Barnes and Deal

The AJC today had long essays on Roy Barnes and Nathan Deal, written by staff writers and purported to be objective analysis of their campaigns, their strengths and weaknesses. With Barnes they focused on his prior term as governor and his self-acknowledged problems because he tried to muscle through legislation and changes without building the needed coalitions and negotiating support. They didn't put it this way but the idea was that he was too successful in using his power and thus made enemies and evoked backlash.

Deal was portrayed primarily as a quiet, steady, go-along guy who doesn't cause waves or accomplish much but was always a reliable conservative vote. In all his 30 years in politics, he has few accomplishments to show, although they did find that he generally does a good job taking care of his constituents and getting funding for his district. His accomplishments as subcommittee chair were primarily obstructing liberal programs. He would call it cutting federal spending. His ethical and financial troubles were addressed, including his defensive tactics of being a father who helps his children.

But here was the disturbing end of the article, addressing all the charges of corruption and using improper influence for personal advantage:

Deal denies any wrongdoing. He chalks the ethics allegations up to election year politics. "I had never had any allegations about anything until I decided to run for governor," Deal said. "Then all of the sudden people want to make issues about things that I don't think have any relevancy for a governor's race."

HUH ??

You mean pulling strings to keep a sweetheart financial deal for his car salvage company instead of having to compete for a government contract worth nearly half a million a year? And repeatedly failing to properly file expense claims? And failing to report various assets and debts on his campaign financial reports? And, for that matter, being an interested party in a bankruptcy claim that failed to disclose that the principle had had a previous bankruptcy? And, for that matter, making utterly foolish loans to his kids whose failing business was ill-conceived from the start?

Read carefully and note that he does not say "I did nothing wrong." He says, "I never had any allegations . . ." That's consistent with saying that "nobody noticed I was doing something wrong" until I ran for governor. And then he makes the gratuitous comment that, anyway, these things don't have any relevance now.

None of that is relevant to choosing our next governor? What are you smoking???

Seems to me that Deal's in a hard place on this latter issue about the loans to his kids: either he admits that he didn't use good business sense in taking on so much debt obligation; or he admits that he knew it but didn't worry because he knows how to pull strings to take care of financial woes -- like having friends on bank boards that will give him easy money access.

Well, on second though, the voters seem quite willing to overlook all that, dazzled by the cards he played: the "good father who helps his kids" card and the "I've had financial setbacks because of the economy, just like all the rest of you" card.

And as to "I never had any allegations:" Let us remind you, Little Nathan, that the ethics arm of Congress did make allegations, and you escaped a formal investigation only by resigning at the 11th hour, timing it perfectly to stay just long enough to vote against health care reform but escape before the opening of an ethics investigation.

And you will likely be our next governor.

Ralph