Ouch

We’ll come back to this AJC editorial (good bits of which I disagree), but this bit stood out:

Hecht is not the only candidate with dirty hands. It will take all the water left in Lake Lanier to scrub GOP secretary of state candidate Bill Stephens clean after the mountains of the mud he threw at Fulton County Commission Chair Karen Handel, whom he now meets again in a runoff.

Aware that he couldn’t attack Handel on competence and brains, both of which she has in spades over him, Stephens resorted to hysterical “the liberal that hides beneath

16 comments

  1. techtrack says:

    the best line is “Aware that he couldn’t attack Handel on competence and brains, both of which she has in spades over him”. looks like people read right through his “shes to emotional” remark

  2. techtrack says:

    erick,
    i do agree with you about putting stephens and hecht in the same category of mud slinging. while stephens went overboard, hecht crossed way way over the line

  3. Broty says:

    The questionable innuendo thrown around in this race aside, I think Stephen’s real offense is running an inept campaign.

    He may have made it into the runoff, but it only prolongs the inevitable.

  4. freeloader says:

    “Stephens had arguable legitimate bases with which he could make his case (though I disagree, he did have arguable bases).”

    Karen sure wasn’t the one spreading all the despicable rumors about her being a lesbian.

  5. MountainThinker says:

    Handel is on the record as lying to Georgia voters. Supporting civil unions is a valid and personal dicision that intelligent people CAN disagree on, and while I don’t support them, I will never support people who boldly lie to me with no regard for their personal actions. Karen Handel may be intelligent & experienced, but she’s also an absolute proven liar, and that’s the end of the discussion for me…

  6. JakeTaylor says:

    How did Greg Hecht cross the line? It is almost humerous if it were not so serious that not one charge that Hecht made in his mail have been refuted. Has Jim Martin denied that he authored that bill categorizing rape in 1994? No he has tried to muddy the water by talking about all the support there was for the bill which is entirely inaccurate- his bill in 1994 had NO support there was a better bill in 1999 that enjoyed broad support but it did not include the same categories of rape and was seen a bill that could improve convictions. Not one prosecutor or rape crisis counselor testified for the bill he introduced in 1994, but do not take my word for it go to the Georgia archives and look at the committee hearing minutes yourself. He also has never denied that as a criminal defense lawyer he and his firm have defended some of the most heinous criminals in Georgia – Did he deny that his firm defended the Columbus Strangler? If so I missed that press release or press conference. Did he refute the quotes from the district attorney of the year or the rape crisis counslor that were in the piece and were quoted in the AJC? If so I missed that pressrelease as well! Why isn’t anyone questioning the veracity of Jim Martins ad whne he says he has always stood up for victims? He blocked legislation that would have ended double strikes for accused felons in Jury trials for 4 years while he was head of the Judiciary Committee – That’s right he opposed laws that would have leveled the playing field for victims and given them the same number of Jury strikes as the accused criminal in felony trials — How is that standing up for victims – I guess at that time he was standing up for his clients many of who are convicted felons and his brother who was head of the criminal defense lawyers association.

    Jim Martin can not get elected in a Statewide general election campaign and it is time that real democrats research his record before they come to conclusions about Greg Hecht. While Mr. Hechts mail may have been very sensational the Martin positions that he outlined are accurate – I have researched them. It is time that we have candidates that are willing to stand up and fight and also be genuine and truthful Mr. Martin fails both of those tests. I will definitely be voting for Greg Hecht in the runoff for two simple reasons he has an uncontradicted record of standing up for women, families and children and he is the only candidate that can beat Casey Cagle in the general election campaign.

  7. techtrack says:

    jaketaylor,
    i really don’t care about the hecht/martin race. i will after 8/8 when casey beats the winner. when i saw a copy of the first mailer hecht put out i was digusted, not at martin, but with hecht. i really don’t know the facts in this case, nor do i care. the mailer was digusting.

  8. JakeTaylor says:

    Techtrack – if Hecht’s mail was disgusting to you what was Casey’s mail about prostitution in the Marianas Islands – sounds like that won you over. Nothing like a Republican attacking a Democrat for comparative mail when Casey was sending out mail with half truths and worse. It is clear to me why someone like you wants Martin to win – because he will not fight back against those type of tactics and Hecht clearly will. I look forward to the Hecht/ Cagle race it should be a doozy!

    Since you obviously voted in the Republican Primary I do not need to worry about your opinion because you do not have a vote in the Democratic run-off on August 8th anyway

  9. duluthmom says:

    Jake-
    I’ve still been waiting for you to provide the links to that 1994 bill to judge it for myself. (And this is the third time I’ve asked.) As you may be aware, the state archives don’t go back that far; so I’ll happily take any objective sources you can provide. Until then, it is difficult for me to take the word of just one individual no matter how honest you might be.

    Even if the bill was as flawed as you state, the bill sponsored by Martin in 1999 was impressive to me and showed in no way that he was soft on crime and tough on the victims.

  10. duluthmom says:

    Also to my knowledge, you never acknowledged the link I provided for you that showed a real life example of the problems with victim credibility. You had stated show me a jury that would actually blame a victim as Martin claimed, and I did–which only proved his point about how some juries might blame the victim due to environmental circumstances (IE: being drunk, clothing, at a party versus a dark alley, etc.)

Comments are closed.