In Response, She Has Nunn

My insightful, principled and sarcastic colleague, Jason posted earlier about Nunn’s reluctance to answer a direct question on her stance on the ACA.  Sometimes we don’t agree, and sometimes we do it publicly.  But that makes it more fun for readers, right??

My question is: why should she?

How is taking a stand now to her electoral advantage (if she has any whatsoever)?

People are irritated by her ability to avoid answering questions, but she’s doing what any unchallenged primary candidate SHOULD do.  She is giving her Republican opponents no fuel for their fire, she’s giving Independents like me no reason to not vote for her, and she has no serious primary challenge. 

Strategically speaking, any campaign benefits the less a candidate speaks. There is absolutely no reason for Michelle Nunn to make a statement on anything until after the Republican run-off.

Speaking, messaging, and debates are methods of candidates to differentiate themselves from one another and guide the conversation to a place where they can excel.  Nunn needs not to differentiate herself now.  She knows not which candidate she will face in the general, so it is better to wait and use their primary statements against them.  The Republicans have been clawing at one another for months, and just WAIT until the run-off.  Personally, I’m cancelling Netflix for the run-off period.  Who needs House of Cards when you’ve got real-life political theater?

So while the Republicans eat their own, Nunn is avoiding alienating potential general voters by making strong statements.  This may irritate peeps, but it also doesn’t make you automatically vote against her.

Oh, and it might also be important to point out who will be voting: WOMEN. Single women, at that.  We’re the largest voting bloc in the state.

The latter is of particular importance because it should be said that Republican candidates EPICLY FAIL at reaching these voters, so if Nunn has any chance whatsoever, why would she want to burn bridges with voters who tend to vote her party anyway?

Nunn is keeping her lips sealed until she has the chance to distinguish herself from the middle aged white guy the Republicans will inevitably find as their primary winner.  Good strategy for her; bad policy for us. Wins elections, but does not distinguish a good policy maker.  And in the general election, despite the attempts of my more progressive conservative colleagues on Peach Pundit who are hoping for a Handel upset, Nunn will have the gender advantage.

You’re not gonna change any of them by talkin’ right, they’ve got to want to learn themselves, and when they don’t want to learn there’s nothing you can do but keep your mouth shut or talk their language. ~Harper Lee


  1. Preach. Halleluuuyah.

    Get. A. Woman. In. The. Senate. From. Georgia. And a Congresswoman while we’re at it.

    I’m in it for the long game. Strategically, if I need to vote for a Democrat before the point is made and the GAGOP gives me a female choice, sobeit. G’head – I’ll catch you next cycle, Republicans.

    • Salmo says:

      There are several women on deck (Jan Jones, I’m looking at you) that would be good candidates for the Senate. Unfortunately, Karen Handel isn’t it. Nominating a bad choice just because they have the right genetalia is not a good long game strategy. Through two statewide campaigns now, she is known for pointing fingers at her colleagues and calling out their faults. That strategy would be disastrous for the interests of the state of Georgia in the Senate.

      Why is voting for a woman (with no other deciding factors beyond her gender) any better than refusing to vote for a woman on the sole basis of her gender? Both are incredibly short-sighted and sexist.

      • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

        Karen Handel would be an infinitely much better Senate candidate (and Senator) than Michelle Nunn who will most-assuredly sell us out to Obama and the socialists on issues like Second Amendment rights, health care, education, taxes and abortion the first chance she gets.

        I mean, it’s hard enough to trust that Republicans won’t sell us out to the left on these issues, but anyone with a (D) behind their names will most-certainly sell us out to the left because politicians with a (D) behind their names ARE the left.

        • Salmo says:

          I suppose Handel would be better than Nunn. She has always rubbed me the wrong way, and I have a hard time sending someone to the Senate that doesn’t have a college degree when the left is railing on the GOP’s supposed anti-intellectual bent. I just don’t find her a good fit for the Senate (compared to at least two, possibly three, of her male opponents) and I’d have to think long and hard about whether to pull the lever for her in the general or just sit that one out.

        • objective says:

          i think that path is unlikely. were she to win, she’d have to continue to straddle the center to win elections. she’s likely to emulate john barrow’s voting patterns.

          • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

            You mean that Michelle Nunn would have to straddle the center to win elections for the time being?

            If a Hillery Clinton runs a successful campaign and wins in 2016 while turning-out and taking a very-large number of female and minority votes in a state like Georgia where the current electorate is decidedly white and Conservative but the state’s demographics are rapidly trending towards moderates and Democrats, Michelle Nunn would no-longer have to masquerade as a conservative and/or centrist Democrat should she be elected to the Senate in 2014.

            If Hillery Clinton runs and wins in ’16 and takes a state like Georgia with a rapidly-changing demographic (with minorities making up 45% of the state’s population, Georgia is slated to become a ‘majority-minority’ state within the next decade), Michelle Nunn would be much-more free to be the progressive left-wing liberal Democrat that she REALLY is.

            Georgia voters shouldn’t trust a Democrat like Michelle Nunn as far as they can throw her, particularly with the Clintons waiting in the wings for a potentially game-changing run in ’16.

            • objective says:

              well, by the same logic, if a republican won this year, and demography changed the majority by 2016 or 2018, the senators then in office would still need to straddle the center to remain in office. GA appears destined to live up to its motto of moderation, maybe even be a swing state, especially with some libertarians in the mix.

            • caroline says:

              In essence you seem to be saying that the GOP is doomed here in GA and that Michelle Nunn will be representing her constituents. Also you seen to be saying even if a Republican is elected in the fall that they are doomed for reelection unless they start moving left.

              • objective says:

                not quite- i’m saying its possible that any statewide elected official, conservative or liberal, will have doses of moderation. certainly no gloom and doom.

                • caroline says:

                  Well, I wasn’t replying to you but I’m not sure about a conservative being able to moderate at the current time.

        • caroline says:

          Sorry but Handel comes off as the handmaiden of the far right after her stint at Komen. Michelle Nunn comes off from the center. You never know what you’re going to get when you send them to Washington for sure.

          • mountainpass says:

            I thought that Komen came off as far left. I blame them for getting off message, not Mrs. Handel.

            • caroline says:

              I guess you didn’t know that Nancy Brinker the head of Komen was a Bush Pioneer. Generally Komen was thought of as apolitical until Handel started a fight with Planned Parenthood.

    • therightdirection says:

      Wouldn’t it make more sense to help promote quality Republican women within Georgia to help realize that dream of yours instead of promoting a Democratic option? Strategically and all that. Ideology of representatives determines the direction of the country much more than gender. Sad that you can’t seem to see that.

      • I am a Capitalist through and through – modest childhood, first to go to college, bootstraps pulled, successful quota-making salesperson blah blah blah. That being said – if the GAGOP won’t recruit, promote, and help elect women then electing a Democratic woman is my quickest path to getting what I want – like-minded Capitalist female representation. The ceiling will be broken and like Roger Bannister, electing future women will be a lot easier (and required quite frankly).

        And sexist? Ha – that’s horse manure. Georgia is 52% female. We are not currently equally represented… and it’s time with catch up with society.

        • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

          Ms. Cantrell, I understand that you are extremely-frustrated with the lack of female representation both in the Republican Party and within the Georgia Conservative movement as a whole.

          But threatening to vote for Democrats at every turn because the GOP is not exactly to the place that you want it to be is something that seems very-shortsighted and extremely-reckless. That’s because voting for Democrats for statewide office just because a female candidate may be on the ballot is not going to get you “Capitalist female representation” but will most-assuredly get you SOCIALIST female representation.

          Democrats, both male and female, have made it be abundantly clear where they stand on all issues, and they most-certainly do not stand as Conservatives, Libertarians and Capitalists, but as socialist, communist and Marxist Europhiles who want to grow the size of government, increase government spending, and take away many of our individual God-given rights as Americans (particularly our Second Amendment rights and our personal control over our own healthcare).

          Once you let the liberals back in the door in this state, we will have a hell of a time pushing them back out, if we are ever able to push them back out the door.

          If you have issues with the Republican Party, work within the party to address those issues by helping to recruit, promote and help women get elected as Conservatives and Libertarians. Don’t go around claiming to be a Republican while undermining the party at every turn by openly threatening to vote for liberals like Nunn and Carter every chance that you get.

          Whatever issues that Georgia might have (and does have), don’t make those issues worse by saddling the state with a couple of liberal elitists that we’ll never get rid of and opening the door for their socialist friends to join them. Please don’t do that to this state because you feel that you need to spite GOP leadership.

            • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

              I agree…Democrats refuse to change and the GOP, while still inherently evil, is clearly the slightly-lesser of two evils.

        • gcp says:

          Electing Michelle Nunn is a pathway to getting “Capitalist female representation.” Strange thinking and strange priorities but I guess you would consider someone like me that votes on issues only, not color, gender, or religion, to be hopelessly outdated.

        • Salmo says:

          There is no barrier to break, there just haven’t been many good female GOP candidates at the statewide level. Kathy (with a K) Cox and Karen Handel just weren’t very bright. Neither is the current lone female GOP Senator. I’d love to have a good woman to vote for, but I’m not going to vote for a woman if she isn’t a good candidate. That’s idiotic. Give me someone who is the intellectual equivalent of what the dems have had in Cathy (with a C) Cox or Stacy Abrams, and I’m totally on board.

          Give us a good candidate, and you’ll see a female Senator or Governor with ease.

          • Baker says:

            While I totally reject Salmo’s premise that Karen Handel isn’t very bright…(any evidence of this beyond not having a college degree? I’m so tired of hearing that dumb premise put forward)…I do agree there’s no real barrier to break. Voting for a Dem “to break the ceiling” or whatever is totally unnecessary.

            • Salmo says:

              I don’t have IQ or SAT scores. Just going off of my impression based on the times I’ve heard her speak. To Handel’s credit, though, she’s certainly higher up the food chain than the aforementioned Kathy Cox and Renée Unterman. or, to be an equal opportunity gender hater, she’s smarter than, say…Matt Dollar.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      Bridget Cantrell, May 19, 2014 at 3:18 pm-

      “I’m in it for the long game. Strategically, if I need to vote for a Democrat before the point is made and the GAGOP gives me a female choice, sobeit. G’head – I’ll catch you next cycle, Republicans.”

      We know that you’re “in it for the long game” as there is no doubt there, but just whose “long game” are you in it for? The Democrats or the Republicans?

      If you are or want to be an Independent or even a Democrat, then say that you are or want to be an Independent or a Democrat. But don’t go around claiming to be a Republican while holding it over Republicans’ heads that you are going to vote for a Democrat if the GOP doesn’t submit to your demands to put forth what are basically affirmative action female nominees.

      A candidate should advance because they are the best candidate available to be elected by the voters, not just simply because of their gender.

      If you’re an avid supporter of affirmation action politics (as you most-certainly seem to be from your repeated comments demanding that the GOP adhere to a quota of female candidates seemingly regardless of qualification) then maybe the GOP is not the party for you.

      If you want gender quotas in politics, then maybe you need to be on the left-side of the political spectrum in the party that will be much more likely to give you what you want with the ‘Crats.

      • Ellynn says:

        Why do we have to pick a side?

        Just keep in mind a Democrat in Georgia, like John Barrow, is far more conservative then a Republican in the Northeast, like Susan Collins.

        • Baker says:

          You have to pick a side because, like it or not, a vote for John Barrow is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and a vote for Susan Collins is a vote for Mitch McConnell. As Harry Reid has so clearly demonstrated, the leader of the Senate or House is hugely important.

        • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

          Well you don’t have to necessarily pick a side as an Independent or even as one of the last very-few remaining Democratic voters there currently are in this state.

          But you most-certainly cannot go around claiming to be a Conservative female while threatening to vote for decidedly non-Conservative Democratic candidates and not expect to be called-out on it.

          You cannot claim to be a Conservative because it is currently the trendy thing to say around these parts while always constantly threatening to vote for non-Conservative and liberal Democrats. If you’re always threatening to vote for non-Conservative Democrats then you most-certainly are not a Conservative because a REAL Conservative would never vote for a non-Conservative and/or liberal Democrat.

          A REAL Conservative wouldn’t p— on a non-Conservative Democrat if they were on fire, much less openly and proudly proclaim that they will vote for a non-Conservative Democrat if the GOP does not submit to affirmative action quotas.

          Also, in the case of a Georgia Democrat like John Barrow, the only reason why Barrow may be so much more Conservative than a Susan Collins of Maine is because Barrow is pretty much the last remaining white male Democrat from the Deep South.

          Barrow only continues to run as a deeply-Conservative Democrat (something that is an oxymoron these days) because his family has deep roots in the Democrat party and he could not continue to escape almost-certain defeat by the GOP and be elected to Congress if he ran as anything other than a deeply-Conservative Democrat. That’s because the voters in his rural Southeastern Georgia congressional district will not accept anything less than purely Conservative representation in Congress.

          • Salmo says:

            I think the point is that Bridget can claim to be a conservative, but first and foremost she is a feminist, and feminism trumps conservatism. And that’s ok, even if I disagree with her weak reasoning.

            • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

              You mean that Ms. Cantrell can as a liberal-sounding feminist proclaim herself to be a Conservative in the same way that liberal elites like Jason Carter and Michelle Nunn can hilariously proclaim themselves to be “NRA Democrats”?

              If as a seemingly self-proclaimed “Conservative”, Ms. Cantrell feels compelled by her feminist values to frequently openly threaten to vote for and/or actually vote for liberal Democrats like the aforementioned Jason Carter and Michelle Nunn, then maybe she does not need to be in the Conservative movement and maybe needs to become an Independent and/or maybe a Democrat. Or maybe Ms. Cantrell just needs to admit and self-identity as a liberal Republican who votes for liberal Democrats.

              But one thing that a Ms. Cantrell absolutely does not need to do is run around claiming to be some kind of Conservative Republican while seemingly frequently threatening to vote for liberal Democrats unless the GOP submits to affirmative action-style gender quotas.

  2. joe says:

    She probably shouldn’t give on camera interviews if she is not going to give answers. It makes her look shallow. We will have to see in the next few months whether or not she has any substance.

  3. The ACA isn’t even the ACA anymore – through rulemaking, executive orders and even votes by Republicans (last month to change requirements for small business plans) it is different than it was.

    So it’s not a relevant question – a more relevant question is what would you do going forward.

    • objective says:

      c’mon…while it’s more relevant abt what she would do going fwd, it’s hardly irrelevant or ancient history. she had have the expected, politically-tutored answer (why speculate abt a hypothetical past) but she did appear a bit evasive and uncomfortable. instead, she could have had a better answer- like what she would do to help the law evolve! where is the policy platform here?

  4. John Konop says:

    I was watching Morning Joe this morning….the wake up call should be that Georgia is predicted to become a toss up state by 20. Nunn is a chipmin the armor that the GOP should look at…..Win or not this year…the angry old white guy politics by people like Kent are killing the party….Read the memo people want solutions not spewing I hate immigrants with color ie so called culture war, war on drugs ie war on personal liberty…….

    The reason Nunn is doing well…..she does not sound like an angry old white guy……win or not this is the future….

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      Good comments, Mr. Konop.

      Though, with current demographic trends and with the Clintons waiting in the wings for a potential game-changing Presidential run in 2016, the GOP can only hope that Georgia is just a toss-up state/’purple state’ and not a state that is increasingly trending blue by the time that 2020 rolls around.

      With Georgia quickly moving towards becoming a ‘majority-minority’ state within the next decade or so because of the accelerating growth of Georgia’s minority population, if Hillery Clinton runs a successful campaign and wins in ’16, it is highly-possible that the Georgia GOP could be on the retreat within the next decade in the same way that Georgia Democrats have been in an accelerating state of retreat over the last 12 years.

      If Clinton does not run in ’16 (which the GOP should PRAY that Clinton does not run), the Georgia GOP (and the national GOP) will at-least have the opportunity to treat and fix whatever ails them. But if Clinton runs a successful campaign in ’16 with a successful ‘Get-Out-The-Vote’ effort with women and minorities, it could be a ‘lights-out’ for the Georgia GOP in the same way that the 2002 loss proved to be ‘lights-out’ for Georgia Democrats. Though with Georgia’s demographics rapidly-changing in the favor of the Dems, a GOP loss to Hiliary in ’16 could potentially be worse over the long-run as Georgia (45% minority population) is 2 percentage points more diverse than neighboring swing state Florida (43% minority) and 10 percentage points more-diverse than nearby Southeastern swing states Virginia and North Carolina (both roughly 35% minority).

      It is also Georgia’s historical inclination towards one-party rule (along with the GOP’s self-destructive incompetent behavior and Georgia’s accelerating demographic evolution into a ‘majority-minority’ state) that has Democrats thinking that they have a good shot at eventually dominating Georgia statewide politics despite Georgia currently being one of absolute reddest and most Republican-dominated states in the entire union.

      Also, while “angry old white guy politics” may not necessarily be healthy to a party with the current demographic challenges such as the GOP, its not necessarily the perceived angry politics that are killing the GOP as much as it was the 2 terms of George W. Bush’s outrageous spending and mismanagement of 2 wars that are killing the national GOP (…the Tea Party was much more a response to Bush’s past outrageous spending and ‘big-government conservatism’ than it was just a response to Obama’s outrageous spending and big-government liberalism and socialism).

      It’s also been a pervasive perception of FLAMING SUPER-INCOMPETENCE on the issues of transportation, education, water and (especially) ETHICS, that is killing the Georgia GOP much more than it is any perceived “angry old white guy politics”. Heck a political party or movement can have somewhat of an angry edge if they are perceived to be governing competently, but let a political party or movement be perceived to be governing very-incompetently and voters will eventually get to the point where they cannot wait to throw them out the door head-first.

      • John Konop says:

        Very well thought out and informative comment…..Irroniically I was discussing transportation and education issues with a local candidate, all they could say is local control… real solutions just talking points….you are right voters need answers not talking points……

    • caroline says:

      Oh, so true. I am so sick of the gloom and doom that the GOP is doing. People DO want solutions. And young people especially hate the culture war garbage.

      But the GOP has created a monster that it can’t seem to contain. Fusing religion and politics seems to have created an apocalyptic cult where you can’t just disagree with Obama on policy. You have to believe that he is the Anti-Christ sent to destroy America. And if they quit doing the angry old white guy stuff who is going to vote for them? The angry old white guy is all they seem to have now so I guess you go with what you have. Maybe a few election cycles of getting beat will foster change but I see them continuing down this road until there is no other option but to change.

  5. Dave Bearse says:

    The topic is that Nunn is hardly talking after the weekend’s GOP Senate debate where a third of the simple direct yes or no questions went unanswered.

    You can almost smell the fear.

  6. linuxfanatic says:

    Personally, I would never vote for Nunn in a million years for a bunch of reasons that do not need to be named, with the fact that she is much too liberal to represent this state being one of them, and her lack of qualifications being another.

    WITH THAT BEING SAID … it is easy to bash “affirmative action politics” and claim “there is no ceiling to be broken” when you are a white male. Of course, being a white male, the fact that the Georgia GOP is led, lock stock and barrel top to bottom by white males is not going to personally bother you. But if you are neither white or male, it will. Especially if the people who criticize any overt effort to challenge or change that get the “affirmative action” tag. Why? Because that makes it appear as if the best qualified – indeed the only qualified – people are white males. Not only is that offensive in a vacuum, but in the context that is GOP politics in Georgia, with all of the corruption, incompetence, bad temperaments, bad policy and bad leaders – so much to the point where Democrats now have a fighting chance because of the massive failures of local and state GOP leaders as well as the often embarrassing congressional delegation – the idea that not one single female or “minority” is more capable than this cast of characters cannot possibly be true.

    Why? I am going to use one of the GOP’s favorite rhetorical points against it and say look at the private sector. It is filled to the brim with successful nonwhite and/or female executives, entrepreneuers, administrators, you name it at corporations, nonprofits, the university community, etc. (Strangely, the Georgia Dems passed up such esteemed talent in favor of an empty suit with a last name.) So why is it easier for someone other than a white male to become CFO of Coca-Cola than get elected to a position of real influence as a Republican in Georgia?

    And do not claim that there is not real hostility to such people. Do not pretend as if the Dylan Glenn-Lynn Westmoreland nonsense did not happen. Or that Georgia GOPers were not much more excited with Herman Cain as a presidential candidate than they ever were as a Senate candidate (you know, the race when the longtime moderate gadfly and failed candidateIsakson, long the favorite Republican of Georgia Democrats who they used to play off Newt Gingrich, was elected instead). Or that the bashing that Karen Handel took in 2010, when the Georgia GOP decided that electing a former Democrat with no record of accomplishment in Washington that ethics issues would dog him and the entire party for 8 years was SO MUCH BETTER. Or how about the current state superintendents race. Of all the current GOPers who are former Dems (including the most ridiculous example, Sonny Perdue, who switched parties a mere few months before running for governor, and not because of ideology, but because he was sore at being passed up for a leadership position that his lack of policy ideas and political skill never merited to begin with, and stated that had he lost the governor’s race he would simply retire from politics without ever having been a Republican elected official or having done squat for the party) why is it an issue for Ashley Bell and Ashley Bell alone? Even worse, why is Fitz Johnson being called a closet Democrat is being tied to Obama when he has never been a Democrat and has never voted for Obama or contributed to his campaigns? If you can answer that, you can tell me why Melvin Everson, with name recognition, party support, legislative experience (and prior to that city council experience) and a huge war chest, was crushed in the Department of Labor race by a total unknown 4 years ago and has been totally ignored by the GOP ever since.

    Of course, if you are a white male conservative (which of course means that barely 20 years ago you were voting for far more liberal Democrats in this state, including guys who made convenient mid-life, mid-career conversions to conservatism and switched parties like Deal in addition to the aforementioned Perdue, and oh yes how can we forget Bill Clinton winning this state in the 1992 presidential election!), you can ignore all of these “isolated incidents of hostility” but otherwise it looks like a pattern. And unless something happens to force the Georgia GOP to change, it is not going to.

    Now it is a terrible shame that the Democrats put up such a forgettable candidate in Michelle Nunn, because no one who cared about good governance, let alone conservative or moderate ideology, should consider the woman. But otherwise, it would be an excellent chance to bring attention to the fact that the current GOP (and the state political establishment that they represent, because let’s face it … the GOPers today are 90% former Democrats who ruled this state in years past) is overtly hostile to electing the 52% of the population that is not male and an increasing percentage of the population that is not white to real leadership positions (as opposed to meaningless nonsense like state party chair and being one of the faces in the crowd in the state legislature).

    The worst part is that Georgia is actually behind its deep south peers in this regard. Florida is great in this respect, electing Paula Hawkins as U.S. Senator in the 1980s, their last 2 lieutenant governors in a row have been female (one black, one Hispanic) and they elected Allen West to Congress. Louisiana has elected 2 Asian GOPers to Congress, Ahn Cao and Bobby Jindal, and one of them as governor (Jindal). South Carolina has an Asian female governor Nikki Haley and a black U.S. Senator in Tim Scott. North Carolina elected Liddy Dole to U.S. Senate. Texas has Kay Bailey Hutchison. So the Georgia GOP is with the Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee group when it comes to electing people other than white males. Actually, even that isn’t true … the Mississippi GOP has elected several black mayors. So it is really just Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee, and the Alabama and Tennessee GOP has nowhere near the tight grips on their state that the Georgia GOP enjoys (for now).

    It is even more ridiculous when you consider that Georgia is the state that is the magnet for talented females and nonwhites to come further their educations, become a researcher, start businesses or move up the corporate ladder. For this reason, Georgia has a disproportionate share of talent that is neither white or male to draw from when compared to other southern states (except for maybe Florid and North Carolina). Yet this talent is somehow absent from the ranks of the Georgia GOP even when it is present in poorer and smaller states. Why is this?

    If you simply do not care about the question – or are hostile to it being asked – then yes, it is because of people like you that Ms. Cantrell is (regrettably in my opinion) going to vote for the empty suit Nunn in favor of the former CEO of Dollar General and Reebok and cousin of Sonny Perdue (who has made a mint off his cousin getting elected governor) David Perdue. Yes, I did go there. That is the hilarious part about the whole thing. I could see it if Karen Handel was losing to Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, a young Newt Gingrich/Phil Gramm or some other conservative luminary. Instead, she is losing to guys with mediocre qualifications, real ethics questions and who are not even particularly conservative. It is less “affirmative action” being practiced by Handel’s supporters than it is the attitudes that made affirmative action necessary in the first place that motivate too many of her opponents. Put it this way: had Handel won in 2010 instead of the ethically challenged, not-particularly-good-on-policy-or-political-instincts Deal, would the incumbent governor if a deeply red state be within the margin of error against Jason Carter in most polls? Of course not. That the GOP has to direct valuable resources to save Deal’s hide in a race that should be a walk is a travesty, and one that only exists because the Georgia GOP is determined to nominate only white guys no matter what. And so long as the Georgia GOP has that sort of anti-competitive attitude, it means that the people who ultimately win are going to be to some degree corrupt and mediocre.

    Seriously, go look in a mirror, look yourself in the eye, and tell yourself that you are looking forward to the great things that David Perdue is going to accomplish as your U.S. Senator. If you can do so, then it only means that you are as good a liar as any other politician. Elect Perdue and the guy is simply a sitting duck for Mike Barrow in 2020, when Barrow will be able to take advantage of both a larger nonwhite population AND independent voters with his center-right voting record. But elect Handel and you have a real shot at defending the seat (so long as the RNC makes her finish her degree at the University of Phoenix between now and 2020).

    So wait till Handel is running against John Kasich or Scott Walker to play the anti-affirmative action card, and not the bunch of “good ole boys” (with all that connotes and for lack of a better term for the moment) that she is running against now and that she ran against in 2010.

    • Salmo says:

      For what it is worth, Bridget invited the accusations of affirmative action when she suggested that she would vote on the basis of gender alone. That’s how affirmative action works… it ignores all qualifications and instead goes on uncontrollable factors such as race or gender. We can have a discussion on whether that is necessary in society, but I think it is a terrible way to elect the people to run our country.

      If she thinks Karen Handel and Michelle Nunn are the two best options out there, more power to her. But she never even tried to claim that this was based on any potential or proposed policies they would enact while in office. It was simply based on their having vaginas. That’s silly.

    • John Konop says:

      ………..former CEO of Dollar General and Reebok and cousin of Sonny Perdue (who has made a mint off his cousin getting elected governor) David Perdue………

      1) Are you crazy? You really think Dollar General and Reebok had anything to do with Sonny? They are national and international brands! Before Sonny was even in office….I have never met David Perdue….but as a businessman like David I find this comment insulting….. Stop spewing BS!

      ….So wait till Handel is running against John Kasich or Scott Walker to play the anti-affirmative action card, and not the bunch of “good ole boys” (with all that connotes and for lack of a better term for the moment) that she is running against now and that she ran against in 2010……

      2) Karen is an example of the greatness of our country…..She came from a disadvantage/abusive home and made a life for herself ie living the American dream…Instead of spewing hate at Karen, you should do a real mirror check!

      • Harry says:

        I assume he was referring to Perdue’s tenure on the governing board of Georgia Ports Authority, which he resigned in order to run for the senate.

  7. Doug Grammer says:

    Before this race is over, voters in Georgia will see Nunn and imagine an Obamacare sign around her neck. I’m willing to bet that they will see a postcard and a TV spot with such.

    Voting for someone because they are a woman makes as much sense as voting for someone because they are black. Will some people do that? Sure. Was it based on content of character or pragmatic policy? No.

    • SingingLawyer says:

      I would never vote solely on the basis of gender or race, but if a woman or minority candidate were equally qualified, you bet I’m going to give them the edge. I said this in another thread but I’ll say it again here: The GOP is going to die as a majority party, and quickly, if it doesn’t start actively recruiting and electing good, conservative women and minority candidates. It’s just a fact that the demographics and culture of the state are changing, but we can still sell the conservative message if it’s not just coming from the same old white men. The Democrats are so much more politically savvy on this issue than the GOP is–they kicked our butts on it in 2012 and they’ll do it again in 2016 if we don’t actively try to broaden our base.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        It appears we’re in the first stages of what happened to the GOP when it adopted its southern strategy, and damaged itself for a full generation (and still counting) with respect to most African American’s voters. Except that this time its Hispanics, and worse for the GOP in that there isn’t even any significant payoff in it (unless keeping those already in the tent from bolting, rather than bringing people into the tent, is payoff).

        It’s quite the Catch-22, and it’s getting worse and worse. Who could of guessed in 2002 that Saxby Chambliss would be too liberal to consider running as an incumbent in 2014?

        • Harry says:

          You know a lot of first, second third etc. generation Hispanics are quite sympathetic with the GOP goals of securing the borders, removing criminal elements, and assuring that there’s a merit test on green cards.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      The problem with relying on the repeal strategy is that after four years and fifty votes there is no replace, and there isn’t going to be one either.

      • Harry says:

        Never say never. Depends on if the GOP can elect a president in 2016. The way Obama and his minions are performing I’d say the chances are pretty good.

Comments are closed.