#michellenunn

The NRSC is at it again, claiming that because Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn supports Obamacare, it means she supports massive Medicare cuts. Politifact can’t fact check this ridiculous lie fast enough to keep up with the Republicans, who apparently have no shame; and no qualms repeating this awful lie that has been debunked literally dozens of times by bipartisan factcheckers.

Michelle Nunn’s “campaign” for Senate officially passed the parody stage in an interview with the Guardian when she refused to weigh in on whether Obama or Bush was a better President.

From The Guardian:

Nunn has exerted robot-like control on the campaign trail to avoid association with Obama. Cross-examined by the Guardian, the candidate refused to say whether she would have voted for the president’s flagship healthcare law and, asked who was the better president – Obama or Bush – she declined to say.

This is the same candidate who had previously refused to answer whether she’d vote for Obamacare on five separate occassions. And the same candidate who can’t decide if she’d support Harry Reid for Majority Leader.

How does a person this conflicted get through the day? How does she decide what to have for breakfast in the morning? Does she refuse to discuss hypotheticals at dinner parties? Does she just sit in front of the TV endlessly flipping through channels because she can’t choose what to watch?

More likely, she actually isn’t conflicted at all. Does anyone really believe that the person who wrote an op-ed supporting Occupy Wall Street has no opinion on Bush vs. Obama?

All this dodging is  really just a ruse to try to avoid an unpleasant reality. Nunn has opinions on Obama v Bush (Obama), how she would’ve voted on Obamacare (in favor), Harry Reid as Majority Leader (pro ) but she is not admitting it because those positions are politically inconvenient. Unfortunately for Nunn, eventually she’s going to have to tell voters what she really thinks otherwise she’ll be opposed for another reason- phoniness.  Voters in Georgia aren’t as dumb as Nunn thinks they are, they can see through the charade.

Last week, The Washington Free Beacon raised questions on the accuracy of Michelle Nunn’s role in the founding of Hands On Atlanta.

According to the Free Beacon, Nunn has repeated on the campaign trail that she was a part of the founding of Hands On Atlanta during their first public meeting at Manuel’s Tavern where they passed around empty beer mugs to raise contributions.

However, Nunn’s name was not listed on Hands On Atlanta’s Articles of Organization in June 1989.

In September 1990, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Nunn was hired by the organization in May 1990. Nunn’s hiring came approximately eleven months after the organization was founded.

If Nunn’s story about founding Hands On Atlanta at Manuel’s Tavern is accurate, then she needs to account for her time during the year that passed before she officially joined the organization.

Michelle Nunn supports reducing carbon emissions, even calls it “vital,” but she’s just not sure how Obama’s new EPA regulations will impact Georgia. Here’s how the Associated Press reported Nunn’s current thought process:

Democrat Michelle Nunn is affirming her support for reducing carbon emissions but says she has questions about the Obama administration’s plans to reduce them and how that would affect Georgia.

To clear things up, here are the facts for Nunn and anyone else unsure about the devastating effects these EPA regulations will have on Georgia:

Georgia would need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 44 percent by 2030.

Georgia would have to cut more emissions than all but 6 other states.

The Wall Street Journal has already declared Georgia’s largest power provider, Atlanta’s Southern Co. (and parent company of Georgia Power), a “loser” as a result of these regulations. Last year, Georgia Power announced its plans to retire 15 power units due to the high cost of meeting such strict EPA regulations.

Based on her public statements, it stands to reason that Michelle Nunn either doesn’t realize how many Georgia families will be affected by lost jobs and higher energy prices, or she simply does not care because cutting carbon emission is a higher priority.

Today, the National Review reported that Michelle Nunn’s non-profit resume included significant layoffs while her compensation simultaneously increased.

From 2007 to 2010, Nunn guided her charity group through a merger that reduced their staff from 175 to 80 employees; meanwhile, her pay doubled to $250,000 in 2008 and $322,056 in total compensation in 2011.

At the only Democrat primary debate Michelle Nunn attended, she made her position on the Veterans Affairs scandal clear. She would not be calling on Secretary Shinseki to resign.

Instead, Nunn said she would “defer” to President Obama’s judgment:

QUESTION: “When you hear about the deaths of these servicemen who were waiting for care under the veterans’ department, is it time though for Eric Shinseki, should he resign? Should we hold him accountable for those deaths of those service personnel?”

NUNN: “I think all of us are outraged at the deaths of our veterans and I think, you know, we owe it to them to make sure that we understand exactly what happened and that we remedy the situation and never let it happen again. We need accountability; we need to make sure there’s a congressional oversight of this issue. I defer to the President’s judgment about the leadership that will be necessary to ensure that accountability and that transparency and that we actually change the system in order to preclude this from ever happening again.”

Today, Nunn flip-flopped and released a lengthy statementcalling for Shinseki to resign, because “there is growing evidence that the Department of Veterans Affairs needs new leadership in order to reform its badly broken bureaucracy.”

When given the chance to stand up for Georgia’s veterans and demand accountability, Michelle Nunn deferred to President Obama. It appears she is now in damage control putting her campaign’s politics before protecting veterans’ healthcare.