They’ve already started, the PAC commercials claiming that Stacey Abrams is too liberal for Georgia. They present damning evidence: she’s a Democrat, supported by the Democratic leadership. Other than that, they don’t say much.

From an advertising point-of-view, they would be funny in their shallowness, except that I’ve already seen that line repeated by people trolling Abrams’ Facebook posts. It’s become yet another time-suck for me to peek behind some of the anti-Abrams comments and see what sort of people are making them. What I discovered was that a few of them were obviously upset that someone who was not white was running for statewide office in Georgia. But most of them seemed to be about as normal as anyone else, perhaps a little more religious. It blew up my theory that most people opposed Stacey Abrams because she committed the offense of being born black and female.

Which left a very uncomfortable alternative: that they actually believed that Brian Kemp, he of the chainsaw, explosives, the overgrown pickup, and all those guns actually had a better plan for Georgia than Abrams. This is the same Brian Kemp who was termed “inept” by Casey Cagle’s campaign. According to Cagle, Kemp is a lousy Secretary of State and would make a worse governor.

I agree with that.

Here’s Kemp’s platform:

I have comprehensive plans to empower job creators, reform state government, strengthen rural communities, and protect our families from gangs and violence. The media doesn't want to talk about policy but I will. It's...

This is from Kemp’s web site, and if you click on the link to hear him talk about “policy,” you go to a Fox News interview that shows the guns, the explosives, the very large pickup truck, and Brian Kemp, talking some more about protecting us from Democrats taking guns away and “illegals” committing violent crimes on our families.

The same thing is true is you go to the “Issues” page on his site. The link regarding cutting regulations leads to a page talking about cutting regulations, but there’s no hint of which regulations. Other links go to various news stories, and one goes to the campaign’s Facebook page. It appears that when you dig down into Brian Kemp’s platform, you don’t go anywhere.

I also went to Stacey Abrams website and read her issue positions. They are remarkably detailed. For instance, under Gun Safety, she has the following proposals: to work to keep guns out of the wrong hands (including domestic abusers and those with mental health challenges), to fix the state’s broken gun laws by repealing SB350 (a law that was opposed by law enforcement) and HB280 (the Campus Carry bill, which is opposed by educators and almost everybody else.), increase mental health and substance abuse services, and support violence prevention efforts.

Nowhere does she say she wants to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

She also provides a detailed plan for funding K-12 education which is, to me, a pressing need since we have for years been mired in the bottom third of a cohort that ranks low internationally. It’s too detailed to go into here, but you can read it for yourself at https://secure.staceyabrams.com/page/-/2018_April/Policy/SAFG_K-12_Public_Education_Plan.pdf.

By contrast, if you go to Kemp’s website and click on the link that says “Reform Education,” you are taken to a page that has three headlines:

Kemp for Governor Responds to President Obama’s Endorsement of Stacey Abrams.

Kemp Talks Public Safety Reform with Georgia Sheriffs.

Brian Kemp Condemns Rep. Jason Spencer’s Unacceptable Rhetoric and Behavior, Urges Public Apology.

So much for having an idea about education.

If we have to live through the coming political season, with its baseless charges and character assassination, I hope that at least some of us will occupy our time by trying to find out what’s really true, such as what part, if any, of Abrams’ platforms are really Socialist or really radical.

We’ll hear a lot about unpaid debts, both of the candidates seem to have had money problems. Abrams has unpaid taxes, and Kemp is being sued for failing to pay personally secured loans. It would be nice if the candidates did furnish such ammunition to their opponents, but in this season,  they do. And it would be nice if PACs were required to have at least a grain of truth in their accusations, but they don’t. And, finally and most importantly, it would be nice if the electorate would refuse to accept bumper-sticker campaigning and give serious thought to who will make our state better for all of the people who live in our state.