Friday, July 14, 2006

Should the DPG Censure Hecht?

It's an interesting thought, though not an original one for me. I got an e-mail tonight from a friend here in Macon who said that she had gotten his second mailer today, even after she was so disgusted with the first one that she notified the campaign to take her off the mailing list, and that she thought that the DPG should censure Hecht. I told her that I knew of no provision in the bylaws that would allow for such action. I do understand the variety of reasons why this is not something the Party could or should do, but you have to admit, it's a novel thought.

I actually think that Greg has censured himself. We'll see how the primary turns out, but I predict that these mail pieces were a gigantic miscalculation on his part. It's motivated voters who go to the polls in 100 degree heat, and motivated voters are often educated voters and less likely to buy into this rouse. My husband, an attorney, is particularly disgusted with the "rape" piece. He walked in the door with it tonight, tossed it on the couch and said that if Greg wins this primary, he will not lift his hand or his checkbook to help him. My son told me that he voted early and had voted for Martin because he didn't like the first mailer. He's twenty and knows that this crosses the line. Another attorney said that he voted early, for Greg, but if there is a run-off that includes Hecht and Martin, his vote will be for Martin.

I'd love to blame the mail firm that put this piece out, but the buck stops with the candidate. Greg's a lawyer, and he should know better than this.


Button Gwinnett said...

I suppose now we see why on Sunday during their debate, Martin asked Hecht to pledge not to get nasty......

Up until then, I thought that race was being ran very cleanly and with some good discussion of issues. It's very disappointing because I had not made up my mind between those two. And now I know I'm supporting Martin. He's been a great public servant. And I think his style will offer a nice contrast to Ralph Reed in the fall.

changeinGA said...

There are two very important things to note about Greg's mailers.
1. The pledge to not get nasty was after Jim had already hit Greg. And why would he ask for a pledge after he hit him, if he didn't know that there was a ton of things on his record that would look bad.
2. Jim Martin has not refused the facts!!!! And that is what they all are facts, footnoted and everything. So as women, if you want to support a canidate that wants to determine degrees of Rape, and set women back, by all means go ahead. I choose to support canditades that actually have a record of supproting women's rights. Greg has spent his life defending the rights of the underdog and victums, Jim Martin was the one who chose to be a defense attorney: defending rapests. I am glad that I know about Jim Martin's record and I am supproting Greg Hecht!

Amy Morton said...

Are you joking? Have you bothered to read the context of the "rape" quote? This is an embarrassmentto the Democratic party. I can't believe you are defending this.

Lyman Hall said...

What is the alleged attack from Jim Martin? All I've heard is that "he attacked." I think Hecht knows he's going down, and now he wants to bring the Democratic ship down with him.

Jim Martin is a true public servant, and I was honored to early vote for him.

MelGX said...

"And that is what they all are facts, footnoted and everything."

Sorry, footnotes do not make facts. They make footnotes. These "footnotes" are nothing more than a cheap graphic device employed by this mailhouse to try and create the appearance of legitimacy where there is none. It's a deceptive sham, and everyone involved with this mailer should be discredited along with Hecht. Those who helped facilitate this slander are nothing more than mercenary whores.

Jen said...

"Jim Martin was the one who chose to be a defense attorney: defending rapests."

Ahh yes, because defending the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment isn't as sexy as defending the 1st.

Ed Hula III said...

he got his inspiration from the Gov race

Amy Morton said...

Mel, I think I know the mailhouse, but can't confirm yet.

MelGX said...

Amy, I'd like to know as soon as you can confirm. If it's who I think it is, it's even worse.

changeinGA said...

Well you all can complain about what Greg Hecht's mail piece all you want, but they are tame compared to what the Republicans will do to Jim Martin. Any sound minded Democrat could see that we need a candidate that can beat Ralph Reed, or Casey Cagle. When they are done with Jim Martin, he will be lucky to have any Democrats voting for him.

Nonviolent Activist said...

Heck with Hecht.
I checked all the sources-bogus citations! So I looked at every article @ those issues.

** Hecht mislead, misinterpreted, and misused info and now wants to back it with "I cited it" or "he started it" ** OH GROW UP Hecht, get a grip and suck it up.
What the truth, check it here:

Tina Trent said...

I'm far less interested in one-sided charges of "dirty campaigning" than the content of the charges Greg Hecht raises.

For years, Jim Martin used his power as chair of House Judiciary to block the single most important law that would benefit rape victims -- equalizing jury strikes in rape cases. Prosecutors around the country long observed that our unique and inordinate bias toward rape defendants in jury strikes (they got two for each single strike allowed the prosecution) made it exceedingly difficult to prosecute rapists in this state. On behalf of defense attorneys (like himself) who represent rapists and child molesters, Jim Martin personally blocked this legislation over and over, ensuring that the playing field would not be levelled for victims of child molestation and rape.

Nobody who cares about rape victims should feign ignorance of this subject. I don't blame Greg for being angry that Jim now presents himself as some champion of victims: after all, Jim's action on this bill is literally the reason that rape victims didn't have equal rights in our justice system for years. The equal strikes bill finally passed after Jim wasn't there to block it anymore. Greg supported the bill all along.

Given such willful contempt for those women and children unlucky enough to be raped, I cannot watch Jim's ad about his daughter's lucky (and thank God for that) escape without thinking that herein lies the real negativity in this race: Jim claiming some commitment to those other, less lucky rape victims, like me, whom he quietly and systematically denied equal rights.

That's negative. The rest is just tit-for-tat politicking, which everybody does. Some people do it out front, some behind closed doors, where they enjoy access you and I don't possess. It's politics, folks.

Prove Greg's charges wrong, and I'll listen. Meanwhile, I think Democratic women have a load of self-searching to do about their willingness to sell out rape victims before they go attacking someone as principled as Greg Hecht for telling uncomfortable truths about Jim Martin's record. It's not about Jim's feelings, or your feelings, for that matter: it's about proving a commitment to the weakest among us and telling the truth about your own record.

On these counts, Greg Hecht is impeccable. Sure, Jim Martin has done some good things over the years, but his commitment to crime victims is questionable, to say the least. In his actions, he has sided with predators, not victims of crime. Maybe he should be the one to be censured for that. And apologize as well.