President Obama Endorses Nunn

President Obama took to the airwaves this afternoon to endorse Michelle Nunn. Unsurprisingly, Republicans have pounced on the quote and exclaimed a Michelle Nunn victory will usher in a new era of liberal darkness.

You can listen to the audio here or read the quote below:

OBAMA:“And if Michelle Nunn wins, that means that Democrats keep control of the Senate, and that means we can keep on doing some good work. So it is critically important to make sure that folks vote.”

The Republican National Committee spokesman, Rob Lockwood, had this to say:

President Obama made it very clear: a vote for Michelle Nunn is a vote for the Obama Agenda. For months we’ve said that a vote for Nunn was a vote to rubberstamp the Obama Agenda, and President Obama has now confirmed that accusation to be absolutely true.

President Obama gave Democrats nationwide a headache when he proclaimed Democratic candidates that avoid him are actually supporters of him and his agenda. To top that off, Nunn recently admitted she voted for President Obama in 2012.

While Nunn is not rolling out the red carpet for the President, she has surprised me with how closely she is willing to associate herself with Obama in the past two weeks. I am eager to read what–if any–ramifications the commenters think Obama’s endorsement will have on the Nunn campaign.

In related news, the AJC’s Daniel Malloy reports that David Perdue is wasting no time using Obama’s words on the campaign trail.


  1. Three Jack says:

    This may be the ticket to no runoff. Thank you Obama, best thing you’ve done since assuming office.

  2. gcp says:

    And also for the highpoint of her campaign we now have dad, sudden Sam Nunn, praising her independent mindedness. Question; if she is so independent where exactly does she differ from Obama and the dems?

  3. Rich says:

    Why the excitement? They’ve been associating Nunn with Obama all along. Is confirming they weren’t lying that big of a deal?

  4. lehshead says:

    Reminds me of Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox at the Briar Patch (Whatever you do Brer Fox just don’t throw me in that briar patch). Purdue’s camp will demonize POTUS and the African American community already energized will turn out in higher numbers. 32% of early voting at this point and if that holds on election day Nunn wins.

    • tribeca says:

      The Constitution does guarantee equal protection, which as an increasing number of courts are finding, includes the right to marry.

      • Harry says:

        I don’t believe most people agree with such a “finding”, including significant numbers of black voters.

        • HueyMahl says:

          Your beliefs really have nothing to do with it. It is a legal conclusion.

          And it is the morally right thing to do.

          But Haters gonna Hate, so go ahead and tell me how I am wrong.

        • tribeca says:

          I think I’m going to trust the legal reasoning and interpretations of well-educated judges/attorneys over some dude that blogs at a place called “Godfather Politics.”

        • Bobloblaw says:

          black people dont care. Many blacks are socially conservative but it doesnt drive their voting. Though the few black voters who do vote GOP are uber conservative on social issues. Which is why it is odd for people who think the way the GOP can win is by tossing social issues. That might appeal to some moderate whites, but it will result in LESS minority votes. In Ohio in 2004, GW Bush got 16% of the black vote. SSM was on the ballot in OH that year. No coincidence

          • Dave Bearse says:

            And many whites are sympathetic to populism, but social issues drive their voting.

            Social issues took the GOP into the majority, but they’ve become a Catch-22. Can’t hold a shrinking base without ’em, and can win new support with ’em.

      • gcp says:

        Quite right, homosexuals do have a right to marry, they just have to marry a member of the opposite sex, as do heterosexuals.

      • joejohns says:

        So does the constitution guarantee plural marriage?…a 3 person marriage?…a 5 person marriage? Father-son marriage? Mother-daughter marriage? Uncle-neice marriage? Since we’re redefining marriage, I’m curious as to what the limits are? Can there be any limits since everyone now has the right to “marry” whomever they love? Certainly there’s no public policy reason to deny a father from marrying his son?…they love each other and thats all that counts, right?

    • Will Durant says:

      This is according to a website run by “Christian Worldview Communications, LLC. Founded in 2006 by Gary DeMar and Brandon Vallorani, Vision to America exists to help America return to our Founding Father’s vision for a Christian Republic.”

      Gary DeMar quote:
      “All government requires a reference point. If God is to be pleased by men, the Bible must become the foundation of all their governments, including civil government. This means that Biblical law must be made the foundation of all righteous judgment in every government: personal (self government), ecclesiastical, familial, and civil.”

      Suffice it to say their constitutional view bears little resemblance to what is actually contained within the document.

        • Will Durant says:

          No it is not just my opinion that Biblical law is not mentioned in the US Constitution. I can read. In some of his writing however DeMar has opined that he is the one who wishes to discard the Constitution. From the Southern Poverty Law Center we get this:

          Gary DeMar, American Vision is one of the primary exponents of the doctrine of “Christian Reconstruction” — the idea that the U.S. was founded as a “Christian nation” and that its democracy should be replaced with a theocratic government based on Old Testament law. As a practical matter, that means American Vision, which describes its goal as “restor[ing] America’s Biblical foundation,” backs the death penalty for practicing homosexuals. DeMar has modified that dictum slightly in the past, saying that homosexuals wouldn’t all be executed under a “reconstructed” government, but that he did believe that the occasional execution of “sodomites” would serve society well because “the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet.”

    • Jon Richards says:

      Hi, Harry.

      I’m trying to figure out what this post has to do with same sex marriage. I mean, I know the post is about an Obama endorsement, and that Obama had something to say about SSM, but if you use that logic, then just about anything is connected to everything else faster than you can say Kevin Bacon.

      So what you have here is a threadjack, and readers and commenters who look at this post expecting to see a lively discussion on how an Obama endorsement might affect the Senate race see something else entirely.

      Also, this isn’t the first time you’ve interjected this topic into unrelated posts recently. And the editors have noticed it.

      As I mentioned to a commenter who is no longer with us, a friendly reminder like this is much better than the alternative. And now that George has decided to accept you, we would hate to see you have to leave.

  5. MattMD says:

    “To top that off, Nunn recently admitted she voted for President Obama in 2012.”

    How is this at all surprising? I’m pretty sure most Democrats voted for Obama in 2012.

    • Annnnnnd when did it become a ‘requirement’ for people to release their election voting record? I thought ballots were private for a reason? This is all smoke and mirrors without the smoke…

      Instead of smoke, I smell desperation.

  6. NoTeabagging says:

    As long as we have an obstructionist two party system, it does not matter who gets elected or what the “majority” party is. Each party spends all energy keeping the other party from accomplishing anything. Neither do “good work” because too many only want party branded legislative wins.

    End the two party system. Make all legislators individually accountable.

    • Will Durant says:

      Non-partisan primaries open to all comers who pay the fees. Top 2 to General Election, Hell, call it the Championship Round or Super Runoff, or the like. Maybe the sports nuts will get off of the couch. INSIST that your representative knows this is what you want on the ballot as a constitutional amendment in lieu of slush funds being attached to traffic tickets. Both parties will fight to keep taxpayers paying for partisan primaries and runoffs galore so that 5% of the people are making the ultimate votes that count in the end.

      • Bobloblaw says:

        I agree with that. I cant stand what California has become, but the Top Two Rule is a great idea. And unlike LA’s Jungle Primary, I think even if one candidate gets 50% plus 1, they still have to proceed to the general election not win outright. Some congressional districts would end up being R v R or D v D.

        • You wonder if Ga had a California style system if Handel wouldn’t have tried to run as the moderate to outcompete Nunn for the second spot, with the rest of the gang going after each other to be the most conservative.

          • Bobloblaw says:

            anything is possible in Top Two. Though with 31% black the Dem would be guaranteed that much of the vote.

            The idea of Top Two is what youre suggesting, to move candidates to the center. While correlation isnt causation the GOP candidate in CA this time is fairly centrist. He’ll still lose by 20

Comments are closed.