The Grandmother Ad

This is the most powerful Wiggins ad. You don’t think so? I know several people who made up their mind based on Mrs. Wiggins and the grandmother killer. Yep, negative ads do work.

Listen here:

5 comments

  1. dogface says:

    Personal Injury Lawyers Still Cling to Idea that “Only Lawyers Know What Judge to Support”

    November 2, 2006

    By George M. Israel, III
    President & CEO
    Georgia Chamber of Commerce

    “Lawyers know best,” so believeth the personal-injury-lawyer-led leadership of the State Bar of Georgia.

    “If you want to know who to vote for [for Supreme Court], ask a lawyer,” Presiding Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court Carol Hunstein recently said to dropped jaws.

    She added: “It’s only lawyers that know what judge to support…”

    Houston, we have a problem. Others besides lawyers have an interest in a fair and impartial judiciary.

    Here’s a novel idea: If you want to know who to vote for, look at the records of the candidates for Supreme Court and other judicial races; look at their demeanor and temperament.

    No doubt, lawyers have a vested interest in our judiciary. But defendants and business folks – often the subject of costly legal fishing expeditions and frivolous lawsuits – have an interest in a fair and impartial judiciary too.

    But the State Bar’s mentality that “only lawyers are smart enough to elect judges” is insulting to every businessman and woman in the state, every voter in Georgia. And, it reflects a dazzling sanctimony, condescension and arrogance.

    I realize that the leadership of the State Bar is concerned that if others exercise their Constitutional right to participate in judicial elections, their white-knuckle grip on the courts is threatened. No wonder all but 48 of the contributors to the incumbent Supreme Court justice are lawyers.

    The election for Supreme Court has demonstrated a relationship that is too cozy between attorneys who represent their clients before the Court and the justices themselves.

    One could easily get the impression that after bloody marys in the morning and tennis at the club, lawyers and judges gather in the clubroom (read, courthouse) and decide the fate of the clients. And, just before the gavel bangs to bring the court to session, the attorney gives the judge an envelope containing a check for the maximum contribution permitted by law to the judge’s re-election.

    Frankly, there ought to be a law prohibiting attorneys – plaintiffs’ lawyers and defense lawyers – from contributing to a judge before whom they are arguing a case.

    At best, it is an appearance of impropriety that undermines the credibility of our judicial system. That incumbent judges accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from the same lawyers who appear before them in court, legally even within hours of their case being argued before that same judge, is really quite troubling.

    By law, legislators cannot accept contributions from any source during the time they are in session.

    The insurance commissioner cannot accept contributions from insurance companies; members of the Public Service Commission cannot accept campaign money from those they regulate. The reason, of course, is to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

    Why should judges, from whom we expect the highest integrity, accept campaign favors – even as the judge hears their case – from those who appear before them? If judges and the State Bar aren’t willing to regulate themselves, perhaps the legislature should.

    For all their talk about civility and for all their fear-mongering that business supporting candidates for the Supreme Court would trash the system, it’s money from lawyers to protect the incumbent that has fueled the nastiest, maybe least ethical advertising campaign in recent history.

    The State Bar’s plaintiff-bar leadership and a million dollars from a who’s who of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association launched the A-bomb of demeaning political advertising, an ad that stunned even the sometimes-jaded media for its recklessness and ugliness and willingness to stretch the truth. It is the kind of personal attack and distort-the-facts ad that diminishes the public’s confidence in the court and raises concerns about the court’s ability to uphold the truth.

    As important as the Supreme Court is, the contested race for the high court is so far down the ballot, most voters will never get to it. Some election experts predict half of all voters who vote in the gubernatorial race won’t stick around long enough to vote for Supreme Court.

    Look down, way down your ballot, after all the races for county commissioner and school board, ah, there’s the race for Supreme Court.

    A recent survey found that most Georgians don’t even know that justices to the Georgia Supreme Court are elected. Eighty-five percent of those questioned didn’t know the name of a single justice or judicial candidate. Yet, three out of four voters surveyed agree the court should be elected “because elections hold justices accountable for their decisions and rulings.”

    Two candidates, with different records and different judicial philosophies, are running for our Supreme Court. There may not be a more important race on the ballot. First, vote. Second, vote the entire ballot.

  2. Demonbeck says:

    It’s sad that lies spread by Carol Hunstein about Mike Wiggins are going to get her re-elected, rather than her record on the bench.

    Unfortunately, this is merely reason #35412 why the judicial branch is the only branch of government that does not work like it is supposed to.

  3. Demonbeck says:

    It’s sad that lies spread by Carol Hunstein about Mike Wiggins are going to get her re-elected, rather than her record on the bench.

    Unfortunately, this is merely reason #35412 why the judicial branch is the only branch of government that does not work like it is supposed to.

  4. Bill Simon says:

    George Israel is smoking crack (nothing personal, George).

    Here’s the thing: The judicial races should NOT be like any other political race and, therefore, based on a popularity contest.

    People who run for judicial offices should be judged on their QUALIFICATIONS. And, George Israel’s pet-sychophant has no experience in practicing in or judging of Georgia law that qualifies him for this position.

Comments are closed.