So, it was no great surprise that he might give a more reasonable appraisal of his party's nominee for governor. But it was a surprise to me how candid he was about Deal's limitations and ethical lapses.
He begins by assuming that Deal is going to be the next governor, and he outlines some questions that Deal should plan to answer:
Given his lackluster years in Congress, will he be able to deal with a legislature that is often hostile to the governor's agenda? Given his attempts to get around any government regulations concerning his own business, how will he justify enforcing such regulations as governor? Since he considered it appropriate for him as a congressman (ie a part of the federal government) to travel to Georgia to protest local control over a contract that affects him personally, will he as governor push for local/state autonomy against federal control?
These are pointed questions to be coming from a member of Deal's own party, and they are framed by Wingfield's telling of Deal's questionable behavior in the past.
In fact, he begins his article by saying that Nathan Deal had been his congressman for 12 years, and when Deal announced his intention to run for governor, "I found I couldn't name a single thing he had done while in Washington. Not one."
He goes on:
If he does win, it will happen despite his thin congressional record and thick paper trail of mixing public office and personal business interests in a way that is questionable at best.That's pretty strong stuff coming from a supposed supporter -- or at least a fellow conservative. Let's hope enough people agree with him that he won't actually become our next governor.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment