GOP Senate Hopefuls Meet in First Debate

Republicans running for Georgia’s open U.S. Senate met for their first debate of the year, with the candidates largely agreeing on the need to rein in federal spending and repeal the federal health care law.

The AP reports that Saturday night’s debate in the south Georgia town of Adel was the first of seven planned by the state party before the May 20 primary.

Seven of the eight Republicans in the race attended the debate, held before a crowd of several hundred people in a high school performing arts center.

Among those participating were U.S. Reps. Paul Broun of Athens and Jack Kingston of Savannah, former Secretary of State Karen Handel and former Dollar General CEO David Perdue. U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Marietta didn’t attend.

All are vying for the seat held by Republican U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who is retiring.


  1. RepublicanToo says:

    Wow! Only 4 of the eight candidates showed up? What does it say when only half of the candidates participate? ….Oh wait, I guess the writer couldn’t find the space or time to mention all the names of those in attendance….I mean the ones that actually showed up. Its better to mention the one who does, promote the big money and press favorites and ignore the rest. Way to go on the inclusion!

    For those who appreciate unbiased reporting, Republican candidates Art Gardner, Derrick Grayson, and Eugene Yu were among those who participated.

          • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

            You guys are missing his sarcasm. I think his point was that only 4 of the participating candidates were mentioned by name. In most stories about this race, Art Gardner, Derrick Grayson, and Eugene Yu are rarely mentioned all all.

            • Charlie says:

              It’s not sarcasm that we’re missing. It’s the continued belligerence that this person insists that we’re supposed to pretend that the fringe candidates have a chance to win. We dealt with it four days ago here:


              We’re a political blog, not a dream factory. I’m not going to insult our readers intelligence by pretending those with no chance or winning do, nor pander to the wishful thinkers that show up every election cycle and boast that their candidate is winning/will win (Jeff Chapman, Ray McBerry), clog our comments with their BS, then are no where to be found when reality hits them upside the head like a 2×4.

              • RepublicanToo says:

                With all respect Charlie, your explanation or reasoning for the exclusion illustrates my point perfectly. Its not the job of the press or pundits to determine who has a chance to win, who is electable, or who wants to visit the dream factory.

                To say there is no time or money to be fair in reporting and polling is ludicrous, and in my opinion, a very bold statement as to who your master is and who you serve. It is the class of political consultants, pollsters, corporate media, lobbyists, and special interests, who inject massive amounts of cash into the system for quid pro quo.

                That is what has happened to our politics and government. We have been taken over by corrupt politicians and those seeking to enrich themselves instead of serving the people.

                For the record, I have no problem with opinions in the media or pundits giving their analysis, but when you choose who is even worthy of inclusion, you are in essences, dictating from your soapbox.

                Before you say, go elsewhere for the news or fair reporting, I ask, where, where can a voter go these days to find unbiased and factual reporting free from propaganda and hidden agendas – free from those that think our choices should be limited to those with good fundraising skills, or are part of an elite political network?

                I hope you take a few moment to consider my points and not simply defend your position. Something has got to change or our country is doomed.

                • Charlie says:

                  “something has to change or our country is doomed”

                  Therein lies the root of your problem.

                  Generally, the people that gravitate to these fringe candidates adopt the position that their one person – the only one they deem pure enough to save us all – is the one that will change everything. They then project a messiah complex on their candidate and leave any rational thought at the door.

                  Picking a candidate to the right of Paul Broun is a certainty that the person can’t and won’t be elected. But rather than hear any logical pushback, you guys decide that anyone that won’t get on your bandwagon to “save the country” is the enemy. Thus, you end up fighting the world which causes more harm to your candidate than if you did nothing.

                  We routinely mention your candidates. We’ve done front page stories on each of them. But to expect us to devote our limited time and resources into your crusade isn’t a decision you can base on rational fact. The world is a cruel place, and politics ain’t bean bag. Getting behind candidates that aren’t prepared to win isn’t our problem, so please don’t expect us to fix it for you.

                  • RepublicanToo says:

                    I’m afraid you miss the point entirely. I haven’t suggested that any one candidate will solve all the problems, nor did I say or suggest that the country being doomed has something to do with one individual.

                    My point is the culture and corruption of the status quo and establishment of political elite and insiders who use money as a measure of electability.

                    It seems no one actually cares about the service or integrity of a candidate, rather they want to know how much money can be raised, made, or passed around. That is what has our country doomed.

                    Corporate media and biased press and pundits exacerbate the the problem.

                    Thought exercise: If money had zero influence, who would be the best candidate?

                    Many will say its impossible to say because money has everything to do with a candidacy. Therein lies the problem. Just think about it.

                    • Charlie says:

                      “I’m afraid you miss the point entirely”

                      The only point you want to hear is that you’re right, and that you’re entitled to waste everyone else’s time placating the notion that somehow one of the misfit candidates is going to change the entire electoral system without money or embedded grassroots support.

                      You’ve grown entirely too accustomed to finding 5 folks who agree with you on the internet and thinking that somehow that means everyone else does too. The world doesn’t work that way, and that’s what you need to be thinking about rather than lecturing others about how you wish the world worked.

                    • seenbetrdayz says:

                      Bro, I’ve been fighting this battle for years on PP. Charlie isn’t gonna let you change his mind.

                      This is how all GOP races go down.

                      All focus tends to gravitate towards candidates with the characteristics you mention, such as, money raised, stature, “experience”, and approved air-time. At some point, the title of “electability” is adorned upon them, and ultimately one of these few candidates are chosen and pushed out into a general election, where they more often than not, soundly defeated. Ex. Romney, Ex. McCain. It does make you wonder what sort of dictionary they’re using when the term ‘electability’ practically ensures you won’t win an election.

        • oscardagrch says:

          As Ellynn said. Third Paragraph, first sentence. The only person not to show up was Gingrey. Therefore, reading comprehension fail. Thanks for playing.

  2. Blake says:

    “… with the candidates largely agreeing on the need to … repeal the federal health care law.”

    Nice to see that reality hasn’t intruded on Georgia Republicans yet.

    • Harry says:

      Maybe you’re the one who needs the reality check.

      National Review sums it up as follows: “And, surprise: Buried deep within the Affordable Care Act are not one but two provisions to provide PREEMPTIVE BAILOUTS to insurance companies.”

      It means the tax[payers are on the hook to the insurance companies – in addition to their premium increases. I’m really looking forward to November.

      • Blake says:

        Thanks for getting the issues exactly wrong, as usual, Harry. The so-called “bailouts” sunset in 2016, and they bear no resemblance to such things as the S&L bailouts or TARP. Calling them bailouts is a political/ideological statement. You’re an ideal Republican primary voter.

Comments are closed.