the case, I certainly hope they select someone who won’t provide fodder for Roy Barnes. I’m not sure who that would end up being.

        • polisavvy says:

          As an aside, “Paging Doug Grammer!” What’s the answer to this question, if you know (which I’m pretty certain you do know)?

          • TPNoGa says:

            I would think it is too late. Early voting begins tomorrow in some counties. Plus, I am sure absentee ballots have been mailed overseas. The GOP is stuck. At least it’s still not as bad as Colorado.

            • polisavvy says:

              I hadn’t thought about the early voting and overseas ballots. That could be a real problem, couldn’t it? I guess the State Party could select someone to fill Deal’s spot, but I’m not sure exactly how that would work. I would just hope that whoever they selected (if it’s even an issue this late in the game), they would select someone who could hold their own with Barnes and not be someone to provide Barnes fodder.

              • Unless something has changed, I believe that decision would fall onto the GOP State Executive Committee. Finding a candidate would be difficult. It would almost certainly have to be someone who is wealthy enough to finance his or her own campaign from the beginning or, if possible, go with another GOP gubernatorial candidate who had probably disbanded his or her campaign staff. Neither is a good option.

                • polisavvy says:

                  That really would be both a tough decision to make by the Executive Committee and an even tougher decision for anyone to agree to come back so late in the game. Whoever were to agree to accept this task would probably hope the RGA would be willing to send some major funds their way. I don’t recall what Handel and Johnson had left after their campaigns ended. Do you? With Barnes going through money like it’s water, whoever had to face that would really need a whole bunch of funds in a hurry (like yesterday).

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    Whoever we picked would have a good chance of winning. I think both Sec. Handel and Sen. Johnson would be happy to jump in at this point, but who knows, Sen. David Shafer? I think I can speculate on something that has less than .01% chance of happening. My guess would be either Sec. Handel or Sen. Johnson.

        • Doug Grammer says:

          If a GOP statewide candidate were to die, the state GOP EC would pick the successor candidate. That doesn’t have to mean who came in second or even anyone who ran. It could mean Erick Erickson, if that’s what we thought was best for our party and for Georgia. (He’s not my first choice.)

          As far as names on the ballot go, I’m not 100% certain how that would work. My guess is that a vote for the deceased GOP candidate would be counted toward whomever we nominated to replace them on the ballot.

          I mentioned death, because that’s the only way I see any of our candidates getting off the ballot at this point. I can see every one of them winning. We will find out soon enough.

  17. Three Jack says:

    i’m with you david as far as monds is concerned. but there is no way deal survives this as more and more news comes out everyday. he is now on the hook for over $5m that he doesn’t have.

    • polisavvy says:

      My question is how did this escape those who were running against him? Lawsuits are a matter of public record and can be found by looking in the county clerk’s office. It’s not that hard to find out about someone’s personal problems once a suit has been filed. What were those responsible for “digging” at Handel’s and Johnson’s camps doing?

      • Three Jack says:

        karen was blasted for simply pointing out deal’s ethics investigation. imagine if she had brought up his financial shenanigans…deal would have responded by saying ‘handel is attacking my family. she obviously doesn’t know what it means to have children so she can’t possibly understand what i did to support my daughter. i regret she decided to bring my family into this campaign.’

        • polisavvy says:

          Do you really believe that IF she had known this type of information and went public with it that it would not have raised the same type of questions that are being raised now? I think it would have. I do think that the people who were hired by Handel and Johnson (and any of the others) who are supposed to be researching this type of information on any opposition candidates should be giving the candidates their money back. They certainly didn’t earn it. Lawsuits are a matter of public record PERIOD! It was there then.

            • polisavvy says:

              As a general rule, when there is a default on a loan(s), there is usually an accompanying lawsuit(s) against the one who defaults. That’s what I’m meaning. Sorry, if I was confusing on this. I certainly didn’t mean to be.

              • Three Jack says:

                so far, there is no default by pappy deal thus no lawsuit.

                deal filed a false financial disclosure omitting his single largest liability thus hindering opp research, especially by the cash strapped handel campaign.

                it’s kind of hard to single out the handel campaign for not discovering this information. there is one person responsible for not being honest here and his name is nathan deal. he should do the honorable thing and quit now just like he quit when facing the congressional ethics investigation.

                • polisavvy says:

                  I wasn’t wanting to single out anybody (I only used their names because they finished in the top three). I just know that the candidates always have someone doing opposition research and was just wondering how this slipped under the radar. Seems that if a candidate was not producing his financial disclosures that it would have raised some sort of red flag. Also, bankruptcies are a matter of public record.

                  • bowersville says:

                    Just a simple question. Which candidates in the Republican primary made a full financial disclosure including tax returns, schedules etc. and why did we the voters not demand it?

                    • polisavvy says:

                      I don’t know. My guess is complacency. Plus, how could we demand it? It seems as though this should be an important requirement prior to qualifying. If it is already required, why isn’t it enforced?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      You would have to write it into GA code. The question is, what would you write? Would a candidate have to show every page of every tax return, personal and business, for the past 10 years? 20? Would it apply just to Gov. or every statewide or legislative office? Do you really think it would be passed?

                    • polisavvy says:

                      Probably wouldn’t stand a cowboy’s chance in hades of passing; however, if there were something already on the books, then perhaps this issue could have been avoided. Figured you’d know the answer. [BTW, glad you are going door to door for Austin Scott. Hope things work out in his favor. Thanks in advance for your help].

  18. ZazaPachulia says:

    Man… and I thought Oxendine’s slow-motion trainwreck was difficult to watch. That was just an appetizer.

  19. AubieTurtle says:

    In totally unrelated news, expect to see a huge increase in the number of by Pete Randall articles on the front page for the next month and a half. Article after article… I’ll be hard to see anything else through the blizzard of articles.

    • ZazaPachulia says:

      AubieTurtle, they’re called “Blog posts.” Labeling Peach Pundit front page content “articles” awards legitimacy where legitimacy is not deserved.

      The Robesierre of Macon’s head is large enough as it is… No sense in describing his blog in journalistic terms.

  20. analogkid says:

    This is sort of old now (given the life of the average viral video), but we haven’t had an open thread in forever, so I give you Phil Davison, Republican candidate for Stark County treasurer. Enjoy.

  21. sybase46 says:

    Bull Moose, I must concur that we hold our elected officials to moral and ethical principles but unfortunately the majority of Georgia’s GOP electorate feel differently as they elected Deal over Handle in the recent primary? I feel along with the recent re-election primary in Louisiana regarding David Vitter’s victory that the party of principles is just a lot of lip talk and refuse to do the walk of ethics and morals.

Comments are closed.