From Today’s “Peach Pundit Daily”

Two items you may want to comment on from this morning’s Peach Pundit Daily, which reminds me, if you aren’t a subscriber, why not?

Common Core Makes Sense, Says Governor Deal “The federal government did not mandate it, they did not control it, they did not dictate its content,” Governor Deal said Thursday in an interview with The Marietta Daily Journal. State Senator Lindsay Tippins remains concerned, however: “I do not believe that we need federally mandated curriculum standards or instructional standards because I don’t know of anything that the federal government has done that you could brag about.” Sen. Tippins chairs the Education and Youth Committee in the State Senate.

National GOP Trying To Avoid “Contentious” Georgia GOP Senate Primary? The AP reports some in DC are worried about a bloody GOP Primary for the US Senate in the Peach State. Worried about losing focus on regaining a majority in the Upper Body, words like “consensus” are being bandied about. It’s a potentially troubling sign that the GOP’s post-2012 soul-searching could spill over into next year’s congressional elections. The vote is more than 18 months away, so it’s early. But candidate recruitment efforts are well underway. In Georgia, several Republican candidates are considering trying to succeed the retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss. But so far, the two who have entered the race are arch conservative House members Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey. National Republicans are treading carefully to avoid enraging the conservative base in Georgia.


  1. gcp says:

    Always wondered about the meaning of “arch conservative” and are there any arch liberals or arch moderates?

    • Dirt Lawyer says:

      I have no problem with either “arch conservative” in the running for Senate. The only problem I have is with the national republican party. I guess our last two Presidential candidates are examples of the “winners” they want running for senate. I think we have had enough rinos running for office. Let’s put a real conservative in the senate this time to replace Zaxby Shameless. Then we can work on replacing Johnny….

      • pettifogger says:

        I don’t want a “moderate” Republican or a RINO. That said, I do want a candidate who will be to the right of the GOP when necessary, but won’t hesitate to agree with a democratic position, if sensible. The opportunities to display the latter are more common with messaging than with policy.

  2. benevolus says:

    Things the federal government did that you can brag about? Are you kidding me? I try to be nice but if that guy can’t think of anything he’s an idiot and doesn’t deserve to be representing anyone.

      • Harry says:

        I’m sorry, I meant to say if he’s not representing you then don’t worry about it – just like I don’t worry what state senators from deep Dekalb have to say about anything.

      • benevolus says:

        Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Being out of touch with reality requires a run up of the red flag.

  3. northside101 says:

    Dirt lawyer and pettifroger seem to be a part of the “circular firing squad” aimed at Mitt Rmney—as Republicans are prone to do after a loss. Perhaps they can tell us whom they would have put up for president in 2012 who would have done better. Maybe…
    (1) Rick “I want to ban contraception” Santorum, who lost his Senate re-election in a landsldie in 2006—in the most culturally conservative state of the Northeast (Pennsylvania)?
    (2) Newt, who hasn’t been on the ballot in 15 years—and under whose Speakership the GOP lost House seats (when the increasingly liberal Northeast began revolting against the “Southern-accented Republcians of Newt Gingrich’s revolution” (see 2002 Almanac of American Politics for details under Connecticut, New Jersey and New York)–and whom incredibly claimed he could make California competitive in a presidential election (a state the GOP has not come within a million votes of winning in 25 eyars)?
    (3) Ron Paul—even though he would be too old—and too liberatrian—for many Republicans?
    (4) Herman “I’ve never been elected to office” Cain?
    (5) Rick Perry—even though the records of the 3 Texans we’ve elected in the last 50 years–Lyndon Johnson and the two Bushes—were less then stellar?

    Perhaps they can tell us how a “real conservative” would win a state like California (55 electoral votes), which McCain and Romney both lost by more than 3 million votes—and which routinely elects one of the most far-Left senators, Barbara Boxer. Or New York state (29 electoral votes), which is one of the most liberal big states in the US—and which McCain and Romney each lost by about 2 million votes. Or Illinois (20 electoral votes), dominated by liberal Chicago. Those types of states simply are not going to vote for Jesse Helms-like GOP presidential candidates, or so-called “real” conservatives.. And ditto with 15 other states whiche have voted Democratic for presdient in the last 6 presidential elections. No, Romney, was not the perfect candidate—there is no such person–but ranting about his miscues and RINOs is not exactly going to boost GOP chances in 2016—and unless the GOP finds a way to pick off some of the 20-odd states that have voted Democratic in all or most of the last 6 presidential elections, it faces steep odds in 2016 whether a “real” conservative or a “less than real” one is nominated.

    • pettifogger says:

      I’m saying pretty much the opposite.

      I don’t want a John McCain (not conservative) nor a Rick Perry (heavy on social conservatism). But, I’m not one ready to get rid of Christie or Rubio because they are doing something a little outside of the party mantra. On a lot of things, Mitt was a watered down Republican. I supported Mitt as far back as 2005, but we always knew he had a connection issue. Economically he was probably the correct choice, but he just couldn’t drive it home, and we didn’t get folks out to vote. That was the difference.

      I don’t believe that the GOP has to sacrifice its positions to win elections, but I also don’t buy into the idea that the reason people vote democrat is because we’re not giving them a staunch enough choice. I want our next candidate to strike on the issues people care about (economy, jobs), and then let them know that we’re not going to force our positions on other issues down their throat, but we are going to use that opportunity to try and persuade them on the merits of our policies. I don’t want to be deceptive about it, we’re selling our ideas to the country.

      • Lea Thrace says:

        While I agree with 99% of what this comment says, I also think you should be realistic. The Republican party has become less about new ideas that espouse conservatism and more about playing to the base. And playing to the base is all about shoving the social issues down other peoples throats.

        This is why while I voted for McCain version 1.0, I could bring myself to vote for version 2.0 from 2008. That guy’s (campaign) message became about not focusing on the economy. Same with Romney. Governor Romney was a pretty decent executive at the state level. Moderate and reasonable. But he had to play to the base and make a hard right during the bruising primary. Pres. Candidate Romney became all of the things that I hate to see in a candidate. It was disappointing.

        And I unfortunately do not see it getting better. I see an unfortunate race to the bottom (furthest right) in future candidates.

  4. Doug Deal says:

    So the answer to the RNC is to silence dissent and pretend it doesn’t exist. Isn’t that like turning of the fire alarm because you have too many fires?

Comments are closed.