Handel Confirms Four #GA6 Debates
We have received a press release from Karen Handel’s campaign announcing four confirmed debates between her and Jon Ossoff. Three of the four debates will be televised.
Mrs. Handel stated: “I look forward to several robust debates on the issues so that the people of the 6th District can be informed about the stark contrast between my record of results, and my opponent’s false claims and flimsy resume.”
The Handel campaign also stated: “Karen is looking forward to the opportunity to debate Jon Ossoff and his ever-changing policy positions and inflated expertise. The Handel campaign calls on Jon Ossoff to confirm the debates, as he has promised, and give the voters of the 6th District the opportunity to hear from the candidates. This schedule maximizes that opportunity.”
The debates are:
- WSB TV: June 6, 2017
- WABE/PBA30: June 8, 2017
- CNN/Atlanta Press Club: June 13, 2017
- WSB Radio: June 15, 2017
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Will Mrs. Handel announce her position on climate change and the Paris Accord?
74% of GA06 voters think CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant.
“74% of GA06 voters think CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant.” Then please stop breathing and save us all from your hot air.
Holy sh*t!!! Welcome back,
Senior E!!
Dear Eiger, please reply with respect to a respectful factual inquiry.
Sarcasm and rudeness debase our political conversation and make it hard to find common ground.
Thanks, Terry
I’m sorry to have hurt your overly sensitive feelings. I’m not the one who continues to come to a blog and ask the same question a million times and wonder why Karen Handel doesn’t reply to you. Show up to one of the debates and ask the question. You can say voters care about this issue and I’ll continue to tell you that no, they don’t.
Also, I’m still waiting on that ocean front property in Valdosta I was promised in college to materialize. Still waiting. Meanwhile the guy who invented the internet preaches to me about how terrible I am. I take a bus and a metro to work. He travels by private jet.
Thanks Eiger, but I have a very thick skin. And this is only the second time I’ve mentioned this.
Do you have any idea why she refuses to make a statement of her position? Do you have any idea what she thinks? I am inviting a conversation.
I think someone will ask the question, and if prepared, she’ll have a canned answer that walks the line she needs to walk, which will probly be something like the science is still unclear, but she will appropriately follow the science. On another post, someone else offered a different version of thte line that she should walk. Regardless, a vague prescription will probly be all that she needs to get by the issue.
It’s crazy that Andrew and I are agreeing. That should tell you all that you need to know. Taking a hard position on anything during a campaign is usually not smart. The AHCA and climate change are two things that are not the greatest things to campaign on.
People may not like how campaigns are run, but campaigns based on issues that people don’t care about (climate change) aren’t winning campaigns. You have to win to have a chance to govern.
Some people are good at campaigning and not governing. Others are good at governing, but not the running. You have to do both. Talking about an issue that no one cares about is not a good campaign strategy.
I understand Andrew that she is trying to avoid taking a position. But Ossoff has a position on gun control. And he is frequently attacked for it.
I think anyone who wants to be a MOC should have the courage to state their opinion on some of the largest issues of our time.
I want to know what she stands for.
Which is precisely why Congress can’t get anything done. Too many Mocs trying to avoid anything “controversial”. It’s their job to take on hard things!
Voters should demand answers from their representatives. That’s my objective. To get answers, not vote for a party label.
Andrew, I would like to contact you about a possible speaking engagement. Please email me at [email protected].
Did someone ask you to be sensitive? Not rude? ROFL…thats funny. They must not know you very well.
Dude. While I get that you are annoyed that this is a topic that Terry S brings up, it really was rude and disrespectful for you to respond like that. That’s not you sir. You are reasoned and factual when you disagree. Dont change that.
Someone has to step in for Harry everyone once in a while now that he is gone. I apologize that the words I typed hurt someone’s feelings.
someone else around here has the jacka$$ market cornered. You dont need to go that route. I like seeing your thoughtful comments sir! 🙂
Listen, before you say something that actually offends me…Lol!
Thank you for that. I do honestly apologize. I will do better.
This news is more evidence this race is slipping away from her.
More important, ask about her support of the AHCA. She said she would have voted for it. Ask why. She would do well to not come across as smug as that press release implies. She isnt the best debater around.
This is a much better question to ask than about climate change. Because people actually care about health care and the AHCA polls around 12%. This is how I would respond if I were Karen.
Yes, I would have voted for the AHCA. According to a recent HHS report from data collected by the previous administration, premiums have risen in GA by 106% since Obamacare was implemented. They have doubled nationally as well. States like OK, AK and AL have had their premiums tripled. Doing nothing is not a viable solution. Real people are hurting because of the collapse of the exchanges. That has to be addressed. The AHCA does that.
The AHCA also represents the largest tax cut to job creators, small business, in the history of our country. I’ll repeat that. This is the largest tax cut to small business in the history of our country along with being the one of the largest entitlement reform packages in decades. While we are talking about what the AHCA does do, let me address what it does not do. That is not a cut to Medicaid. Only in Washington would someone call a decrease in the increase of spending a cut in overall spending. The AHCA prioritizes Medicaid spending for those that are truly needy without cutting a dime in overall spending. Reductions in the bloated increase in government spending is NOT a cut in funds to Medicaid. Medicaid should be strengthened to take care of the truly vulnerable and that is what the AHCA does.
This bill is far from perfect and I look forward to working to make it better once I’m elected on June 20th and the senate sends a version back to the House.
Eiger, I care about climate change. I have a constitutional right to express that and to ask the candidates in my district about it.
The strategy of burying the issue will not work forever.
A better question is why do you WANT to bury it?
Conservatives and evangelicals also care about climate change.
Look up Katherine Hayhoe.
I understand that you are a single issue voter and will be voting for Ossoff. That is perfectly fine and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. If I were Karen I would answer your question like this.
“I feel the science on climate change is certainly lacking at the moment and is constantly changing. I do believe that humans have had an affect on the climate. This is a given, but to what extent is in question still. We can all do a better job of making sure we leave a cleaner and healthier planet than the one we received for future generations.
I do not however believe that we should as a nation be in the business of shipping jobs overseas because of this. That is what the Paris agreement would do. It would harm the economies of developed nations like ours while allowing countries like China an unfair advantage. That is why I oppose the Paris Climate agreement. When elected to Congress I look forward to working with my colleagues across the isle on this issue. I want real solutions and not a cap and switch plan that harms us and allows China to steal jobs from hard working American.”
The problem Eiger is that is not factually correct. 99 percent of all peer reviewed climate science studies agree that climate change is real, its manmade and its bad.
I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t describe that as “unsettled”.
It’s like arguing cigarettes are good for you.
And there lies the problem. 99 % of studies, 98% of climate scientists, and 75% of voters agree about climate.
It’s difficult to understand why candidates want to claim the science is “unsettled”. Do you have an answer for that?
Thanks. Please vote for Ossoff. I only bang my head against one wall at a time on one issue. Andrew and healthcare is all I care to handle right now. I’m not doing this with you. I’ve said what I wanted to stay. Lea told me to be nice so I’m going to walk away before I tell you to hold your breath again.
Thanks Eiger. You know you aren’t required to reply every time I post? Nor even read what I write?
Enjoy your evening.
Do you still honestly think I comment on things that I have not read?
Article 4, Section 4 states: Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.
Section 5 states: Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 11,
recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for
higher ambition in their actions.
There are other parts that are not great, but these sections allow China which can be considered a developing country to have an economic advantage over the USA. I don’t like that. Of course China likes this agreement. It hurts us if we follow through and helps them.
“China has committed to a 60-65% reduction in carbon intensity” and you honestly believe that?
So what you are saying is that they are already doing all of this without an agreement that hold us to a different standard than China and others? So why again do we need to be a part of it?
By walking away, we give away the power of leading and our seat at the head of the table. We no longer control the direction or the right to make deals in the United States favor. The smaller countries will start to look towards others to help them. In the void, who takes our place at the head of the table?
“y walking away, we give away the power of leading and our seat at the head of the table. We no longer control the direction or the right to make deals in the United States favor. The smaller countries will start to look towards others to help them. In the void, who takes our place at the head of the table?”
That is actually pretty funny. That’s what republicans say about leading with our military around the world against bad actors. But it’s okay to do it with climate change but not with our military against people like Assad? The same argument you make on this can be used to the military. If we don’t act then smaller countries will look to China and Russia for protection and not us. Seems like you may be trying to have it both ways.
Are we leaders or are we not? I honestly agree with you point about leading. What I don’t agree with is that this agreement is as big of a deal as the left wants to make it.
“Having the world’s most important country involved carries significant symbolic weight and creates political pressure for other countries to commit to (and follow through on) their commitments” But that doesn’t apply to the military and stopping bad actors from murdering their citizens?
I don’t think giving up any of the standing of our country on a world stage is okay on any subject. I was not a fan of saying we had a line in the sand and I was really not a fan when we made one but then didn’t do any more then make a deal for the chemical weapons which relied on Russia to confirm it. I can not say what a better course would have been, but staging a football like technical timeout to take an object off the field (which really did need to be done) was not enough. I also think you need defined goals for both the negative and the positive consequence of any action.
As I stated before, I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m a card carrying member of the middle with a lean to the left. I’ve voted for members of both parts. The man I wanted to be our current president didn’t run, and my second choice didn’t win the republican nomination. Assuming I follow a full doctrine of one party over another would be unwise.
Bye Felicia
It really isn’t a burn. And yes I knew what it was the first time you used it. You forget we are the same age and I watched Friday just like you did.
If Karen Handel can say that with feeling I’ll be blown away.
Listen, I know that what your saying is technically true, but my understanding is that by block granting it to the states your putting them in a position where they will not be able to fully fund Medicaid, so on paper it might not be a cut but in action it will be. I mean wasn’t Paul Ryan bragging to Rich Lowry that, they had been dreaming of eliminating entitlements since they were in college and they finally were getting the chance with the AHCA. I don’t know how else to interpret that except that in Paul Ryan’s mind this is the elimination of Medicaid.
“I know that what your saying is technically true, but my understanding is that by block granting it to the states your putting them in a position where they will not be able to fully fund Medicaid.” Under the AHCA will states that expanded Medicaid have to figure out what to do with able bodied individuals without kids? Yes, Medicaid wasn’t intended for them and by adding them to the Medicaid rolls those states are only harming the needy. The AHCA allows states to determine what is best for their patient population. It takes away many of the DC strings that actually cost states more money. That money then can be used to help their needy populations. I will repeat it again because everyone keeps repeating this lie. The AHCA does not cut spending to Medicaid. It simply reduces the increase in spending. More will be spent on Medicaid next year than this year and so forth. Anyone saying otherwise is misinformed or intently trying to mislead you.
So it’s not true that the CBO said that the amount spent on Medicaid would go down by $834 Billion because of the termination of the expanded matching funds and switching to a per capita based cap on payments to the states? I know that the CBO is far from exact but that would be one hell of a whiff. By the way, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling a cut in the increase in spending a cut. People were basing their budgets around that future increase in spending. I don’t understand how you can say that Medicaid is not intended for “able bodied adults without kids” , when a law was passed to include them. What if a state decided that the Medicaid Expansion was right for them?
At the end of the day this is a philosophical difference about the role of Government in Health Care, we don’t really disagree on the facts. I don’t think either of us are going to change the other’s mind. I do think that the last three presidential elections have settled where Americans stand on that.
Obama won in large part on a health care is a human right platform; and so did Trump. Sure, he said he wanted to repeal health care, but that was so he could replace it with something better that would give more people cheaper coverage, he promised he wouldn’t let anybody “die in the street, because they couldn’t get health insurance.” I’d like to see a presidential candidate run on this plan and win.
It’s usual GOP accounting. It’ll be the largest tax cut ever, yet the deficit won’t increase and they’ll be no cuts in spending.
Even the CBO, which is pretty terrible at predicting what will happen, says the AHCA reduces the deficit. Also, how can republicans be accused of both drastic cuts to Medicaid and not cutting anything at the same time? Explain the mental gymnastics in your thought process to get to that conclusion. Please.
“I know that the CBO is far from exact but that would be one hell of a whiff.” They were off on current enrolment in the exchanges by 100%. So yeah. They are good at whiffing. If you think that a cut in the reduction of “projected” increase in spending is a cut then you are right. We will never agree on this.
“I don’t understand how you can say that Medicaid is not intended for “able bodied adults without kids” , when a law was passed to include them.” That was not the original intent of Medicaid. Instead of taking care of the most needy, states now have to stretch their dollars to take care of people that should be able to get private coverage. I simply do not agree with that. Medicaid is to take care of the truly needy. Not millennials living in the parents basement.
Also if I was Ossoff I would respond by saying, that if we’re serious about fixing Health Care, we shouldn’t start off with a huge tax giveaway. We should take the money we do have and fix the problems that exist. Doing nothing or throwing everything in the trash and starting over is a false choice.
“Throwing money at this will not fix it. That is what Obamacare did. Now we are $20 trillion dollars in debt as a country and are still trying to fix the problem that we were told would be fixed by just throwing money at it. It has to stop and I intend on helping to do that.
“I’m not talking about throwing more money at the problem, I’m talking about taking the money we have and figuring out a way to spend it better.”
Just as throwing money to the military isn’t going to protect us from terrorism.
Agreed. Where have I ever said it would?
Didn’t say that you did—just drawing a parallel, though the comment could be understood to have that implication.
I’ve already explained multiple times why the 24 million number is a lie. There aren’t even 24 million people covered by Obamacare. How can that many people lose insurance? Also the CBO says if you buy a plan off the exchange you actually don’t have coverage. In what world does that make sense?
But keep being intellectually dishonest if you must.
Citing the CBO to me is like citing Wikipedia on a college paper. It doesn’t work because there are some may places for it to be false.
Just because the umpire doesn’t get every call right doesn’t mean a ball is actually strike if he called it that way. It was a bad mistake that could have cost someone the game. Same with the CBO.
>Just because the umpire doesn’t get every call right doesn’t mean a ball is actually strike if he called it that way. It was a bad mistake that could have cost someone the game.
This is where your analogy breaks down. The rules of baseball don’t provide for appealing an umpire’s judgment call. Period. MLB 9.02(a). Ergo, if the umpire rules it a strike, it’s a strike, regardless of the actual physical location of the ball.
It may have been a fatal flaw that ends a game in disappointment for one team, but it was still a strike.
Wow, okay. It’s kind of sad you went and looked up the MLB rules but have nothing of substance to say about the CBO. I will repeat what I said earlier.
Just because an umpire calls a ball a strike doesn’t make the ball miraculously move and go over the plate.
The CBO is a useful punching bag for anyone who doesn’t like their numbers, Eiger. And honest analysts conclude, as Andrew has pointed out time and time again, that the reason the enrollment numbers are lower is more related to the failure to expand Medicaid and to Congress’ actions to sabotage risk corridors than to the calculations the CBO made.
As always – if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I hope your table is well-reinforced and structurally sound, and polished to avoid splinters.
“that the reason the enrollment numbers are lower is more related to the failure to expand Medicaid and to Congress’ actions to sabotage risk corridors than to the calculations the CBO made.” You talk about having facts but all you do is simply blame others. States that could not afford to expand are the reason the CBO was wrong? Is that what you are saying? So you are saying 1) the CBO is bad at predicting behavior and 2) the failures of the ACA are all republicans fault? Come on. That has to be a joke.
I have the facts on my side. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn’t mean you are right. Here are FACTS. Please read.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/individual-market-premium-changes-2013-2017
“These data do not take into account premium tax credits.”
Ok then.
What’s your point? Are you saying that premiums have not doubled and HHS is lying? Also, do you subtract your homeowners tax credit from you monthly mortgage payments when calculating your monthly budgets? No you don’t. It’s the same thing.
Nope, I subtract it from my withholdings on my W-4, so it directly does affect my monthly budget. Thanks for playing.
That’s fine. We are $20 trillion in debt but will just keep paying for ever increasing costs. That seems to be okay with you all. It’s okay if premiums double or triple. The government will pay the for the increase. I’s okay if Medicaid is taking care of people that it wasn’t intended to take care of. The government will pay for it. It’s okay if insurance companies are forced to sell a product that people don’t want to buy. The government will bail the insurance companies out. It’s okay if more doctors aren’t taking Medicaid. The government will try to force them. It’s okay that we are taxing small business. The people laid off because of the tax increases can get on Medicaid. The government will pay for them.
And people honestly wonder how we are $20 trillion in debt. I’m not going to give up on this. I’m happy to continue the debate on this.
“Yes, I would have voted for the AHCA. According to a recent HHS report from data collected by the previous administration, premiums have risen in GA by 106% since Obamacare was implemented. They have doubled nationally as well. States like OK, AK and AL have had their premiums tripled. Doing nothing is not a viable solution. Real people are hurting because of the collapse of the exchanges. That has to be addressed. The AHCA does that. ”
Problem with that is that premiums were rising at a 33%/yr rate prior to the ACA and many people didnt have rising premiums because they were locked out of the market (pre-existing conditions). So, if we go for 2010 and pretend you paid 100.00 for insurance that would have been
2011 133.00
2012 176.00
2013 235.00
2014 312.00
2015 415.00
2016 551.00
So, as you see, a 33% year over year increase (what was occurring pre ACA) is WAY bigger than the 106% since implementation. Math says ignore the pre ACA facts at your peril.
“The AHCA also represents the largest tax cut to job creators, small business, in the history of our country. I’ll repeat that. This is the largest tax cut to small business in the history of our country along with being the one of the largest entitlement reform packages in decades”
The top 1% are not job creators. Thats not a fact thats a talking point (and not a very good one). The REAL job creators are CONSUMERS since they are the ones spending money that enables job creation in the first place. Take money away from them and redistribute upwards and you KILL jobs (and there is proof in Ireland, Bermuda, and The Caymans as to where that money goes).
“While we are talking about what the AHCA does do, let me address what it does not do. That is not a cut to Medicaid. ”
That is just patently false. It was false when Mulvaney said it as well. The CBO (which btw was the closest forecast to what actually happened with the ACA and is headed by a Republican appointee) say well north of 800 billion will be cut from Medicaid. This will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Especially in states that expanded Medicaid. You might not like the program for whatever philosophical reason, but the facts are just that…facts
Again, President Obama said your premiums would go down if the ACA was passed. They obviously have not gone down. I do not want to go back to 2010. I’ve never said that’s where we need to be. I’m also not the one that said your premiums will go down. That was Obama. Fact
Small businesses are not the 1%. The AHCA doesn’t give a tax cut to the CEO of Goldman, but does give a tax cut to the local car dealership that is the largest employer in a small town in middle Georgia. Fact.
Will the US government spend more money next year than they spent this year on Medicaid? Yes. Will the US government spend more money in 2020 than they spend today? Yes. That is not a cut. You can call it a reduction in the increase of spending. If you call it a cut in spending you are being intellectually dishonest. FACT
Where have I ever said I don’t like Medicaid. I’m clearly the only one that supports it and wants to protect it for the needy. Adding able bodied individuals who do not have major health problems to Medicaid only stretched the dollars thin and harms the truly needy. FACT
> The AHCA doesn’t give a tax cut to the CEO of Goldman
False.
http://www.atr.org/list-obamacare-taxes-repealed
HR 1628 repeals the 3.8% investment income surtax.
Why didn’t you list the other taxes it repeals? I’ll rephrase. The 1% aren’t the ones being harmed by Obamacare, small businesses are. The AHCA is the largest tax cut to small business in the history of our country. Small businesses also employee people.
-Abolishes the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax which hits 8 million Americans each year.
-Abolishes the Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax. Together with repeal of the Individual Mandate Tax repeal this is a $270 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Medicine Cabinet Tax which hits 20 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts and 30 million Americans with Flexible Spending Accounts. This is a $6 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Flexible Spending Account tax on 30 million Americans. This is a $20 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Chronic Care Tax on 10 million Americans with high out of pocket medical expenses. This is a $126 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s HSA withdrawal tax. This is a $100 million tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s 10% excise tax on small businesses with indoor tanning services. This is a $600 million tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare health insurance tax. This is a $145 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income. This is a $172 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare medical device tax. This is a $20 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on prescription medicine. This is a $28 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage. This is a $2 billion tax cut.
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama had promised repeatedly that he would not raise any tax on any American earning less than $250,000 per year. He broke the promise when he signed Obamacare. With the passage of the House GOP bill, tens of millions of middle income Americans will get tax relief from Obamacare’s long list of tax hikes.
Because my point was to show you were wrong in what you stated as a “fact.”
Also, Congratulations! You accept all the numbers from the CBO’s score! I’m glad we could agree on that.
These data are directly from Table 2 (p. 38) of the CBO’s official score on HR 1628 as passed the House.
I don’t accept the CBO numbers. I actually think they will be larger. Heaven forbid working individuals get a tax cut. But I have actual work to do now. Ya’ll keep living in the dream world that the ACA is working and not a complete failure. Until next time.
The only one I have seen confirmation from Ossoff is the WSB-TV debate on June 6.
With that said, I work a full-time job, involved in the community, and raising a family. We could probably use some more contributors if you are volunteering.
I would love to be a contributor…I currently write elsewhere but would be happy to supply original content here. Check me out
https://medium.com/@scpatl4now
All these reasonable answers to questions regarding climate change and healthcare reform. Too bad nobody is going to actually give a reasonable answer. Because its not worth it to be truthful or impactful when it comes to politics.
*sigh*
back to the regularly scheduled mudslinging yall!
I saw some email appeal earlier this week in which she claimed she was trailing in (unspecified) public polling 44% to 47%. She probably would not be seeking debates if she were 20 points ahead….frankly, with less than 3 weeks to go til the special and with early voting underway, it seems a bit late to be planning debates..on the other hand, there can’t be that many voters in CD 6 undecided at this stage.
Are these the same pollsters who predicted Gov. Carter and Sen. Nunn? Handel wins by five.
Should be interesting. Handel has some established Views, unlike squishy views on ACHA or climate change. GA-6, as with its extraordinary education level for a GOP district, isn’t the type of district where an NRA endorsement or her well known anti-abortion views cache they have in typical GOP districts.
But she’s got wiggle room on the gay thing going for her, what with her being a Log Cabin Republican and then being opposed to gay marriage.
Noway says Handel wins by 5—Ok, then tell us what Ossoff gets in each county; he got 41 percent in Cobb, 48 in Fulton and 59 in DeKalb in round one, and then tell us what percentage of all votes cast in the special will be from each county? In Round one, Fulton accounted for 45% of the votes totals, Cobb 32 and DeKalb 23.
Last poll by Survey USA had Ossoff up by 7%
They have an A rating by 538 and skew in neither direction.
In my opinion, Ossoff’s floor is 49%, leaving Handel almost no room to maneuver. My speculation is that Ossoff increases margins in DeKalb, and at least holds relative margins in Fulton and Cobb.