Barnes On TV

Roy Barnes has a TV ad which, according to the Political Insider, will run in Metro Atlanta.


UPDATE: Someone on the tipline pointed out that foreclosure is misspelled. Heh. You can see it at the 20 sec. mark.

UPDATE 2: Well, it looks like it’s been fixed.


  1. fishtail says:

    Much better than the “I’m sorry” TV ad, which I haven’t seen running lately. This is what several million dollars can do for a candidate.

  2. Mike Hauncho says:

    Speaking of millions of dollars, where is the money going to come from to end teacher furloughs and give them pay raises?

    • ByteMe says:

      Doesn’t matter (it’s an ad, not a policy paper).

      What matters is that the Republicans have cut the budget on the backs of the teachers and teachers are pretty unforgiving of that kind of thing. Roy appears to have learned from his last campaign that smacking teachers is a good way to lose. Republicans dug their own hole on that issue.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        So Roy will lie about what he will really do and that’s OK with you. It’s just an ad, not a policy paper.

        • ByteMe says:

          And every Republican candidate’s sh!t is sanitized for consumption, right?

          Is he lying? As you would say to someone challenging your Party’s garbage: “prove it”.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            I wasn’t talking about every Republican. The question was asked about how Barnes would pay for it, and YOU were the one who said “It’s an ad, not a policy paper.” So if he (or you) can’t tell us how he will do that and balance the budget, then I take it as you are OK with it being a lie.

            My comment was not so much that Barnes maybe telling a lie, but more that you are OK with it if it is. “Doesn’t matter.”

            • ByteMe says:

              Ah, that. Ok, thanks for explaining your comment.

              My reasoning is that with an ad, I want to know priorities, not details. With policy papers and speeches — where the candidates have time to explain their views without artificial time constraints — I want the candidate to feed my need for data.

              Do I think teachers are going to be a priority under Barnes? Yep… and I suspect you would agree with that.

              Do I think that funding is going to be an issue with any implementation of his goals? Of course. We have crappy education here precisely because we prefer not to pay for better. So it’ll be interesting to see how he gets more money for teachers past a legislature focused more on cutting spending than providing quality services.

              Do I think it’s a topic that hurts Republicans? You betcha.

              • Doug Grammer says:

                “Teachers furloughs will be ended forever.” Will he make all school boards across the state answerable directly to the Governor? I’m just pointing out he’s promising things he can’t do as a matter of law. Therefore, it’s pandering and a lie.

                • ByteMe says:

                  Pandering is a lie? You mean when Ox goes around saying he’ll institute the Fair Tax to solve all our problems, that’s a lie as well?

                  It might be pandering, but maybe if enough Republicans get the message that teachers are annoyed with them, it won’t be a lie.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    If memory serves correctly, Ox said he would call for a constitutional convention to enact the fair tax and that he is a supporter of it. He didn’t promise that he would be successful. It is possible to happen under current law.

                    Barnes is promising things that are impossible under current law.

                    It’s not just teachers that annoyed, it’s the whole dad gum state that’s annoyed with the “hope I have change left” coming from DC. I think that teachers are smart enough to know that balancing a budget with 2 billion dollars less coming in a year means that some funding changes were required.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      I think that teachers are smart enough to know that balancing a budget with 2 billion dollars less coming in a year means that some funding changes were required.

                      Uh huh. And spending on “Go Fish” was soooo important that the legislature had to approve it while still doing teacher furloughs. Nah, they won’t forgive so easily no matter how much you want to wish it.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      For the record, I’ve never been a fan of “Go Fish.” Two open question that I don’t know the answer to: Exactly how much money was spent on Go Fish?

                      Second question: How much less money was spent on education this year than last year?

                      I’d be surprised if Go Fish made a drop in the bucket.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      If I remember right, Go Fish was $19M in 2009. And, yes, it’s a definite drop-in-the-bucket (and possibly even something that generated more revenue than it spent), but also a poke-in-the-eye to those who had to take furlough days so that the budget would get balanced.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I’m looking for good (or better) government, not perfect government. Perfect government doesn’t exist. There will be problems in government no matter which party is in charge.

                      I see Barnes as worse government, starting off by making promises are that are legally impossible to deliver.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Not a question of perfect or even good government. It’s a question of smart politics or dumb. Dissing teachers while promoting your pet fishing project is dumb politics.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      ‘taint Sonny writing the budget with those little tidbits in it. It’s them pesky Republicaneers.

              • Especially when (from what I’ve heard) over half the state’s budget already goes to education. That’s such a ludicrous number though, I can’t help but think that it’s incorrect.

              • one n done says:

                “We have crappy education here precisely because we prefer not to pay for better”.
                Education is 70% of our budget. I don’t think not paying is the problem, I think the problem is that we allocate that 70% terribly within education. If anything, we are spending too much on an inneficient education system. The solution isn’t to allocate more of the budget to education, the solution is to allocate the money efficiently i.e do the opposite of anything Kathy with a K would do. How one does that, I don’t know, but I do know you don’t do it by throwing more money at it and making it more of the state budget without fixing the mechanism(cough…cough…what Obama does). But apparently King Roy has the magic wand and all he has to do is just wish it and it will happen. He could help by furloghing his entire stay in the Mansion if he wins and give it to teachers…but that would call for a liberal to be generous with his own money…fat chance

                • one n done says:

                  *correction* 70% of the budget is education, health care, and corrections and education alone is 56%…whoops. Hopefully you can still see my point

                  • ByteMe says:

                    I do get what you’re saying. I think a lot of the reason that education is such a large part of the budget is because of funding transfers to the poorer parts of the state where they cannot/will not raise enough taxes to fund their education systems. So the state takes routes additional funds to them. I know there is waste in the system, but there is waste in almost every large-scale enterprise (if you’ve ever looked deeply at large corporations, you’d be amazed at how much money they waste just with their perpetual reorganizations).

                    We pay less for teachers. We end up hiring lower quality teachers. We have lower quality education relative to other states. All of those statements are demonstrably true. Getting the state legislature out of it might turn out to be a hardship for the poor counties in the south, but they would be the first ones to slam state money going to Atlanta for transportation, so it seems fair to me.

                    • B Balz says:


                      “Georgia will spend almost $8 billion in state funds to educate 1.6 million K-12 students in FY 2010, based on the Governor’s proposed budget. ” That’s $5,000 per student.

                      At issue is how we spend the money. Public schools have to take all comers.
                      Charter schools take those whose kids and parents want to learn.

                      We have kids in GA whose parents could care less about their kids education and we have parents that are actively involved. Charter schools enjoy the latter demographic and the test scores reflect the difference.

                      Face it, your kid may be sitting next to somebody’s kid who is dumber than a box of rocks, with zero parental support. How does the public school system perform ‘teaching triage’ without getting sued?

                      That is the essence of it, everything else is a subset.

                    • Lady Thinker says:


                      You address the points some of the others ignore so they can blame what they term as “non-performing teachers.”
                      You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Parents have to take an interest in their child’s education and sadly, too many don’t.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      Not entirely true, BB. We’re currently in Kingsley Elem district and although it’s a charter school, it has a high percentage of ESOL kids in the early grades just because of the apartments over on Peachtree Industrial. Absenteeism amongst that group is higher than other groups and test scores are lower.

                      We looked for a house in the area that would have been in Dunwoody Springs Charter district. Their scores are not all that great either.

                      Compare that to, say the schools that feed the new Johns Creek High or Chattahoochee High. Not charter schools, but incredibly high scores.

                      Charter schools are not a slam dunk. They can help a failing school, but they can’t create a miracle.

                    • B Balz says:

                      OMG You are my neighbor!

                      “…it has a high percentage of ESOL kids in the early grades just because of the apartments over on Peachtree Industrial. Absenteeism amongst that group is higher than other groups and test scores are lower. …”

                      Not to argue, but that is my point. Parents that ‘ride herd’ on their kids not to miss school (Parental involvement) get results. I am surprised that their are not more strict rules on absenteeism in Kinglsey

                    • ByteMe says:

                      We’re trying to move to Johns Creek in the next year.

                      It’s not you. It’s me. 🙂

                    • B Balz says:

                      John’s Creek is a pretty nice ticket. I bet we’ve bumped into each other at the Kroger.

                    • TPNoGa says:

                      Wow, y’all are pretty close to me as well. I am in the Kittredge (fka Nancy Creek) district. I was hoping and praying it would one of the schools closed, but alas, I have been foiled again. I can’t stand all those people turning left on Nancy Creek in the morning.

        • hannah says:

          It’s not possible to lie about the future. That’s why politicians like to talk about the future. Reporters like it because there’s no fact-checking, only speculation.

  3. Mayonnaise says:

    This is why we need to remove education for the control of stinking politicians. It’s the same crap over and over. The pay of a teacher should have nothing to do with who gets elected. It should be a business decision based on job performance. Vote for someone who will move education further toward a free market environment and remove it from these vote-pandering slugs.

    • ByteMe says:

      I think you missed your target. Education is always going to be in the hands of politicians — whether it’s the local school board or the state DoE — but…

      But we need to get teacher pay funding out of the hands of the state legislature. Let the state set the rules for performance, then let the local school boards determine pay and how to pay for it.

        • ByteMe says:

          Ugh. Vouchers. Waste of time. Friedman made mistakes in his economic theories — the efficient market theory being a big one — and his foray into politics also suffers from similar mistakes.

          • In The Arena says:

            Ok, so let me get this straight. Rasmussen and Matt Towery don’t know how to conduct a poll. WSB doesn’t know how to report the news. Friedman is wrong about economics. So they are all wrong about their respective disciplines and you are the only one who is right? You are quite the renaissance man.

            • Mayonnaise says:

              Exactly what I was thinking. Liberals always have the answer ……. spend, spend, spend.

            • ByteMe says:

              ITA: at no point did I ever say that Rasmussen or IA “don’t know how to conduct a poll”. That’s your words, not mine. In fact, my words were that they conduct their polls exactly in keeping with what their clients want from them. I have also pointed out the flaws in specific polls being cited, flaws which you have shown no ability to dispute. Bring on the facts and show me that my analysis is wrong.

              Friedman got things wrong. So did Keynes. So do most economists who think that they can take a series of data based on human behavior and project it into the distant future or even to apply it to other branches of human endeavors. Again, you don’t provide any data to prove him right, but I have the entire debacle of 2007-2008 to show that his work on efficient market theory had flaws and should not be considered as “inviolate”. He created a model that worked for the time he existed and sometimes the model is right, but other times it’s not and people who think that a single model for human behavior is going to work in all instances are either fools or fooling themselves.

              Again, bring on the facts and show me where my logic is flawed. Until then, you can complain that I don’t believe what you write, but everyone gets where you’re coming from.

                • ByteMe says:

                  And you’ve shown that you also come to the game with no — or made-up — facts, so people get that about you.

                  • Mayonnaise says:

                    …….”everyone gets where you’re coming from” ……. ” so people get that about you” … and when did you become the spokesperson for “the people”? And your facts are based on ….umm…. what you believe to be true? Slight touch of narcissism from OverByte.

                    • B Balz says:

                      Over time, Mayo, your comments seem like those from a political operative. Not that their is anything wrong with that. Really. Not anything. Wrong. With. That. ~ahem~

                      Byte’s comments seem moderately left of center, businesslike, and pretty logical. But he IS a Gator fan.

                      If Byte wasn’t a Gator fan, you’d probably be more open-minded. Admit it, its’ the Gator thing that torques you off, isn’t it?

                      Roy’s ad, BTW, is OK, but I cannot wait to see the learned attorney facing off with Rep. Deal or Ms. Handel. I won’t project any criticism on Ms. Handel’s debate skills, but Rep. Deal is a far more experienced speaker.

                      The 2011-12 budget projections are more spartan than the 2010 deficits. Furlough days are not popular, but many can keep their jobs as a result.

                      Contrast the ad with those facts, and I would be mighty curious to see if Roy doesn’t start a’pullin’ on his neck-tie, all wincing and such.


              • Mozart says:

                “Again, you don’t provide any data to prove him right, but I have the entire debacle of 2007-2008 to show that his work on efficient market theory had flaws and should not be considered as “inviolate””

                I’m pretty sure Keynes assumed there would be no cheating in the markets. The selling of the concept of infinite reward and supposed zero risk in the credit-default swap scheme was not considered in Keynes’ theory. He could not account for fraudulent schemes.

                • ByteMe says:

                  You mean Friedman, not Keynes, who had the efficient market theory.

                  And you hit on why there’s no such thing as an “efficient market”. Because unscrupulous people will always look for ways to game a system for their own benefit and if they have enough money to play with, they can create dislocations in the market that are anything but “efficient”.

      • Ambernappe says:

        Including Clayton County ????

        By the way, wonder when an interim state superintendent will be appointed.

        Hope it will be Roger Hines.

        • ByteMe says:

          Even pathetic Clayton County needs to have local control over teacher pay. As I wrote: state should set the requirements for performance/outcome, local should have control over pay and tax collection. Won’t happen under any of the candidates for Governor, just because the legislature wants the power/money control.

          • John Konop says:


            I agree the Constitution does not guarantee success. But if done locally voters have the right to control their own destiny by kicking out the school board if they fail. Now all we have is finger pointing game between, the county school district, state and federal government.

    • ByteMe says:

      Oh, and the governor has little to do with that. Same as with determining furloughs… unless the governor is planning to veto the last-minute budget and force the legislature back into session to either over-ride the veto or come up with a better budget.

    • hannah says:

      The market is not appropriate for goods and services which the recipient either doesn’t want (e.g. incarceration) or doesn’t appreciate (primary education). When the buyer is not the recipient it’s necessary to have some other standard than personal satisfaction met.
      If pupils were containers and what one pours in were sure to pour out, teaching them the skills we want them to have in the future would be a lot easier.

  4. fishtail says:

    Barnes has been on TV in Savannah for about 2 weeks now. Don’t know where else, but rates are a lot cheaper in the outlying areas than in metro Atlanta.

  5. Junius says:

    Very good ad. Interesting the way he uses the blackboard motif to subtly address his past issues with the teachers. Like an old country song, he seems to promise things are going to different if his baby will just come back to him. Love is in the air.

    Riskier move is the foreclosure stuff. A clear pander to the base, one suspects this won’t play as well with suburban and rural independent voters inclined to see that a sop to irresponsible people living beyond their means.

    • ByteMe says:

      Suburbia is where so many foreclosures have been occurring and ruining the local real estate markets. People in the ‘burbs know they need to slow down the speed at which foreclosures take place (Georgia is one of the fastest states for allowing banks to sell a house out from under you).

      • Junius says:

        I don’t disagree that the burbs are where the problem is. Just not sure if the vast majority of Georgians, who are paying their debts every month, are ready to support their neighbors getting their debt knocked down.

        • ByteMe says:

          If you’ve ever lived next to a foreclosed house, you would support keeping someone — anyone — in that house instead of having it sit empty. Empty houses are a slow-motion disaster that take down every house in your neighborhood. Which means a single house affects a whole bunch around it, which then makes it a problem for the “vast majority” of Georgians.

          • Junius says:

            I don’t disagree with your logic and you make the argument in favor of the societal benefits of foreclosure prevention. However, this is an emotional issue for many folks who are “doing the right thing” and can be easily portrayed as another government sop to fiscal irresponsibility, especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of home loan which have been modified ultimately end in foreclosure anyway. The only way to keep this folks in their houses in most instances is direct principal reductions – something the government is not empowered to mandate nor in a fiscal position to subsidize. Policy aside, time will tell if it is good politics for Roy.

            • ByteMe says:

              The whole “fiscal irresponsibility” meme sounds good, but most loans that are failing right now are failing because of unemployment. In 2007-2008 it was all about subprime mortgages. Loans that are failing now — and foreclosure rates are still near their highs — are prime mortgages for people with good documented credit who have either bought a house that is “underwater” relative to their mortgage (about 25% of the US) or they no longer can afford the payments because they lost their jobs. That’s not being “fiscally irresponsible”; it’s just bad timing.

              There’s that old saying about if you owe someone $100 that’s your fault, but if you owe someone $1 million, that’s their fault. In this case, the banks really don’t want the properties in most instances — they often get much less on foreclosure resale than they would if the property was an occupied short sale — they want the loans to get paid somehow. So getting them to renegotiate the terms to make it more affordable is in the bank’s interest as well.

              But I also get that there might be some backlash from some quarters, but I doubt those people were voting for Roy anyway.

        • Negotiating doesn’t necessarily mean getting debt knocked down. What’s to say they can’t just extend the life of the loan until the debt is fully paid off? For instance a 30 year loan becomes a 32 year loan. At least the bank gets all it’s money at the agreed upon rates. You’re simply extending the contract.

          • B Balz says:

            Actually the game being played in the uber-large commercial sector is ‘extend and pretend’. Extend the term and pretend the asset value ratio is high enough not to call the note.

            A quiet law was passed allowing this practice by involving the lender as an equity partner. In other words, the lender profits from the note, and when the asset sells, gains a percentage of the sale price.

            In residential, loans are packaged and resold vis a vis Fannie and Freddie. Changing the terms of the note makes the bundling process much more difficult, if not impossible.

            • Extend and pretend huh? Interesting. Assuming I understand you (the method) correctly, it sounds fair to me. It’s not the bank’s fault that the buyer of the house paid more than what the property would be worth a couple of years down the road… give or take a minute or two. My line of thought is that if someone borrows money they should repay it. If they didn’t think that price for that house was a good deal, they shouldn’t have borrowed $X amount to pay the seller for the property. Period.

              • B Balz says:

                Fare is for taxi’s.

                The investors are holding trillions and if this house of cards tumbles, we are all in a world of stink.

                • Mozart says:

                  Money is quite cheap to be printed…Goldman Sachs will tap the Fed and Bob’s your Uncle on the investors getting repaid.

              • Lady Thinker says:


                Here are some examples from people I know, or are friends, or have heard on TV who are trying to get the bank to work with them on their mortgages. The last two are one month behind on their mortgages and have no family members or friends they can turn to for help.

                1) This was on TV tonight. Woman’s police officer husband was killed seven years ago, she went back to work, and is working three jobs but has fallen short financially and is having a problem keeping the home she shared with her husband for her two kids.

                2) Co-worker example. Woman is single mother, got cancer, survived the disease but lost her job three years ago due to complications from surgery. Now she is fine but hasn’t found a job and has gone through the two years of savings she had. She has had her h0me for 15 years and has been trying to sell it for the past two years.

                3) One of my students examples. Adult student has had home twenty years but has degenerative disk disease as well as taking care of elderly parents living with her. Both parents social security barely pays for their medical problems so they cannot help adult student who was laid off with household bills. Student is working part-time and going to college on the HOPE Grant so she can improve her skills and maybe get a job. She has had her home for ten years and been trying to sell it for the past 18 months.

                These people are more than willing to pay their bills but they are either underemployed or not employed through no real fault of their own. These are the people for which a program needs to be available for so their mortgage payments can be temporarily lowered.

                Are you talking about these people or the people who bought more house than they could afford and now want to walk away?

                • LT – it may not sound like it on the surface, but I’m actually talking about both. See my post before the one talking about it being fair. When the bank and the homeowner are at the negotiating table, all options should be available. Whether it’s lowering the monthly payment and extending the the length of the loan or extending the length of the loan but letting the homeowner skip a payment here and there (make 9 payments that year, but interest still accrues on the balance). Perhaps lowering the rate to whatever the bank is able to tolerate. It’s better to break even than lose money. Basically, I’m saying that all of those people still owe the money. They borrowed it and should repay it. But I’m not saying the bank should foreclose on them. That doesn’t help either party. I’m saying they need to work together to find a reasonable solution so that both parties are happy. Does that make sense? (It’s been a very long day and I’m not sure I’m not just rambling now…)

                  • B Balz says:

                    Mr. Staples:

                    Here is the part of the picture you are not respecting. When I buy a home, and get a mortgage, almost all the tie, the mortgage is traunched into a very large bundle and sold to an investor.

                    Rarely, can the servicing org change the terms. It is illegal and if you think it through, UNFAIR, to the investor.

                    Y’all have the bestest of intentions…

                    • Lady Thinker says:

                      I agree with you too BB, but I think the economic crisis contributed to making the terms difficult for everyone. Do you think it may be better for both parties to negoiate new terms so that neither side has to lose?

                  • Lady Thinker says:

                    Yes David, that is clearer than what I thought you said and I agree, both need to work out a compromise so that it is a win-win for both. Thanks for clarifying your comments.

                    • B Balz says:

                      It is a legal issue LT. How do you renegotiate the terms of an agreement when a third party (investor) owns the note?

                      If you bargain and then buy a mortgage for a price that includes risk and return is it FAIR for someone to come along and change the terms?

                      That is the issue.

                    • ByteMe says:

                      For a third-party to come along and change the terms is unacceptable. However, in Georgia, we have some of the most consumer-unfriendly laws related to foreclosures. Adjusting those laws to slow the process down — just like having mediation mandated as part of divorces — might help everyone find a better solution that works for both parties. It also might not, but at least the rules favored finding a better solution instead of supporting only a lose-lose scenario.

                    • B Balz says:

                      Good point. Georgia law is punitive is many aspects. You can lose your property pretty quickly here. Without a trial, you waive that right at the closing table.

                      I had a theory that our punitive laws may have been a result of the State being populated originally by debtors. When I researched it, turns out Gen. James Oglethorpe never really brought over many debtors.

                      And the ones he was trying to free were unfortunate, recent poor upper class folk incarcerated in England’s debtor prisons.

                      I don’t understand why GA law is so hard on folks. It’s expensive being broke, that’s a fact.

                • hannah says:

                  Right. Ever since our currency was decoupled from a relatively scarce metal, there’s been a multi-pronged effort to control the economy by artificially restricting individual access to currency — i.e. by holding down wages, jiggling interest rates and restricting public expenditures under the guise of “fiscal prudence.” Shipping the dollar overseas was another component of the restrictive regimen, as was the debt agenda. Converting assets and equity into debt would make the money easier to control.
                  What happened eventually is that the agents of economic control overplayed their hand. That’s why it is likely that up to 30% of U.S. economic activity is now underground, made up of transactions that don’t register in the GDP, either because they rely on barter or use cash.
                  Economists, who even consider it, like to argue that underground or black markets flourish when governments are corrupt. I’d suggest that artificially restricting currency is a more likely cause. Trade and exchange are like speech. They occur whether there are symbols to mediate them, or not.

                  • Doug Grammer says:

                    For those who want to go back to the gold standard, let me ask a question. What happens to the value of a dollar when I find(mine) gold in my back yard? Do I get richer, or does the dollar deflate in value?

        • Lady Thinker says:

          They maysupportative if their neighbors have lost jobs and can’t pay the mortgage. It is better for the neighbor to get help and stay in the home than to lose it, let the grass grow tall, which can invite the criminal element into the area. It is cheaper to help those out with mortgage problems than to risk the criminal problems.

  6. John Konop says:

    It is clear as I said in the past Barnes will make the election about education, ethics and jobs. And we all know the issues with OX and Deal on the ethics front. Also as I said school vouchers is a killer after the teacher cut backs in school.

    • Mozart says:

      I thought you claimed on another thread that he would make it about Mark Foley and Nathan Deal supposedly being cozy….?

      John, the fact is that you flip around on an theory about as quick as Karen Handel does on her position on gay adoptions in 2003 and her position 2 years later.

  7. truth says:

    He’s going to scrub corruption from the State Capitol? Might have to begin with the Governor’s office.

    Lots of pandering but will probably be effective.

  8. Technocrat says:

    Google Earth has new photos of metro ATL as of April 9, 2010.
    Unfortunately Deal’s Godfather compounds [Nopone Rd] are still 2008.
    What’s in that gigantic barn? It as large as his house.
    34 24 45.45 N 83 46 28.23 W

    Anyway you can spend hours studying the fantastic new governors mansion in Cobb. 33 57 04.12 N 84 33 57.22 W
    Obvious why Barnes wants to close the existing very tiny obsolete State facility and have Georgians pay for 4 years of use of his private mansion. Millions in new fencing, guard houses, gates and new buildings will be required for security as a gift of the voters.

    Quite obvious that poor people like Handel and the OX could never use their small personal homes in the future. So the existing Gov mansion cannot be sold, unless all future Gov are multi millionaires.

    • fishtail says:

      TECHNOCRAT…you must have a lot of time on your hands to GOOGLEEARTH the candidates’ personal homes. Also, I don’t believe Barnes meant he would charge the taxpayers any money for his home expenses. When Barnes was in the legislature, he never submitted per diem expense vouchers for re-imbursement. He was the only legislator to ever do this. Say what you want about the man, it took a lot of class to do that.

  9. ZazaPachulia says:

    Why doesn’t he just scrap this ad and give us a montage of what the GOP is asking us to choose from?

  10. GeorgiaDawg says:

    Barnes is one stubborn guy. Georgia elected him out office once and he has the audacity to run again.

    • Mozart says:

      Georgia’s flaggers were against him last time. Now those flaggers are going to be more mad at the GOP. A Perfect Storm of retribution is going to be at hand if Barnes is the Dems nominee.

      • ByteMe says:

        The flaggers got too much credit last time. I view them as more of a symptom of the underlying issues than the actual cause of Barnes’ loss. The underlying issues included: the run-up to the Iraq War that took out a lot of Democrats in a lot of races, the view that he was making decisions not in the best interest of certain constituents (e.g., taking GA 400 tolls and applying them to other projects and pushing the northern arc), and teacher dissatisfaction with him.

    • rugby says:

      Kind of like how McCain, Reagan, Isakson etc had all been rejected by voters yet they ran for the same office again.

  11. Mozart says:

    “The underlying issues included: the run-up to the Iraq War that took out a lot of Democrats in a lot of races,”

    Oh, really? So, now what you’re telling us is Democrats rushed-out to volunteer for a war run by a Republican? Really?

    • ByteMe says:

      You really really should get the reading comprehension thing checked by a professional.

  12. kolt473 says:

    Folks don’t trust ROY BARNES when I saw his ad I just [email protected] The scene in church, phony repenting to get votes back when he screwed the teachers, took away the old flag, because the NCAA demanded its banishment he caved botched the RAY LEWIS affair, it was local investigation, think state AG was in on it as well, allege under the governor governors watchful eyes, sure he reduced classes notice budget cuts local level class room size will double, here’s the church ad sneaky ROY don’t trust him the allege corruption he promises to end, don’t bet on it, business as usual. Another source of Barnes fundraisers….. Sorry Roy, you were disaster first time I don’t want you back you backed JOHN EDWARDS FOR POTUS, in the end lost it all OBAMA AND THE NATIONAL PARTY GAVE ALL OF US ”THE FINGER” AND LIED, don’t think we ”stupid” voters will be fooled by you again. you might convinced the generation born after your first term, but not all of us, ROY YOUR ADS ARE GREAT FOR A GOOD BELLY LAUGH, IMHO.

    • B Balz says:

      Tip on reading kolt473 posts:

      Turn the lights down low, get comfy. Turn up the #1 Hip Hop tune, Un-Thinkable (I’m Ready) by Alicia Keys off The Element of Freedom disc. Play and read the posts, they coincide perfectly.

  13. kolt473 says:

    if you wish barnes in, go for it, he fooled once, he’ll do it again, with the anti left sentiment you’ll waste a vote, barnes a good allege liar, they all are. byteme afraid of the man behind the curtain.

Comments are closed.