New Handel Radio Ad Targets Nunn On Syria And Obamacare

Former Georgia Secretary of State and GOP Senatorial contender Karen Handel is going after Michelle Nunn over Obamacare and Syria in a new radio ad.  You can listen to the ad, or you can read the transcript of the ad below the fold.



Campaigns are about choices—and we have some clear differences here in Georgia.

This is Karen Handel and I’m running for U.S. Senate.

Democrat Michelle Nunn won’t tell us much about where she stands on issues.

But here’s what she has said.

Nunn says she would have voted for Barack Obama’s plan to attack Syria.

I, along with most Georgians and Americans, opposed the Administration from the start.

Nunn supports Obamacare—despite higher premiums, less choice, and new burdens on small businesses.

We can’t “fix” Obamacare. We need to defund it, repeal it and start over. With a common-sense, patient centered approach.

I support cutting spending and stopping the tide of red ink. Nunn is Democrat Leader Harry Reid’s handpicked Senate candidate. That says it all.

I’m Karen Handel and I approved this message, because Georgia voters deserve a clear choice when it comes to our future.

Paid for by Handel for Senate, Inc.


  1. northside101 says:

    I’d say a bit presumptuous to assume she will be the GOP nominee—when the event that likely will answer that question—an all but certain GOP runoff—is 10 months away. Syria may not be much of an issue by next fall. As for cutting spending and stopping the tide of red ink, well which GOP candidates for this seat are against that? And cut exactly what and where? You can’t exactly get a grip on spending without addressing entitlements—cutting “waste, fraud and abuse”, foreign aid, and “bridges to nowhere” ain’t gonna do the job. And how much defense spending is too much? And how can Obamacare be repealed without a filibuster-proof GOP Senate and without a GOP president? Last time GOP ever had three-fifths of the Senate, you’d probably have to go back to the 1920s—unlikely we’ll see that anytime soon given the red/blue divide in this country.

  2. Stephen in Southside says:

    Running a radio ad during the GOP primary, which is 8 months away, against the expected Democratic candidate is a great idea *sarcasm*. Whose running her campaign, Lee Anderson?

  3. Harry says:

    From an article by Jake Huneycutt:

    In a Money Morning report, Buffett describes Obamacare as a “tapeworm eating at our economic body.” He adds that “[w]e have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control. And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.”

    Buffett argues that we should’ve attacked the costs first, and then worried about expanding coverage. I only mention Buffett because he has a track record for understanding how certain industries will progress. Buffett is also a huge Obama supporter, which makes his vehement opposition to the law all the more interesting.

    From an investing perspective, the problem with Obamacare is that it will led to a few dramatic changes in the economy and increase overall risk. A few examples of the impact:

    (1) The US employment market will shift. Low-skilled labor, the type you might find in a Wal-Mart (WMT), Trader Joe’s, or Papa John’s (PZZA) will now commonly be limited to 30 hours per week, so that the employers can avoid providing overpriced insurance. High-skilled labor, on the other hand, may face the opposite dilemma. Since employers will want to minimize their healthcare exposure, they might decide the easiest way to do this is to maximize the amount of work per employee. In other words, if a company needs 1,000 labor hours of high-skilled labor per week, it might decide it’s cheaper to hire 15 people to work 67 hours per week, rather than 25 people to work 40 hours per week.

    (2) It will impose a stealth tax on the middle class. Obamacare has numerous direct taxes, but the stealth taxes are more troubling. The most obvious stealth tax will hit the average middle class American, who isn’t getting Federal subsidies to purchase insurance. For instance, an Americans who earns $45,000 per year and has to pay $1,500 or $2,000 more annually for insurance is essentially paying a stealth insurance tax of 3.33% on their income. That’s money taken out of another area of the economy, whether it’s less investments for a retirement account, or less money spent dining-out.

    (3) It will result in more Federal spending. The subsidies will result in increased Federal spending, but the extent of the problem is being dramatically understated in the media. For one, there’s the “death spiral” issue that could lead to escalating costs (and hence, escalating subsidies) over the years. But we’re also seeing more employers push their employees onto the exchanges (see Trader Joe’s) where they’ll receive subsidies. All in all, don’t be surprised if the Federal budget deficit magically starts to creep upwards again next year as a result of Obamacare.

    (4) It will increase uncertainty. Many believe that we’ll finally see less uncertainty relating to Obamacare in 2014. I question that wisdom. For one, the law is so completely unworkable, that I have an extremely difficult time envisioning that we won’t continue to see major changes.

    What gives credence to the idea that uncertainty will remain is the deep-seated dislike of the bill. A recent USA Today poll showed 53% of the country opposed to the law, with only 42% in favor of it. Those would be poor numbers even when the law passed in 2010, but that’s horrendous to still see those numbers four years after passage.

    The numbers become even uglier once you dig beneath the surface. The 53% opposed includes 41% strongly opposed, with only 26% strongly supporting the law. In other words, the percentage of people who “strongly disapprove” of Obamacare is only 1 percentage point lower than the total support (including weak support) for the law. That’s ugly and the numbers could get worse when most consumers realize that their insurance costs are going to skyrocket. Or that they are being taxed for being unable to find reasonably-priced insurance coverage.

    No, we shouldn’t buy into doomsday predictions and in spite of the negatives, it’s doubtful that the entire US economy will collapse. What’s more likely is that Obamacare further constrains long-term GDP growth (which is already low), leads to a more mismatched employment market, and takes capital away from investment (and the stock market). Moreover, it’s going to increase uncertainty even more.

    • griftdrift says:

      Not quite. The Buffett quote is from three years ago during the ACA debate and was specifically aimed at the Senate version. Not what was ultimately passed.

      “The confusion stems from a website called Morning Money, which originally apparently dredged up 3-year-old comments and painted them as new. Buffett’s comments came in a 2010 interview with CNBC, when he did say he would scrap the Senate’s version of the bill. He criticized it for not attacking costs in an aggressive-enough manner. But he added that though he didn’t like the Senate bill, he would vote for it rather than do nothing….

      • Harry says:

        The focus should not be on Buffett anyway but rather the problems with Obamacare. Huneycutt’s observations are sound.

                  • Harry says:

                    That’s nice. You just need to brainwash well over half the people in this country who don’t agree with you.

                    • benevolus says:

                      It’s funny though, I’ve read stats that say when people are asked what they think of “Obamacare” almost everybody dislikes it, but when they are asked what they think about the “Affordable Care Act” more people like it, and when they are asked specifically about the major parts of the act, even more people like.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      Well, duh. People liked the Patriot act because they thought patriotism is a great thing. Care to guess why people like Obamacare when you call it the Affordable Care Act?

                      Hell I wish they’d called the Patriot act the “Peeping Government” act, lol. Would’ve been more honest and harder to pass.

            • Ellynn says:

              That would be as pointless as tying to explain why the Republicans were for the concept when the Heritage foundation wrote a report on it in 2007.

              Water, met bridge.

                • Ellynn says:


                  Again this is water under the bridge. But since you asked…

                  In 2007 a senate bill was on the floor for an indivisual payer heathcare program called the Wyden-Bennett Act. The year before this, ‘An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care’ was signed into law by then Gov. Romney (AKA Romneycare). At the time both sponsoers of the bills sited a Heritage issued report (to my error, the 2007 report I was referancing was actually a reissue of a 1989 report, see link below.) Heritage fully backed both bills. They even showed up at the Romney signing and had higher-ups make speaches at the event.

                  The ‘concept’ was the individual mandate. Long before GOP leaning states got together to claim in court individual mandates were unconstitutional, and the current conventional wisdom that it costs to much and blah, blah blah… Heritage defended and encouraged individual mandate policies in fedearal and state bills and it has been used to respond to other health care reforms (Hillarycare 1993). Gingrich at one time was a un paid staffer for Heritage who was supporting the Wyden-Bennett Act.

                  Since 2010, Heritage has stated ‘new research’ has shown their orginal concept would not be constutional. The head of Heritage even wrote a Washington Op-ed in 2010 stating this and that the ACA is in now way anything like their report, which was covered by Redstate and Foxnews. (See second like below for op-ed.)

                  You stated “argue against the concerns he mentioned, if you can”. Why? It would be pointless since any agruement any one made would only be seen in the scope of whether you agree with it… until you read something else that tells you not to…

                  Still confused?



      • John Konop says:


        ……….He criticized it for not attacking costs in an aggressive-enough manner. But he added that though he didn’t like the Senate bill, he would vote for it rather than do nothing….

        How many times have I said this?

            • John Konop says:

              How I would make it better:

              1) I would make sure every exchange would have a self insurance component that allows small companies as well as individuals to create their own product like large companies do……ie about 20% savings

              2) I would give exchanges, Medicare/Medicaid, family members of veterans and government workers access to VA drug pricing, ie about 60% savings

              3) I would install dial a doc in emergency rooms for non emergency healthcare……Put in a high fee if they do not use it for non emergency care…..

              4) I would require everyone to fill out an end of life directive ie over 60% of healthcare spent the last 6 months of your life…..many procedures people do not want…..

              5) I would increase pricing for Medicare patients needing elective procedures…..

              This above would save a lot of money……This is just a start…….

              • Harry says:

                Your suggestions would be an improvement but it’s like putting lipstick on a pig. Obamacare can’t work economically speaking, because as you and Buffett have said they never fixed the cost and efficiency problems first. They built on a bad foundation. Beyond that there are other common sense problems with the model, but Obama’s people never addressed the foundation which was imperative. The lobbyists controlled the process and kept their anti-market, anti-reform perks.

                • griftdrift says:

                  Buffett again. Oh well, we’ll let that slide.

                  Here’s your problem, Harry. And by Harry, I don’t mean the internet persona who will never change his mind, but the people reading this that don’t necessarily comment.

                  Your problem is people like me. I am skeptical of Obamacare. Have been since day one. But as it gets implemented and I see that portions of it works, I become less skeptical. And if there are no other options on the table, skepticism flies right out the window.

                  As far as improvements, I would echo John’s. Particularly the exchanges. I’m a big fan of the exchanges. To my mind, it is the strongest part of the bill. It’s the one area where you can tinker and tweak and try things and determine how market forces are affecting the product.

                  I’m not the only one. There were Republicans on this very blog who said that instead of fruitlessly charging up the same hill once again, we should go ahead and begin the implementation of the exchanges. That way Georgia runs them instead of the Federal government.

                  Didn’t happen. Instead, the exchanges will be here. We’ll have very little input in what they are and the benefit we receive from them will be muted. This is going to become very apparent six months down the road when we compare to other states that took advantage of the period to set up the exchanges.

                  So there you go Harry. I wasn’t necessarily on your side, but I certainly wasn’t on their’s either. But the only choice your side gives me is, come on and let’s charge up that hill one more time, I swear this time it will work.

                  That’s not a strategy that helps anyone.

                  • Harry says:

                    You might like the gypsy life
                    You judge your progress by the phases of the moon
                    Get your compass and your sharpest knife

                • John Konop says:


                  The GOP new proposal on healthcare calls the exchange a portal…..You get it is the exact same concept? And the real issue on lowering cost is a combination of dealing with entitlements, non emergency care using hospitals over dial doc…., drug prices and end of life cost. This issue is really not very complicated if you take the politics out……You are a very smart guy, can we not do what Grift advocated and focus on solutions?

                    • John Konop says:


                      Healthcare cost has been rising way faster than GDP for years…….The real issue is how we cut cost…..suggestions like I made above are the type of solutions we need to focus on.

  4. northside101 says:

    Wow—I didn’t know mentioning Obamacare would prompt all this reaction as to the merits and demerits of the legislation (that probably no one read in its entirety, given its 2400 or so pages). But regardless of what people think it may do to the economy, Obama would never repeal it, and why would he? He has nothing to lose as he can’t run for a third term in 2016. He’ll never sign a bill repealing the legislation in its entirety—at best, he might tweak some parts. Even if GOP wins the presidency in 2016 (a very iffy proposition, give, Democrats certainly have a lock on California with its 55 electoral votes, New York with 29, and have swept the 11-state Northeast in the last 6 elections except in 2000, when Gore narrowly lost New Hampshire), there is no way again GOP will have 60 seats or more in 2016 in the Senate—no “filibuster-proof” Senate. Only option might be the (ironically-named) “reconciliation process (budget) which takes simple majority. But GOP will have a lot of seats to defend in 2016, given 2010 was such a good year for the party, so no assurance GOP will have a Senate majority in 2017, even with a GOP president.

    • Harry says:

      Politics aside, Obamacare is bad legislation, bad policy, bad for the economy, and bad for people – so it has to be opposed.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        Just like the conservative Heritage Foundation that thought of it, the Contract with American Newt conservatives that supported it, and the Republican’s most recent Presidential candidate Mitt Romney that was the first to implement it.

        • Harry says:

          It doesn’t matter who you think supported some prior form of Obamacare. It is still bad legislation, bad policy, bad for the economy, and bad for people – so it has to be opposed.

          • benevolus says:

            Opposition is not really a problem. There’s someone that opposes almost every law. The issue is -to what extent should that opposition be taken? This law was passed, it has withheld Supreme Court scrutiny (mostly), and forty opposition bills have been brought and defeated. So now, opponents are willing to shut down the government and/or default on the debt on this issue?
            I know opponents think it is very important, but there are supporters who think it is just as important.
            Just consider it opposed and move on.

            • Harry says:

              Doesn’t work like that. Did the NAACP give up in the face of Plessey v. Ferguson and Jim Crow laws? No. There’s massive opposition to Obamacare and the politicians will start to pay attention.

  5. Dave Bearse says:

    Contrast? How about charitable organizations? The contrast is quite stark.

    Nunn built up a charitable organization in a non-partisan way over the course of years. Handel’s partisanship took the premier organization its field and nearly wrecked it in a matter of months.

  6. Bull Moose says:

    Republicans today do not deal in reality… They might as well be for gum drop houses and candy paved streets… That might be closer to reality than the position of total repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It is irresponsible for any candidate for office today to advocate for such an unrealistic position.

  7. northside101 says:

    My final comments on this piece—thanks to some old copies of “World Almanac”, found some data last night concerning partisan composition of the Senate (following up on discussion that it takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster, and basically Republicans would need 60 of their own to overturn Obamacare in the Senate). The last time Republicans controlled three-fifths (60%) of the US Senate?
    (1) there were few paved roads outside our cities and accordingly no interstate highway system
    (2) radio was in its infancy (never mind about television)
    (3) electricity was largely unavailable in rural areas
    (4) the careers of some of the worst tyrants on record (Hitler, Stalin and Mao) were in the future
    (5) “talking pictures” (movies with sound) were still in the development stage
    Yep, how does 1921-1923 sound to you? The Warren Harding Administration, a mere 90 years ago, was the last time Republicans had three-fifths of the Senate. At that time, Alaska and Hawaii were not states—so we had 48 states and 96 senators, and back then 59 senators were Republican, 37 Democrats. The last time Republicans had 60 or more? 1907-1909, final 2 years of the Teddy Roosevelt Administration (when they had 61). Only about 105 years ago…

    In the post World War 2 era, Republicans’ maximum Senate strength was 55, during Clinton’s second term (1997-2001), and then 2003-2005 during Bush the second’s first term.

    Of course, as my mutual fund company says, “past performance doesn’t guarantee future results”, but looking at this historical data, you’d have to think that the odds GOP will control 60 Senate seats anytime in the near future are akin to Vanderbilt prevailing (much less playing) at the SEC Championship in Atlanta this December………

    • Harry says:

      You’re just wrong. There’s massive public opposition to Obamacare. The GOP can capitalize on that in 2014 and 2016, and elect a president who will sign a repeal and then restart the process with libertarian and free market reform principles.

      • benevolus says:

        OK cool! So you would be OK with ending this tragic dance we are doing with the economy and just wait and deal with this the way The Founders intended- through elections! Glad to hear it!

  8. Herb says:

    Republicans, the party of Iraq, are in no position to go after Obama on Syria. Obama weighed the facts of the matter and carefully calculated the risk of going into Syria before seeking congressional approval. Bush took the advice of Howard Stern and, with cold randomness, bombed a Middle Eastern country as retribution for 9/11, and this was done without formal congressional authorization.

    • KingRichard says:

      I thought Obama just threatned Syria with a teeny tiny bombing just because he could not let his ego be hurt since someone crossed his red line – still don’t know who that was. Not even GB backed us in Syria, UN not backing us in Syria, Congress/Senate not backing us in Syria, American People not backing strike in Syria.

      The only Person who wants to bomb Syria is Obama, kind of like the only person who loves Oamacare is Obama, do you see the pattern?

      Resist we Much!

      • benevolus says:

        You must be pleased that President Obama has asked for Congressional sanction before ordering an intervention.

Comments are closed.