The Georgia GOP Convention kicks off today with a taste of the presidential election, a bitter tug-of-war over the party's future, and a divisive debate over red-meat proposals like the "religious liberty" push.
Here are four things you should know about the two-day convention in Athens:
1. It's a mini-presidential cattle call: No one knows for sure whether Georgians will actually make a difference in next year's presidential elections. But the movement for a unified Southern regional bloc vote - the SEC primary - already seems to be luring White House contenders here. Three potential presidential candidates will hobnob with Georgia heavyweights and lay out their competing visions for the party's future on Friday, starting with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 8:30 a.m. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio will talk to the delegates at 3 p.m. and Ted Cruz will deliver a keynote dinner speech at 7.
2. Get ready for a debate over the party's future. The big-name speakers won't overshadow the simmering debate over the party's direction, as some advocates are calling for a course correction after a legislative session that saw lawmakers openly bucking their base. The fight over the party's leadership and future could spill over into the 2016 election when as many as a dozen GOP legislators could be vulnerable to primary challenges from the party's right flank.
3. Change versus experience. One of the biggest fights involves the race for a two-year term as state GOP chairman, which is a rematch of the 2013 contest between Athens businessman John Padgett and Atlanta attorney Alex Johnson. Padgett, 70, won that race and helped direct last year's 2014 GOP sweep but faces criticism over his fundraising ability and two pending lawsuits. Johnson, 30, warns that the party is becoming complacent and promises a to lead a more aggressive GOP, though his critics cast him as inexperienced. A third movement urges delegates to pick the "none of the above" option in silent protest of both candidates.
4. "Religious liberty" and other red-meat proposals. Grassroots activists - the type fervent enough to show up to a political convention on a May weekend - are poised to demand the revival of election-year legislation that stalled. Expect calls for more abortion restrictions and new immigration crackdowns. But the biggest debate, however, may involve the "religious liberty" proposal that tanked this session. Party leaders want an anti-discrimination clause tacked to the measure, but activists endorsed a version of the bill without such language. How to reconcile the competing plans could be quite a fight.
To that point, here's what state Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, author of SB 129, the religious liberty bill in question, posted Thursday on his Facebook page:
The question elected Republicans must answer: what bill passed the General Assembly this year that would not also have passed a General Assembly controlled by Democrats?
***
Want to keep up with state GOP convention doings this weekend? Here's your page. Bookmark it.
***
We’re about to have a hurry-up special election
to replace state Rep. Mark Hamilton, R-Cumming. Secretary of State Brian Kemp has called for a June 16 special election to fill the House District 24 seat. Qualifying will run Monday through noon Wednesday.
June 16 is the same day for that special election to fill the seat of state Rep. Tyrone Brooks, R-Atlanta.
But here’s the thing: A runoff for Hamilton’s seat would be July 14. That’s your signal that special elections for four other House seats will also be held on that date: District 80, being vacated by Mike Jacobs, R-Brookhaven; District 155, being vacated by Jay Roberts, R-Ocilla; District 146, being vacated by Larry O’Neal; and District 48, to replace Harry Geisinger, R-Roswell, who died earlier this month.
***
The U.S. House voted by a whopping 400-25 on Thursday to pass a bill to review the Iran nuclear deal that had already cleared the Senate, 98-1. It allows Congress to weigh in on the deal, but not ratify it like a a treaty -- requiring a veto-proof majority to kill it.
Three members of the Georgia delegation -- Reps. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Coweta County; Doug Collins, R-Gainesville; and Hank Johnson, D-Lithonia -- were among the small band of dissenters.
First the majority opinion: Here's what Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ranger, had to say:
"A nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and that's why this bill is so important. Without this legislation, Congress would have no say in the Obama administration's agreement with Iran, leaving the administration to make whatever deal it wants. This bill, however, gives Congress the ability to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people, and to vote to approve or disapprove of the administration's deal before it takes effect. I will not support any plan that provides a path to a nuclear Iran."
Georgia's "no's" came at it from differing viewpoints. Westmoreland said Congress shouldn't review a deal because there shouldn't be a deal at all:
"I could not support the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act because I do not believe we should be making a deal with Iran in the first place. Iran has proved time and time again that they are a nation that cannot be trusted. The sanctions against Iran were issued for a reason and I don't believe they should be lifted –period. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Congress and I believe he is going to be right - we are going to get a bad deal."
Collins also played the Israel card:
"In today's world, no nation stands in more constant danger than the State of Israel. I have always made the security of our strongest ally in the Middle East a priority, and will not, for the sake of expediency, vote for a resolution that fails to protect its people from a regime whose goal is to wipe them from the face of the earth. I respect those who worked to hold this administration accountable for its lenient approach to a nuclear Iran. But Congress should not be party to any agreement that fails to protect the vital interests of the United States and its allies. My decision to vote No on today's resolution is simply an affirmation of my commitment to a strong Israel and America – and to an Iran that has no opportunity to acquire a nuclear weapon."
Johnson spokesman Andy Phelan said Congress shouldn't review a deal because it should be entirely the Obama administration's domain:
"Congressman Johnson voted against this measure because he does not want the president's hands tied by a hyper-partisan Congress as America – along with the world's leading powers – work to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. Under this bill, if Congress passes a resolution of disapproval and the president vetoes it – it would prevent the administration from implementing the agreement for 10 days; and if 2/3 of each chamber vote to override the president's veto, implementation of a deal will be blocked altogether at great detriment to an international effort to peacefully prevent nuclear proliferation. Rep. Johnson doesn't think it is prudent to put our national security in the hands of an avowedly hostile and partisan Congress."
About the Author
