Whoa!  In an unexpected turn of events, former Governor and gubernatorial candidate, Roy Barnes, today expressed support for immigration “reform” similar to what Arizona has recently passed.

Barnes, the front-runner in the Democratic primary for governor, made the strongest endorsement among the party’s gubernatorial candidates for adopting an Arizona-type law, but he cautioned he would want to ensure that the law would not result in law officers using racial profiling to detain suspected illegal immigrants.

He offers some other caveats too.  Tuesday can’t come soon enough.

Tagged with:
 

45 Responses to Reason #1 to not vote early.

  1. Jason says:

    So who do we vote for Tuesday??? Who is the least douchy of the bunch? If I’m forced to vote for bill Bolton again, I’m gonna be pissed

  2. rb20 says:

    You all are acting like this is a surprise. I’ve been around politics in this state longer than most of you, and I know Roy’s history.

    Roy was one of the most right wing politicians in Georgia through the 1980s and 1990s in either party (and trust me, that took some doing). The first time he ran for Governor he was so radical on abortion that he and Nancy Schaefer (God rest her misguided soul) were running around the state together campaigning and attacking other candidates for being too liberal on abortion and gay rights (and they weren’t exactly models of progressive thinking).

    Roy has been whining since 2002 that he gave into liberals (and some other words not fit for a family website) on the flag and other things, and that’s why he got beat. He’s going back to being the old Roy. No more lefty stuff for him.

    He’s done just enough with endorsements from Democratic officials who are sure he’s going to win anyway to get the stamp of approval of the Democratic primary. He thinks he has it in the bag, and now he’s shifting to where he’ll be full time after Tuesday.

    You now know what you’re getting. Buyer beware.

  3. Jen B. says:

    Just got a phone call on my cell from Sen. Stoner asking me reelect Rep. Sheila Jones. BAH.

  4. griftdrift says:

    Wow. You just drove that right off the cliff, didn’t you?

  5. AxelDC says:

    So, he believes that US citizens should be forced to prove their right to be in America. Jan Drinkwine Brewer herself cannot articulate what constitutes reasonable search and does not know what “proof” US citizens must provide. One Colorado-born truck driver was arrested in Arizona because the police said his commercial drivers license was insufficient evidence.

    How long before homophobic cops begin raiding gay bars to force patrons to “prove” they are legitimate US citizens? Many of them probably think gays aren’t real Americans to begin with, regardless of origin of birth and parental heritage.

  6. JR says:

    He’s running a general election. Would we all really prefer him say the right things and lose and then have a law like this really happen from the GOP Governor, or neutralize the issue and win the election? He’s clearly pandering, not making Arizona plans.

    • Matt says:

      When and where does it stop? We Democrats and liberals have got to stop giving up the reasons we want to win for a win. Otherwise, how are we actually going to change opinions and get our policies enacted?

  7. Branden says:

    Thanks for sharing this. I was already supporting Poythress.

    • Chris says:

      Who also said he’d support it if it is proven Constitutional. Have fun.

    • MouthoftheSouth says:

      I don’t know if these voting machines support drag and drop, but see if you can add Poythress to the Senate race. If so i will gladly vote for him there.

  8. Tim says:

    Reposting, from Chris – “Fair enough but they asked all of the candidates in the debate and they all pretty much gave the same answer. Barnes gets the headline because he’s leading in the polls but if you read the story, everyone supports it but Randall Mangham.”

    • Chris says:

      Yeah, I think the thing is a lot of Democratic primary voters are probably personally against this. But every one of the 4 major candidates has the same position on it – they’d sign it.

      A recent CBS poll nationally found that 57% support the law and an additional 17% thinks it doesn’t go far enough. Hard to win a general election if you’re against some sort of action on an issue that at least 100% of the country thinks needs some attention, and on a position that 74% agrees with or thinks is only the first step that should be taken.

      • Sara says:

        According to this story, Baker didn’t say he’d sign it. He said he’d need to see it and consider it. http://www.macon.com/2010/07/16/1197596/barnes-id-back-arizona-style-immigration.html#ixzz0trtQX6zC

        • Chris says:

          To me that’s kind of a cop out non answer. We will find out tomorrow when we see the debate what the actual question asked was. For the record Barnes said:

          “Would I sign a law that had some of those elements? I would,” Barnes said. “But I would want to make sure it was not a racially profiling bill.

          Some of those elements could include checking the legal status of a defendant after they are arrested. I don’t see how that is much different from Baker’s answer.

          • Sara says:

            It is a cop out answer and certainly not what I wish anyone at that debate with a snowball’s chance in hell of winning had said. But it’s still better than “sure, I’d probably sign it.”

            The AZ law goes well beyond requiring police to check the immigration status of arrestees. It requires police officers to check the immigration status of any individual they come into “any lawful contact with” who they reasonably suspect may be in the country illegally. This goes far beyond arrestees. The way the law is written it authorizes (arguably requires) the police to stop people on roads, in the street, at sporting events, or if they are called to a house because of noise complaint, if they develop a suspicion the person is not legally in the state.

      • BEZERKO says:

        Chris, if “57% support the law and an additional 17% thinks it doesn’t go far enough,” then 74% are wrong, right? If that’s the case, I hope that’s the case, then it’s a problem of persuasion and not a position to stand on. Or maybe it’s something he should immunize himself on, “I am fundamentally against this law. This is where a lot of you may disagree with me, but this is what I firmly believe. When you’re in this country, you are entitled to basic human dignity codified into law in the Bill of Rights by our nation’s founders no matter who you are. No matter if you’re a tenth generation corn farmer who was put out of business by government subsidies to agribusiness with no job, no prospects, a family to support. Or maybe you had a job at a manufacturing plant, but the plant shut down because a global firm decided Chinese labor was cheaper than Mexican labor. Or finally, maybe you’re just somebody’s mother who happened to look like she might be Mexican or Guatemalan or Peruvian, so cough up your birth certificate or I’m going to have to contain you!” Polling could be used to determine the effectiveness of this message or that message, helping to refine the final message. But definitely not to determine the message.

        • BEZERKO says:

          We already know someone who knows how to refine message for candidates using focus groups:)

        • MouthoftheSouth says:

          To do that you’d make this election a referendum on immigration, and waste a ton of people’s money just to end up losing while making a a grander point. and then we would have 4 years of Karen Handel where we can bask in our Pyhrric victory.

          • BEZERKO says:

            Maybe, or maybe some of that money could be taken and invested into research to figure out how to talk about things we have a hard time talking about, then train people across the state on how to talk about these things, like immigration. Sounds like a wise investment of campaign funds. Doesn’t necessarily mean Roy or David or Dubose or any of them would have to send out direct mails or spend significant airtime addressing this particular issue.

            • MouthoftheSouth says:

              If he came out against the Arizona thing, he would be spending the next 3 months defending it, and the next 4 years wishing he’d answered differently.

              We win when we run on our issues; we lose when we run on theirs.

  9. griftdrift says:

    Oh you mean the web site better known as “anyone but Roy”?

    No Hodges press releases to copy and paste today?

  10. Steve Golden says:

    I posted this on GALiberal, too. Great minds….aren’t King Roy.

  11. griftdrift says:

    He mushed the answer.I expect we will see a “clarification” pretty shortly. Not that it matters to me at this point, since I wasn’t voting for him anyway. hee

  12. Sara says:

    Also, the bullshit part of this is the law is unenforceable unless you racially or ethnically profile. What is supposed to tip off a police officer that someone might be an illegal alien, if not their ethnic appearance, ethnic-sounding name, or language spoken? The only way to avoid using racial profiling is to suspect everyone of being an illegal alien, because for all they know we could be Canadians.

  13. Sara says:

    I was just writing a post about this. He just lost my vote.