Deal's deal #2

The plot thickens in the matter of Nathan Deal's financial difficulties and his habit of skating on thin ice, both financially and ethically. Is this what Georgians want in a governor, especially in these parlous financial times?

A poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling Research for a group of newspapers in Georgia shows Deal's lead over Roy Barnes has narrowed to 45 to 41, with +/- 4% margin of error. And the poll was conducted before the latest revelations in the family bankruptcy story emerged today.

To recap: in 2005, Deal and his wife invested $2 million in a new business venture by their daughter and son-in-law. In addition they co-signed loans for the business totally another $2+ million. The business failed. The daughter/son-in-law filed and were granted bankruptcy protection from creditors, leaving the Deals with their own loss of $2M plus now being responsible for the $2.3M in the business loans.

Until yesterday, Deal had some early success in containing the political fallout by painting himself as a family-values kind of guy who helps out his kids and meets his responsibilities. Further, he tried to turn it to advantage with the image of him as struggling financially just like all Georgians right now -- the good father, provider, and stand-by-your-responsibilities good citizen who doesn't expect a government bail out. Any hard-working Georgian could relate to that, no?

Yes, but what about the matter of prudent business sense and wise judgment? Things you would think are important in a governor. Guaranteeing loans that exceed your own total assets does not sound like prudent business sense and wise judgment. Unless you know, of course, that your political influence makes it easy for you to cut special deals and make up any financial loss with ease.

News analysts have said that his assets, including his two homes, are worth less than the loans that will come due in January. Questions are now being raised as well about Deal's actions that led to an ethics investigation into his role in ensuring the continuation of a state program that awarded him a non competitive monopoly for his salvage-car storage business. Now we know that the family financial troubles were ongoing at that time. He could not have afforded to lose the $300,000 per year this business brought in from that state contract. Deal maintains that he is not insolvent and that he will meet his responsibilities without going into bankruptcy himself.

How? He has not said.

But yesterday, a new wrinkle. It seems that son-in-law Clinton Wilder had previously filed for bankruptcy for a different business in November 2001. Not only did this make him ineligible for a repeat bankruptcy proceeding within eight years (the current one was filed in July 2009), but he falsified his application by answering "no" on the application question about any previous fillings within the past 8 years. See the thin ice? You know, it had been almost eight years -- but not quite. And the law is pretty specific.

Of course, this was Wilder, not Deal; and it has not yet been revealed if/when Deal knew about the previous bankruptcy. But shouldn't he have known when he cosigned those loans in 2005? Or did Wilder lie about his previous bankruptcy on those applications too? And lie to his father-in-law who was investing his own money and reputation along with him? Was the first bankruptcy before Wilder married into the family? We don't yet know, but that information should emerge very soon.

Any way you slice it, it looks bad for Deal and his chances to win the election. In his AJC column this week, Jay Bookman raises the pertinent question that should be taken seriously by all Republican voters. In all the smoke screen over how responsible Deal is in saying he will pay off the loans, how responsible was he not to have revealed this debt prior to the primary election, which he won only by a hair? It's quite likely that he would not have won, and Republicans would have a candidate that they liked almost as much, but without this baggage going into the general election.

Is this what you want in a governor? Someone who skates on thin ice both financially and ethically, who even uses smear tactics against a wonderful support group for gay youth in order to garner votes from the anti-gay crowd, which he would have gotten anyway?

Now I am fired up about the Georgia governor's election, and I think Roy Barnes has a pretty good chance of winning it.

Ralph

Joke: Fox = "Fair and balanced"

It's called the Fox News Channel, and they claim to present news that is "fair and balanced." That has never fooled anyone who didn't want to be fooled, or who was so blinded by their own biases that they wouldn't know fair and balanced from a corkscrew.

But now it is simply ludicrous.

Look who gets their microphone: Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin. Please tell us exactly who it is that balances off this quartet.

Hannity and Palin openly endorse political candidates. Karl Rove makes no secret of the fact that he is busy raising $50 million for the GOP campaign. And Glenn Beck's unrelenting anti-Obama rants go beyond politics and into personal defamation.

Now, Sarah Palin has virtually announced that Fox is the mouthpiece for conservative politicians. Her advice to newly nominated Christine O'Donnell: "Speak through Fox News."

Sean Hannity questioned O'Donnell about going on other new outlets: "[W]hy have you decided to subject yourself to the -- what I would argue probably biased, tough questions and obviously the advancement of some of the attacks against you?"

Not that we didn't know this already. The appalling thing is that they no longer feel they need to try to disguise it. It's now official: Fox News Channel is the mouthpiece for conservatives who don't want you to hear anything but their message.

Given their ratings -- they make it entertaining enough and stir up passions enough to ensure a mass audience; add in the GOP friendly deregulation of campaign cash from corporations, and the future for liberal/progressive government looks bleak.

Ralph

Candor from Karl

Karl Rove speaketh out of both sides of his mouth -- and, in doing so, was remarkably candid, in effect saying that competence is less important than control of the senate.

One day after nutty Christine O'Donnell won the Republican senatorial primary in Delaware, Karl Rove said:

"It does conservatives little good to support candidates who at the end of the day -- while they may be conservative in their public statements -- do not evince the characteristics of rectitude, truthfulness and sincerity of character that the voters are looking for. . . . I mean, there were a lot of nutty things she has been saying that just simply don't add up."

That was yesterday. Today on Fox News, where he is a paid commentator, he endorsed this same "nutty lady" for the United States Senate.

So, how did Karl explain himself? Pushed by host Martha MacCallum to reconcile his remarks, he wiggled out of it this way:

Martha, Martha, my job as a Fox analyst is to give the best insights. She's eleven points behind in the Rassmussen poll behind the Democrat nominee Coons. So my job as a Fox analyst is to call it as I see it. My job is not to be a cheerleader for every Republican. It's to call it as I see it. Now, I've got a different role outside my Fox role, and that's where I'm helping to raise $50 million to help elect Republicans to the Senate. But when I come on Fox, you and your viewers expect me to shoot straight with you and that's what I was doing that night. And with all due respect, she's eleven points down -- that's not out of the game, but she's got to make up ground and make up ground quickly.

OK. Fair enough, Karl. Let's just be clear about what you're saying. You don't take back your comments that she says nutty things. It's just that you'd rather have a Republican senator who says nutty things (and worse, is a troglodyte bigot) than to lose a seat. After all, she could be the 60th vote that turns control over to the Repubicans.

I admire the candor. If the tables were reversed, would I endorse an extreme left wing zealot if it meant the difference in keeping control of the senate? Probably. Not to run as president, let's hope, or to be in charge of Homeland Security, say, but as one among 50 senators? -- Maybe.

Ralph

Dodd's egregious attacks on Warren

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) is conspicuous in his attacks on Elizabeth Warren, ever since she began to be mentioned as the best person to head up the new middle class Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). And he's at it again today -- never missing an opportunity to point out that she would not be confirmable by the Senate and now downplaying the importance of the job she is about to be appointed for -- as special adviser to the president in charge of setting up this new protection bureau. This is supposedly a compromise "temporary" appointment to get around having to get her confirmed. The temporary position can go as long as Obama wants it to.

No doubt, she is the best person. It was her idea, she outlined the plan for the bureau, and no one has been a better champion of the middle class and ensuring their financial protection than she during the Obama administration thus far.

So what's Chris Dodd's problem with her? You would think he was a Republican, the way her carries on about it. First he said that she wasn't a good manager; then he said she couldn't be confirmed; now he's saying this isn't a very important post she's being given -- after all, it's only temporary, and then reminding people she couldn't be confirmed for a permanent position.

It's one thing to conclude, as Obama's team apparent has, that politically it would be a difficult appointment to get through the filibuster-happy Republican opposition in the Senate. But that's a fact of practicality. Dodd goes beyond that and goes out of his way -- egregiously so -- to throw up some objection every time her name appears in the news. It's time to call him on his objectionable behavior.

All I know is that Warren has the fierce opposition of the business community -- because she is such an effective spokesperson for middle class protection. No wonder they don't want her.

I can only conclude -- and this is bolstered by looking at how much campaign money Dodd has gotten from financial interests, naturally as Chair of the Senate Finance Committee -- that he is paying off debts to the business community.

But, come on, Dodd. You aren't even running for re-election -- because you knew you couldn't win. So just shut up already. Let Obama find a way to appoint the person that would, hands down, be the best person for the job. Besides that simple fact, which is more than enough, it is also true that her appointment will restore a bit of faith in those of us who feel Obama has leaned too far toward the business community and away from the people's interests.

You're only making yourself look bad, Chris. Really bad. You are a prime example how good people get corrupted by the easy money in politics.

Ralph

Schadenfreude - Deal's deal

Like most of us, I am not above a bit of glee at the misery of mine enemies. So today's headlines about Republican gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal's financial difficulties gave me that feeling: it couldn't have happened to a more deserving "corrupt bigot," to use the phrase that the president of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans did in an email to me about Deal's smear of the wonderful Youth Pride group that provides vital social and supportive services to gay youth. This gay Republican is the treasurer of the Board of Youth Pride, and he was deeply offended by Deal's ugly smear attack on his primary opponent, simply because as a former county commissioner she had voted for funds to support this group. Deal was shamelessly playing the anti-gay vote card.

If you aren't a local newspaper reader, here's the gist of his current financial difficulties:

Back in 2005, Deal and his wife invested $2 million to help their daughter and son-in-law start an outdoor sporting supply business; they also co-signed loans for the business. The business has failed, the daughter and son-in-law have declared bankruptcy, leaving the Deals responsible for the loans as well as having lost their $2M investment. Their obligations exceed the total value of their assets, chiefly two homes. They are effectively insolvent. And the loans come due just after Deal would take office in January, if elected.

There is no good solution from his political standpoint. He could declare bankruptcy himself. Or he could sell his homes and negotiate with the banks to forgive the remainder of the loans. If a benefactor came forward to lend him the money, that would raise serious questions of quid pro quo.

Aside from the political fallout of how he handles this, it seems to be a serious error in judgment for someone who wants to be responsible for the entire financial management of the state of Georgia. One doesn't always use the best judgment when indulging a family member who asks for financial help. But it goes beyond that. As the business was failing, they turned to a local bank for refinancing and were able to take advantage of a failing bank to get loans without sufficient collateral. Was there undue influence there? The bank has since failed and been taken over by someone else.

Any way you slice and spin this, it looks bad for the little boy I knew in my home town of Sandersville some 60 years ago and whose mother taught the other second grade class across the hall from mine. Mrs. Deal was a nice lady but not as pretty as my teacher, Miss Perkins. But she was also a straight arrow type disciplinarian who demanded her students do the right thing. I think she would spank Nathan, first for smearing a worthy organization and possibly endangering the kids who go there; and second for being so irresponsible with money. And this on top of the questionable influence-wielding for the benefit of his own car salvage lot business that had him under investigation by the House ethics committee just before he resigned to run for governor.

Bottom line: he was under investigation for one business deal of his own and now he either has to default on loans or declare bankruptcy for another bad business judgment call.

Shame on you , Little Nathan. You are not fit to be our governor. Big advantage to his Democratic opponent and better man, Roy Barnes.

Ralph

"Peace is about getting people to disagree without killing each other."

Driving back from St. George Island, somewhere in southwest Georgia on Sunday afternoon, I picked up an NPR radio station and heard an interview with Lord John Alderdice, the Irish psychitrist and psychoanalyst, liberal member of the British Parliament, who was a key negotiator in the 1998 Belfast Agreement that brought some measure of peace to Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants had been killing each other in a more than 30 year long struggle over bitter divisions that began 800 years ago.

He is now reportedly being consulted by those working for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I was deeply impressed by his wisdom and by his articulate and concise way of expressing simple but profound truths about human conflicts and how to work for peace. The quote in my headline is his.

I wanted to capture as much as I could of what he said -- while driving at 75 down the expressway and scribbling on a pad without looking at what I was writing. Of course, now I can hardly make out what I wrote.

I suppose the gist of it is that he doesn't approach negotiating with enemies as a power play, or even as a political balance of power (like Henry Kissinger, for example) but by treating people with respect, trying to understand what causes their pain or fear, and -- above all -- avoiding humiliating your adversary.

What causes people to resort to terrorism is feeling aggrieved and humiliated. And the humiliation is the important difference: people can feel aggrieved and put up resistance, even fight you. But if you humiliate them, they will resort to terrorism, which he defines as asymmetric warfare.

Ralph

Newt is a dangerous man #2

Further proof that Newt Gingrich has thoroughly demeaned himself by taking his authoritative-sounding smear campaign to the gutter. He is dangerous because he sounds so much like he knows what he's talking about. The following is so incredibly wrong-headed, however, that maybe he'll lose that aura of knowledge.

Here's from Sam Stein's blog on Huffington Post:

Fueling the myth mongering that Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in a recent interview that the president may follow a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview.

Speaking to the National Review, Gingrich pointed to a recent Forbes article by conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza which attempted to trace the origins of Obama's personal and political philosophies.

"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asked. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

"This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president," Gingrich added.

"I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating -- none of which was true," Gingrich continues. "In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve. ... He was authentically dishonest."

Considering D'Souza's and Gingrich's prominence within conservative intellectual circles, it stands to reason that their article and interview respectively, will be much discussed in the week ahead. Certainly, it appears, Democrats aren't shying away from pointing to the content as evidence that the GOP is top-heavy with extreme rhetoric and elements.

"This crushes the hopes of those who thought Gingrich could bring ideas instead of smears to what the GOP was offering," said DNC Press Secretary Hari Sevugan. "He's not a reasonable man that some thought he could be. He's proven he's just like the rest of them. With a worldview shaped by the most radical and fringe elements of the Republican Party, which are more dominant with each passing day."

To me, Gingrich's argument is patently absurd. But I think Newt is absurd. How would someone who thinks Newt knows what he's talking about react? It could be pretty scary. Add him to the crazy talk from Beck and Palin -- and you could just add fuel to the fire.

Ralph