Because I Voted for Wiggins, I Can Say This

I was giving two friends of mine a hard time earlier. They both emailed me this picture. If you look behind Buckner (for those of you who have actively paid attention to Georgia politics and have still never seen her, that’s her on the left) you will see a Carol Hunstein sign.

Now, they didn’t much care for what I had to say. But then several other people emailed me the same thing, just as outraged, and they really did not like my response. So, I’m going to put it up and all you Wiggins people can all pile on me. Just remember, I voted for the guy.


First, who really flipping cares that a Hunstein sign is on that stupid bus? Did you see Carol do that? Do you have evidence that she endorsed that? After all, she has accepted no help from the Democratic party — none — not even in the airing of her commercials.

And even if she did, at the last minute, decide to affiliate with the Dems, can you blame her? The GAGOP has been pouring money into the Wiggins campaign. Every Wiggins commercial I see down here is paid for by the GOP.

So, the moral of the story is to stop your bitching. You got beat by Hunstein, who did it on her own, while Wiggins had the big party guns and outside special interests. If Hunstein actually does pull this off, and I have every reason to think she will, you can bitch and moan all you want, but you will have had your ass handed to you fair and square — and by a girl no less.

Let’s review:

  • Hunstein threw a punch straight to the family jewels.
  • It took Wiggins forever to finally respond adequately.
  • When he responded, his sister came out and stood by her claims.

You may not like it, but there is no use to be mad at Carol Hunstein over it. Be mad at the Wiggins campaign for not getting this stuff out there at the beginning of the race and defining it himself. That was his fatal mistake. As a lawyer, he should have known better. After all, all an election is, is a trial by a jury of your peers.

Now, fellow Wiggins voters, fire away.

13 comments

  1. leftrightcombo says:

    Well, there is nothing to be angry about.

    Mike is a good guy and most likely a fine attorney. He just ran a bad campagin. A lot of first timers have this happen to them and they lose.

  2. redsouther says:

    I voted for Wiggins, and even wrote a letter to the Telegraph trying to help persuade others to support him, but you’re absolutely right. His campaign just failed miserably to keep up with Hunstein, and hardly anyone who doesn’t follow politics closely knew about this race except through her ads. This was a great chance to win a seat on the court by pointing out her liberalism, and he failed to do it.

  3. ColinATL says:

    By the way, at first I thought the “criminals in a car” ad was an inspired piece of political ad work. But then I realized that it was bad. They made the criminals nice, which makes you sympathetic to them, which ran counter to the whole point of the ad.

    Even stupid people who saw that ad would not have been swayed by a dumb line like, “That Mike Wiggins … he hates criminals.” Yeah, THAT’S a differentiator…

    Memorable ad, in the end, but not so good at delivering the message, in my opinion.

  4. Jas says:

    God this race reminds me so much of the Grant Brantley campaign, and we all know how well that one worked out.

  5. richardr says:

    The Wiggins campaign is the only one that can really be blamed. The response was late and about as pathetic as a John Kerry explanation.

  6. Tommy_a2b says:

    I agree with richardr. I posted this yesterday.

    When Wiggins was recruted or when he came to the powers that be, did anyone ask him where the skeletons were located? If he had come ouot with the thing on his mom first and explained it I think this could have been used as a positive instead of a negative. This is why it is important to know the candidates weaknesses before the race starts. If Wiggins looses it is his fault on this one (or at least his consultants fault.) He should have Terri Schiavo’d this issue to the Conservative base.

  7. hapierson says:

    I guess I am really surprised that more of you are not appalled that a sitting Georgia Supreme Court justice would stoop to putting out an ad that she has admitted that she knew was incomplete and misleading just to smear her opponent and win re-election. How could the Wiggins campaign have possibly predicted that they would twist his effort to save his dying mother and her resources into this filth? And the response ads were out within a day or so, which I would think of as timely.

    I have heard many folks say that this ad had the exact opposite effect on them that it did on Erick — they planned to vote for Hunstein until they saw this ad and then switched to Wiggins because of the ad.

    I don’t know if Wiggins will win or not — defeating an incumbent who is willing to play dirty politics is always an uphill battle. But Hunstein has tarnished herself and the Court with her tactics, in my view, demonstrating that she cares more about her personal power than she does for the institution that she supposedly serves. While this is not new in politics, it is certainly disheartening.

  8. Mad Dog says:

    Erick,

    I really don’t know much about you. I have seen you accept making a mistake with a lot of grace.

    I like the tone of your post to start this thread. Good analysis.

    MD

  9. ColinATL says:

    hapierson,

    The overwhelming defeat handed to Wiggins belies your points. Wiggins was the one playing dirty, as were his Chamber backers. And I will repeat again and again, the guy was overwhelmingly rated a bad choice for a judgeship by his peers, like worse than any other candidate for a state judgeship, ever.

Comments are closed.