Congressman breaks term-limits pledge, runs again, unopposed

[Freddie Stubbs]

JEFFREY McMURRAY

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - When first running for Congress in 1992, Nathan Deal told voters that if they elected him six times, he wouldn't seek re-election in 2004.

As it turns out, he's running again.

When qualifying ended last week, nobody but the Republican incumbent signed up to run in Georgia's 10th District. That means if he gets even one vote, Deal will be back for his 13th year in the U.S. House despite a pledge to limit himself to 12.

"Ultimately the question of term limits is up to the voters," Deal said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press. "I was encouraged by many of my supporters to run again, and I think, to some extent, the fact I'm fortunate not to have opposition indicates there's support for my continuing to serve."

more: http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/8596928.htm

[aquart]

1. Why is he unopposed?

Are there no Democrats in Georgia?

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. His district is overwealmingly Republican

Gore only got 28% of the vote there in 2000. That was also the last year that Democrat even ran against Deal. The Democrat, James Harrington, only managed to get 25% of the vote.

[flaminbats]

3. This isn't the only promise he has broken...

Nathan Deal
In 1992, the Sierra Club made the mistake of supporting Nathan Deal, whose beautiful North Georgia district includes the Blue Ridge Mountains and the beginning of the Appalachian Trail. Once elected, Deal climbed aboard the War on the Environment juggernaut and his LCV score nosedived to a dismal 15 percent. Despite coming from the most heavily forested district of his state, he voted for the "logging without laws" salvage rider (see Field Truths ). Despite his Ninth District's famous waterfalls and whitewater rivers, he voted to weaken the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1994 and the Clean Water Act in 1995.

With the political winds now shifting, Deal wants to have it both ways. He started out as a Democrat, then switched to a Republican. After cosponsoring the extreme Young-Pombo rewrite of the Endangered Species Act, he also put his name to the much-improved compromise attempt by Gilchrest-Saxon. He's guessing the voters won't care--but they can tell a bad Deal when they see one.

Nathan Deal responded to rumors in 1994 that he might switch parties by saying "I don't think you can run with one party label and then, after the election, change parties. I don't think its honest." He would switch parties the April after he won his election with 58% of the vote, and the after the House Democratic Leadership even embraced his Blue Dog welfare reform plan! Does this make Nathan an honest Republican or just another dishonest politician?