Greg Hecht Won’t Be Getting My Vote

I hadn’t 100% made up my mind who I was going to vote for in the Democratic Lt. Governor’s race.  However, Hecht’s attack ad against Jim Martin seals the deal. 

Who is stupider, Greg Hecht or Cathy Cox


  1. Dawgsrock says:

    Only one word for the piece – disgusting. It makes everything in the other mudslinging contests look tame.

  2. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Holy crap. Killing kids is even worse than forced abortions!

    I found Hecht to be pretty slimy in the LG debate, and, during candidate Q&A, Martin all but begged him not to go negative in his advertising. Think he saw something like this coming?

  3. Demonbeck says:

    It’s a fair point, but there is a right way and a wrong way to make it – this was the wrong way.

    Regardless, I won’t be voting for either.

  4. stephaniemills21 says:

    Yes, that mail piece is horrible, but does anyone here think that whomever the GOP nominee is would not send out a simmilar piece if Martin wins?

  5. bird says:

    The general consensus is that Martin was forced out as head of DHR because he was a Democrat and appointed by Barnes. It is as simple as that, and it happens all the time. There was no disgrace when he resigned. In fact, most child advocates thought it was a great loss for our state that Jim was leaving.

    The DHR Chair is a tough job, and there are no allegations that Jim was negligent in any manner. You could just as easily add up the number of children that died in DHR custody during Sonny’s term in office, because, after all, he is ultimately in control.

    You won’t see anyone doing that though because it would be confusing the facts and way, way over the line of common decency–just like this piece.

  6. JP says:

    I’ll be too busy voting against Reed to worry about the Dem candidates. Neither of them could possibly do as much damage as Reed.

  7. pathfinder says:

    Ironically, as I sat in bed last night watching the late news, I was taken by the negative ads rolling by from Cox, Taylor, Cagle and Reed. The two exceptions were the ads from Martin and Hecht. Both were dignified and issue oriented.

    Even as a conservative Republican, I was impressed that there were at least two candidates acting like adults. Now, with Hecht’s shameless ad, we are down to one adult.

    I may not vote for Martin because he is a liberal Democrat, but so far he is the only candidate running for one of two top jobs that is showing a measure of class.

    I am not sure what the shrill negagtivity being spewed out says about the other GOP and Democratic candidates — or us — but I’m sure it is not good.

  8. JakeTaylor says:

    Stephanie is the only person to get it right!! Does anyone think that Reed or Cagle wouldn’t do this or actually much worse? Is thetre anything in the piece that is inaccurate? Jim Martin sent a piece out to the WIN list that was full of distortions and total fabrications about Greg – and then asked for a truce? How disingenuous was that? He was attempting to negotiate a seize fire after he had already fired and before the actual facts about his former record was exposed by Greg Hecht or Steen Miles. I believe that Steen was the candidate that actually asked Jim about this in the debate and Jim refused to discuss how or under what circumstances he left DHR – it is and was a pertinent point. what is over the top about pointing out fallacies or positions that the Republicans would definitely exploit in the general election. I believe that Greg Hecht has run a very good campaign and there is nothing wrong with hitting back as long as it is accurate. Mr. Hecht definitely has my vote because he is the only candidate that can possibly beat Ralph Reed!

  9. sweetpeach says:

    I might have considered voting for Jim Martin before I saw the Hecht mailer. I did some research and I was really disturbed to find that all of those kids really did die while Martin was in charge of the agency. What makes it worse is that Martin did not even seem contrite or sorry about what happened to those poor little kids. The more I find out about Martin, the less I am inclined to vote for him. He tries to pull off this “kindly old man” image but that image just does not jibe with the facts that keep coming out about him. I hop Hecht wins. At least he seems like he will have the chutzpah to stand up to whomever the Republican challenger in the fall.

  10. Mrs. Adam Kornstein says:

    Take a look at Gregs disclosure, it’s chock full of payments to high dollar out of town consultants. So now we know, Greg will pay big time for your horrible advice.

    So line up at Gregs door, all you consultants, dangle a nasty ad in his face that says you’ll help him win against Reed and he’ll pay ya, it’s good pay too.

    I over heard someone remark at a candidate forum, “Greg would sell his mother, at a discount, for this gig” it sure seems to fit.

  11. sweetpeach says:

    All of you closet Martin supporters need to suck it up. Jim had been talking stuff and telling lies about Greg for months. He subsidized a large part of his campaign by lying about Greg in contribution letters to pro-choice women.

    Martin should be held accountable for the problems that occurred at DHR while he was in charge. Someone must answer for the dozens and dozens of children who lost their lives.

    You may not like the tone but you cannot dispute the facts. Instead of getting all riled up about this mailer you would be better served by questioning why you would vote for someone who:
    1) grossly mismanaged a major state deparment
    2)has no demonstrated ability to effectively advocate for true democratic concerns.

  12. Decaturguy says:

    I think questioning someone’s pro-choice record and accusing someone of killing babies are two completely different levels of “attack.”

    Hecht is finished.

  13. Mrs. Adam Kornstein says:

    Sweet Peach, or not, as the case may be… I hope you got a check from Greg too.

  14. Demonbeck says:


    The memo to Jim Martin in “Politics 101” had a typo, it should have read “kissing babies.” Personally, I blame Bobby Kahn.

  15. JakeTaylor says:

    Hey Decatur, It is better to lie about someone’s choice record than tell the truth about a person’s record while managing a State Agency that in everyone’s opinion was mismanaged? Jim Martin did resign in disgrace — didn’t he?

    The only difference in Greg Hecht’s approach and Jim Martin’s approach is that Greg Hecht told the truth about a relevant fact which is that Jim Martin totally failed at managing one of the biggest State agencies in the State and now he wants to be Lt. Governor. I believe that information is very relevant – and that is why I am now certain that I am voting for Greg Hecht!

    I would also like to say to Kornstien that Jim Martin has doled out more than $600,000 to out of town consultants in this last report alone. Sechrest is his pollster(DC) Fenn is his media consultant (NY) so he is chock full of out of town consultants as well. In fact I believe that Geg Hechts mail consultant is from right here in Atlanta.

    What is that saying about glass houses?

  16. I don’t know if this is the proper thread to post this in or not, but it’s the only Martin/Hecht one I’ve seen so here we go.

    The only reason I have not early voted yet is that I have not made up my mind in this race. I was predisposed to vote for Martin, but honestly is was because there are tons of martin signs in my neighborhood, which is supposedly the most liberal polling place in the state of GA (although I don’t really believe that) & I really don’t know a whole lot about either candidate.

    Anyway, I’ve been reticent about voting for Martin because I questioned whether he had enough balls to really get down & dirty with the presumptive republican candidate in november. I’m sure he is a nice guy (and would be good at the job) but Hecht’s hit piece is nothing compared to what Ralph & Casey will sling his way.

    That being said I can vote tomorrow!

    Gotta go 4 Taylor (I wanted to vote for cox but her putting the diebold systems in place was strikes 1 & 2 and # 3 came this morning when I heard her horrible ad on black talk radio WAOK)

    Shyam is my man 4 SOS & I also like Stacey Abrams & Adleman. Now that Hecht has shown that he can put on some brass knuckles I think I can go vote.

    I agree with the previous poster who said that If Hecht did not bring this up it would be a republican making the same points in the general election.

  17. Romegaguy says:

    Political Insider has another Hecht piece up. Hecht lying about Jim Martin and rape. Deliberately misquotes Martin (from AJC article). I think someone is suffering from a Napoleon complex…

  18. HenryCountyPolitico says:

    Brian Amero who was for many months the chair of Hecht’s campaign for Lt. Gov. is now a candidate for Superior Court Judge of Henry County. Amero has apparently resigned as chairperson of the campaign.

  19. JakeTaylor says:

    How did Hecht Misquote the article? Jim Martin in aninterview in which he was defending a bill that he authored that would have re-calssified rape and allowed consideration of the environment in which the assault occured or what a woman was wearing said ” If there are any factors — such as she was in a bar, should have known better, wore a short dress – some juries are unwilling to prosecute the crime as rape” That is the entire quote which was Jim’s opinion and explanation in defense of the bill he had authored. The only problem with the piece in my opinion is thtat is should have asked Jim directly — exactly under what circumstances should a woman have known better? Those were his words and his opinion in justifying a bill that he could not pass out of a committee that he chaired. This is all very relevant and exposes a simple truth which is that Jim Martin is out of touch with how the average Georgian feels about such issues and could never be elected in a Statewide general election in Georgia.

    Once again if people think this is tough it is nothing compared to what Cagle or Reed would do with this information. After reviewing these mail pieces and researching them I do not see how any Democrat in their right mind could vote for Martin – If we were to nominate him he would be served up on a platter to Ccagle or Reed.

    This piece reflects one certainty — there is only one person in the race that has the tenacity, toughness and work ethic to beat Ralph Reed and that is Greg Hecht and that is why he is getting my vote on Tuesday!

  20. duluthmom says:

    Can you link the bill and the entire quote? From what you posted:
    Quote: “If there are any factors — such as she was in a bar, should have known better, wore a short dress – some juries are unwilling to prosecute the crime as rape

  21. JakeTaylor says:

    So his reponse is to pass a bill that places levels of responsibility for an assault on the victim? Jim is a Criminal Defense Lawyer he has defended numerous individuals who have been convicted of rape, assault, murder and other serious crimes – his record is relatively clear throughout his legislative career on where he stood when it came to victims rights and fairness. These are all pertinent ponts that should be discussed before someone votes for a person that authored a bill that would have created 4 categories of rape – Jim Martin authored that Bill and all Greg Hecht did was point it out to the voters — I for one appreciate Mr. Hecht informing me about these importnat positions before I vote.

    I also called the Hecht campaign to check on what Henry County called Mr. Amero’s resignation and that is an inaccurate description. Mr. Amero agreed to be Greg Hechts campaign chairman more than a year ago but after he became a candidate himself he felt taht he should focus on his own campaign instead of others so he was repleced as campaign chair by Larry Hecht. Mr. Henty County tries to imply that someone quit the Hecht campaign over this mailer and that could not be further from the truth

  22. duluthmom says:

    I’m not defending him if that is the case, I just asked for the links. Please post them as soon as possible.

  23. duluthmom says:

    Still waiting.

    The reason I’m curious about the bill is that most states do have four categories of rape and that has absolutely nothing to do with assigning blame to the victim–it depends on the age of the victim and the degree of sexual assault. (If you don’t have time to do the search, just give me the bill # and I’ll look it up.)

    See, my hunch is this:

    1. The bill in question was similar to one in every other state.

    2. At some point Martin did lament the tendencies of some juries to assign blame to the victim for placing themselves in that circumstance.

    and that

    3. Hecht spun the two together to make it look like they were related.

    It is difficult for me to believe that any politician in his right mind would draft legislation that reduced a charge of sexual assault based on extenuating circumstances like environment or dress.

    However, a quick link to the facts versus your interpretation would prove me right or wrong.

  24. duluthmom says:

    Never mind. I found it myself and you have it so wrong it isn’t funny.

    Here’s the entire bill:

    In essence, it changed the laws to redefine rape because the old code used the word “forcible” and wasn’t applicable in cases where the victim was unconscious. This was introduced due to the rise in date rape drug cases and was championed by an Emory student.

    Please note this from the second link: At that event Welborn began to understand the difficulties of prosecuting sexual offenders under current Georgia law. She and law school friends Jill Uiberall and Rachel Brod began drafting legislation that elaborates on the definition of consent in ways the current law doesn’t address.

    The outlook for passage of House Bill 1074, during the next Georgia legislative session is favorable, she says. The bill has been named a top legislative priority by the state’s Prosecuting Attorneys Council and women’s groups, and sponsors include Rep. Jim Martin, chair of the House Judiciary Committee.”

    Without getting too graphic, the Bill also redefined non-consensual sodomy to include other acts which might not be charged under the old sodomy law and changed wording to include female perpetrators. In addition it added aggravated sexual assault into all categories for which a perpetrator could be prosecuted.

    Yeah, Martin was being awful to rape victims in backing this. (obvious sarcasm)

  25. ConcernedTeenager says:

    Here’s an underlying problem that this mailout shows:
    Negative campaigning!

    I agree with pathfinder’s earlier comment about the negativity coming all over TV. I also agree with the words above the posting of the mailout: “No comment. This is the lowest of the low.”
    And people think us teenagers can be horrible (note my username…)- just let politics take over the souls of people and anything’s possible!

  26. duluthmom says:

    Sorry to keep posting on this, but in light of the post describing the Bill above your original quote makes PERFECT sense and is in no way blaming the victim:

    Quote: Jim Martin in an interview in which he was defending a bill that he authored that would have re-calssified rape…said

  27. JakeTaylor says:

    Duluth Mom you looking at a different bill than the one the mail piece discussed. The bill that is discussed in the house bill was House Bill 1331 in 1994 which was 5 years earlier than the bill you referred to. That bill had no support from prosecutors or rape crisis advocates in fact the prosecutor of the year in 1994 called it the worst bill he had ever seen! The bill was not passed out of the Judiciary committee wher Martin was a senior member at the time. The facts are not in question and in fact the Martin campaign is not questioning the factual basis of the piece they are just saying his quote was taken out of context, but it was him applying his speculation about juries and I would personally what jury ever said a woman should have known better — maybe you should be asking the martin campaign to produce that jury or jurors.

    Jim Martin has a long history of passing and attempting to pass laws that were not advantageous to victims and he and his brothers law firm have made a great deal of money by defending criminals and placing them back on the streets – If you are comfortable with someone with that mentality being a heartbeat away from the Governors office then vote for him, but I never could.

    To think that he is currently running an ad that state he has always been tough on crime and looking out for victims is laughable when you look at his record including the redefinition of rape that he proposed in 1994.

  28. duluthmom says:

    Thanks for the clarification on the bill. I’d still love to see a link to it to read it for myself.

    Regardless of the bill I do believe Martin’s comment was taken out of context as claimed.

    As for your comment:

    “what jury ever said a woman should have known better — maybe you should be asking the martin campaign to produce that jury or jurors.”

    Sadly, plenty.
    The film The Accused was based on a real life 1983 incident where a woman of questionable background was gang raped.

    However it (victim credibility) is far more likely to occur in cases of date rape.

    Prime example:

    A few years ago we moved here from the Chicago area. In 2002, four young men from an elite area nearby–some who were adults at the time of the crime, filmed the gang rape of a drunk 16 year old at a house party, writing obscenities on her body with a sharpie. The film shows 14 minutes where it is apparent that she was too intoxicated to consent, even before she passed out. It was considered by all to be a slam-dunk case.

    As of this week, two who had sex with her have been acquitted; one has fled the country; and the only conviction is on the guy who filmed the incident, on a child pornography. The best hope for a conviction is with the fourth (the one who fled) because by the time he had his turn, she was passed out.

    That’s why I found his remark to be understandable and why date rape is the most under-reported of all. If there isn’t proof of physical force via injuries the victim fears that she won’t be believed because they will think somehow she should have known better.

Comments are closed.