Has Jim Marshall’s Campaign Just Gotten More Difficult

Conventional wisdom has been that Jim Marshall would have an easier time getting re-elected than John Barrow, even though Marshall actually has a less favorable district, demographically, for a Democrat. But is that starting to change?

Boeing has just terminated the C-17 program, a program that has a large number of employees in the 8th Congressional District. The move is a significant move because Boeing had warned the Congress that the program would end unless it got some good budgetary assurances for the program’s survival. No such assurances were forthcoming.

Beyond Boeing, there is a growing sentiment inside the local jewish community that Marshall was not as supportive of Israel as he could have been. In fact, a number of evangelical Christians and local jewish community leaders have expressed their surprise that Marshall seemed as indifferent to Hezbollah as he seemed to Israel.

I still think the race is his to lose, but things have gotten more difficult for Jim Marshall in the past week. Of course with it looking like the House of Representatives might just flip to a Democrat majority, Mac Collins cannot exactly run on a platform of being in the majority with all the benefits of such power.


  1. jsm says:

    Mac Collins CAN run on a platform of tax cuts, fiscal discipline, and no nonsense conservative leadership. He has the record to back it up.

    Although Marshall has been on the more conservative side of the Democratic Party, his record doesn’t hold a candle to Mac’s, when it comes to the core values of the people in the district.

    Go Mac!

  2. John Douglas says:

    Actually, Jim Marshall is not the primary issue. The main concern is whether veterans and active military in the 8th district want Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha having veto authority over defense appropriations bills. While Marshall claims to be a “good ole boy” conservative at home, he almost certainly would vote for Pelosi for Speaker of the House and likely Murtha for Majority Leader.

    Reviewing the record, both potential leaders have proven time and again their disdain for the military and veterans. Neither can be trusted with the defense of our country. Pelosi comes from the rock solid anti Military area of San Francisco and Murtha has fallen off the left side of the spectrum recently in his rush to convict Marines of murder, Marines who havent even been charged with a crime.

    Now, with the prospect of those two leading the US House, Veterans and active military everywhere better step up to the plate and demand with their votes that we do better. And the way we do better is by ensuring that the House remains in Republican hands.

    The national democrats declared war on our military in 1968 and have not let up since. The attempt to disenfrancise military voters in Florida in 2000 is a prime example. President Clinton visited the Pentagon once during his 8 years in office, to attend his farewell ceremony 3 days before he left office. (He was in more of a rush to visit North Vietnam than his own Department of Defense). Imagine Howard Dean offering advice on military matters to Speaker Pelosi ???

    Meanwhile, high tech, high paid jobs in Georgia are threatened by Marshall’s inaction. Its time we have a Congressman in Washington (“we” because I too live in the new 8th) who we can depend on to keep good jobs in Georgia while ensuring our defenses are not lacking during the world war on Islamic Facists.

    Mac Collins will not make the rookie mistakes Marshall is making and I look forward to his return to DC.

  3. John Douglas – get a life and get over whatever happened to you in 1968.

    JSM, you are correct, Marshall’s record does not hold a candle to Mac’s – Marshall has never voted to massively cut the department of agriculture!

    Erick – Will Saxby, Sonny and Johnny have to answer to this too?

  4. Nativeson says:

    John Murtha is an honored veteran who respects military personnel enough to seek to get them out of a unnecessary war started by the lies of self-seeking politicians.

  5. Attention John Douglas.

    Why should we believe anything you say when you just make up crap on a nonstop basis. For example, you say President Clinton only visited the Pentagon once during his administration, three days before he left office. Well how do you account for this story from 1993 (during his first year) about a visit Clinton made to the Pentagon to visit with Colin Powell?


    LENGTH: 854 words

    HEADLINE: Gen. Powell: A Lot Like Ike;
    Joint Chiefs Chairman Honored at Eisenhower Dinner

    SERIES: Occasional

    BYLINE: Phil McCombs, Washington Post Staff Writer

    When President Clinton first visited him at the Pentagon in April, Gen. Colin Powell told an enthralled audience last night, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that his new boss look at a particular display in the building’s “Eisenhower Corridor.”

    “He asked to see it,” said Powell to the 850 guests at the 1993 Eisenhower Leadership Dinner at the Washington Hilton. “I said, ‘Mr. President, you can see anything you want.’ ” This got a light chuckle, seeing as how not every general officer these days is quite so mannerly in his salutations.

    In any case, the display included Ike’s last words — that he’d always loved his wife, his children, his grandchildren and his country — and Powell found this deeply moving. He said Clinton did too, staring at the words, concentrating, “pensive.” Shortly afterward, Clinton quoted them in a eulogy for his father-in-law, Hugh Rodham.

    The article goes on, but what I want to know Senator Douglas, are you so taken in by rightwing lies and some sort of hate for Democrats that you developed at a young age that you’ll fall for obvious lies (like President Clinton never visited the Pentagon until 3 days before leaving office). Can we even trust anything else you say when it only took me 1 minute on Lexis Nexis to disprove something that wasn’t even your main point?

  6. Paging Senator John Douglas:

    Here is another story from 1996 about Clinton visiting the Pentagon:

    SECTION: International news

    LENGTH: 184 words



    Defense Secretary William Perry plans to move swiftly to recommend a successor to Adm. Jeremy Boorda to head the Navy but is still considering a wide range of possible candidates, a senior Perry aide said.

    President Clinton visited the Pentagon Tuesday to console senior naval officers after Boorda’s death.


  7. Decaturguy says:

    Senator John Douglas loses more and more credibility every time he opens his mouth, or in this case, types at his keyboard. Everytime he makes a comment I think – “This guy is a real fool.”

    Don’t you realize how stale saying “Democrats hate the military” and “elect Marshall is the same as electing Pelosi” is? That line of argument is just not cutting it anymore with the voters. If that is all you’ve got, then if I were Jim Marshall, I would not be worried.

    Look, I disagree with Congressman Marshall on a lot of issues, but to call him some left wing enabler is beyond incredible.

  8. Danny says:

    As a resident of the new 8th District, I doubt half of the voters there could even point out Pelosi in a lineup, much less quote you her politics. I too think that argument is old. I suppose it comes from the daily Republican cheerleading by Sean Hannity.

  9. atlantaman says:

    Keep in mind the most important vote any Congressman makes is for his leadership, it doesn’t really matter all that much what is ideaology is since the leadership drives much of the agenda. So if you want Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, Charlie Rangle in charge of our tax code, and Alcee hasting in charge of Intelligence (a former federal judge, who was impeached and removed from the bench in 1989 for fabricating evidence that secured his acquittal in 1983 on bribery charges.) then vote for Jim Marshall.

  10. John Galt says:

    The “Pelosi could be Speaker” argument is stale and does come off a bit as a scare tactic….but it’s the truth. If the pollsters are correct the GOP majority in the House will shrink and maybe even go to the D’s. That means A LOT. The power of the majority includes the power to subpeona, the power to name committee chairs, and the power to direct the agenda and set the rules. It also means the GOP may not regain the majority for a long, long time. Politics is chock full of pithy pleas to the proletariat. But the fact is, they often work, because they contain an amount of truth. If you live in Jim Marshall’s district and don’t think he’s bad enough to vote out, think about the bigger picture. Every congressional election has national implications.

  11. John Douglas says:

    Looks like I struck a nerve with some of you. The gnashing of teeth can be heard all over the internet.

    Chrishardcore: “John Douglas – get a life and get over whatever happened to you in 1968” Well Chrishardcore, I was 14 most of 1968, turned 15 in November, was already interested in politics and remember well seeing the Democratic party try to destroy itself in the streets of Chicago. Otherwise, it was an uneventful year for me.

    DecaturGuy: Don’t you realize how stale saying “Democrats hate the military

  12. UGA Wins 2005 says:

    You libs may be frothing at the mouth to get Pelosi as Speaker, but only if you want a hard core, left coast liberal at the helm in the House.

    Imagine those members of the House Atlantaman mentioned actually chairing committees of importance???? If you think who sits in the Speaker’s chair or which party controls the House isnt important or something most voters care about, think again. And Jim Marshall being a member of that party means that his vote would be with them. Therefore, I agree that he has to go.

    Collins ’06!

  13. RuralDem says:

    It appears that someone got a hold of Newt’s talking points which failed to give a valid reason to vote Marshall out. Also, this might be hard to believe but it isn’t a given that Marshall will vote for Pelosi. You guys do realize that Congressman Gene Taylor from Mississippi has voted “Present” or for someone else in recent years. What’s to say that Marshall will not simply vote “Present”

    Party loyalty overriding common sense is a terrible thing to see.

  14. RuralDem says:

    Personally, as a Conservative Democrat I do not want to see Pelosi take over as Speaker. However, I do wish that Congressman Marshall will win re-election as he is one of the only decent members of Congress left.

  15. John, I did address your one issue. I asked why Marshall deserves all or even part of the blame for this when he is not in the majority. However, Sonny, Saxby and Johnny Isakson are in the majority. If Georgia loses jobs, particularly military ones, we should probably blame our Senators and Governor first.

    Now, here is a question for you: if Sonny, Saxby and Johnny can’t save a Georgia plant, why do you think the addition of Mac Collins will somehow alter that equation?

  16. John Douglas says:

    Sonny doesnt have any direct influence on the budget that comes out of the US House of Reps. Saxby and Johnny arent in the House.

    Marshall sits on the House Armed Services Committee. Marshall represents Macon. The potential Boeing job loss is in his district.

    Mac will regain his seniority when he returns to DC. He was in line to Chair Ways and Means. Any Rep who was/is in that position will wield considerable influence in the Capitol and be able to protect high tech, highly paid jobs in his/her district.

  17. RuralDem says:

    With all due respect Senator, you are assuming way to much. It is not certain Collins will regain his seniority although it might be likely. It is not certain that Congressman Marshall will vote for Nancy Pelosi. I understand you are a Republican and you are fighting for your party but try to look at it from the standpoint of the average voter and look at what’s truly good for the citizens of the district. What’s good for the district might not be what’s good for the party.

  18. John Douglas says:


    I am told the system in the US House is they retain seniority when they return after an absence.

    Granted, Jim Marshall might not vote for Pelosi for Speaker. I guess it depends on what committees and responsibilities he wants to have in a Democrat controlled House.

  19. RuralDem says:

    In regards to seniority that’s normally the case but it is not a given. In fact, there are quite a few cases where seniority status is not restored.

    Are you really that worried that the Republicans will lose the House or are you simply attempting to use a scare tactic in order to garner more votes for Mac?

  20. Jace Walden says:

    I think its a foregone conclusion that the GOP is going to lose the house. In fact, I am totally convinced that they will.

    Jim Marshall is definitely not a liberal democrat. But if I can go back to something that Chris said about a lack of action in the house being the fault of the GOP (since they are the majority). Chris, I agree with you on that.

    But think of this. If Marshall hasn’t been able to get anything significant done as a member of the minority, you can bet the farm that he’s gonna want to change that as a member of the majority.

    It’s not certain that he will vote for Pelosi as speaker. But it is certain that Pelosi is the front runner for the position. She will be nominated. She will recieve a majority of the votes from her caucus. If Jim Marshall wants to get ANYTHING accomplished as a member of the majority, he’s gonna have pick the right horse in the race for Speaker of the House–He’ll pick Pelosi.

    It might not be because he necessarily likes Pelosi. It would most likely be that he would want to get some stuff done.

    I’m no Sean Hannity fan by any means, and I think Newt is a bit of an alarmist. But the point about Nancy Pelosi being third in line for the presidency is a valid one, and does deserve to be articulated.

    Would I have wanted the GOP to actually do something to make me want to vote FOR them, rather than AGAINST Pelosi? Of course. But on the same note, I think voters deserve to hear a reason to vote FOR the democrats rather than AGAINST the GOP. Neither side has a truly convincing argument.

    So, with that said, I’d have to stick with what I believe, and that is the core principles of the Republican Party (although they haven’t remained true to them lately). That’s where Mac Collins comes in. Mac isn’t your modern-day “borrow and spend” Republican. He’s a true fiscal conservative, has a mind for free-market solutions, and is a friend of the tax payer.

    If there is any hope for the future of this country, it is in the minority of GOP representatives who still give a damn about the taxpayer.

    Okay…that’s enough from me.

  21. atlantaman says:

    I can’t believe folks are giving any credence to this idea that Marshall won’t vote for Pelosi for Speaker.

    Mac will get his senority back, but probably won’t get his old committe assignment on Ways and Means. He’s already spoken to the Leadership about it.

    What’s really scary regarding the leaders of the Democrat Party is the defense of Marshall is not, “Your wrong Pelosi would make a great Speaker and I hope Marshall votes for her.” The defense is this ridiculous idea that he might not vote for Pelosi.

    Sure their might be very rare circumstances where it has happened in the past, the Gene Taylor point is not a fair comparison since his Party had no hope of gaining the Speaker of the House at the time. I’d like to know if the folks defending Marshall on this board actually believe that if the Speaker’s race comes down to one vote that Marshall might cast it for Hastert or abstain. The pressure on Marshall would be tremendous.

  22. RuralDem says:

    Why is the idea so ridiculous? Go look at the roll call votes for the past 16 years. You’ll see that people have either answered “Present” or voted for someone other than the two frontrunners quite a few times and it is not just Gene Taylor. I never knew the people on here defending Marshall are leaders of the Democratic Party. Nice try. Oh, and the Taylor comparison fits perfect simply because the Democratic Party more than likely will not re-take the house.

    Looking at the Roll Call votes for Speaker from the past 16 years, there is no case where a member of one party crossed over to vote for the head of the opposing party so the likelihood of that happening is low. However, he could easily abstain from voting.

    Now to play the “defenders” game. Would you Collins defenders back Marshall if he switched parties sometime down the road? Any attempt at portraying him as a liberal will not work, hence the reason Newt and the rest of you guys cannot use any arguement other than “a vote for Marshall is a vote for a San Francisco liberal”. I’d bet that if Marshall switched parties many of you would be praising him. After all, other than Taylor he is one of the more Conservative Democrats in the house.

    The partisan glasses you guys are wearing have have a great reality blocker.

  23. Jace Walden says:


    Not being a liberal isn’t the same thing as being a conservative. Granted, he is an ardent pro-lifer, solid on gun issues (“A” Ratings from the NRA, “0” Ratings from the Brady Institute”, and strong on defense.

    But, he is also in favor of high taxation, high government spending, social security, welfare, and is very weak on immigration (he voted with the national council for La Raza 100% of the time in 2004).

    Could he be a Republican? Yes. In fact, I’d wager he’d be a better Republican than some of the more liberal Republicans in the House and Senate.

    Could he be a better Republican than Mac Collins? I seriously doubt it.

    But as it stands now, Jim Marshall is a member of the Democratic Party. I think the Dems in Congress would have noticed how “conservative” he is compared to most dems. This will make it even harder for him to get anything passed through Congress in the majority. He doesn’t toe the party line. In order for him to have a shot, he’s either going to have to (1) Vote for Pelosi as speaker or (2) Switch parties and hope Republicans maintain the majority.

  24. RuralDem says:

    I know that not being a liberal and being a conservative are different. My point however is that Marshall is a common-sense member of Congress. Instead of towing the party line he fights for what believes in and what he thinks is best for his district. After all, it’s not the party that elects someone, it’s the people. Both parties are showing today that they are incapable of working together to better our country. Instead they sit and bicker back and forth. I doubt you’ll find many politicians who are completly conservative or completly liberal.

    I personally do not care if he would be a better Republican than Mac Collins I was simply addressing the point that many of the Collins guys on here are not against Marshall because of his views, they are against him simply because of the letter beside his name. The question should be “Can he better represent me and my district in Congress than Mac Collins” and for that I would say yes. Mac Collins comes off as a Republican “Yes man”. Looking at his website and little blog he touts all of this Republican support and the typical rhetoric about how bad the Democrats are. The fewer partisans we have in Congress the better. It’s obvious that I am not a fan of anyone who tows the party line. I’m supportive of Marshall because he doesn’t have to be a pawn for the party.

    So Marshall should be kicked out because he fights for what he believes in and does not tow the party line?

    I do not think I could sleep at night knowing I voted for someone whose values depend on what the party view is of the day.

    Although Marshall no longer represents my area as we were moved back into Bishop’s district, I still support Marshall.

  25. Jace Walden says:


    I honestly can’t argue with that. That’s a very fair assessment, and I definitely respect your opinion on it. I will say that for all the bickering back and forth, the congressional dems and republicans are becoming more and more alike.

    My major issue with the Democratic Party is regarding MONEY. Taxation, Regulation, and Wealth Redistribution have been the hallmarks of the Democratic Party. For all of his conservative attributes, Jim Marshall still votes Democratic over 70% of the time on “Money” related issues. He hasn’t demonstrated a propensity for economic liberty. Mac Collins has. I also do not live in the new 8th. My representative is Nathan Deal, he has been a friend to taxpayers and an example to all Republicans who want to know what fiscal conservatism should look like. Since I have no “Money” qualms with my congressman, I’m focusing my energy on other congressmen/potential congressmen who I do have “money” qualms with.

    Mac Collins proved that he was in favor of economic liberty while in Congress. I would support him if I lived in the 8th.

  26. jsm says:


    I think your view of Mac is a little off base. He’s not a Republican “Yes man”, and he never has been. Rather, He’s a Republican Lead Man. He has not been known to tow the party line, but rather to direct the party line and lead others. Mac Collins will stand for hard core conservative values when others in the GOP would cave.

    Mac is one of the most respected congressmen to ever grace our Nation’s Capitol, and he’s one of the strongest conservatives to ever hold the office. With his influence, he has the ability to change the speaker’s and the GOP caucus’ stance on an issue. Marshall could never do that within the Democrat Party.

    Voters in the 8th District would be better served by voting for the better leader, and that man is Mac Collins.

  27. atlantaman says:

    “Looking at the Roll Call votes for Speaker from the past 16 years, there is no case where a member of one party crossed over to vote for the head of the opposing party so the likelihood of that happening is low. However, he could easily abstain from voting.”

    I didn’t even have to look at the last 16 years of Roll Call to tell you what a ridiculouss proposition it is to think Marshall might vote for a Republican Speaker. I thought a few years back Traficant might have voted for a Republican Speaker, but he was a nut job in his own right.

    You are making my point for me. While it’s still risky to abstain from voting for your party’s speaker when the vote doesn’t really matter, it’s not even close to being a fair comparison if the vote for Speaker is going to come down the wire. I’m here to tell you there is no way that Jim Marshall would not vote for Nancy Pelosi if the vote was coming down the wire as to whether the Republicans or the Dems were going to end up with the Speakership. The pressure on him would be tremendous and he’s not that kind of Maverick. You are saying he could EASILY abstain from voting. Do you really think if the vote for Speaker came down to 216 for Hastert and 216 for Pelosi with Marshall being the deciding vote that he could EASILY abstain from that vote?

  28. UGA Wins 2006 says:

    You Democrats can tap dance all day long but in the end, Marshall votes for his party’s nominee for Speaker.

    Meanwhile, Marshall seems to be having a “I’m in the Ranger Hall of Fame” celebration in Newton County later this month. (The mail piece arrived today)

    Newton County on the far north end of the new 8th seems an odd place for such a celebration. With the concentration of Vets around Robins AFB, that would seem to be a better place. Maybe those Vets are tired of seeing Marshall wear his few years in the Army so publically and for such political gain?

  29. Decaturguy says:

    John Douglas: “The national democrats declared war on our military in 1968 and have not let up since.”

    John Douglas: “he almost certainly would vote for Pelosi for Speaker of the House.”

    Are you so dumb, Senator Douglas, that you don’t understand the legitimate use of paraphrase?

  30. Decaturguy says:

    Didn’t Mac Collins vote for the now disgraced Majority Leader, Tom Delay, time and time and time again?

    Nancy Pelosi, as much as you may hate her, has not yet committed a felony.

  31. Decaturguy says:

    Whatever, Mac Collins would have voted for Tom Delay if he stayed in Congress and had not resigned in disgrace because of the criminal corruption charges brought against him. But we’re going to throw a guy out of office because he might vote for Nancy Pelosi.

    Hey, I’m not a big fan of Marshall. But I’d really like to hear a reason why Collins should be elected rather than a bunch of desperate robotic Hannity talking points coming out of John Douglas and the rest of you.

  32. Decaturguy says:

    Joe Lieberman would probably vote for Harry Reed for Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate in the unlikely event that Democrats regain a majority there and Lieberman succeeds in his independent bid. But that is not stopping Republicans from slobbering all over themselves to support Lieberman and even drop their support for the Republican candidate in that race.

  33. Jace Walden says:

    Hey Decaturguy,

    Maybe you should re-read over my post and JSM’s post if you want a reason. If not, then shut your damn mouth. I personally acknowledged what problems I had with Marshall and stated why I thought Mac Collins would be better. As did JSM.

  34. Decaturguy says:

    “shut your damn mouth”

    Oh, I’m real scared.

    The real issue here is if Republicans are going to lose the House (and that is your assumption, right, if we’re worried that Marshall will vote for Pelosi for Speaker), all things being equal, why would you choose a Representative (Collins) who would be in the minority, rather than a Representative from the majority party?

    If Marshall is going to be in the majority party, and would be in a better position to get things done for his district, then I don’t think the voters really care who he may vote for Speaker.

  35. Jace Walden says:


    I didn’t mean “shut your damn mouth” as a threat. I meant it as “quit talking out of your ass”.

    The point is, when you make dumbass statements like this:
    But I’d really like to hear a reason why Collins should be elected rather than a bunch of desperate robotic Hannity talking points coming out of John Douglas and the rest of you.

    Then you should expect someone to call you out for being illiterate or for talking out of your ass like Howard Dean. I prefered the latter of the two.

    Now, on to more pressing matters.

    (1) I don’t assume that Republicans are going to lose the HOR. I know they are. And they deserve to. They have failed for 6 years to provide me with a reminder of why I should vote Republican.

    (2) Democrats, on the other hand, have done nothing but provide me with examples of why I will NEVER vote Democratic.

    (3) My concernes with Marshall are fiscal concerns, as I mentioned earlier. Marshall, along with every other democrat in congress, has been complicent in the embarassing spending habits of the GOP controlled congress. If the democrats are in charge, my issues with Marshall will not change. Except, he will have gone from being complicent to being the perpetrator.

    (4) Mac Collins will at least TRY to exercise some responsibility with our tax dollars–Just as a growing minority of Republicans TRY to exercise some fiscal conservatism. That’s why Max Collins needs to get into Congress ASAP–to help pull the reigns of the free-spending liberals in both parties.

  36. jsm says:

    I believe that Mac Collins would still be a more effective congressman than Marshall, even if he were in the minority. As stated before, I don’t think Marshall will ever be able to affect the agenda of the Democratic caucus in the House. Even in the minority, Collins will be at the center of the fight on critical issues and will affect the leadership and agenda of the Republican Caucus.

    Others on this board have in the past mentioned Mac’s detailed knowledge of our difficult and complicated tax system. He can easily go toe-to-toe with any liberal on tax issues and their affect on our Nation’s economy. He’s also well-versed in foreign affairs, military issues, and agriculture, and he will fight for conservative change.

    Any way you look at it, Mac Collins is the man for the job in the 8th District.

  37. Decaturguy says:

    If you want to talk about conservative fiscal policy, if Democrats regain the majority, one of the biggest deficit hawks in either party will become chairman of the Budget Committee, Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina. Much more fiscally conservative than that moderate Republican from Iowa that chairs the committee now.

  38. Jace Walden says:

    If you want to talk about conservative fiscal policy, if Democrats regain the majority, one of the biggest deficit hawks in either party will become chairman of the Budget Committee, Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina


    Can you sell me about 12 ounces of whatever it is that you are smoking? John Spratt is in no way, shape, or form a fiscal conservative.

    Unless your definition of “fiscal conservative” is voting against American Taxpayers 83% of the time in 2005, and 90% of the time in 2004. And unless your definition of “fiscal conservative” includes voting against 19/19 Flake Amendments (amendments which cut earmarks from spending bills) this year.

    I don’t know who you’re getting your talking points from, Decaturguy, but voting against an amendment here or there is NOT, I repeat, is NOT fiscally conservative. Spratt is a free-spending liberal. I know you were trying to make a point, but trading one free-spending liberal (the “moderate Republican from Iowa”) for another free-spending liberal isn’t going to help taxpayers one damn bit.

    Mac Collins ’06!

  39. Decaturguy says:

    John Spratt was one of the original co-sponsors of the balanced budget amendment. He still supports the balanced budget amendment, even though your guys abandoned it once you got a taste of how fun having power and recklessly spending money can be.

    John Spratt is a “free-spending liberal?”

    I don’t know what kind of crack YOU are smoking, but I’m really sick and tired of these big spending, big government, liberal Republicans speaking out of both sides of their mouth and saying they are conservative, but spending more than Democrats ever did when they were in power.

    The proof is in the pudding. Vote for a change in 2006. Get big spending Republicans, and their committee chairmen, out of office.

  40. Jace Walden says:

    I’m really sick and tired of these big spending, big government, liberal Republicans speaking out of both sides of their mouth and saying they are conservative, but spending more than Democrats ever did when they were in power

    Dude. You really need to pay attention to my posts. I agree with you 100% on this issue. 100%. Hell, I go even further. I respect the “tax and spend” philosophy of the Democrats more than I respect the “borrow and spend” philosophy of the fiscally liberal Republicans. At least with “tax and spend” you’re paying for it yourself and not passing it on to your kids.

    I don’t need to prove to you that I’m right about Spratt. But I will anyway. Go to this website and to the research for yourself:
    Voting Record: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H3661103
    Intrest Group Ratings: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3661103

    Sponsoring a balanced budget bill doesn’t make you a “conservative”. Hell, EVERY Congressman should hope to balance to budget. The point is, John Spratt is a free-spending liberal, just like most of the Big-government “borrow-and-spend” Republicans.

    Get big spending Republicans, and their committee chairmen, out of office.

    I’ll go further than that. I say get ALL big spenders Republicans and Democrats out of office. You have to recognize that this isn’t just a Republican problem. There are Republicans who vote against every spending bill that comes up. Although the GOP has the majority, the Democratic Party has been complicit in Congressional spending. If the Democratic Party was serious about cutting spending, you would have seen them join in with the few fiscally conservative Republicans to kill spending bills…

    I’ll be the first to admit that most GOP Congressman have no desire to be fiscally conservative. But to paint the Democratic party as the party to reform our spending habits is just stupid. And you know it. If you are truly a fiscal conservative, Decaturguy, then you should be supporting Mac Collins.

    Mac Collins ’06!

  41. Decaturguy says:

    Lets take those interest group ratings with a grain of salt. The reason he has low ratings from these groups is because he refused to vote for tax cuts when there were no corresponding reductions in spending. These tax cuts would have made our fiscal situation worse, so how is voting against them not fiscally conservative?

    Electing Mac Collins would be akin to enabling these borrow and spend, big government Republican committee chairmen, despite Mac Collins’ possible beliefs to the contrary. Collins will still vote for the GOP leadership and will support these big spending, liberal Republican committee chairmen.

    Spratt, who would be the Budget Committee chairman if Democrats regain the House, believes in the fiscal policy that created a $236 billion per year surpus by the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000. He opposes the current big government, liberal, borrow and spend policy that the GOP has set over the past 6 years.

    If Democrats are back in the majority, we will go back to the policy of surpluses, not deficits.

    If we continue down the path that the big government, free spending, GOP has set, taxes will have to be raised at some point, just to service the debt.

    It needs to end right now. And that starts with not election an enabler of these big government, liberal Republican committee chairman – Max Collins.

  42. Jace Walden says:

    Two things:

    (1) Democrats have been complicit in the spending and government expansion. They’re not just some “innocent” party that has been taken advantage of. Look at the voting records. Voting records tell you where someone’s loyalties are.

    (2) If Mac Collins gets his seat back, he has already been promised his senority within the GOP caucus. Therefore, he will be one of the party leaders. He’ll have a hand in setting fiscal policy, not just “going along” with it.

    (3) Regardless of what Spratt “believes” in, I challenge you to look at the voting record. I provided a link. Look at his votes on appropriations. Look at his votes on the Flake Amendments. Look at his votes on tax cuts. Like you said, it’s easy to go on what someone “says”. I prefer to go by what someone does.

    Besides, cutting certain taxes is a good way to boost revenue. Look at the Bush tax cuts. It almost pains me to come to GW’s defense, but the Bush tax cuts have created record tax revenues. Spratt will not vote to cut taxes (look at his voting record), I’m convinced of that. He won’t vote to stop spending (look at his voting record), I’m convinced of that. Mac Collins has been tough on spending AND taxing.

    I think we’ll never agree on this. But, just so you’ll know that not everyone opposed to a democrat getting elected is reciting Sean Hannity talking points, there it is.

  43. jsm says:

    Let’s get the facts straight.

    “Spratt, who would be the Budget Committee chairman if Democrats regain the House, believes in the fiscal policy that created a $236 billion per year surpus by the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000.”

    This means that Spratt believes in Reagan’s & Bush 41’s fiscal policy, since they built the booming economy leading into Clinton’s presidency. The Clinton recession began in March 2000 and was inherited by Bush 43.

    “If Democrats are back in the majority, we will go back to the policy of surpluses, not deficits.”

    Democrats never had a policy that produced surpluses. They inherited a booming economy and reaped its benefits. Meanwhile, they managed to reverse the growth and produce a recession as mentioned above.

    Granted, the current GOP leadership is failing with fiscal policy. The Democrats, who cannot seem to understand the economic effects of tax cuts, will fail even worse. Mac Collins will be an agent of change. He is a leader, and he will help turn the GOP in the right direction. He’s the best choice to represent the 8th district.

  44. Decaturguy says:

    I don’t really care to extend this debate, but jsm, you seem to believe that it takes about 8-10 years or so for economic policy to filter its way down the economy.

    If that is true, and it may be, Bush, therefore, cannot take any credit for the economic conditions in the U.S. under his watch, and whatever the economy is for the next President will be a result of Bush 43’s economic policies, not the then current President.

    You may have a short memory, but Bush 41 lost re-election becuase of an economic recession, and in the 2000 election Bush and Gore debated how they were going to spend a $5 trillion surplus.

  45. jsm says:

    I agree that Bush 43 can’t take credit for the recession handed to him, but he can be credited with shortening its life. The next president will reap the benefits of his tax cuts.

    Not every economic policy takes 8-10 years to manifest itself fully on the economy. Bush 43 made decisions that turned our economy very quickly and will demonstrate economic benefit for years to come. Economists I’ve read after don’t attribute any such economic benefits to Clinton, and especially not to Carter.

    Speaking of my ‘short memory,’ here’s what I remember-

    Bush 41 lost in ’92 for 2 reasons:
    1) He broke his promise of ‘no new taxes’ to make a deal with the Democrats.
    2) Ross Perot.

    The $5 trillion surplus was spent on the Clinton recession.

Comments are closed.