Karen Handel Endorses Nathan Deal Again

Sandra DealYes, again.

It seems to be lost on some that Karen Handel endorsed Nathan Deal in 2010 at the end of the GOP primary.  Yet there have been…lingering tensions within the camps of supporters of each since that time, and as such, the 2014 endorsement of Handel for Deal was a bit more public and central to the theme of the day.

First Lady Sandra Deal introduced Handel, and made the most direct references to the recent unpleasantness.  Handel, speaking before the Governor, was gracious and forward looking, offering that “there is too much at stake to let our past dictate our future” and that this “was not the time to take a chance on anyone that is untested and unproven.”

Deal’s remarks shared praise toward Handel as a “reform minded and results oriented” leader.  Deal was flanked by female GOP activists and elected legislators such as Senator Rene Unterman, Representatives Sharon Cooper, Lynn Riley, and Mandi Ballinger, and former Congressional Candidates Tricia Pridemore and Donna Sheldon.

In Q&A afterward, Deal used a few of the questions to take aim directly at Carter, asking how the promises he was making would be paid for.  My guess is that is perhaps a preview of what we may be hearing from the debate in Perry tomorrow evening.

Jason Carter’s campaign had assembled a a crowd for a counter-response.  Unfortunately, their press avail was handled quickly and off to the side while many of the folks from the Deal rally were doing one on one’s so I missed the counter message.  Carter’s folks did believe that Deal was “just plain wrong” when discussing who started the negative ads – a debate that seems universal to every race and yet never seems to be settled by election day.

Net-net, it appeared to be a good day for the Governor.  Days when an additional million dollars of assistance coming from the RGA usually are.

18 comments

  1. NoTeabagging says:

    Thanks Charlie. Another reminder that I will never take Karen Handel seriously. It also reminds me to avoid supporting any party that viciously bashes its own members in character assassination campaigns.

  2. Three Jack says:

    Sorry to see this happen again. Will she apply the same “there is too much at stake to let our past dictate our future” to endorse Perdue?

    It really is amazing how people will overlook numerous ethically challenged actions to remain a loyal GOPer or dem. This is yet another reason so many folks have become disenchanted with politicians and the BS they spew. For once it would be nice to see a defeated candidate simply say she or he cannot in good conscious support a crook no matter how much favor might be gained. But alas this is politics and those in the game will stoop to all levels of low to remain in good standing with their respective party leaders.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      Alas. We, the peasants, are left voting for the least offensive candidates or voting against the most offensive candidates. It really sucks that those are my main criteria these days.

  3. Bull Moose says:

    I was stunned speechless when I heard this news earlier today.

    It’s easy for me, or others for that matter, to sit back and assume why Karen made this decision was or what was behind her reasoning. Frankly, I don’t pretend to have a clue. I’m very surprised and disappointed. I suppose the question here is, do the ends justify the means? Each person has their own set of values that they will apply to that question, and apparently, depending on the politics of the day, those too are subject to change.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      Mudslinging campaign. Kiss and make up. Hope for a cushy, overpaid job created for you at GPTV?

    • Cowabunga says:

      Been a life-long Republican. I’m voting for Jason Carter because I’m disgusted with lies, deceit and corruption. If this is the face of the GAGOP then God help us.

  4. So the majority of voters’ two responses will be “who?” followed by “she doesn’t seem to like this guy.”

    I wonder if Deal was asked how Carter can simultaneously be opposed to a huge increase in education funding while also trying to “con” us into voting for him so he can…raise taxes and spend more money?

  5. xdog says:

    Party uber alles. The rest of the show highlights how worried gopers are about their dwindling share of women’s votes.

  6. Baker says:

    Wow. Lots of Deal and Handel fans around these parts nowadays huh?

    If Deal didn’t have CSX freight worth of ethical baggage, maybe he’d be up 15 points and the RGA could ship that money to the dude in Illinois, Bruce Rauner, running against the Dem Pat Quinn.

    I know very little about him but if Repubs want to compete on a national scale in the long run, forever giving the Dems like 4 of 5 of the largest states in the nation seems like poor strategy. Clearly Illinois is very unlikely to red in 2016 but at this point, just introducing conservatism back to the voters of Illinois is a decent start.

  7. Trey A. says:

    Sounds a lot like the Kasim Reed “endorsement” of Jason Carter.

    Except Kasim “held his nose” to endorse a guy he doesn’t particularly like because Carter refuses to align with his brand of dirty politics. For Handel, it’s the other way around.

  8. Charlie says:

    From Karen’s Facebook:

    I’ve gotten some questions about my endorsement of Nathan Deal for re-election. Rather than having people speculate about why, let me tell you directly: Governor Deal has earned my support based on his accomplishments over the past 4 years. Because of the Gov’s work to keep taxes low and minimize regs, over 300,000 new jobs have been created. Education is another big issue. The facts are that Gov Deal ensure that education funding got its biggest investment in 7 years, and even during the lean years when state revenues were down, Gov Deal held the line on education funding. Teacher furlough days were ended, and teachers even rec’d pay raises.
    Also, this election has long-term consequences for the GOP. If the GOP loses the Gov’s race, it means that the next chance for the GOP to win the Governorship would likely not be until 2022 … yes, 2022. We’d also have a D as Gov with R’s in the majority of the legislature — a recipe for the same kind of gridlock we have in Washington. There are also important judicial appointments. Two GA Supreme Court Justices will age out in the next 4 years. The Governor makes these appointments. Then there’s the US Senate — remember Zell Miller was a gubernatorial appointment.
    Finally, there’s the issue of experience. These are troubling times in our country, and we need to the steady hand of maturity and experience leading our state — not the unevenness that almost always comes with youth and inexperience.
    So, for these reasons, I endorse Nathan Deal for re-election as Governor of Georgia.

    • Three Jack says:

      Sorry, not buying it other than the most truthful statement in her post – “this election has long-term consequences for the GOP.” Indeed. If the GOP re-elects a known crook determined to enrich himself, family and friends while in office, then the GOP will suffer long term. Look what this guy has done knowing he would face voters again. Now imagine what he will do if re-elected knowing that he will never face voters again.

      Bad decision by Karen even if she ends up being rewarded with a cush government job after the election.

    • I think most voters would think having (one party) as Gov and (the other party) in the majority of the legislature is a feature, not a bug.

      But it’s nice to know that she’s honest about where the gridlock is coming from – the Republicans in Congress. And she was eager to contribute to that gridlock.

    • David C says:

      It’s really kind of shocking to me that the Deal / GAGOP camps really are rolling out “Johnny Isakson could die! Vote Deal!” as an actual message. It’s really, really morbid.

      As to Zell being a gubernatorial appointment, he still had to face the voters just four months later, and they voted him in for a full term by a landslide even as Bush won the state by 15 points. If Barnes had appointed a Republican, and Zell ran for the seat, Zell would have won just the same. If the laws were different, and there was a quick special election that Zell ran in, Zell would have won the seat. If Zell decided to run against Coverdell in 1998 as his term as Governor was ending instead of retiring, he probably would have won the seat and Pierre Howard would have been the one week governor. Complaining that Zell was a gubernatorial appointee is just silly. And thinking the GA Dems have anyone on their bench right now who could pull any of that off is also silly.

      Beyond that, the idea that the GOP couldn’t make Jason Carter a 1 term governor, coming after he made Nathan Deal a 1 term governor just seems silly to me as well. It’s still a state more red than purple, and they certainly have a plenty deep bench.

      • Cowabunga says:

        About choked on my cookies on that one. You’ve got a point though. It’s sad that Karen must now think nothing of integrity or proper ethics. The GAGOP is sinking fast and it’s not good picture.

        It is pretty telling, though, that she still cannot say he is a man of good character with impeccable ethics.

    • NoTeabagging says:

      I also find Karen’s teal leaves reading a bit strange. Jobs creation due to low taxes and minimum “regs”? What next Karen, Fracking for Jobs? Why not bring back mortgage scams to boost the home building economy?
      She accepts gridlock as inevitable unless there is one party control? She predicts instant 8 year term for the next elected Governor? and that creepy Senator appointment tag?

      I don’t think she is relying on “maturity and experience” to lead.
      More likely it is the adage , “Old Age and Treachery beat Youth and Stamina.”

Comments are closed.