Barnes Ups Ante Against Deal Using Their State Legislative Records

Sent as a tip, Roy Barnes continues to add “Another straw on the Camel’s back” via his website, alluding to the somewhat successful “Last Straw” add Deal used in the closing days of the Republican runoff.

Barnes current strategy is clearly aimed at attracting women voters, and is using Deal’s State Senate record against him:

In 1981, then-State Senator Roy Barnes authored legislation that allowed police to make an arrest, without warrant, of individuals suspected of committing violent acts against their spouses.

Nathan Deal fought against the bill. His excuse? He said it violated the “sanctity of the family.”

Several years later, Deal solidified his anti-women resume by casting the lone “nay” vote on a bill that strengthened domestic violence laws. While every other member of the state legislature voted to strengthen domestic violence laws, Nathan Deal made a point of voting against the best interest of Georgia’s women.

Discuss.

15 comments

  1. polisavvy says:

    Slightly off subject; but, has anyone else seen Roy Barnes’ newest ad? I couldn’t help but laugh out loud. I’m sure they did not mean for it to have any comedic value; however, it does, in my opinion. It is pretty clever, too.

      • polisavvy says:

        LOL!! True, perimeter. It makes you wonder how many takes it took to get it right. I’d be worried about someone’s aim the whole time I was trying to film it.

      • polisavvy says:

        As an aside, I just saw Deal’s “He’ll get it right the first time” ad. It’s actually pretty good. Talks about more jobs being lost under Barnes that at any time in Georgia’s history and actually uses an AJC quote. Of the two, Barnes is more creative (or bizarre as you said); but, Deal’s is going to make people think.

        • Of course when terrorists fly airplanes into buildings and the national economy goes into a recession whatever state had gained the most jobs prior to that also has the most to lose.

          A convenient fact that the Republicans aren’t telling anyone.

          From ’99-’03 Georgia gained 235,000, but it would have been even more were it not to the job losses post 9/11.

          • polisavvy says:

            That’s true, Chris, and I actually do understand and appreciate that fact. My husband’s business started going to pot about two months after 9/11. Having said that, it’s also true that a lot of people still have not realized that fact (and probably never will). I was simply implying that Deal using that in his ad will be effective with those who aren’t as familiar with what you are saying. I can’t help but wonder where this entire country would be had 9/11 never happened. I guess we’ll never know, will we?

            • I just think it’s either amusing, sad, or both (depending on your perspective) that both claims are true:
              1. Georgia was in the top 10 among job gains from 99 to 03.
              2. Georgia lost the most jobs post 9/11.

              • Charlie says:

                It’s funny that this same argument and rebuttal used to be used against George Bush.

                As it applies to GA and 9/11, it’s important to remember that at the time, the State’s largest employer was Delta Air Lines. 9/11 was the beginning of a long and painful journey as they cut about 1/3 of their workforce, and then cut the salary by half of many of their remaining employees. That affected not only Delta’s employees, but the many businesses, especially in South Metro Atlanta, who depended on those Delta employees for their livelihoods.

                There’s a lot to blame Barnes for that occurred under his watch. I’m not sure this is one of those.

                • Jeff says:

                  Unfortunately LEGIS only exists from 1995 forward (though for some strange reason, the 1997-1998 session only has the home page working).

                  That said, the King was a State Rep 1995-1996, then Governor from 1999-2002. Records from both are on LEGIS, with links available in my latest post for those who don’t know how to get there.

    • Maybe he’ll just claim that it was great vision into the future – trying to protect his daughter’s right to clobber her husband after finding out he lied about his prior bankruptcy.

  2. AnyoneElse2010 says:

    While I understand where this bill could do some good, isn’t this a direct affront to our legal system?

  3. Lady Thinker says:

    Based on deal’s legislative record and his supporters posts, I don’t think deal cares much for women’s rights unless they are Christian women who took the “honor and obey” oath and let their husbands make all the decisions as a dutiful wife.

    Other than being a Christian woman, the rest is crap.

Comments are closed.